WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

The elderly woman tersely stated that her husband had been denied further medical care by the health insurance company with whom the couple had been insured. What were they to do was the question she posed to Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn. Indeed, what were they supposed to do?

The answer supplied by Senator Coburn was as shocking as it was eye-opening. Rely on your friends and neighbors to help you in your hour of need. No matter that the cost of such help was likely to reach into the hundreds of thousands. By no means, should government be counted on to come to the rescue.

There, in a nutshell, is the sheer bankruptcy of the Republican and lunatic opposition to any change in health care as presently delivered in the United States through a variety of mechanisms. No one should have to appeal to the vagaries of individual circumstances. Alone in Alaska? Appeal to your neighbors, however few and relatively impoverished these might be. Trouble in the Ninth Ward, ask your neighbors for help.

Government exists, if it must, to provide a safety net for its citzenry. Traditionally, this was understood to mean the provision of a common defense. With most people living lives that were short and sometimes brutish, the needs of an elderly population didn't matter. Once industrialization began and life expectancies improved, the needs of the aged and those whose lives suffered from the pollution of industrial society and dangers inherent in an unregulated workplace became of paramount concern. To stave off the growing power of the working class in Imperial Germany, Otto von Bismarck crafted a social pact that sewed the seeds of the modern social welfare state. Other nations followed, and by the 1960s, most Western societies had some form of social welfare state.

The United States remained unique, however. A national health care system never emerged. What developed was an employer based health care system begun during World War II, as employers, unable to raise worker wages, offered supplemental benefits (health care and retirement benefits) as enticements. After World War II, industrial unions sought to extend such employer based health and retirement benefits. The public sector followed suit, and many working Americans enjoyed relative security during their working lives and into retirement.

For those not able to reap the benefits of union action, presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson sought to provide a safety net for elderly citizens. Social security had already provided a modicum of economic safety, but dire health needs always remained a threat to many elderly. Passage of the landmark Medicare Act as part of LBJ's Great Society, gave protection to those elderly not protected through union or public sector agreements.

But, the poor, especially the working poor, who did not have access to unions that could extract excellent health and retirement benefits, were left to fend for themselves. Many went without health insurance and hoped that their relatively youthful age might tip the odds in their favor. Older working poor could rely on whatever care they might receive in emergency rooms at local hospitals.

Those who lost jobs or changed jobs and lost the provision of health insurance might try to cobra their benefits for a while and then seek insurance on their own in the market place. If too expensive, some might choose to forgo continued insurance coverage. Others might hope to land a job in an industry with excellent benefits.

All told, about 46 million people at present do not enjoy health insurance coverage. For some, it is an act of choice. For others, it is a question of necessity. For still others, it is an unfortuate turn of fate. For those with pre-existing medical conditions, private health insurance is well nigh impossible to find and, if available, prohibitively expensive.

The last two countries that rejiggered their health systems were Taiwan and Switzerland. The Swiss managed to rein in private insurance providers and get every one covered. No public option was offered, but restrictions were placed on health providers. Taiwan sought to create a public health system whole cloth. It studied various health care systems and crafted a program that best suited its needs and society.

For the United States, it seems unlikely that Americans could ever accept the intrusiveness of a Taiwanese style health care system where those who "overuse" medical services may be visited by a government agent in order to assess what changes might be required in order to bring medical service usage more into line with societal norms. Still, the United States could try to Swissify the American "system". It could require every American citizen to have health insurance. It could require insurance providers to end recisions and the refusal to provide or continue health care coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. It could place limits on administrative costs for private insurers that now amount to 20% of health care expenses. And, if private insurers refuse to cooperate, then it could use a public option to cover those whom the insurance industry does not want to insure and use its lower administrative costs to push down private sector costs.

The United States COULD do all that. Some of this might even emerge from the U.S. Congress this year. But, most elected Republicans do not want any change that would rein in the private insurance providers or place limits on prescription costs. Instead, as Senator Coburn made all to clear, reliance on the local community is preferable to meaningful change.

As a largely Christian nation, many of whose most outspoken adherents claim allegiance to the Republican party, it is worth asking what Jesus would do. Yes, what would Jesus do? Alas, his first task would be to visit those temples of modern Christianity and expose the hypocrisy espoused by many leading Christians. Turning the other cheek does not mean looking away from the needs of needy. It means to use whatever means necessary to alleviate pain and suffering. If government is the best available means to provide for the needs of the many, then so be it.

I got mine, screw you is nowhere to be found in the Bible - not in the Old or the New Testament. What we are reminded is that the meek shall inherit the earth. By that, I understand that those most in need and unable to fend for themselves shall be blessed because the rest of us who are more fortunate and are able to exercise some measure of control in our lives are COMPELLED to do all that we can to care for others. We are both stewards of the land and compatriots of our fellow citizens. To continue to bow before the god of capital is a violation of the Christian spirit and an invitation to Jesus to throw out the money changers and the money grubbing "Christian" capitalists who use the word to make it what it's not.

