"Who Will Tell the People?"

[dcarrb]

Thought-provoking material, even if you don't agree with every point:

Who Will Tell the People?

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: May 4, 2008

Traveling the country these past five months while writing a book, I’ve had my own opportunity to take the pulse, far from the campaign crowds. My own totally unscientific polling has left me feeling that if there is one overwhelming hunger in our country today it’s this: People want to do nation-building. They really do. But they want to do nation-building in America.

They are not only tired of nation-building in Iraq and in Afghanistan, with so little to show for it. They sense something deeper — that we’re just not that strong anymore. We’re borrowing money to shore up our banks from city-states called Dubai and Singapore. Our generals regularly tell us that Iran is subverting our efforts in Iraq, but they do nothing about it because we have no leverage — as long as our forces are pinned down in Baghdad and our economy is pinned to Middle East oil.

Our president’s latest energy initiative was to go to Saudi Arabia and beg King Abdullah to give us a little relief on gasoline prices. I guess there was some justice in that. When you, the president, after 9/11, tell the country to go shopping instead of buckling down to break our addiction to oil, it ends with you, the president, shopping the world for discount gasoline.

We are not as powerful as we used to be because over the past three decades, the Asian values of our parents’ generation — work hard, study, save, invest, live within your means — have given way to subprime values: “You can have the American dream — a house — with no money down and no payments for two years.”

That’s why Donald Rumsfeld’s infamous defense of why he did not originally send more troops to Iraq is the mantra of our times: “You go to war with the army you have.” Hey, you march into the future with the country you have — not the one that you need, not the one you want, not the best you could have.

A few weeks ago, my wife and I flew from New York’s Kennedy Airport to Singapore. In J.F.K.’s waiting lounge we could barely find a place to sit. Eighteen hours later, we landed at Singapore’s ultramodern airport, with free Internet portals and children’s play zones throughout. We felt, as we have before, like we had just flown from the Flintstones to the Jetsons. If all Americans could compare Berlin’s luxurious central train station today with the grimy, decrepit Penn Station in New York City, they would swear we were the ones who lost World War II.

How could this be? We are a great power. How could we be borrowing money from Singapore? Maybe it’s because Singapore is investing billions of dollars, from its own savings, into infrastructure and scientific research to attract the world’s best talent — including Americans.

And us? Harvard’s president, Drew Faust, just told a Senate hearing that cutbacks in government research funds were resulting in “downsized labs, layoffs of post docs, slipping morale and more conservative science that shies away from the big research questions.” Today, she added, “China, India, Singapore ... have adopted biomedical research and the building of biotechnology clusters as national goals. Suddenly, those who train in America have significant options elsewhere.”

Much nonsense has been written about how Hillary Clinton is “toughening up” Barack Obama so he’ll be tough enough to withstand Republican attacks. Sorry, we don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room.

Who will tell the people? We are not who we think we are. We are living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. We still have all the potential for greatness, but only if we get back to work on our country.

I don’t know if Barack Obama can lead that, but the notion that the idealism he has inspired in so many young people doesn’t matter is dead wrong. “Of course, hope alone is not enough,” says Tim Shriver, chairman of Special Olympics, “but it’s not trivial. It’s not trivial to inspire people to want to get up and do something with someone else.”

It is especially not trivial now, because millions of Americans are dying to be enlisted — enlisted to fix education, enlisted to research renewable energy, enlisted to repair our infrastructure, enlisted to help others. Look at the kids lining up to join Teach for America. They want our country to matter again. They want it to be about building wealth and dignity — big profits and big purposes. When we just do one, we are less than the sum of our parts. When we do both, said Shriver, “no one can touch us.”

[shotgunslade]

I think this article really gets to the heart of the matter. When the primary elements of the political debate concern who wears a flag pin or not, and whether or not one should sit on a charitable board with someone who has a criminal history, or what someone's pastor says in an inflammatory sermon (by the way if you really want to read an inflammatory sermon, look up Jonathan Edwards, the famous Purtian clergyman from the 18th century), we will fail to address the very substantial problems that besiege our country. When a summer long hiatus in the gasoline tax is hailed as a major economic initiative, we are in dire peril.

As long as we direct all of our attention to these trivialities, as long as our economic health derives solely from convincing our populace to spend beyond their means, as long as we make all economic decisions based upon this quarter's bottom line and tomorrow's stock price, we will continue this long slow decline into a second class nation.

