Immigration reform bill, amnesty, and path to citizenship

I am really intrigued by the whole illegal immigrant bill and associated debate going on right now.  There seems to be a lot of effort and general support from dems to provide amnesty or a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.  I also see opposition to reporting those here illegally as part of booking them for other crimes.  What i never hear is the justification for amnesty or the justification for not considering someones immigration status when booked for other crimes.

To me I get that there is a human rights aspect to this.  A family moves here with a 1 year old child illegally, child grows up here for 10+ years, does it really make sense to deport him back to wherever?  Is breaking up that family ok?  On the other hand I think of the analogy of someone struggling to feed their family breaking into a home and robbing them.  He uses that money to feed his children, raise them right, and send them off to college.  But if he is caught after all that time, he still owes the money back.  He still stole it.  What legal or moral right does he have to any of it?  Sure it isn't his families fault he got the money illegally but tough cookies he broke the law.  

So what exactly is the argument for giving those currently here illegally citizenship?  Is it similar to the drug war where making something illegal doesn't solve any problems and creates new ones to boot?  What do we say to those who are still in the waiting line for the legal option?

------------

Thx for your thoughts. I am not aware of the fine print, but I also agree that the Dems' push for a path to citizenship is a bit excessive. I mean, Reagan gave the last amnesty with very few strings attached, so the GOP don't really have much credibility to be hard on the Dems - though to be fair Reagan would not really be identified as a Repub. today on many issues/practices. Citizenship is a pretty big deal (and as you said the legit line is very long), and for sure not many of the illegal immigrants currently here would qualify or see it through if it were law tomorrow. But still, it may send the wrong message. I would be OK with giving them work permit/legal resident status instead as the ultimate goal. Why should there be a path to citizenship specifically vs. residency status? I didn't see really compelling arguments for that online. Maybe the rationale for granting citizenship is kind of ideological: as you said these folks have demonstrated "American-ness" in every other way possible, so why not out of respect grant it to them after paying some fines? Or as the GOP says, maybe it's a hand-out to win Latino votes.

I would disagree regarding your burglary analogy. In that case, the thief is hurting an innocent private citizen and taking something from them. For illegal immigration, in most cases it is a "victimless crime" where no one is harmed and in fact many Americans may benefit without even realizing it. Of course that immigrant (if amnestied) may be "taking a spot away" from someone in line who played by the rules. And if that immigrant got some gov't assistance, that is fewer resources for others in need. But in general I think immigrants contribute more to the US than they take.

Did you know that you can also buy your way to a green card? Doesn't that also disadvantage the immigrants who are waiting patiently but can't afford a $0.5M-1M fast-pass?

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/08/us_attracts_rich_foreign_inves.html

For individuals booked with a crime, depending on the severity I guess it's valid to ask for immigration status and deport/imprison bad offenders. But I think the big problem was in states like AZ, they passed profiling laws where authorities could ask anyone they wanted for proof of citizenship on the spot. And of course they tend to ask people who look a certain way.

Tangentially, Maher commented that the GOP's insistence to "militarize" the southern border (Border Surge) as a prerequisite for imm. reform is a direct consequences of our draw-down in the War on Terror. Many contractors are going to be assed-out, so they need to replenish their revenue with more ludicrous spending on high-tech hardware and troops (in this case B. Patrol agents) we don't really need. Supposedly in the Senate bill there are specific provisions for the purchase of certain tactical systems from certain companies. In total the Surge would be $38B in additional spending - advocated by the austerity-or-bust party. For scale, all food stamps spending in the US in 2010 was $64B.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/immigration-deal-would-boost-defense-manufacturers/2013/07/01/d1c115e4-df63-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html?hpid=z1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/13/10-states-with-the-greatest-food-stamps_n_860233.html

Also an interesting side-note about drones: I thought they would be a lot cheaper than manned craft. But according to "The Newsroom", an F-16 is about $500M while a Predator is about $300M - not much savings! Well if you include the pilot training and future care costs, maybe that's another $5M to the manned craft bill? How the hell can an oversized RC propeller plane (that is lower tech, can be hacked, and is slower than an F-16), cost 3/5 as much!?!

