Iranian Uprising – 21st Century

June 20, 2009

Apocalyptic New Era

By Padmini Arhant

The Presidential election results were out in the Islamic Republic of Iran and predictably, the theocratic rule through flawed electoral process declared the incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner, with a landslide victory against the reformist leader Mir Hossein Mousavi of the Islamic Iran Participation Front, recognized as the largest reformist party.

Iranian youth, women and everyone oppressed by the existing regime mourning seeing no hope in the horizon for Iran aligning to the twenty first century nation governance. The re-nomination of the President Ahmadinejad by the un-elected and self-proclaimed clerics under the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei indicates the iron-fist authoritarianism executed as the guardian of the sacred Islamic religion.

The theocratic power claiming to be the representative of peaceful and respectful Islam effectively shackled the Islamic vows – equality, freedom, justice and compassion shared among all, with sheer denial of the humanitarian rights granted by the holy Islam.

Ironically, the election is anything but democratic with the election results not conforming to the actual data in more than one account. According to reliable sources, the higher voter turnout was encouraging and huge enthusiasm among the majority confirmed the readiness for the change that’s long overdue in the Islamic Republic and the entire Middle East. Upon opposition’s refusal to concede to the false ceremonial victory by the current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the streets in Tehran and the holy city Qom reverberated with chants against the undemocratic verdict.

Any ballot recount in selective areas to satisfy the republic with an insatiable appetite for emancipation is equivalent to an illusionist’s performance in charming the tense audience. Tragically, the religious order’s deception of the Islamic faith dedicated to truth, equality and justice for all vilified in the endorsement of killings and violence against peaceful protesters by the paramilitary under the top hierarchy’s direct command, reminiscent of the Tiananmen Square event.

The recent incidents in Tehran and other parts of the nation is a reminder that permanence is not in the laws of nature and change is the natural course of action to prove it. Despite resistance to positive reform, a priority beginning with the free and fair elections, the theocracy in Iran struggling to maintain credibility as the religious force inculcating bias in the contradictory version of democracy dominated by religion over the independent state rule.

Whenever any puppet government controlled by the ultimate religious authority or dynasty challenged to demonstrate democratic values towards the nationals, defiance is inevitable. Therefore, the victims subject to hard line approach viz. muzzling the voice of democracy in the technology-oriented age. Evidently, the Iranian republic determined to free themselves from the prolonged tyrannical rule of law under the guise of Islam – conflicting to the egalitarian religious philosophy.

The current events in Iran is a test for the theocracy led by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the clerics’ respect for the holiness, Prophet Mohammed’s teachings to value humanitarian rights and disavow violence, deceit, disorder in any form or shape. Importantly, the involvement of religion in the state affairs and the Supreme Leader as the head of the state is a gross violation of Islam juxtaposed to Islamic law prohibiting spiritual leaders from aspiring political power, materialistic gains and supremacy.

Autocracy implemented through theocracy is sacrilegious in the highest order.

It is imperative for the Islamic Republic of Iran to honor the will of the people towards democracy with an absolute guarantee of equal rights for all citizens of different faith and ethnicity in the historic Persian land. The reference particularly applies to the persecution and systemic abuse of the Baha’i population along with disregard for the faith until date.

Since the election outcome debunked with reprehensible practices such as vote rigging and unscrupulous means by the state in producing unrealistic victory for their choice of representative effectively disposes the results null and void. Henceforth, the reformist candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi aptly qualifies in requesting the Iranian electorate to recall the nominee, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Guardian Council responsible for the protocol reportedly swayed to the theocratic preference has created a self-dispensable status in the so-called democratic election.

With the overwhelming international support and solidarity for the Iranian moderates in the ongoing political upheaval, the camouflaged autocratic leadership in Iran is on the verge of collapse serving testimony to the apocalyptic new era pledged to deliverance around the world.

The concurrent election results throughout the Middle East, with Iraq rejecting the Iranian supported political and terror faction, Lebanese sidelining the once popular and terror sponsor Hezbollah backed by the troubled Iranian theocracy, Palestine more eager to attain the dream of freedom empowering FATAH over HAMAS is a confirmation of the apocalypse.

Although, credit for changes in the Middle East attributed to the previous and present United States Presidency, the real agent behind the democratic transitioning is the long brewing unprecedented will of the population with technological know-how rising to the occasion comprising free speech and human rights.

Similar scenario witnessed in Egypt initiated by the anti-government centrists and pro-democratic aspirants including the Muslim Brotherhood – the Hosni Mubarak government’s traditional rival. In this instance the moderates in Egypt were disappointed with the omission of Egyptian government’s prolonged human rights violation in President Obama’s Cairo address, even though the objective for detour appears to rest on the potential Egyptian influence on the Arab world in the recognition of Israel and resolving the two-state solutions crisis.

Many outspoken pro-democracy groups operating within and outside of Egypt shared their anguish over a missed historic moment by the United States Presidency to curtail excessive oppression in the Pharaoh land.

Back to Iranian political uprising contributing tremor across the Middle East – it’s no coincidence and remains an affirmation to pervasive democratic movement brought upon not by Super Power aggression instead, through peaceful and powerful populace demand, yet another desirable path in accordance to the apocalypse.

The contemporary political unrest in Iran is likely to subdue the theocracy limiting and possibly eliminating the intervention of religion in the state rule to promote real democracy. As for the reformist leader Mir Hossein Mousavi’s parallel political stance with the opponent President nominee Mahmoud Ahmedinijad regarding Iranian nuclear program and Israel…

The notion between the Israeli Knesset and the White House ambivalence to the controversial re-nomination of the President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad implies – “It’s better to deal with the devil you know rather than the Saint you don’t.”

This posturing by Washington and Jerusalem is disturbing considering the pivotal role by both nations as part of the military industrial complex in the lucrative and prolific nuclear and arms weaponry exhibited by the United States in Iraq and currently in Afghanistan. Likewise, by Israel in the aggression against Palestinians in Gaza in December 2008 accompanied by repeated retaliatory threats to strike Iran’s nuclear site with or without the United States alliance warrants a great deal of concern.

Israel’s selection of President Nominee Ahmadinejad over reformist candidate Mousavi suggests Israel accepting Ahmadinejad’s provocative gesture as an opportunity for military action. Such political maneuvering by Israel could prove immensely detrimental to its own national security other than raising a credibility issue as a viable peace partner in the Middle East.

An oil enriched and Shiite dominant Iran’s strong emergence in the Arab world posed a huge challenge to other oil-abundant nation like Saudi Arabia and others fearing identical fate with the impending overthrow of the political dynasty contrasting political theocracy in Iran, while both kingdoms sharing abandonment of democracy in the legislative rule.

Meanwhile, the massive rally and protests on behalf of the reformist party candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi justified when,

The reformist leader commits Iran towards modern democracy in every aspect of governance,

A nuclear free zone as the concept of nuclear energy program to generate electricity does not fit in with Iran being the third richest nation in oil reserves,

Oil reserves in Iran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Iran

“Oil reserves in Iran, according to its government, rank third largest in the world at approximately 136 billion barrels (21.6×109 m3) as of 2007, although it ranks second if Canadian reserves of non-conventional oil are excluded. This is roughly 10% of the world’s total proven petroleum reserves.

Iran is the world’s fourth largest oil producer and is OPEC’s second-largest producer after Saudi Arabia. As of 2006 it was producing an estimated 3.8 million barrels per day (600×103 m3/d) of crude oil, equal to 5% of global production.[1] At 2006 rates of production, Iran’s oil reserves would last 98 years if no new oil was found.”

Further, recognize and embrace Israel as a sovereign state,

Last but not the least; relinquish terror sponsorship in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon including conciliatory partnership via arms supply to belligerent North Korea.

Otherwise, Iran reflecting true reform in alienating from the ideological, theocratic principles and doctrine prevailing over the fundamental democratic values desperately required by the deserving Iranian population.

The imminent victory for peace against violence will testify the strength of populace power in the declining theocratic regime systematically misrepresenting the sacred and peaceful Islam.

The Iranian electorates’ perseverance towards democratic goals will be a trailblazer for other nations to follow suit in the Middle East.

Persian, … šāʾ Allāh (ar | ما شاء الله), which means, "God has willed it". …-

Insha’Allah (إن شاء الله) – Allah Willing.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Pulse of the Economy

June 11, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

With a finger on the pulse of the economy, the recent reports on employment, housing, financial and stock market post stimulus funding worth $787 billion approved by Congress in February 2009, has drawn both praise and criticism from different quarters. The praise is always welcome and encouraging for any administration and the Obama administration is no exception to the rule, particularly when they are relentlessly engaged in stabilizing the economy as the top priority.