My daughter will soon be pursuing a doctorate in genetics. When my European friends were apprised of this plan, they asked why she would even consider getting a biotechnology education in a country that had suspended government support of stem cell research. In the world, the US is seen as a nation of idiots whose political and economic fate will soon be consistent with its incompetence. The only thing that keeps our global power in place is our military might, and we are using that up in pointless escapades.

[lhopp77]

And some miss the whole point. We DO need to take care of ourselves and not be as wasteful or as extravagant in our lifestyles. By the same token some of the candidates--like 2/3s would take away from the very people that ARE productive and exercise initiative and give it to those that ARE NOT productive. They use buzz words like the "disadvantaged" or "disenfranchised" but don't mention, the lazy, the ignorant by choice and many other applicable terms.
You want to make things even worse in this country--take away from the workers and give to the nonworkers. A recipe for disaster and proven again and again as regressive instead of progressive.
As to the moritorium on the gas tax--I don't think ANYONE has implied that it is a solution. It is simply something that can be done in the short term to give just a little relief until a longer term solution can be sought.
Obviously the quickest way to lower oil prices is to announce that we are going to aggressively drill for oil in areas now jealously guarded by those far lefters. Believe me--the oil futures would drop rapidly along with the spot prices. Hopefully buying just a little time for development of realistic long term alternatives.
Along those lines--why bail out the less than 5 percent that knowlingly made bad decisions in creative financing at the expense of the 95 percent that are paying mortgages on time? This only encourages people AND THE LENDING institutions do the same in future transactions.

Lee

[dcarrb]

Domestic oil production peaked in the 1960s; that's why we started importing the stuff. Why anyone now believes there's some tree-hugger conspiracy to keep us dependent on foreign energy sources from dangerous corners of the world totally escapes me. Well, excepting folks who are looking for a convenient scapegoat. Instead of tear-assing around the country looking to slurp up every last overlooked drop of crude, maybe we need to man up and admit that it's way past time to make some fundamental changes. (This was made abundantly clear by the Arab oil embargo of the early 70s, only we didn't get it. That's a tragedy.)

Agree that the government shouldn't bail out those who make foolish financial decisions. But the greedy cretins who fostered the conditions for this "sub-prime" fiasco get a walk with their millions. Would that they be held accountable, and their ill-gotten gains disbursed accordingly. Our unfettered banking industry has slinked back to the Depression era, Big Money does it's bidding, then shrugs and blames the unwashed masses when the ugly product of their scheming surfaces in the light of day. It's wrong, and needs to change.

dcb

[shotgunslade]

The most optimistic estimate of the potential oil reserve in Alaska National Wildlife Reserve is 10 bil gals. The US imports almost 4 Bil gals of foreign oil per year. Tar sands and oil shale can deliver oil at a cost of over $100 per barrel, but they must be strip mined. We could turn the entire Canadian and northern US high prairie into West Virginia.

As for high taxes demotivating those who contribute to society, my US income tax bill every year is a six figure number left of the decimal point, and I don't feel at all demotivated. I think I am producing and making a contribution, and I sure work enough hours. I think that what I pay is fair.

What really pi$$es me off is the fact that hedge fund managers, who have 8 or 9 figure incomes pay capital gains income tax rates on the fees that they charge clients who have invested with them. These guys, who make hundreds or thousands of times as much income as normal people, pay income tax rates that are half the maximum of normal working people. Our laws and rgulations are full of this sort of inequity, that is bought and paid for by those who have the big money.

The problem with this country is not the lazy do nothings who are living off the public dole, it is the big money guys who can get away with anything they want just by buying what they need from corrupt government.

They say that if your crime is big enough, no one will come after you, because so many people would go down if you are caught. So they chased after Bill Clinton, not my favorite guy, for a two bit real estate deal on which he lost money, they indicted Dan Rostenkowski for relatively small time misue of the House Franking allowance (stealing stamps), but the big deal corruption (mostly Republican, Democrats don't usually have enough money to pull this off), involving non-compete contracts for billions of dollars, Halliburton, you name it, may get a little press in left wing blogs and then are completely ignored by main stream media and the Dept of Justice.

That is the problem. These are also the guys that are selling this country off, out from under us. Soon, we will all be sharecroppers in our own country, now owned by Dubai, Singapore, Russia and China.

