Britsh prime minister Gordon Brown
(c) Nancy Ohanian

On my last visit to the UK three months ago, Members of Parliament were embroiled in a scandal involving outrageous expense claims for such things as moat cleaning, a baby crib and second homes that were sometimes occupied by friends and relatives, or not at all.

For the first time since 1695, a speaker of the House of Commons was forced to resign and Prime Minister Gordon Brown (who also had questionable expenses) saw several of his ministers quit. Brown and Tory leader David Cameron, whose Conservatives were also caught up in the scandal, though to a far lesser extent because they were mostly out of power, pledged to clean up the system. Instead, the just announced "clean up" makes the former expenses system look good -- or at least better -- a seemingly impossible feat.

Ignoring a nationwide outcry against politicians engaged in the expenses scandal, the Daily Telegraph reports that a small committee of MPs charged with reforming the system and restoring public trust, have introduced new rules that allow members to claim twice as much in expenses (up to 9,125 pounds, or a little more than $15,000US) as they had previously. And they don't have to provide receipts. Try getting away with that at your job.

The Daily Telegraph, which broke the initial expenses story, says the new rules were published on a Parliamentary Web page with no public debate and no announcement before members slipped out of town for their long summer holiday.

The new speaker, John Bercow, had campaigned to replace the former speaker, Michael Martin, by promising to reform "the system of Parliamentary expenses." And yet Bercow was on the committee that produced this new and more outrageous system.

What is it about politicians? Do they suffer from a genetic fault that produces such arrogance for the public and ignorance about who they are supposed to serve? So far, no one has had the gall to blame this monumental lapse of judgment on the swine flu epidemic that has gripped Britain, but give them time.

Under the new rules, which are actually not rules at all, MPs have total discretion concerning how the money is spent and they are not accountable to any Parliamentary body, much less the public.

Under the new system, as the Telegraph states, MPs Ann and Alan Keen, who are married, could claim the maximum expense amount per year on top of the generous expenses they are paid for mortgage interest, the local council tax and utility bills, not to mention a large housing allowance of 24,000 pounds (nearly $40,000US), which is a slight increase over last year. No wonder people want to become politicians. With deals like this, why would they mind raising taxes when the public not only has to pay its share, but part of a politician's share as well?

In a major understatement, the Daily Telegraph says, "The fact that such a substantial amount has been agreed by MPs without public debate is certain to anger voters further." Ya think? But these people apparently don't give a fig for what the public thinks or they would have reformed both themselves and the outrageous expenses system, which has angered the public and led to a sharp decline in public approval not only for Labour, but also for politicians in general. Maybe Shakespeare should have written that after "kill(ing) all the lawyers," someone should term-limit the politicians. "Stop them before they expense again!" would be a good rallying cry.

Following last spring's outing of MPs gone wild, Gordon Brown spoke of how "essential" it was to restore public confidence in government. Clearly, this latest fiasco will send what's left of that confidence into the loo.

 

 

Obama, Solana Mean Business About Two-State Solution
by William Pfaff

The Israeli press reports with alarm that the United States has threatened to reduce by $1 billion the guarantee the U.S. Treasury customarily provides for Israel state borrowings, which assure them the best commercial terms. This is evidence that the Obama government is serious about halting Israel's colonization of the Palestinian territories -- and about imposing, rather than merely inviting, a two-state Middle East solution.

American Military Intervention Today Means a Less Secure Tomorrow
William Pfaff

A once-fashionable subject in America's think tanks was futurology. It worked by projecting what were thought to be plausible developments in the situation of a given subject that would lead to a series of 'branching points,' expected eventually to lead the analyst to unforeseen conclusions about what could happen.

However, unexpected developments actually were fairly uncommon, since nearly everyone started with a bias toward one or another desirable outcome.

From Iraq to Afghanistan, U.S. Foreign Wars Not Going According to Plan
by William Pfaff

In Iraq, tension was reported to be increasing between the Americans and the Iraqi military and security forces, who were supposed to take over the Americans' responsibilities. Move to another front: Pakistan-Afghanistan. Here there was also supposed to be a straightforward job to do: drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan, into the Tribal Areas of the Pakistan border. There, the Pakistan army, with American urging and help, would defeat and disarm them.

America's Homeland Security Surplus
William Pfaff

Janet Napolitano, Barack Obama's secretary of Homeland Security gave a talk at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, meant to convince American civil libertarians and security specialists that the country can be kept safe, and neighborly as well.

(c) 2009 Tribune Media Services, Inc.