Jesus was about change, and change is what is needed now. Shame on you, Mr. Coburn. You just don't get it, do you?

LEMMINGMANIA

The dog days of August are usually a slow news period. Leading politicians go on vacation, while Congressional representatives return home to touch base with their constituents. Town halls are often a good venue for representatives to state their positions and receive feedback. Concerned constituents have an opportunity to express their views on issues that matter to them or comment on Congressional action or inaction. Rarely, do town halls get much press coverage. Not this year!

No, for the past several weeks we have witnessed irate constituents berating Democratic representatives in the House and the Senate for betraying the Constitution, taking aim at Grandma and attempting to turn the United States into a 21st century USSR. A few of the participants seemed to be in search of answers. Too often, representatives were treated to boorish individuals rude enough to shout and shove to cut off debate before it began. Many of these were egged on by media bloviators such as Rush Limbaugh. Others, perhaps, read the blogs of former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin or sought inspiration in the musing of Sen. Charles Grassley of Wisconsin who claimed that Americans had every right to be fearful of Obama style health reform. The spectre of "death panels" dooming decrepit granny to a premature death were just the tip of Republican demagogy. At the more extreme wing of the opposition, there was a display of one representative dangling from a noose.

Whew! For the mostly older participants of these angry demonstrations of know-nothingism, it is tempting to give them exactly want they want: no government run health care. Take away Medicare, the primary care vehicle for most retired persons, and let these people insure themselves in the private market. Take that you ignorant old farts!

Where would the many elderly constituents who most prominently savaged Senator Specter of Pennsylvania during not one, but two town halls be without Medicare, the last major contested innovation in the American health delivery system? Destitute. Indeed, even with Medicare, many elderly have had problems coping with infirmity in old age. Prescriptions are expensive and many have fallen through the donut hole created in the Bush era modification of Medicare to include partial government aid for prescription drugs. Medicare, at least, ensures that the elderly will receive health care that would not and could not receive through private insurance.

Lost in all the hyperbole about health care is a very simple fact. The United States is the last advanced economy to expand health coverage to all of its citizens. Every major economic competitor has some form of universal health coverage. Indeed, the last two countries to revise their health care delivery systems - Taiwan and Switzerland - did so without much of the political bile that has been spilled this past August. Taiwan took the time to study other health care systems and crafted a program best suited Taiwanese expectations. It even included health care auditors who visit those patients excessively accessing health care. Imagine that coming to an American hospital near you!

As Paul Krugman noted in today's New York Times op-ed, at best it can be argued that Obama and the Congressional democrats are steering the United States towards a Swiss style health care system where coverage is provided by private insurers. Whether there is a public option to get coverage for those individuals whom private insurers least desire to cover - those with pre-existing conditions or those facing catastrophic medical procedures - now hangs in the balance as the result of constant demagoguery. And, in the absence of a public option, what would pressure private insurers to act more reasonably and accept a Swiss style health care system?

With whom should one have a rational health care debate? Newt Gingrich? His op ed in Sunday's Los Angeles Times might have conveyed the impression that he could reasonably debate the various Democratic positions. Senator Chuck Grassley? At his outdoor address to his Wisconsin constituents, he admitted that his presence on one of the Senate committees reporting out health care legislation was essentially a stalling operation. That he confessed this while stating that American citizens were justified in fearing Obamacare ought to remove him from any bi-partisan considerations. Sarah Palin? She is a one-woman wrecking crew would shouldn't be allowed to blog, let alone get her bizarre views broadcast on a national basis.

Indeed, some of the most reasonable voices have been heard at Mr. Obama's town hall fora. It certainly is a legitimate question to ask how a public entity would impact private insurance providers, especially when the playing field might not be level. Would a public entity be allowed to lose money providing coverage for those least able to afford it or those whose medical bills would threaten private insurers? Would a public entity be subject to political tampering every time it went to Congress to make up for deficits that it could conceivably run?

There may be answers to these questions, but you won't hear them from voices within the Republican party. The Republican party - what's left of it - seems hell-bent on marching toward the sea. Lemmings everywhere unite and head toward the cliffs, and let the rest of us reform a health care delivery system on the verge of collapse.

BOOGIE WITH BURRIS

With all the hoopla surrounding the selection of Roland Burris to be the junior Senator from Illinois, it's easy to miss the larger issue at stake. Certainly, there is plenty of buffoonery to please the bloviators throughout the blogosphere. Whether it's the farcical press conferences put on by B-Rod (Rod Blagojevich, Governor of Illinois) and punctuated with poetic musings or the downhome pladoyer of Mr. Burris before whichever panel he appears, there is much to latch onto. Yet, the way Senate vacancies are filled - be it in New York, Colorado, Delaware or Illinois - both violates the spirit of the Constitution and confers advantages where none should be rendered. Enjoy the melodrama as it unfolds: to seat or not to seat Roland Burris. Whether 'tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outraged and babblling Bobby Rush or put paid to perfidy and break the ban on Burris.