Whereas, the criticism aimed at the President is no revelation considering the partisan Washington atmosphere. The results thus far, indicate the current national unemployment rate at 9.2% against 8% in the pre-approval stimulus package forecast. Further, the reports reveal the economy shed 1.6 million jobs with the White House claiming 150,000 jobs saved since the passing of the stimulus measure. Obviously, it’s a contentious issue for all Americans receiving pink slips for paychecks and IOU’s in the state of California respectively.

The main criticism being the Obama administration’s optimistic approach in selling the stimulus plan not correlating with the job market results, a fair analysis is due to clarify doubts and speculations on the stimulus plan prospects and its effect on the economy.

According to the White House and other reports, only $44 billion i.e. 5.6% spent from the $787 billion stimulus funds with an accelerated investment committed this summer. In light of the above scenario, the 150,000 jobs rescued towards 5.6% funding is a confirmation of President Obama’s cautious and calculated expectation from the economy.

Even at the present conservative trend, the job market results for the remaining 94.4% of the stimulus fund upon targeted investment should adequately restore the employment rate from the growing underemployment and unemployment status with a combined saved and created job ratio yielding approximately 2,528,571jobs in a similar environment.

It is not uncommon for the critics and analysts to focus on the dismal job market figures affected since the onset of the economic recession in December 2007. The skeptics’ myopic view neglecting economic progress in other areas is attention worthy. Various reliable sources confirmed the financial sector strengthening with the bailout funds interjection in an effort to amortize the toxic assets from the sub-prime mortgage debacle. The leading financial institutions such as Bank of America, J P Morgan and Chase and other banks in the top ten range enabled capital management viability proven in the balance sheets.

The rapid foreclosures primarily responsible for the declining housing prices nationwide conversely contributing to the median home prices plateau with the 47 percent foreclosed homes resold in the entire Bay Area in April 2009 compared to 52 percent in February 2009 – indicating the desirous regress in foreclosures and signs of early recovery in the housing market.

The reports also confirm the home sales and value up for month and down for the year attributing to the Obama administration’s strategy of “the combination of lower prices, average mortgage rates of 5 percent or less for smaller loans, and a new $8,000 federal tax credit for first-time buyers” in the anemic housing market.

When the foreclosures pervasively diminished or extinguished nationwide with the stimulus programs, the housing market rebound will be visible motivating the lenders to participate in the melting liquidity market. However, caution required with the rising bond market’s pressure on interest rates imperative in alleviating the housing market crisis.

In the stock market – the significant gains by the commodity market and technology sector reflected in the recent rally is invigorating. Other industries lagging behind in performance likely to benefit from the steadily easing financial market credit crunch, promoting private sector investments directly related to boosting the job market, housing market and consumer spending essential for speedy economic recovery.

As for the quasi investment deals in the GM takeover causing pandemonium among the well-wishers across the aisle, the taxpayers’ financial commitment to rescue jobs slighted for political bickering. The ‘bankruptcy’ triggered cynicism about the government imprudence in investment goals with taxpayer dollars, while conveniently ignoring the fact that the auto industry problem originated during the former administration’s era and their $17 billion initial investment in the corporation set for failure.

Ironically, the temporary and modest government intervention in the free market characterized as ‘nationalization’ of industries necessitating required action from colossal mismanagement.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration’s objective in the GM deal to avert the deepening crisis in the frail industry challenged by the competitive global market is a thoughtful approach. Now with taxpayers as the majority shareholder in the once iconic corporation the management goals anticipated to synchronize with the twenty first century demands ensuring excellence in purpose, productivity and profitability.

Moving on to the other pertinent and popular health care issue debated and discussed to reject rather than embrace the premise of the President Obama’s health care plan – choice, affordability and quality, the perfect remedy to relieve the economy from the health care burden costing the nation in trillions while leaving the uninsured in millions.

Despite the innuendoes and insinuations about the mounting debt, the investments miscategorized as ‘squandering’ in the national economy ranging from health care, education, energy, environment, housing to financial sector and other industries is a pledge towards substantial economic security for the present and future generation.

The controversy surrounding the diverse investments costs applied to two particular sources viz. borrowing from China and tax hikes on the corporations and wealthy groups. Contrarily, the tax breaks to the top ten percent in the highest income bracket and corporations evading tax through tax havens with limited free market regulation or deregulation in the past eight years aside from being counterproductive resulted in approximately $9.5trillion dollars national debt with a cumulative effect on the status quo of the economy.

There was no clamor over the increasing liabilities on the baby boomers and the younger generation in the extravagant spending on illegal wars with a guarantee to fund itself from oil revenues in Iraq…an unequivocal myth until date.

Then the financial sector bailout with respect to AIG and oligarchs to a tune of $700 billion and more in 2008 with no accountability or transparency exacerbated the liquidity crisis against the intended proposal. Interestingly, the past events currently dismissed as irrelevant claiming that Obama administration disavow the incidents pertaining to the prior administration yet owe an explanation for the phenomenal deficit, the previous administration’s legacy to its successor.

Only if the opposition’s present vigilance on fiscal responsibility existed from 2000-2008, perhaps the People’s Republic of China and The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be vigorous competitors to the world financier ‘The United States.’

The demands from the conservative right exceedingly high launched with rhetorical comments and negative attacks such as “false Prophet’s failed Presidency.”

In the absence of any ideas and solutions to the burgeoning crises created by the previous administration’s historical blunders serving testimony to the beacon of incompetence and failures in Presidential history, the political posturing is paradoxical.

With respect to the economy in the ‘Golden State of California’, the clock is ticking for the state and the local government authorities to resolve the budget crisis and close the $24 billion deficit in the state budget and $73 million in the San Jose City budget.

Even though the strategy in both situations is scrambling to wipe the deficit by any means with mostly eliminating the vital services and benefits to the weak, the poor and the vulnerable, the repercussions of draconian cuts with no tax increases will far outweigh the immediate illusory results not barring the political risks in the 2010 gubernatorial elections.

Following the special election results on May 19, 2009, it’s incumbent on the state legislature to adopt several guidelines and viable options provided by concerned citizens through many sources in resolving the fiscal crisis. There is no patent right on the thoughts in the matter affecting the entire state and the community at large. It is a patriotic and civic duty of every citizen volunteering suggestions to deal with the stalemate confronting the California state legislature.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s recent comments on undocumented workers and their plight aptly placed the sensitive immigration issue in perspective. It’s time for the Governor to translate into action by issuing drivers license to the undocumented workers in the State of California that would not only aid the budget but also enhance the opportunity as the preliminary step towards legalization of the Californian residents.

More often, the leadership is subject to test the will, wisdom and courage against the odds exclusively the unpopular decision eventually ending in greater good for all.

I wish Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mayor Chuck Reed of San Jose ‘Good Luck’ in their decisions appropriate to defend many but might offend few in the process.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Supreme Court Nominee

May 31, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

President Barack Obama announced his nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the next Justice of the United States Supreme Court replacing Justice David Souter retiring after twenty years of service.

The nomination is currently under scrutiny with intense speculations on the debate expected to unfold during the Senate confirmation hearing in July 2009. United States Supreme Court is the highest judiciary on land, decisions made by the appointees of the judicial system immensely impact human lives, often leading to a landmark ruling for years to come as evidenced in –

Brown vs. Board of education,

Roe v. Wade and,

The 2000 Presidential election between the former President George W. Bush and the former Vice President Al Gore in recent memory.

President Obama’s message reinforce the relevance —

“A nomination for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land is one of the most important decisions a President can make. And the discussions that follow will be among the most important we have as a nation.”

Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s extensive career and personal profile appears to represent the essence of the judicial system requiring excellence in all legal faculties prominently the constitution and the general rule of law governing our society. However, impressive academic and career achievements are never without controversies as infallibility is not in human nature.

Considering the Supreme Court justice has an awesome responsibility to be part of the collective decision-making dilemma, confirmation hearing premised on due diligence and forthright presentation would provide necessary clarifications on many pertinent issues concerning society. Further, transparency in recognition of the challenges confronting the highest court whose decisions are “as stated by the President – serious and consequential” minimizes skepticism among the general mass.

Since political representations substantially influence the process, maintaining objectivity is in the republic’s interest. The elected officials are obligatory primarily to the people in a democracy protected by the constitution and the rule of law. There have been several issues brought to attention regarding the nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. While some of them described as ‘caricature’ routinely experienced by aspirants seeking the highest positions on land, other matter deserve attention and unequivocal response from the nominee.