David Stockman on the debt, Fed, etc.

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201304111000

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/07/paul-krugman-david-stockman_n_3033003.html

I don't know much about Stockman's history, but he was Regan's budget director so that is a hit to credibility. And then when he had a "falling out" with Ronnie over tax cuts and spending, he went to Wall Street (whom he blames a lot for the Great Recession in his recent book). So that is strike two. But he did become disenchanted with Wall Street, then sobered up, and is trying to be Paul Revere about our political and economic woes.

We have heard most of his arguments before, but he approaches it as a conservative who is trying to save "real" capitalism from the forces of corruption.

Some points that I found especially interesting:

-Neither Obama or the GOP dare to challenge the military industrial complex, even with all the discussion about debt worries. Maybe the sequester was the best thing for us on the military end (but not on the public services and investments side). So many Americans are now dependent and suckling on the teat of defense (quite a mental image!), defense is "too big to fail" and they claim that any cuts will cause us to slide back into recession. And many politicians are OK with that because their re-elections hinge on defense jobs and contracts in their states. And we get basically zero ROI on most defense spending - they are just cash outlays that go poof. I guess the same can be said about food stamps, but that program is a grain of sand compared to defense. I am all for spending on infrastructure and *smart* research that will actually give us positive ROI.

-The Fed's monetary policies from Greenspan to today have been disastrous. The super-low interest rates did not ease borrowing or promote growth, but only allowed Wall Street to lever up and make more profits during bubble cycles. And for the retirees and others who "did it right" and saved responsibly all their lives - their fixed income reserves are producing nearly zero returns to live off of now.

-Stockman thinks that the Social Security Trust Fund is raided and just a confetti IOU. I have heard various assessments, so I am not sure what to believe - Is Social Security OK? One thing is clear - wealthy retirees should not be getting SS benefits, even if they paid a lot into the system for decades. It makes no sense to burden younger, productive, debt-laden working people with large payroll taxes to subsidize older, richer, secure folks who don't need more security. But you have the AARP out there, so that's that.


Clearly our financial and monetary woes are not a Democrat or Republican problem. They are an American problem (to borrow an Obam-ism). Both parties are now in love with irrational tax cuts and loopholes as the best way to bribe voters (especially rich voters). Both parties think that we need to spend as much on defense as the Pentagon asks for (like asking your kid the open ended question "What do you want for Xmas?" and being surprised when they say "Unicorn!!"), even though our military is built to fight threats that do no exist. Also, a moral hazard associated with a bloated military is the fact that we may feel more inclined to use it because we paid for it. If we had a scaled-down military on par with Scandinavia and such, then it would have been obvious that we couldn't occupy Afghanistan or Iraq. In that case, we would have devised more feasible, economical solutions to fight terrorism. And probably they would have been just as effective if not more so.

--------

I think Stockman is basically wrong. If you're concerned about the long-term health of the nation, what you need to be worried about is getting us out of this recession and repairing the damage done. There was a recent paper looking at the job health of the long-term unemployed, and the basic answer is that being out of work for 6+ months doesn't just mean you lose that time. It impacts you essentially for the rest of your career. There's an understandable stigma about hiring people who've been out of work for long periods, which makes it harder to get back into the workforce, when you come back it's at a lower role, etc. This is a big deal for recent college grads as well: young people who graduated in the last 3-5 years have been screwed, big-time, by our economy, and may never get back on track. This idea that reducing the deficit is "for the benefit of young people" is shenanigans.

On Social Security …

Legally, the Social Security Trust Fund is a separate organization from the federal government. It has its own dedicated revenue (payroll tax) and expenses. For a long time it ran a surplus, bringing in more revenue than it paid out. It invested that surplus prudently, in the world's safest and most liquid asset class: US Treasury Bonds. Anyone who calls a US Treasury Bond an IOU, like we're talking about a 10-year old's lemonade stand borrowing money for sugar, is deeply misinformed or trying to scam you. These are the highest-quality assets in the world.

