Financial Shenanigans in the Age of Trump

        In the “They snuck it in while we weren’t watching” category, the big winner is….US Commercial banks. The one paragraph item in question was relegated to the last page of the world and national news section of the local rag, right beside the notice that Chuck E, Cheese has declared bankruptcy. Of course, Mr. Cheese has been bankrupt in numerous other ways, primarily having to do with good taste, for decades.

        The issue at hand was what has been called the “Volker rule.”  For those not intimately familiar with commercial banking regulations (which once included the kid) the news rang no bells …that is until I reflected upon recent history, like, say, the great recession of 2009-13 and the words “commercial banks” rang a bell. First, the sobriquet “Volker rule,” named for former “Fed Head” Paul Volker refers to section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which sets forth rules for implementing section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956..

        The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (commonly referred to as Dodd–Frank) is a United States federal law and an Obama initiative that was enacted on July 21, 2010, primarily as an attempt to stave off, by legislative fiat, further financial sector bleeding from risky use of clients’ money by large commercial banks. The law’s intent was to overhaul and increase financial regulation in the aftermath of the Great Recession. You remember, TARP, bailouts, mortgage foreclosures, unemployment, all that “stuff?”  It made changes affecting all federal financial regulatory agencies and darned near every part of the nation's financial services industry. Much of the act was consumer protection oriented.

        This act was a direct result of proposals by President Obama aimed at helping to prevent another epic economic tanking based on malfeasance at high levels of the US banking industry. Responding to widespread calls for changes to the financial regulatory system, in June 2009 Obama introduced a proposal for a "sweeping overhaul of the United States financial regulatory system, a transformation on a scale not seen since the reforms that followed the Great Depression". That pretty much sums up Dodd-Frank. The bill, based on his proposal, was introduced in the US House by Congressman Barney Frank, and in the Senate by Senator Chris Dodd. As one might expect, Most Congressional support for Dodd-Frank came from members of the Democratic Party, but three Senate Republicans voted for the bill, allowing it to overcome the Senate filibuster.

        One provision, the afore-mentioned Volker rule, restricted banks from making certain kinds of speculative investments. The act also repealed the exemption from regulation for security-based swaps, requiring credit-default swaps and other transactions to be cleared through either exchanges or clearinghouses.

 Understand, these were provisions to protect investors, borrowers, and financial product purveyors and their clients  from the no holds barred banking practices which had crept back in to the  rodeo which was the commercial banking industry after Depression era regulations had been eased by Congress.  The first Trump administration eliminated most of the Volker Rule’s regulatory prohibitions and provisions. Of course, lax supervision and little restraint is fine with the big guys in banking but hazardous to most of the rest of us who have IRAs and other retirement vehicles and accounts.

        For the uninformed, market manipulation, intentional or not resulted from the sheer size of funds involved in questionable securities, chief among them being high risk mortgages, bundled as viable and sound instruments. Proffered by agents for the big commercial banking houses which bundled and sold these dogs, there were easy customers aplenty, such as union pension funds, state employee pension funds, or simply large fund managers, seeking safe (hopefully) and profitable (primarily) places to put their money.

         Added to the mix were credit default swaps. This is bordering on a Grad school economics course, so I’ll just try to describe credit default swaps (CDS) as “I’m buying insurance to pay me if your investment tanks.” Think of it like this: Tom buys a racehorse with money borrowed from Bob. He plans to pay for the horse with its winnings. I don’t know either Tom or Bob, who lent him the money. Bob, the original lender might buy insurance (a CDS) that pays off the loan if Tom defaults. Bob can then, since he feels sure the horse is a winner, sell me that CDS. If the horse wins the triple crown and Tom pays off the loan as promised, the lender, and I, whoever bought the swap, is out the premium we paid the underwriter as well as I’m out the money I paid the Bob, the original lender, to buy the swap.

        However, should the horse break a leg and never run, the owner of the credit default swap (me) will (usually) collect the full value of the loan. Bob, however, gets the asset (the horse), now worth only its glue value. This little gem of an idea is one of many concepts to use money to make money which have no real product or service whatsoever in the mix (derivatives). What it did do, was to entice such insurance giants as AIG to insure these bets against the system with large premiums involved, and investors to buy them.

        When the bundled mortgage housing bubble imploded, and the “tranches” of groups of unsound mortgages were just paper, and worth nowhere close to the literally trillions of dollars pinned on the illusion of their value, everyone lost. Insurers lost, because the amount of massive defaulted credit they had insured via CDS would have bankrupted several of them, so, the buyers of the CDS also lost because the Insurer couldn’t pay (and they had paid the CDS sellers for the swaps) and the sellers of CDS were left with almost worthless bundles of impending foreclosures.  By the end of 2007, the outstanding CDS amount was $62.2 trillion. For a bit of perspective, that figure was over ten times the national debt!

        Commercial banks, like Bear, Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch were in trouble. Lehman Bros, with $600 billion in bonds outstanding went bankrupt. AIG, having insured individuals world-wide against such defaults via by CDS was saddled with far more claims than the dollars to pay them. As we know, the recovery was long and painful, and many have pointed fingers, each at another, but one salient fact remains uncontested:  CDSs are not traded on an exchange and there is no required reporting of these transactions to a government agency. This has been called a “shadow banking system” by economists. (Think “dark web,” if that helps) This situation is a direct result of unregulated market capitalism. The 2010 financial crisis demonstrated the lack of transparency in this huge “shadow market” which became a concern to regulators as it could pose a systemic risk to the US economy if allowed to function unchecked. This and other issues were prime concerns of the framers of Dodd-Frank.

        Oddly enough, as a candidate, Donald Trump was the most self proclaimed anti–Wall Street presidential candidate since FDR in the 1930s. He attacked Wall Street relentlessly, directly, and explicitly throughout the 2016 campaign and attacked his opponent, Hillary Clinton, nonstop as being “In the pocket of Wall Street.” He even put the then-CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, in his last campaign ad as “one of the biggest threats to the people of the United States!” So, the Donald must have been a fan of Dodd-Frank, huh? Not so much. C’mon, we all know he’s a lying sack of shit, why should this be different?

        Predictably, critics of financial reform have claimed that the law and rules would kill banks' revenue and profits, which would prevent them from lending and would in turn kill economic growth and jobs. They did the same thing when FDR signed the Glass-Steagall banking act 1933. Glass-Steagall was different in that its principal regulatory function was to separate investment banking from retail banking. Repealed in 1999 by another banking act, the Gramm‐​Leach‐​Bliley Act, much of Glass -Steagall survives (separation of commercial and investment banking, FDIC, etc.). Neither would have stopped greedy lenders like Wells - Fargo, Washington Mutual or Indy Mac from making bad adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) loans to persons willing to borrow today without regard to the inevitable adjustable rate increase next year. Republicans tend to push the blame onto Federal initiatives urging the cessation of red-lining and other discriminatory practices. Likewise, private mortgage brokers in (too) many cases simply threw rational thought and responsibility to the winds, realizing that, the more mortgages sold, the more commission and that the vast bulk of them would be resold to banks before the ARM kicked in triggering, in a lot of such instances, default.

        Understand, once a mortgage broker okays and finalizes a mortgage, they are on the hook for that loan, but in today’s home loan world, most of these loans are then quickly sold to a bank or other professional money lender who is now the recipient of the buyer’s payments or the loser if the mortgage defaults. The mortgage broker then has no further fiduciary responsibility (or risk!)  

So, did Dodd-Frank and the Volker rule damage or stifle the vitality of the commercial banking industry as some have predicted? Hardly. In fact, in virtually every quarter since 2009, including throughout 2018 and the first quarter of 2019, the biggest banks recorded or eclipsed record revenues, profits, and bonuses while at the same time increasing lending.

Even so, at least 115 Dodd-Frank rules remained to be completed when the Obama administration ended, including executive compensation rules, securities-based swap rules, credit rating agency reform, and commodity speculation rules.

        Despite his constant excoriation of Wall as a candidate, after taking office, the Trump administration promptly set about dismantling the core pillars of financial reform by a number of regulatory reductions or eliminations, some of them were: 

Lowering capital requirements (easier, riskier commercial loans, important to Trump, himself heavily leveraged)  

Enabling more unregulated derivatives dealing (you know, like the CDS that triggered the bubble damage)

Rolling back consumer and investor protections by reducing prudential regulation of systemically significant banks (this is critical because it takes Federal eyes off those banks not considered critical, which now is almost every major “non-bank” as these commercial entities are sometimes called.

