California Insanities #41,657 – Baby sitting bill (addended)

George Rebane

If it weren’t really happening, no one would believe it.  Well, actually a progressive would readily believe and promote it since they’re doing it now.  According to our Senator Doug LaMalfa, the idiots in Sacramento are pushing through a law (AB889) that would essentially do away with another job category in California, and further restrict liberty in a state that is already at the bottom of the US individual liberties pile.  The good senator reports –

Under AB 889, household “employers” (aka “parents”) who hire a babysitter on a Friday night will be legally obligated to pay at least minimum wage to any sitter over the age of 18 (unless it is a family member), provide a substitute caregiver every two hours to cover rest and meal breaks, in addition to workers’ compensation coverage, overtime pay, and a meticulously calculated timecard/paycheck. Failure to abide by any of these provisions may result in a legal cause of action against the employer including cumulative penalties, attorneys’ fees, legal costs and expenses associated with hiring expert witnesses, an unprecedented measure of legal recourse provided no other class of workers – from agricultural laborers to garment manufacturers. (On the bright side, language requiring an hour of paid vacation time for every 30 hours worked was amended out of the bill in the Senate.)

[Addendum]  Lest the real point of AB889 is lost, let me add that this new law will criminalize a large family of economic behaviors that have benefitted households since time immemorial.  The law will apply to all household help where a paid non-family member provides personal services to another person.  Babysitting is just the tip of this insane iceberg.

The major impact will be on families that have care-needy members who are ill, disabled, aged, and/or demented.  No longer will tens of thousands of such families be able to afford to have a trusted person come in for a few hours to help or relieve a family care-giver.  The entire employment situation will now have to be treated as if one was running a business with all the attendant worker dispensations, benefits, and payroll overheads added on.

IMHO this bill is simply evil for what devastation it will wreak in the lives of people already burdened by the natural infirmities that will visit all of us.  And here we come to another example of the extreme stupidity that lies at the heart of any socialistic nanny state.

Comments

[RL Crabb]

When I read this post, and the prior one on Islamophobia, it only reinforces my long held belief that both the left and right are out of their f#*king minds. And people wonder why I don't vote for Democrats or Republicans anymore? Donald Duck would be a better choice.

[Barry Pruett]

Time for a cartoon, me thinks.

[Steve Frisch]

RL, perhaps you should go read AB 889. It extends the same rights to ALL people working in domestic service that they have under basic California employment law.

Although I agree that there should be an exemption for teenagers babysitting, and a provision for waiving breaks while baby-sitting, most domestic workers are adults, most of whom are housekeepers, nannies, etc., and they deserve the same worker rights and protections that any other worker in our society receives.

Why would we have a problem with allowing live in domestic servants with 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep a day, or workers compensation insurance, or an 8 hour work day, or overtime pay, or access to health care?

To highlight the babysitter angle of this and ignore the other aspects of the legislation is intentionally inaccurate. Why?

[Todd Juvinall]

We see the creeping government regulation every day. We have warned people they will be coming into your house and here they are. How we let the government get in the way of the Constitution which states they are not allowed to abridge contracts is beyond me. Pretty soon there will be a home police with drawn pistols to enforce just like the organic milk story from Ackerman.

[RL Crabb]

Steve -If my complaints about the Democrats were only limited to babysitters, I might see your point. As you know from my past comments, this kind of thing is only the tip of the iceberg your party is aiming the ship of state toward. And as you can see by Todd's usual insight, there isn't any viable alternative from the right.

[Mikey McD]

Crabb, ("...both the left and right are out of their f#*king minds.").
Everyone believes that they are 'middle of the road' and all the others are "out of their F'ing minds.'

I think you may be smirking but I cannot see your face from my lowly position far below your ivory tower.

[Douglas Keachie]

The real scary law will be the one that rewards folks who tip off the government to when such dastarly illegal activity is taking place.