After careful review of reports and editorials, it is clear that both left and right political factions and various women’s groups desire a position related to the opinion, speech and actions of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, given the dynamics of the Supreme Court Justice role in the judicial hearing.

The specific interests in this context are –

1. The conservatives from the right raise the issue about ‘Identity Politics’ in reference to the comment on judicial expertise between a Latina judge and a white male counterpart in light of different life experiences. –

The statement rests on general assumption about distinctive race and lifestyle predicted to impact judgment due to unique background.

In addition, the categorical representation – “A person is what his or her race, ethnicity, gender or sexual preference is, and members of a particular category can be represented – understood, empathized with – only by persons of the same identity.” –

The claim suggests exclusivity in serving a particular segment and alienates the ability of those to relate to an assorted category. Such situation could apply conversely implying the representatives’ inability to deal with groups other than their own.

2. Another contentious matter from the political right is the affirmative action and the constitutionality of racial preferences in university admissions and the criteria of necessity.

Affirmative action was justified and served well for the people deprived of fair and equal opportunities post civil rights period. In the twenty first century though a milestone reached with the first African American as the 44th President of the United States, it’s far from perfection. Nonetheless, remarkable progress made until date in numerous fields and occupation.

Therefore, the status quo affirmative action is more harmful than being helpful with the race rather than merit based criteria. Besides marginalizing the once majority now diminishing with the steep rise of minorities, the preferential treatment is a setback for the intended minority possessing intellectual equivalence to others in equal settings. Even the genuinely qualifying minority likely perceived as the affirmative action beneficiary.

3. As an appellate judge, upholding a district court’s dismissal of the New Haven, Connecticut fire fighters’ complaint denying them promotions because there were no African Americans upset a large group of the conservative and moderate members in the political party crying foul and condemned as reverse discrimination. Judge Sotomayor quoted to have expressed “Appellate courts where the policy made.”

Reports indicate that Judge Sotomayor not only follows and defends the rule of law but also respects precedence applicable to prior rulings.

Court rulings precedence could serve favorably or otherwise as noted in the world famous 2000 Presidential election declaring the former President George W. Bush, the winner.

Senate hearing must seek response from the nominee to clear the air in the fire fighters case –What would be the ruling without any constraints i.e. free of quotas for the minority group?

Unveiling the political left’s fear and frustration in the absence of any view on bona fide issues such as Roe v. Wade, the Presidential Power given the past eight years excessive use of power, Death Penalty and Gay Rights are few among the priorities in societal matter.

In the Pro-Life vs. Pro-choice, the reports reveal accordingly:

Source: Washington Post and San Jose Mercury News, May 28, 2009.

1. “Judge Sotomayor’s ruling on abortion was on the conservative side. In the ruling, she said the Bush administration had the right to prohibit abortions by overseas organizations receiving U.S. funding, as well as the right to prohibit the groups from speaking out against the restrictions.

In this case, the article noted that Judge Sotomayor was following the court’s precedents, something she might not do if she were on the Supreme Court. “There is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor’s philosophy is that she is not only a practitioner of activism, but a defender of it.”

Source: Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury News, May 28, 2009.

“In her only abortion-related decision, she did not come down the way abortion-rights groups would have liked:

2. In 2002, Sotomayor rejected a challenge to President George W. Bush’s “Mexico City policy,” which required foreign groups to pledge that they would not support or promote abortion.

Sotomayor spoke for a three-judge panel that upheld the policy as constitutional. The government “is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position and can do so with public funds,” she said.

3. Yet another incident that matter to women’s groups…

Source: Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury News May 28, 2009.

Two years ago, Sotomayor joined an appeals court ruling that threw out a challenge to a school district’s policy that required teachers to notify a parent if they knew a girl was pregnant. The court said the teachers had no legal basis for objecting to the policy.”

With respect to overseas organizations receiving U.S. funding for family planning – President Bush’s policy was fortunately overturned by President Obama upon swearing into the office. Nevertheless, the Senate Democrats must pose the question to the nominee in this regard given the incumbent administration’s reversal of the ruling.

President Barack Obama repeatedly pledged to the American electorate on the campaign trail about his pro-choice position and commitment to the constitutional protection granted to women under Roe v. Wade, with an assurance of his Supreme Court nominee reflecting the same.

Meanwhile, during his speech at Notre Dame the President in an effort to strike a chord with the anti-abortion majority approached the controversy through reduction in abortions and exploring adoptions.

Although, abortion is not always the first choice and in most circumstances never a hasty decision by majority of women, all accessible avenues to reduce abortion should be the goal. This must be entertained with the choices made available to every woman entitled to freedom as a human being in a democracy.

There is a correlation between Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s personal background and the conservative ruling in abortion issue with no evidence of her support for Roe v. Wade.

The analysis not directed as a personal attack, the highest court lifetime appointment beckons to scrutinize the possible reason in the coveted pro-choice v. pro-life matter.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s cultural and religious background traditionally favors having children and large families are common. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor having lost her father at an early age deprived from that experience and combined with a medical condition of juvenile diabetes posing greater risks for pregnancy and complications during childbirth probably advised against child bearing. Judge Sotomayor’s personal profile confirms there are no children.

Judge Sotomayor’s ruling in the abortion matter as cited above leads to the thought of identifying the situation with ‘richness of her life experience,’ while threatening the core constitutional protection of other women’s choice.

Women’s groups for pro-choice are justifiably concerned and urging that –

“All Americans deserve to know where the next Supreme Court justice stands on Roe v. Wade.”

In the 2008 Presidential campaign, Roe v. Wade was the wedge between the Democrats and Republicans in attracting women’s votes. The trend will continue in the 2010 mid-term elections.

Despite the above facts, Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination is historic enriched with a Hispanic heritage, humble beginning, stunning academic and professional record. Judge Sotomayor being a female justice would enhance the gender deficiency in the nation’s highest court.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation subject to clarifications on all of the above issues would strengthen the American diversity in the United States Supreme Court.

I wish Judge Sonia Sotomayor success in the confirmation hearing.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Universal Health Care

May 24, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

Health Care is not an individual matter. It’s a national crisis as clearly expressed in President Barack Obama’s message.

“American families are watching their premiums rise four times faster than their wages. Spiraling health care costs are shackling America’s businesses, curtailing job growth and slowing the economy at the worst possible time. This has got to change.”

President Obama’s Health Care Policy aimed at three core principles — "it must reduce costs, guarantee choice, and ensure quality care for every American.”

The combined forces of the Health Care industry represented by the Insurance, Pharmaceuticals, Biotech, Academic institutions (e.g. University of Chicago), Hospitals, Medical Centers and Private Medical facilities not barring Wall Streets’… dominance in the highly commercialized and profit driven enterprise has led to the status quo of the most important economic structure in the society.

Industrialized nations have experimented with both socialized and privatized medicine. Some commonwealth nations viz. United Kingdom, Canada and Australia have blended the national health care with private and taxpayers’ funded policy. In the exclusively privatized medicine, the privileged segment of the society thrives while leaving the remaining population at the mercy of their faith and own ability to bear the financial burden in medical costs. Such situation has forced families to deal with unparallel traumatic and tragic ends.

Meanwhile, socialized medicine despite criticisms benefits most if not all. President Obama’s strategy directed towards the universal concept of sharing the costs and benefits to insure every individual. The proposal is flexible with choices between the government plan and the private sector offer. Also guaranteed in the plan is affordable and quality care, an ideal and a rare combination.

Evidently, the health care costs rising disproportionately to the benefits have contributed to an alarming proportion of the population uninsured and in most cases underinsured, thereby worsening the crisis. Sadly, in both scenarios the patient deprived of longevity in life due to the lack of national health care. Life being uncertain, a private citizen without health insurance is like a fish out of water. It is particularly harsh on the patients who are unwell and more so with the chronically ill struggling between life and death. The impact is even greater among the socially and economically disadvantaged class.

The suffering exists across the board with hospitals and community health centers/services shutting down as the primary targets of state and national fiscal crisis.

The Insurance industry thus far the most influential entity dictating terms and conditions entirely in their favor from eligibility by eliminating patients with ‘pre-existing illness,’ to co-payments, deductibles and access to health care providers and services. Further, the industry’s excessive intervention in patient care proved intrusive and fatal in many circumstances with lawsuit settlements in millions of dollars.

It doesn’t fall short of forging alliance with drug companies and some health care providers instructing patients to limited care and bypassing vital preliminary tests in the protocol with the substitution of medications overriding the preventive care of early diagnosis, the desirable and sensible approach to saving lives and costs.