        Both GE capital and AIG are examples of “too big to fails” which are now off the list. One, AIG, not only failed spectacularly and engaged in egregiously irresponsible conduct, but also required an unlimited bailout, which ultimately amounted to $182 billion. The other was General Electric (GE), which, although with fewer headlines and less egregiousness, would have gone bankrupt without being bailed out as well. removing all of the “non-banks” from scrutiny is insane and even bankers outside that unique arena have said so.

         Neutering the regulation of systemically significant nonbanks and the shadow banking system, stopping enforcing the laws, is actually almost siding with the predators. Goodbye Volker rule.

        From 1929 through 2010 the US experienced a number of recessions. Some have been cyclic adjustments with no singular or specific cause; several were adjustments from wartime to peacetime employment. Three however, and two of these are 21^st century phenomena, were the result of a specific sector of the nation indulging in irresponsible market operations based on that most base of motives - greed, leading to runaway speculation. All three, the great Depression, the Dot-com crash and the great recession are the result of individuals who rarely if ever get their hands dirty, playing fast and loose with other people’s money or betting other’s money on “what ifs.”

        Trump favors loosening responsible observation and regulation of these entities. His sycophants echo that claim. History says he and they are wrong. History is powerful proof that regulation and financial stability don’t stifle growth and prosperity. That is why Dodd-Frank re-regulated the financial industry and why the first Trump administration's deregulation is so reckless and dangerous. The assault on the Volker rule was simply the latest insult.

As discussed, Trump did succeed in weakening Dodd-Frank, especially the regulation and oversight of commercial banks. As a result, in March 2023, Silicon Valley Bank was allowed to become sufficiently mired in poor decisions regarding the spending of investors’ funds that they ended up with low interest investments that left them unable to meet depositor’s demands. This deregulation, specifically due to Dodd-Frank’s emasculation, especially in the area of the Volker rule, exempted banks with assets below $250 billion such as SVB, from “stress tests and tougher capital and liquidity requirements, and in 2019 the regulatory burden was further reduced for all but the largest banks. These decreases in accountability and oversight allowed SVB to take the risks it did with other peoples’ money.

Since Biden was now in office, the predictable and ludicrous Republican response was to blame “Woke banking practices” whatever that might even mean, for the results of Donald Trump’s assault on reasonable and necessary government regulation. While commercial banks and huge debtors such as the Trump Organization whine about it (regulation), the real victims are powerless in many cases.

The housing bubble collapse between 2007 and 2012 resulted in more than twelve million foreclosures in the United States. The crisis was caused by a number of factors, but the main contributor was the substantial number of predatory and unaffordable subprime mortgage loans given out in the early 2000s. This was escalated by lax banking rules allowing high risk mortgages to be graded like currency. RIP Dodd Frank, we hardly knew ye.

One wonders what further financial shenanigans Trump might espouse and abet after he’s done gutting regulations in other areas. One can only hope desperately for a blue tide in the 2026 House and Senate elections.

        

                       

The Speech No One Wants to Give

 

“To attain any success, it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything — even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government.

        Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things…. a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible, and they are stupid.”

        Sound a bit like AOC speaking?  Perhaps a Socialist candidate? Hardly. This is an excerpt from a letter written by Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, then POTUS, to his brother Edgar. The gap is where he named several names of those he considered “stupid.” The second paragraph reveals how far the modern Republican party has strayed from Ike’s precepts, having become markedly anti-union, and progressive labor legislation, and threatening Social Security. Of course, since many modern Republicans reap the windfall from farm subsidies, they have actually increased (read RED states).

        However, the title of this essay reflects my belief that we should consider and honor the scientific process, by which I mean mathematics, statistics, and demographics. One of the aspects of science which some political conservatives and an even greater percentage of conservative religionists deny, is that as conditions change (read climate change, here, as one example) so should our expectations and actions.

        One such Conservative objection to some change is the fear that doing the right thing isn’t the “right thing’ if it affects business’s bottom line or electability of partisan hacks. Another thread is voiced by those who are stuck with a creation “story” which is increasingly revealed as creation “myth” by science. The tragedy here is that as we are seeing as I write, the right salesman with the proper snake oil can, seemingly against all odds, unite these seemingly disparate forces.  

        First off we have the claims that Congress is “pilfering the Social Security Trust Fund.  Social Security sometimes collects more money than what is paid out. Between 1937-2009 the Social Security Administration (SSA) received $13.8 trillion in income, but expended $11.3 trillion in benefits, according to the agency. However, for the past 13 years, the retirement program hasn’t taken in enough FICA taxes to pay current year benefits and that's where the Trust Fund, comes into play.

Every year, excess money, if any, is held in the "Social Security Trust Fund" which get invested into Treasury bonds and securities that make a lot of interest. In the Fiscal Year 2018 those investments racked up $3 billion alone, adding to a total of $2.895 trillion then `````currently in the fund. So any money taken in from Social Security isn't being divvied up among Congress, that money is being invested in the most secure way--with U.S. bonds.

"No, [Congress] did not take any funds from SS," Dean Baker, senior economist at Center for Economic and Policy Research, said. "SS funds are credited to its trust fund. Unless Congress changes the law (and it hasn't), any money dedicated to the trust fund is in the trust fund.”

        Having said that, it must be noted that one consistent bugaboo, addressed with varying amounts of arm waving and hot air, to some degree by both parties, has been the continually burgeoning federal budget cost share of social welfare programs, especially Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs. Much has been written, some of it mine, regarding health care costs and the significant responsibility for their escalation borne (or which should be borne) by outlandish and extortionary drug pricing by Major Pharma corporations. This isn’t a “fix”, but it would be a hell of a start if Congress had the guts to put lobbyist influence aside and repeal Medicare part D’s prohibition on negotiating drug prices like every private health insurer can and does. That simple action would reduce government drug spending by about $133 billion annually! For comparison, that savings would defray about 30% of the 2020 interest on the national debt. (prior to whatever effects we saw from Covid-19)

        On the other hand, and more directly related to my topic is a set of demographics which requires nothing more than literacy and common sense to interpret. The implications are plain and the “fix” apparent, if unpopular.

Obviously, we live longer, and not just a little longer, but almost 15 years longer. Actually, in 1935 when Social Security was incepted, the average life span was 60.7 years of age. This meant that, as the creators of the concept enacted it, the odds were that the average worker wouldn’t live to collect a dime!

        Looking at the table yields some fairly simple conclusions, but the “big” one is harder to see.  First: in 1940, Ida May Fuller, became Social Security's first beneficiary. She was exceptional because she had lived longer than the average of her peers.  By 1945, at full wartime productivity, for each SS beneficiary, there were 41.9 workers paying into the system (actually building for a while, an excess, the illusory “trust fund”.) Today’s workers, on the other hand, are paying today’s recipients. Yes, they are.

Since this point, the Social Security Board of Trustees has released an annual report detailing the financial health of the program. This includes taking a closer look at the income and outlays for Social Security each year, as well as forecasting the future solvency of America's leading retirement program. In each of the last 40 reports, the Trustees have warned of a long-term funding obligation shortfall. In other words, the Trustees forecast cumulative income received in the 75 years following the release of a report and determined that, inclusive of cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), outlays would handily outpace income. In the 2024 Trustees Report, Social Security's long-term cash shortfall was estimated at $23.2 trillion through 2098. This was up $800 billion from the projected 75-year funding obligation shortfall listed in the 2023 Trustees Report.

         By 1975, because of the increase in recipients and a 7-year increase in longevity, the “workers to recipients” ratio was down to less than 1/3 of the 1945 figure. Meanwhile, the birth rate in the USA had decreased by about a third. The number of retirees reaching eligibility age was still increasing, primarily due to longer life expectancy. As seen in the table, the Social Security share of the federal budget was blossoming as well. At this point, another factor came into play, that being the numbers of persons receiving disability or survivor’s benefits from the same pot of cash. Surviving spouse with minor children coverage was part of the 1935 law, but disability wasn’t covered until 1956. This may seem cynical, but it seems to me that the availability of SS disability has in many cases created a cottage industry for lawyers willing to “arrange” it for a slight fee.