Now, it's possible that the US government could choose to default on those bonds, causing Social Security to lose its trust fund. But a default on US Treasuries would be catastrophic. The debt ceiling threat was over a short-term, technical default, with every understanding that the debt would eventually be paid, and even that roiled financial markets. A decision to default on the US debt would, with very little hyperbole, end the world financial system. Every bank, hedge fund, money market fund, etc, would be insolvent.

Moreover, the folks who talk about Treasuries as IOUs describe this as being specific to Social Security, so now you're talking about a selective default on just the debt held by the Social Security Trust Fund. That is, the government (I think it's under Sec-Treasury, so executive branch) would have to decide to default only on debt to US seniors, while continuing to pay the Treasuries owned by China, by investment banks, etc. Can you imagine the political fallout, from deciding to stiff just seniors? That President's political party would likely become a swear word (if seniors swore).

Social Security has money to pay all projected benefits through 2037, at which point the oldest of the boomers would be 92. Beyond that, it's projected to be able to pay 80% of projected benefits through the end of the CBO's 75 year scoring window (nevermind that a 75 year economic projection is usually shenanigans - imagine someone in 1938 projecting US revenue in 2013). By law it cannot impact the US debt when it runs out of money. Now, Congress could decide to make up the shortfall out of general spending, but that's a choice they'd have to make (and political coalition they'd have to build).

Social Security is fine. If you want to talk about long-term US government debt problems, it's basically a story of rising healthcare costs.

--------

Yeah I find that narrative more believable and realistic than what the typical conservatives are claiming. As you said, there is no political or legal way that the US gov't could default just on Treasuries held by SS and keep its commitments to the other holders. That is good to know that SS is independent of the debt.

But I think Stockman's other point was regarding working people and the payroll tax that funds SS. It is the largest single tax item the typical young-to-mid career American has to pay, and does reduce purchasing power and ability to save/invest. Personally, I don't think that anyone with a household net worth of like >$500K (excluding primary residence and trusts) at age 65 should get any SS benefits unless they encounter severe financial distress later. They paid into the system, but now others need it more and they will probably be fine. Call it patriotic sacrifice. That way the "truly poor" seniors can get increased benefits (SS has fallen behind on COLA adjustments, and most seniors can't live "securely" on $1,100/month minus garnishing for Medicare premiums). The wealthy seniors will be OK, the poorer seniors will be more secure (lowering the burden of care on their progeny too), and the working people will have lower payroll taxes - which should stimulate growth. 

Also agreed that pretty much the entire conservative agenda isn't designed to help future generations and often screws them, so I doubt their debt ideas are so forward thinking. 

--------

The problem with means testing is that it doesn't really save much money, unless you set the threshold very low. SS benefits cap out pretty quick, so cutting off benefits for the top 1% only saves you 1-1.5% of the benefits.

The "is it Boomers" question is actually pretty interesting. It's always fun asking people why we're just talking about SS running out of money now, when the Baby Boom would have been obvious to anyone in a maternity ward starting about 1946 (the standard answer is "government can't get anything done"). But actually back in the 80s we solved the SS-demographic problem. Reagan convened a blue-ribbon council with a big complicated name, which most people knew as the Greenspan Commission after its head (before his Fed days). They were supposed to figure out how to make SS handle the baby boom demographic shift, they recommended a payroll tax increase, their recommendations were accepted, and the problem was solved. Say what you will about Greenspan, but the dude can do math.

So why do we have this problem? The liberal answer is that it has to do with income inequality. Through the 1970s, GDP growth was broadly shared; post-80s most of the growth happened at the top of the income spectrum. This impacts SS because it means that in Greenspan's projections, GDP growth would occur for people below the SS payroll tax cap, and get taxed. In fact, the additional income happened above the cap, so it didn't get taxed. I don't know what the conservative explanation is.

-------

Pardon my means testing ignorance. LOL the conservative explanation is "blame the liberals and takers". In a sense they are right, but they have the wrong takers. 

