Not only has the Wall Street bailout restored the banksters who wrecked (and are still wrecking) our economy to full prosperity but it's also paying off very handsomely for the bank overseers who orchestrated the bailout. Perhaps you've been wondering: How are good ol' Ben and Little Timmy doing these days?
Extremely well — thank you very much.
As chairman of the Federal Reserve for six years, Ben Bernanke presided over most of the 2008 financial crash, the Wall Street bailout that poured trillions of public dollars into Wall Street's vaults, the Great Recession that followed, and today's "recovery-that-isn't," since 90 percent of Americans still have not recovered. Now that he has stepped down as head of the Federal Reserve, Ben is on a global "Show Me Some Love" tour. Going to bankster gatherings to bask in their glowing gratitude — and collecting his cut of the bailout loot. Pocketing as much as $400,000 for each speech he delivers to the financial giants he rescued with our money.
In one week in May, Bernanke was in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday, Johannesburg on Wednesday and Houston on Friday, speechifying to global bankers, hobnobbing with hedge fund billionaires and sharing his special brand of insider insight with economic titans. Each of these private chats put $200,000 or more into Ben's deep pockets. He's doing beaucoup of these cash-on-the-barrelhead BenFests for the likes of JPMorgan Chase, Blackstone Group and Morgan Stanley. In conferences and in small dinners at four-star restaurants, Bernanke is offering his "words of wisdom" to the barons of high finance he bailed out, in exchange for a ridiculous fee that most could not have paid without those rescue funds that the Fed chief extracted from you and me.
But here's an irony that's gotta be chapping Ben's butt — some of the banksters he saved are refusing to play the payback game.
Not because they're bothered by the totally corrupt ethics involved, but because they're balking at his sky-high fees. Goldman Sachs, for example, which got a $10 billion bailout and whose CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, took $23 million in personal pay last year, says Bernanke's $200,000 tab is too steep of a price to pay.
Is there no honor among thieves? What's this world coming to when the robber barons won't toss a couple of hundred thousand bailout crumbs to Ben, their loyal servant?
But don't worry about poor ol' Ben. He'll be just fine because the revolving doors in Washington keep turning.
Just take a look at little Timmy Geithner, whose chief responsibility as head of the New York Fed had been to regulate Wall Street's reckless banks so their monstrous greed wouldn't cause a nationwide financial crisis. But — oops! — they did just exactly that on Timmy's see-no-evil, speak-no-evil watch. Still, having proven himself a real banker's man, Geithner was promoted to be America's top financial policy maker as President Obama's Treasury Secretary. There, he insisted that the government's priority must be rescuing greedy bankers with our taxpayer dollars, rather than saving the millions of American homeowners stuck with bloated mortgages, facing wage cuts and joblessness, and who were sinking deep into debt and plunging into poverty.
But, being a good banker's man, Geithner was not punished for his inept and morally deplorable policies. Rather, he was richly rewarded with a top executive position as — what else? — a Wall Street banker. Now, he has published a book about his years of public screw-ups. Oh, sorry, I meant "public service." Concluding that his policies were correct and courageous, Geithner's book should've been titled: "Heckuva Job, Timmy!"
So, Wall Street hucksters are prospering and Ben and Tim are wallowing in wealth — and the real economy remains mired in the ditch of joblessness, low wages, heavy household debt ... and rising anger at the Wall Street/Washington cabal of self-serving elites who shoved them into that ditch.
(Jim Hightower has been called American's most popular populist. The radio commentator and former Texas Commissioner of Agriculture is author of seven books, including "There's Nothing In the Middle of Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos" and his new work, "Swim Against the Current: Even Dead Fish Can Go With The Flow".)
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00
Five years ago, I publicly raised questions about Bowe Bergdahl's desertion from Blackfoot Company, 1-501 Infantry (Airborne), 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division.
A few weeks after his so-called "capture" in late June 2009, three conflicting accounts surfaced: U.S. officials told the Associated Press Bergdahl had "walked off" the base with three Afghans; the Taliban claimed on its website that "a drunken American soldier had come out of his garrison" and into their arms; and Bergdahl claimed in his Taliban "hostage video" that he had "lagged behind a patrol" before being captured.
I asked on my blog: Were the AP's sources mistaken? Or is the disturbing first account the right one? What about the "three Afghans" Pfc. Bergdahl reportedly "just walked off" with after his shift? Who are they? What's going on?