        The monster lurking under the bed, however, was the post war “Baby Boom”. From 1945 to 1961, the birth rate in the USA was higher than ever before or since, creating a “bubble” in the progression of population growth. The effects of this bubble have been felt by every industry in America from home building to children’s clothing to insurance to health care, and the list is practically endless. Take a child born to Mr. and Mrs. Howard Cunningham in 1948, after Howard returned from his army duties and they settled down. Their son, call him Richie, born in 1948, hit Social Security full retirement age of 67 in 2015, and he’ll draw Social security, assuming he’s got good genes, for at least another 11 or 12 years. 

        Because the baby boom continued into the early 1960s, and because the birth rate dropped to about half of that of the boom’s peak years, there are now even fewer workers contributing to the payments made to the steadily increasing numbers of boomer retirees planning, like me, to live a lot longer than average.  I’m barely a “pre-boomer, born in 1942. The boomer class of 1955 -1960, when the birth rate per 100 thousand was still over 20, is yet to come. The ‘55s hit in 2022, more to follow.

        So, what? The first observation, admittedly in hindsight, is that this issue was completely predictable and avoidable. It was obvious by the numbers between 1945 and 1955. Disability compounded the issue, accounting. now, for about 20% of the Social Security payout. What to do?  Let’s first reflect on what could have been done. This demographic trend was obvious at least 70 years ago (1950) and at that time, considering the increased lifespan, a forward-thinking Congress (yeah, I’m aware that’s an oxymoron) might have passed legislation raising the full retirement eligibility age by a year each of the following three or four decades. At most, that would now have full retirement at age 69. An accompanying increase for the early retirement age would have also been appropriate. Passing this legislation in 1950 to go into effect in 1960 would have “grandfathered” every worker within ten years of retirement. Had this been done, recognizing that the changes occurring were predictable and irreversible, Social Security would be well and good. As it stands, more than a third of retirees take early Social Security benefits, in many cases because they have prepared for retirement in other ways. In other words, foresight could have “fixed” the problem by 1990. Unfortunately, only a smattering of that philosophy was applied, and that was too late.

         What might be done now? This is the part that no politician wishes to address, because any real fix will be unpopular with some. First, recognize that any change that doesn’t grandfather persons with current retirement plans is blatantly unfair, so: pick a time certain, say, at least 5 years from the enacting of legislation, which raises the full eligibility age to 68. Also, raise the early retirement age to 63 in, perhaps, just three or 4 years. Additionally, decrease the initial amount of early retirement to encourage individuals to wait. In another five years plan for another bump to age 69 for full retirement, while leaving early retirement at 63. Increase the reward for waiting. In a “worst-case” scenario, also require employers to include disability insurance equivalent to Social Security disability as a perk. Also enact realistic legislation defining “disability” in meaningful terms. I’m reminded of the Louisiana mother of four sons, all supposedly mentally unable to hold jobs, yet all of whom had cars, but when their disability status was questioned, her rationale was that “Every young man needs a car.” The literature is rife with tens of thousands of well documented cases of SS disability and Medicare/Medicaid fraud as well as simple benefit fraud, such as cashing checks of long dead parents.

        Explain, in simple English, that by probably 2035 the problem will begin to moderate on its own, as the “Bulge” of the baby boomers pass through the system and on to whatever cosmic Karma waits for them. The birthrate began to decrease after a plateau at 1955-57. The class of 1957 would be 81 by that time and total numbers of beneficiaries would be decreasing steadily.

         Do not, however, like former Senator Alan Simpson or ex-Congressman Paul Ryan (himself the beneficiary of Social Security survivor’s benefits), address this issue as if the people who depend on it are “greedy” and are the ones at fault. “Recipient shaming”, when the current issues are the fault of decades of Congressional heads in the sand (or up their keisters), is a sleazy cop-out by those who had the data to see this demographic shift coming sixty years ago yet took no action. 

Yeah, it would have been the speech no one, presidents included, wanted to give but had that happened, with appropriate “grandfathering,” this essay wouldn’t have been written.  Too often this one- dimensional approach, usually including the use of the word “entitlement” somewhere, seems to blame currently eligible recipients rather than address the issue of Congressional unwillingness to tackle unpopular issues squarely.      

 

 

                             He’s Dumb, But Not Alone

        The Orange Dunce of Mar a Lago once told his then media bitch, Sean Hannity, that “Wind energy won’t work because the wind only blows sometimes.” More recently he raved about the "fumes" associated with wind power.  As a science nerd, I could go into some detail about why this is bat shit crazy, but I’d rather have a frank discussion about why the “Green New Dealers” also need to do more homework. I’m reminded of the stoner, interviewed at Woodstock who opined that Woodstock was a “model for the world, man.” It was a great concert, but hardly a model for urban planning, living or (definitely not) sanitation.

        Idealism, untempered by a grasp on the possible, rather than the Utopian. is a lousy framework for getting meaningful things done. This is certainly true in the case of exclusively wind power as part of a nationwide electrical grid. In furtherance of the goal of “all wind all the time,” Green New Dealers almost always (I only add “almost” because someone, somewhere, may have stated factual data but we have yet to see it) grossly understate the true cost of wind in several ways.  Understand this before I begin: I loathe fossil fuel’s negative effects on the environment and public health. What I am referring to here is the amazingly lo-ball numbers we are being fed re: wind as opposed to other possibilities.

        To begin with, energy storage in a “situational” power source situation (Solar, Wind) is critical to maintaining unbroken power supplies to consumers. “Peak” energy consumption across the nation is after dark much of the year. Clearly, solar must overproduce during the day and store energy for the dark hours. This battery technology, while burgeoning is grossly expensive and in its infancy and will cost far more than the solar panels which produce the energy they would have to store. Solar has the advantage of no moving parts, ergo lesser maintenance, however, it also is easy to damage (hail, normal wear and tear) It also wears out and is carbon intensive in both manufacture and disposal.

        Wind, of which the dunce in chief demonstrably knew little, has more and more expensive concerns, generally glossed over by the naïfs who tout the GND as a panacea.

        The two major disadvantages of wind power include initial cost and technology immaturity. First: constructing turbines and wind facilities is extremely expensive for the amount of power generated by each unit- an average about 2.5 to 3 KW per, with 5 KW as a probable maximum. Secondarily, at the current state of technology, maintenance, such as changing oil in rotor bearings at the top of the tower weekly, is periodic, essential, frequent, and expensive. (Ask the Danes!) It is even costlier in offshore installations.  We, too frequently, see cost per kwh listed as production cost, not cost to consumer, which is extremely equivocal. As an example, most cost per kwh numbers we see are misleading because they frequently omit the initial cost of hardware. This “total” cost, which is passed along to consumers is known as levelized cost. 

    What GND’ers cite (in the vicinity of 3.1 cents per kwh) is like citing the cost of a car wash considering only the water, soap and minimum wage imbecile who reminds you to “put the window up!” without adding the cost of the machines, the building, the electricity, etc. This is about like bragging about how many miles per gallon your hybrid gets without considering the initial cost of the vehicle (still a good investment by the way!) Here is a sobering real-world number: Danes pay about 40 cents per kwh, which is 13 times as high as the GND’ers hype states!

       Moreover, it almost always fails to consider energy storage costs for the periods when demand exceeds supply. This seems minor, but in a nationwide grid it is critical. Just to power New York City alone (this is just households, not the far more energy hungry hotels and businesses) would require the installation and constant operation of about 5,700 wind turbines, not to mention energy storage capacity. The cost of the turbines alone, at an average $3.5 million apiece, would run to well over $20 billion.  At an average annual maintenance cost per turbine, add another $270 million annually!

        That cost, passed on to consumers, would be almost punitive. This does not include the far, far higher energy demands of industrial operations.

        In the real world, the cost to non-industrial consumers of electricity fluctuates over the entire nation, from a low of 8 cents per kwh in Idaho, to 18.1 cents per kwh in NY and CT, to a whopping 33.2 cents per kwh in Hawaii. Idaho is relatively cheap because most of the electricity produced and consumed there is generated by the cleanest source on the planet – hydro-electric plants. Idaho also has some geo-thermal (hot underground water) sources and uses the free heat to heat some buildings. According to the Federal Energy Information Administration, the "levelized cost" of new wind power (including capital and operating costs) is 8.2 cents per kwh, essentially in a dead heat with Nuclear. Advanced “clean-coal” (bullshit!) plants cost about 11 cents per kwh but advanced natural gas-burning plants come in at just 6.3 cents per kwh.  Without regard to the environment, this makes gas even cheaper than wind and solar. Of course, there’s that nasty little carbon footprint thingy which remains relatively high. Coal is filthy in all ways and constitutes a well-documented public health hazard.

