The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “As Banks Repay Bailout Money, U.S. Sees Profit.” The article describes the government’s profits from TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, after some banks have begun to repay loans from the government. The repayment amount so far, $4 billion, represents the equivalent of a 15 percent return annually.

The article comes with some caveats. It does not include bailouts from AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or the automakers General Motors and Chrysler. Nor does it include potentially large losses from toxic assets from Citigroup or Bank of America.

But, in my opinion, the article provides some rare good news. Republicans, who have been quick to criticize TARP as a waste of taxpayers money, even though it was started under President George W. Bush, are sure to be left flatfooted, hemming and hawing about the news. The details represent a vindication for President Obama in his continuing and successful struggle to get the economy to rebound.

According to the article, the main profits come from “warrants,” because they consist of the low fixed price the government paid for shares of the companies, at the time depressed to just a few dollars. But the banks now want to become totally independent of the government and are rushing to pay back the loans. The reason why? In my opinion,  it’s the fact that the government has used the dependency to try and regulate the enormous salaries and bonuses of chief executives, particularly from those banks on the government’s dole.

It’s amazing how much money can serve as a driving force, especially when the shoe is on the other foot!

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Consumer Thrift in U.S. May Last After Recession.” Its describes potentially permanent changes in the spending habits of the American people and its implications for the current economic recovery.

The article notes that typically consumers accounted for 70 percent of the nation’s economic activity, and that much of it was financed by their growing stock portfolios, rising home values and credit cards. Now, however, with a nervousness about the future caused by the current crisis, they are living within their paychecks. In addition, saving rates have grown. Originally less than two percent, they have recently grown to four percent.

In my opinion, this article provides an ominous forecast of our economic future and the current anemic recovery. It describes structural changes in the American way of life, and, while they may be prudent for individual American families, their cumulative effect could be negative and ultimately put the brakes on our economic future.

One wonders what the appropriate solution might be. Surely, we can’t tell families to be irresponsible again or that we need to create another bubble. Perhaps, the best way forward is to increase total U.S. wages to make up for the increased amount of savings. Then, the overall situation would increase government revenues and spur spending within our means.

The lead story in The New York Times this morning is titled, “Abuse Issue Puts the Justice Dept. and C.I.A. at Odds.” The article describes a series of contentious debates between the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department over the abuse of detainees after 9/11.

The article starts by describing a visit by the chief lawyer of the C.I.A.  in an unsuccessful attempt to persuade aides at the Justice Department to forego an investigation. The C.I.A. told the Justice Department that the transgressions had already been reviewed by prosecutors from the Bush White House, and, in their view, it was either impossible or unlikely to prove anything in a court of law. Furthermore, the C.I.A. noted that any inappropriate actions had been handled internally.

In my opinion, these conflicts primarily represent an attempt by each institution to defend its territory. Eric Holder at Justice has been sworn in to defend the law of the land, and he can’t just ignore actions that go beyond even the brutality allowed under the Bush administration. Leon Panetta, on the other hand, is trying to boost the morale at the C.I.A. and wants to avoid a long drawn-out investigation.

Both attempts may be well intentioned, but we need to go beyond the squabbling to determine what’s best for the country. I think a good compromise has already been struck. The prosecutor selected has already been investigating the erasure of tapes showing the interrogations so he won’t be starting from square one. This will shorten the investigation. In addition, the charge given to the prosecutor involves specific transgressions of guidelines from the Bush administration, not an investigation of those guidelines themselves.

Compare it to a band-aid over a wound. The band-aid (interrogations) may have been necessary at the time, but afterwards, the best course of action is to take off the band-aid quickly. This investigation should do just that.

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “Senator Kennedy, Battle Lost, Is Hailed as a Leader.” It discusses the death of Ted Kennedy on Tuesday night.

The article describes the role of Senator Kennedy throughout the years and the tragedy/glamour of the Kennedy clan that seems to follow them all their lives. President Obama will be speaking at Senator Kennedy’s funeral on Saturday.

In my opinion, the diagnosis of a brain tumor, despite its inherent tragedy, at least let Senator Kennedy say goodbye and prepare his affairs, a luxury his two brothers were never afforded. I admire the man in so many ways. He had the courage of his convictions and was never ashamed of his liberal background.

Senator Kennedy was unique in his ability to relate to people on a one-to-one basis, whether Democratic or Republican, rich or poor, white or black. Perhaps, that’s one reason why he became so great. This country owes a debt to the Kennedy family that we can never repay.

It’s like the movie, “A Wonderful Life,” when the angel shows Jimmy Stewart what life would be like if he had never been born. One can only wonder the same would be like for Senator Kennedy. It’s a thought to keep us grateful during this sad time.

The lead story in the New York Times this morning (two-column headline) is titled, “Investigation is Ordered Into C.I.A. Abuse Charges.” It describes the decision by Attorney General Eric Holder yesterday to name a federal prosecutor to look into criminal wrongdoing by the C.I.A. Mr. Holder’s directive coincides with the release yesterday of a 2004 report by the Inspector General of the C.I.A. and a recommendation to investigate by the Justice Department’s ethics department.

The article goes on to describe abuse listed in the 2004 report, some of it extremely shocking. It includes threats against a prisoner’s family, blowing cigar smoke into a detainee’s face until he vomits, intimidation with a power drill after stripping a prisoner naked, and more. 

In my opinion, these facts gave Attorney General Eric Holder no alternative. Any decent-thinking American must be shocked at these tactics, and the Attorney General’s first responsibility is to uphold the law of the land.