Five years ago, one of the brave soldiers who risked his life to search for Bergdahl answered my questions, and I published his statement on July 20, 2009: "I know the story and the accounts that he was drunk or that he was lagging behind on patrol are not true — this soldier planned this move for a long time. He walked off the post with a day's supply of water and had written down before that he wanted to live in the mountains. ... He is an embarrassment to everyone who has worn the uniform."
After news broke this weekend of President Obama's trade of five high-level Taliban commanders at Gitmo for Bergdahl's "freedom," I heard from another soldier who served on the search team. "Many of my brothers died because of Bergdahl's actions, and this has been a very hard day for all Geronimos," he told me after documenting his proof of service. Other journalists ignored his attempts to get the truth out. My source still holds a highly sensitive position, so you won't see him all over the cable news shows. But he wants all of you to know the hell he and his comrades have been reliving:
"I was assigned to 1st Platoon of Blackfoot Company," based out of Forward Operating Base (FOB) Salerno in Khost, Afghanistan, he said. "Bowe's platoon was assigned to conduct security and stability operations out of FOB Sharana and other locations in Paktika. The untold background that led to Bowe's situation involves an article and pictures published by Guardian reporter Sean Smith." One of the battalion leaders punished soldiers, including Bergdahl (who had been photographed snoozing in his armored vehicle), with extra guard duty assignments for conducting operations in an unprofessional manner at Outpost MEST (OP MEST).
"Bergdahl was already disenchanted with the war effort," my source said, "and I think the extra duty was the last straw for him." On the morning of June 30, 2009, "Bergdahl completed a guard shift, removed his equipment, weapon and sensitive items, and left OP MEST with several Afghan security forces personnel. He took a compass, a couple bottles of water and two knives and his journal. His exact intentions may never be known, but he willingly walked off OP MEST and was secured by enemy forces not long after."
My source, who had been up the previous night on a separate raid, was "shaken awake" on the afternoon Bergdahl disappeared. "We were told there was a DUSTWUN (Duty Status Whereabouts Unknown), and to pack for a three-hour assault. We received a brief that Bergdahl was missing, and we were going to get him. ... Sometime after dark we boarded CH-47's to assault an objective thought to contain Bergdahl. We never made it to the landing zone, as the helicopters took very heavy fire on approach to the objective and had to divert."
The soldier's Focused Targeting Force (FTF) platoon was not told that it was being diverted to OP MEST. When they landed, he said, "We thought we were in enemy territory, so I recall my friends and I screaming 'Vehicles' and preparing to engage with the LAW and SMAW-D rockets we carried.
We soon realized the lights were from RG-31 and Maxpro MRAPs, friendly vehicles, and de-escalated the situation. The CH-47's had dropped us off at OP MEST and did not relay that information."
With that near-disaster over, the soldier recounted: "We averaged 18 to 22 kilometers a day on foot, clearing house to house, room to room looking for Bergdahl. ... We even went as far as rappelling down wells and crawling through tunnels to look for him." The standard procedure for recapturing Bergdahl was not "normal," the soldier noted. "He was very good with knives, and trained to throw and fight hand-to-hand with knives. We did not know the mental state of Bergdahl at the time. All we knew was he left on his own, he caused us lots of hardship, and if we entered a room and saw him, we would put him down because he could attack us."
On the morning of July 4, 2009, the soldier recalled, "we assaulted several objectives looking for Bergdahl. ... We executed the mission without incident and were waiting to be exfiltrated. Our aircraft were in sight when they turned and flew in the opposite direction. At the time we did not know why, but we were stranded. The enemy took advantage of Bergdahl's capture and attacked numerous outposts that morning."
"Combat Outpost Zerok was almost overrun, multiple soldiers were wounded, and PFCs Justin Casillas and Aaron Fairbairn lost their lives fighting that day," the soldier told me. (I wrote about their deaths in my July 8, 2009, column, not knowing they were related to the Bergdahl mess.)
My source continued: "We learned later that our exfiltration aircraft were diverted to support COP Zerok, and that the situation there was so dire that at one point there were two Apache gunships on station that went Winchester, meaning they expended all ordinance and ammunition, but they would not abandon the soldiers still fighting, so they resorted to low-level unarmed passes to distract the enemy. Bergdahl's actions undoubtedly caused these events. We spent the remainder of Independence Day walking in the desert ... waiting for aircraft that did not come for many, many hours."