“When [Social Security] was developed, 50 percent of seniors lived in poverty. Today, poverty among seniors is too high, but that number is ten percent. Social Security has done exactly what it was designed to do!” - Bernie Sanders

If it's the case that only 10% of seniors are poor these days, then means testing should save a lot more, right?

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/25/304387/bernie-sanders-introduces-bill-to-lift-the-payroll-tax-cap-ensuring-full-social-security-funding-for-nearly-75-years/?mobile=nc

As you said, raise or do away with the cap to get the system more in line with Greenspan's projections. In 2012, 4.2% of a worker's first $110K of wages went to FICA taxes. Let's say the avg. salary of the top 5% of workers is $250K (that may not be very accurate, but the 95th percentile of wages was $100K in 2006) and the US labor force is 150M. At a 4.2% payroll tax rate and a $110K cap, we are missing out on $44.1B per year. Total SS+Medicare revenue to the gov't was $800B in 2011. Subtracting Medicare and employer contributions, the employee portion of SS revenue is about $268B (SS is about 2/3 of the $800B, and employer-employee split is about 50/50). So lifting the wage cap would make SS employee revenue increase 16%.

The tax is very unprogressive. I would rather have employers and employees contribute only 1 or 2% of their first $40K of wages towards SS, and then the % grows above that like income taxes. 4% for $40-100K, 10% from $100-200K, 20% above that. Not that harsh IMO, but of course it is not going to happen. A worker pays AT MOST $7K to SS in a year. That is ludicrous for people making $200K+. The wage cap has gone up about 3-5% yearly (it was static during the recession), yet income for the top 1% have growth a lot more than 3-5% per annum. It doesn't make sense to economically burden the most productive members of society to subsidize the elderly who often have higher net worth. If you let the younger generations prosper, they won't need to depend on SS as much in the future. But as J said, the much bigger problem is Medicare. I also would advocate a progressive Medicare tax and much reduced benefits for seniors in higher wealth brackets (Obama is proposing this I think, but I'm sure it's meager).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Wage_Base
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/michael-shedlock/top-one-percent-received-income-gains-during-recovery
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/federal-revenue-sources (never thought I'd reference these guys!)
http://www.ehow.com/how_4736068_calculate-payroll-taxes.html

Iran-Contra-Drugs

From our younger days: remember when we were kids, and saw Ollie North
swearing oath on TV with his smart olive uniform, and all the jokes about
shredding documents and whatnot? During the mid-80s, the economy was rolling
(at least for the rich and most of our families), the Soviets were on the
decline, and life was pretty good (“it’s morning in America”), so I
think the whole Iran-Contra scandal seemed like a circus sideshow to most of
us – especially since we were in grade school at the time. However,
Regan’s approval rating did dip to a shocking 44% during the fiasco. It’s
something that the right would really like to sweep under the rug, or even
revise history so that key players like Reagan, North, Bush Sr., George Shultz,
Colin Powell, John Poindexter, and Caspar Weinberger were actually heroes as a
result. If you thought the Katrina fallout was bad, this scandal was so
abusive of power and disrespectful to the American public (and global
community) that if it happened today – even our spineless Congress would
dust off the guillotine.

I’ll *try* to be brief, but the scandal is complex and multi-faceted: we all
know that during the Cold War, the USA had the policy of supporting
anti-Communist forces wherever and whenever beneficial, even if those forces
happened to be unstable thugs like the Mujahadeen, Pinochet, and the Contras
in Nicaragua. Military and logistical support cost lots money (even in the
Third World), so funds needed to be raised – either legitimately through
Congress or covertly via CIA channels. During the ‘80s, much profit could be
made from arms and drug sales involving the right parties.

NICARAGUA

During the early Cold War, Nicaragua was a banana republic of the USA, ruled
by the dictator Somoza. The local Catholic clergy opposed his brutal rule, and
were often silenced by force. The people never supported this puppet leader
(as was the case with the Shah), and the grassroots Sandinistas emerged to
overthrow the Somoza regime. With US and Cuban military aid, the conflict
evolved into a costly civil war during the ‘60s and ‘70s, until the
Sandinistas eventually prevailed with much public rejoice. One problem, they
were socialist and Castro allies.

