Jacob Lew, "The High Price of Rejecting the Iran Deal": The American Impotence Argument

Tweet

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "The High Price of Rejecting the Iran Deal," US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew makes the American impotence argument for accepting Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. Lew would have us believe that if the US were to impose secondary sanctions against foreign banks acting to support illicit trade with Iran, an economic crisis would ensue:

"Some critics nevertheless argue that we can force the hands of these countries by imposing powerful secondary sanctions against those that refuse to follow our lead.

But that would be a disaster. The countries whose cooperation we need — including those in the European Union, China, Japan, India and South Korea, as well as the companies and banks that handle their oil purchases and hold foreign reserves — are among the largest economies in the world. If we were to cut them off from the American dollar and our financial system, we would set off extensive financial hemorrhaging, not just in our partner countries but in the United States as well.

Our strong, open economic relations with these countries constitute a foundation of the global economy. Nearly 40 percent of American exports go to the European Union, China, Japan, India and Korea — trade that cannot continue without banking connections.

The major importers of Iranian oil — China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Turkey — together account for nearly a fifth of our goods exports and own 47 percent of foreign-held American treasuries. They will not agree to indefinite economic sacrifices in the name of an illusory better deal. We should think very seriously before threatening to cripple the largest banks and companies in these countries."

China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Turkey will not agree to "indefinite economic sacrifices"? Sorry, Jack, but this is pure poppycock. The world is now awash with cheap oil, and all of these countries have no problem making their energy purchases elsewhere. Would these countries' banks risk exclusion from the American financial system by facilitating illegal trade with Iran? Not a chance.

In fact, Lew is being just as dishonest as John Kerry, who recently made the risible argument that the US dollar would "cease to be the reserve currency of the world" if Congress disapproved the nuclear deal with Iran.

Also worth noting that Lew does not make even a single reference to the secret side agreements between the IAEA and Iran regarding inspection of suspect Iranian nuclear sites.

Shame on you, Jacob! You should know better!

Paul Krugman, "The Boehner Bunglers": Nothing "Incompetent" About Obamacare's Rollout

Study the question posed in the opening of Paul Krugman's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Boehner Bunglers" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/07/opinion/krugman-the-boehner-bunglers.html?_r=0) and see if you can't guess the answer. Krugman's conundrum:

"The federal government is shut down, we’re about to hit the debt ceiling (with disastrous economic consequences), and no resolution is in sight. How did this happen?"

No it's not a trick question. Paul's solution to this brain twister:

"The main answer, which only the most pathologically 'balanced' reporting can deny, is the radicalization of the Republican Party."

Holy baloney, why didn't I think of that! Those nefarious Republicans! (Excuse me as I stifle a yawn.)

Explaining that "health reform is Mr. Obama’s signature domestic achievement" and that "[y]ou’d have to be completely clueless to believe that he could be bullied into giving up his entire legacy," Krugman continues:

"Many people seem perplexed by the transformation of the G.O.P. into the political equivalent of the Keystone Kops — the Boehner Bunglers?

. . . .

Meanwhile, the government is shut, and a debt crisis looms. Incompetence can be a terrible thing."

Well, I'm not a Republican and with a little luck not destined for Krugman's "Inferno," but doesn't it sound sad that the Affordable Care Act will amount to Obama's "entire legacy"?

And if we're on the subject of "competence," how is it that more than three years after the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the Obama administration can roll out a website for persons wanting to sign up for insurance, which is not navigable. As observed by liberal pundit Ezra Klein in a Washington Post item entitled "Wonkbook: Obamacare’s Web site is really bad" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/04/wonkbook-obamacares-web-site-is-really-bad/):

"No one knows how many people have actually signed up through the federal exchanges. As of Thursday morning, health-care reporters were desperately trying to find even one."

Concerning the security of the website, John McAfee, founder of McAfee, Inc., tells us (http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/10/04/John-McAfee-On-Obamacare-Tech-People-Will-Lose-Millions-of-Dollars):

"Well, here's the problem -- it's not something software can solve. I mean, what idiot put this system out there and did not create a central depository? There should be one website, run by the government, you go to that website and then you can click on all of the agencies. This is insane. So, I will predict that the loss of income for the millions of Americans who are going to lose their identities -- I mean, you can imagine some retired lady in Utah, who has $75,000 dollars in the bank, saving her whole life, having it wiped out one day because she signed up for Obamacare. And believe me, this is going to happen millions of times. This is a hacker's wet dream. I cannot believe that they did this."

Only Republican incompetence? Yeah, right.

New York Times, "I.R.S. Inquiry Status Told to White House in April": Obama Wasn't Told?

Can it possibly get any worse for Obama? One week ago, he held a press conference with UK Prime Minister David Cameron and explained how he first learned about the problems involving the IRS:

"I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday. And this is pretty straightforward."

Well, it turns out now it's not so "straightforward."

A just published New York Times article entitled "I.R.S. Inquiry Status Told to White House in April" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/us/politics/white-house-told-of-irs-scrutiny-of-groups-in-april.html?_r=0), written by Jonathan Weisman and Brian Knowlton, informs us:

"The chief White House lawyer, Kathryn Ruemmler, learned last month that a Treasury inspector general had concluded an audit of the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups, weeks before the matter became public, according to a senior White House official.