Besides, won't the government come up with a companion bill to provide grants to pay for all the excess baggage? It would then be a full employment combo bill.

[RL Crabb]

Mikey -I only wish I had an ivory tower with a moat to protect me from one party that wants to come into my home and tell me how to arrange the furniture and another one that wants to declare war on the rest of the world.

[Mikey McD]

Crabb (I live with the same frustration) I have opted for the third option... Peace/liberty lovin' Libertarian.

[RL Crabb]

Being that my spouse is a professional caregiver and I have spent the last eight years of my life caring for elderly relatives, I think I have some insight on the inequities that caregivers endure. It's not, in most cases, the kind of job that has a lot of room for advancement. Even hiring someone to watch over granny so you can go to a movie is cost-prohibitive. The alternative is to ship the elderly off to a convalscent home, where you will be forced to sign over whatever assets you have to the home. After that runs out, the state picks up the tab. Making it harder to afford in-home care will only add to that deficit.

[stevenfrisch]

I really think people should read AB 889....does anyone here deny that people in domestic service are employees? shouldn't all employees enjoy equal protection? if we make a legal exception under the law for employees under the age of 18 and in specific types of employment (which it does) shouldn't the rules apply there as well?

Here is the amended senate bill analysis:

"AB 889 would regulate the wages, hours, and working conditions of domestic work employees, provide a private right of action for domestic work employees, including liquidated damages, and would provide an overtime compensation rate for domestic work employees. This bill would require domestic work employers of persons engaged in household domestic service to provide employees with information regarding their wages either semimonthly or at the time of each wage payment, and remove an exclusion for domestic work employers to secure workers' compensation coverage for certain employees thereby requiring all employers to secure the payment of workers' compensation."

What specific part of this do you disagree with? and why? are you all seriously contending that domestic workers should not be covered by workers' compensation?

Framing this as a 'babysitter' issue is entirely disingenuous...it is an equal protection issue.

The law can make exceptions for underaged workers.

[Todd Juvinall]

I want to know from Crabb which party wants to war with the world? Wow! Now that is some hyperbole! Also, I don't see the conservatives beating your door in to check on Granny, who would that be? Hmmm. I think their is a very large gap of understanding who is doing what to whom by the MOTR folks.

[stevenfrisch]

By the way, the preferable alternative would be to arrange for family to take care of elderly parents, an option I have a bit of experience with myself.

[Todd Juvinall]

If a conservative goes after liberals and vice-versa in this political world and the MOTR folks hate both for doing so (bickering, non partisan etc.) , how is it the MOTR folks justify in their own minds any difference between us going after each other and the MOTR folks going after both? Aren't the MOTR's even worse? We all just argue with one set of people. Hmmm.

[stevenfrisch]

Lets play George's scenario above out--"No longer will tens of thousands of such families be able to afford to have a trusted person come in for a few hours to help or relieve a family care-giver."

Ok lets assume 2 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year, at $10.00 per hour. That would be $5200 per year. Workers' comp on that would be $260.

[George Rebane]

We start with the original error that the state needs to intercede between an employer and his employee. And then we proceed to yet another extension of "equal protection" mindlessly applied, the whole while forgetting that 'egalite' and 'liberte' are at opposite ends of a see-saw. All the while in deep insomnia about the dominant fact that the worker does not have to take the job at the compensation offered by the employer - in short, the worker is not the employer's ward.

[RL Crabb]

Everybody, including me, would love to be able to earn a living wage and have health insurance, etc. Sometimes there are unintended consequences when the state attempts to level the playing field. The company that employs my wife doesn't provide benefits now, and I wonder if it's mandated whether they will be able to afford it. If it's passed along to the clients, they might not be able to afford it. Also, the state is becoming much stingier with their payments to the infirm as a result of the budget cutbacks. This isn't idle speculation, it's something we've seen happening in the last year.

[Mikey McD]

Thanks to collectivism we are all wards of The State.

