Some Stupidity of one Nidal

This Fort Hood murder had some nerve to advocate that American Military to relive Muslim American soldiers from fighting against other Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan! Surprise is how was he not 'court marshaled' at that point itself. How did American Senior Military Professionals allow that non-sense then?

Do we need examples here? What about so many Indian Muslim soldiers died in the war against Pakistan in defending Hindu majority India? Sometimes one really wonders, this country - America - does not get what is Secularism and how to live in a society where people of different religions come together.

This whole Fort Hood affair is tragic but disgrace to Professionalism of American Armed forces and hopefully they would deal with it resolutely.

A Year Later (Foreign Policy)

It is quite clear that President Obama has made solid efforts to fulfill his vast promise which was apparent during the campaign and for what he was elected. Fundamentally the tone of American Foreign Policy is changed and rest of the world is comfortable with it. Not only that, rest of the world would like President Obama to continue this approach (and hence the pre-mature Nobel Peace Prize).

Overall President is sticking to what he said about Iraq - planned withdrawal and continued engagement to sustain Iraqi Political structure. It is the other war - Afghanistan - where he is digging his heels. The initial commitment of troops in Spring of 2009 was swift and a clear signal of his intentions to own this war. The Administration also understood need of a local Afghan Partner for a successful war on Taliban and other terrorists. Credible local partner was supposed to come after the Afghan elections. However, what is surprising is how this White House tolerated the Afghan Election fiasco. It is true that most of the things about this election were decided during Bush term and Obama Presidency had less to do with the preparation. But it would have been apparent to anyone that problems were brewing there and some action was desired. Looking back it seems White House essentially missed the bus and failed to be more vigilant and demanding in that election. Considering all complications of working with Karazi (now that his opponent has backed out of the second round); it would have been much helpful if President Obama was more alert and pro-active about this election.

Compared to that Obama Administration has been quite pro-active and engaged with Pakistan. VP Biden has substantially contributed to this policy, honed by his decades of experience in this matter. Senator Kerry continued his 'carrot and stick' approach via Kerry-Lugar aid package and Sec. Clinton as well delivered a message of 'tough love' courageously. This intense American pressure as well as a challenge raised by terror attacks, finally made Pakistani Establishment to undertake cleansing operations in Southern Wazaristan. There is a long way to right the ship in AfPak theater, but Obama Presidency has at least made a right start in Pakistan.

The White House also intended to make a right start in case of Iran and it did so when it agreed for unconditional diplomacy. However, the Iranian hand is turning out to be a tough one for President Obama. First, it was the brutal suppression of Opposition by Ayatollahs. Not necessarily Iranian Opposition would have been easy to deal with in nuclear matters (listen to recent comments by opposition leaders regarding Western proposal of shipping bulk of partly enriched uranium); but it would have helped surely in reducing tensions. After loosing that opportunity, now comes the news that Iran is effectively rejecting the latest offer of Western countries. Earlier President Obama had good success in lining up Russia and China for these diplomatic efforts, but now these diplomatic efforts are likely to come short. In order to keep the credibility, White House will not have any option apart from going for proclaimed sanctions. Question is will Russia and China deliver on that.

By taking Bush's East European Missile Plan off the table, hope has been that Russia would back White House for Iranian sanctions. When Administration claims that it adopted this change in E. European Missile Defense Plan because there are more effective solutions to address Iranian missile challenges; there is an element of truth in that. But the largest expected payout is in case of Iran. Time has come now when that hypothesis will be tested. One can be wrong here, but propensity here is Russians would disappoint.

Even more harder battle is with China. Neither do China has any strained relations with Iran nor is it uncomfortable with strong hand politics of Ayatollahs. (Differences on religion, those can always be skirted by Communists when it comes to the question of business.) China's graduation to undisputed Super Power status is hardly linked to solving the issue of Iranian nuclear ambitions or solving the Israel-Palestine dispute. For all that matter, China can perfectly imagine a world where Iran is nuclear as a result of American failures. That is the realization one expects this White House internalizes - necessity of containing Iranian nuclear ambitions (what would happen to Sunni Arabs? why would they be far behind?) which may need more than diplomacy and at the same time to make tangible progress on Israel-Palestine dispute.

