Author: latanawi

You can view yesterday’s the two hour long Senate Subcommittee’s hearing on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship here on C-Span.  The focus of the hearing was worksite enforcement, considered the linchpin of successful immigration reform, with the aim of fixing some of the flaws in the new immigration bill when it reaches joint conference.  
     Concluded:  adequate enforcement would require a combination of new
   (1) technology, including a biometric-based system of identification;  
   (2) processes such as the sharing of agency databases, measures to ensure data accuracy, and substantially increased penalties for employers; and
   (3) personnel for the agencies;  currently, ICE has 90 full-time equivalent employees to enforce the laws for every employer in the country;  the bulk of the cost of replacing social security cards is in the interviewing and scrutiny of documents for eligibility.  
    Chairing the subcommittee was John Cronyn (R- TX).
The first panel included:

• Stewart Baker, Homeland Security Dept. Ass’t Sec. for Policy, nominated in July 2005 when he was a partner at Steptoe & Johnson in Washington, D.C.;
• Julie Myers, Assistant Homeland Security Secretary – over ICE (Immigration & Customers Enforcement), a recess appointment in February 2006, former prosecutor and special assistant to Pres. Bush for Presidential Personnel, no immigration experience but married to  Chertoff’s current chief of staff;
• Martin Gerry, Deputy Commissioner for Disability and Income Security Programs, Social Security Administration, who testified about the social security card process;

    The second panel included:

• Richard Stana, GAO – Homeland Security and Justice Director, who audits homeland security programs;
• Stewart Verdery, former Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for border and transportation security policy and planning, now an adjunct fellow at think tank Centre for Strategic and International Studies;
• Cecilia Munoz, National Council of La Raza, V. P. Office of Research, Advocacy and Legislation, recipient of 2000 fellowship from John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; and
• Linda Dodd-Major, immigration attorney and former Director of the INS Business Liaison Office, now an expert for Windstar Technologies

    Panel members discussed problems with IRCA, the immigration legislation of 1986 which contained an amnesty program and a promised solution of preventing illegal immigration via employer review of work authorization documents.  Noted:
    The fraudulent document industry is extremely profitable.  Employers are not detectives.
    The Social Security Administration, which processes W-2’s for the IRS, is prohibited by law from releasing its data for immigration enforcement.
    Employers generally have evaded detection of immigration law violations.  The INS (now Homeland Security) and SSA often fail to return verification calls within the prescribed 30-day period.  After September 11, Homeland Security focused its resources on sensitive industries, infrastructure, airports, and the like.  
    Worksite arrests for immigration violations in 2004 numbered 159, down from the 1999 arrests totalling 2849.  Raids have abated.
    After extensive litigation, employers negotiate fines down to a settlement considered the cost of doing business.
    Virtually nothing has been done about employers who are self-employed.  Small ‘taters.
    Employers take advantage of unauthorized workers, confident they won’t be reported for dirt-poor wages, unhealthy conditions, and harassment.  

   Give me a break.  The changes needed for worksite enforcement won’t happen.  Nobody wants to spend a billion dollars to revamp social security cards or fully fund Homeland Security and ICE.  Electronic verification will not deter the use of someone else’s social security number. Employers will continue to wear the government down in litigation and then negotiate the penalties.  

    The bureaucracy is overwhelmed.  Three years after the INS was transformed into the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security, the caseload has not improved. Papers aren’t processed until months after they’re submitted, and hearings take even longer to be scheduled.  It was over four years before the hearing on my daughter-in-law’s petition, so long that shortly after gaining residency without conditions she applied for citizenship.  

   I don’t know who these senators think they’re fooling.  They may be driven by polls indicating that half the public believes the best way to reduce illegal immigration from Mexico is by penalizing employers.  Nevertheless, no proof has appeared that unauthorized workers are beating out citizens to fill job vacancies in the first place — a lot of assumptions, but no proof.  And no proof has emerged that increased border patrols will affect the 45% of illegal immigrants who have overstayed their visas.

   Only the ignorant use immigrants as scapegoats, especially ignorant politicians eager to raise their ratings.

    The mammoth complex under construction for an impressive American presence in Iraq adds hundreds of millions of dollars to the military costs, reconstruction costs, and the incomparable cost in lives.  Will this American investment make it too difficult for politicians to call the troops home from an unstable Iraq?    

    In Vietnam, Americans left behind an old embassy.  In Baghdad, departure now would mean the abandonment of a virtual town in the 5.6. square mile International Zone, into which a treasure of American bucks has been invested. According to a Congressional Research Service report the administration expects this embassy to cost $1.5 Billion when staffing and maintenance are added. Appropriations have come from a variety of sources, none of them in the regular budget, and “many have had difficulty in discerning exactly what the Administration has already received.”

   A week after submitting his FY2006 budget request, the President sent Congress the 2005 emergency request, H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplement Appropriations Act for Defense, the War on Terrorism, and Tsunami Relief.  Ultimately, Congress approved

 $592 million for construction of a new embassy compound in Baghdad… The proposed embassy will… house 1,020 staff and 500 guards.

    The contract was awarded Halliburton’s construction arm, Kellogg, Brown and Root, with construction under its subcontractor, First Kuwaiti General Trading and Contracting. Details, including the identity of the firm’s officers, are in CorpWatch.

    The new embassy is being built entirely by imported labor,  a workforce of 900, mostly Asians, living on site.

Scheduled for completion in June 2007, the 104-acre embassy compound, roughly the size of the Vatican, will resemble a mini-state, entirely independent from the outside world. It will generate its own power, pump its own sewage and draw its own water.

Within the compound there will be six buildings containing 619 apartments for diplomats, a barrack for Marine guards, separate residences for the ambassador and his deputy, a gym, a swimming pool, a club, a food court, a beauty salon, a vehicle workshop and a warehouse.

    I can see pulling Coalition troops out of Iraq immediately for any number of reasons.  I’m not fussy.  But this huge embassy project has been under construction for several months already.  That’s a lot to abandon.  I can’t envision a decision to leave it as defenseless as the embassy in Iran besieged in 1979, when 70 Americans were held hostage 444 days after the Ayatolla replaced Shah.  

    Maybe Republican warmongers and whoever else were merely premature in promoting the investment in an enormous U.S. embassy compound.  Maybe they weren’t calculating, knowing that a Congress which had committed so very much to warfare and construction in Iraq was unlikely to bow to popular insistence we leave now and not next year.  It’s worked so far.  Maybe they weren’t really evil, and just got lucky.

    Rep. William Jefferson (D LA) was voted out of the House Ways & Means Committee today.  This committee has jurisdiction over foreign trade — the very subject of the bribery and fraud investigation at which Rep. Jefferson is the center.

    Last week, after the failure of entreaties to Rep. Jefferson to step down from the committee, at least until the federal investigation was completed, the House Democratic Steering Committee determined to strip him of the committee post.  Jefferson then rounded up support from the 43-member Congressional Black Caucus.  

Referring to black voters, who are among the most loyal Democrats in the electorate, he added, “You’ve got a whole base of people out there who believe that the Democratic Party takes them for granted already.”

     Rep. Jefferson has been the subject, as yet unindicted, of a federal corruption investigation involving the use of his congressional position.  Two associates have pleaded guilty to bribing him, he was filmed accepting some of the money, and the FBI found $90,000 of it in his home freezer.  (more in my May 27 2006 diary, “Congressman Jefferson:  Nigeria, Ghana, and Trouble”).

     Democrats aim to campaign this year against a  Republican culture of corruption. Nancy Pelosi and other House Democrats viewed the shadows over Jefferson as undermining that message. Their fear:

If the full 201-member Democratic caucus votes to remove Jefferson from the committee and he still refuses to accede, the matter would go before the full House. …
The Republicans, smarting over their own corruption scandals, probably would be only too happy to see the House debate a Democrat’s alleged corruption.

    Of course, any such a debate would get really dirty, going places the Republicans avoid.  Ultimately, after a 99-58 vote by the Democratic caucus to remove Jefferson from the Committee, he was removed by the full House on a voice vote — with no debate.

Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina… a member of the Democratic leadership as well as the black caucus, said the rank and file had confronted “two competing interests – the legal interest and the political interest.”

    I’m not impressed when the most the Black Caucus can summon up is “innocent until proven guilty” and “it will look as if you’re biased.”  The House is not a jury, it’s a political body.  Rep. Jefferson doesn’t even approach Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., elected from NY to 12 terms in the House, whose legacy of anti-discrimination efforts balanced what we see now as comparatively minor scandals.  