"the worker is not the employer's ward.": Posted by: George Rebane | 31 August 2011 at 01:58 PM

Paul, obviously the deportation is not constitutional (you talk of the constitution as if anyone cares about it anymore- see Obama and his undeclared wars, Obamacare, etc).

[Brad Croul]

AB 889 only seeks to make all employers of adults play by the same rules.

The 16-18 year old babysitters are exempt.

Any easy way around is to hire "contractors". That way, you don't have to bother with the AB 889 nonsense.
You might need to report what you paid to said contractors for tax purposes. Ask your tax preparation professional.

[Todd Juvinall]

In home supportive services were something I fought hard to achieve since many people want to be home in the old age or illness. I ws involved with FREED and IHSS here in the county. The problem was should a family member be paid to care of someone in the home? Well, I got to see a program that was very good and also cost effective get hijacked by the SEIU over time and I think it is now wrecked. The politicians in the pocket of the unions like SEIU then took the money the homecare worker relieved and spend it elsewhere. The rules for the IHSS care is now of course restrictive and ridiculous and the care workers are unionized. Another fine mess.

[stevenfrisch]

Once again RL, read the legislation, it does not deal with 'living wage' or health insurance, it sets a standard for workers' compensation, which, by the way, is a protection for both the employee and the employer. It is a protection to the employer in that it limits an employers liability in cases short of gross negligence; for example, back injuries from flipping mattresses, or slipping on the floor one is washing.

I wonder how many people who are employing domestic servants inform their homeowners or renters insurance company of that fact :)

And although I think we would all agree that the employee is not the ward of the employer, no one seems to be able to address the 'equal protection' issue. There is that pesky law, ""no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Nor do you seem to want to deal with the issue of the need for government to intervene in the relationship between employer and employee--the reason the government intercedes is that man is inherently driven by self-interest, and in the game of self-interest the employer holds almost all the cards without the intervention of government. All one needs to do is look at the abuses of labor over time to understand the dynamic.

[stevenfrisch]

And lest one forget, it is, "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite"

Liberte: "Liberty consists of being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man or woman has no bounds other than those that guarantee other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights."

Egalite: The law "must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in its eyes, shall be equally eligible to all high offices, public positions and employments, according to their ability, and without other distinction than that of their virtues and talents."

Fratinite: is not a legal right, it is a moral obligation--to work together as a community to meet our moral obligations and help one another

These are not competing concepts, they are complimentary.

[Todd Juvinall]

The government should not of interfering with contracts between willing participants unless it is illegal (labor is a component of a product or service). Equal protection of the law supposedly works when there is a law. The labor laws and the interference of government in even the most basic decisions a employer makes has caused millions of jobs to boogie overseas. To deny that you must be living in a cave. Workmans comp has always been abused because it was heavily the workers friend. I have friends who were filed against by fakers and the Comp Board allows it. They are on the hook for fifty to 100 k. How is that fair? Also, I remember the big comp fights when Pete was governor and the democrats and their trial lawyer bootlickers were trying to make mental illness a comp claim (we defeated it then). So, if you are an employer in the private sector you get screwed by comp and its thousands of rules. If you are in the grant and rent seeking businesses of government largesse, then who cares? You are not paying anyway with your personal risk capital.

Also, making the employer the collector of a workers taxes and forcing them to be the governments bookkeepers under threat is also wrong. People should pay their own taxes and the employers should do their business. When the worker has to pay the taxman on April 15, the country would go 100% Republican overnight.

[Mikey McD]

That's it! Obama's crappy economic policy is designed to keep unemployment high to protect folks from evil employers! Rejoice unemployment is (still) high!

[stevenfrisch]

Just for the record, Neville Chamberlain was a member of the Conservative party.

[RL Crabb]

I realize that health insurance and a living wage are not part of this bill, but the state is heading in that direction. It will become more apparent after California becomes a Democratic hegemony, bought and paid for by unions and lawyers. Once that happens, the regulators and inspectors will be at everyone's door. I'm for common sense regulation, but the way things are going it's more like some protection racket run by Tony Soprano.