[benebob]

I love how oil becomes the issue when in reality its the dollar that is the issue. The dollar today is worth about $.80 on the international market of what it was 6 years ago. Now depending on what kind of fuzzy math you use a barrel of crude would be trading at about $94 (didn't see what it closed at today) if our dollar had kept the same value.

I've yet to hear a single major presidential crapidate even point out the weak dollar let alone share their plan to re-establish the dollar in the world. Only Keyes and Nader have discussed it.

Funny thing is, Detroit should be selling cars like hotcakes... At least overseas as they complained about the high dollar for all of the 70s, 80s and 90s as to why they couldn't expand into other markets. I guess they're just waiting for the Japanese to all raise their prices $2000 a car (Toyota just started raising its prices last week) so they can win back the US market with their great lineup!

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by shotgunslade

They say that if your crime is big enough, no one will come after you, because so many people would go down if you are caught. So they chased after Bill Clinton, not my favorite guy, for a two bit real estate deal on which he lost money, they indicted Dan Rostenkowski for relatively small time misue of the House Franking allowance (stealing stamps), but the big deal corruption (mostly Republican, Democrats don't usually have enough money to pull this off), involving non-compete contracts for billions of dollars, Halliburton, you name it, may get a little press in left wing blogs and then are completely ignored by main stream media and the Dept of Justice.

This points out the big differences between us and our beliefs. You immediately blame Republicans while I actually blame ALL long term politicians. Actually of the top 25 richest members in Congress--14 are Democrats. John Kerry is at the top of the list. AND--I note with interest that Hillary is in the top 25 and this is after Bill and Hillary were nearly bankrupt when they left Arkansas. Obviously political corruption at its best. As to politicians selling the US--remember Bill's deals with the Chinese and even his deals with the middle east--to include even recent deals for them. He is probably their best lobbyiest.

Cheez---the Republicans DON'T have a corner on the market. BOTH are equally guilty, and we let them be that way by being politically blind like you.

Lee

[shotgunslade]

Agreed that both Democrats and Republicans are guilty. With the posted tax returns, we know where most of the income from the top presidential candidates came, except for John McCain's wife. As for the Clintons, most of it seems to have come from the ridiculous speaking fees that Billy now commands. Not really productive, nor really praiseworthy, but probably legal.

How did W come into his 8 figure net worth? He started out in the oil business, with the following failed ventures that somehow or another made him a lot of money:

Arbusto, an oil exploration company, lost money, but it got considerable investments (nearly $5 million) because even losing oil investments were useful as tax shelters.
Spectrum 7 Energy Corp. bought out Arbusto in 1984 and hired Mr. Bush to run the company's oil interests in Midland, Texas. The oil business collapsed as oil prices plummeted by 1986, and Spectrum 7 Energy was near failure.
Harken Energy acquired Mr. Bush's Spectrum 7 Energy shares, and he got Harken shares, a directorship, and a consulting arrangement in return. Harken, under Bush, brought in Saudi real estate tycoon Sheikh Abdullah Bakhsh as a board member and a major investor. Over the next few years, Harken would turn out to have links to: Saudi money, CIA-connected Filipinos, the Harvard Endowment, the emir of Bahrain, and the shadowy Bank of Credit and Commerce International.
A 1991 internal SEC document suggested George W. Bush violated federal securities law at least 4 times in the late 1980s and early 1990s in selling Harken stock while serving as a director of Harken. This is essentially the same kind of activity that Martha Stewart is going to prison over. Except at the time of the investigation, Mr. Bush's father was president and the case was quietly dropped.

He then moved into sports and government, mixing the two very profitably.

He invested $606,000 as part of a syndicate that bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in 1989 — borrowing the money and repaying the loan with the proceeds from his Harken stock sale — then saw that grow to $14.9 million over the next nine years. What made his investment so successful?

First, the city of Arlington built the Rangers a new stadium, on terms extraordinarily favorable to Mr. Bush's syndicate, eventually subsidizing Mr. Bush and his partners with more than $150 million in taxpayer money. The city was obliged to raise taxes substantially as a result. Soon after the stadium was completed, Mr. Bush ran successfully for governor of Texas on the theme of self-reliance rather than reliance on government.

Mr. Bush's syndicate eventually resold the Rangers, for triple the original price. The price-is-no-object buyer was a deal maker named Tom Hicks.

