I would like to propose a thought experiment about how the Western
world would respond to the following scenario:

As a result of increasing discrimination, persecution of various
forms, and acts of violence against Muslim immigrants in Europe, there
emerges a movement for them to immigrate to a single country where the
force of their numbers will allow them some political clout and self
protection. Because of its liberal immigration policies, its
relatively small population and the social tolerance there, Luxembourg
is selected for the European Muslim homeland.

Over a period of time, Muslims from Europe and some from other
locations begin settling in Luxembourg and buying up land until they
reach about 10% of the population However, despite its reputation
for tolerance, Luxembourg citizens become uncomfortable with the
number of Muslims in the country and there are numerous incidents of
inter-religious violence. Luxembourg seeks to limit Muslim
immigration, but Muslims set up smuggling organizations, which
continue to bring in immigrants covertly. Throughout Europe they
begin arming themselves for self-defence. At a certain point, the
Muslim population of Luxembourg reaches 20% and the communal violence
continues to escalate.

Finally, the UN decides that the only way to deal with this is to
partition Luxembourg with Muslims on one side and Christians on the
other. The Muslim minority is given the majority of land, and
immediately agrees to the division, although privately Muslim leaders
say that they intend to take the entire country for the Greater
Islamic Republic of Luxembourg. The Christians reject the partition,
but before they can organize themselves to respond the Muslims have
begun forced deportations on their side of the partition line, sending
hundreds of thousands of refugees into western Luxembourg, France, and
Belgium. Never happy about having a Muslim nation in the region, and
concerned about the ethnic cleansing, Belgium and France send troops
into the Christian side of the partition but are driven back by the
Muslims, who then claim the territory they have taken by force.

The Muslims refuse to allow Christian refugees to return to their side
of the partition and they expropriate their land as abandoned
property. However, they encourage immigration of Muslims from Europe,
the Middle East and East Asia. And they begin buying up arms, with aid
from oil-rich Muslim countries, until, despite their size, they are
the most powerful military in the region.

Within 20 years they have fought two wars with their neighbors and
have seized the remainder of Luxembourg, and parts of France, Belgium
and Germany. They sporadically engage in unprovoked military action
against countries in the region, bombing a dam in Germany because it
would divert some water from Luxembourg, bombing a nuclear power plant
in Austria to prevent that country from developing nuclear weapons,
and bombing the headquarters of the Luxembourg Liberation Organization
in Rome. The have plotted or threatened to overthrow the governments
of every neighboring country and they invaded and occupied the
Netherlands for 18 years and recently decimated a large part of its
infrastructure because, "The Party of God," a militant Protestant
group was launching rocket attacks on them from there.

They insist that they just want to make peace with their neighbors but
they must continue their periodic military incursions into neighboring
countries because of ongoing terrorist attacks against them. They
claim that they need the occupied territories they have as a
self-defense buffer zone, but they have moved hundreds of thousands of
Muslims into these territories and created hundreds of towns and
villages in them. Their neighbors are afraid that they will now seek
more land as a buffer zone to protect the new settlements.

But the Muslims claim that Christians are uncivilized fanatics who
just want to kill all the Muslims, so it is impossible to make peace
with them. They quote statements from Ann Coulter, a leading American
Christian political commentator as proof that this is the evil intent
of all Christians, and they cite the genocide in Bosnia as evidence
that this is not just bellicose political rhetoric. But, they say,
Muslims can fight back now. And they do.

All socities are held together by bonds of reciprocal obligations that maintain social cohesion and thereby serve the common good. The current financial crisis is an instance where such obligations are called to the fore: massive intervention is required to serve the common good of avoiding economic collapse. But it must be aknowledged that those who caused the crisis--both in the government and in the financial sector--did more than just create a economic crisis. A class of what are essentially pirates have been allowed to manipulate the financial markets so as to skim off wealth created by productive workers and companies. They used their influence to changes laws for their own benifit, to prevent regulations from actually being enforced, and, in some instances, acted in open defiance of the law.

In doing these thing, they violated the public trust, ignored the social contract that binds Americans together, and thereby damaged the trust and solidarity that is the fabric of society and that is essential for a stable country and a prosperious economy. Healing the damage requires not just addressing the immediate crisis, but bringing accountability to those who are currently "above the law" or "too big to fail." Furthermore, since we as tax-payers and workers are being called upon to bail out and correct the bad decisions of economic and political leaders, it is timely that we think about what we should demand in exchange for this bail out.

In my view, the core problem here is the concentration of power brought about by concentrations of wealth in the hands of individuals and corporations. There will always be loopholes in any legislation intended to deminish the influence of money in politics and, in any case, out-and-out bribery can take place regardless of the law. Therefore I propose that we eliminate the concentrations of power by:

1) Limiting wealth. By this I mean putting an upper limit on the accumulated assets of individuals. We can debate what this limit should be, but it should be low enough that one individual or family could not afford to have a major impact on political campaigns. Everything above this would be subject to a 100% tax.