To provide just the barest of sketches is sufficient to provoke plenty of guffaws. On tape, now impeached Governor Blagojevich has revealed how he and many politicians of his ilk view politics. It's a question of money, power and influence. So you want to be Senator. How much is it worth to you? You want to criticize me? Well, forget about any help you might need in selling the Chicago Cubs baseball team. I will help the poor and needy and most innocent among us (children), but only if you make it worth my while. Donations gladly accepted.

Whether Mr. Burris or any of his representatives participated in preliminary talks pursuant to the auctioning of Mr. Obama's Senate seat is unclear. Certainly, he has admitted before a house committee preparing impeachment of Governor Blagojevich that he had dropped a hint to an aide six months ago that he'd like a chance to become the appointed replacement. But, that was before it was even clear that Obama was likely to win election as President and need to resign his seat as the junior Senator from Illinois. No one has suggested that Mr. Burris participated in the more recent round of bargaining that led federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to blow the lid on a brewing scandal. There just ain't no taint!

However, some have likened Mr. Burris's appointment to the ill-gotten gains from an illegal search. As most fans of Law and Order are well aware, the harvested fruits from a poisoned tree will be excluded without fail. Since the process prior to Mr. Burris's selection was tainted, any appointee should be barred from taking the seat no matter what his or her merits might be.

Does Mr. Burris merit appointment to the U.S. Senate? He does, of course, meet the qualifications to serve as a senator. His appointment, despite the refusal of Illinois Secretary of State Jesse While to certify his selection, falls entirely within the purview of the governor's power to appoint a temporary replacement when a position has been vacated as Mr. Obama's Senate seat has been. No one has claimed that Mr. Burris was selected because he was the highest bidder. Indeed, Mr. Burris had plead poverty in this regard. Even if he had been asked to contribute to B-Rod, he would not have had the means to win this particular auction!

Mr. Burris probably hasn't paid to play, but he does bring a refreshing dose of eccentricity to the position. Many commentators have pointed out Mr. Burris's seeming narcissism. Who else but a narcissist names his offspring Rolando and Rolanda? And, he does have that mausoleum adorned with chiseled resume announcing Mr. Burris as a trailblazer from his earliest days as a student at Southern Illinois University through his tenure as the first elected African-American attorney general in Illinois. Whether he blazed trails as, say, a Martin Luther King or a Rosa Parks is open to debate. Clearly, Mr. Burris parlayed his race into a winning hand in this particular instant. However, his good fortune in this regard must not gloss over the difficulty most black candidates have when running for statewide office.

But, Mr. Burris also comes across as an affable fellow, an educated everyman if you will. Flying to DC from Midway and landing at BWI on Southwest Airlines was an indirect, inexpensive and pedestrian route to Washington. Weathering the rain without raising much fuss when denied participation in the swearing in ceremony for members of the 111th Congress also helped cast Mr. Burris as a regular guy. Indeed, all of his protestations about his inability to pay to play and his apparent willingness to be forthcoming about contacts with the Blagojevich staff endears him to the public. Besides, it cannot be denied that his presence in the Senate would constitute a small step towards providing a minority voice in what is now - without Senator Obama - an assemblage without a black voice. That he is able to do so without displaying the stridency of, say, a Jesse Jackson or former Black Panther Bobby Rush speaks volumes about Mr. Burris.

However, one may judge Governor Blagojevich, he certainly is a sly fox. He outmaneovred his opponents and selected perhaps the one candidate whom the Senate cannot reject out of hand. Had Mr. Burris been Caucasian, or had he even been a she, Harry Reid would have had fewer qualms about barring him from taking his appointed seat. In this respect, being a black male was an advantage. Blagojevich knew that and thus he was quite content in reneging on his own promise not to make an appointment after his "pay to play" scheme had been outed by Patrick Fitzgerald. Still, the clever can get too clever even for themselves. Governor Blagojevich may have dared his opponents to tape away, but it is the very existence of those tapes that led the Illinois House to almost unanimously vote to impeach the governor for various acts of corruption. He will be convicted and that will be the end of B-Rod.

Burris, though, will remain. For certainly, the U.S. Senate will seat Mr. Burris. Eccentricities aside, Mr. Burris will go to Washington as the legal designee to the vacant Senate seat formerly held by President Obama. Whether he remains for two years in that post or serves only until a special election can be held is an open issue. Though it seems probable that he will remain in office until 2010, there is doubt whether he can use the power of incumbency to translate his appointment into a full six year term.