Mr. Holder was very wise in choosing John H. Durham as federal prosecutor. He had already been looking into the erasure of interrogation tapes by the C.I.A. and so is quite familiar with the subject and will be able to conclude the initial inquiry in a timely manner.

I just hope that the junior officers don’t end up as scapegoats as they did during Abu Ghraib. It was the directives of senior officials and their attitude of anything goes that created the atmosphere in which these abuses occurred.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Justice Report Advises Pursuit of Abuse Cases.” It describes a new report by Justice Department’s Ethics Office, based on over five years of research, about prisoner abuse by the Central Intelligence Agency in the aftermath of 9/11. The abuse includes the death of detainees and tactics such as threatening them with a power drill and mock executions.

The advice coincides with the release expected today of a 2004 report by the C.I.A.’s Inspector General on the same topic. It seems to make it all but certain that Attorney General Eric Holder will decide to pursue a criminal investigation of the matter.

In my opinion, these matters are painful for the country to endure, but we really have no alternative. The report by the Ethics Office took over five years to complete, but the conclusions are inescapable. Our country is organized in such a way that when serious wrongdoing occurs, there are organizations specially designed to look into it. These organizations are non-partisan and filled with staff committed to finding out the truth. Even the President can’t impede their function.

In a way, this is a good thing and speaks volumes about the inherent goodness of our nation. Man, by his very nature, will transgress, but the Framers knew that, and the balance of powers is only one of the many dynamics we have created to address this tendency. I know President Obama wants to move forward, and his sentiment is well-intentioned, but some things are too important to “brush under the carpet.”

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “U.S. Shifts, Giving Detainees’ Names to the Red Cross.” It describes a new policy by the Pentagon to notify the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) about the names of new prisoners in its Secret Operations camps. These are two camps, one each in Iraq and Afghanistan, that were the last holdouts from reversals of Bush administration policy into a more open situation in accordance with international law.

The change in policy represents one of a number of developments this week related to C.I.A. practices. The C.I.A. will be releasing a 2004 report by its Inspector General on the Agency’s interrogation program. The report is highly critical and reportedly includes instances of threatening prisoners by using a power drill and mock executions. An additional development will be an expected decision by Attorney General Eric Holder about appointing a criminal prosecutor to investigate interrogations that occurred after 9/11.

In my opinion, all these events will be painful for the United States as a country to endure, primarily because of the high ideals and standards we all hold. But they are absolutely necessary to prevent future transgressions. Only by exposing our actions to world opinion can we achieve the catharsis required to make them more unlikely in the future. If there is no punitive action, future administrations under stressful situations may be tempted to take the same actions, and maybe even more.

So, yes, it is important for us to move forward as President Obama wishes, but we also have an obligation to pursue some of the difficult admissions that will occur this week.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Central Bankers Suggest Rebound May Have Begun.” It describes the opinion of several experts, including the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, that the economy is on the rebound. His statement was based on several factors including turnarounds in other countries in Europe and Asia as well as yesterday’s announcement by the National Association of Realtors that the sales of existing homes increased by 7.2 percent in July, much higher than anticipated.

The article goes on to express others’ thoughts that the stock market has turned around and cited its growth by 45 percent since March. In addition, yesterday’s gains included a wide variety of stocks in addition to housing such as oil, gas, gold, manufacturers and energy producers. Other countries such as France, Japan and Germany also reported growth.

While this all seems like good news, I still sense storm clouds on the horizon. Unemployment is still growing, and consumer spending, “the engine that drives the economy,” is still depressed. If people are unemployed and don’t have any money to spend, all these financial statistcs could collapse like yet another balloon. The best type of growth is from the bottom up, and this seems primarily like the top down.

We shall see …

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “Afghan Elections Called a Success Despite Attacks.” It describes the results of voting in the country yesterday and the attempts by the Taliban to disrupt it.

The article goes on to note that the turnout was less than 70 percent, but even that was considered a success in light of the Taliban’s pledge to stop voting in major swaths of the country, especially their stronghold of the south. Vows to cut off the stained fingers of any voters — a process used at polling stations to prevent people from voting more than once — failed to scare off people in any significant numbers and did not call into question the results of the vote.

In my opinion, this represents a major foreign policy success for President Obama and vindicates his increase of troops in the country. The election seems to have been competitive between Hamid Karzai, the current President, and his former foreign minister, Abdullah Abdullah, and there may even be a runoff if noone gets 50 percent.

Though the article warned that any voting fraud would take place in the counting, not the voting, I do not feel we need to worry about an Iran-style debacle in this respect. Somehow the election seems to have been a success, and I think the United States can pat itself on the back for a job well done.

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “Outsiders Hired as C.I.A. Planned to Kill Jihadists.” It describes the use of the Blackwater firm in a C.I.A. program to hunt down and kill senior members of Al Qaeda. According to the article, this is the major reason that the C.I.A.’s director, Leon Panetta, revealed the program to the Congressional Intelligence Committees. According to prior accounts, former Vice President, Dick Cheney, specifically ordered the C.I.A. not to do so.

The article describes the project as a targeted killing program and raises major issues with hiring an outside organization, including legal ramifications and accountability. The C.I.A. had been banned from carrying out assassinations by an executive order by then-President Gerald Ford, but the Bush administration tried to skirt the ban by defining Al Qaeda operatives as soldiers in a war against the United States.

In my opinion, this revelation only adds to the mounting evidence piled up against the Bush administration about its illegal seizure of authority in violation of the Constitution and the balance of powers it enumerated. How ironic that the current protestors against healthcare rail about the Constitution when it was ultimately their favorite President who was really in violation.

This story will continue to develop as The New York Times continues its investigation. Thank God for a free press as the true bulwark protecting our democracy.