The White House counsel’s briefing came about the same time that Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew met with the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, J. Russell George, to learn the conclusions of his draft audit of the controversial I.R.S. effort, the official said. "

Pulling no punches, a just published Wall Street Journal article entitled "Obama's Counsel Was Told of IRS Audit Findings Weeks Ago" (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323648304578493081906824260.html) by Peter Nicholas, similarly reports:

"The White House's chief lawyer learned weeks ago that an audit of the Internal Revenue Service likely would show that agency employees inappropriately targeted conservative groups, a senior White House official said Sunday.

That disclosure has prompted a debate over whether the president should have been notified at that time.

In the week of April 22, the Office of the White House Counsel and its head, Kathryn Ruemmler, were told by Treasury Department attorneys that an inspector general's report was nearing completion, the White House official said. In that conversation, Ms. Ruemmler learned that "a small number of line IRS employees had improperly scrutinized certain . . . organizations by using words like 'tea party' and 'patriot,'" the official said.

President Barack Obama said last week he learned about the controversy at the same time as the public, on May 10, when an IRS official revealed it to a conference of lawyers. The president's statement drew criticism, focusing attention on his management style and whether he has kept himself sufficiently informed about the agencies under his authority."

Who is this anonymous White House official who concurrently informed both The Times and The Wall Street Journal of this fact?

What was the motivation of this anonymous White House official who simultaneously went to two newspapers to inform them of this information?

Is he/she covering his/her buttocks?

Is it even remotely possible that after being provided this information, Kathryn Ruemmler simply sat on it and didn't inform anyone else in the White House?

Answers:

You can guess for yourselves the identity of the anonymous White House official. I know on whom I'm placing my bet.

Ruemmler just sat on the disclosure and didn't inform anyone else at the White House? Yeah, right.

Treasury Secretary Lew didn't know in April? In the words of Ray Charles, my advice to Lew:

"Hit the road Jack and don't you come back no more."

And Obama was purposefully kept in the dark?

This revelation comes after Senior Advisor to the President for Strategy and Communications, Dan Pfeiffer, fibbed on "Face the Nation" yesterday (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/face-nation-dan-pfeiffer-tells-bald.html).

Even if Obama wasn't told by Ruemmler or by anyone else in his administration, all of this speaks volumes concerning Obama's incompetence.

David Brooks, "The Great Migration": Obama Distances Himself from Hope and Change

Chuck Hagel, Obama's nominee for secretary of defense, has served as something of a lightning rod, diverting the Senate's attention away from the president's other nominees, notably multi-millionaire John Kerry, a "dear friend" of Syrian mass murderer Bashar al-Assad, who is soon to approved as secretary of state, and John Brennan, his nominee for head of the CIA, whose involvement with drone strikes is the source of no small amount of controversy (see: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/peek-at-the-ruling-elites-letter-of-recommendation-for-john-brennan/267431/). By comparison, the president's nomination for secretary of the treasury of Jack Lew, his current chief of staff and Citigroup expatriate, who once received a $940,000 bonus before the bank went begging for federal assistance to stave off collapse, is almost under the radar.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Great Migration" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/opinion/brooks-the-great-migration.html?_r=0), David Brooks observes how America's brightest students, recruited from every distant corner of the nation, find their way into a select group of elite universities, where their value systems undergo change:

"They’ve been raised in an atmosphere of social equality and now find themselves in a culture that emphasizes the relentless quest for distinction — to be more accomplished, more enlightened and more cutting edge."

After receiving their degrees, these young persons often migrate to hubs of prosperity, far removed from their humble origins:

"The highly educated cluster around a few small nodes. Decade after decade, smart and educated people flock away from Merced, Calif., Yuma, Ariz., Flint, Mich., and Vineland, N.J. In those places, less than 15 percent of the residents have college degrees. They flock to Washington, Boston, San Jose, Raleigh-Durham and San Francisco. In those places, nearly 50 percent of the residents have college degrees."

According to Brooks, this disparity is then aggravated by a concentration of power, influence and resources in Washington:

"The final problem is that, in an effort to reduce the economic concentration of power, the administration is concentrating political power in Washington. If the problem is that talent is fleeing blighted localities, it’s hard to see how you make that better if decision-making and resources are concentrated faraway in the nation’s capital."

In his second inaugural address, President Obama declared:

"What makes us exceptional, what makes us America is our allegiance to an idea articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today we continue a never ending journey to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time."

And so, a coterie of millionaire white guys installed in Obama's second term cabinet is going to "bridge" the noble aims of the Declaration of Independence with modern day "realities"? Yeah, right.

If the Obama administration was truly serious about resuscitating the fortunes of "Merced, Calif., Yuma, Ariz., Flint, Mich., and Vineland, N.J.," thereby contributing to social equality, tax incentives could be provided to corporations, particularly of the high-tech variety, willing to open new offices and factories in downtrodden locales.

But it's not going to happen. "Hope" and "Change" have been inseparably stranded from "the realities of our time," as perceived by the governing elite from their isolated aeries.