He continued: "A few days later, we (FTF) conducted a daylight raid on some tents looking for Bergdahl. We took heavy small arms and RPG fire on approach and ran off the CH-47s in contact. Our entire element engaged the enemy, who turned out to be a Taliban shadow governor and his bodyguards. ... Multiple people died that day. ... All of this happened because Bergdahl got tired of playing soldier. The remainder of that deployment was focused on recovery efforts. Countless members of the brigade were wounded, and we lost good friends, among them PFC Matthew Martinek and 2LT Darryn Andrews. I have no doubt these great men would be alive if Bergdahl did not leave."
In addition to Andrews, Casillas, Fairbairn and Martinek, PFC Morriss Walker and Staff Sergeants Clayton Bowen, Kurt Curtiss and Michael Murphrey died as a result of Bergdahl's abandonment. That's eight dead American soldiers (not six, as the rest of the media have reported) betrayed by selfish Bergdahl and reckless President Obama.
My source did not mince words: "The fact that our government negotiated with terrorists and our enemy is incomprehensible. The fact that they exchanged five war criminals for a traitor is sickening. The worst part for those of us that suffered through that time is that PFC Bergdahl is being hailed as some kind of hero. He was automatically promoted to Specialist and Sergeant, ranks he does not deserve and did not earn. I have no doubt he will receive back pay for these past five years, a substantial sum. There will be book deals, and his family are celebrities. I am glad he is safe, and happy for his family, but he should return home to face a court martial."
Are you listening, Capitol Hill and America? The Bowe Bergdahl mess isn't just a story about one deserter, but two. There's the muddle-headed lowlife who left his post and brothers behind. And there's the corrupt commander in chief who has jeopardized more American soldiers' lives to "rescue" Bergdahl by bowing to the Taliban, while snubbing the surviving heroes and the eight dead American soldiers who lost their lives because of him. This cannot stand.
(Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin is the daughter of Filipino Immigrants. She was born in Philadelphia, raised in southern New Jersey and now lives with her husband and daughter in Colorado. Her weekly column is carried by more than 100 newspapers.)
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00
Barack Obama need not ask how well he's doing in coal country, because the answer is always the same: Not well.
A cerebral black man never had much of a chance in poor, rural white Appalachia; let's be honest (though we don't have to like it). In 2012, Obama lost to Mitt Romney in West Virginia by a 27-point margin. So Obama had little to lose politically in proposing new rules to cut carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants.
Some Democrats worry that coal country could deliver some vulnerable seats to Republicans, perhaps handing them the Senate majority. That could happen, but the fate of the planet should be more important than the 2014 midterms.
People in the Appalachian coal region don't have much to lose, because they've already lost. The coal jobs started vanishing in the '50s through mechanization. In just the past three years, Kentucky's already-shrunken coal employment has fallen by half.
And even the coal is disappearing. Because the thicker seams are already mined out, Appalachia can't compete with cheaper coal from the West and the Illinois Basin.
Anyhow, electric power plants were already replacing coal with cleaner, relatively cheap and abundant natural gas. The new rules would only speed the process.
"When policies and other factors cause serious economic problems for a region or group of Americans," Jason Bailey writes in the blog "KY Policy," "there is precedent for federal investments to help workers and communities adjust and transition."
The operative words here are "adjust and transition." That's something the region's politicians have largely failed to do, preferring time and again to rail against the "evil" Environmental Protection Agency and decry a "war on coal."
That served the resource extraction industries but not the people, Ted Boettner of the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy told me. The people lost opportunities to parlay environmental legislation into federal help for getting out from under coal.
Back in 2009, there was talk of a cap-and-trade bill to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. "A lot of money from the cap-and-trade system could have flowed back into West Virginia as investment in clean energy," Boettner said.
There were proposals to help workers hurt by climate change legislation. The American Worker Transition and Community Assistance Act would have provided communities with grants to encourage entrepreneurs. It didn't go anywhere.
Boettner remembers asking an energy staffer for Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., about it. The response, Boettner recalls, was, "Coal miners don't want handouts." Boettner came back: "This isn't a handout. West Virginia has been a sacrifice from its very beginning. We powered America, but we got very little in return." He goes on: "The coal thing is entirely frustrating. The bad part is that the political leaders in West Virginia are telling people that if you get the EPA off our backs, the era of milk and honey will return."