[Todd Juvinall]

RL nails it again!

[Mikey McD]

Another great day for the progressives! More evil employers run out of business by stupid, unwarranted and needless regulations...

http://www.theunion.com/article/20110901/BREAKINGNEWS/110909997/1066&ParentProfile=1053

[Douglas Keachie]

Seems to me that the babysitter bill could lose a lot of allies, if it were pointed out that parents, unable to get a break and go out for some r & r, might take it out on their kids. A babysitter is one more set of eyes that could be in a home to report any child abuse. Thus a double whammy in rising attendance rates at the ER and the courts for child abuse.

"Question of Balance"

~ The Moody Blues ~

[Steve Frisch]

Yes RL effectively makes the slippery slope case: we must deny workers the right to workers compensation insurance today, regardless of the equal protection clause, because someday something else might happen that might hurt employers, and I am willing to screw workers today to avoid something I fear tomorrow.

Sweet! (pun intended)

[Steve Frisch]

McD, I'm just wondering, would you start a business without checking out what the regulatory requirements are? is that smart business? Is ignorance of law an excuse? Is that our new standard?

[RL Crabb]

My analogy is no less simplistic than yours, Steve. I have a lot of gripes with Republicans, but I agree with them that this state has become anal retentive when it comes to sticking their nose into our business. If I have to file paperwork with the state to hire someone to watch my mother in law sit in a chair so I can go to a movie, yeah, I'm pissed. If I have get a $200 permit to have an arborist come to my house to tell me what I already know, that my tree is rotten to the core and is a danger to me and my neighbors, yeah, I'm pissed.

I have an address book full of names of good friends, many of them liberal, who have left this state because of the bungling, over-reaching, draconian bullshit foisted on us by Democrats. Yeah, I'm pissed.

[George Rebane]

"Is ignorance of law and excuse?" By law such ignorance is not an excuse SteveF. But leaving la-la land for a moment, we know that ignorance of the current and daily compounding sets of laws and regulations is the normal affliction of businesses ranging from General Electric to the corner mom & pop. But it is definitely the prime excuse today for not starting a new business or expanding an existing one. And in California it is the overarching reason businesses are leaving.

[RL Crabb]

You know what pisses me off the most? It's that I used to be a proud Democrat, but over the decades I watched my party devolve into the kind of idiocy that is the rule of law today. The supposedly liberal Sacramento Bee is full of stories and opinion pieces that hammer that reality home every day. The Democrats who report at Calbuzz.com ran the story a few days ago about the latest union ploy to circumvent the initiative process to protect their power. It's not like I'm making this stuff up.

Democrats like to portray the Tea Party as an 'astroturf' movement full of racists, but for the most part, it is made up of folks who are fed up with deception. Half the reason they won't go along with the tax increases that Jerry Brown wants is because they know that the legislature will weasel their way around them and keep spending like drunken sailors.
They are willing to overlook the kind of wrong-headed legislation that will take over this country if they succeed in winning next year's election.

The Democrats created the Tea Party. That's why I'm pissed.

[Douglas Keachie]

Of course if you can't make inquiry at the county about rules and regs without revealing who you are aND WHAT YOUR ADDRESS IS, many folks will simply bypass finding out what might apply to them, to avoid triggering any number of oddball, 4th dimensional, bedsheet folding checks to see what else might turn up, that would be a potential source of revenue, by both fine and permit.

The county needs an anonymous blog where questions can be posted and answered.

[Douglas Keachie]

In line with today's The Union article on the Detailing business on IDontKnow Scaryland Road being fined $10,000 for not having a car wash permit, try this:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=156580&title=robot-wash

There's a short commercial, but the sound is better at this site than at YouTube.

From The Union:

"Grass Valley's A Finer Detail handles a handful of cars each day, compared to car washes, where hundreds can roll through, said Sabra Madonna, who owns the business with her husband Gary.