Again, the flip side has a potential ethical issue with the health care providers stretching the limit on rigorous testing as an insurance against malpractice lawsuits aside from recovering investment costs on expensive medical diagnostic equipments. Either way, the patient/consumer is the victim of flawed system.

Pharmaceutical and biotech industries exploiting the uninsured and underinsured dying patients in their overzealous marketing and promotion of new drugs developed through volunteer participation in clinical trials have risen lately.

The industries seek immunity in the clinical trial patients’ written consent assuming responsibility to the calculated risks notwithstanding loss of life. The argument may rest on justification to find cure and aid humanity, however it’s not equivalent to actions governed by ethics.

Ironically, the recent medical news reports claimed the terminally ill without insurance mostly volunteered with the hope of getting new life in the unmitigated experimental cure.

There are more compelling facts regarding uninsured pregnant mothers foregoing antenatal and postnatal care, including the newborns from the neonatal attention subsequently leading to serious complications costing the tax payers horrendously in the county hospitals.

In a similar context, the ailing and wounded war veterans returning from war zones for treatment in the state-of-the-art medical center recently stranded by the closure of Walter Reed Memorial Hospital and other V.A medical centers.

The veterans’ post combat care and facilities have deteriorated to an appalling condition in the past years and the veteran affairs legislation initiated by President Obama enacted the medical provision for armed forces personnel.

Youth population has been worst hit in the health care crisis. Teenage pregnancies on the rise along with an epidemic level obesity due to unhealthy food choices surging in the market combined with limited sports activities from the lack of educational funding.

Senior citizens aren’t any better in the health care gamut. The geriatric population is marginalized with skyrocketing drug costs, forcing them to other avenues like Canada to purchase relatively cheaper medications and others travelling to South Asia for surgeries and treatments requiring hospitalization.

In a nutshell, the health care in the United States is in shambles. Policy embracing the health coverage for all Americans in an efficient system that delivers cost effective, valuable care without compromising patient’s health and life in exchange for profits is in order.

Further, the overhauling of the system is imperative with technology-oriented operation in the multifaceted management. Cost saving strategy should focus on the appropriate use of human expertise with complete utilization of qualified health care professionals in the hierarchy such as nurses, nurse practitioners, dieticians/nutritionists, counselors, therapists, technicians and everyone engaged in the wellness program.

Both private individuals and the employers would benefit from the platter with free market competing against the government plans. This would not only promote checks and balances in the highly disorganized and profit motivated sector but also remain competitive in keeping the costs down for the providers and the consumers.

Research and development instrumental for advanced care and United States has been in the forefront in that aspect. Funding stem cell research, regenerative medicine and the promising personalized medicine -‘Genomics’ is the direction for United States to lead the rest of the world.

According to the biotech industry –

“Genomics – Personalized medicine is a movement to use advancing knowledge of an individual’s molecular makeup to provide better preventive care, as well as better diagnosis and treatment.”

Genomics, apart from being revolutionary in the preventive care field, appears far more cost effective as well.

Keeping NIH well funded is representative of commitment towards general well being of the society. Also equally important is the easing of immigration laws for scholars, scientists and students to visit U.S. universities and research centers for scientific exchange programs.

United States isolated as an industrialized nation in the failure to meet the highest challenge with health care. The partisan politics and special interests holding almost every crisis hostage for profits and political agenda is detrimental for their own and the country’s future.

Approval of President Barack Obama’s comprehensive health care including the above recommendations would help the United States earn due recognition on the topic avoided for fear of political backlash.

It’s no longer possible to procrastinate having lost precious time, as too many lives are at stake. The lawmakers taken to the daunting task of doing it right with the issue literally matter to life and death.

The critics, attack the proposal with nick names ‘Robin Hood’ principle of socialized medicine. Nonetheless, the lack of action in health care compares with the paradoxical “DR. Jack Kevorkian” in the society-assisted euthanasia.

Finally, Health Care is a necessity not a choice.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

.

.

California Special Election Results

May 21, 2009

Predictably, the voters declared their verdict. Some are good while others aren’t in the following manner–

Source: Data from San Jose, Mercury News, May 20, 2009 – Thanks

Prop 1 A – Spending cap and temporary tax hikes for two years with a “rainy day” fund – Failed
Yes, (35.5%) 1.1 million votes defeated by NO (64.5%) 2 million votes.

Prop 1 B – Education funding plan – Failed! (Shocking!).
Yes, (39%) 1.2 million votes thrashed by NO (61%) 1.9 million votes.

Prop 1 C – Borrowing against future lottery proceeds – Failed
Yes, (37%) 1.1 million votes rejected by NO (63%) 1.9 million votes.

Prop 1 D – Redirecting funds from children’s services – NO (Desirable result), therefore good outcome. – Yes (36%) 1.1. million and NO (64%) 2 million votes.

Prop 1 E – Diversion of funds from mental health services – NO (Yet another positive result).
Represented by Yes (35%) 1 million and NO (65%) 2 million votes.

Prop 1 F – No raises for elected officials – Passed (Thoughtful decision).
Yes (a whopping 75%) 2.3 million votes and NO (25%) 765,357 votes.

————————————————————————————————-
Perspective:

Prop 1 D, E, F results are welcome and justified.

Prop 1 A and C – Obviously, voters are either confused or caught in the tug o’war between spending cuts and tax hikes opponents respectively. Similarly, 1 C failure attributed to voters’ unwillingness to acknowledge the severity of the crisis.

Prop 1 B – Failure underscores the urgency to fund education, enabling future voters and lawmakers to exercise reasoning faculties within on life choices.

The negative outcome beckons to review the demography objecting the educational funding. In a vigorously competitive global economy, the electorate and the legislators alike discarding educational funding indicative of crisis in the educational system.

It’s a matter of concern when legislators and the electorate prioritize politics over prudence in education and health care.

Recent reports have consistently confirmed the United States’ poor achievements in the International Standardized testing against stellar performance by students from Singapore, Finland, South Korea, China, Japan and India.

Is it the United States’ students fault for lagging behind in the international academic contest?

No, unfortunately the fault lies in the inadequate funding towards K-12 education, community colleges and state universities routinely targeted for political reasons. The public school system is a victim of partisanship prevalent in the state legislature and widespread in the national budget prompting endless debates to defend the programs essential for survival and success in the global economy.

United States as the leader of the free world, economic power and pioneer in many fields is contemplating on investment in education and health care, the two most important aspects of human life. It’s no rocket science to figure out that healthy and educated population are a valuable asset to the economy and national productivity.

Ironically, United States’ sharp criticism against the so-called third world poor literacy rates will be an inevitable reality at home, if the policy makers in the state and federal legislations continue to divert and slash funds from education, the fundamental requirement for productive workforce.

The proof of the pudding visually demonstrated in the famous “Jay Walkers” segment of “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.” In one particular episode, a high school student is unaware of the current “President of the United States,” President George W. Bush at that time and, there were many clueless of the current affairs and events in their homeland during that show. Again, students benefit from quality education by teaching professionals with credentials and that’s only possible with sufficient funding to the school systems.

Contrarily, in another instance, an African student from the Ivory Coast, familiar with the economic struggles was well informed in general knowledge and world events.

Another important reason for education to be a top priority is the bridging of the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots.  Whenever legislators eye on education and health care spending cuts, the worst affected population are the lower income and the poorest of all. School districts with poor academic results often eliminated from funding and they are historically located in poor neighborhoods.

Lack of funding leads to bigger class rooms with skeletal teaching staff juggling between teaching and administrative work.  In some schools, teaching staff expected to play multiple roles as a counselor, disciplinarian, librarian and an administrator.

Even the innovative, entertaining Hollywood is restricted in assigning simultaneous roles for the lead cast in the movies.  Perhaps, these school districts deserve an “Oscar” equivalent for making the most with their host, the teaching staff.

What is severely lacking in the educational system consequently reflected in the decisions made in Sacramento… Washington D.C.?

Critical thinking and creativity are conspicuously missing in the policies and major legislations.
Any recent display of creativity has been paradoxical …for example.

In the past eight years, creativity thrived in the contemporary unprecedented housing, stock market and financial debacles and in national security – the ever controversial Guantanamo Bay, torture, wiretapping, renditions, global insecurity all of the excitement contained in a volcano and pleasantly gifted to the succeeding administration of the President Barack Obama.

Voters on their part have also been creative in more than one respect and that’s exclusive for California with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger representing the golden state in Sacramento and not so long ago President George W. Bush in Washington D.C.

Such representations confirm the thought process in the electorates’ mind while casting ballots in the major elections and legislative matter.