     If Republicans could impeach a president over a personal side trip, imagine how they could entertain a passive electorate with this story.  The calculated risk taken by the Democratic leadership (not counting Howard Dean, who refrained from taking sides) is understandable.  If they waited to move until after Jefferson’s anticipated indictment, it would be worse.  

     Upon the discovery that a relative in South America has accumulated a huge amount of debt on several credit cards over years of under- and unemployment, I asked a Brazilian friend what he made of it.  Easy, he said:  Given the astronomical unemployment rate, lots of people must live beyond their means, so they use credit cards.  

    The problems at the “base of the pyramid” have been known a very long time.  I bear them in mind in reacting to any news from Latin America, whether it’s politics, natural disasters, immigration, even tourism.  

    Recently the Inter-American Development Bank announced a 5-year initiative  to extend financing in 6 “priority areas” to reach 360 million people, about 70% of the population, who live on less than $300 a month:

• Financial Democracy (going beyond conservative risk assessment for loans)
• Enterprise Compact (investments to create jobs)
• Basic Infrastructure (promote innovative technologies to increase access)
• Housing for the Majority (relieve inadequate and insecure housing)
• Digital Connectivity (increase digital literacy, lower access costs, improve ICT coverage)
• Identifying the Majority (I.D. cards, birth certificates)

     The IDB has budgeted amounts for each priority area. For example, it will create a $1 billion lending program for small businesses. However, without knowing where the money will be spent, it is impossible to even speculate on its impact on any of the 26 countries in Central and South America and the Caribbean.  

     The government of each country is driving the bus, even if the IDB fills the tank. That’s the rub.  Optimism is hard to come by.  Read the IDB’s acknowledgments slowly, so your eyes don’t glaze over:

    Years of economic reforms have failed to extend the benefits of a formal market economy to the majority of people in the region.

    The human and economic costs associated with inadequate housing in the region are enormous…  poor sanitation, contagious disease, domestic violence, and high levels of psychological stress.

    Life outside the financial mainstream is expensive for the region’s majority. Families don’t have access to competitively priced financial services to save, borrow, leverage their assets, mitigate risk or transfer resources.

Corruption, fraud, and lack of integrity undermine economic and social development, and represent one of the greatest dangers to the effectiveness of the Inter-American Development Bank’s (IDB) development efforts.

     If there were a single collective wish for improvement in any Latin American country, my bet is on Corruption.  Everyone has stories; I heard about how patrol officers had to supply their own pencils in the wake of budget misappropriation.  The IDB has attempted to address corruption and whistle-blowing, and established an independent unit, the Office of Institutional Integrity.  

    The pervasiveness of corruption explains much of why economic reforms have failed and private sector investors are skittish. Presidents elected on anti-corruption platforms can’t deliver. In Peru, the popularity of Alejandro Toledo (who has a Ph.D. in Economics from Stanford) plummeted despite modest improvements with his economic reforms. He was replaced this month by Alan Garcia, a previous president, whose opponent won 46% of the vote with the strong support of Venezuela’s socialist president, Hugo Chavez. In Bolivia, Gonzalo Sanchez strongly favored American investment, but was foiled by anti-American sentiment after the 2002 discovery of natural gas reserves.  Sanchez needed plans with political viability.  Economist Jack Powell, consultant for former Bolivian administrations, described the dilemma about one possibility

… the Bolivians might establish a government corporation to handle the gas. Most object that the government has always been corrupt — and I agree — and the “profits” would end up in the pockets of politicians.

   Ultimately, Sanchez was replaced by Fidelista Evo Morales.  Morales has no cure for corruption, either, but he nationalized resources with great drama.    

    The IDB is probably underappreciated for many projects, such as the new “Llama y Vive” campaign of hotlines to prevent human trafficking, a joint project of the Bank, the Ricky Martin Foundation, and the International Organization for Migration. However, it seems the Bank can do little more than go through the motions when it comes to the big stuff, a boy with his finger in a dike overwhelmed by Katrina.

