Entry: An Ironic Twist of History Monday, March 01, 2004



Forget the forecasts of the naysayers, who eagerly interpreted every questioning voice and dissenting opinion as the death-knell of Mid-East democracy.  Iraqi leaders of so many beliefs and backgrounds, from every corner of the country, have agreed to compromise on an interim constitution. 

"It's a historic document," said Faisal Istrabadi, one of the lead drafters and a senior aide to council member Adnan Pachachi. "Every single article, and each subparagraph, had the consensus of all 25 people in the room... In the best tradition of democracies -- granted, we are an aspiring democracy -- we all compromised."

And what a constitution!  Re-creating Iraq as a Federalist nation with a high degree of autonomy granted to the various sections of the country, the constitution provides for a single President and two deputy Presidents, and on many decisions the three must be unanimous.  A Prime Minister will run the country's day-to-day affairs, and the directly-elected Iraqi Parliament (which will choose the Presidents) must include at least 25% women.  (Minority/female quotas, while counter-productive in America now because of reverse discrimination, were originally briefly helpful.)  The Bill of Rights included in the constitution protects free speech, religious expression, freedom of assembly and due process of law.  Though Islam will be the official state religion, it will only be considered "a source" for purposes of legislation, not the source.  No laws may be passed that violate the tenets of Islam... but on the other hand, no laws may be passed that violate the Bill of Rights, either.

In one of those bizarre and hilarious twists of fate that only historians normally get to see, Iraqis -- for one brief, shining moment, at least -- actually have more rights and fairer taxes than citizens of the United States of America, which brought these freedoms to Iraq.

Like citizens of Russia and Hong Kong, Iraqis now enjoy the benefits of a flat tax system, thanks to an order issued by L. Paul Bremer in September 2003.  Though businesses were supposedly taxed at a rate of 45% under Saddam Hussein, the fact that most businesses were State-owned made it rather pointless... it was just another way for Saddam to line his pockets.  Individual income taxes were rarely collected, but most Iraqis were paid such ridiculously low wages that it amounted to the same thing.  American Conservatives have been lobbying for a simple flat tax  -- which would drastically cut down on cheating and nearly eliminate loopholes -- for years with no success.

Because the Iraqis have no laws creating limits on their freedom of speech, they actually enjoy its benefits more than we Americans are able to do these days.  Since the McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform" bill was somehow upheld by the Supreme Court against all logic, our First Amendment right of free speech has been severely curtailed, although you may not have noticed.  The Court ruled that "corruption or the appearance of corruption" is sufficient justification to "regulate" our freedom of speech. By banning all political ads within 60 days of an election, McCain-Feingold ensures that the only politics most people will hear about from September on will be whatever interviews the "news" media decides to broadcast.  And with members of the "mainstream" media openly admitting to a Liberal bias, how well do you think they'll balance pro-Bush guests and anti-Bush guests?

Perhaps we can find a Conservative version of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to throw out any laws he feels conflict with the "higher law" of the US Constitution.

Except for the official languages being Arabic and Kurdish, and an official state religion being declared, it sounds as though Iraq would be a great place for a Conservative American to visit once the security situation is well in hand.  Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is an al-Qaeda operative whose presence in Iraq was so highly doubted by the French (and therefore by America's Liberals), but he seems to be there after all.  In a recently-intercepted letter to al-Qaeda leaders, he complained that, "[t]here is no doubt that our field of movement is shrinking and the grip around the throat of the Mujahidin has begun to tighten. With the spread of the army and police, our future is becoming frightening."

With Iraq's shiny new constitution and the terrorists fearing for their own future, it seems likely that those who opposed the liberation of Iraq here in America will be just as badly defeated as those who opposed it in the deserts of Iraq.

   9 comments

Jamie G
March 2, 2004   09:12 AM PST
 
I'm sure the people here in America who opposed the liberation of Iraq felt a shiver run up their spines when it was announced. But they will soon find a way to heap scorn upon this achievement. They always do - its what they are good at. And remember, this is an election year, so anything good that happens in Iraq will be interpreted as being bad by the Democratic Presidential candidates. They will downplay the good occuring in Iraq and play up what is happening in Haiti. The liberation of Iraq was in part an action in the war on terror. I don't recall Haiti having an army or weapons, or being a base for terrorist organizations, so why are they saying we should unilaterally send troops(Kerry's words) into Haiti ?

I still find it amazing that the candidates flip-flop on the issues so often yet people think they can be trusted with running the country!

