Public Utility Test in Media Relations

One issue that has confused me repeatedly and has led me through the entire gamut of options and has not left me any the better, is on how we bureaucrats should be dealing with the Fourth Estate. Bureaucrats are traditionally seen as the behind-the-scenes executioners of Government Policy. In fact, it is even considered a virtue for bureaucrats to remain invisible from the glare of the media. I am a supporter of the invisible bureaucrat school, but with certain reservations. These reservations arise from the fact that we are today living in a changed world with diverse challenges, each requiring different solutions and options.

What is the context? There are a multiplicity of news channels active today. Newspapers which hitherto were confined to mostly global concerns, have now become more local-centric, with tabloid editions for each district and even cities. The plethora of television channels, especially the 24 hour news channels, with their ubiquitous continuous scrolls, have brought debate on public issues straight to people's living rooms. Within cities too, the cable operators have all started local news channels, which bring visuals about local issues.

The Fourth Estate, consisting of the print and the electronic audio and visual media (the internet media are yet to start playing any role) are important stakeholders and increasingly influential partners in the public domain in which we operate. In the league of opinion makers, the media have always been influential players, but their importance has increased manifold in the past few years.

So what should be the yardstick for our relationship with the media? There is no dispute on the fact that we ought to share information, especially those which are necessary for the citizens to be informed participants in debates about public issues. We are living in an age when massive changes are taking place, radically altering the fabric of our society, economy and polity, and exposing all of us to its consequences in our daily lives. It is therefore imperative that all citizens are informed about these issues, and we as bureaucrats have surely a major role to play in this.

We also have a critical responsibility in making citizens aware about social and civic issues. We need to make people aware about changes that are taking place around them and how best they can themselves or we can help them confront these changes. We need to spread awareness about reforms in the functioning of Government and how the citizens can better use or adopt these reforms. Citizens need to made aware about how they can adapt modern technology and processes to facilitate accessing public services.

I will stick my neck out and argue that the touchstone for our relationship with the media should be promotion of this objective. Any message should primarily focus on promoting these issues, which increase public utility, instead of projecting individual achievements. It is not out of place to remind ourselves that in so far as these achievements are all the policy objectives of the Government, there are other participants in the system who have have the specific mandate of promoting these successes.

Thus, instead of giving far disproportionate importance to press conferences held to proclaim 90% Property Tax payments, we ought to be showcasing those methods adopted to recover tax dues from longstanding defaulters. While the former will only serve to promote the achievements of the individual concerned, the later will surely send a strong deterrent message to would be defaulters. Instead of diverting attention away from the parking problems by giving disproportionate focus on a cellar demolition drive, we ought to be paying more attention to publicize the magnitude of parking problem and the options available for citizens to address this challenge.

Another example, instead of parading the master car thief, with the entire fleet of recovered cars, before the glare of camera, we ought to be showcasing methods and technologies that can help the police pre-empt such theft or catch such criminals. The former has little utility value to the public except satiating the immediate and trivial curiosity surrounding the event, but will have significant personal value to the police officer in showcasing his achievement. Some may argue that it reassures the public about the effectiveness of the police machinery. I seriously doubt it, but even granting that, it still is no explanation for the disproportionate share of such media interactions. In fact, even if such interactions have to take place, it should primarily seek to communicate some strong deterrent messages to other car thieves. (A universal message that they will be caught if stealing cars is of no deterrent value to them for obvious reasons. If it were, no body would be stealing cars!)

But showcasing methods and technologies that help pre-empt car thefts and even help catch criminals have tremendous utility value. For example, a press conference to showcase a device like the Lojack, which would help us trace out stolen cars using a radio transmitter with a GPS device fitted randomly at different locations in cars, will go a long way in spreading awareness among the public about how to protect their cars from theft and a strong deterrent on the criminals from indulging in car thefts.

It implies that instead of catching and parading offenders and criminals, or those pilfering civic services and claiming the credit for the one-off success (invariably we are catching and displaying, maybe one-in-ten such offenders), we ought to be highlighting the mechanisms in place to control such offences.

To conclude, it is safe to say that the focus of our interaction with the media should not be the outcomes of our actions, which rarely have more than limited public utility, but should if any, be on the methods adopted to achieve the outcomes. The later, besides making people more aware of what they should be knowing about that particular issue, would also be strong deterrent message to those lurking offenders, defaulters and criminals within the audience.

So next time, we hold a press interaction, focus on the issue not the outcome! The sole yardstick should be, does my message promote public utility? If of course my objective is different, then the test naturally fails!