Arab Israel dispute is the creation of British Empire and America has essentially inherited the British mantle; at least in eyes of rest of the world. The dispute is intimately related to the history of Western Europe, again the leadership of that falls with America. President Obama understands this primacy and hence has been undertaking appropriate policy measures which can bring Israel to the negotiation table. Asking Israel to stop settlements was a right approach in that respect. However, a staunchly conservative Israel government of Bibi and general Israeli opinion about Present Obama that he is soft on Palestine; both are not helping at all. As a result Obama Administration is not able to stick to it's original demands of stopping Israeli settlements and is required to climb down. It is unknown at this point whether such a tactical retreat will help the Administration. But what is more important is that White House understands many more such months without any improvement in Arab Israel conflict and then the world is inviting currently pregnant violence to the real world.

A Year After (Domestic Policy)

Here is my take on domestic policies of President Obama and his Administration since his election last year.

Tom Friedman in his latest NYT column mentions that Obama Presidency is lacking a narrative and as a result his 'nation building' is sounding like a 'work project' which Americans feel just to slough through without much emotive force. Essentially Friedman is alluding that this White House is operating as some kind of 'Program Management Office' devoid of projecting any stronger overreaching purpose for the entire nation. On the same pages, Maureen Dowd explains why it might be the case so - Obama has to encounter the reality of America's two wars and Great Recession. But then intellectual expectation from Obama is despite these wars and lack money, he would articulate and execute a plan and 'narrative' which will ignite American imagination.

The reason why this might not be happening is the choice President Obama made for his nation building - in the midst of severe recession and collapse of Capitalism, he decided to make Health Care Reform as the top priority. The reform will very likely pass soon (by January end for sure). But the price it has extracted is make this Congress unable to take any other legislation seriously. It has jammed out all other important initiatives. Because this Health Care Reform has a hefty price tag with a strong realistic possibility of Uncle Sam requiring to foot unexpected bills in future, President Obama still cannot talk about deficit, tax reforms and better fiscal management. Further, Administration has been bit lax in forcing Congress to adopt 'prudent fiscal path' in the Health Care Reform which sustains a belief that Obama Administration and Dems in particular are not very vigilant in spending tax dollars.

How much of a serious mistake is this - taking Health Care Reform before anything else? Well, most people backed Obama in April when this reform process started on the premise that Obama Administration will be able to do multi-tasking competently. In fact President Obama forcefully rebutted his critics when they pointed President Obama was taking too much.

But forcing critics to shut up in a debate is one thing and 'walking the talk' is another. The two glaring omissions which are become apparent during these months are:

- active intervention to kick start employment and
- financial regulatory reforms.

Administration claims that it created or saved one million jobs due to stimulus package. But as the blogsphere is awash with the statistics which show that indeed the stimulus so far has been disappointing in creating jobs fast; it is apparent that we are nowhere compared to what we were promised. Again Administration critics who pointed then the aggressive assumptions of the Administration in projecting employment effect of stimulus were derided. The debate whether more stimulus is needed or more deficit spending is needed; all that is a policy debate where this Administration is expected to have some hold. With such a disappointed showing so far of the first stimulus package, Administration is short on credibility here. No matter deficit spending or not, one thing is very clear - funds have to be spend fast, smartly and intelligently to generate jobs. That is not happening and this is something President Obama will have to own now. For example, after the stimulus bill, by May - June it was clear that Small Businesses were getting hurt because of the credit freeze. Still it took October for President Obama to take this issue seriously and even today it is not clear how Administration actions would fundamentally solve this particular problem. As whatever 'push' effect of the stimulus wears down, there is a real possibility of renewed challenges to economy and there are no signs on the horizon that American rulers are any ready for those challenges.

