Broken Promises: Iran and Alito

January 14th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Washington Post

Iran's move toward resuming nuclear research is likely to result in a full court hearing at the UN Security Council. Judge Samuel Alito's failure to recuse himself in the Vanguard Mutual Fund Case is getting a free pass.
Yet these cases are identical.
Under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty countries are entitled to undertake non-military nuclear research. Under the conflict of interest laws, Judge Alito had insignificant ownership in the Vanguard Fund Management Company (even though he, like me, had investments in Vanguard Mutual Funds) so was not required to recuse himself.
Nevertheless, Iran had promised France, Germany and the United Kingdom that it would not undertake any nuclear research while negotiations on Iran's Nuclear Program were under way. Similarly, Judge Alito, during his confirmation hearings for an seat on the Appeals Court promised to recuse himself from any cases involving Vanguard. He put no time limits on this promise.
Why are these two identical cases getting such different treatment?

January 13th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Boston Globe

In 1985, Samuel Alito stated on his job application for a promotion in the Justice Department that he was "a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton University, a conservative alumni group."
He now has no recollection that he belonged to this group. Examination of the records of one of the group's founders has no mention of Alito in the group's minutes (Alito sidesteps Democratic punches, January 13th. A1, A14). Perhaps his recollection is correct and he was never a member.
This raises the question: was he padding his resumé in order to increase his chances of getting the job he sought?

January 14th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the Lehrer News Hour

In yesterday's Brooks and Shields segment, Mark Shields suggested that Judge Alito had never been a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton group but had added this incorrect information about his membership to his job application in order to create a positive impression with the hiring team.
This is called resumé padding.
In most organizations such behavior makes one liable for dismissal. If Mark Shields is correct, why is Judge Alito getting a free pass?

Senators Deference to Bush

January 13th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

I agree with your editorial (Pro-Choice Senators and Judge Alito, January 13th, 2006. A22) which states that Judge Alito has tipped his hand with regard to his anti-abortion views. But there is one very high hurdle that Senators Specter, Chaffee and Collins will have to overcome if they are to vote against confirmation: that is deference to the President's wishes. This is especially strong when President and Senator share the same party affiliation.
To help overcome this hurdle, I would argue that the President has, over the past five years, forfeited his right to claim compliance with his wishes from the Senators. His actions have systematically undermined the rule of law in this country. His use of warrantless spying on Americans will I am sure be declared unconstitutional and it is so unnecessary as under current law NSA can undertake surveillance without a warrant for 72 hours. Surely that allows NSA to move swiftly and surely. Secondly his repudiation of the McCain amendment on torture in his signing statement is a direct violation of the intent of Congress. Thirdly, his failure to hold anyone, other than low level "grunts," accountable for the actions at Abu Ghraib is unconscionable.
Finally there is his appalling ignorance. Despite his years of education at Yale and Harvard, he doesn't understand the first thing about the managerial decision making process. His decision to go to war in Iraq was marred by group-think and uncertainty absorption (the removal of data about the level of confidence the CIA had in its information about weapons of mass destruction), and perhaps willful misinformation by his subordinates (It's a slam-dunk, Mr President). A well-informed leader would not have allowed this perversion of the process.  Additionally, despite a well founded understanding that torture does not produce valid information, the President insists on reserving the right to have his agents torture suspects to extract information. This is a totally unnecessary right to retain.
I believe that these actions on the part of the President release his Senatorial colleagues from the obligation to defer to his nomination by voting for confirmation of Judge Alito.

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.