Littering and the decentralised solution

One of the biggest sanitation problems facing our cities is that of littering of drains and roads with garbage and waste. The enormity of the problem cannot be over empahsised. In fact a large proportion of our public health problems can be traced back to this. Drains clogged with garbage leads to overflow of the drainage water, breeding of mosquitoes, and general unhygenic environment leading to various epidemics.

Apart from its obvious public health related problems, there are serious financial implications. The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation (VMC) spends about Rs 1.2 Cr a month or Rs 14.4 Cr a year, on sanitation personnel. A significant proportion of the sanitation personnel are involved in cleaning drains and sweeping roads. If we could control littering and dumping of garbage on drains, it is estimated that we can easily reduce the number of staff by atleast half. This would translate into savings worth Rs 7 Cr and above every year.

How do we solve this problem? I am a strong believer in the failure of regulatory solutions to socio-economic problems. Regulatory solutions bring in a number of exogenous variables, including rent-seeking, which invariably dilutes the focus from the task at hand. Solutions which depend on incentives and dis-incentives can better achieve our objectives. Littering is clearly a social problem, arising from a lack of civic sense. We need to have market or society inclusive solutions to such social problems.

One way is to fine those littering streets and drains and get it enorced through private citizens and Resident's Welfare Associations (RWAs). The Corporation can empower citizens or RWAs to fine people littering the streets. The RWAs can even be empowered to use the fine proceeds to maintain cleanliness and take up other development activities in their area. Even private individuals can be permitted to retain the amounts so collected, as a reward for undertaking a socially valuable action. The fine amounts can be kept at a minimum. It is observed that even a minimum fine, when collected by their neighbours or fellow citizen, has a powerful symbolic value and is a strong deterrent on errant behaviour.

Critics may scoff at this and declare this a recipe for lawlessness and describe it as government shirking its responsibility. I differ. After all in the developed countries and especially in places like Singapore, there exists a tacit understanding that if I litter the road, I am likely to be reported for the same by other citizens and hence anyway fined. It is this implicit vigilance in the civil society which has played a significant role in ushering in civic sense and controlling littering. In the absence of effective reporting and compliance mechanisms, it may be better to directly empower citizens to levy and collect these fines.

Similar approach could be adopted in controlling electricity or water pilferage. By delegating enforcement and fine collection powers to RWAs, if not individuals, we can contain the thefts. It is anyway an idea worth pursuing.

Long ques and economic inefficiency

At some time or other, most of us would have been part of long ques to access some service. Most commonly we would have spent long agonising waiting time in ques for buying cinema ticket, and railway or bus tickets. We in Andhra Pradesh can more easily relate such experience with the long ques for having darshan (glimpse) of Lord Venkateswara in Tirupati.

I am sure nobody will dispute my claim that these ques are responsible for huge loss of economic efficiency and do not serve any meaningful purpose. For a start, these ques do not discriminate between the repective urgency and needs of those standing in it. By treating all those standing on equal terms, it ignores the differential willingness to pay among them. Some of the people, faced with an urgency or who attach more value for their time, will obviously be willing to pay a premium to access the service at the earliest.

Let us try to conceptualize the problem. As mentioned earlier, the long ques do not take into account the willingness to pay of certain people. Economists would see this as a clear case of economic inefficiency and deadweight loss. Further, the one-size-fits-all arrangement of que results in substantial loss of revenue to the service provider. In our quest for a solution to this, we need to keep in mind that in any solution to this problem, some people will always lose out either by not getting the service at all (not getting the cinema tickets) or being the last to access the service (Tirupati darshan). So our limited objective should be to put in place an arrangement that would optimize the time spend by different individuals after taking into account their preferences.

How will this que arrangement work? For the simpler public service ques, each category of que can be divided into two, say equal, parts. One part, consisting of those unwilling to pay the additional premium, can continue to be part of the line and access the service in a que. The other part can assemble in an auction hall for a multiple-bid Dutch auction. In such auctions, the auction prices start high and then keeps dropping till all the units are sold out.

The details of the auctions can vary widely. The offset rate at which the auction starts can be determined by the auctioneer. In fact for non-public service items like the cinema tickets, even all the tickets can be sold through these auctions. Maybe some part of ticket can be sold through online auctions, and the rest by auctions, say half hour before the show starts. The auctions can even be held in smaller groups, so as to reduce the typical confusion that surrounds them.