   The President of the Inter-American Development Bank, Luis Moreno, wrote with heaps of sugar this month in the Miami Herald about what Latin American governments can do. He suggested they eliminate the red tape and corruption which hinders small businesses, and modernize civil registries and land-titling systems.  He also admired innovations in ways to loan money to the peons:

Latin America’s thriving microfinance sector is a leader in this trend. In addition to extending millions of small loans to people shunned by traditional banks, microfinance institutions are now offering debit cards, housing loans and money transfer services aimed at leveraging the remittances Latin American immigrants send home, which last year rose to $53.6 billion.

    Con respeto, this “thriving microfinance sector” deserves scrutiny.  Unless the employment rate increases along with a boost in income, credit card debt will merely increase exponentially:  rent and doctor bills will take precedence.  Enforcement of yankee-like consumer protection regulations is a dream.  

     Development is not a sexy subject, and I applaud anyone who has read this. We’re more familiar with what to do about corruption in this country.  I don’t know the extent development aid from the U.S. comes with conditions.  I’m certain of this:
    Any frustration we have about our development aid funding off-shore bank accounts of corrupt politicians cannot begin to approximate the tired fury of the hapless populations by whom they were elected because the other candidate was even worse.
     And this:
    If anyone knew how to curb corruption, we’d know it by now.

   My grandfather was in WWI.  He planned to join the army after graduating from Butler (in Indianapolis), but at the last moment, as he told his fraternity brother in great sorrow, he was told he couldn’t graduate for lack of a History credit.  The fraternity brother told the story to a History professor, who amended his course enrollment to reflect that Granddaddy had completed the course.
   He drove various vehicles, and by driving generals around, saw plenty of France.  At the end of the war, France offered free tuition at the Sorbonne for American G.I.’s. Granddaddy wanted to go, but he was assigned to drive the truck to carry bodies from battlefields to the cemetery.  The crew which did the dirty job of moving the bodies was all Black.  In his 80’s my grandfather could still recall some of the spirituals they sang (“Oh Mary Don’t You Weep,”  “Swing Low”).  
    Fifty years later, my grandparents went to France.  When they got a taxi to go to the cemetery, the driver didn’t know the way.  It didn’t matter:  my grandfather remembered the route, having driven it in the dark so many times.  
    He remained deeply patriotic.  A leader in the local VFW, he often gave speeches on Memorial Day.  I have his round dog tags strung onto a leather bootlace and war-time letters between him and his parents (“the bank where you worked has a star in the window for you”) and his letter offering to enlist in the Army in 1939.  He was surprisingly naive about the politics behind WWI, insisting it was the War to End All Wars;  though my brother and I knew it was much more complicated, we said nothing.  
   The photograph of him in uniform, treasured by his mother in a gilt frame under 1920’s style curved glass, now hangs in our living room.  Facing it is the well-known picture of a Vietnam veteran with his hand on The Wall, remembering the images of those whose names are etched into it.  In some ways, Memorial Day is every day of the year.

    David S. Addington, successor to Scooter Libby as Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff,  makes yet another appearance in the Republican Divide.
    Bush imposed a 45-day seal on the records recovered from Congressman Jefferson’s office in the execution of a search warrant for the Department of Justice.  DOJ sought further evidence of crimes related to fraud and bribery.  
    The Republican spin is to belittle it as an “impromptu raid.”  Never mind that it was duly ordered by the Chief Judge when previous subpoenas had been refused.
     Why the seal? Bush thinks the Constitution is a morning jog in London.  Both the FBI Director and the Attorney General have strenuously defended the search.  Special procedures required a pre-distribution independent review to willow out privileged information.  Besides, $90,000 was found in Rep. Jefferson’s freezer, identical to the cash he was videotaped receiving.  As NBC News reported this past week:

    Inside the administration, Vice President Dick Cheney’s office was pushing for the materials to be returned. Cheney’s Chief of Staff David Addington argued internally that the search was questionable.

   We have a problem, folks, a lawyer who in his arrogance essentially claims superiority over the court’s Chief Judge and all the lawyers on the government’s case —   including FBI Director Robert Mueller, who supervised the Noriega and Gotti prosecutions, thank you. The job of arguing that the search was questionable is up to Jefferson’s lawyer, not Cheney’s.  

   Addington hasn’t switched sides:  he simply values secrets as a tool of power.  The underlying concern is clear: If secrets can be discovered in offices of the legislative branch, how soon can secrets be discovered in offices of the executive?  