The University of Texas, though a state institution, has a large endowment. As governor, Mr. Bush changed the rules governing that endowment, eliminating the requirements to disclose "all details concerning the investments made and income realized," and to have "a well-recognized performance measurement service" assess investment results. That is, government officials no longer had to tell the public what they were doing with public money, or allow an independent performance assessment. Then Mr. Bush "privatized" (his term) $9 billion in university assets, transferring them to a nonprofit corporation known as Utimco that could make investment decisions behind closed doors.

In effect, the money was put under the control of Utimco's chairman: Tom Hicks. Under his direction, at least $450 million was invested in private funds managed by Mr. Hicks's business associates and major Republican Party donors. The managers of such funds earn big fees. Due to Mr. Bush's change in the rules, these investments were hidden from public view; an employee of Utimco who alerted university auditors was summarily fired. Even now, it's hard to find out how these investments turned out, though they seem to have done quite badly.

Eventually Mr. Hicks's investment style created a public furor, and he did not seek to retain his position at Utimco when his term expired in 1999.

One last item: Mr. Bush, who put up 1.8 percent of the Rangers syndicate's original capital, was entitled to about $2.3 million from that sale. But his partners voluntarily gave up some of their share, and Mr. Bush received 12 percent of the proceeds — $14.9 million. So a group of businessmen, presumably with some interest in government decisions, gave a sitting governor a $12 million gift.

Agreed, both Democratic and Republican politicians are scum sucking swine. Wonder why John McCain's wife won't publish her tax returns.

Getting back to the main point, as long as big business views government as an asset that they can buy from time to time to serve their short term interests at public expense, we continue to be headed down the tubes. I think I can make a good case that this "privatization", which is really pimping out government for very private interests, is far more of a Republican sport than a Democratic one.

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by shotgunslade

Agreed that both Democrats and Republicans are guilty. With the posted tax returns, we know where most of the income from the top presidential candidates came, except for John McCain's wife. As for the Clintons, most of it seems to have come from the ridiculous speaking fees that Billy now commands. Not really productive, nor really praiseworthy, but probably legal.

You might also check on the contributors to Clinton's library. Would you be surprised that nearly half a million came from pardoning the fugitive crook--Rich. And millions from middle east sources. You might also check the China connection.

As to McCain's wife. There is a prenuptial agreement from many years ago that kept their finances separate. Its not a new thing simply because he is running for Prez.

Smell the roses. There are just a many democrat crooks as republicans. Probably more, but I won't make that accusation.

Lee

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by shotgunslade

Getting back to the main point, as long as big business views government as an asset that they can buy from time to time to serve their short term interests at public expense, we continue to be headed down the tubes. I think I can make a good case that this "privatization", which is really pimping out government for very private interests, is far more of a Republican sport than a Democratic one.

How about injecting some TRUTH in your far left quotational meanderings???? Maybe you should check facts before you spout the drivel of far left bloggers.

The UTIMCO, or "privatizing" investment company you mention was established by the TEXAS LEGISLATURE in 1996 and ONLY signed in to law by Bush as governor.

Hicks was appointed as Chairman of UTIMCO by the Texas University Board of Regents--NOT BY BUSH.

AND--if you check a little deeper you might find out that the endowment fund has done much better "privatized" than it did prior. The funds are actually placed under numerous investment companies. Its not surprising that several of these companies have Republican or Bush ties. There happens to be many many companies in Texas that qualify for that labelling. You do know that there are a lot of Repulicans in Texas--don't you??

Just keep it fair and balanced and with as few lies as possible.

Even I said that many of the things said about Barack Hussein Obama were probably not true. I don't just accept far right bloggers like you do the far left ones.

Lee

[shotgunslade]

Utimco has strongly pushed in the Texas legislature by then-Governor Bush and by lawmakers closely associated with him It didn't hurt that the measure was strongly supported by the Board of Regents that was packed with Bush friends, including Tom Loefler and Don Evans. It is true that Tom Hicks was appointed to the Board of Regents by Ann Richards, but a belated $25,000 Bush campaign contribution (after the election) secured his re-appointment by the new governor.