        None of the above should be construed as indicating a dislike for wind power, but rather as a factual prequel to a discussion of an even better option. 

        What is being overlooked is that there is another “zero carbon footprint” technology, its reputation damaged by a movie and a “no harm/no foul” accident within weeks of each other in 1979. Three Mile Island and “The China Syndrome” scared the hell out of many Americans, the more ignorant, the more scared. The nuclear power industry in the US has still never really recovered, despite the fact that perhaps the most rigorous public health data collection effort ever, concluded in the US after 40 years, announced the total casualties either direct or indirect from the TMI incident as “zero.”  Nuclear power emits no exhausts, discharges no pollutants into streams, has a zero-fatality record over about 70 years of US operation, land based and seaborne, yet some shun it because we fail to understand it.

        Want to be “Green?”  China and India obviously do. They are pioneering liquid salt reactor technology which the US gave up in the late 1960s. Why did we do so? Even though the prototype had a record of over 6000 effective full power hours of incident free operation at the Oak Ridge, TN, facility, it was not capable of producing weapons grade Plutonium, ergo it was scrapped in favor of high-pressure fast breeders (like Chernobyl).

Liquid salt reactors can use Thorium, of which we have literally thousands of years’ worth, and are inherently stable and safe. They even produce fewer waste products to be handled than current pressurized water designs, of which, by the way, I have more than a passing operational knowledge of, at sea, submerged. Interestingly, molten salt fuel comes with an inherent safety feature. If the salt overheats, it naturally expands and makes the fission reaction less effective, which shuts down the reactor. Tech innovators such as Bezos with Amazon, Gates with Microsoft and Altman with OpenAI are united in betting on nuclear energy. And they're not alone. The nuclear sector is experiencing a renaissance, bolstered by climate goals and energy demands, A wind farm would need 235 square miles to produce the same amount of electricity as a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant. The nuclear power plant can operate at constant power day/ night, wind or calm, freezing or scorching requiring no massive (and, as yet, non-existent battery) banks. 

        We love to cite Denmark when we discuss Utopian social models which we have been conned into believing. One such is the fact that the Danes are wind powered for all electricity, much of it sea-borne (off shore). So, they must get really cheap electricity, right? Not so much. They pay more (40.5 cents per kwh) than even Hawaii!  apparently the “green” in Green New Deal doesn’t refer to the color of money! I failed to mention the estimated half-million birds of all sorts killed annually in the US with existing wind turbines. Finally, what would all these new turbines cost? Assuming all current non-wind energy production became “wind based” and at today’s prices, merely (roughly) about 15% of the current total national debt! This of course excludes land costs (astronomical) and, yet to be invented storage capabilities. National bankruptcy, anyone?

        Bottom line? Nuclear power is safe, reliable and can be sited anywhere, no matter how remote. Both China and India are already building next generation liquid salt reactors for electric power production. Although China leads the world in terms of total wind generation capacity, they also would seem to realize the advantages nuclear offers, since, this year (2025) they are building a pilot liquid salt electric power station in the Gobi desert which, while only about 9 feet by 7 feet in size, will produce enough power for about 45,000 homes. This is equivalent to 54 wind turbines operating at constant maximum output. Future liquid salt plants will produce far more, in the area of 1100 mw. This would be sufficient to power more than half a million homes. It would require more than 400 wind turbines operating at full capacity, 24 hours per day, to provide the same output.

      Do the homework, be informed, unlike the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

                              Fascism, a History and a Warning

 

        “Fascism: A form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.”

        “Antifa: a political protest movement comprising autonomous groups affiliated by their militant opposition to fascism and other forms of extreme right-wing ideology.”

        Trump’s first term continued reference to Antifa was primarily aimed at shifting attention from his continued and increasing cult of personality/oligarchy/isolationism. America’s relationship to and with fascism is not, I think, generally very well understood, if at all, by the majority of our population.

        On the simplest level, it is noteworthy that most multigenerational US families have, or have had, family members whose military service they venerate. If this service was in either of the two World Wars, the opposition was Fascist in both. In WWI, Germany was, although a nominal monarchy, in essence fascist in some of the areas as listed in the definition.

        However, the aftermath of that war was, almost predictably, the breeding ground for a far more vicious version: Sven Reichard, in a 2009 book, summed it up thus: “The experience of World War I was the most decisive immediate precondition for fascism.”  In other words, without that war there might well have been neither fascism in Italy nor National Socialism in Germany. “Without the First World War and its consequences, but also without the October revolution and the symbolic strength of Leninism, fascism would have remained a sectarian movement.”

        Although peripheral, it cannot be overlooked that the Versailles treaty, while endeavoring to make things better for colonial subjects, also condemned Germany to post war economic struggle, always a fertile field for a rabble rouser, and Germany certainly spawned one. Additionally, Hitler availed himself of a sort of “reverse” religious zealotry, not the usual muscular support of a specific faith, but the brutal condemnation and demonization of one. Blaming Jews was nothing new to Germans, as German Knights had slaughtered Indigenous Jews before going to the Crusades and even reformer, Martin Luther, had, in his last years become a rabid anti-Semite.

Hitler took it to the next level, blaming Jews, not just for the “denial of Christianity” but for essentially every ill Germany endured in the late 1920 and early thirties, having been devastated by the great depression. Into this misery, Hitler revived every Germanic heroic legend, even some Scandinavian ones, implying that they had been part of a Germanic “golden age” (they hadn’t) and, as Benito Mussolini would in Italy, called for a return to a largely manufactured “heroic age.”            Hitler’s speech, the infamous “prophecy” of 30 January, 1939, is significant: “Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevizing of the Earth and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.” I find it noteworthy that Hitler intentionally conflated Judaism with Bolshevism (Communism) even though Marx was baptized Lutheran and Lenin Catholic.

        Subsequent events are well known, as both Germans and Italians succumbed to propaganda and “manufactured histories” to become text-book fascist states. What is less emphasized (by some) in the US is that, while we fittingly venerate those who   landed at Normandy and fought and died valiantly in Italy, North Africa, and Western Europe, we hear far less about how long many Americans stridently opposed US entry into the war.

        The America First movement was amalgam of groups from liberal to conservative, united under the banner of “Stay the hell out of the ‘European war’.”  Underlying this however, and under emphasized, in this writer’s opinion, was the sense of some Americans that the Germans and to a lesser extent the Italians were “Christian folks like us” added to this was the undercurrent of American anti-Semitism, reflected by the refusal of US authorities to allow the 900 passengers on the MS Saint Louis, all Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany seeking sanctuary, to land in America. The vessel was forced to return to Europe where, eventually, about a third of the passengers were executed.

        Even earlier, such prominent Americans as Henry Ford had stoked the fires of anti-Semitism. One business acquaintance recalled that, on a 1919 camping trip, Ford had lectured a group around the campfire. He "attributed all evil to Jews or to the Jewish capitalists," the friend wrote in his diary. "The Jews caused the war, the Jews caused the outbreak of thieving and robbery all over the country, the Jews caused the inefficiency of the navy.” (??) In 1918, Henry Ford acquired a newspaper, The Dearborn Independent. A year and a half later, he began publishing a series of articles that claimed a vast Jewish conspiracy was infecting America. The series ran in the following ninety-one issues. Ford bound the articles into four volumes titled "The International Jew," and distributed half a million copies to his vast network of dealerships and subscribers. "I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration,"(!!!!) Hitler told a Detroit News reporter two years before becoming the German chancellor in 1933, explaining why he kept a life-size portrait of the American automaker next to his desk. Actually, both Ford and GM had readily retooled German plants to build the military machines which were used to invade Poland in 1939.

          In July 1938, four months after the German annexation of Austria, Henry Ford was awarded and accepted the highest medal that Nazi Germany could bestow on a foreigner, the Grand Cross of the German Eagle. The following month, a senior executive for General Motors, James Mooney, received a similar medal for his "distinguished service to the Reich." As one of the most famous (yet markedly undereducated) men in America, Henry Ford legitimized ideas that otherwise may have been given little authority. In Trump world, immigrants and LGBT persons are the new “Jews.”