(BTW - Don't you think implementation of a flat tax here in the States would be too tempting for Congress? It would be like opening up a candy store - they would be changing it every chance they got to get more money to pour into their home districts. Or would there be a way to prohibit constantly changing the tax rates? I guess you can tell I don't know much about ecomomics.)
JM
March 2, 2004   09:50 AM PST
 
Steve Forbes (yes, THAT Steve Forbes) tried to run for President on a flat tax platform once, and lost. No one really wants it... except we poor fools who have to pay, and pay, and pay. The Democrats would lose the ability to keep their BS class warfare campaigns going. (No more screaming about "tax cuts for the rich!" when "the rich" are the only ones who pay.) The IRS would have to fire 90% of its employees, as would firms like HR Block.
A friend of mine just said yesterday that if Bush managed to cure cancer, invent cold fusion, feed the hungry and cure the sick of the world, the Democrats would complain that the red "S" on his chest clashed with his blue leotard. I thought that was pretty good.
Jamie G
March 2, 2004   10:15 AM PST
 
That WAS a good one. Bush as Superman. Nah.... wouldn't work - too macho. He is already dissed for being a "cowboy" and using "macho rhetoric". Isn't it funny how Bush said "Bring it on" and the libs acted as if he committed phsical abuse, yet Kerry said it and no one had a problem. But when Bush says it, it actually SOUNDS manly, whereas Kerry says those very same words and he just sounds silly.

I have a slight problem with taxing only the "rich". We would have to be careful to not tax them out of existence, else no one would have a job, as companies would fold. I remember reading "Atlas Shrugged" back in high school and it made a definite impression on how I view the world of the "rich". How about we just tax the "rich" people who make absurd amounts of money for doing very little - like the mega-rich CEOs of large companies, entertainers, actors/actresses, athletes, ex-Presidents who give speeches, etc. Profits from a business that actually employs people needs to be treated differently, no?
JM
March 2, 2004   12:05 PM PST
 
Taxing people a higher percentage the more they make (the so-called "progressive" tax system we use today) only leads to a) people not working as hard to get ahead... they'd just pay more taxes to the government, leaving them right where they are now and b) people looking like mad for loopholes to allow them to keep more of the money they make. A dirt-simple flat tax of, say, 15% on everyone with NO loopholes would be far more fair. You make a million a year? You pay $150,000, period. You make thirty thousand a year? You pay $4,500. (Under that, I would suggest a gradated income tax down to zero percent at 10,000.)
Jamie G
March 2, 2004   03:05 PM PST
 
That would work IF, and only IF, the rate wasn't subject to change every time Congress wanted more and more money to fund all their giveaway programs. (Or money for Boston's cost overruns on their new highway system, or research into the mating habits of newts, or funding of a museum for some obscure something or other.) You know what I'm saying? What would there be to prevent the flat tax rate from going up to 50% within a few years of enactment? The rational thinking of our elected officials?

BTW - have you seen the latest about Haiti? "The Hill" is reporting that CBC wants Congressional hearings of Aristide's claims of being kidnapped and being forced from office. One of the members even called it a "terrorist takeover". They want the Bush Admin to provide "proof". They don't seem to care that the man was corrupt and that his 2000 election victory was internationally condemned as fraudulent. CBC criticism of the exiled leader was muted, despite long-standing international concern about his regime’s engaging in fraud, thug rule and the repression of opponents. Nancy Pelosi has also jumped on the bandwagon and made a statement. “Had peacekeepers been sent earlier, a political settlement that better respected the results of the last democratic election with less bloodshed and chaos could have been achieved.”
Jamie G
March 2, 2004   03:14 PM PST
 
BTW - tell your friend that if Bush managed to find a cure for cancer and also cured all of the sick people in the world, the Demos would complain about "the millions of jobs lost because of the lack of need for hospitals, cancer treatment centers, doctors, nurses, funeral homes, casket manufacturers, flower growers, etc..... These millions of jobs were lost because of failed Domestic policies of the Bush Admin. Everyone knows that sickness is big business and generates job and he took that away from the American people!"
JM
March 2, 2004   03:49 PM PST
 
>What would there be to prevent
>the flat tax rate from going up to
>50% within a few years of
>enactment?

The fact that THEY would have to pay it TOO. No loopholes.

Re: Haiti

I said on Sunday, "We'll have to see whether leading Democrats begin to criticise Bush for not acting to "preserve democracy" in Haiti." What is it with Democrats supporting any thug dictator who manages to rig an election, calling that "Democracy"??

>the Demos would complain
>about "the millions of jobs lost
>because of the lack of need for
>hospitals

Hah, good one.
Jamie G.
March 2, 2004   04:13 PM PST
 
What do you mean "THEY would have to pay it TOO. No loopholes."

Are you kidding? There is no WAY that they would not have loopholes for themselves (and their numerous campaign contributors). That goes for BOTH parties.

I understand now why a flat tax will never be put in place. Not because Congress would constantly up the rates, but because they would have to pay it, too!

I just don't trust most politicians. Probably because I'm from the South and there are a lot of crooked politicians in the South. But the funny thing is - I trust George Bush, I really do. He comes across as sincere and REAL. (Not Cheney, though, I'm not too sure about him.)

JM
March 2, 2004   04:22 PM PST
 
>I understand now why a flat tax
>will never be put in place. Not
>because Congress would
>constantly up the rates, but
>because they would have to pay
>it, too!

Precisely. <sigh> That was why I was happy that Bremer gave the Iraqis a flat tax. Start 'em off on the right foot.

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments