John Dean and George Bush

January 6th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

In the recent ACLU advertisement in your pages (January 5th, A15), John Dean puts the wrong question when he asks, "What asserted powers will Bush use next?"
The real question is what powers is he already using that we haven't learned about yet. Carry on New York Times with your voyage of discovery! You owe it to the nation.

The Attorney General and the Rule of Law

Date: Dec 30 2004

Sent to but not published in New York Times

Andrew Rosenthal (op ed, December 30th 2004) has it right. The nomination of Alberto Gonzales to the position of Attorney General is an insult to the rule of law. As White House Counsel, Mr. Gonzales, together with civilian lawyers in the service departments, was instrumental in devising rules that permitted torture (maybe it was soft torture, but it was torture nonetheless) of prisoners held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq.
The policy advocated by these civil lawyers is stupendously stupid. The military lawyers are correct in opposing the policy because of the impact on the treatment of American prisoners in foreign hands. The injunction of “do as you would be done by” is a precious one to adhere to in military conduct. The US’s abandonment of this rule will serve it ill.
One step to righting this injustice would be for President Bush to withdraw this nomination. Failing that, the Senate should reject his confirmation.

Post War Credits

Post War Credits Martin G. Evans Professor Emeritus, Rotman School of Management University of Toronto The cost of the Second Iraq War is inexorably increasing. At the last count the financial cost is approaching $150 billion. We must pay for this war ourselves. It would be immoral and irresponsible to pass the cost of the war on to our children and grandchildren. The question is how to pay for it. In 1940 John Maynard Keynes published a small monograph entitled “How to pay for the war.” Later that year, the British Government incorporated some of his ideas into the Post War Credits scheme. This involved a forced saving deduction from an individual’s income; the savings were to be paid back after the war – in fact they only began to be paid back on a person’s retirement and people were still receiving post war credits as late as 1973 – almost thirty years after the war had ended. I suggest that the U.S. adopt a similar scheme – it has the advantage of paying for the war in the short term and creating individual retirement savings accounts in the longer term, which is a priority of the present Administration. A progressive forced loan of the form outlined in the Table would generate about $128 billion dollars a year – enough to put a big dent in the Iraq war’s cost. The scheme I propose here would be steeply progressive with the surcharge beginning at an income of $60,000. All income over $60,000 would be subject to a forced loan rate of 1%, an additional 1% would be charged on income over $100,000. After each increment of $50,000, there would be an additional 1% surcharge though the rate would even out at 16% of the portion of a person’s income over $500,000. This represents about a 1% increase in withholding at the lowest level but represents about a 45% increase in withholding for the millionaires among us. Income Forced loan rate. Additional withholding from income. under $60,000 0.0 % $0.00 $60,000 to $100,000 1.0 % 0 to $400 $100,000 to $150,000 2.0 % $400 to $1,400 $150,000 to $200,000 3.0% $1,400 to $2,400 $200,000 to $250,000 4.5 % $2,400 to $5,150 $250,000 to $300,000 6.0 % $5,150 to $8,150 $300,000 to $350,000 7.5 % $8,150 to $11,510 $350,000 to $400,000 9.0 % $11,510 to $14,150 $400,000 to $450,000 11.0 % $14,150 to $17,150 $450,000 to $500,000 13.0 % $17,150 to $28,400 $500,000 to $1,000,000 16.0 % $28,400 to $ 108,400 $1,000,000 to $2,000,000, etc 16.0 % $108,400 to $268,400, etc Alternative levels of withholding and different levels of progression could be administered if the scheme proposed here was thought to be too draconian. The important point is to get the war paid for by this generation. The funds in each individual’s loan account would accrue interest at the rate of 3%; this interest would accrue tax free in the individual’s account. At retirement, the account would be converted to an annuity with the repayment of the interest portion being taxable. This plan would ensure that the present generation paid the costs of its war and would have, as a bonus, the effect of generating retirement savings for the wealthier half of the country. Retirement funds for the poorer among us will have to await an administration more committed to the social safety net

Going to the Hogs

ate: November 3 2004
Sent to but not published by Boston Globe

The country is going to the hogs.

With the re-election of George W. Bush, the greedy business executives who looted their companies and the country have received a carte blanche. They are free to continue to pay wages below a living wage. They are free to offer jobs without health benefits though the benefits they receive are very nice, thank you. They can continue their drive to reduce regulations that are the protection of the public. They will be accountable to no one.

I lament for the nation.

