Watch Gaza; Not Iran

Why the sudden outburst of violence between Israel and Gaza? Hamas in Gaza has been lobbing missiles at the border communities of Israel for years and every so often, Israel retaliates. Why the sudden heat and rapid escalation? Where are these long range missiles coming from? How did Hamas get the missiles or the technology to build them? This is like watching a magician's sleight of hand. Watch the Gaza turmoil...

 

It is not unknown that Hamas is a client of Iran, as is Hezbollah. The elections are over and a there is an electorate  endorsed policy statement by President Obama that Iran will be stopped in their progress towards nuclear arms. Iran's economy is suffering the consequences of a successful embargo that has devalued the currency by 40% and significantly restricted oil sales. What is a country to do?

 

Iran has been in need of a diversion that will distract from the current economic pressures and also restrain Israel from threatening an attack on their nuclear facilities. Yes, you heard it here first. It only makes sense that the current escalation is an Hamas proxy war with Israel serving the interests of Iran. Hamas surely cannot win in this scenario.  Israel is left with little choice other than to take out Hamas. That means the major strategic military action by Israel,  which is apparently mobilizing.

 

It is the opinion of this writer, that if there is a military incursion by Israel to take out Hamas, Hezbollah will open the second front in Northern Israel. That is how it went in 2006. We will then have the specter of Syria at war with itself and Israel at war on two fronts. All to the advantage of securing Iran from immediate political and military negative attention. Lets all hope that Israel is well prepared for this and can bring the crisis to heel quickly. And if Iran is the puppet-master in this crisis? Lets not forget Iran.

It's a matter of integrity

It's a matter of integrity

I just can’t do it. President Obama has his weak points. At the outset, President Obama sought to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis and wasted a lot of time. In the end he could only accomplish anything by negotiating with those few Republicans willing to show some independence.

Once the Congress went to a Republican majority, they made it plain. The most extreme and intransigent bloc would determine Congressional strategy and that strategy was to place the best interests of the American people second to ensuring a single term for President Obama.

How many Americans suffered long term unemployment and how many remain unemployed in a slow recovery economy because this Congress refused to work with the President to produce a bipartisan jobs bill?

It comes down to a matter of integrity. It is Mitt Romney who is constantly challenged in the media for his lack of details in his policy statements. It is Mitt Romney who offers a childish estimate of the millions of jobs that he will create miraculously in his first six weeks in office. It is Mitt Romney constantly beset by fact checkers pointing out his misinformation, gaffs and disinformation. It is Mitt Romney who accepts the PAC and illegal 501C4 advertising by billionaires who clearly believe that they can buy self-serving public policy through a Romney administration. And who can forget that we saw all of this with the previous Bush administration?

President Obama may not have been perfect. Whether you agree with the political party affiliation, the ideology or even the style of the man, or not, makes no difference. He is not the man whose political posture and integrity is being questioned. I will have to go with Obama.

Mitt Romney – Israel’s best friend?

Mitt Romney – Israel’s best friend?

 

I just don’t get it. To hear presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the Republican Party and the Republican Jewish Coalition , President Obama has been inconsistent in his support of Israel and will have no need to continue his support if re-elected. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is described as a good and constant friend. Some even point to the personal friendship between Bibi Netanyahu and Gov. Romney.

According to an article in the current Jewish Journal of Broward South, South Florida Jewish voters key in Obama-Romney contest, the Republican Jewish Coalition has committed over $2 million to a very visible campaign in Florida, including “Obama…Oy Vey” billboards, newspaper advertising, buttons and t-shirts and $1.5 million in South Florida TV and cable channel advertising. A million piece mailing is anticipated from this organization, all apparently sponsored through the Mitt Romney Presidential Campaign.

Despite negative posturing by P.M. Netanyahu in favor of Mitt Romney, Israeli military and political leaders credit the Obama administration as the most supportive of Israel in recent decades both militarily and politically. The apparently poor relationship between president Obama and P.M. Netanyahu may be as much due to the latter’s friendship with Gov. Romney as due to President Obama’s criticism and pressure over the settlement policies that threaten to derail efforts towards peace.