And, therein hangs the tale. As Thomas Geoghegan, labor lawyer and author of "See You in Court: How the Right Made America a Lawsuit Nation", opined in the New York Times, that the 17th Amendment to the Constitution mandates that governors "shall issue writs of elections to fill such vacancies" when Senate seats open up unexpectedly due to death, resignation, or incapacity. In practice, governors fill such vacancies by appointment and wait until the next round of Senate elections allow the vacancy to be eliminated through election. As Geoghegan argued, such practices set the 17th Amendment on its head by allowing a legal proviso which logically allowed temporary appointments by the governor until an election can fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term.

Legislatures have been unwilling to demand special elections in order to fill such vacancies. Indeed, the Illinois legislature refused to consider holding a special election for fear that the Republicans might win a seat away from a Democrat. Whatever Mr. Burris's merits may be, he clearly is a Democrat and can be counted on to support the agenda of President Obama. Even when the legislature is controlled by a party opposed to the governor and could use its authority to prevent a governor from choosing a candidate of his or her own liking (and party), legislatures have been loathe to exercise their constitutional authority. As a result, governors everywhere have acquired a power unintended by the 17th Amendment and it has allowed corrupt practices to pervert the democratic process. B-Rod was only the most blatant of abusers.

At present, there are in play four Senate seats, each held by a Democrat. Two are open because the holders of these seats were elected to the executive branch and cannot serve in both branches of government. President-elect Obama resigned his seat in December, while Senator Biden has yet to resign his. Secretaries designate Salazar and Clinton must resign their seats in order to become members of the Obama cabinet. Senator Salazar has already resigned and his seat filled by the former superintendent of Denver public schools. Governor Patterson has toyed with the notion of replacing Senator Clinton with Caroline Kennedy, though her selection has stirred much controversy, given that she has never held elective office and - like Senator Clinton - represents perhaps the continuation of a political dynasty. Senator Biden's replacement most likely will be a close associate of the senator and someone who will only serve until 2010.

What does it matter whether these vacancies are filled temporarily or for the full two-years until the next election cycle? Maybe not much, but one should never underestimate the power of incumbency. Even Mr. Burris who has had difficulty winning state-wide elections may have an advantage in 2010 simply because he is the incumbent. Most voters are reluctant to turn out incumbents. The only way for incumbents to lose their seats is through death, personal choice, or the infrequent, but powerful political tsunamis that sweep aside incumbents whether deserving or not.

2008 was just such an election, at least as regards to Republican candidates. Not even Christopher Shays, a well-respected and moderate Republican from New England, could not hold onto his seat in the House of Representatives. And other incumbents, be they Senator Coleman from Minnesota or Senator Stevens from Alaska, could not withstand the rising tide against incumbent Republicans.

To be appointed for the full two years is, then, to gain an advantage, one that might be parlayed into electoral victory when the regular electoral cycle is adhered to. Governors gain immense power in the selection process and can thus use their power to sell the seat to the highest bidder (Blagojevich), reward political cronies, perpetuate political dynasties or exercise caution and choose a relative newcomer (Michael Bennett from Colorado).

That this thwarts the democratic process is obvious. It does not create a level playing field or give the appearance of a such an open process. As such, it is yet another impediment to democracy, an impediment that could be eliminated if governors and legislatures adhered to the dictates of the 17th Amendment. So, enjoy the cirque du Burris while you can, but keep your eye on the prize, not just in Illinois, but everywhere where vacancies in the U.S. Senate arise.

MIDDLE EAST MANIA

As Israel presses on its air retaliation in Gaza, many in the world have called for a 48 hour cease-fire, a plea that the Israeli government has chosen for the moment to ignore. Writing in today's New York Times, David Grossman argues that now is precisely the time for Israel to pause its strategic campaign. Hamas cannot be driven from power by repeated air assaults on a vulnerable population. Nor can rubble be pounded relentlessly. Rocket fire from Gaza has diminished, but is unlikely to cease. Of utmost emergency is the evacuation of wounded citizens from Gaza to hospitals in Egypt and Israel. The borders need to be opened for UN emergency services. And talks brokered by Egypt or Turkey need to take place.

An unlikely scenario, perhaps, but nothing should surprise us in the Middle East. Once hopeful glimmers such as the Israeli military withdrawal and evacuation of settlers in Gaza during August 2005 and the unexpected Hamas victory in elections during January 2006 have long since been extinguished as Israel has attempted to quarantine Gaza to drive Hamas from power. For its part, Hamas has sought to use the abduction of Israeli soldier Shalit as leverage to free 1,400 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. As a result, Gaza has been turned into a heavily armed ghetto whose very existence strikes fear into the heart of Israel.

In the meantime, we are treated to the blame game. Palestinians blame Israel for crimes against humanity, demand an end to the bombing, the targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders and the occupation of the West Bank. Israel blames Hamas for the resumption of indiscriminant rocket firing into southern Lebanon once it chose to let the six-month cease-fire expire.