        Franklin D. Roosevelt realized that the fortunes of the US were tied to a free Europe and tried in several ways (not going into details here for brevity’s sake) to ease the nation farther toward open alliance (and armed participation with) Britain and France. We’ll never know how long that might have taken, because another Fascist/Monarchist state halfway around the world attacked the US Naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. It was easy to get an almost unanimous declaration of war against Japan since pre-existent anti-Asian racism and religious intolerance fueled the fire. When we declared war on Japan, Germany, and Italy (the Axis Powers) actually honored their treaty with Japan and declared war on the USA.

        I know, “That’s fine Mike, but why the history lesson?” It’s simple really, because as Santayana (a philosopher, not a guitarist) famously said, “Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.”

        It could well be argued that a sizable portion of Trump policy and rhetoric reads and sounds like precursors of fascism. Look at those he admires, beginning with Vladimir Putin, who rules Russia with the collusion of a handful of oligarchs, responsible to no elected body, willing to sanction the poisoning of political rivals, controlling all media and glorifying the state above all else. Continue with the Elon Musk bromance. Recall Musk mourned the end of Apartheid in his birthplace, South Africa.

        Then consider Mohammad Bin Salman, Absolutist ruler of Saudi Arabia, whose $1.3 trillions make Trump salivate, while ignoring the brutal dismemberment of a journalist at his (MBS’s) order, (yes the CIA told Trump so, but he chose to disbelieve, because “Hey, he’s rich?”)

Trump has described both of these individuals as “very nice, very fine people.” His closeness to Musk is beyond weird and scary.

        In conclusion, nothing I can write will change the xenophobic, racist, religiously intolerant, economic elitist attitude of Trump’s many supporters, but I would hope they would at some point acknowledge that, by condemning minorities and inclusionary policies  at Trump’s bidding, they are supporting a political philosophy against which some of their relatives almost certainly fought and died in Europe and the Pacific, less than a century ago.

 

                          Still Hard to Believe                 

 

I’ve tried several times to begin this piece in the aftermath of the Presidential election. Each time I reflected that I have already written at length about Donald Trump’s manifest shortcomings as a leader, a moral individual and sufficient knowledge to adequately govern even a boy scout troop. Then I pondered the fact that, to my dismay and confusion, such a large number of our countrymen and woman are apparently as intellectually challenged as their idol.

        Explaining this requires the acceptance of the fact that apparently the broadening US oligarchy has accomplished its goal of convincing a significant number of people, for whom they have no real regard or concern save their role as consumers, that minorities and persons with whom they may disagree are a threat to their welfare. Tragically this has crossed over into religious chicanery, as perhaps the least religious man in America has been portrayed as having been sent by some divine hocus pocus to save the rest of us sentient beings from a litany of non-existent evils, such as free school lunches, drag queens, Medicaid and the fear that a trans-person might be using the adjacent stall.  

         Among the way, we are told that there is a crime wave of undocumented immigrants when, in truth, as a percentage of the population undocumented immigrants are significantly less likely to commit crimes because that would “blow their cover.”  In fact, a 2024 study reports that undocumented immigrants are arrested at less than half the rate of native-born U.S. citizens for violent and drug crimes and a quarter the rate of native-born citizens for property crimes.

        In addition to vilifying immigrants in general, especially those not Caucasian, the far right continues to make ludicrous allegations re: the LGBT community in general. Meanwhile House Speaker Mike Johnson has his panty hose in a wad for fear a trans member of Congress might use a Capitol rest room and do goodness knows what. All this “moral outrage”  
while initially he attempted to stifle the House Ethics committee report on the real sexual transgressions of the now resigned Matt Gaetz who was still Trump’s Attorney General selectee. And this is the individual who makes House committee appointments.

Trump’s list of cabinet selectees so far is mind numbing. In a nation which has essentially eliminated measles, polio, and other diseases by rigorous vaccination requirements for children, even the mention of anti-vaxxer Robert Kennedy Jr. for any heath related cabinet post is vomit worthy. In the same vein, the mention of Dr. Mehmet Oz for any Medicare and Medicaid supervisory role simply solidifies the Trump predilection for cronyism and sycophant preference. What, Dr Oz a fraud? Yes, read on. In a 2012 episode of The Dr Oz Show, He claimed that selenium supplements – a mineral found in certain foods – was “the holy grail of cancer prevention.” But a 2014 National Library of Medicine study concluded that “extremely high intakes of selenium can cause severe problems, including difficulty breathing, tremors, kidney failure, heart attacks, and heart failure, but there is “no evidence” to date that suggests that selenium supplements can prevent cancer in humans.”  This is but one such fraudulent claim made by Oz to urge sales of dubious products from which he profited.

 

The elevation of such as Elon Musk to any position in government in some fashion is equally scary as Musk would be Trump’s ear worm whispering that the wealthy and corporate interest are overtaxed, and a reduction of that “burden” can be obtained by reducing spending on those Americans struggling to get by while reducing taxes on those who can afford to pay their share. But wait, it gets worse. In October of this year, Trump said this: “When we were a smart country, in the 1890s … this is when the country was relatively the richest it ever was. It had all tariffs. It didn’t have an income tax,” “Now we have income taxes, and we have people that are dying. They’re paying tax, and they don’t have the money to pay the tax.”

First of all, the last sentence is vintage Trumpian word salad. Yes, people are dying, aways have, always will be. Dead people don’t pay tax. Trump may be referring to Inheritance Tax, which rich brats like himself might be taxed on a portion of. Trump and his ilk want to be able to pass all their wealth on to heirs who have done nothing to deserve it except be born rich. Note: Unless you inherit more than $13,610,000 this doesn’t apply to you. Again, it is vintage Trump, whining about having to share the profits made as a wealthy individual in the USA.

Now for the initial statement in the quote: Yes, we had tariffs. Yes, we also had essentially zero government concern for the poor, and many workers were, in fact, below what would have been the poverty level, had anyone cared enough to calculate what such a figure would have been. There was good reason to refer to the upper crust of US industrialists as “Robber Barons.”

       The world’s economy has changed, and tariffs today are a really bad idea, since any imposed by the US would surely result in increased prices because the “tariffed” nations would impose retaliatory tariffs. In 1890, which Trump refers to, the US was essentially self-sufficient in almost every raw material our industry required. Not so today! Considering just one area, that of the rare earths used almost all electronics, estimates are that the total worldwide reserves of rare earths amount to approximately 110 million metric tons. Almost half of these reserves are located within China, estimated at some forty-four million metric tons. After China, the major rare earth countries based on reserve volume are Vietnam, Russia, and Brazil. See the USA? Me neither. Tariffs against any of these nations could be disastrous, resulting in significant price increases for consumers here. Again, Trump and his cronies can afford higher prices, but most of us would suffer the result.

         If anyone actually sought validation of this, there are examples, such as the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff signed into law by Herbert Hoover. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was intended to help American farmers by raising prices on foreign agricultural imports. However, the tariff was a disaster and is often cited as a leading cause of the Great Depression, as other nations reciprocated, worsening an already bad world economic situation. More than one thousand American economists warned Hoover and petitioned him to veto the tariff bill. Like Trump, Hoover didn’t listen to good advice.

        As for the rest of the cabinet selectees we have another accused sexual miscreant Pete Hegseth, who apparently feels it’s ok to sexually assault women but not to allow them into combat roles in the military (he is named for SecDef!).

        Then we have Pam Bondi tapped for of AG, a recipient of a generous campaign contribution from Trump after which she killed investigation of numerous fraud allegations against Trump “University.”  Coincidence? On the same page we have do-nothing Senator Marco Rubio, also from Fl. and so deep in the pockets of big sugar that he has actually stated that “Sugar is a national security issue.” Of course, Rubio, who has never really worked a non-political job, has been the continuous voice in support of sugar price subsidies which cost Americans twice as much per pound as the rest of the world pays.

And, as the list and the threats go on, competence would seem not as much a pre-req as the willingness to echo the wishes of the would be king in the oval office. I may be wrong, but I can’t escape the sense that this can and may implode in Trump’s face as more average Americans begin to see that the emperor is naked.       

                                 

                          Twenty Four Years Later

Forward:   After I first finished and polished this piece (2018), I decided to let it rest overnight and revisit it this morning. This was based on my concern that rehashing events of 24 years ago was a sort of retrograde finger pointing. Upon further consideration, I decided that there are still too many parallels in the here and now to make that a valid objection. I further reflected that we as a national policy (apparently) are currently engaged in dithering over both parties principally responsible for current Arab-Israeli tensions. While Trump visited the Saudis and massaged what-ever the hell that large glowing orb was and called the Prince a “nice” man (yeah, he calls Putin that too!), he supported Netanyahu’s urban removal incursions into Palestinian areas. We currently are all too familiar with the result thereof.  He also chastises any American Jews with conscience who find Netanyahu and his militant policies objectionable. It’s as if Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter had a mentally challenged love child.