It is this writer’s belief that a good friend not only takes an interest, but is willing to invest in the friendship. A good friend does not allow a friend to pursue folly without saying something, but will then stand by that friend through thick and thin. A bad friend will speak warmly of friendship but will allow that friend to pursue folly for their own personal gain and then be absent when most needed.

The last four years has shown President Obama to be that constant friend. Despite his criticisms of the settlement policies and stated belief that the final borders ought to be negotiable from the 1967 boundaries, President Obama has also asserted that the United States, under his administration, will be a partner with Israel in addressing the problem of a nuclear threat Iran.

On the other hand, we have Israel’s great and good friend Mitt Romney who “… insists he would be a better friend to Israel and opposes public pressure on Israel to compromise for peace with the Palestinians.” His chief national security adviser, Dan Senor declared during his recent trip to Israel that “If Israel has to take action on its own the governor would respect that decision .” It sounds so good and so simple. But that does not exactly sound like a friend who intends to be around when the you-know-what hits the fan.

This is where we have the real question of friendship. Mitt Romney has made clear that his idea of friendship with Israel is to be an uncritical supporter, anti- Palestinian and willing to let Israel take a shot at attacking a hugely larger nation with a well-equipped military, replete with high tech hardware that can reach Israel, including missiles and a navy. And he “…would respect that decision.” We haven’t heard that Mitt Romney is committed to being dragged into another Middle Eastern conflict upon the decisive action of an ally. It sounds as if Gov. Romney’s friend, Israel, would be on her own, or so he may hope.

Could it be that President Obama offers both friendship and international alliance to Israel while Mitt Romney seems to offer only a heartfelt fair-weather friendship?

No taxation with representation

It is a tired and hackneyed commentary that nobody likes taxes or that taxation is a necessary evil. The “small government” ideologists in our Florida Legislature would take the essential responsibility of tax policy away from the legislative process to enshrine fiscal limitations on our state in the Florida Constitution. I can think of nothing that could bode an ill economic future than to hamstring the ability of government to raise needed revenues for the education, health and welfare of its people, to develop and maintain infrastructure or to protect the economic viability of the state to meet financial obligations.

The Florida ballot in November will have six amendments that propose to place restrictions upon the state’s ability to raise revenue through taxation. These are Amendments 2, 3, 4, 9, 10 and 11. Not that all six of these proposed amendments are not reasonable and well intended. But, how many in this mix of proposals may pass?  Unless stricken from the ballot by the Florida Supreme Court, how many of us, if asked, would vote against tax relief?  This is why we elect a legislature. It is the responsibility of our legislators to exercise the fiscal judgment and responsibility necessary to ensure the general welfare of the people and the economic health of the state. It is the Legislature that has the authority to annually determine the state’s revenue needs, tax policies and mechanisms to levy taxes through continuing, altered or new laws of taxation.  All six of these proposed taxation related Constitutional amendments, that would divest the legislature of taxation authority, have been sponsored by the Florida legislature. Apparently, nobody told our Florida Legislature’s leadership about the responsibilities of governance.

As the economy shifts, our Florida Legislature will have to find creative alternatives that may mean new taxes or significant tax increases on limited property, business and income sources where limitations have not yet been imposed. If Florida reaches a level of financial need necessary to meet the obligations of attracting business through a well educated workforce, attractive business environment and a modern infrastructure, these proposed restriction could leave us debating the merits of an income tax and an increase in corporate taxation.

Wayne Treacy - Guilty

Wayne Treacy was found guilty yesterday of felony First Degree Attempted Murder. The crime itself was a child on child crime brought on by adolescent cruel text messaging. The victim, Josie Lou Ratley, apparently made the mistake of mocking Treacy over the suicide death of his brother a year earlier. Wayne Treacy was not in a mental state of ability to cope with that tweet sized offense.

The aggressive prosecution for a maximum adult sentence of 50 years has been pursued by Maria Schneider, Esq. The lead defense counsel pursuing an insanity defense has been Russell Williams, Esq.

The psychiatrists, Dr. Hans Steiner and Dr. Alexander Neumeister, each testifying for an opposing side in the trial agreed that Wayne Treacy suffered from a severe PTSD and needed mental health care. The defense psychiatrist found that Wayne Treacy was not mentally fit or truly aware of his behavior in the beating of Mary Lou Ratley. the opposing psychiatrist stated that Wayne Treacy was mentally ill but aware of what he was doing.

The tragedy is that if the Broward County Prosecutor's office were as socially progressive as they self-promote their reputation, there would not have been an aggressive prosecution. The office of Michael Satz, Esq., the Broward County State's Attorney, is well aware that this is an adolescent on adolescent crime. They just don't seem to know how to do the right thing, or perhaps feel that it would be politically risky to promote real justice. Following is the extract of a letter written to Michael Satz by this writer any spouse, Maureen Barrett, a child advocate and Director with the Florida Suicide Prevention Coalition. The letter was sent in advance of the jury verdict:

"Dear Mr. Satz,

"You were confronted at a recent Democratic Club meeting over the prosecution of child on child crime. Your aide privately commented that the reason for the prosecution of teenagers as adults for serious crime is simply that there is no juvenile justice system to accommodate appropriate consequences for these teens. This means that juveniles are not being prosecuted for the purposes of justice but out of expediency.

"We are aware that Florida law does not allow for the incarceration of juveniles for more than 36 months. There is no dedicated medium security juvenile facility for teens who have committed violent offenses. There are no secure education and rehabilitation programs for juvenile offenders who have committed violent crimes. There is no mechanism for extended sentencing of a juvenile into young adulthood who has committed a serious offense as is available in other states {e.g. Massachusetts}. Nevertheless, the Southern Poverty Law Center also reports that Florida incarcerates 50% more juveniles than the national average and that 71% of those incarcerations are for non-violent misdemeanors. Florida prosecutors seem to strive for the most severe and restrictive sentencing possible for our children rather than for the most constructive and healing resolution of juvenile behavior.

"Let’s face it. Juvenile offenders are not the same as adult offenders. They do not have the understanding of behavioral limits and consequences that adults are expected to have. They do not understand consequences. They are just learning about molding their behavior to a moral standard of conduct that we expect of adults. This is particularly true of juvenile on juvenile offenders.

"Wayne Treacy is a great example of systematic prosecutory injustice simply because there is not a juvenile system that will accommodate this offense. All of the parties dealing with this offense are aware and have acknowledged that Wayne Treacy is in need of psychiatric help and treatment. Even your own psychiatric expert opined that he can have recovery with five years of mental health treatment. Nevertheless, your office, rather than pursuing this prosecution based upon juvenile justice, pursues this prosecutor to the nth degree of the law for maximum sentencing and consequences. In our humble opinion and with all due respect, this is not the kind of state attorney leadership that can result in pressure for the creation of an appropriate juvenile justice system.

"We believe that you would improve your stature as a recognized progressive prosecutor and community leader by recommending a mental health resolution to the Wayne Treacy matter, and acknowledge the lack of appropriate resources to address the problem of juvenile crime.

"We bring your attention to a recent opinion piece (The Press ofAtlantic City 7/8/12) written by a mother who lost her son to a 14 year old shooter. It took time, but she has extended forgiveness and acknowledgement of the unnecessarily harsh sentencing that comes with the prosecution of juveniles."