Cooler heads might prevail, but not as long as testerone levels soar sky high. Alas, a lot of innocent people will suffer. But such is the stuff of life in the Middle East.

BAILOUTS, BALANCE SHEETS AND B.S.

The steep fall in stock markets around the world during October is troubling news in nearly every respect. Despite the efforts of central banks and individual countries to come to the rescue of banks and other lending institutions, the crisis continues to spread and deepen. No financial institution seems willing to lend substantial amounts of money to other institutions, though conservative banks in the U.S. and abroad have used their strong capital positions to take over failing institutions. Unfortunately, in the midst of this financial free-fall, the United States is engaged in a highly partisan political debate that only occasionally focuses on the problem at hand.

It was certainly unwise for Secretary Paulson to allow the proposed $700 billion rescue package to be characterized as a bailout. To an extent, it certainly was a bailout of investment banks and other financial institutions that had accumulated large amounts of worthless mortgage backed securities on their balance sheets. Allowing these entities to pawn off this "toxic waste" was certainly one way of rescuing these wobbly lending institutions that could neither lend nor repay monies from a weakened capital base.

Yet, in the political discussion leading up to Congressional approval of the revised bailout package, now laden with special sweeteners, some Republican representatives decried accounting rules as one cause of the distress. Mark to market accounting had led financial institutions to mark down the value of mortgage based securities and derivatives once it became apparent that there no longer was a market in this financial inventions. Mark to market markdowns were thus not a cause, but a reflection of the loss of value that any financial institution holding such junk had experienced. In order to fairly reflect this loss of capital on the balance sheet, these mortgage based securities were reduced in value.

To advocate, as many Republican representatives attempted, the suspension of "mark to market" accounting in favor of some alternative - mark to make believe - might have rescued some balance sheets, but would have worsened the crisis in confidence that has led to the seizure of various credit markets. Balance sheets must reflect accurately the present value of a company or corporation. To game the balance sheets or to allow questionable transactions to remain off-balance sheet items will not save the system, but merely hasten its demise.

If Enron taught us nothing at all, it should have warned us that playing fast and loose with accounting rules and resorting to off-balance sheet accounting to hide losses and inflate profits does not eliminate problems, it merely postpones them. Then, when the deceit can no longer be maintained, the collapse is inevitably short, swift and brutal.

In the current crisis, the root cause is the frivolous waste of capital on mortgage loans that could not be repaid by those agreeing to interest free subprime mortgages and the like. Once, the default rate in the subprime market exploded, it caused lenders to pause with respect to refinancing teaser lows. When those holding mortgages in need of refinancing in order to avoid the balloon payments inherent in interest-free mortgages could no longer find refinancing, they too joined the chorus of mortgage defaults.

Unlike the past, many financial institutions were not directly impacted by the increased rate of defaults in the housing sector. Most of the original mortgages, especially the questionable ones involving subprime, Alt-A and option ARM mortgages, had been sliced and diced and packaged with other mortgages in order to spread the risk. At a certain tipping point, however, no matter how much repackaging had been done, the level of risk had to increase.

At the ground level, of course, foreclosures in one community reduced the property values of all surrounding homes. This led to negative equity scenarios that afflicted even reasonable mortgages. Once the mortgage value of the house exceeded the market value, even honest people were put in a bind. They could continue to pay the mortgage, even though they were paying more than the house was presently worth, and hope for an upturn in the housing market to bail them out. They could seek to refinance their mortgages at a better rate. Or, they could walk away from the negative equity by refusing to throw good money after bad. Unfortunately, many chose the latter.

The cascading of defaults on mortgages put pressure on the lenders. Ameriquest and Countrywide were the first large lenders to go under. Indeed, Countrywide burned through a loan from Bank of America in such short time that Bank of America had to buy Countrywide in order to have any hope of recouping its investment. Later, WaMu and Wachovia, a savings and loan and commercial bank respectively, were taken over as the burden of bad loans brought down their value.

IDEOLOGICAL IDIOCY AND THE WAY FORWARD

Let the markets fall and the recriminations spread. When the House of Representatives voted down the bi-partisan bailout bill proposed by the Bush Administration and the Congressional leadership, the markets reacted as expected. They plunged! In the meantime, two banks in Europe collapsed and were taken over before the U.S. Congress voted. Anecdotal reports describe a brief collapse last week of the overnight commercial paper market, a necessary financing arm for businesses large and small to meet payroll and inventory needs while providing other firms with a temporary surplus of cash to earn interest overnight. Washington Mutual (WaMu) was taken over and sold to J.P. Morgan Chase, while Wachovia looked for salvation from Citigroup. The crisis is very real and needs to be addressed.