I think that if you check the records the investments that Bush Friend Tom Hicks made with his friends and various business partners while he was chairman of Utimco had a much worse performance than the general market during those boom years of 1996-1998. His friends, and his various companies, however, made millions off the investment deals he set up with Utimco. While it is true that the investments were placed with many companies, quite a few were placed with Hick's friends and with companies that had indirect or not-so-indirect ties to Hick's many companies. It was only the provision of the Utimco authorization bill allowing complete lack of public of governmental oversight of deal-making that allowed these self and croney-serving transactions to take place. Utimco's improved performance is relatively recent, after the resignation of Hicks, and after public and press outcry demanded much more oversight and public disclosure of Utimco's investment activities.

It was George Bush who pushed the Arlington stadium deal through, resulting in significantly increased taxes for the citizens of Arlington, TX, and ultimately in an increase in value of the Texas Rangers by a factor of 10. It was Tom Hick's, who bought the Texas Rangers from the investment group that included George Bush for a price of over $250 millioin. George Bush, with the extra bonuses awarded to him by his partners, received over $30 million in return for his original $606,000 investment.

Getting back to the original point. The problem with politics today is its unhealthy relations with big business where the public good is sacrificed to private gain through the intervention of well-placed campaign contributions or "bribes." That is why I much more tend to favor politicians with a populist approach than those who are in the arms of "big business." Whatever you say about Barack Hussein Obama , he simply isn't rich enough to have been bought by business. By the way, why do you insist on iterating the middle name given to him by the father, who had absolutely no impact on his life after his second year? Could it be right wing talk radio guilt by meaningless assocation? Noloo, you wouldn't be guilty of that.

[dcarrb]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

There are just a many democrat crooks as republicans.

True enough; politicians are crooked. But the fact that we seem more interested in finger-pointing and name-calling and dirt-dredging than in problem-solving is only greasing the skids of our decline.

Until we can ignite a spirit of cooperation in this country and demand better from government, we'll continue to get the politicians we deserve.

dcb

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by shotgunslade

Whatever you say about Barack Hussein Obama , he simply isn't rich enough to have been bought by business. By the way, why do you insist on iterating the middle name given to him by the father, who had absolutely no impact on his life after his second year? Could it be right wing talk radio guilt by meaningless assocation? Noloo, you wouldn't be guilty of that.

I call him that because it IS his name. If he is ashamed of it or does not like it, he could have changed it anytime since reaching majority by a simple court petition.

But, the name might also fit his leanings and even possibly religion. I don't think we have heard all of this yet.

Oh, speaking of returns on investment (even though smaller scale)--remember Hillary's $1000 investment that turned into $100,000. AND--she didn't even actually provide the initial $1000??? Strange.

As to making money, you know as well as I do that if you have the ability to borrow big money and have ANY legitimate business connections--you have huge potential to make big money.

Oh, and there are millions being made right now in New Mexico under Democrat Bill Richardson, through inside contracts and sweet political deals with investments in favorite son contracts in the required alternative energy field. Insider deals let his cronies invest in federally and state mandated green source energy projects.

Lee

[shotgunslade]

I think we can agree that most politicians are sleazebags who live off the public t3at. The two Bills may be no better than W, and none can hold a candle to Ted Stevens.

On the other matter, if you will remember, at one time Saddam Hussein was supposed to be a good guy, Ronnie Reagan really liked him. He kept the Ayatollah's at bay.

Also, King Hussein of Jordan was a pretty good guy, trying many times to broker an Arab Israeli coexistence.

Finally, my friend Hussein Ali Khan, originally from India, and now from New Jersey by way of Vancouver is a really good guy. We've hoisted a few at pubs around the world.

So, there is nothing in reciting the name, except a small, mean-spirited attempt to defame by current association. Yes, his middle name is Hussein, a very common name throughout much of the world. But, he seems to be a member of the United Church of Christ, a denomination that traces its roots back to various Calvinist churches.

In the absence of something substantive, you can always rely on sleazy insinuation. Good talk radio strategy.

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by shotgunslade

So, there is nothing in reciting the name, except a small, mean-spirited attempt to defame by current association. Yes, his middle name is Hussein, a very common name throughout much of the world. But, he seems to be a member of the United Church of Christ, a denomination that traces its roots back to various Calvinist churches.

In the absence of something substantive, you can always rely on sleazy insinuation. Good talk radio strategy.

I love the picture, don't you?? I don't see that he was tied and forced to put the garb on. Even when he went to Catholic school he still listed himself as Muslim. Yep, you are right he "appears" to be somewhat of a protestant now. But, somehow it just doesn't ring or appear true. And for the record--I can't stand any of the far right OR far left talk radio nuts.

Lee