        Consequently, while this is significantly longer than many of my opuses, it is data based and, I think, explains why we mourn on September 11, as well as pointing out that we were poorly served, security wise, then and now in the name of political expediency and personal interests. I don’t do these for personal approbation, and this may anger some, but I would welcome any constructive comments or criticisms. Having said that, enjoy it or not, here’s my best take, salted with opinion based on facts, on what happened and why. P.S. there’s a bit of a history lesson here too. 

        To begin with, wouldn’t it be far better to have spent yesterday reflecting on a thwarted attempt, than simply commemorating over 3,000 dead? It might, and could/should have been, but obviously we’ll never know. What we can “know” is that there are public records which show just how badly Bush 43 and his National “security?” aides botched what was a fairly straight- forward problem in the months prior to 9/11. I’ll summarize before rather than after. I know it’s backwards, but it may help focus the reader’s appreciation of individual items.\

        Several things are factual and no longer either debated of “covered up:”

 1) The Clinton administration left the Bush White House and national security team with a full terrorist threat briefing identifying Al-Qaeda as the top threat and had, in the last year of tenure, identified anti-terrorism as the nations’ top priority.

 

2) The FBI and the CIA, functioning more like schoolyard mean girls than agencies entrusted with national domestic and foreign security, failed on two fatal levels.  The first was to get over adolescent turf squabbles and understand that in the 21st century, there is, at best, an increasingly vague interface between domestic and external threats.

3) Failing to understand (or at least to act upon) (2), above led to an institutionalized aversion to interagency cooperation and even worse, refusal to share data access between the agencies. In fact, both heads of agency post WWII, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover and (first) CIA director James Jesus Angleton were frequently at odds even then to the point that what should have been overlapping goals such as  dealing with espionage inside the US, degenerated into interdepartmental urination derbies, each blaming the other for perceived failures. 

4) The relationship between several US Presidents and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, while falling short of complicity in 9/11 events, fostered a less than rigorous scrutiny of its internal dynamic and external goals. This would seem to be on-going as one regards the Trump administration’s apparent blind eye to the assassination and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October 2018 by agents of the Saudi government. Subsequently, the Turkish government (who had bugged the consulate) released a tape with Khashoggi’s last words (“I can’t breathe”) which they maintain contains evidence that Khashoggi was assassinated on the orders of the Saudi Royal Family. Additionally, the CIA, which Trump largely ignores, has categorically concluded that the Al Saud royal family would have had to sanction such an activity, Trump has consistently refused to consider that his buddy, Prince Mohammed ben Salman could have done such a thing. Here’s a quote on Trump’s keen sense of propriety.  Speaking to the press: “Trump more broadly defended his relationships with world leaders, including the Saudis and Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying he gets "along with a lot of people."  "I get along with everybody, except you people, (meaning the press)" Trump told Acosta. "I also get along with people who would be perceived as being very nice." "I get along with President Putin. I get along with Mohammed," Trump said.  Isn’t that “very nice?” That’s today, but what about “then?”

        First: Why did it take 15 years for the US House to even address the issue of Saudi complicity to the point of liability for the events of 9/11? What follows is based only on my assumptions based on research re: The Bush family and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and my knowledge of the mentality of the (then Republican) House majority party.

        Bob Woodward in his authorized bio of "W" pointed out that the late George H.W. Bush advised his son to contact Saudi Prince Bandar to discuss and "be advised" regarding his (as of then) possible decision to run for the Presidency. Read that again. Huh? Did he need permission, or just assurances of support from a mid-east nation? This, as well as deep and longstanding Bush financial relations with the Kingdom should be troubling to most Americans.

        At this point let's ask and then pose answers to the original question.  Why did the Bush administration in its righteous anger in the wake of the destruction of 9/11, or at least after the Commission report, containing the redacted pages, not pose legislation critical of and citing probative evidence of Saudi complicity? Additionally, why wait until the Obama years to push a bill even allowing US citizens to sue the Saudi government for it?

         I would posit several reasons.  Primarily, the Bush administration, having taken office planning to "finish" daddy's Iraq adventure (later admitted by disillusioned staff), saw the need to base US forces in the Kingdom as more important than holding the Saudis accountable for the funding which Osama Bin Laden derived from his family's immense wealth.  Second, the President would certainly have vetoed such a bill, since in the real world it would expose the US to similar suits from most Middle Eastern nations, Laos, Cambodia, and others.

         Jump ahead to the Obama administration, and a US Congress controlled (again) by Republicans, most of whom delighted in using the ignorance of the body politic against a President whose laundry they weren't fit to wash. The “permission to sue” bill's timing was blatantly designed to force the President to veto it (as Bush would have) and then the finger pointing started, stimulating oral frothing and finger pointing from the redneck hordes who chronically know little and suspect even less.

       Immediately the Clinton-Obama bashing ramped up. The Bill was vetoed and subsequently overridden, creating bad law after even worse poor policy.  Incidentally, this apparent pang of sympathy for 9/11 victims with all the resultant lobbying monies spent by the NFL, MLB and other public persona organizations would be far better used in helping those 9/11 first responders and escapees whose medical issues continued to emerge, largely unrecognized or compensated by the rest of us.

        Having referred to the 9/11 Commission Report, I think it reasonable to make some legitimate comparisons between this "fact" finding attempt and the investigations into other, albeit less profound in their scope, events resulting in American deaths at the hands of Islamist extremists.

       There were attacks on several US installations in Lebanon in the Reagan years. I have earlier detailed the results of these events and Congressional reactions. There is no credible linkage between events in Lebanon and the Saudis, but Congressional reaction was bi-partisan.

       I debated (with myself, because I trust me) regarding which "commission" to discuss next, and simply because I want the 9/11 information to remain in the reader's mind, I'll omit Benghazi, having written on that debacle at length earlier. 

 

        Which brings me to the 9/11 Commission. Right up front, I have no time for conspiracy theories.  No, I don't think "W" did it or intentionally allowed it to happen. I believe that those who were ultimately blamed for it, did it, more than likely with the financial support of Saudi money, albeit probably not overtly supported or contributed to by the Saudi government, but rather from other Saudi sources, coupled with institutional agreement among Saudi royals that the best way to deal with their extremist, ultra Islamist, Wahabi driven elements within and without was to ignore them and their support of international terrorist activities in the interest of domestic stability at home.

         So, what is this Wahabi? It isn't a sushi condiment even though it sounds like Wasabi.  I could write a lot on Wahabism and its impact on the kingdom, but, for a more easily understood narrative, let’s look it thus:

       Imagine one Muslim, but not especially conservative, family whose patriarch manages to survive a great war (WWI) and with the assistance of T.E Lawrence, emerges as a self- proclaimed  Arab leader asserting a claim to be the ruling family of a disparate, but soon to be oil rich, kingdom and unified by 1932 as Saudi Arabia. Faced with oil wealth and the desire to become more accepted by an emerging modern world, they begin allowing more secular dress and activities than their predecessors who were conservative and largely tribal.  Meanwhile, however, out in the rural areas, a far more conservative preacher (mullah) begins preaching a grass roots revival stressing a return to absolute and literal Quran principles. Think Westboro Baptist Church with a liberal splash of Calvinist zeal and a dash of uber-Amish conservatism. His (the mullah Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab) adherents, simple people, and easily swayed to violence against any non-coreligionists, are seen by the urban and more urbane royals as a threat to their claim to power, so the royals, make a self-serving deal. They’ll support the ultra-conservative sect as the national religious doctrine in exchange for the sect’s support of their claim to power. Clubs, once frequented by both sexes in cities like Riyadh in the 1960s are closed, Burqas and Hijabs are mandated, women are relegated to second class status, etc. Enforcement is provided and mandated by The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. Welcome to the 21st century Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. An even more sinister spin off of this deal with the Devil, is the blind eye turned to terrorist activities by some of their own.    

Now that we've established what history has wrought, let's look at the 9/11 commission.

