Taken as a percentage of GDP, investment in research by the United States is at the lowest level in decades. Other nations such as Finland and Israel, known for their innovative and entrepreneurial economies, spend far more than the United States. Cuts in research spending won't hurt us now - they will hurt us in a decade or two. The time lag between benefit and cost makes such cuts a tempting political target. Enter the Ryan plan, which plans to cut "non-defense" research spending to trim our budget.
We're in a tough time economically, and our deficit is absolutely out of control. If someone was making the case to me that we just can't afford to increase R&D spending until our fiscal future is secure, I don't think I would find that argument unreasonable, although I wouldn't agree with it. What I do find to be unreasonable is the Republican insistence that the military needs to be spared all forms of spending cuts. It is the epitome of short sighted to cut general research spending in order to maintain our high current levels of military spending.
Mitt Romney plan will cut research spending, but he has promised to increase military spending (for what threat are our current forces insufficient, I wonder). Barack Obama has stated he will not spare the military from a greater plan to fix our budgetary crisis, but has nevertheless urged increased spending on research and development. Americans have been given a choice this election. They can think about the present, or they can think about the future. The central theme of pretty much every history book I've read ever,
is that great national powers which maintain high levels of military spending to the detriment of other areas of the economy quickly cease to be great powers.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Monday, April 02, 2012
Obama's foreign policy: an "astonishing failure", according to Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney called Obama's decision to remove US troops from Iraq "an astonishing failure". Almost a half-year after Barack Obama's reckless withdrawal from Iraq, that nation has descended into chaos and civil war.
Stupid Obama. He should have continued the US occupation for another few years - at least! - and not pulled out until he got permission from "the commanders on the ground".
Stupid Obama. He should have continued the US occupation for another few years - at least! - and not pulled out until he got permission from "the commanders on the ground".
Sunday, March 11, 2012
I guess this is another one for the "I told you so" file.
Maybe I'm jumping the gun. Approximately two years ago, I took stock of the Tea Party Revolution:
"I do not believe political gains made by [false intellectual pretenses] are sustainable. Republicans may have accomplished electoral victory this year but there will be a big question whether or not they accomplish legislative victory; the former is worth nothing without the latter. When you gain political momentum on false pretenses...for example, by lying about Obama and demonizing his intentions, you aren't winning an argument in the minds of the American people, you're just scaring them.
...Conservatives should be less short-sighted. The foundation of a strong conservative movement won't come from cheap sound bytes put forth by idiot news casters on Fox. They'll come from real thinkers who don't need to beat their political adversaries with lies - they can beat them with better ideas and stronger arguments. That was the movement that Buckley and Goldwater supposedly started and it lasted a generation. The movement of intellectual hacks like Palin and Gingrich will last two years. If that."
The conservative resurgence in 2010 was based on a large degree on generating emotional reactions by describing a simplistic view of complicated issues. Simplistic views, by definition, are extreme in that they do not appreciate nuance. This was successful in electoral terms, for sure (its easy to get people to the polls when you convince them that Obama is a radical socialist who is remaking America). It has been a disaster in legislative terms. Many republicans, who were elected as purists, have had no ability to appreciate the complexity of the serious issues this nation has faced. This has made it impossible for them to organize a coherent agenda and come up with bills that are sane enough that they can all agree on, much less get any Democratic support.
The Republican Party has not achieved one significant legislative victory since taking the House. They have not secured not a single compromise that advances their agenda; they have not cut spending a single iota. They have squandered their electoral mandate on useless fights over reproductive rights and settling political scores. To appeal to such a party that has become so detached from reality, their candidates for president are either insane or have had to become so extreme that they may be unelectable in a general (the rest didn't even bother running). Less and less we are hearing talk of the GOP taking the Senate and the White House, and more we are hearing about whether or not they will even hold onto the house.
America has serious issues facing it. This country cannot move forward without two functioning political parties. Until the GOP has members who understand the complex issues we face and are capable of compromise, the political system will remain gridlocked and real conservative change will remain elusive. I have argued before: in the absence of real reform, big government wins by default. The road to a single payer health care system - actual government run health care, will be paved with a lack of compromise.