As we speak, Democrats in coal country are running in circles, denouncing the proposed rules. Rep. Nick J. Rahall of West Virginia called it "devastating" at best, a "death blow" at worst.
Boettner does see some rays of light, however, on the political side. For example, Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat, and Rep. Hal Rogers, a Republican, talk openly about helping coal-producing counties diversify their economy — and propose directing severance tax funds paid by the coal industry to coal-producing counties for economic development.
Rogers went as far as to say, "Our best resources" are not coal. "It's our people."
There's no soft economic landing for this region anymore — but it can be made less hard. Fortunately, the people are tough.
A member of the Providence Journal editorial board, Froma Harrop writes a nationally syndicated column from that city. She has written for such diverse publications as The New York Times, Harper's Bazaar and Institutional Investor.)
Last Updated on Wednesday, 04 June 2014 07:24
"We needed to get him out of there, essentially to save his life."
So said Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, an Army sergeant in Vietnam, of Barack Obama's trade of five hard-core Taliban leaders at Guantanamo for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a Taliban prisoner for five years.
The trade speaks well of America's 's resolve to leave no soldier behind. And the country surely shared the joy of Bergdahl's family on learning their son was alive and coming home. But this secret swap, as well as the circumstances of Bergdahl's capture and captivity, are likely to further polarize our people and poison our politics.
First, the price the Taliban extorted from us is high. We could be seeing these killers again on a battlefield after their year's detention in Qatar. Other Americans may have to suffer and perhaps die for our having freed these five from Guantanamo. Taliban leader Mullah Omar is proclaiming a "big victory" over the Americans, and it is a morale boost for the Taliban we are fighting.
As for the Afghan government, it was kept in the dark.
The message received in Kabul must be: The Americans are taking care of their own, cutting deals behind our back at our expense, packing up, going home. We cannot rely on them. We are on our own.
But as for the claim that we "never negotiate with terrorists," it is not as though we have not been down this road before.
During Korea, we negotiated for a truce and return of our POWs with the same Chinese Communists who had tortured and brainwashed them. During Vietnam we negotiated for the return of our POWs with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong who massacred 3,000 civilians in Hue in the Tet Offensive.
Jimmy Carter negotiated with the Ayatollah's regime to get our embassy hostages out of Iran. The Iran-Contra scandal was about Ronald Reagan's decision to send TOW missiles secretly to Iran, for Iran's aid in getting hostages released by Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Bibi Netanyahu today insists that America not recognize a new Palestinian government that includes Hamas, for Hamas is a terrorist organization committed to Israel's destruction. Yet Bibi released 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in 2011, many of them guilty of atrocities, in exchange for a single Israeli soldier held by Hamas in Gaza, Pvt. Gilad Shalit.
Yasser Arafat, Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela were all once declared to be terrorists heading up terrorist organizations — the PLO, the Irgun and the ANC. And all three have something else in common: All became winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Today's terrorist may be tomorrow's statesman. The remains of Lenin and Mao rest in honor in their capitals. Jomo Kenyatta, founding father of Kenya, was once the chieftain of the Mau Mau.
When it comes to negotiating with domestic hostage-takers, do we not, along with training SWAT teams to take them out, train men to negotiate with them? How many of us, with a family member held by a vicious criminal demanding ransom, would refuse to negotiate?
Yet, if those released Taliban are indeed "hardened terrorists who have the blood of Americans ... on their hands," as John McCain charges, why were they not prosecuted and punished like the Nazis at Nuremberg?
America has sent a message to its enemies by trading five war criminals for Sergeant Bergdahl: The nation with a preponderance of the world's hard power has a soft heart.
And though America rejoiced with the parents of Sgt. Bergdahl this weekend, other troubling issues have begun to be raised.
Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, said on ABC that Bergdahl "served the United States with honor and distinction" and "was an American prisoner of war, captured on the battlefield."
But is this true? His fellow soldiers say Bergdahl was not missing in action, and not wounded. Disillusioned with the war, he walked away from his post.
In an e-mail to his parents three days before he went missing. Bergdahl wrote, "I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of U.S. soldier is just the lie of fools. ... I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting."
For days, Bergdahl's fellow soldiers were out searching for him, risking their lives to prevent his Taliban captors from taking him into Pakistan. U.S. soldiers may have been wounded and some may have died in the attempt to rescue their lost sergeant.