Similarly, the damages are visible in the Propositions 8 (Same Sex Marriage) and 1 B (Educational funding cut) when ideology prevails over logic.

In addition, political and corporate systems benefit from pragmatism against failed applications taught in the basic education, starting as early as pre-school during the cognitive skills development. Curriculum should emphasize and encourage young minds to be visionaries and forward thinkers and help them evolve into swift problem solvers.

How does the educational funding cut affect the poor neighborhood school districts?

Anytime funding is differed and diverted from educational programs, the poor neighborhood schools face shutting down and the venue becomes the fertile ground for gang violence and crime.

When this happens, a sizable youth population fall prey to drugs and violence burdening the jail and prison system. The culmination of such events directly impact the state budget with a substantial diversion from education and health funding and allocation towards criminal justice.

Evidently, the state could avoid the cyclical pattern and invest in education and health care as a rescue scheme to protect future tax payers in the community and national interest.

Poverty and disparity exist as long as failed policies and ideologies persists.

Further, Prop 1A, B and C failure echo the sentiments of partisan politics and special interests, viewed as the nemesis to democratic electoral process and legislative matter.

Funding education and health care is the best strategy for common progress in the state and nation.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Environmental Policy

April 19, 2009

The recent developments to combat climate change in the State of California and nationwide is commendable. The Supreme Court granting authority to EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions under the Clean Air Act eliminates obstacles on the path to a clean environment. It is significant since according to the reports the projected levels of greenhouse gases “endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations.”

With the time lapse of inaction on this important matter threatening the mere existence of life on the planet, the new administration under President Obama is seeking the right course of action by having the choice to either legislate or regulate carbon dioxide and other harmful greenhouse gases resisted in the past on the notion of negative economic impact.

Further, EPA consideration to reduce emissions including rigorous tailpipe emissions standard also previously blocked in the past eight years is a step in the right direction. This particular issue like others has been subject to criticism and opposition from sectors focused on personal short term gains over long-term future of humanity. Again, the Obama administration’s gesture to proceed toward a national standard on vehicle emissions that will be as strong as California’s is right on target.

It would be appropriate to embrace California’s standard as the national requirement, rather than maintaining individual regional measure and finalize the pending EPA decision over the controversial tailpipe carbon emissions by the automobile industry. The national standard would be beneficial to the struggling auto industry in marketing their fleet in other parts of the country without the burden of meeting the regional expectations.

In a democracy, active participation in public discourse and dissent whenever justified is honorable. However, protest against progress and life sustenance is detrimental to the source contributing to such disruptions. The opposing legislators’ argument on any environmental regulation is weak for it dismissed global warming as a ‘myth’ up until now. Their defense of businesses potentially affected by stringent measures is hypothetical. It fails to recognize that the planet in peril is a hard-core fact with abundance evidence in rising temperatures and several disasters no longer natural because of the none other than greenhouse gases causing ozone depletion in the earth’s atmosphere.

According to the recent article on this topic – Industry representatives voiced a variety of concerns over the prospect of mandatory emissions controls. The National Association of Manufacturers warned that the Clean Air Act was designed to focus on local and regional pollution, and that greenhouse gases “are global in nature and require a new framework.”

The industry demand to distinguish the Clean Air Act to curtail domestic pollution from greenhouse gases produced globally is worth clarification. In the latest G-20 summit, it is not clear if the United States sought any guarantee from the participants with respect to individual and consolidated global effort in greenhouse gases reduction. Even though the G-20 gathering predominantly focused on global economic rescue plan, the equally challenging environmental issue deserves universal commitment in achieving the desired goals.

It is imperative for the inhabitants of planet earth to pay serious attention to the environmental degradation arising from industrial pollution, population explosion, poor waste management and revolutionary demographic shifts among the population of the emerging economic powers in the world.

In the United States, the bipartisan consensus is paramount if legislation required to promote healthy and safe environment for the well-being of the present and future generations of the nation. To reiterate any partisanship during legislation combined with industry objection in compliance of regulation would lead to dire consequences and irreversible state of earth’s natural resources due to ecological imbalance.

Mankind best interest lies in the protection and preservation of the habitat, the planet earth.

Save the planet and secure the future for all.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Bailout Débācle

March 22, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

The past two weeks dominated with AIG and oligarchs debating over the controversial $165 million and now increased to $218 million bonuses to executives instrumental in driving the insurance giant to the brink of collapse along with the financial markets of the world.

As usual, Washington vs. Wall Street dispute contributed to media frenzy and aptly reflected in the roller coaster performance of the stock market. The interesting factor in the blame game is those pointing fingers at others fail to acknowledge that remaining fingers are pointing towards them as they are equal partners in this charade.

By now, well-educated American taxpayers upon the quest to secure their future convinced that both Wall Street and Washington have serious credibility issues in wealth management and nation governance.

The back and forth allegations in the political crossfire reveals the true sense of Washington politics and Wall Street free market systemic corporate management failure. Again, the beneficiaries in this deal are the legislators responsible for the bailout approval and the corporations rewarded with taxpayer’s funds for unprecedented incompetence in modern economic times.

They are the beneficiaries because the legislators secured their emoluments by rushing the operating budget $410 billion omnibus bill ladened with pork projects to the tune of $8 billion to curb ‘government shut down’ rather than passing the required operating budget and isolating the earmarks spending for individual scrutiny through separate legislation.

The Corporate executives in due diligence spared no opportunities to collect remuneration, bonuses retrospectively and in the foreseeable future to maintain their status among the top 10% wealthiest hierarchy.

Let’s not forget in the Darwinian "Survival of the fittest contest" the weak, fragile and frail average taxpayer doesn’t stand a chance against the ferocious Corporate executives (compared to sharks) and Capitol Hill crusaders.

Events unfolding in the entire scenario deserves attention from every citizen involuntarily pledged to carry the burden of national debt currently projected at $9.3 trillion i.e. $1 trillion budget deficits every year for a decade, 2010-2019.

It is worth examining the role of legislators, corporations and lobbyists in securing taxpayer bailouts more prevalent in the past year 2008 and continuation of it in 2009. Prior to the diagnostic procedure, it is essential to shed light on the alliances forged by the key cabinet members and Wall Street merchants.

According to http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/paul-s23.shtml – Thank you.

Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)

Who is Henry Paulson?

By Tom Eley, 23 September 2008

Henry Paulson rose through the ranks of Goldman Sachs, becoming a partner in 1982, co-head of investment banking in 1990, chief operating officer in 1994. In 1998, he forced out his co-chairman Jon Corzine “in what amounted to a coup,” according to New York Times economics correspondent Floyd Norris, and took over the post of CEO.

Goldman Sachs is perhaps the single best-connected Wall Street firm. Its executives routinely go in and out of top government posts. Corzine went on to become US senator from New Jersey and is now the state’s governor. Corzine’s predecessor, Stephen Friedman, served in the Bush administration as assistant to the president for economic policy and as chairman of the National Economic Council (NEC). Friedman’s predecessor as Goldman Sachs CEO, Robert Rubin, served as chairman of the NEC and later treasury secretary under Bill Clinton.

Agence France Press, in a 2006 article on Paulson’s appointment, “Has Goldman Sachs Taken Over the Bush Administration?” noted that, in addition to Paulson, “[t]he president’s chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Jeffery Reuben, are Goldman alumni.”

Prior to being selected as treasury secretary, Paulson was a major individual campaign contributor to Republican candidates, giving over $336,000 of his own money between 1998 and 2006.

Since taking office, Paulson has overseen the destruction of three of Goldman Sachs’ rivals. In March,

Paulson helped arrange the fire sale of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan Chase. Then, a little more than a week ago, he allowed Lehman Brothers to collapse, while simultaneously organizing the absorption of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America. This left only Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley as major investment banks, both of which were converted on Sunday into bank holding companies, a move that effectively ended the existence of the investment bank as a distinct economic form.

In the months leading up to his proposed $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, Paulson had already used his office to dole out hundreds of billions of dollars. After his July 2008 proposal for $70 billion to resolve the insolvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed, Paulson organized the government takeover of the two mortgage-lending giants for an immediate $200 billion price tag, while making the government potentially liable for hundreds of billions more in bad debt. He then organized a federal purchase of an 80 percent stake in the giant insurer American International Group (AIG) at a cost of $85 billion.

These bailouts have been designed to prevent a chain reaction collapse of the world economy, but more importantly, they aimed to insulate and even reward the wealthy shareholders, like Paulson, primarily responsible for the financial collapse.

Paulson bears a considerable amount of personal responsibility for the crisis.