Bush's Abdication of Responsibility

Date: October 27 2004
Sent to but not published by Boston Globe

George W. Bush's discovery of religion in his mid-40's has enabled him to disavow responsibility for his wild youthful misdemeanors. This is reasonable – no one should be faulted for their youthful mistakes.

But Bush and his administration have made the abdication of responsibility a way of life. Let us look at the tally.

As a Director of Harken Energy, George Bush abdicated his responsibility to the shareholders who were paying him by failing to file a timely "Insider Trading" report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

As CEO of Halliburton, Cheney disclaimed responsibility for the aggressive accounting practices that have now been reversed following an SEC investigation.

In Iraq, Bush and his associates have abdicated responsibility for:

• the failure of intelligence that led to the beliefs that there were weapons of mass destruction under Saddam Hussein's control;
• the failure to plan for peace;
• the failure to abide by the Geneva Convention in the treatment of prisoners and detainees.
• the failure to guard anywhere, except the Oil Ministry, following the fall of Iraq.

At home, Bush and his associates have abdicated responsibility for:

• funding the "No Child Left Behind" Program;
• funding for the protection of the air we breathe and the water we drink;
• protecting the rights and freedoms of every American citizen.

With a record like that, why would anyone vote for a continuation of this administration?

Redistricting in Massachusetts

Date: October 21 2004
Sent to but not published by Boston Globe

The redistricting problems of Massachusetts have faded from memory. But unless we devise a better method of setting District boundaries, our troubles will come back at the beginning of the next decade. We need to think through an alternative to the Legislature devising the boundaries.
Think back to when you were a child, if a piece of cake had to be divided between you and a friend, you quickly figured out that the way to get a fair distribution was for one person to cut the piece of cake in half and for the second person to decide which piece to take. That kept the cutter honest and made sure that two equal pieces emerged.
It is not like that when it comes to choosing the boundaries of political districts in Massachusetts, the big brothers and sisters on Beacon Hill design and choose the boundaries – it is almost like the politicians choose the voters rather than, as it should be, the voters choosing their representatives. As a result Massachusetts has almost the least competitive election in the US. It is very clear that redistricting is much too important to be left to the politicians who act as the political heirs of Elbridge Gerry to create districts to suit their convenience.
There must be a better, fairer way of setting the boundaries of electoral districts. There are! Federalism is, after all, a source of experimentation so we can see a number of alternatives existing across different states.
My favorite would be for Massachusetts to adopt an independent electoral redistricting commission such as that found in Arizona. A committee of 5 persons is charged with undertaking the redistricting every ten years. Four of these are partisan (selected from a pool of 25 generated by the State Supreme Judicial Court) – but are NOT current, past or potential office holders. The four members then select a fifth. This small committee then designs one or more plans based on the usual criteria: equal numbers of voters, contiguity, compactness, community of interest, and adherence to the Voting Rights Act. One of these plans is then adopted by a simple majority vote. The boundaries are then binding on the electorate unless there is a court challenge. Any challenge would go directly to the State Supreme Judicial Court so as to ensure a speedy disposition of the case.
This process of designing the boundaries has the advantage of allowing politically motivated input to the system – through the selection of the commissioners – but keeps the politicians at arm's length when it comes to the design and decision. The least of many evils!
A quick look at the map of the current boundaries of the Massachusetts Congressional Districts shows that many of the current criteria are not met: districts do have roughly equal numbers, but they are not compact and they have little community of interest – what do the voters of preppie Needham have in common with the voters of blue-collar Fall River.
We are six years away from the next Census and the need for redistricting. If we start now, at the pace at which the political wheels turn in Massachusetts, we might have just the new procedures in place for 2001. But we have to get started NOW. If your district has a redistricting reform question on the ballot, I urge you to vote in favor to bring home to our legislators the importance of action.

Health care in the debate

Date: October 14 2004
Sent to but not published by Boston Globe

Mr Bush made a major misleading statement in the debate last evening when he said that "... government-run health will lead to poor quality health, will lead to rationing, will lead to less choice."

The fact is that the data show something very different. A useful indicator of the quality of health care is the infant mortality rate. In the US this is 6.6 deaths per 1000 live births. In Canada where health care is run by the provinces, the rate is 4.8 deaths per 1000 live births. In the UK where the central government pays for health care, the rate is 5.2. In Scandinavia the rate ranges from 2.8 (Sweden) to 4.6 (Denmark).

The fact is that for some people, US health care is the best in the world; for others, it is totally inadequate. Rationing of health care in the US is accomplished by the ability to pay.