For the other issue of financial regulatory reforms, Rep. Barney Franks in House is taking the initiative. But reading all sorts of early reports indicating how these bills are getting compromised during the sausage making in Congress; things do not look very hopeful here. The way derivative market and swaps are proposed for regulation, it is possible that big fishes will leave the net easily. It is also obvious that this Administration did not take any concrete actions in controlling compensation of Bankers, even though Pay Czar issues few orders for some companies owned by Fed. It is not just compensation, it is unclear why AIG honored all bets to Big Banks which essentially benefited too much at the expense of taxpayers. Meanwhile, there is no serious movement in controlling rating agencies which contributed so significantly to the mess we all have landed into.

People recognize that rebooting of the Capitalism is needed. Agreed that entirely new framework of Capitalism is required and that task cannot be done all by the White House alone. But leadership is never about only executing when intellectual clarity is there. While such haze is there, fog is there; White House is still needed to put forward steps to rectify excesses of Capitalism; especially immediate things which are beneficial for average person. It is perplexing that so many of these things politically winner, but the Administration is not undertaking those. This fuels the suspicion that as like any other American Administration, and despite multitude of vows by President Obama; this Administration is no different than others when it comes to withstanding the pressure exerted by Big Banks and Financial Industry. I am not denying the culpability of Congress here and ultimately they are the ones who own most in these matters; the Administration has not set any great examples here as well.

Bernanke, Geithner, Romer, Summers and President, all can argue that saving Big Banks was necessary to avoid collapse of our Economy and there is no denying that. Their fundamental call of not going for nationalization (Paul Krugman and Simon Johnson turned out to be wrong there) is great and probably one of the most important accomplishments of this Administration. But the impression still remains - this whole American Capitalist System is rigged against common man as articulated by NYT commentator Frank Rich sometime back. This Administration has so far been quite lacking in removing such an impression as well as falling short in creating jobs for common people. Automobile Industry bailout (another excellent domestic success, even though bond holders got unfair haircut there) is only one isolated example where some concrete actions by this Administration helped Labor. Apart from that, we are still waiting. Will it be the waiting forever or the wait ends soon; that will be the story of coming year.

Lessons of hatred

Alissa Rubin writes a thought provoking article in NYT about what is her take away from Iraq - not to undermine the power of hatred and historical animosities. As she mentions at the end, indeed one wishes Americans do not forget this issue as Americans start addressing issues in Afghanistan and Pakistan with a newer strategy. Hilliary's last week trip must have given her that dose first hand.

So all the care and precaution which Obama White House is taking in plotting next moves in Afghanistan and Pakistan; those all are welcome. Not that lengthy deliberations are any guarantees for smart policies, but it will at least give appropriate time for thorough understanding of the situation as well as conducive political developments on grounds (new Presidential term in Afghan and developments in Pakistan's internal battle in South Waziristan).

The general perception of Pakistani and Afghan population is that Americans were only interested in them while fighting Soviets and when that part was done; Americans abandoned them. Of course, there is some truth to that. What was required after the Soviet departure was continued American involvement in that region to carefully handle simmering fanaticism and supporting moderates and middle class in those countries, especially Pakistan. Bill Clinton did not find anything attractive there to continue diplomatically (apart from some high profile visits) nor he found worth while to invest politically at home so as to fund large American aid supporting those societies (instead of just military aid). In some sense there was no pay off to Afghanistan and Pakistan for their support to America in the war against Soviets. American Presidents continued to live with dictators and democracy was skirted aside. It is true that Bill Clinton did see democratic governments in Pakistan and he encouraged those to certain extent. But when those democratic forces started to whittle away, he did not get involved as much as needed. Seeds of 9/11 were sowed in this background.

