This and That

Wolfowitz Resignation...Maybe

Wolfowitz seems to have negotiated his deal with the World Bank and will presumably be leaving June 30th, but I wouldn't put real money on it. He apparently wanted to be "cleared" of the ethics charges, despite the Bank's special panel, composed of 7 directors, which found him guilty of same. So, the final (maybe) Board statement was carefully worded, saying in effect: "We accept your position that you believe you did not violate ethical standards." Note, this does not say Wolfowitz did NOT violate ethical standards, but only recognizes that that is his position. Ah, so this leaves room for further debate, which will probably hinge on his severance agreement. Bank's position MAY BE: "OK, since we did not formally accept the Special Panel report and vote you out, we'll agree on normal severance (I believe, in this case, one year's salary)." While Wolfowitz gives up the right to sue, since he was forced to resign without being formally found guilty of ethics violations by the board.

Much to do about nothing? Hardly. A WSJ reporter on CSPAN this morning dismissed the money angle with: "That wouldn't be a concern to someone of Wolfowitz's statue." Ha! Ha! Money is exactly what it was all about (in large measure)...the outlandish salary increase Wolfowitz arranged for his friend. [Granted, there were other issues...the personal staff he brought in at inflated salaries - but who are these guys to complain - generally alienating many of the long term careerists with his management style (I didn't realize he had one), and attacking corruption (when you do the latter, you'd better be like Caesars wife...above and beyond approach)].

Although I don't know Wolfowitz's financial background, I would suspect that he is NOT a wealthy individual. Other than a brief tenure as the Dean of Advance Studies at the John Hopkins School for International Studies, he has been a career civil servant. Civil Service isn't exactly something you get rich at. I also suspect that the $300K + (tax free) he was making at the bank may have been the most he'd made in his entire career. Thus, while the issue has been about "ethics" publically...well...right. Like the people of Iraq were going to greet us with flowers and Iraq oil would pick up our tab. Right. Wolfowitz never impressed me as a great intellect, but apparently - in certain circles, such as former baseball team owners - built his reputation on just that.

New Immigration Bill

The thing that strikes me about this is that it is a compromise agreement between basically two special interest groups: Business interests versus Labor interests.
Both groups want "Amnesty-by-another-name." Business wants to retain the cheap labor; Labor wants to organize the cheap labor. So, the illegal immigrant gets screwed both ways: gets to continue to work for sub-par wages and pay union dues on top! Both sides seem willing to fight it out for the potential vote they represent and both compromised by pushing citizenship out so far that it isn't an immediate issue to either.

My own position is that we do in fact "owe" them something. True, they broke the law; a law generally ignored by both Democrats and Republicans. So, while I believe some penalty needs to be assessed, the assessment almost comes down to a case-by-case situation. The proposed $5,000 fine seems a bit stiff for the hard-working, under paid majority, but will probably be OK for those who are pushing drugs, avoiding taxation, or otherwise carrying on some lucrative criminal activity.

It would seem to me that there are essentially three priorities: 1) re-gain control of the border; 2) get the 12-20M "undocumented aliens," documented - i.e. registered; 3) sort them all out with some criteria that "ranks" those who register. A faster track to citizenship if they'd stayed clean, paid taxes, been gainfully employed, etc. A slower track otherwise. Come down hard on those who do not register. And send the convicted felons home (following their jail time). And maybe send Mexico a bill for their imprisonment expense.

I would also note that the special visas granted to high-tech and professional immigrants was increased from 40,000/year to 110,000/year. A little sugar thrown in that I would guess has very little to do with the vast majority of Mexican illegals. I cannot imagine many Microsoft or Apple employees crossed the U.S.-Mexican border illegally to seek up-scale employment. Ah...but that's what Bush was talking about when he used the phrase, "comprehensive solution."

However, there are positive elements. Border security comes first, before the rather drawn out amnesty process. So, if border security fails, we don't get to the second part. This may dissuade a sudden stepped up invasion of those seeking to cross for the second amnesty phase. Well...maybe.

And, there is a penalty, the $5,000 fine. While I think it too stiff and will discourage a lot of hardworking, honest people from registering, I also think there has to be SOME penalty. [I wonder how they came up with the $5,000 number. I would guess most illegal aliens live close to hand-to-mouth. Wanta bet, if the bill passes the banks will roll-out special programs to loan them the money at...oh...say 40% interest. There is something in this for almost every body...other than the illegal immigrants and U.S. citizens outside of the beltway.] And, there is a point system which takes into account skill levels, family situation, etc.

This is certainly a case of the "devil being in the detail," so my final judgment rests on a better understanding of the bill's proposals.

Alberto

I've never been a big fan of the present Attorney General. Suppose he was a small town attorney, who became Bush's personal legal bag man and just stuck with it. Not quite sure how he and Harriet Meyers divided their responsibilities? Did one work for the other? Did they have separate responsibilities? Whatever. I do think he is/was slightly more astute than Meyers (who seemed like a nice, but limited, lady). I've always wondered that even in the case of Presidential appointments, if you're really smart, why would you want to work for someone really dumb? Well, there are a lot of "memoirs" ahead following GW's departure. I am hoping that people like AG AG (hmmm...hadn't thought of that...do you suppose that's why Bush put him in...as a joke?). Attorney General Alberto Gonzales? Oops...lost train of thought. I am hoping that people such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzales, et al will keep in mind that the President's favorite reading material consists of "sports biographies" and will feel free to write about their experiences within the Administration.

The latest story is a whopper...but not sure it directly relates to AG's present situation. Waking up John Ascroft in the middle of the night while he was in intensive care, to brow beat him into signing off on the Pres's illegal surveillance program is, true, a bit crass. But then, what did Ashcroft expect out of these people? [To Ashcroft's credit, he told them to get the hell out.] Ho hum...par for the course. But it does seem to me that people are going after Gonzales as a proxy for Bush himself. Other than a travesty to American justice and a kick-in-the-face for those of us outside of the beltway (and we're getting used to that), the people inside the beltway would probably be better off to just leave him where he is and beat him up occasionally over the remaining 18 months or so. Like...who would replace him? Where IS Harriet Meyers? I'd love to see that. But the chances are that if AG left the AG, Bush would have to appoint someone at least close to being perceived as bi-partisan, to get through the appointment scrutiny and that that person would be replaced in 12-18 months. Who would want to disrupt their lives for that? Ah...James Baker. Just for the hell of it...and he might be the only person in American history to have held three cabinet positions (State, Treasury and Justice). Well, I suppose even life long family friendships only go so far.

Internet problems as of late...but back on line...more in the coming days.