Once Regan assumed power, Nicaragua was labeled as a major security risk to
the USA and an example of supposed global Marxist domination. This seems hard
to believe, because the civil war against Somoza cost the nation billions,
rendered nearly a million people homeless, and crushed the fragile economy.
However, the Reaganites painted the nation as a launch pad for Soviet
aggression into America’s soft underbelly. Minus the Cuban Missile Crisis,
the dangers that Castro posed have been exaggerated for some time – but
Nicaragua was an even smaller threat. However, in ’81 the White House began
to secretly fund opposition groups and engage in illegal military activities
(as was the case with Cuba in the ‘50s and ‘60s, which of course prompted
Castro to seek enhanced Soviet protection).

The loyalist press and White House made the Contras out to be a cohesive
freedom-fighting organization dedicated to eradicating communist oppression,
but in reality they were non-unified, unprincipled guerrillas and Somoza
loyalists who often terrorized the civilian populace rather than accomplish
any concrete political goals (their largest arm was the “Nicaraguan
Democratic Force” or FDN, see attached Appendix for more details). Congress
eventually got wind of the unapproved operations in Nicaragua and passed the
Boland Amendment in ‘82 to block further military aid and intervention from
’83-85. The Reaganites exploited a loophole in the law to resume Contra
support in ’86. I can’t comment on the moral purity of the Sandinistas,
and probably they engaged in plenty of atrocities against supposed Contra
supporters as well. But they were elected legitimately by Nicaraguans and had
popular support. Like many other examples, the USA just preferred to push for
regime change, rather than respect sovereignty and international law.

IRAN

So we have already established that the Nicaraguans ousted a corrupt, brutal
US-puppet dictator and replaced him with a socialist, populist regime. This
was of course unacceptable to American hardliners, so the Reaganites covertly
aided a violent resistance movement, despite Congressional disapproval, UN
censure, and a World Court ruling to cease illegal activities. If the USA
could not openly oppose the Sandinistas, they needed to go underground and
finance their actions with covert slush fund cash.

We know that the ’79 revolution in Iran was a major blow to US interests in
the Middle East and triggered other Islamic or Arab nationalist movements. Again, a populist movement with non-Western ideals overthrew a corrupt US puppet. Iranians took Western hostages, the US severed diplomatic ties, and
the two nations have had hostile relations ever since. The paramilitary
organization Hezbollah had bombed US Marines barracks in Beirut (over 200
dead) and took US hostages in the early ‘80s during Lebanon’s terrible
civil war. Even though the USA supposedly doesn’t negotiate with
“terrorists”, the Israeli Mossad informed DC that a back-channel deal was
proposed to get the hostages back. The Khomeni regime in Iran was openly
funding Hezbollah, so they basically pulled the strings. They had oil money
and wanted to buy arms to fight our then-ally Iraq, and we wanted our hostages
back. Therefore, the Reaganites could sell arms to Iran at high markups (more
profits for defense contractors too), get money to fund the covert Contra war,
and also win PR points for the freed hostages. The only drawbacks were that
Iran was a sworn enemy (I wonder how our pal Saddam reacted to the scandal?),
and all of these dealings were secret and illegal.