Coming back to Rubin's article, the involvement cannot be blind or crude without understanding the regional and ethnic divides in those societies. All in all there is no escape for America other than to get involved in this region for a long haul and at great expense. Past mistakes cost a lot. In Bill Clinton's time political environment was favorable to America - it was the only superpower of consequence in those times, American budget was in surplus, Dollar was strong and America had capacity to spend then. Whether America sends more troops today as General McChrystal asks or it does not; it is going to be an expensive endeavor no matter what.

There are few who argue that may be America should restrict all this involvement in AfPak region. Liberal Left is prominent in demanding that and then there are pundits like Tom Friedman who advice along this line now. The case with Friedman is surprising - he was the guy who was at the fore front in backing Bush's Iraq war regardless of realistic cost estimates and now here he wants America to contain her involvement because he fears China, Russia and Brazil all are going to be happy for a perennial entanglement and bogging down of America. It is true that indeed China will be happy for America digging it's own grave in AfPak region. But that still does not absolve America from past omissions and it is imperative for her to still get involved and solve those issues so as these are not fertile grounds of terrorism against America and her allies. Deepening relationship with India and eventual peace in AfPak region; these are worthwhile additional gains too. While executing this undertaking, America needs to be smart and incorporate all lessons which America stumbled upon in Iraq.

Right Signals

Indian PM Dr. Singh is giving absolutely right signals to Pakistan and all S. Asian countries when he says that "we see our security and prosperity in their progress and stability". I wonder if any other Indian leader has been so categorical and emphatic in expressing these right sentiments in so clear words.

Sad part is Pakistan is in much weaker capacity to reciprocate these gestures because of it's fratricidal conflict. But may be, just may be, Hillary undertaking straight talk in her latest visit; Pakistani elite may make the necessary amendments. This is in addition to screw tightening via Karry-Lugar aid package. It was really refreshing for Hillary to say how hard it is to believe when Pakistani Government says that it does not know whereabouts about Al-Qeda Leadership and other terrorists. She meant at least some section of Pakistani establishment is quiet likely aware of these details. It was also music to ears when she alluded to the possibility of how peace with India can be a true harbinger of prosperity for Pakistani society. And finally, it was absolutely correct for Hillary to set the expectations right - that it is not USA which can dictate peace between India and Pakistan but it is for these two countries to address their own problems. Despite objects from some foreign policy 'formalists' one can understand how fantastic a job Hilliary is doing. There cannot be any more potent symbolism when Hillary was talking with Pakistani women about War and Peace with authority and composition. And she is daring to do all this when opinions about USA are totally inflamed in Pakistan. No wonder Andrew Sullivan is all praise for her.

With Kerry delivering in Afghanistan as well as with Pakistani aid package, Biden pounding the table against McChrystal and Hillary going in the lion's dean to deliver some tough love; these Democrats are doing remarkable 'fire fighting' and 'diplomacy' for the Commander-in-Chief President Obama. Hope is something concrete comes out of these efforts.

It is clearly synchronized for good that Dr. Singh extends this 'hand of peace' in this context. With all these wheels turning in right direction, indeed there is much less room for Pakistani establishment (Army Chief Kayani, ISI Chief Pasha, Punjab Chief Minister Sharif - brother of Nawaz Sharif, Pakistani PM Gilani from PPP Party and the President Zardari) to complain about rest of the world. No doubt their political task is monumental - to turn population away from decades of nurtured views about 'good / acceptable terrorism versus terrorism against Pakistan' and to punish folks which are at the heart of such terrorism. That is not going to happen unless the Pakistani establishment:
- dares to define vision of Pakistan which is much more than simply correction of some historical grievances (like getting back certain land in Kashmir from India) and
- unequivocally denounces terrorism of any kind without worrying about whose wars Pakistan is fighting.

Truth is Pakistan is fighting 'its own war' for survival. It is not carrying water for USA or India whenever a terrorist in that land is wiped out. When it undertakes these right steps, it is only serving to the vision of it's founding father Jinha and people of Pakistan.

Update: It all started by Obama's Cairo Speech - campaign style politiciking in other country to achieve some diplomatic goals. Hillary's Pakistan tour is an exhibit A of such public diplomacy, an attempt to shape public opinions in a far way land. These are some 'high wire acts',quite impressive.