Paulson, according to a celebratory 2006 Business Week article entitled “Mr. Risk Goes to Washington,” was “one of the key architects of a more daring Wall Street, where securities firms are taking greater and greater chances in their pursuit of profits.” Under Paulson’s watch, that meant “taking on more debt: $100 billion in long-term debt in 2005, compared with about $20 billion in 1999. It means placing big bets on all sorts of exotic derivatives and other securities.”

According to the International Herald Tribune, Paulson “was one of the first Wall Street leaders to recognize how drastically investment banks could enhance their profitability by betting with their own capital instead of acting as mere intermediaries.” Paulson “stubbornly assert[ed] Goldman’s right to invest in, advise on and finance deals, regardless of potential conflicts.”

Paulson then handsomely benefited from the speculative boom. This wealth was based on financial manipulation and did nothing to create real value in the economy. On the contrary, the extraordinary enrichment of individuals like Paulson was the corollary to the dismantling of the real economy, the bankrupting of the government, and the impoverishment of masses the world over.

Paulson was compensated to the tune of $30 million in 2004 and took home $37 million in 2005. In his career at Goldman Sachs he built up a personal net worth of over $700 million, according to estimates.
—————————————————————————————————————–
Washington and Wall Street Analysis:

By Padmini Arhant

The beginning of the chain link usually found on the campaign trail, when corporations fund election campaigns through donation loopholes despite contribution limits by electoral commission and reign in on the successful candidate for the entire term.

After all, in the contemporary world focused on “What’s in it for me” deals, there is no free lunch with the exception of debt-consumed public yearning for believable change and better future offer available resources in terms of time, energy and money during the electoral process and beyond.

Who gets preference by the elected officials in the so-called democracy?

Indeed the Corporations due to the inter-dependency of sweetheart deals and brokering that take place throughout the election campaign. The deafening noise in the Capitol Hill about identifying the guilty party and pursuing disastrous course of action such as 90% tax on AIG bonuses after having approved without any stipulations predictably backfired at the victims none other than the average American taxpayers, presumably the majority shareholder at 80% of the multinational conglomerate.

In a bizarre development, more appropriately deterioration of the bailout fiasco, the headlines, news across the nation reverberate…
—————————————————————————————————–
AIG sues its biggest shareholder – us

By David S. Hilzenrath, Washington Post – March 21, 2009. Thank you.

As AIG takes billions of dollars from the federal government to stay afloat, it is suing the government for millions more.

The big insurer is trying to recover $306.1 million of taxes, interest and penalties from the Internal Revenue Service. Among other things, AIG is contesting an IRS determination last year that the company improperly claimed $61.9 million of tax credits associated with complex international transactions.

AIG has also asked a court to make the government reimburse it for money spent suing the government.

Given that the government owns 79.9 percent of AIG and has been using taxpayer money to fill a seemingly bottomless hole at the company, the lawsuit might seem like a case of biting the hand that feeds it. But an

AIG spokesman said the company has an obligation to press its case.

AIG believes it overpaid the IRS, and it “has a duty to its shareholders, including the government and other shareholders, to insure that it pays the proper amount of taxes,” spokesman Mark Herr said by e-mail.
Washington tax lawyer Martin Lobel agreed with that assessment.

‘If in fact they honestly believe that they’re entitled to a refund of those taxes, it would be a breach of their fiduciary duty not to” sue, Lobel said.

“On the other hand, the sense of entitlement from AIG is awesome,” Lobel said.

Because the dispute pits the government against a company that has essentially become a ward of the government, the only clear winners are likely to be lawyers, legal experts said. The legal expenses could consume millions of dollars, they said.

Lawyers at the firm Sutherland Asbill & Brenan, which is representing AIG, did not respond to an interview request.

For partners of similar stature to those representing AIG, fees can run $700 to $900 an hour, said Dan Binstock, managing director of BCG Attorney Search, a legal recruiter.

AIG’s dispute with the IRS focuses on taxes for 1997 and dates at least as far back as March 2008.”
———————————————————————————————————————

L.A. congresswoman defends actions

Husband Linked to Bank that got AID

By Richard Simon – Los Angeles Times – March 14, 2009 – Thank you.

Excerpts from the article:

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles, on Friday defended her efforts to help minority-owned banks – including one with ties to her husband – scoffing at the notion that she, a liberal Democrat, could influence George W. Bush’s presidential administration in deciding what financial institutions would receive bailout funds.

Waters, a senior member of the congressional committee that, oversees banking, has come under scrutiny because OneUnited Bank, on which her husband Sidney Williams had been a board member and stockholder, received $12 million in bailout funds. The money was provided in December, three months after Waters helped arrange a meeting between officials from the bank and other minority-owned institutions and Treasury representatives.

“I followed up on the association’s request by asking Treasury Secretary (Henry) Paulson to schedule such a meeting, as did other members of Congress,” she said.

She said she did not attend the meeting. She released letters by the National Bankers Association requesting the meeting and following up on it – signed by the group’s incoming Chairman Robert Patrick Cooper an officer with OneUnited.

Waters said the decision to provide bailout funds to OneUnited was “based on the merits of the bank’s request, not based on anything said at the September meeting and not based on political influence.”

She said that she has fully disclosed her husband’s ties to the bank. Williams served on the bank board until early last year and held at least $500,000 in investments in the bank in 2007, the most recent year for which public financial disclosure statements are available.

Waters could not be reached for an interview Friday. OneUnited Chief Executive Kevin Cohee said Friday he didn’t have time to speak with a reporter.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said she found Waters’ behavior “inappropriate and certainly has the appearance of impropriety, even if it doesn’t rise to the level of an actual conflict-of-interest under House rules.”

Sloan said Waters’ comments that the meeting focused on the general problems of minority-owned banks “don’t seem credible” in light of statements from Treasury officials that the session became a discussion of one bank’s troubles. “At a minimum, Treasury officials should have been apprised of her interest in the bank before the meeting took place.”

Waters’ efforts, she said, raise a question: “How many members of Congress are having meetings with the Treasury Department pleading for funds for certain banks?”

“Treasury has said they’re going to list the lobbying contacts,” Sloan said.”
———————————————————————————————————————
Voice of the Electorate:

San Jose Mercury News – Readers’ Letters – March 18, 2009

Obama’s earmarks stance disappoints

I am disappointed that President Barack Obama backed off his campaign pledge to eliminate earmarks. The process subverts democratic government by avoiding votes on specific issues. It encourages our representatives to compete to spend more—if they fail to “bring home the bacon,” they may be seen as ineffective and not be re-elected. The further we move from specific votes for specific programs, the less inclined people are to support the government and the more inclined to resist taxes.

We must promote responsible stewardship. While many of the projects are meritorious, that hardly means they should be funded. Tax dollars are a scarce resource and every expenditure should be carefully scrutinized. Obama was right on this issue during the campaign; he is sliding off track now.

Christopher K. Payne

Stanford
———————————————————————————————————————

Ethical Lapse

By Padmini Arhant

The sparring political factions, the far left and the far right along with the centrists is in a strange dilemma today as they witness their reflection in the image of the accused parties in the most expensive soap opera entertainment.

As more Washington and Wall Street scandals are exposed, the more disingenuous the legislators appear to be in their pledge to turn the nation around.

An average citizen struggling to make ends meet asked the following questions –

“Why should I vote for anyone in the next election when I see politics as usual prevailing over the promised inevitable change?

Can the elected officials with public housing, guaranteed regular and several other sources of income, supreme health care, and free transportation relate to the suffering population dealing with job loss, foreclosure and other miseries?”

Unfortunately, the Washington atmosphere is secluded as elitist not making connection with the plight of the populist. The deepening of the recession combined with the multi-trillion dollar national debt forecast is a matter of great concern for the vast majority of population in precarious economic conditions due to job insecurity and declining prospects all around.

The American electorate enthusiastically elected the new administration with the hope to experience the “change” they deserve and the recent events are adversarial to the optimism built during the campaign.

Campaign promises involved Accountability, Transparency and changing Washington by eliminating corruption, cronyism and conventionalism. The passing of the $787 billion stimulus bill and subsequently the $410 billion omnibus spending bill loaded with earmarks confirms the status quo in Washington.

The pet projects, however meritorious they might be, cannot be more important than supplementing K-12 educational funding by retaining qualified teaching professionals and providing after school sports activities for students from lower income families and scores of other important social services for the constituents in California and other states.

It is obvious throughout the legislative process from the authorization of illegal invasion of Iraq war to Wall Street bailouts that lawmakers as representatives of the electorate in a democracy no longer consider it important to peruse the budget and other legislative bills because of the voluminous content. Hence, hastily resort to wasteful spending at taxpayers’ expense.