I understand that the safe return of captured citizens is a major priority for
any government, but some prices are too high or the methods of payment
inappropriate. North later testified that the scheme was a “neat idea”.
It’s definitely convenient if you don’t get caught, I’ll give them that.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the only time that the US has done business with
enemies (the fascist regimes in Central Europe were major partners with our
companies in the ‘30s). Technically, it is illegal for US corporations to
trade with enemy states, especially those under formal sanctions. The
hardliner patriot Dick Cheney has called Iran “the world’s leading terror
exporter”, yet as Halliburton CEO he pushed the Clinton White House to
reduce sanctions so his company could exploit the Iranian cash cow
(http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?display=rednews/2004/10/09/build/natio...).
Even as recent as 2003, offshore Halliburton subsidiaries did $65M in business
with Axis-of-Evil Iran (an easy way to circumvent the law). This is the same
company that is providing massive logistical support to our forces in Iraq and
reaping lucrative defense contracts (via KBR). Conflict of interests, isn’t
war great for business? You can profit from both sides in a conflict. But how
is it morally justifiable to do business with a rogue nation that is
supposedly supporting the Iraqi insurgency? And that same insurgency is
attacking American troops that Halliburton claims to love, and supports with
services such as laundry, energy, and food
(http://www.halliburton.com/default/main/halliburton/eng/news/source_files/news. jsp?newsurl=/default\main\halliburton\eng\news\source_files\press_release\2005\k
brnws_040505.html).


But getting back to Iran-Contra, we sold hundreds of anti-tank and anti-air
missiles to Khomeni via Israel (made with pride and American craftsmanship),
and the hostages were returned in ’85. While North and others saw this
arrangement as a long-term moneymaking scheme, Hezbollah took more hostages,
the Iranians complained about missile quality, and the program was supposedly
terminated in ’86.

THE SCANDAL BREAKS AND INVESTIGATION ENSUES

A Lebanese magazine broke the story in ’86, and a flight of arms (purchased
with Iranian blood money) bound for the Contras was shot down and exposed. The
US press was quickly active thereafter. North and his secretary Fawn Hall then
famously shred classified documents about Iran-Contra. In ’87 the Congress
decried that Reagan bore responsibility for the wrongdoings of his
subordinates, and he offered regret and explanation on TV. NSA Poindexter was
convicted with North (obstruction of justice, conspiracy, lying to Congress,
destroying/altering docs), but later both were cleared (Poindexter via appeal)
because 5th Amendment rights may have been violated to cut deals with
Congress, testifying for immunity. No one else even came close to being
punished. The investigation is fairly complex, uneventful, and boring (even
more so than the foreign policy history behind it all!), so I won’t say much
– but the links below are very informative.

THE DRUG CONNECTION

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/webb.html (Webb’s original San Jose Mercury News story
series)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/storm.htm (analysis of Webb’s
investigation)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n1509/a02.html (the Kerry investigation)

Since the Reagan White House knew that they couldn’t sell arms to a sworn
mortal enemy forever without getting pinched, they needed new sources of
funding for covert Contra operations. Basically North and other CIA operatives
met with then friendly Panamanian dictator Noriega to help organize a drug
trade between Latin America and US inner cities, with Panama acting as a hub.
It was already a major drug artery, so while the Reaganites were touting
D.A.R.E. to us and declaring war on black/Latino drug dealers and users, they
turned a blind eye to Noriega and the Contra drug runners, selling arms and
giving other aid to their buddies. After North was indicted and the Nicaragua
fiasco reached the headlines, the new Bush White House severed ties with
“Manolo” and eventually ousted him from power with much pomp and fanfare,
though all the punishment he received was a slap on the wrist at Club Fed
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega). Sadly, the prosecution
couldn’t even make a legit case against him, since they needed to tread
lightly due to Noriega’s previous covert dealings with US government personnel.
I guess the same can be said of the Saddam trial today, but of course Noriega
probably wasn’t a war criminal.

Members of prominent LA gangs and Columbian cartels were also involved. While
mainly hidden and forgotten in the mainstream, these facts are not even in
dispute anymore – it really happened despite our initial reactions of
incredulity and revulsion. During the '80s rise of the crack cocaine trade in US
inner cities, CIA allies raised an estimated $50M a year in southern CA for
Contra ops. While no CIA operatives were accused of direct involvement, a LA
County Sheriff’s affidavit indicates that the CIA was well aware of
Nicaraguan cocaine trafficking in CA (therefore guilty by commission). The primary Contra group FDN was assembled and run by CIA agents. According to “Dark Alliance”, Gary
Webb’s series in the San Jose Mercury News in ‘96, Norwin Meneses (known
as “Rey de la Droga” in the Nicaraguan press) was the FDN officer
responsible for using coke profits for arms purchases, and his lieutenant
Oscar Blandon handled sales in San Diego and Miami. Both men acted as cartel
kingpins, and committed crimes on par with Mafia bosses and Colombian drug
lords. However, Blandon only served 28 months in prison, and Meneses was never
charged. In fact, they lived in comfort in the US, bought real estate, and
Blandon was even paid $166k in DEA informant stipends (taxpayer dollars). As
you would expect, the Justice Department blocked investigations into the two
men’s CIA ties.