Harry Reid

The Senate minority leader in 2004 who led Dems through their most perilous period (2004 to 2006), the Senator who crossed the red line and said 'We lost the war in Iraq' on the Senate floor only to turn out that indeed America could go away from the precipice, the Senate majority leader who has been more or less listless during these early months of Obama Presidency; has final taken a decision of momentous proportion by putting forward a health care reform bill with 'opt-out' Public Option. It is difficult to believe it is all driven by leadership or statesmanship. In the end it is all driven by his electability in Nevada in 2010. As of now he has no chance to win that Senate re-election. With this 'red meat to base' he is hopping right back. True, this is how democracy works; but the decision does not seem to be done with best interests of Americans in mind.

Public Option in itself without 'iron clad' built in mechanisms to control costs is of no use. It can very well exasperate the cost burden on Federal Government. Though Senate Finance Bill has provisions for an independent Medical commission to control costs; back door attempts, like last week, to reimburse doctor fees at $250 Billion over ten years outside the scope of Health Care Reform bill make you nervous. It makes you nervous because Congress has so far no history in managing costs and there are no signs that it would change soon. In stead of focusing on getting a fiscally responsible bill, to strengthen Baucus Bill further so that it withstands cost irresponsible pressure from House; Sen. Reid simply joined the chorus of Public Option and essentially gave up efforts to get a consensus among 60 Senators. In the process he let go Sen. Snowe's vote too which otherwise President Obama was chasing for right political reasons.

One is compelled to say, Sen. Reid threw caution to wind, as Ezra Klein points, because it will be difficult for many centrist Democrats to block the cloture of this bill by filibustering it. Though such Democrats would in the end may vote against it in the final passage; cloture will be there now. In that sense, Health Care Reform with Public Option has come quite near to reality.

Things could still change further if like Sen. Reid, some more Senators feel back home political pressure in their respective states, making them to take strong positions. Or the bill after the conference will be really badly compromised so as many centrists in House and Senate would not accept it. In a way, the perverse signal from Sen. Reid's this move is to abandon any consensus, national interests and to simply respond to electoral pressures / compulsions. You can find many House Members and Senators in similar positions who may abandon caution and discipline which can result pretty quickly in unraveling of the whole thing. That will be the worry for White House. Of course, White House would prefer to err on the Left side if that is what is needed to get the Health Care Reform rather than insisting on a perfectly fiscally balanced reform. The thinking will be, erring on Left will play to the Liberal Gallery resulting in keeping the Dem hold on Congress and that will enable President Obama to take any necessary actions to rectify the excesses on Left side. But as like despite playing to the base Sen. Reid's reelection may be still challenged; many other Dems can still find themselves in harder spots for the next year's election. Coming looses in Virginia Governor race and possibly in New Jersey Governor race too will set in motion a political wave 'checking the influence of' Barack Obama.

End of Regional Identity Politics?

Mr. Balasaheb Thackery, the patriarch of Marathi Manoos, writes a desolate editorial in Samana (October 25, 2009 issue) after latest Maharashtra polls, the Western State in modern India. There is no history of Marathi Folks (those from the state of Maharashtra) without Mr. Balasaheb Thackery - for good and bad. His party was trounced in the latest assembly polls. An eighty four year old need not write such an editorial in Samana - the newspaper founded by Mr. Thackery himself. Life should have spared him here.

One can understand his anguish and sadness. It takes bit of 'end of the world' tone when he declares that he no more believes in God.

Those who believe in God would not find it amusing when a mere loss in a single election should prompt to a life long devotee to become atheist at this stage. Or on the other hand did it require Mr. Thackery that many decades to realize 'belief in God' is nothing but simply 'crutches' to deal with vagaries of Life? Truly tragic part is, whichever camp one is, Mr. Thackery has reached the end of the road literally and figuratively. He does not have any more years left to battle out. Hence his tragic editorial.