With the national debt projection in multi-trillion dollars, the wasteful spending in billions doesn’t seem to matter to the sponsors of the pet projects. Apparently, $8 billion added to the national debt for projects experimenting swine odor, road to nowhere, monuments ‘supposedly creating jobs’ when the industries are crumbling apart clearly signifies misplaced priorities by the legislators expected to be in touch with reality of their respective constituency.

The people are hurting and their mere existence is challenged by the hour while Washington and Wall Street continue to engage the nation in burgeoning financial crisis through legal and constitutional confrontations of the bailout débācle.

Perhaps it is time for the victims and the lame duck, the average taxpayers to rise to the occasion and execute power in the mid-term election to restore democratic values, ethical and moral standards desperately lacking in the corporate and political system.

It is best to eradicate the narcissistic culture that permeates the surroundings like weeds destroying the grassland and fertile grounds.

Evidently change is necessary and necessity is the mother of invention.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Earmarks, Pork-barrel Spending

March 8, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

The budget vote delayed due to enormous ‘pork’ in the $410 billion spending bill. The defenders of various pork projects may have their own justification.

Nevertheless, Washington must relinquish wasteful spending through several pet projects carried out on behalf of lobbyists by lawmakers concerned about their own job security in the future elections.

As stated earlier in the article “Omnibus Spending” on the website www.padminiarhant.com , the nation is grappling with dire economic situation due to significant job losses and housing crisis at this time and families are desperately seeking relief from both free market system and the government.

Unfortunately, the free market system dependent on taxpayers’ bailout is barely capable of remaining solvent despite unprecedented capital infusion in modern financial history. The root cause of all these problems attributed to lack of ethics, accountability, transparency and importantly executive management failure.

The critics of taxpayers’ bailout argue in favor of non-interference in the market economy on the assumption the system would correct itself in due course. They fail to recognize the fact that the economic meltdown commenced in the early 2000, though the impact was not acknowledged up until late 2007.

During that limited or non-regulatory period, the capitalist system had ample opportunities to review and reassess their performance and prepare them for the worst scenario.

However, it did not happen, even though Wall Street witnessed and experienced the collapse of Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Global Crossing all in the year 2002 resulting from failed Corporate management, unethical accounting practices and blatant greed.

Somehow, the free market advocates seem to have forgotten these events because of their inability then to envision the domino effect on the entire economy in the immediate future. Another reason for the denial of economic crisis previously was the skyrocketing of the technology stocks combined with oil and defense stocks at the phenomenal cost of American taxpayers’ dollars and human lives in Iraq war.

The financial sector created its own superficial boom during that time with the concoction of subprime mortgages and diverse toxic assets bundled together and sold by the hedge fund managers in the overseas markets. This entire taking place while the past administration was preoccupied in the implementation of unjust Iraq war.

It is unequivocally a miserable failure on the part of the predecessors in Federal Reserve, Treasury department as well as the Securities Commission primarily responsible for monitoring and evaluating the daily market events and executing necessary precautionary measures to prevent the economy from overheating.

Surprisingly, with the history of ‘Great Depression’, Oil crisis, economic recessions, one would assume that the authorities would remain alert and watch over the economy with prudent advice against extravagant spending in unnecessary wars or at least demanded the administration engaging in wasteful spending provide legitimate cost and benefit investment analysis.

The gridlock in Washington or State legislature is contributed by political ideologies resisting flexibility to resolve any crisis. The fiscal conservatives steadfast against tax increases, the predominant revenue source for any government, consistently target essential programs designed to promote consumer spending vital for economic recovery.

Similarly, the spendthrift legislators on both aisles with a penchant for pet projects or pork spending refuse to yield to frugality and prioritize their commitments to lobbyists and local governments assuring their re-election over national interest.

The electorate voted for Change in 2008 and change has hope only with representatives in Congress and Senate quitting habits that create rather than solving crisis.

It is evident that the $410 billion spending bill is injected with significant pork projects and it would be appropriate for the sponsors to present cost / benefit ratio in monetary terms to justify inclusion in the bill.

Again, these projects must be evaluated to benefit the taxpayers and the nation as a whole rather than the individuals regardless of them being legislators or the lobbyists.

The lawmakers have lately advised ordinary citizens to downsize their lifestyle according to their means, the same should apply to them as any sermons, preaching, and advice is meaningful when individuals demonstrate through action.

After all, shouldn’t one practice what they preach others?

No matter how one circumvents the legitimacy of earmarks particularly at these tough economic times, it is inappropriate now and in the future to squander taxpayers’ dollars for far-fetched projects with beneficiaries being the authorizing entity and/or special interests rather than the entire nation.

Please refer to the following articles from other sources for data confirmation on earmarks / pork barrel spending.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant
——————————————————————————————————————-

Senate Republicans force delay on budget vote:

GOP Members want to offer Amendments on $410 billion plan criticized for Pork – By Andrew Taylor,

Associated Press – Thank you.

Washington – Senate Republicans, demanding the right to try to change a huge spending bill, forced Democrats on Thursday night to put off a final vote on the measure until next week.

The surprise development will force Congress to pass a stopgap-funding bill to avoid a partial shutdown of the government.

Republicans have blasted the $410 billion measure as too costly. But the reason for GOP unity in advance of a key procedural vote was that Democrats had not allowed them enough opportunities to offer amendments.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., canceled the vote, saying he was one vote short of the 60 needed to close debate and free the bill for President Barack Obama’s signature.

The 1,132-page spending bill is stuffed with pet projects sought by lawmakers in both parties.

Democrats and their allies control 58 seats, though at least a handful of Democrats oppose the measure over its cost or changes in U.S. policy toward Cuba. That meant Democrats needed five or six Republican votes to advance the bill.

None of the GOP’s amendments is expected to pass, but votes on perhaps a dozen are now slated for Monday night, Reid said.

The huge, 1-132-page spending bill awards big increases to domestic programs and is stuffed with pet projects sought by lawmakers in both parties. The measure has an extraordinary reach, wrapping together nine spending bills to fund the annual operating budgets of every Cabinet department except for Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs.

Once considered a relatively bipartisan measure, the measure has come under attack from Republicans – and a handful of Democrats – who say it is bloated and filled with wasteful, pork-barrel projects.

The measure was written mostly over the course of last year, before projected deficits quadrupled and Obama’s economic recovery bill left many of the same spending accounts swimming in cash.

To the embarrassment of Obama – who promised during last year’s campaign to force Congress to curb its pork-barrel ways – the bill contains 7,991 pet projects totaling $5.5 billion, according to calculations by the GOP staff of the House Appropriations Committee.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Obama’s opponent in last fall’s presidential campaign, called the measure “a swollen, wasteful, egregious example of out-of-control spending.”

The earmarks run the gamut. There’s $190,000 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyo., $238,000 to fund a deep-sea voyaging program for native Hawaiian youth, agricultural research projects, and grants to local police departments, among many others.”

—————————————————————————————————

Further Excerpt of the article –

Sen. John McCain blasts $237,500 for Japantown museum – By Frank Davies, Mercury News Washington Bureau – Thank you.

Reps, Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, and Mike Honda, D-Campbell, secured that money to help the museum.
Honda, who is Japanese American, – “Jap. Museum boost tourism (thus jobs) in SJ Japantown, last of 3 authentic US Japantowns, Zoe & I proudly supported its funding.”
—————————————————————————————————-

Keeping Democracy Alive

March 8, 2009

The new administration is still in the process of filling positions and since the beginning, there has been problems with some major cabinet appointments as the nominees had withdrawn from considerations to avoid political challenges during the hearing process.

Lately, it appears to be the nominee CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

It is evidenced in the following article;

Gupta won’t be next surgeon general

Neurosurgeon and TV Correspondent withdraws from Consideration

By Richard Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press – Thank you.

CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta won’t be the next surgeon general, the Obama administration confirmed Thursday.

Gupta 39, a neurosurgeon with star appeal, was seen as President Barack Obama’s first pick for the job. He would have brought instant recognition to the office of surgeon general, a post that has lacked visibility since the days of C. Everett Koop during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

An administration official said that Gupta had been under “serious consideration” but took himself out of the running because he wants to focus on his medical career and spend more time with his family.

“We know he will continue to serve and educate the public through his work with media and in the medical arena,” said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of nominations.

The official said there were no problems that would have disqualified Gupta, and it was his decision to withdraw.

The surgeon general is the nation’s doctor, and while the job doesn’t involve much policymaking responsibility, it’s a bully pulpit for promoting public health. Gupta could have helped Obama pitch his health care reform plan.

