Author, Doctor, Speaker, Joseph Bentivegna

 

June 25, 2017

 

The political battle lines over globalism have created an unpredictable electoral climate that is perplexing the Ruling Class of the Western world. Fault lines have developed, with the Ruling Class outraged that the masses will not listen to their betters and vote accordingly. Thus, we have Ruling Class outrage over the Brexit vote in England and the victory of President Trump.

Whether this disconnect can be bridged remains to be seen, but an explanation is in order so that both sides can at least understand the opposing viewpoint. For centuries, the Ruling Class has travelled aboard and seen unmitigated misery in the Third World – starvation, torture, ignorance and endless unnecessary deaths. While colonialism has existed since humans walked erect, it was the English and to a lesser extent other European powers, who first viewed their hegemony as not simply a mandate to plunder, but as an opportunity to better the lives of those they had conquered.

Thus, European conquerors required those governing their colonies to learn the customs and language of its subjects. It worked. Many colonies saw huge strides in education, food production, road construction, energy efficiency and representative governance. But there was a problem. Those conquered were humiliated and outraged. The human brain is programmed to prefer poor governance from its own kind rather that competent governance from outsiders. As rebellions mounted, colonialism ended. Countries that tolerated colonialism longer were more likely to have intact democratic and economic institutions. Thus Barbados, Bermuda and India are thriving. Haiti, the only successful slave revolt in history, is a disaster.

Thus, the Western Ruling Class came up with a new model – propping up dictatorships. By this time, American hegemony had been established and we proceeded to put puppet governments in countries that could not quickly convert to democracy. The Shah of Iran was a classic example, put in power by the American CIA in 1953. Again, this model worked. Iran was prospering with vast economic improvements over a short period of time. But the same problem arose. The Shah was correctly perceived by Iranians as an American puppet and overthrown. Now Iran is a theocracy.

The Ruling Class pivoted again, advocating free trade and open borders so that the poor in the Third World could not only have better jobs, but could move and live in Western countries.  This worked too. Workers in China and India saw rapid increases in wages while those who managed to immigrate to the Western world – whether legally or illegally – realized a rapid improvement in their standard of living. But now a new problem emerged. The middle class of the West saw their wages stagnate as they were forced to compete with both immigrants and workers in other countries.

This is why America’s Ruling Class awoke November 9 and collectively put its hands on its cheeks like the individual portrayed in Edvard Munch’s iconic portrait The Scream. Donald Trump was now President.

What model will emerge from this? Who knows? If the Ruling Class can successfully negate President Trump’s election, as it is working overtime to do, globalism may return with some modifications to placate the middle class. But if Trump persists, a new economic nationalism may emerge where America and Europeans pursue their own interests and leave other countries to their own devices. Can this model work in the Nuclear Era? Stay tuned.

 

May 25, 2017

 

Connecticut is in the midst of a financial crisis. The decisions made now will determine whether our state returns to its former glory days, or whether it continues on its present path of job contraction and depopulation as young people and retirees flee. The first step in bringing back Connecticut is to allow Hartford to go bankrupt. This will send a message to other big spending municipalities and the state itself that the party is over.

Hartford has the highest mill rate of a municipality in the state, 74.29 (meaning a property owner pays $74.29 for every $1,000 of assessed property value) with no close second. Nonetheless, Mayor Luke Bronin’s proposed budget of 2017 has total expenditures of $560 million; but revenues fall $50 million short. The Mayor has proposed some cuts, but has failed thus far in his attempts to regionalize expenses or curtail union contracts. His political godfather, Governor Malloy, has proposed having the state chip in more money to cover this deficit.

But this is just the beginning. Hartford will pay over $70 million in 2017 to fund pensions and debt service. This will increase to $90 million in 2018 and continue to balloon. If fact, Hartford is $680 million in debt. The choice will be for Connecticut taxpayers to shovel more money into Hartford or cut essential services to a city where the average annual income is less than $30,000.

Yet Hartford continues to party on. They stole a minor league baseball team from New Britain, gave the owner a sweet heart deal on the lease, and blew $70 million constructing the stadium. The bus line from New Britain and the infamous Adrian’s landing are similar boondoggles. Yet Congressman John Larson wants to squander $10 billion on a “Big Dig” in Hartford and Governor Malloy wants to blow $250 million on the XL Center. Retirees are raking in six-figure annual pensions in their early fifties.  With cost-of-living adjustments, the taxpayers will be paying these retirees over $200,000 annually when they reach their mid-seventies. And this does not include their Cadillac health care benefits. In fact, many municipal employees have union contracts that fix their pension on their final annual salary. Needless to say, this final salary is packed with overtime.