One can wonder what is the point in rebutting an 84 year old man's writing since it is questionable what can he understand in all these replies. Besides, it is obvious that he must have been offered sane advice for all thse decades but it did not have any impact on him. Though his political outfit getting trounced is a seminal event, at the end of the day his party still has around 20% members of State Assembly. His political party is not yet finished. In a way, Marathi folks still owe to him in at least engaging with him politically; we should not just 'pass on or move on'.

His is a classical step in 'denial' - he is blaming Marathi people for not voting him. His argument is that his party has been the only one to cater needs of Marathi people and those very same people have turned on him. This raises number of questions:
- What Mr. Thackery considers 'needs of Marathi'; are those indeed the real needs of Maharashtrians or do they need lot many different things than what he is offering?
- Is he ready to accept that it is not the monopoly of Shiv Sena only to serve Maharashtrians? Why is he never ready to accept a fact that for large sections of Maharashtrians other political forces might have delivered and cared?
- Finally, what about a simple fact that there are multitude of Maharashtrians who do not simply associate with 'Marathi identity' which he has been assiduously pursuing at the exclusion of everything else?

There is no point for Mr. Thackery to grouse about how other regional forces are thriving on the basis of identity politics. Did it ever occur to him, may be some of those are delivering to their people (Modi in particular) or simply that all of those regional outfits aiming to rule on the basis of linguistic and regional identities are in the end swimming against the global tide of more unifying politics?

Whatever answers Mr. Thackery wants to give to these questions, reality is as follows:

- He failed to grow Shiv Sena in more unified manner and that led to the division. Marathi Manus 'did not break' Shiv Sena. It is Mr. Tackery's continued nepotism that broke the Shiva Sena leading to a division of Sena. As a result in the first past poll method of Indian election; his party lost dramatically. Why does he not want to own this failure? Do we need to tell a patriarch of 8 decades, what 'unity' means and why it is needed? If Leadership is not bringing people together, to hold them together; then what is it? Why does he want to ignore failures in not cultivating 'institutionalized' power sharing and party management? Who's failure is that?

- True, Marathi Manoos speaks Marathi; but that does not mean he or she can make living in today's world by sticking to suffocatingly narrow and restrictive agenda of Shiva Sena. Marathi Manoos, as like every other humans and societies on this planet change, his needs change and Shiv Sena fails to understand.

- Whenever opportunities were given to Shiva Sena - what did we get? Corrupt government not delivering basic needs and prosperity. Not that non-Shiv Sena governments are corruption free; but those deliver more - basic security to non-Marathi people living in Maharashtra and economic development. Shiv Sena does not have any sterling record when it comes to delivering governance and that is not the failure of Marathi Manoos.

- Finally, did he ever bother to get out of this narrow linguistic chauvinism and govern by much broader and accommodating politics? How can you be a legitimate political force while you want to run your politics on such a narrow basis when today's dramatically 'in flux' societies need much broader agenda and political basis? It is hard to believe in the world where Barack Obama gets elected and a Prime Minister from minority community rules a country of Billion plus people; Mr. Thackery still expects Maharashtrians stick to his narrow vision of Marathi Manoos.

Truth is, Marathi Manoos is indeed 'growing and emancipating' whenever he shows the ability to out grow ultra restrictive confines of any political party, including Shiv Sena.

So Mr. Thackery, actually you do not need to be so sad. Your life long project of igniting imagination and vitality of Marathi Manoos is indeed succeeding. Do not undermine that success in the failure of Shiv Sena where remedies of political come back are well established. If Mr. Thackery or Shiv Sena wants, obviously it can incorporate much needed ideology, policy and institutional changes and then not just Marathi Manoos, but all Maharashtrians will back Shiv Sena.

Update - Some may wonder why do I even bother for some obscure state level election in India. Reasons are:
1. First of all it is personal - my ethnic roots are strongly Maharashtrian and Marathi. So it is incumbent to be aware of what happens in that world. Most of my family members, as well as of my spouse, are intricately linked to Marathi way of Life.
2. We have to understand, many state level elections in India are equivalent or larger than elections in many countries of the world. If we report what happens in German Election or Japanese Election; why not for one of the most important states in India which has population more than 100 Million?
3. Mr. Thackery espoused a peculiar brand of politics, very typical for a young Democracy with non-developed economy. Hence, what happens to that 'polity' is an experiment of much significance.

Mopping the left out area

Many opportunities have been presented to the Obama Administration to correct the reckless bonuses of big banks and each of those opportunities have been squandered; with total disregard to 'what is fair to taxpayers' and what is good for American Economy in coming years. It is obvious that reckless risk for higher compensation and bonuses created market for CDOs which should not have been sold in the first place as well as mortgagees which should not have been given to start with. That brought American and global economy to knees, TARP was approved and by Summer of 2009 American Banks were saved, economy was saved on the basis of taxpayer money. In normal circumstances that would have prohibited the banking industry to stop bonuses.

But that has not happened and American Congress and Administration have failed so for to stop it; having left things for banker's own decisions without any disciplinary actions. Time has come for Congress and Administration to undertake and implement tough compensation policy. Bothering compensations may seem like a less important concern when it comes to saving economy since many argue that 'corporate transparency' is the real key there. It may sound vindictive too. But that is all false. It is the question of accountability and fairness. Democratic politics is all about fixing responsibility on those who caused such a great grief and who still continues to have such a potential to pull all of us down into another hole in future.

What needs to happen as far as compensation reforms go?

1. As Fed Chairman Bernanke mentioned in a testimony to Congress, banks which undertake risky transactions, banks which have large portfolio and banks which are intricately interrelated with the global financial system (i.e. those who pose 'systematic risk'); need to maintain higher capital base. Meaning Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan in today's world need to maintain higher capital reserves than yesterday. The Architect of this Great Recession - Alan Greenspan - in the end agreed to this proposition too. (He went further to support the contention of dividing these large banks as well, not that his advice has anymore credibility apart from admission of the mess he created.)

2. As long as banks do not confirm to these higher capital reserve ratios, no bonuses should be paid to any employees of those banks. Relaxation of 'mark-to-market' rule is helping many banks to show higher capital reserves artificially, Wells Fargo is the case in point, and that essentially leaves these banks to continue the payout of huge bonuses. These relaxed rules will be going out soon, starting from next year; but as far as bonuses go; those rules must be applied today. Further, any bank which has received tax payer money in last 12 months should not be allowed to pay out any bonuses as well.

3. Bonuses which have been paid after TARP injection of funds need to be claw backed as per the regulation. If that is difficult, bring that money into the bank reserves. If that is difficult, hold out money to all those employees in future assuming paid bonuses as advance future compensation. And if those employees have left banks; apply retrospective income tax of 75% payable in next few years. Yes, it is vindictive. But what do you want - a fair system or nuance in being easy on bankers?

4. If Congress is going to take time for promulgation of these laws, then Administration should undertake execution of various existing legal provisions to prevent these bonuses. What is wrong in having 75% income tax on all bonus income above 100K limit for employees of all banks or financial companies, private or public, which do more than run of the mill 'loans and savings' transactions? The reason is Technology companies or Public Utility Companies did not bring the Great Recession. It is these big banks and financial institutions which brought this recession. Now is the time for them to payback.

So the question is - is Obama Administration ready to 'mop up the area' which it has left so far or it wants be beholden to Financial Industry?

That is why no one believes Dems

Social Security Administration declared that there will not be any payment increase for 2010 in light of 'deflation'. Now that is for sure bad for seniors who depend on Social Security money since many other costs are relentless, especially the health care cost. This means suffering. In order to redress this suffering, our compassionate President has declared to award one time $250 to each Social Security recipient. Being mindful of not so good state of Social Security Fund, President also said that he would not like this bonus to come from that fund, but he did not mention from where!