This story is very similar to that of Cuban exiles contracted by the CIA to
perform guerilla warfare against communist Cuba. Clearly wanted criminals,
they roamed the Southern USA with great luxury and virtual impunity. Illegal
immigrants are hunted down like dogs in the American Southwest, yet these drug
pushers and murderers lived better than many Americans. It seems highly
improbably that such foreign figures would do business so openly and live so
well without CIA and government support (or approval at least). The FBI and DEA
are busting small time dealers all over the country, yet these kingpins ran
free for years?

AFTERMATH AND LEGACIES

If liberals attempted such a stunt like “guns for hostages, drugs for
guns”, the GOP would have gone bananas. Unfortunately, so much of this is
now relegated to conspiracy theory and fringe history. Many noble people
sacrificed their livelihood and careers to expose this fiasco that no
democratic, free society should ever come close to attempting, but we did. As
a result, tens of thousands of Nicaraguans (many of whom were civilians)
suffered and perished from US-Contra activities. Over a million were left
homeless, and economic sanctions against Nicaragua left the country in
shambles when the Sandinistas lost the vote in 1990. Radical Islam and Western
responses have claimed thousands (if not millions) of Western and Arab lives
in the Middle East as well. We can’t be sure what Iran used the hundreds of
US-purchased missiles for, but they are renown for aiding terrorists, and the
8-year Iran-Iraq war extinguished over a million lives and fueled extremist
hatred into the 21st century. Hezbollah is still active and many veterans of
the Iran-Iraq war now fight in the insurgency. Crack cocaine ruined thousands
of lives in the USA and cost our nation billions in enforcement, treatment,
and collateral damage since the ‘80s. It also made a lot of money for people
of questionable moral constitution. Of course the “war on drugs” was not
such a noble pursuit either, and many innocent or “not so guilty”
individuals were persecuted due to misguided or racist policies/laws. Gary
Webb, the Californian journalist who broke the Contra-cocaine story, was found
dead in 2004 from an apparent suicide. While the plight of the victims is very
obvious and tragic, strangely the major perpetrators were barely singed by the
scandal and ensuing investigations.

Clinton is demonized for lying about fellatio, but let’s see how the main
conservatives emerged from the scandal. Former President Reagan was voted the
greatest American by Discovery Channel viewers:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/Americas/4631421.stm. Of course those polled
probably were not qualified to make any informed historical evaluations, and it
was partly due to sympathy and nostalgia from his recent passing. After his
exit from office, he retired near Santa Barbara and also became an employee of
the Japan-based Fujisankei Communications Group, earning $2M per week to make
a few speeches (questionable loyalties, since Japan was seen as a major threat
to US economic dominance at the time). Then-VP Bush Sr. was bested by a
recession and an Arkansas hillbilly, but helped his sons achieve great
positions of power (as well as continue the Gulf War that he initiated).
Then-NSA Poindexter had his charges dropped in ’91 and assumed executive
positions in several defense tech companies before Bush II recalled him to
service in 2002 as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA)
“Director of Information Awareness” (a.k.a. Big Brother). He took more
heat when a controversial futures exchange was discovered in his org that
traded/profited in the likelihood of assassinations and terrorist acts.
Then-Secretary of Defense Weinberger was indicted for several counts
(including felony perjury), but was later pardoned by Bush Sr. in ’92 and
became publisher/chairman of Forbes Magazine. Then-General Powell became head
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State, before he clashed with
the Bushies over Iraq and is now relegated to the private sector. FDN drug
dealer and convicted felon Blandon became a DEA employee and a favored
informant. Such cronyism and audacity is on par with Michael Brown “doing a
heck of a job” during Katrina, being removed from FEMA, and starting his own
disaster preparedness consulting firm. Yes, it was clear that Iran-Contra hurt
Washington as much as Compton and Managua.

And of course there’s good old Ollie North, felon (later overturned) and
perjurer. A Playboy article about him, yes I read it for the articles!!
http://www.airborne-ranger.com/ranger/want tobees/OllieNorth.html. Since serving
his reduced sentence, he has written over 8 books, is a syndicated
columnist/radio blowhard, and is a regular military correspondent on FNC. Two
decades later, he smells like a rose and is richer than all of us
combined. You can read some of his writing here if curious:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/archive.shtml.

In conclusion, what can we learn from Iran-Contra? How can we prevent it from
happening again? Such scandals are damaging to our democratic principles,
international goodwill, and policy agendas in so many ways. I’m not angry
that they perpetrators were caught and barely punished, but that they were
even able to commit such acts in the first place with Machiavellian arrogance
and unacceptable secrecy. How can we as a society prevent or minimize the
ability of politicians and others to manipulate and capitalize on global
events/fears in order to further their dangerous objectives (cough cough,
9/11)? How do we stop such propaganda from trumping our social principles and
reasonable judgment concerning risk assessment and rational, proportional
response? Yes, communist expansion, drug trafficking, and extremist terrorism
were legitimate, serious concerns during the Cold War, and the after-effects
are still haunting us today. But cutting secret deals and playing global bully
will not fix our problems or make us safer.

Yes, secret deals did save us during the Cuban Missile Crisis, diplomacy with
China, and other times, but none of those covert negotiations or agreements
were illegal or hurtful to anyone. In fact, they saved billions of lives and
reduced political tension in all likelihood. Can we differentiate between
secret dealings that are helpful and harmful? After the fact it’s fairly
trivial, but during a crisis, how can we trust our leaders to “do the right
thing?” How do we make sure that the right parties are involved, and players
are not exploiting secrecy and technicalities in order to advance their
specific agendas?

I know that perfect transparency between branches of government is impossible
(and may not even be desirable), but where do we draw the line and how can we
trust people to make proper, ethical decisions covertly (secret Cheney energy
meeting, CIA-NYT scandal, etc.)? How do we stop people in power from abusing
their privilege, and remaining immune to punishment and oversight? To what
degree is the government, intelligence community, and military permitted to intervene in
domestic or foreign affairs without the consent of Congress and popular
support (or even our knowledge)?

So the cycle is a familiar one, especially recently with Iraq and Katrina:
misguided people execute irresponsible actions (if not outright illegal) that
some would find immoral. The government hypes up a threat in order to execute
some very questionable actions. Ironically, other nations turn to communist or
Islamist leaders because they are so sick of US-backed tyrants. When Third
World people tire of our corrupt puppet dictators and demand popular reform,
we wage war on them the minute they mention Marx or Mohammed. We openly scorn
unfriendly regimes, yet covertly do business and ally with untrustworthy and
criminal partners. Ah well, we picked the “lesser of two evils”, right?

Once things go sour and the scandal is exposed, the guilty parties engage in
propaganda, misdirection, and damage control, eventually sacrificing a lamb or
two to the angry press and public. Later on the storm blows over and the
nation gets preoccupied with other issues, so history is gradually rewritten,
failures morphed into victories, and the victims forgotten. The perpetrators
are protected by their chums still in power, and may emerge years later
stronger than ever before. Often the same players engage in similar
improprieties in the future. We barely learn, we hardly punish, and we rarely
improve. Then new innocents must suffer because of our stupidity, and it
breaks my heart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair (a quick Wikipedia summary)
http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/ (an independent investigation a decade later)
http://www.dpft.org/racism.html, http://www.fff.org/comment/com0303e.asp, http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/pol/495lect04.htm (racism in the war on drugs)