         The 9/11 Commission members were appointed by President George W. Bush and the United States Congress, which led to continued criticism that the Commission was not independent. Nixon SecState Henry Kissinger initially was appointed to head the commission, but resigned just weeks after being appointed, because he would have been obliged to disclose the clients of his private consulting business. Former U.S. Senator George Mitchell was originally appointed as the vice-chairman, but he stepped down on December 10, 2002, not wanting to sever ties to his law firm. So, finally, the Commission wasn't chaired by the "opposition party" but rather by men selected by the leader of the majority, himself. Hmmm. The Commission stated in its report that their aim was "... not to assign individual blame", a rather remarkable statement in and of itself, since so many died, someone certainly was to blame, and every single identified perpetrator was a Saudi and their financial supporters were as well. The "other" blame - "why was it possible," was also, apparently not to be probed too deeply.

         This judgment, some critics believed, could obscure the facts of the matter in a nod to consensus politics, as directed by the White House, if not specifically the President (more likely Dick Cheney, I believe) Factually, much of the orchestration of this was from the brains of Karl Rove and VP Cheney.    

        Some members of the Commission, as well as its executive director Philip Zelikow, had conflicts of interest. Philip Shenon, a New York Times reporter, in a February 2008 book  entitled "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation" states that "Zelikow had closer ties with the White House than he publicly disclosed and that he tried to influence the final report in ways that the staff often perceived as limiting the Bush administration’s responsibility and furthering its anti-Iraq agenda."

|         Translate this as a desire to do what damage control could be done to shift blame to Iraq for what was a Saudi money funded and run assault on America. And boy did that work! Many Americans still will say that Iraq was responsible for events of 9/11.  According to Shenon (and uncontroverted), Zelikow had at least four private conversations with former White House political director Karl Rove, and appears to have had many frequent telephone conversations with people in the White House. Government Accountability Office (GAO) records show his frequent calls to the 456 telephone exchange in the 202 area code used exclusively by the White House. Some panel staff members have later stated that Zelikow stopped them from submitting a report depicting Nat'l Sec. Advisor, Condoleezza Rice's and President Bush's performance as "amounting to incompetence or something not far from it".

       According to Shenon, Karl Rove always feared that a commission report that laid the blame for 9/11 at the president's doorstep (such as when Bush terrorism "czar" Richard Clarke could no longer be prevented from testifying about his urgent warnings over the summer of 2001 to Condoleezza Rice about the imminent threat of terrorist attack on US soil) was the one development that could most jeopardize Bush's 2004 re-election. As early as Jan. 25, in a memo only subsequently declassified, Clarke was very specific in warnings to Rice that "Al Qida" (sic) was a serious domestic threat and shared his concern that the administration wasn't focused on it in spite of fairly specific Clinton departure brief warnings.

        In contrast to the Benghazi hearings in which all the relevant persons were summoned, sworn and examined at the will of the panel, President Bush and Vice President Cheney did ultimately, but after considerable stalling, agree to testify. They did so only under several conditions: They would be allowed to testify jointly, They would not be required to take an oath before testifying, The testimony would not be recorded electronically or transcribed, and that the only record would be notes taken by one of the commission staffers. These notes would never be made public. Plainly stated, they didn't want to testify, but would do so if they could lie (or dissemble or mislead) and not be held accountable.

        To further hinder and filter the flow of information, The Commission was forced to use subpoenas simply to obtain the cooperation of the FAA and NORAD (Federal Aviation Administration and North American Air Defense Command) to release evidence such as audiotapes. The agencies' seemingly systematic and apparently White House “encouraged”  reluctance to release tapes, and subsequent, e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on September 11. Later, in an August 2006 interview former New Jersey Atty. Gen. John Farmer, who led the staff inquiry into events on September 11, stated, "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," said.

       A significant number of former FBI, NSA and other federal intelligence experts, claim the 9/11 Commission report was fundamentally flawed because the Commission refused to hear, ignored, or censored testimony about the many pre–September 11 warnings given to the FBI and US intelligence agencies. (Again, because it lent credibility to the Bush/Rice incompetence theory.) These former operatives claim that, in an effort to avoid having to hold any individual accountable, the 9/11 Commission turned a blind eye on FBI agent-provided evidence before September 11 regarding the 9/11 plot. Note, this may be taken with several grains of salt because it also smacks of “ass-covering” by the FBI.

       Able Danger: A far less publicized intelligence unit involved in pre-9/11 threat assessment was a military unit designated "Able Danger."  Most Americans have never heard of it, and even fewer had knowledge of it pre-9/11. One reason was that by custom, tradition and, in fact, law, US military resources are forbidden from engaging in any sort of domestic surveillance, some of which Able Danger came very close to doing. That said, several members of this unit have, in the wake of the Commission report, made some significant statements which have bearing on this essay. The existence of Able Danger was revealed by Congressman Curt Weldon (R-Pa) in 2005, after the 9/11 Commission report began to look to him like a "cover up" (his characterization) for intelligence failures. During the summer of 2005, Weldon, vice-chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, revealed the existence of a secret Pentagon counter-terrorism operation codenamed Able Danger, which he claimed had identified Mohammed Atta, alleged, and later confirmed,  ringleader of the 9/11 attacks, as early as 1999.

        It has been widely reported in Europe that Atta was known to US intelligence agencies and was actually under FBI surveillance in Germany as early as 1999, which seriously  undermines  Bush administration claims that the 9/11 attacks came out of the blue and that the US government had no idea before September 2001 that Al Qaeda terrorists were in the United States planning terrorist attacks.  This information has been largely suppressed in the American media, and the existence of Able Danger was omitted in the official 9/11 Commission report in order to sustain its whitewash of the role of US military and intelligence agencies in permitting and even facilitating the attacks. Secret or not, Congressman Weldon stated in committee that Able Danger had also identified three other future 9/11 hijackers as Al Qaeda loyalists: Marwan Al-Shehhi, Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi. He also claimed that he had been in possession of a “link chart” tracing the connections of various individuals connected to Al Qaeda, and containing Atta’s photograph and name, and had turned it over to deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley at a meeting in the White House on September 25, 2001. Both Hadley and another Republican congressman, Dan Burton of Indiana, have confirmed the meeting with Weldon on that date and the handover of the link chart. The chart itself "disappeared", according to the Bush White House. Convenient, huh?

         After Weldon's assertions were disputed and the credibility of Able Danger impugned, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a member of the Able Danger team, identified himself as Weldon's source. Shaffer stated categorically that he alerted the FBI in September 2000 about the information uncovered by the secret military unit (Able Danger), he further alleged that three meetings he set up with bureau officials were blocked by military lawyers. Shaffer, who at the time worked for the Defense Intelligence Agency, claims he communicated to members of the 9/11 Commission that Able Danger had identified two of the three cells responsible for 9/11 prior to the attacks, but the Commission did not include this information in their final report.

        Shaffer specifically stated that in Jan 2000, Able Danger datamining revealed the existence of a 'Brooklyn' Al-Qaeda cell connected to the "Blind Sheik" Omar Abdel-Rahman, as well as two other cells overseas. Shaffer was soon after placed on paid administrative leave for what he called "petty and frivolous" reasons and had his security clearance suspended in March 2004, following a dispute over travel mileage expenses and personal use of a work cell phone. These allegations are claimed to have been pursued in bad faith & breach of process, in relation for Shaffer talking to the 9/11 Commission.

        Congressman Weldon asked for a probe into the activities undertaken to silence Lt. Col. Shaffer from publicly commenting on Able Danger and Able Danger's identification of the 9/11 hijackers, calling the activities "a deliberate campaign of character assassination." The Army agreed, Army investigations subsequently found these claims to be without merit and cleared his promotion.

        Shaffer also told the story of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) opposition to Able Danger, prior to 9/11, based on the view that Able Danger was encroaching on CIA turf. According to Shaffer, the CIA representative said, "I clearly understand. We're going after the leadership. You guys are going after the body, but it doesn't matter. The bottom line is, CIA will never give you the best information from 'Alex Base' (the CIA's top-secret database) or anywhere else. CIA will never provide that to you because if you were successful in your effort to target Al Qaeda, you will steal our thunder. Therefore, we will not support this." This lack of inter-agency cooperation as well as the "Information Wall" (previously illustrated as existing since the 1950s which existed between the FBI and CIA at the time has been held by many interested parties as a critical failure to protect the nation because of petty inter-agency turf wars.