2) Establish the principle that "too big to fail" is too big. Break up companies that are too big.

3) Limit CEO compensation to no more than a 10 to 1 ratio of what the lowest-paid workers receive. This should apply to all compensation: salary, bonuses, and stock options.

These measures would be a beginning to the elite back into the fraternity of citizenship, with its attendant obligations. However, measures need to also be taken to bring the benifits of citizenship back to rank-and-file Americans. For this I would propose the following:

1) Eliminate absolute poverty. If we can bail out the wealthy, we can certainly provide the essentials to poor, and no American should have to live in fear of what will happen if they lose their job or have an illness. Programs to eliminate poverty can be funded with the tax on wealth. The houses, whose bad mortgates we have just purchased, can be used for housing the homeless.

2) National health care. If we can bail out AIG, we can provide all Americans with health coverage.
It's better for the economy, and there is no longer an excuse not to do it.

3) Free education. College and trade school education ought to be subsidized, at least for those students meeting a minimum scholastic standard.

All socities are held together by bonds of reciprocal obligations that maintain social cohesion and thereby serve the common good. The current financial crisis is an instance where such obligations are called to the fore: massive intervention is required to serve the common good of avoiding economic collapse. But it must be aknowledged that those who caused the crisis--both in the government and in the financial sector--did more than just create a economic crisis. A class of what are essentially pirates have been allowed to manipulate the financial markets so as to skim off wealth created by productive workers and companies. They used their influence to changes laws for their own benifit, to prevent regulations from actually being enforced, and, in some instances, acted in open defiance of the law.

In doing these thing, they violated the public trust, ignored the social contract that binds Americans together, and thereby damaged the trust and solidarity that is the fabric of society and that is essential for a stable country and a prosperious economy. Healing the damage requires not just addressing the immediate crisis, but bringing accountability to those who are currently "above the law" or "too big to fail." Furthermore, since we as tax-payers and workers are being called upon to bail out and correct the bad decisions of economic and political leaders, it is timely that we think about what we should demand in exchange for this bail out.

In my view, the core problem here is the concentration of power brought about by concentrations of wealth in the hands of individuals and corporations. There will always be loopholes in any legislation intended to deminish the influence of money in politics and, in any case, out-and-out bribery can take place regardless of the law. Therefore I propose that we eliminate the concentrations of power by:

1) Limiting wealth. By this I mean putting an upper limit on the accumulated assets of individuals. We can debate what this limit should be, but it should be low enough that one individual or family could not afford to have a major impact on political campaigns. Everything above this would be subject to a 100% tax.

2) Establish the principle that "too big to fail" is too big. Break up companies that are too big.

3) Limit CEO compensation to no more than a 10 to 1 ratio of what the lowest-paid workers receive. This should apply to all compensation: salary, bonuses, and stock options.

These measures would be a beginning to the elite back into the fraternity of citizenship, with its attendant obligations. However, measures need to also be taken to bring the benifits of citizenship back to rank-and-file Americans. For this I would propose the following:

1) Eliminate absolute poverty. If we can bail out the wealthy, we can certainly provide the essentials to poor, and no American should have to live in fear of what will happen if they lose their job or have an illness. Programs to eliminate poverty can be funded with the tax on wealth. The houses, whose bad mortgates we have just purchased, can be used for housing the homeless.

2) National health care. If we can bail out AIG, we can provide all Americans with health coverage.
It's better for the economy, and there is no longer an excuse not to do it.

3) Free education. College and trade school education ought to be subsidized, at least for those students meeting a minimum scholastic standard.

I have started to think of this administration as one interlocking scandal in which the resources of government have been used for partisan advantage in elections, enriching cronies, and enriching the Bush appointees who have been appointed to positions in which they can manage government resources for these purposes. They have sought to politicize the entire machinery of government: the judiciary, federal prosecutors, the DOD, the GSA, the regulatory agencies, the various executive departments--everything they control. It's probably a good thing that voting is handled at the state level, since state Republicans have exhibited a willingness to use the power of the state to effect voting and the counting of votes; if the feds controlled it, we would probably still have a Republican congress. The various scandals that have come to light are not anamolies, they represent business as usual and are a product of the governing philosophy of the current leadership of the national Republican party. That philosophy, as near as I can tell, is do whatever you have to do get a elected and grab whatever you can once you are in office. It is a Republican version of Tamany Hall, boss politics at the national level.

In truth they stand for nothing but greed and self-agrrandisement. Conservative principles have long since been abandoned and policy positions are just tactics for getting elected. Enriching oneself through influence peddling, use of inside knowledge, steering contracts to cronies, and so forth is the main purpose for a Republican political career these days, at least at the national level.