The solution for the famous Tirupathi darshan ques is more complicated. Besides serving a public service function and unlike the cinema ticket ques which are static, the Tirupathi ques are in a constant state of flux, with people pouring in regularly. Tickets are issued for different categories of darshans, based on the distance of the darshan. A separate que can be formed for each category for all those unwilling to pay any additional amount. Periodic auctions, can then be held for those willing to pay the darshan premiums. With time the general market rates in auctions would become public knowledge and only those willing to pay those sums will attend the auctions. In order to ensure that those standing in the que are not greatly disadvantaged and do not get pushed back significantly, we can control the periodicity of auctions. The periodicity of auctions can also vary based on the pilgrims rush at any time. We would thereby have two sets of ques for each category, based on the need and urgency of the people, measured in terms of their willingness to pay - the general que and those who have paid the premiums (maybe these ques can merge into one at the entrance). In order to deter all those who would be willing to pay only small premiums of say, one or two rupees, the auctioneer can fix a minimum initial differential of say, Rs 5.

What are the benefits of this intervention? This auctioning would not only reduce the economic inefficiency, it would also help in significantly controlling the black market in these services. It is common practice in cinema theatres for touts to sell these tickets at a huge premium in the black. This not leads to huge loss of unaccounted for revenue, it also engenders a culture of fraud and even violence. Its benefits on the larger economy - cinema theatre owners will get more money and hopefully set up more theatres, railway and bus operators get more money and will operate more services, and total opportunity costs of waiting times will be reduced.

There is one thing which bothers me about this arrangement. Economists make a huge assumption by reducing each individual's utility to his or her willingness to pay. This is a highly debatable assumption. For example, I am waiting in a long que to buy ticket for the next India-Australia cricket Test, but cannot afford the auction premium. I pride myself as an inveterate cricket fan and tries to go and see matches whenever possible. There are others in the que, part of a large corporate group out to have some fun, not especially interested in the game and in fact seeing a cricket Test at the ground for the first time. But they are willing to pay the auction premium and thus pip me to the match. Except by the economists' definition of utility, the marginal utility gained by me in seeing the match is obviously bigger than that of the group.

These auctions are obviously not the ideal solution to the que problem. There are also certain other solutions worth trying. They may fail or succeed. There is an interesting article by Steven Landsburg in the Slate "The First One Now Will Later Be The Last". But I suppose till we come up with a better solution to quantifying utility (say a utilometer, which measures our hormone secretion while we are standing on the que!), we may have to settle for the next best solutions.

Negative Externalities in Cities

Externalities are outputs or outcomes which are borne by the system external to the agent doing the activity. These external impacts can be either detrimental or beneficial to the society at large. Those which impose a cost on the external environment is called a negative externality and those which confer benefits on it are called positive externality. The benefits of a negative externality goes to the agent producing it, while the costs are invariably borne by the society at large. Obviously, negative externalities ought to be contained and penalised, while positive ones have to be encouraged and incentivized. Economics teaches us that for efficiently managing these externalities, its costs and benefits have to be internalized.

Externalities suffer from what are called market failures, and hence demands some form of government intervention. Left to themselves, the market will undersupply positive externalities and oversupply negative externalities. We will thus have unhindered and unregulated activity, inflicting huge social costs. In the absence of Government intervention, those deriving the benefits of the activity ill not compensate those bearing the costs of the activity.

All externalities have private costs and private benefits, accruing to the agent doing the activity causing it, and social costs and benefits impacting the external environment and society. In all the negative externalities, the Marginal Private Benefit (MPB) of consumption is more than the Marginal Social Benefit (MSB) of consumption, and the Marginal Private Cost (MPC) less that the Marginal Social Cost (MSC), thereby leading to an over supply of the activity with increasing costs on the society.

There are a number of negative externalities in cities, and many major urban problems and issues can be traced back to the presence of externalities. Apart from the usual accused like pollution from vehicles, we have costs imposed on the society and environment by actions like dumping garbage or litterring on roads and drain, parking vehicles on road margins, house extensions encroaching public spaces, occupation public spaces in shopping complexes, hawkers on road margins, constructing steps and ramps over drains and onto the road, using motors to draw water from the network, letting out sewerage into side drains, growing cattle in residential areas, violating zoning regulations and housing commercial and institutional establishments in residential areas, traffic congestion arising from using personal vehicles and not using public transport etc.