 

 

 

            If Schaffer/Weldon were the only ex- Able Danger voices crying in the night, it might be easy to dismiss their claims. However, this simply isn’t the case. Navy Captain Scott Phillpott, another Able danger member, confirmed Shaffer's claims. "I will not discuss this outside of my chain of command", Phillpott said in a formal public statement. "I have briefed the Department of the Army, the Special Operations Command and the office of (Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence) as well as the 9/11 Commission. My story has remained consistent. "Mohammed Atta was identified as a threat by Able Danger in January/February 2000".

           Shaffer's claims were also confirmed by James D. Smith, a civilian contractor who worked on Able Danger. In a later interview with media personnel, Smith reported that the project had involved analysis of data from many public sources and 20 to 30 individuals. He stated that Atta's name had emerged during an examination of individuals known to have ties to Omar Abdel Rahman, a leading figure in the first World Trade Center bombing – a failed underground garage car bomb.

         Finally, regarding Able Baker, and the massive intelligence failure leading to 9/11: “Operation Dark Heart” by Anthony A. Shaffer, released in September 2010, includes memories of his time reporting to the 9/11 commission about Able Danger's findings. The 10,000 copies of the books have not been released yet. The DOD's Defense Intelligence Agency reviewers identified more than 200 passages suspected of containing classified information. "Specifically, the DIA wanted references to a meeting between Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, the book's author, and the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, removed." There can, in my opinion, be only one explanation for such concerns, that being that it casts the shadow of "cover up" on the entire proceeding if the man responsible for the investigation knew of Able Danger and omitted it (by directive) from the final version.  DOD took the highly unusual step of purchasing all available copies of Shaffer's book at a cost of $47,000 and destroying them to deny the public the ability to read the book.

        At this point is valid to ponder the (apparent) sense of necessity to not publicly acknowledge the existence of Able Danger. While it is wholly conjecture on my part, I think there are several probable factors. The first, relatively straightforward, was the level of classification of the operation at the time, and the sometimes-slavish sacrifice of public “need to know” on the National Security altar. We have previously seen Nixon attempt to obfuscate evidence of Oval Office condoned malfeasance under that same umbrella.

More valid, I think is the hesitance to reveal the existence of a security operation which was neither fish nor fowl. The FBI is entrusted with domestic enforcement and, if appropriate, surveillance. The CIA is charged with intelligence gathering, but not domestic enforcement, and its mandated focus is overseas. The US military, unlike in some other nations, traditionally has no role, barring extremely exigent circumstances, in domestic issues, be they security, criminal prosecution, or espionage. Able Danger, however, comprised of (non-CIA or FBI) civilian and active-duty military representatives from all services represented a clear departure from this tradition. I feel there was some concern for what the general reaction to discovery of its mission might have been. Regardless of that fact, rejection of its findings and warnings by National Security inner circle entities including FBI, CIA, and the White House is puzzling to say the least. As more corroboration emerged of Able Danger information, the harder this question is to answer with any reasonable conclusion. 

        There is one final oddity here on I wish to comment. Bush National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice strenuously dug in her heels, like her boss and Cheney to avoid testifying to the committee. She at first claimed she was a civilian employee of the administration, ergo was immune to subpoena, but was finally persuaded to do so. Here (because they are informative) are just a sampling of the questions she was asked under oath and when appropriate, some elucidation related to the veracity of her responses:

(Where it says "CLAIM" what follows are Ms. Rice's precise words. The statements after "FACT" are actual verified data)

CLAIM: "I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons."

 

FACT: Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the summit, prompting officials to "close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city’s airport." [Sources: Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01; White House release, 7/22/01]

CLAIM: "I was certainly not aware of [intelligence reports about planes as missiles] at the time that I spoke" in 2002.

FACT: While Rice may not have been aware of the 12 separate and explicit warnings about terrorists using planes as weapons when she made her denial in 2002, she did know about them when she wrote her March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed. In that piece, she once again repeated the claim there was no indication "that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04]

CLAIM: There was "nothing about the threat of attack in the U.S." in the Presidential Daily Briefing the President received on August 6th.

FACT: Rice herself later admitted that "the title [of the PDB] was, ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.’" [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04] Sounds a little threatening, huh?

CLAIM: "One of the problems was there was really nothing that looked like was going to happen inside the United States…Almost all of the reports focused on al-Qaida activities outside the United States, especially in the Middle East and North Africa…We did not have…threat information that was in any way specific enough to suggest something was coming in the United States."

FACT: Page 204 of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 noted that "In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States" to "carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives." The report "was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001]." In the same month, the Pentagon "acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Laden had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States." [Sources: Joint Congressional Report, 12/02]

CLAIM: "If we had known an attack was coming against the United States…we would have moved heaven and earth to stop it."

FACT: a year later, Rice admits that she was told that "an attack was coming." She said, "Let me read you some of the actual chatter that was picked up in that spring and summer": "Unbelievable news coming in weeks", said one. "Big event — there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar. There will be attacks in the near future." [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04]

 

CLAIM: "The Vice President was, a little later in, I think, in May, tasked by the President to put together a group to look at all of the recommendations that had been made about domestic preparedness and all of the questions associated with that."

FACT: The Vice President’s task force never once convened a meeting. In the same time period, the Vice President (Dick Cheney, former oil company employee) convened at least 10 meetings of his energy task force, and six meetings with Enron executives. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; GAO Report, 8/03] What a “Dick!”

 

CLAIM: "The decision that we made was to, first of all, have no drop-off in what the Clinton administration was doing, because clearly they had done a lot of work to deal with this very important priority."

FACT: Internal government documents show that the Clinton Administration officially prioritized counterterrorism as a "Tier One" priority, but when the Bush Administration took office, top officials downgraded counterterrorism. As the Washington Post reported, these documents show that before Sept. 11 the Bush Administration "did not give terrorism top billing." Rice admitted that "we decided to take a different track" than the Clinton Administration in protecting America. [Source: Internal government documents, 1998-2001; Washington Post, 3/22/04; Rice testimony, 4/8/04]

 CLAIM: The Bush Administration has been committed to the "transformation of the FBI into an agency dedicated to fighting terror."

FACT: Before 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft de-emphasized counterterrorism at the FBI, in favor of more traditional law enforcement. And according to the Washington Post, "in the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows." And according to a new report by the Congressional Research Service, "numerous confidential law enforcement and intelligence sources now challenge the FBI’s claim that it has successfully retooled itself to gather critical intelligence on terrorists as well as fight crime." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Congressional Quarterly, 4/6/04]

CLAIM: "The FBI issued at least three nationwide warnings to federal, state and law enforcement agencies and specifically stated that, although the vast majority of the information indicated overseas targets, attacks against the homeland could not be ruled out. The FBI tasked all 56 of its U.S. field offices to increase surveillance of known suspects of terrorists and to reach out to known informants who might have information on terrorist activities."

FACT: The warnings were "feckless. (def: lacking initiative or strength of character; irresponsible.) They didn’t tell anybody anything. They don’t bring anyone to battle stations." [Source: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, 4/8/04]

CLAIM: "I think that having a Homeland Security Department that can bring together the FAA and the INS and Customs and all of the various agencies is a very important step."

FACT: The White House and Ms. Rice, initially at least, vehemently opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland security. Its opposition to the concept delayed the creation of the department by months.

        It should be noted that Ms. Rice was compensated about the same as a U.S. Senator for her work here and in helping push the US into Iraq, thus facilitating the creation of ISIS.

        And last, what is in the redacted pages of this report? Who will it further embarrass? Beats me, but I'll bet the gist of it is that some prominent Saudis were complicit in helping Mohammad Atta and his band of one-way pilots obtain entry in the US under other than legitimate pretense. I wouldn't anticipate finding out much more about the incompetence of the Bush administration of the inadequacies of the 9/11 Commission report, because that's been done.

        Eighteen years on, we were again treated to the spectacle of a US President (Trump) toadying to the Saudis in Riyadh and, later overlooking the real perpetrators of the butchery of a reporter in a third country, referring to the Princes as “nice people.”  While we remember and mourn the deaths of thousands of Americans, and while we, to varying degrees, apportion blame to the Kingdom, which certainly is culpable to a great extent, let’s also remember that some people we elected to office and to whom we entrusted our safety, failed us miserably for various reasons, among them financial concerns, access to oil, and, sadly, just plain incompetence. Tragically, it seems we are presently little better off after the 3000 needless deaths .