But the difference between the two business models is apparently unclear to a state regulator who fined the Madonnas $10,000 a year ago for not having a car washing license, Sabra Madonna said.

On Aug. 4, 2010, A Finer Detail and a number of other small businesses in town were visited by California Deputy Labor Commissioner Facundo Rosas.

Rosas, based in Redding, has been the target of complaints from businesses across Northern California for heavy-handed fines, including Diego's in Grass Valley, where owner June Henriquez was fined $7,500 in February for failing to have worker's compensation insurance, a first offense.

Rosas has not returned repeated calls from The Union for comment over the past week."

[robert]

We are a litigious society. Any Bill that can be interpreted so extremely in a way other than its original intent, is a poorly writen bill and should not even be considered by our incompetent legislator who has more than thay can handle with just passing a proper budget on time. There is a difference between an ocassional baby sitter and routine domestic worker. They should not even be considered in the same breath. It is indeed fortunate that our legislator has used its muscle to stop the diabolical corner lemonade stands. Next will be the volunteer car wash. Fed up to here!!!!!!

[stevenfrisch]

George, I am really sorry but anyone who starts a business without researching the opportunities (customer segments) and the legal structure and permitting and regulatory requirements does so at their own peril. It is business planning 101.

[Todd Juvinall]

I guess we need to ensure our chillin have an attorney to do the research before opening the lemonade stand on the corner. Thanks for alerting us SteveF.

[Douglas Keachie]

For Todd:

Day in the Life of a
Joe Six-Pack Republican

by John Gray (jgray7@cinci.rr.com)

Joe gets up at 6:00 AM to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It's noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dad's; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark.)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show. The host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day)

Joe agrees. "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

[stevenfrisch]

Well clearly Todd you don't have to worry about your business obligations. If you fail you will just default on your loans, and have the taxpayers pick up the tab through TARP payments, then take a vacation on the beach.

[Douglas Keachie]

Somebody thought what I posted above was "not helpful," and then went on to say:

"First off, I think this Joe Republican thing is crass and unproductive to the dialog. You get more bees with honey than you do with vinegar. That said...

The prevailing neo-con myth is that wealthy people and by extension big business create jobs. No, demand creates jobs. Demand for products and services that people want creates jobs. Duh. It's remarkable to me how paternalistic and frankly feudal this neo-con mindset is. What's even more disturbing, is how a whole section of the working class, and increasingly the middle class has bought into this myth, even as these same feudal lords are closing factories and assembly lines.

I'm trying to imagine the unemployed worker screaming "Hell Yeah!" while listening to the talkbots tell them that the reason they're out of work is because the wealthy pay too many taxes and are subject to too many regulations. If only we'd, they tell them, relax pollution standards or lower their taxes for example, you'd have your job back. OK. Make it easier and cheaper for businesses to operate. Fine by me. Where are their customers? Answer: Nowhere to be found."

[George Rebane]

It appears that our favorite socialists have again sidestepped the obvious solution. Why don't the altruistic workers of compassionate collective mindset just start their own companies to produce and service the things they need? Obviate those greedy capitalists.

And all this could be started by just one or two such collectives (worker owned companies) showing their prowess in identifying and satisfying consumer demand. Such visible success would spread like wildfire, and the long-sought workers' paradise would materialize across the land as if by magic.

How come no socialist wants to talk about that road to living wages and social justice?

[Douglas Keachie]

Your favorite socialist responds as follows to the above concept, regarding masses of workers coming together to start their own companies.

Workers are smart enough to know that for every idea in a garage that takes off for the moon, 999 blow up on the launching pad. Accordingly, as they have very little capital to begin with, the risks outweigh the costs.

[Douglas Keachie]

Even well funded ventures, like Solidyne which just closed its doors, are not immune to the punch from left field. They based their business on the notion that silicon would always be expensive, and that old style panels wouldn't be made much cheaper, in quantity, in China. They were wrong.