Unfortunately, the Republican ideologues in the House of Representatives made it clear that they were not prepared to take away down a plank that in their view was but a slide down a slippery slope to socialism. Socialism, seriously? Are the Republican representatives from the heartland so confused about the world that they would describe an equity stake in a $700 billion bailout as socialism? It's not even nationalization of an industry.

In addition, the Republican representatives proclaimed their desire for even greater deregulation and an extension of capital gains cuts towards industry. On the other hand, they were unwilling to lift a hand to allow bankruptcy judges to help filers hang on to their homes.

At least, in one small respect, the Republicans put forth a moderately interesting idea: an insurance system perhaps akin to FDIC insurance that would be paid for by the securities industry. Unfortunately, such an insurance scheme would contribute nothing to easing the current crisis. In short, the Republicans have nothing to contribute to a crisis that is the direct result of 30 years of Reaganomics.

95 members of the Democratic caucus also voted against the bailout bill. Why? Like many economists, these representatives harbored many of the well-deserved reservations about the proposed bailout. Some of these concerns were addressed partially in the modifications to the original Paulson proposal. Some were not. Other objections were trite, yet understandable in the poisoned partisan atmosphere that is the result of 8 years of Bush II misrule.

Certainly, there are plenty of reasons not to trust the Bush Administration, an administration that downplayed the seriousness of the building crisis for the past two years and through its own lack of oversight and deregulatory delusion furthered a climate of anything goes that finally brought down the financial sector when the mortgage backed securities proved nothing more than a house of cards. Besides, there is that $10 billion per month Iraq debacle that is no more closer to conclusion now than it was in 2003.

One of the primary deficiencies of the proposed legislation was its almost total failure to address what is at the heart of the current crisis: the unending procession of foreclosures in the housing sector. As long as no legislation, akin to the 1933 federal Home Open Loan Corporation that pioneered the 15 year mortgage and kept people in their homes, is proposed nothing will staunch the bleeding in the housing sector. Nor can there be any possibility of recovery in the secondary and derivative markets built entirely upon these suspect mortgages. What needs to be done is the creation of an agency similar to what FDR put into place in 1933 that kept people in their homes and took problem mortgages out of the hands of savings and loans. Until this happens, whether $700 billion will be enough to reprime the global credit markets is open to question. Certainly, the first $400 billion prior to the latest request was not sufficient.

The righteous anger against investment bankers, Wall Street wonder boys and other greed gobbling Gatsbys unfortunately has clouded the judgement of too many Americans towards the necessity for action. Shout on until the crisis begins to cut sharply into Main Street as credit tightens up even further and jobs begin to become scarce. Righteous indignation without reason is ridiculous and has been fostered by runamok Reaganism for far too long. As the echoed shouts of USA, USA peter out, so too will the industrial and financial strength of a once great country. Let them stuff that in their ballot boxes, especially in the American heartland that for too long has heaped scorn on the cosmopolitan coasts.

That John McCain has the audacity to blame this on the Democratic party for injecting partisanship into a spirit of bipartisanship after his partisan grandstanding last week is beyond repulsive. It bespeaks how low the entire Republican party has fallen. That John Boehner and his Republican lackeys want to blame a speech by Nancy Pelosi for sabotaging the bailout legislation is absurd in almost every respect. Why would the Republican party even care to listen to a speech that more or less demanded that Republicans look in the mirror and see what 8 years of their own mismanagement has wrought in order to move forward? Are their egos that fragile that they cannot accept some of the blame? Or, are they so ideologically blinded that they cannot recognize how all of this is the logical consequence of Reaganism?

It's time for the Democratic majority in Congress to assert itself and propose the necessary legislation to move this country forward and deal with the crisis in both aspects: deal with problem mortgages and bailout out - under strict conditions - the financial sector that for too long played fast and loose with bogus paper, unearned bonuses and undeserved severance packages.

If the Republicans want to vote no in the House, let them. Their votes are only important if the Bush White House wants to veto legislation passed by Democratic majorities in Senate and House. Let the Democratic members of the House and Senate have the courage to explain in clear and certain terms why this had to be done, what precautions they have taken and why their path is the best way forward. And, let the voters have the courage to overcome their own angst and righteous indignation and rationally reflect on something they might not wish to do, but realize they probably have to do.

WHO WON/WHO LOST? WE ALL DID!

As Pat Buchanan falls over himself gushing with praise for Senator McCain's performance in the first presidential debate, it is worth pondering how debates are appraised. Do we judge a debater's performance based on the arguments proferred? Do we examine the facts brought forth in support of various points? Or, do we judge a candidate's performance based on the emotional appeal mustered in support of whatever platitudes a debater chooses to highlight?

Calling these "debates" is a misnomer. Confrontation would be a much better description. Ali might not have been as powerful a hitter as Sonny Liston, but he brought a poetry to the fracas that befuddled Liston and left him helpless in the ring. So, did the street fighting McCain better the calmer, more traditionally focused debater Obama? And, how are we, the people, affected by all of this babble, bluster and bamboozle blathered by one of the two major party candidates?