It is commonplace in cities to have frequent media reports lamenting about the losses incurred by way of Property Tax evasion, loss of Non Revenue Water, and various other inefficiencies. By reasonable approximation, the total evasion of Property and Vacant Land Taxes in Vijayawada Municipal Corporation (VMC) area would be at the most Rs 4-5 Cr, the loss due to NRW would be about Rs 4 Cr (taking 50% NRW), and losses from other inefficiencies would be another Rs 5 Cr. Thus all these conventional inefficiencies cost the VMC about Rs 15 Cr every year in revenues.

In constrast, let us try to quantify the costs incurred in Vijayawada due to some of the aforementioned negative externalities. We will try to quantify the cost by way of the willingness to pay principle, the incomes foregone, direct cost inflicted, opportunity cost, cost that would have to be incurred by the individual to eliminate the problem, or other means. It does not include certain other more difficult to capture costs like inconvenience and health hazard caused to the general public etc. All the costs indicated are annual
Unauthorised Parking - Rs 55 Cr
Hawkers on road margins - Rs 15 Cr
Building extensions on road margins - Rs 10 Cr
Steps and drains covering drains and public roads - Rs 3-5 Cr
Litterring of streets and drains - Rs 4-5 Cr
Using motors to draw water - Rs 12-15 Cr
Letting out sewerage into open drains - Rs 3 Cr
Violating zoning regulations - Rs 10-15 Cr
Traffi congestion - ?
Cumulatively the cost of all the aforementioned extenalities alone on the external environment and society come in the range of Rs 112-123 Cr. (The details of all these calculations are available)

Readers may dispute the standards and the assumptions used in some of these calculations, and I will not argue on that. But even considering half this amount, there is still is no competition! Unfortunately we have not even woken up to addressing this problem, leave alone solving it. We clearly have our priorities misplaced, at least economically.

Many of these problems have limited practically enforceable regulatory solutions. We will ultimately need to develop civic responsibility in our citizens to have any sustainable long term solution to these problems. But how do we go about inculcating civic responsibility itself? Information Education Campaign (IEC) and massive awareness generation is necessary for sure. That is a long campaign and will take time. Till then the only other way to address them is by internalizing these external costs. This will incentivize agents towards finding alternative solutions that will reduce or eliminate costs inflicted on the environment and the society.

All the aforementioned are serious problems whose collective costs on the society are enormous and are increasing with the trend of rapid urbanization. If we are to ensure that there is no further deterioration in the quality of urban life, leave alone improve it, it is necessary to start making those agents causing these negative externalities pay for their actions.

In all these cases, not only do the users not pay for the damage inflicted on the environment and society by their actions, there is also a resigned acceptance of these costs by the public at large. Sociologists may diagnose this as arising from lack of civic repsonsibility, and may advise development of social capital for containing these problems. But economists see them as problems of failure in internalising costs. Whatever the diagnosis, it is undoubtedly a problem that has to be addressed with the same seriousness we attach to other issues like global warming or climate change. And addressed immediately too.

Tendulkar...Go!

I was watching Sachin Tendulkar labour his way through to his 37th Test century against Bangladesh at Dhaka today. It was painful to see him struggling to avoid the gentle bouncers of Mashrafe Mortaza and repeatedly failing to read and barely surviving the innocuous left arm spin of veteran Mohammed Rafique. What made it even more excruciating was the realisation that the Tendulkar of old, even at 50% of his self, would have toyed with both these bowlers. In an age of attacking batsmanship, when the one-day run rates of 1980s and early 1990s are the norm in test cricket, when batsmen take audacious liberties with technique and strokeplay, Sachin Tendulkar was content at patting back half volleys and pushing full tosses for singles. For a man with text-book technique and fluid grace, which made Mark Nicholas describe his bat as "an extension of his body and hands", this has been some fall from the pedestal.

If Sydney in 2004 saw Tendulkar abstain from all shots outside the off stump, then today he had obviously made up his mind to duck under anything that was bounced at him. Sunil Gavaskar in the second half of his career had completely avoided certain strokes like the hook and the pull, which were a regular part of his repertoire. When asked about it, Gavaskar once said that he did that since the team was then so dependent on him that he had to cut down all risks. That logic does not extend to Tendulkar and the present Indian batting line-up. Watching him over the past few years, one gets the impression of an obstinate man, unmindful of any advice, who has made up his mind that whatever the circumstances, safeguarding his wicket is the only objective. There have been numerous occasions in the recent past when Sachin's extra cautious approach has been a big drag on the team's scoring rate and victory pursuit. But then I suppose, Tendulkar should know more than anyone else, what he is doing.