Initial reports in early January that Obama had approached Gupta about the job created a stir. The new president had not yet taken office. The chairman of the American Medical Association’s board said at the time it would be a boon to the government if Gupta accepted.

But Gupta would have had to give up a lucrative career. He hosts “House Call” on CNN, contributes reports to CBS News and writes a column for Time magazine. He also practices surgery at Atlanta’s Grady Memorial Hospital, which sees more than its share of trauma cases.

Political opposition had started to form.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., called Gupta inexperienced and circulated a letter urging Obama not to appoint him. Conyers is a leading supporter of health care reform that would create a government system similar to Canada’s and is particularly influential among liberals.

Gupta does have some Washington experience. During the Clinton administration, he served as a White House fellow and a special adviser to then-first lady Hillary Clinton.”

———————————————————————————————————————

Washington Hypocrisy:

Strangely enough, with recent appointees for high profile cabinet positions involving decision-making on International crisis affecting billions of lives around the globe “experience” didn’t seem to matter to the members of the hearing committee.

Some were sworn in with a mere formality hearing and they were aptly called by the media a shoe-in appointment.

Also, there was swift approval of nominees considered “controversial” with tax issues, conflict of interest notwithstanding the nation’s critical cabinet post supposedly being “unconstitutional.”

However, an administrative post with none or minimal policymaking responsibility as cited in the above article, aroused skepticism in the minds of certain members prompting them to an all out campaign against the adequately qualified and nationally as well as internationally prominent candidate with White House experience, reveals the true colors of Washington Politics.

Last fall, history was made for a reason. People of the human race overwhelmingly came together  to convey a loud and clear message…

It is no longer the “red states” or the “blue states”, but it is the United States of America.

Apparently, like everything else it is being regarded a catchy campaign slogan rather than embracing and most importantly practicing to keep democracy alive.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Omnibus Spending

March 5, 2009

March 5, 2009

It has been the topic of the day and rightfully so. The American taxpayers’ wallet is drained for various bailouts from financial institutions to auto industry and others waiting in line for their respective turn.

Is it the present administration’s fault that the nation is dependent on borrowings and charity?

The response varies as it depends on the network and the guests appearing on the programs to discuss economy, finance and stock market.

Those nostalgic about the previous administration claim that it is entirely the current administration’s fault.

For some reason their calculation of the incumbent administration in office since swearing in i.e. January 20, 2009 up until now works out to three months, unless they have a custom made calendar that converts every year into leap year with some months extending beyond thirty one days and somehow only the Democratic administrations are privileged to such magical occurrence.

To shed light on the relevant topic of spending bill $410 billion approved by the Senate and awaiting the President’s signature, there appears to be some legitimate concerns regarding the infamous “earmarks” or “pork barrel” issue that always finds its way into every legislative bill.

According to news media, 40% of GOP members and 60% of Democrats are responsible for the estimated 8,570 earmarks worth $7.7billion . The following article supports it.

March 4, 2009

Senate votes to keep earmarks in bill – By David Espo, Associated Press – Thank you.

“The Senate voted overwhelmingly to preserve thousands of earmarks in a $410 billion spending bill Tuesday, brushing aside Senator John McCain’s claim that President Barack Obama and Congress are merely conducting business as usual in a time of economic hardship.

McCain’s attempt to strip out an estimated 8,500 earmarks failed on a vote of 63-32.

The Arizona’s senator’s proposal also would have cut roughly $32 billion from the measure and kept spending a last year’s levels in several federal agencies.

Last year’s Republican presidential candidate said both he and Obama pledged during the campaign to “stop business as usual in Washington,” and he quoted the president as having said he would go line by line to make sure money was spent wisely.

The White House has said Obama intends to sign the legislation, casting it as leftover business from 2008. Spokesman Robert Gibbs pledged Monday that the White House will issue new guidelines covering earmarks for future bills.

McCain’s proposal drew the support of 30 Republicans and two Democrats, and the outcome reflected the enduring value of earmarks to lawmakers. While polls routinely show these pet projects to be unpopular, local governments and constituents often covet them.

The maneuvering came on legislation to assure continued funding for several federal agencies past March 6. At $410 billion, the bill represents an 8 percent increase over last year’s spending levels, more than double the rate of inflation.

Republicans made two other attempts during the day to reduce spending in the bill, but failed both times.

Sen. Dan Inouye, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said McCain’s call to hold spending level with a year ago “doesn’t account for inflation.”

As an example, he said some programs would have to be cut if federal workers were to receive a pay raise.

The House passed the legislation last week, and Democratic leaders are working to clear it without changes so the president can sign it by Friday.

While Republican opposition in the House focused more on the bill’s overall spending, McCain and allies turned the Senate spotlight squarely on earmarks.

“How does anyone justify some of these earmarks:

$1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa;

$2 million ‘for the promotion of astronomy’ in Hawaii;

$6.6 million for termite research in New Orleans;

$2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York,” he said.

He also noted the legislation includes 14 earmarks requested by lawmakers for projects sought by PMA Group, a lobbying company at the center of a federal corruption investigation. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla, said he would seek to have them removed.

Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates the legislation contains 8,570 disclosed earmarks worth $7.7 billion. House Democrats declined to provide an estimate of the number of pet projects in the bill, and put their cost at $3.8 billion.”

———————————————————————————–—————————————–

Analysis:

It is evident from the article and news media discussions that this particular bill primarily aimed at stimulating the economy has some of its priorities mixed up. As stated earlier in my article “Economic Recovery Plan” earmarks or estimates for pet projects is a contentious issue with notable reasons for objection by some lawmakers.

This is no longer a partisan issue as both parties have participants in varying percentages responsible for wasteful spending. On the one hand, we have economic turmoil with American families receiving pink slips instead of paychecks and children literally dependent on charity for survival.

There are worse situations like in the golden state of California, northern Californian school district is forcing K-12 students in public schools to stay home on Friday, making it a four-day week due to again “messed up priorities” by the State legislators. The victims in the merciless fund slashing are none other than the educators and students.

Qualified teachers’ job contracts are terminated because of severe cuts in essential programs like education. The head of this state living up to the reputation of the title “Terminator” leaving students seeking help from parents, peer group, neighbors, and strangers/aliens on the cyber space or even outer space.

Do the pet projects’ sponsors have any idea how desperate the situation is for those struggling to make ends meet particularly with a fear mongering of the “socialism” concept by the capitalist panderers denying the failure of capitalism in the absence of regulatory process?

What does this mean to parents dealing with job insecurity and lack of support to take care of the children on the day, they should be in school?

Hoping the children will be protected by guardian angels while they are at work and risking visits from a social worker on accounts of child neglect and possible abuse.

Those who lack the support of extended family relying on hired help in this perilous economy have to choose between the safety of their children and the tight family budget, since borrowing is out of question with indefinite freezing of the credit market to families and small businesses.

One might assume the federal aid to states should address these problems. Even though the federal aid has been approved for this purpose, whatever benefits allocated for education and relief to families in the federal stimulus package is siphoned off by the state budget targeting the same programs.

The state legislators had to emerge victorious in the long fought battle to balance the budget using people at the bottom of the socio-economic scale as the sacrificial lambs.

Obviously, on the other hand both state and federal lawmakers favoring the pet projects vigorously debate in the House and the Senate floor to defend their own jobs as pet projects is an insurance for re-election in their constituency.

If surplus funds are the reasons for earmarks, why not allocate those funds to the deserving entity i.e. the taxpayers in the economy. It would make sense for taxpayers to use their own money to spend on their dependents’ education, health care and housing payments.

It is conclusive that earmarks like the ones highlighted in the articles should have never been inserted in the first place, and now regardless of whose business is being taken care of i.e. whether previous or present administration, the burden is squarely on the taxpayers with the passing of this bill loaded with unnecessary and meaningless pet projects.

American taxpayers were promised on the campaign trail about the elimination of earmarks by both parties and now is the time to honor that commitment without any reservation.

In the real world, students can enroll in the best educational institutions only upon excellent academic achievement, similarly secure dream jobs (during the glorious days) and stick with it purely on competence.

Unfortunately, the entities to whom the criteria should apply i.e. Washington and Wall Street are exempt from performance based hiring or firing despite their successful duo disastrous mismanagement of the world’s economic power, the U.S. economy.

Taxpayers as voters have the power to promote and implement the agenda in 2010 to realize the campaign slogan “Change is effective when it happens from the bottom up and not from the top bottom.”

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

« Previous PageNext Page »

PadminiArhant.com