The fact is that the prosecution of alleged crime is not intended to provide the crime victim with a sense of retribution and justice. Our criminal justice system is designed to ensure justice for the accused and for those found guilty. The victim of a crime certainly ought to be able to expect the support of the community. It ought to be the responsibility of the state and the county to ensure that Josie Lou Ratley gets the best of medical care and opportunity for as full a recovery as may be possible. The prosecution and the defense team for Wayne Treacy ought to have been able to find a mental health solution for Wayne Treacy in a secure facility with an opportunity for recovery and restoration to his family and community at some reasonable time in the future. With an aggressive prosecution seeking a maximum sentence, as if this was a crime committed with genuine malice of forethought, what chance is there for justice? This was a crime committed by a troubled 15 year old child against another 15 year old child. Children, especially older children, are capable of such terrible behavior. But, teenagers who survive adolescence become responsible adults, often not in spite of their worst behavior, but because of what they have learned. Justice is now in the hands of presiding Circuit JudgeDavid Haimes

Who are these men...

We all know who they are. We see their names in the news. The Koch brothers of Koch Industries, second largest privately held company in America. Sheldon Adelson, 78 year old CEO of the Las Vegas Sands. Donald Trump who took over the Trump Organization from his father and now heads the family business. These are the three leading and best known of the entrepreneurs who believe that they have every right to pervert the electorate system in order to ensure a favorable business environment for themselves. Their ostensible goal is to finance and harness a Republican conservative Congress, Senate, Supreme Court and Presidency that will produce a weak (also called "small") central government that will provide for the national defense and public order, but will expend little concern for the needs of the general public while ensuring a favorable business environment for "unfettered free enterprise", the bottom line principle driving the Presidential campaign of George Romney.

All of this sounds radical. Is there anyone who would dispute the players, their public statements or the direction of their massive expenditures to purchase public opinion through PACS and 501C4 organizations that produce the needed blanket advertising to sway the public discourse, create the language of acceptable opinion and produce a favorable vote? Crossroads GPS and its parent, American Crossroads, a PAC created by Karl Rove have been funded by JP Morgan, Wal-Mart, the Koch brothers and BP to create anti-Obama ads. Many thank the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling for opening the flood gates for corporate moguls to swamp the elections with money to distort the election process. These Super PACs often feature wonderful value laden names like Restore Our Future, Club for Growth Action, FreedomWorks for America and Endorse Liberty.

That ruling really did only open the flood gates. There has been a proliferation of huge well funded non-profits under the designation of 501C4 that spend the PAC money, protecting the donors from public disclosure. Is this what we mean by responsible free speech? A serious opposition would challenge the tax exempt status of these organizations with activities limited to the political promotion of political candidates or the denigration of the opposition candidate under a thinly veiled purpose of public education.

The real shocker is that Candidate Romney is depending upon his ability to swamp the Obama campaign with 2 to 1 spending, at least half of it by organizations that he will ostensibly have no direct say over their advertising strategies and content. In short, Candidate Romney is not interested in a level playing field for a fair election. He puts up a brave leader public image with a bully at his back. How will this man lead if he wins and in whose interests will he hold himself beholden?

In short, who are these men? Candidate George Romney is one of them and we know whose side he is on? That's the opinion of this Examiner.

Lexus lanes vs the riffraff

It is time that someone addresses the developing Florida Department of Transportation program of so-called “Lexus Lanes”. These lanes are the high speed, low usage lanes reserved for those with the money to afford them and offered up as a creative system to reduce highway gridlock during the high traffic volume “rush” hours. In truth, this program creates a caste system of access to our public highway system. The correlate to the “Lexus Lanes” is, of course, the “Riffraff Lanes”.

To read the South Florida press, anyone would think that there is no cause for controversy at all. In fact, it is clear that our independent South Florida Newspapers have swallowed the Department of Transportation line, well, hook, line and sinker. In fact, a reader might think that the reporter of any given article just picked up their prepared thoughts and research from the Department of Transportation and put their name on it. I have yet to read a note of investigative reporting or thought in any of these articles. Mike Mayo of the Sun-Sentinel wrote an article 04/18/2012. wrote one opinion piece where he actually used the phrase “Lexus Lanes”, but concluded the article by ducking and suggesting that it seems to be working. Who paid him?