    Keeping secrets has been part of Cheney’s (and Addington’s) goal of increasing executive power and authority.  As described in “In Cheney’s Shadow, Counsel Pushes the Conservative Cause” in the Washington Post Oct. 4, 2004:

  Cheney has tried to increase executive power with a series of bold actions — some so audacious that even conservatives on the Supreme Court
sympathetic to Cheney’s view have rejected them as overreaching. The vice president’s point man in this is longtime aide David Addington, who
serves as Cheney’s top lawyer.

   Keeping secrets requires blocking public knowledge.

 Addington also led the fight with Congress and environmentalists over access to information about corporations that advised the White House on energy policy. He was instrumental in the  series of fights with the Sept. 11 commission and its requests for information.

   Addington’s opposition to restrictions on the executive branch extended even against policies banning detainee torture.  As recounted February 2006 in The New Yorker, Matthew Waxman, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, and Rumsfeld’s chief advisor on detainee affairs, had suggested the Pentagon adopt the Geneva conventions’ ban against cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of detainees.  

  Not long afterward, Waxman was summoned to a meeting at the White House with David Addington. Waxman declined to comment on the exchange, but, according to the Times, Addington berated him for arguing that the Geneva conventions should set the standard for detainee treatment. The U.S. needed maximum flexibility, Addington said.

    Addington’s pressure on the President to return the documents recovered by the FBI from Rep. Jefferson’s office is really no surprise.  Neither, unfortunately, is Bush’s caving in with a seal.  It takes character to trade in power for some sunshine.

    And what about the non-congressional scam artists caught with mega-bucks tucked into frozen food containers in the freezer?   They’ll be making creative Jefferson defenses against office searches.    

    Congressman William J. Jefferson, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a Representative from Louisiana, is serving his 8th term.  Following the seizure of records from his congressional office, constitutional law professors are debating on t.v. whether the means to achieve the seizure will be successfully challenged.

     Non-lawyers may punch the remote to something livelier than a discussion of the “Speech and Debate” clause, a commercial featuring a cute gecko, maybe.  Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a joint statement of protest, demanding the return of the seized material — and surely mindful of possible repeat performances who-knows-where in connection with Justice Department investigations of Abramoff payoffs.

    It’s worthwhile looking into the facts.  The 65-page affidavit (not counting attachments) with the application for the subpoena ordering the seizure is available to read in the NPR story.  Evidence is sought pertaining to the crimes of wire fraud and bribery, including bribery of a foreign official, and conspiracy.

    The affidavit was submitted by an FBI Special Agent, detailing the facts as known through the FBI’s investigation beginning March 2005, which included  tapes, witness statements, and documents (bank records, correspondence, corporate records and the like).  Paragraph 8 of the Affidavit:

The facts and circumstances described below outline the probable cause that United States Congressman William J. Jefferson, acting in concert with the other targets, has sought, and in some cases has already accepted financial backing and/or concealed payment(s) of cash and/or equity interests in business ventures located in the United States, Nigeria and Ghana (things of value) in exchange for his undertaking of official act(s) as a United States congressman while promoting the business interests of the targets, including Jefferson, himself.

    Two other individuals targeted in the investigation have pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to bribe a public official:  Vernon Jackson, CEO of telecommunications firm iGate, and Brett Pfeffer, formerly on Rep. Jefferson’s staff and president of an investment firm in McClean, VA.  They are “cooperating” pursuant to plea agreements.  

   Many details are described in the affidavit.  For example:

• Rep. Jefferson asked for a percentage ownership interest in a Nigerian company, to be placed in the names of his children, in exchange for his using his official acts to support the venture;
• The Nigerian company was created with the assistance of one of Jefferson’s daughters, also a lawyer;
• He has already received $400,000 cash from iGate;
• His official acts included communication with both the President and Vice President of Nigeria on behalf of the iGate business venture there, which had opposition from the Nigerian telephone company.
• Jefferson had similar meetings with officials in Ghana promoting an iGate business venture there, without disclosing his personal financial interest in the company.
• Rep. Jefferson’s wife operates a Louisiana company, the ANJ Group LLC;  the wife and all 5 daughters are members of the company.  Under an agreement with ANJ, iGate pays ANJ $7,500 monthly, in addition to 35% of the profits derived from the sale of iGate technology or products connected with the continent of Africa.
• In at least seven other schemes, Rep. Jefferson “sought things of value in return for his performance of official acts.”
• Rep. Jefferson discussed his contacts as head of the Nigerian Caucus in Congress, then received $100,000 cash to forward in exchange for assistance.
      The FBI, which had recorded the serial bill numbers,  videotaped Jefferson accepting the cash and driving away with it.  A few days later, August 3, 2005, the FBI found $90,000 of that cash in the freezer in Rep. Jefferson’s Washington D.C. residence.