However we choose to evaluate this gab fest, let's not let the facts get in the way of an analysis since the facts didn't seem to matter much at all to Senator McCain. He claimed that he had warned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as early as 2005. No, Senator McCain, you didn't. You supported legislation that would have removed these two quasi-governmental private corporations from HUD supervision and placed them, along with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, under a new independent commission. This legislation was aimed purely at the Enron-excesses of shoddy accounting that were designed to reward corporate executives with bonuses based on over-inflated and even non-existent earnings. That legislation had nothing to do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's inability to raise capital to meet cash demands brought about by the cascading crisis in the credit market because of the mortgage-based securities wracked by default.

Senator McCain, despite his claim to have visited Waziristan, surely doesn't understand Pakistani politics. Former President Musharraf deposed a democratically elected government that had been mired in corruption scandals. He ruled, much as previous generals had, with the support of the Pakistani army. Was the deposed government a failed state, as McCain claimed? Hardly, though it was a corrupt regime. Was the Musharraf regime any better? Maybe. At least, it did provide stability until the anti-democratic tendencies of Musharraf brought about his rejection at elections he had tried his best to rig in his favor.

The larger point, of course, is what did 10 years of support for Musharraf yield. He did little to rein in the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence service that had long supported the Taliban in Afghanistan as long as it kept Afghanistan weak and provided Pakistan with a platform to interfere in Afghani politics. The blowback came, however, in the emergence of a Pakistani Taliban that targeted the regime in Islamabad and has succeeded in assassinating Benazir Bhutto and in truck-bombing the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad. Now, Pakistan is at risk of becoming a failed state, despite $10 billion of military assistance that did nothing to win the hearts and minds of rural Pakistanis who might have benefitted more had the United States invested in funding the decrepit public school system in rural Pakistan that, in its absence, has allowed anti-American, anti-Western, anti-democratic madrassas to flourish.

When asked about what lessons McCain had learned about Iraq, the Republican candidate once again demonstrated that he had learned nothing about Iraq, let alone Vietnam. He bemoaned the humiliation that American soldiers had felt upon their return to the United States after the debacle in Vietnam. Yet, what strategy would have provided "victory with honor" that McCain claims he seeks in Iraq? There was none. Vietnamization failed because the Vietnam War wasn't just an insurgency. It was a civil war where one side (Hanoi) had the support of two committed superpowers (the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China) and the ability to wait out a country (the United States) that had no idea what it was fighting for in Vietnam. It certainly was democracy because not a single government in South Vietnam had ever been democratic, aspired to democracy or demonstrated the ability to run a government free of corruption.

Obama correctly pointed out that it doesn't matter what happened, failed to happened, should have happened or might even happen in Iraq. The war was wrong from the outset. It was driven by a pre-existing desire to take out Saddam Hussein. It was draped in lies, exaggeratons and outright fabrications that claimed among other things that Iraq was behind 9/11 and harbored untold quantities of weapons of mass destruction. And, it was hyped as the best way to bring democracy to a region of the world where the battle between the forces of modernity and tradition had not even been decided and where unquestioned American support of anti-democrat and corrupt regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt dashed the hopes of positive forces for change.

To allow McCain, as Obama did, to claim that somehow victory was at hand in Iraq only if we follow the present course because of the surge was a grievous mistake. Correctly, McCain noted that the Bush strategy of attack and withdraw was all wrong. A counter-insurgency strategy where territory was seized, held and improved in order to win over the local populace was probably a better bet. Whether it would have succeeded with the paltry amount of American troops in Iraq is dubious at best. We do know that the "surge" would not have experienced the success that McCain seeks to claim for his own without the Sunni Awakening. Paying former Sunni insurgents to fight al Qaeda in Iraq after the Sunni insurgency had grown weary of al Qaeda excesses in Anbar was a wise strategy.

Yet, where has this brought us in Iraq. Finally, after many, many months of negotiation McCain pointed to the passage of an election law which might finally lead to the holding of regional elections originally scheduled for October 2008. At the same time, though, the Iraqi Shiite dominated government is hell-bent on unraveling the Sunni Awakening by refusing to integrate the Sunni Sons of Iraq into official Iraqi police and army units. Moreover, it has expressed its desire to prosecute Sunni Sons of Iraq for earlier transgressions against the government of Iraq while members of the Iraqi insurgency.