Since we still do not have any technology to 'generate money from thin air', this means $13 Billion dollars cost of this program is going to come from the general budget; meaning - pass the hat to Chinese; more borrowing. Our esteemed Congressional Leadership of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Charles Rangel are not to be left behind when it comes to compassion and hence they have promptly agreed to borrow money to support President's humanitarian Social Security Bonus.

New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg got it right when he opposed such payment saying that what was the point in the first place to have such arrangement, of linking payout to inflation, in Social Security? Now we see why no one believes Democrats when they say Congress will stick to reduced Medicare Payments in the proposed Health Care Bill.

It does not stop here. It gets even more interesting. Some bright bulbs in Senate are pushing for a separate bill to the tune of $250 Billion to pay money to Doctors over the period of 10 years so that they are compensated for the proposed cuts in Health Care Bill. And the argument is 'oh, that will keep the Health Care Bill' as budget neutral!

Now is the time to ask Rep. Barney Frank, Congress and oh yes our beloved, rock start, Nobel Peace Prize Winning President - which planet these Democratic Politicians live?

This is beyond disbelief and totally disingenuous and irresponsible by Dem side. What is wrong then when Republicans say let this Health Care Reform die? True, Republicans spent like drunkard when they were in power. But we Americans do not get out of the hole when 'one drunkard is replaced by another one'; we get deeper into the hole.

Solution for Social Security non-increase is not 'not paying' those $250 per person. But if the Administration and Congress wants to do that, balance that money somewhere else - increasing some tax or cancel some spending. Doing gimmickry or unending borrowing is not the solution. Sermons like Christina Romer when she says President is not at all comfortable with Budget Deficit; that is all empty talk when neither President is doing anything nor is able to avoid 'digging more'. As Senator Bayh said, the current arrangements of 'cost control' in the Health Care Bill are not tight enough and behavior of Democrats so far confirms the worst fears of critics of this bill.

And by the way as far as one time Social Security increase to Seniors goes, we give damn to the political necessity of this Administration to placate Seniors when Republicans shouted that the proposed Health Care Bill is a raw deal to Seniors. That is the pickle of Administrations own making.

Update - Many in blogsphere contend that Obama plan is fiscally responsible because it is avoiding the base 3% increase in Social Security payment, as would be the normal case or the increase needed to yield $250 on an average. Instead it is only one time increase without having the increased base in subsequent years. Contention is that is some kind of saving. Again, the point is whatever increase outside the Social Security Fund is planned; how is it financed - by increasing deficit or by cutting some expenditure somewhere or by generating new revenue.

WaPo Af-Pak Remedy

Washington Post puts forward it's remedy for nullifying challenges posed by Taliban. One crucial point, and the right one, which this editorial makes is that Taliban not only are aiming to capture back Afghanistan, but would like tohoist eventually on Islamabad too.

According to the WaPo Editorial the remedy is not emptying the Afghan theater of war, presumably by adding more soldiers there. The problem here is, the only fully flushed out Afghan war plan from Pentagon is the General McChrystal plan where he wants to go away, on purpose, from 'fighting a war with Taliban' to 'protecting Afghan population from Taliban'. Now that is quite a difference of strategy and objectives. Unless WaPo Editorial puts forward a war plan to fight Taliban in Afghanistan; the proposed remedy appears to be non-implementable until then.

America's current forces in Afghanistan have achieved removal of Taliban from Kabul and have kept it that way. Credibility of Afghan presidential election is the issue to be sorted going forward there. Such an approach without adding substantial troops can create a vacuum for Taliban to re-occupy part of Afghanistan; that danger is there. But by engaging in Pakistan, if Taliban or more important terrorist / militant outfits are cleared; that will be a core redress of the problem on hand. Then to co-opt part of Taliban (Afghan version of Sunni participation in Iraq?) or to always keep them away can be handled since already the half of part keeping them 'away from power in Afghanistan' is attained.