The fact is that we all live in the United States of America where there is equal protection under the law. That has always been interpreted to mean that we all have equal access to any and all government resources whether we are talking about access to public parks, justice or the highways. The plan for Florida’s highways and byways is to create lanes that limit access by creating a financial barrier. Only those who meet special rules or who have the money to pay their way in get access. The plan apparently includes access to special lanes on bridges, major urban arteries or anywhere else that may be a potential traffic chokepoint. Today, in South Florida, the next stretch of I-95 from the Golden Glades right on up to Sunrise Blvd is in construction. And that’s just phase 2. The reconstruction of I-595 is also in the news. The I-595 express lanes will go to/from the I-75/ Sawgrass Expressway from/to east of S.R. 7, with a direct connection to the median of Florida’ s Turnpike with tolls ranging from $ .25 to $7.00. More opportunities for luxury lanes are apparently being explored. I am here to say, this is just not American.

The fact is that many heavily traveled urban highway systems feature limited access express lanes. I have driven them myself in Chicago and Washington DC. I am told that there are many cities with these systems. They work to reduce traffic congestion and charge no tolls. They work because these are limited access lanes for traffic that will travel longer distances. If you need to exit the highway, you had better be in the local lanes or you could find yourself 7 to 10 miles down the road and out of your way. In fact the I-95 express lanes have no exits or entrances for 7 miles, from Golden Glades to SR 112.

The other fact is that we are talking about federal highways. This bright idea is apparently traveling like a bad cold to include stretches of highway in the areas of Baltimore, Denver, Houston, Salt Lake City and Minnesota. The time to stop this cruel abuse of public commerce is now. Now where are those pesky consumer advocacy organizations?

Pity the poor guy who has to get to work and makes minimum wage, he is financially prohibited from using those high speed lanes unless he can get two other regular riders and register with the authorities. Of course, the guy in the Lexus with the big bucks; well he can travel those lanes unimpeded at 70 to 80 mph at the height of rush hour. Is that fair? Should that even be legal?

Do want those 'Lexus lanes"?

Dear Mr. Mayo, you almost got it right in your commentary article in the Sun-Sentinel on Thursday, April 19, 2012, Does S. Florida want tolled ‘Lexus lanes’ everywhere? Almost. The term ‘Lexus lanes’  col;ors the picture accurately and you have posed the right question. But then you took it down to personal experience and simplification.

It is true that the system on I-95 in Miami-Dade County works. What is also true is that these express lane systems also work in other parts of the country without tolls and certainly without a financial ability test for access to public infrastructure. I have driven the express limited access systems in Chicago and on I-95 running south of Washington, DC, just to name two.

The issue is indeed “Lexus lanes’ as you have called the system, but it is about the right of equal public access to public infrastructure. Not whether it does what the traffic engineers desire. This also begs the question of what will happen if roads and highways are privatized.

This is an issue of commerce, and equal protection under the law. The use of public highways is after all supported by taxes in one way or another. A user fee that sets flexible pricing to exclude economically limited members of our community is blatantly unconstitutional. I keep wondering, where are all the consumer advocacy organization that ought to be up in arms, AAA, the ACLU, Progress Florida, etc.? Particularly with the trend towards spreading this concept of a ‘rich man/poor man’ highway system.

Our highways, bridges and public transportation infrastructure is supported by fuel taxes. There is a developing problem with the increasing efficiency and diversification of our fuel consumption that will reduce the funding available to maintain and grow this infrastructure. It does not make sense to design a system of having a limited pool of users pay for enhancements. A redesign of the fuel consumption taxes will be needed to capture a fair taxation for support of our transportation system. Perhaps a system that taxes odometer based vehicle usage would be fair. This is the real issue driving the bad idea of ‘Lexus lanes’. How do we pay for commerce infrastructure in a way that is fair and equal?