• Some of the meetings about these business ventures were held in Rep. Jefferson’s office on Capitol Hill.  According to an aide, records relevant to the investigation are in that office.  The FBI was unable to obtain them in the usual ways.
           Hence, the requested search warrant.

   Special search procedures were created to filter out politically sensitive and non-responsive items and any information which is privileged, for example, by reason of the Speech and Debate clause.  The material will first be reviewed by a “Filter Team” comprised of a DOJ Criminal Justice attorney, a U.S. Attorney from E.D. VA, and an FBI Special Agent, none connected to the case.  Potentially privileged items are then reviewed by a District court for a final determination on privilege.  

    The political fuss was anticipated.  It was the court’s Chief Judge who signed the order.

    President Bush, who perhaps sees a future teaching first-graders because the job doesn’t require comprehension of  constitutional issues, butted in to put people on time-out.  I’m no fan of Alberto Gonzales or all of DOJ, but this is clearly a case in which the government is moving carefully to catch the bad guys.  No gripe there.  Add this “cooling-off” period to the list of Regrettable Bush Actions.

    The trial should be fascinating.  When, if ever, will anyone apologize to the people in Nigeria and Ghana for the latest Ugly Americans?

   Two women, both state senators, are running in California as Democratic candidates for Lieutenant Governor in the June 6 primary election.  This officer is elected separately, so the governor and lt. governor may come from  different parties.  
   The Lt. Gov. chairs the State Lands Commission,  which enforces the California Environmental Quality Act, and sits on the Coastal Commission and the California Ocean Protection Council. S/he also chairs the Commission for Economic Development, is a Regent of the University of California as well as a trustee of the California State University System, sits on the California World Trade Commission, the California Emergency Council, and serves as appointed on various  task forces.  

   Sen. Jackie Speier: 18 years in the state legislature, credited with numerous bills and hearings for improving health & welfare, worker’s comp reform, gender equality, reducing traffic congestion, eliminating government waste, and anti-crime  (e.g., auto insurance fraud, prison reform, deregulation of sale of pepper spray, tracking sexual predators on parole).  Her current State Agency Accountability Act provides whistle-blower protections for auditors as well as strict internal auditor standards.

   Sen. Liz Figueroa:  first elected to the state legislature in 1996, author of the law allowing patients to sue negligent HMO’s, and of a popular law creating the anti-telemarketing “Do Not Call List.”  The daughter of immigrants from El Salvador,  she is strongly pro-union and brings personal understanding to the issue of immigration. Her interviews on Spanish t.v. amount to free publicity.  
   Of note:  Hispanics comprise nearly 35% of the state’s 2004 population, according to the Demographic Research Unit of the California Department of Finance (FYI, Asian: 11.6%, and Black: 6%).

   Both Speier and Figueroa have championed women’s medical causes.  Figueroa, for example, wrote a law requiring a 48-hour stay after mastectomies, upon learning of the HMO practice of same-day discharge.   Speier, for example, created the state’s Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Programs. Both candidates boast long lists of endorsements from elected officials.  For what it’s worth, Speier has a much larger war-chest.

   I prefer Speier because of the breadth and depth of her experience, as well as her politics.  Figueroa may be looking at this realistically as an expected loss with the silver lining of name recognition for a future race.  However, if Figueroa splits off votes so that Garamendi beats both of them in June, any apologies would come too late.  It’s a tough picture.