Only bankruptcy will stop this profligacy. The pensioners will have to take a hit but they won’t starve. The house near Del Ray Beach will just have two bathrooms instead of three.  But the real beauty is when the bond holders (those who purchased Hartford’s debt) get clipped. Now no one will purchase bonds from other cities and the state. No more bus lines to nowhere. No more exorbitant pensions. And no more $200,000 payouts for “unused sick time.”

Critics will point out that allowing Hartford to go bankrupt will be an irreversible blow to the state’s prestige. The opposite is true. Bankruptcy will be the beginning of Hartford’s rejuvenation, as entrepreneurs and immigrants swoop in to buy houses and buildings at low prices without fear of confiscatory tax escalation. The millennials, who prefer urban living, will turn downtown into a mini Greenwich Village. Night clubs, coffee shops, folk song cafes, jazz clubs and exotic restaurants will spring up. Medical practices will return from the suburbs. The schools will improve. In fact, Detroit is experiencing such a Renaissance since it went through bankruptcy. It will be glorious.

But none of this will happen if the political hacks keep feasting at the trough. The best way to destroy a city is bomb it. The second best way is to tax it out of existence. That’s what destroyed Hartford.

 

 

 April 19, 2017

 

As a young physician, I spent a volunteer year caring for the poor in Haiti. After seeing eighty patients, the vast majority whose condition was secondary to malnutrition and poor sanitation, I sat down to dinner with a minister who had lived in Haiti for longer than I had been alive. I opined that doctors could not solve Haiti’s problems and that the Duvalier government had to be overthrown. He responded, “And replace it with what?” I did not have an answer.

I do not recall this minister’s name but let’s call him Reverend Bill. He did not go to Harvard or Yale. He did not have a Foreign Service degree from Georgetown University. He was not a Rhodes Scholar. He went to a Baptist Seminary in Nowheresville, Mississippi.

Yet if Reverend Bill was sitting with the best and the brightest when George W. Bush was planning to overthrow Saddam Hussein, he would have asked, “And replace him with what?” If he was with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama while they plotted the overthrow of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, he would have asked, “And replace him with what?” And if Reverend Bill was part of Trump’s inner circle now insisting that strongman Bashir al-Assad of Syria has to go, he would ask, “And replace him with what?”

President Trump did a 180 degree pirouette from his campaign position and bombed an airbase in Syria after Assad reportedly used chemical weapons. The Obama administration was assured by the Syrians that these weapons had been destroyed. Secretary of Defense, General Mattis, told the President that allowing Syria to get away with such an atrocity was intolerable.  General Mattis was correct. A response had to be made.

But then President Trump went further and insisted that Assad be removed from power. But how? The Russians, who are now Assad’s protector, tersely refused to back such an outcome. Are we going to risk a confrontation with a country that could lay waste to our country over Syria? Even if Russia agreed to back down, how would we remove Assad? Bomb Syria into oblivion? Invade with hundreds of thousands of troops? And even if we conquer Syria, how would we govern it? Does anyone expect that the Syrians would welcome our governance with open arms? One thing I learned in Haiti is that people would rather be governed incompetently by their own kind than competently by outsiders.

What has to be understood is that Syria is not really a country.   Like Libya and Iraq, it is the creation of European cartographers.  Syria consists of dozens of ethnic groups and multiple religions who have been at each other’s throats for millennia. Since World War II, it had numerous coups, wars, and massacres until Hafez al-Assad consolidated power in 1970. He ruled until his death in 2000, when his son Bashir al-Assad replaced him in a Presidential election where he had no opposition.

Bashir al-Assad was not able to keep the lid on the ancient rivalries and during the so-called Arab Spring in 2011, a civil war erupted. Brutal repression, poison gas and multiple massacres have not stopped it. Five-hundred-thousand Syrians are dead and there are over one-million refugees.

The pro-war branch of the Republican Party are chortling that this mess is due to the fecklessness of President Obama who drew a “red line” in the sand an dared Assad to use chemical weapons. President Obama then backed down after Assad did so. But this is not exactly what happened. Rather when some congressmen were beating their chest for war, President Obama suggested that Congress vote on whether we should intervene. These same congressmen then did a Gilda Radner and said “Never mind.” No vote was ever taken.

It may well be that President Trump’s decision to bomb Syria was necessary not only to stop this abhorrent behavior, but to put Russia, China and especially North Korea – who are openly threatening to bomb our West Coast – on notice that the days of America’s leading from behind are over.

But if the President thinks that deposing Assad will lead to Syrian stability, he is mistaken. Like President George W. Bush, he will see his public support plummet if the body bags of our youth start returning from this quagmire. The best option is to negotiate a deal involving the Russians, Assad and ourselves.  But if no deal can be struck, the Syrians must solve their problems themselves.