Does this point us in the direction of "victory with honor" or keep us heading down the road to continued engagement in an unstable and fragile Iraq? In the meantime, the meltdown in Afghanistan continues. Unstated, of course, is whether the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan is part of the problem or part of the solution. Certainly, bombing of civilians by NATO forces does not contribute to winning the hearts and minds of Afghanis. And, the lack of a sufficient level of ground forces that make it impossible for NATO to seize, hold and ameliorate territory to squelch the Taliban resurgence. Has the situation so deteriorated that not even additional forces in Afghanistan can reverse the decline, especially given the inability of Karzai to effectively govern territory held by the Afghani regime?

Unquestioned assumptions characterized the discussion of Georgia and the Ukraine. Strangely, Senator Obama expressed support for the admission of Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO, a course of action Senator McCain has advocated since his good friend Misha, the young, American educated president of Georgia, launched his foolish endeavor against South Ossetia. Why? Is NATO prepared to come to the defense of either country, especially if it recklessly decides to take action indirectly or directly against Russian forces? No. Not a single NATO country in Western Europe will ever accept mutual defense of these peripheral nations. What might work is the association and later admission of both countries into the European union in order to aid in the building of their nascent economies and the deepening of democratic tendencies in both nations. Russia might accept the latter, while it has stated categorically that it will never accept the former. Pursuing NATO membership, as Obama and McCain both advocated, would lead to a new cold war between Russia and the United States.

McCain constantly harped upon his experience; yet, he came up with comments that, at best, can be described as questionable. He claimed that Reagan's refusal to negotiate with Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko, as well as Reagan's unabashed support for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program that, McCain claimed, had brought the Soviet Union to its knees. This canard, constantly cited by Reaganites who apparently can't remove their own ideological blinders to analyze the crisis in the Soviet Union during the 80s, even if they read every official document released during the later Gorbachev and Yeltsin years. What Gorbachev realized was that the Soviet economy had become untenable. The rot was growing and would eventually have undermined the ability of the Soviet Union to keep pace with a rearming America. Even in the absence of the neutron bomb, the intermediate range missiles that Reagan foisted on West Germany during the early 80s, or the silly SDI program, which, to date, has been a phenomenal waste of money and still cannot shoot down a conventional missile when the launch time and trajectory are known in advance to an accuracy greater than 50%, the Soviet Union would have collapsed. Gorbachev knew this and launched perestroika and glasnost as a last ditch effort to hold together the Soviet Union. The Cold War ended when Gorbachev refused to support the rigid regime of Erich Honecker in East Berlin. Honecker was finished, the Wall came down and the Cold War concluded.

Perhaps it is a uniquely American trait to regard the entire world beholden to what an American government does or does not do. When America speaks, so the logic goes, the rest of the world ignores the United States at its peril. Well, that's true to a certain extent. The failure to monitor and deal with the subprime mortgage crisis promptly has clearly placed the world economy at risk. What the American government does or does not do will have profound consequence to not only the United States, but to the world as a whole. Yet, the American aggression against Iraq has not led to an explosion of democracy in the Middle East. Rather, it has led to a prodigious decline in American respect and prestige throughout the world. Despite Mr. McCain's boast: he can no more will victory in Iraq than he can demand respect without changing the idiocy of 53 years of Republican cold-war thinking.

Trapped in his own ideological blinders, McCain apparently can not grasp how deeply America's credibility has fallen. He promises that he will solve all of the problems America faces and deal with challenges at home and abroad. He claims direct knowledge of issues, regions of the world and leaders, both near and afar. Yet, none of this seems powerful enough to clue him in as to how appalling America's standing is. He promises a government that will never again resort to torture in order to extract whatever questionable intelligence it might receive from detainees held in Guantanomo, imprisoned on overseas bases or sent via rendition to torture friendly regimes in the Middle East. Neither he nor Senator Obama could ever contemplate the dispatch of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al to an international war crimes tribunal.

Call this a debate, a prize fight or a street brawl - whatever you will. It can't escape the judgement that the world deserves better than to listen to the pathetic patter of Senator McCain who can't seem to reconcile platitudes with his own contradictory stands. He will help veterans, but he fights a bill in Congress to ameliorate veterans' care. He wants to help America get out of its current financial crisis, but then rallies Congressional Republicans into opposing legislation supported by the White House, House and Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans all in the aim of deregulating the economy even more and reducing the capital gains tax.

Go back home, Senator McCain, to whichever house you wish to reside in. Go back now before you embarrass us worse than you already have. Your selection of an utterly incoherent governor whose rambling responses might be understandable were she lost in the Alaskan wilderness, but whose every misstep is proof positive that she has risen to her own level of incompetence is only one major stain on your claim to be able to lead. That you would deign to grandstand in Washington and indirectly help torpedo necessary legislation that may well be the only bipartisan means to stave off the complete collapse of the American economy is unconscionable. That you would claim success for its passage before it bombed on Monday is even more absurd.

Spare us any further town halls, "debates" or candidate fora. Sing, if you must, about bombing Iran. We, the rest of the world, would be better off if you confined your vocal prowess to a karaoke bar.