How many USA companies are basing their future on the notion that solar will never be "cheap enough?" And how dfast will the doors close at Exxon and Peabody Coal, and Pickins Natural Gas, when they are proven wrong?

[George Rebane]

DougK - thanks for the direct reply. So if in starting a new venture "the risks outweigh the costs", why are the socialists CONSTANTLY dunning the entrepreneurs and capitalists who put up their own monies and taking such risks. Why do not these collectivists then understand that such risks are taken for an appropriate level of reward? And if such rewards are eliminated by government, the money goes someplace else. Why are these dots so hard to connect? (This question is doubly meaningful given the economic failures of the Big Socialist in the White House.)

Solidyne did NOT get its "punch from the left field". It and the other two solar energy companies that just folded did so predictably and on schedule. Their survival was not based on any market factors, but on a continuing government fiat based on a manifestly dysfunctional economic ideology. The only bet made on those companies was by fools who thought that Obama could afford to fund them indefinitely. The rest of us knew better from the gitgo, and said so loud and clear.

[Todd Juvinall]

From my analysis, a green non profit like say, ACLU would be the bet example of how the left thinks. They form, hire a grant writer, send the grant request to a pal of theirs in the federal government, receive the grant, spend it all on studies and platitudes, some on elbow rubbing, and mostly complain about the capitalist system being subsidized. There is one in Truckee whose name escapes me but I have heard there are people on to the scam.

Usually the leaders of these groups hold meetings in fancy places funded by diverted tax dollars where they discuss the best way to get more taxpayer money. They are the leeches on the system.

[stevenfrisch]

Kind of like TARP huh?

[Paul Emery]

George, when you complain about government wasting money why do you never bring up the trillions of dollars that are diverted to Defense contracts supporting business that have no other purpose than to suck up public dollars providing services to support needless wars and military adventures. I never hear a peep about that.

[Todd Juvinall]

Frisch you crack me up. Don't you know (apparently not) that TARP funds never bought up the so named "Toxic Assets"? The TA in TARP. But hey, keep trying. What a hoot!

[George Rebane]

PaulE, as a long time defense contractor and a conservetarian who believes that the US should remain the/a world's hegemon, I consider our investment in defense among nations to be equivalent to our individual investment in the Second Amendment as US citizens. One is to keep our liberties as a sovereign nation-state, and the other to keep our liberties as individual human beings in an epochal society that the world has never seen before.

[Paul Emery]

Fair enough George. That said, do you consider the over 3 trillion dollars we have spent in Iraq to be a worthwhile investment in protecting our our liberties as human beings?

[George Rebane]

PaulE, have the monies spent in/on Iraq wisely - NO. Did we need to spend money and blood in Iraq to (relatively) cheaply contain Iran for the present - YES. Please see 'The Geopolitics of the United States'. There is no flippant easy answer here, at least not from me. It is clear that any world hegemon has a tiger by the tail, it takes a lot of noodling if we are to figure out how to let go of it without being eaten. That is why I cannot support Ron Paul's simplistic foreign policy - I don't know yet how to get from here to there. This is a massive topic in its own right, stay tuned.

[Paul Emery]

George

So I'm assuming by your response that 3 Trillion was money well spent in Iraq for your stated purpose of containing Iran and it was relatively cheap. Please correct me if I misinterpreted you.

However, by any reasonable observation Iran's has been strengthened by our action in Iraq. Most of southern Iraq is now under Sharia law and enjoys closer ties with Iran than they ever had with Saddam who was their arch enemy. In fact we enhanced his dictatorship with billions of dollars and logistic support to fan the war against Iran before he went off the reservation in Kuwait causing Gulf War I.

I grant that the Kurds are in a better position but that's another story. However, if they get too frisky they will threaten Turkey so we have to contain them and will do so with truckloads of money to tribal Moolas as bribery. Yes, the war in a Iraq. What a bargain.