Did Sgt. Bergdahl defect, did he desert, did he collaborate with the enemy? We do not know. But these charges will have to be investigated.
For if they are not, or if they are proven true and Bergdahl evades all punishment, it would be a blow to Army morale and widen the gulf between the Army and commander in chief that was on display at West Point a week ago.
Sergeant Bergdahl, one suspects, is about to become a famous and representative figure of his country's divisions in the Obama era.
(Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan has been a senior advisor to three presidents, twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000. He won the New Hampshire Republican Primary in 1996.)
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00
The opinion pages, economic journals and liberal websites are atwitter (a-Twitter?) these days over French economist Thomas Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First Century." Left-wingers cite Piketty's statistics showing growing wealth inequality — though some have been challenged by the Financial Times — in support of Piketty's policy response, huge taxes on high incomes and accumulated wealth.
One suspects that many of his fans have another agenda in mind. They'd like to gull a majority of the 99 percent to vote for parties that would put their friends in control of an engorged state apparatus.
There they could stamp out fossil fuels in favor of renewables — and get all those overweight suburbanites out of their vulgar SUVs and into subways, and out of their ticky-tack subdivisions and into gleaming mid-20th century modern high-rises. (Actually, there is a great city like that: Moscow.)
The only problem is that voters won't cooperate. They don't seem interested in centralized direction from the chattering classes. The protest votes around the world are mostly going not to redistributionist parties of the left but to various anti-centralization parties of the right.
Current polling points to Republican victories in the 2014 off-year elections, and Pew Research reports that 65 percent want the next president to follow policies different from Barack Obama's. Our Anglosphere cousins Britain, Canada and Australia all have center-right governments.
Then there are last week's European Union parliament elections. In Britain, the United Kingdom Independence party, which wants out of the EU and tougher limits on immigration, came in first, ahead of recently redistributionist Labour — the first time in 30 years the national opposition party wasn't first.
In France, first place went to the more sinister Front National led by Marine Le Pen. President Francois Hollande's Socialist party, which Piketty has supported, won 14 percent of the votes.
The Denmark People's party won there. Parties for which Nazi comparisons are not wholly unjustified — Jobbik in Hungary, Golden Dawn in Greece — won seats in those countries. Beleaguered Greece was the only country that lurched to the redistributionist left.
The European fringe parties are not a united lot (UKIP won't caucus with Front National). They express attitudes specific to each nation and lack a common platform. What they have in common is distaste for nanny state liberalism imposed by unaccountable E.U. bureaucrats and executives. In effect, they are saying that the original purpose of the E.U. — to unite Europe to prevent a third world war — is obsolete, now that war in Europe (beyond the former Soviet Union) is unthinkable.
Instead, they see the democratic nation-state as their protector and the legitimate object of their allegiance. And, despite some fringers' admiration for Vladimir Putin, they tend to prefer capitalism to mandarin-mandated economic redistribution and regulation.
Europe and North America are not the only parts of the world rejecting Piketty politics. In the world's largest democracy, India, 554 million people voted and gave a resounding victory and the first outright parliamentary majority in 30 years to Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party. Modi promised to unleash free markets and encourage growth as he had done in the state of Gujarat. The BJP won 282 seats. The Congress party, in power for 49 of India's 67 years, promised more welfare and won 44.
Across the Pacific, a plurality of voters in Colombia favored Oscar Ivan Zuluaga, endorsed by former President Alvaro Uribe, over incumbent Juan Manuel Santos. Zuluaga criticized Santos for negotiating with the FARC narcoterrorists rather than continuing Uribe's tougher policies.
Either could win the runoff June 15. But the weak showing of Santos, widely praised internationally, suggests Colombians put a priority on public safety. Redistribution isn't an issue in a country with great economic inequality.
Not all elections around the world go the same way, and sometimes voters just rotate politicians in office. Americans have twice elected a leftish president, and last year, New York City elected a leftist mayor.
But over the last 40 years, Piketty's years of increasing economic inequality, the biggest electoral successes have been free-marketeers (Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan) and light-on-redistribution moderates (Tony Blair, Bill Clinton).
Leftists hope the Piketty book will spark an electoral surge for redistribution that will let them install nanny state policies micromanaging ordinary people's lives.
But the lesson of recent history is that, even when the inequality increases in the economic marketplace, there's not much demand in the political marketplace for economic redistribution.
(Syndicated columnist Michael Barone is senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.)
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00