Besides his obvious technical excellence, Sachin was blessed with a great eye sight and balance, and extraordinary hand-eye co-ordination. At his pomp, Tendulkar had, as they say, five or six shots for every ball and could conjure up boundaries of even the very good balls. Remarkably, he could play the most unorthodox of shots, requiring exceptional hand-eye co-ordination, with the minimum of risk while making it look aesthetic and technically correct. In this he was unique from any other batsman of his age, including Brain Lara. But these talents decay with time, and decays very fast indeed.

The king has been reduced to a pauper and is eking out his livelihood! It is time for the curtain to come down on the final Act!

Livelihood Insurance and Macro Markets

I have been reading Robert Shiller's book, "The New Financial Order:Risk in the 21st Century". As with the previous "Irrational Exuberance", this one is also a very interesting read. It contains some very serious insights and ideas about financial risk mitigation. Shiller proposes six ides for a new financial order - Macro Markets, Livelihood Insurance, Income linked loans, Inequality Insurance, Intergenerational Social Security, and International Agreements for Risk Control.

Macro Markets could easily follow in the footsteps of equity markets, derivative markets, and commodity markets, in the coming years. We could have a market for trading in the economic health of different countries. While the stockmarket represents only a portion of a country's economy, the macro markets can represent the country's economy itself. Its performace can be a predictor of the future expectations of investors and other stakeholders about the prospects of the country's economy.

Macro securities on the GDP of a country would be like any other share, with its value determined by the expected revenue streams or economic growth potential of that country. These securities would give out dividends in proportion to the performance of the country's GDP, reflected in the value of the security. These securities could be issued either by the Government or by private financial Institutions accredited by the country. Macro securities on GDP will thus enable investors to invest directly in the country's economy and its price will represent the value of a claim on the economy. These securities will not have any expiration dates and will be similar to perpetual futures on the index. Apart from national incomes, other macro securities could be issued to cover prices of different categories of real estate in a City or Country, incomes of different occupations etc.

Institutions issuing the security can "invest the proceeds in macro markets representing the national incomes of other countries", thereby "effectively swapping the risk of its national income for the better diversified portfolio of national incomes all over the rest of the world". By selling the security on GDP of a country to foreigners, we would be effectively selling the risk on our economy to a foreigner, thereby facilitating massive risk diversification and risk sharing.

Robert Shiller and Allan Weiss patented macro securities in 1999. To quote from the book about the details of these securities, "These securities are issued and redeemed on demand by a stock exchange or by financial institutions, but only in pairs - an "up macro" designed so that its price moves up when the GDP moves up and a "down macro" whose price moves down when the GDP moves up and vice-versa. Though issued and redeemed in pairs, these securities are traded separately and each finds its own price in the market. Each member of a pair has a separate cash account adjusted according to the specified economic index (eg GDP) being traded, by re-allocating across accounts. Each macro security pays dividend equal to the interest on its cash account."

"Suppose a pair of securities is issued for $200 when the index is 100. The account of the up macro is initially credited with $100 and the account of the dowm macro is also credited with $100. If the index rises to 102, the custodian of the cash account takes $2 from the down macro account, reducing it to $98 and puts them up in the up macro account, so that the balance in the up macro account again equals the index at $102. This action means that, subsequently, the dividends on the up macro security will be higher, and the dividends on the down macro security will be lower. In this way, through subsequent dividends, the holder of the up security will be rewarded by the rise in the index. By anticipating higher dividends, the investors in the up macro security will bid up its price. If on the contrary, the index falls, the investors will quickly bid down the price of the up macro and bid up the price of the down macro, anticipating the changed future dividends. The price of the security need not track the index, but will anticipate the index."

"The price of the up macro will represent a long-term claim on the index, much as a stock is a claim on the future earnings of the company. People wanting to invest in the index can buy the up macro, and those wanting to protect themselves against any risk on the index can buy the down macro. In macro-securities, for every "long" there is a "short". The "shorts" are those exposed to a risk on the index, while the "longs" are the international investors."

A market portfolio consisting of macro securities on the GDPs of all the countries will represent a claim on everything of economic value and would be the "ultimate diversified portfolio".

Similar macro markets can come up for real estate prices for a particular city, wherein homeowners or mortgage lenders can hedge their risks by buying securities for individual cities and home equity insurers will use the markets to offer policies to homeowners.