Whoever wins in the California primary in June to run against Gov. Schwarzenegger may likely be the next Democratic governor.  Last night’s debate helped me decide against Phil Angelides and for Steve Westly. Angelides threw barbs.  Westly remained the cool chief executive with smarts.  
  Both have business backgrounds, Westly at e-Bay and Angelides in real estate development.  Westly has a Stanford MBA and taught Public Management there.  Angelides graduated from Harvard.  Both have immigrants in the family (Westly’s wife from China, Angelides’ grandparents from Greece).
   Both have been active Democrats for many years, Angelides in Sacramento, and Westly in the Bay Area.  Both would sign a gay marriage bill, though Angelides arrived at that decision only very recently, while Westly has promoted gay rights since college days.  
  Both have been serving California in money-related roles, Westly as Controller and Angelides as Treasurer, and both are trustees in (1) the California Public Employment Retirement System (“CalPERS”) the country’s biggest public pension fund, and (2) the California State Teachers’ Retirement System.  Both have railed against obscene golden parachutes.  
   As I watched their televised debate last night I kept wondering why Angelides has been endorsed by a myriad of Democratic politicians.  My conclusion:  he called in chits from his days as Chair of the state’s Democratic party.  It can’t be that he exudes executive polish, because he has little.  He appeared a bickerer with no negotiating skills who apparently thinks voters will be most impressed by his endorsements, because he repeated those ad nauseum.  
     Westly has been a leading campaigner:
 —  After Westly made his website available in Spanish and Chinese, Angelides made his in Spanish.
 —  After Westly made public his past 10 years of tax returns,  challenging the governor and Angelides to do the same, Angelides opened up 7 years’ worth of his returns (Arnold, he lay low).
 — After Westly filed a claim with the state FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission) that commercials by Angelides supporters were not funded by independents, Angelides filed a complaint charging Westly with using money from a defunct account.  Neither claim is likely to be settled soon, with the FPPC so seriously backlogged.
  Tax policy seems to distinguish the candidates.  Angelides would raise a variety of taxes.  Westly would rely first on managerial efficiency & audits, with tax hikes the last resort.
   Angelides accused Westly of being too cozy with our Republican governor, simply because Westly supported a 2004 deficit-financing bond and a proposition supporting a balanced budget — along with the governor,  the board of the California Community Colleges, and many Democrats.  If Angelides can do no better, he deserves defeat — and the state’s Democrats, beginning with Senators Boxer and Feinstein, need to explain their endorsements.
    As California will always have Republican legislators, the best Democratic governor will be someone who can work compromises with Republicans when necessary, not someone whose buzz words “working families” reinforces us-them mindsets.  A little class goes a long way.  

I appreciate how unusual it was for several generals to call for Rumsfeld’s resignation.  I’m hoping for some elaboration, though.  What took the Brass so long?  That’s not a rhetorical question.  If so many of us could detect major problems even at the beginning, why did the generals wait until now to speak up?  

  — Was there a back-breaking straw in Rumsfeld’s micro-managing of generals (“Hi, I’m from Corporate and I’m here to help”)?
  — Was it his arrogance towards the troops (“You go to war with the Army you have”)?  Or the policy of refusing the filming of coffins returning to the U.S.?
  — Did he cherry-pick yes-people/units rather than the best ones for Pentagon positions?
  — Was he threatening to scape-goat generals for tactical errors causing failure?  
  — Did he refuse to meet with people who would tell him undigestible truth?
  — Is he penny-wise and pound-foolish, a pitifully poor reorganizer after all?

Faced with derogatory news, his style is to turn it around and insult our intelligence:

       Q:  Mr. Secretary, there are voices in the Congress and elsewhere, including some belonging to retired senior military members, who are calling for your resignation.  The president says he supports you and that you’re doing a good job.  If that support continues, do you plan to stay for the rest of his second term?
       SEC. RUMSFELD:  Ivan, those kinds of calls have been going on for five-plus years.  And the president has asked me not to get involved in politics, and that’s politics.
               March 23, 2006 DoD News Briefing

www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2006/tr20060323-12695.html

Yeah, right. He doesn’t get involved in politics…

“The fact that two or three or four retired people have different views —  I respect their views — but obviously if, if out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the Secretary of Defense of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round.”
              Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld
   4-13-06 interview by Al-Arabiya (t.v. network)

Cut, slash.  That’s how Rumsfeld belittles the retired generals, the professionals who  — individually and collectively — know more about warfare and military administration than Rumsfeld could ever comprehend.  

There’s a bright distinction between (1) efficiency reorganization and (2) the abuse of power for political purposes, at great cost in lives and funds.

This man needs some reality checks.  Whatever he’s drinking won’t do the trick.