Mr. Mayo, you are a Commentator. But whether this is entertainment or opinion, you are a newsman influencing the public. You have an obligation to research and understand your subject. As a reader, I really do expect you to have a better understanding of the issues and the willingness to challenge the public when their rights to access are being infringed. Its just not a cute issue to be treated as “I think I’ll just sit on the fence here”.

Overturn the entire affordable care act? Hmmmm?

There is a national debate over the comments of President Obama to the effect that the Supreme Court is unlikely to overturn healthcare reform in the Affordable Healthcare Act. His comments referenced the traditions of the past 80 years. Our Attorney General, Eric Holder, was called upon by Judge Jerry Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to explain the President’s position. There are increasing speculations by media personalities that the Supreme Court is poised to find the entirety of the Affordable Healthcare Act unconstitutional.

The issue of universal health care is not a directly constitutional issue. The only issue that has been challenged at the Appeals Court level across the country has to do with the universal requirement to purchase private health insurance, a legislative compromise from the original proposal for a tax supported single payer plan. Consider, this is not the first universal healthcare coverage plan conceived and passed by Congress. Congress passed a law in 1798, supported by both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson that required all merchant marine seamen to contribute through a payroll tax to cover their healthcare for access to government supported federal marine hospitals and contracted private healthcare providers.

The problem with the current statute is that Congress rejected a single payer system supported by a payroll tax. If the concept of reduced healthcare costs through a universal payment system is to work then a private insurance mandate was needed. This strategy protected the private for profit health insurance industry and neutralized their opposition. This required a controversial payment mechanism that may be unconstitutional. But throw out the whole law? Consider the political consequences of that.

Although most people do not like this law in its current form, the support for the assurance of universal healthcare has been historically enduring. President Obama is only the first President to succeed. If the law is overturned in its entirety and President Obama is re-elected we can be sure of a groundswell of support for a single payer system. A Congress that is again Democratic would be far more likely to pass a new stronger health care reform law. And consider, there are three justices planning on participation in this ruling who have publicly known conflicts of interest (Kagan, Thomas and Scalia). What happens to them with a Democratic Congress when Article III stipulates their tenure as "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior". Would they risk an extreme and constitutionally unsupported political ruling?

Taxing rich harms economy -- not so much

Some conservative commentators appear to be the victims of conservative think tank propaganda. It is common discussion that taxing the rich would detract from hiring. Lets get some things straight. “The rich” are paying taxes on income, or profit, if you will; not investment or operating expense. In fact, the best hedge against higher taxes may be to invest pre-tax income into increased business expense, such as production modernization, business expansion, marketing and...hiring.

Right now “the rich” are withholding some $2 trillion in investment capital as a hedge against the costs of borrowing and the potential of future business losses. Increasing the tax on gross personal income may help to shake some of that investment loose as a way of reducing taxable income for those “rich” who take their business profits as income. Wealthy people like, lets say Mitt Romney,  may find the creation of  privately held businesses and expansion, which produces hiring, as a hedge against showing a higher net income Very simply, tax policy can encourage simply moving personal income into corporate income that is taxed at a lower rate.

Lets try a little honesty in this debate over taxing “the rich”. Its not our job to protect the mega wealthy and it is not to the benefit of this economy to allow the growth of massive idle capital formation.

Syria - Who Let the Dog Get Loose?

I don’t understand our policy regarding Syria. We have taken a position in the past of protecting populations under direct attack by their own government. The UN resolution was vetoed by Russia and China, emboldening the bully dictator Assad to move troops, heavy armour and cannon against virtually unarmed civilian populations. And there is silence. Shouldn’t we be joining with the Arab League to drop humanitarian aid to those under attack? What a great diplomatic bonanza that would produce for the United States!

Wouldn’t it be wise to bring NATO and the Arab League into this to create an imminent threat of military intervention or support ala Libya for the free army? There are so many steps beyond sanctions and diplomatic withdrawal that can send a message short of actual direct military intervention. It is time to show moral leadership and stop the killing.