Another risk mitigation instrument is the Livelihood Insurance. In an age of proliferating technologies and related jobs, there is a need to hedge against any risks posed by the maket to these very specialized livelihoods. This insurance will be vital towards encouraging development of these virgin fields by attracting fresh talent. An individual seeking to make a career in a particular field can purchase livelihood insurance issued for that field, which would insure him against any decline in incomes in that field. The risks he would have had to bear otherwise would now be borne by the insurance company. "The policy would pay him a regular income over the years in the event of a decline. He would pay for this policy by committing to pay as an insurance premium a fraction of his future income over the future years, or by committing to pay a fixed indexed sum per year over the years, or by committing to pay a combination of these two." The investors in the insurance company will of course hold the security so as to profit from any upside in the profession.

Livelihood insurance could cover all the jobs or careers. The employers could issue the insurance as an employee benefit or the unions could issue it for their members. For example, in a market for incomes of medical doctors, those starting out on the profession could be sold insurances by the livelihood insurers and the medical schools or medical associations (who have an interest in the prospering of this profession) could make investments in these markets by buying these macro securities issued by the insurers.

Examples of such risk hedging tools include the $1.865 loan arranged in 1994 by Citibank for Bulgaria, with an interest rate tied to the growth rate of its economy. Higher the growth rate, higher the interest that would have to be paid by Bulgaria. Bulgaria thus managed to transfer some of its economic risks to the diversified portfolio of individual and institutional investors.

The day is not far when kids seeking a career in cricket will venture out into the cricket pitch, armed with an insurance on income from cricket. We could see African countries benefitting enormously from external income linked loans, or Goldman Sachs issuing bonds insuring the future income of celebrities, or Income Tax Act being replaced with an Inequality Insurance Act to usher in a progressive taxation schedule whenever the present inequality levels threatens to get worse. All these will enable risk diversification on a hitherto unimaginable scale besides adding huge liquidity to our financial system.

New Job for Wolfowitz!

If ever there was a perfect resume for any job, then Paul Wolfowitz is the man with the ideal credentials. So says Maureen Dowd, in an excellent New York Times op-ed, appropriately headlined "An Experienced Destroyer". Starting with Wolfie's CV,in an article dripping with sarcasm and vitriol, Ms Dowd tears into Wolfowitz, a man widely acknowledged in a bipartisan consenus, to being singulalry responsible for much of America's present foreign policy muddles.

"WORK EXPERIENCE
• President of World Bank : 2005-07
Responsibilities : Reining in European lefties, raining tax-free money on Arab girlfriend, and giving anti-corruption efforts in bad name.
Achievements: Paralysed the international lending apparatus to the point where small countries had to max out their Visa cards to pay for malaria medicine. Learned the traditions of many cultures, including those of Turkey, where you apparently are not supposed to take off your shoes at mosques to reveal socks so full of holes that both big toes poke blasphemously through.
• Deputy Secretary of defence for President Bush : 2001-05
Responsibility : Starting a war.
Achievements : Mismanaged the world’s most powerful army. Shattered the system of international diplomacy that kept the peace for 50 years. Undermined the credibility of American intelligence operations. Needlessly brought humankind to the brink of nuclear war. Destroyed Iraq.
• Demented Visionary : 1993- 2001
Responsibility : Concocting a delusional plan for regime change in Iraq with pals like Shaha Riza, Ahmad Chalabi and his merry band of Iraqi exiles who conjured up phoney intelligence about Saddam’s WMD.
Achievements : Imagining an Iraq that didn’t exist.

Having Wolfie back on the job market is a tremendous opportunity. What do we want next destroyed? Could this walking curse on the world run Halliburton into the ground? At the Pentagon, Wolfie tried to help the Vice get rid of anything multi-multilateral treaties, multilateral institutions, multilateral alliances, multiculturalism. Multi, to them, meant wobbly, caviling, bureaucratic and obstructionist. Why be multi when you can be uni?"

So what is Wolfowitz waiting for. There is the big job up for grabs, come November, 2008, for the President of the United States. It will be an ideal stage for Wolfowitz and his neo-con cronies to do an Attila makeover of the rest of the world. Further, the Americans themselves can have a taste of the Wolfie medicine which both Iraq and the World Bank have been privileged to have received. Till then, as a build up and to perfect his already considerable skills for the job, Dick Cheney could think of letting Wolfowitz loose on Halliburton!!

Move over Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Rudy Guiliani! Let's roll out the carpet for Paul Wolfowitz as the 44th and the last President of the USA!! Hail the neo-conservative movement!