"I do not believe political gains made by [false intellectual pretenses] are sustainable. Republicans may have accomplished electoral victory this year but there will be a big question whether or not they accomplish legislative victory; the former is worth nothing without the latter. When you gain political momentum on false pretenses...for example, by lying about Obama and demonizing his intentions, you aren't winning an argument in the minds of the American people, you're just scaring them.
...Conservatives should be less short-sighted. The foundation of a strong conservative movement won't come from cheap sound bytes put forth by idiot news casters on Fox. They'll come from real thinkers who don't need to beat their political adversaries with lies - they can beat them with better ideas and stronger arguments. That was the movement that Buckley and Goldwater supposedly started and it lasted a generation. The movement of intellectual hacks like Palin and Gingrich will last two years. If that."
The conservative resurgence in 2010 was based on a large degree on generating emotional reactions by describing a simplistic view of complicated issues. Simplistic views, by definition, are extreme in that they do not appreciate nuance. This was successful in electoral terms, for sure (its easy to get people to the polls when you convince them that Obama is a radical socialist who is remaking America). It has been a disaster in legislative terms. Many republicans, who were elected as purists, have had no ability to appreciate the complexity of the serious issues this nation has faced. This has made it impossible for them to organize a coherent agenda and come up with bills that are sane enough that they can all agree on, much less get any Democratic support.
The Republican Party has not achieved one significant legislative victory since taking the House. They have not secured not a single compromise that advances their agenda; they have not cut spending a single iota. They have squandered their electoral mandate on useless fights over reproductive rights and settling political scores. To appeal to such a party that has become so detached from reality, their candidates for president are either insane or have had to become so extreme that they may be unelectable in a general (the rest didn't even bother running). Less and less we are hearing talk of the GOP taking the Senate and the White House, and more we are hearing about whether or not they will even hold onto the house.
America has serious issues facing it. This country cannot move forward without two functioning political parties. Until the GOP has members who understand the complex issues we face and are capable of compromise, the political system will remain gridlocked and real conservative change will remain elusive. I have argued before: in the absence of real reform, big government wins by default. The road to a single payer health care system - actual government run health care, will be paved with a lack of compromise.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Occupy The Middle Kingdom?
Income inequality isn't only a problem in America. I do believe that China's Gini coefficient (a measure of inequality) recently overtook the US. This will be tolerable to the legions of workers while China experiences the 10% growth that it currently enjoys. With a significant slowdown, it won't be tolerable.
Westerners tend to ascribe virtues of competence and wisdom to the Chinese government. If these leaders were wise, they would be starting to implement political reforms now. That way, pressure release valves are already in place when the system gets dealt a shock. Have they not been watching the news at all over the last year?
Westerners tend to ascribe virtues of competence and wisdom to the Chinese government. If these leaders were wise, they would be starting to implement political reforms now. That way, pressure release valves are already in place when the system gets dealt a shock. Have they not been watching the news at all over the last year?
Monday, February 06, 2012
Indiana right-to-work, breaking the Union of the 1%.
Indiana just passed right-to-work legislation. The standard labor argument (against Mitch Daniels) is that all workers benefit from the actions of a worker's union, so they should all contribute. I'm not sure if that is true. There are some cases of overlap I'm sure, but one of the most important benefits of being in a union is protection from being laid off "unfairly". If a worker declined to pay union fees and didn't join the union, they face that risk. It's a calculation that any individual would need to make - but clearly, if the benefits of unionization are so great, theres no need for a law that forces a worker to join. I am always for greater individual freedom, so I definitely side with Mitch Daniels on this issue. Workers have the right to organize and join unions, but unions shouldn't have the right to force workers to join.
On a somewhat related note, consider what the essence of unionization is: it is undeserved economic influence; economic power at above-market rates. In a union, a collection of individuals organize within the framework of a larger group such that, by virtue of that organization, they become more influential than the sum of their parts. They increase their economic power not by increasing productivity, but by pressing political advantage into economic gain. Obviously, this leads to less efficient labor markets - and many others are hurt in consequence, including non-unionized workers.
Now stop and consider the entrenched financial and corporate elite in this country. The "1%" generally is a very productive group, and in a genuinely free market they would be compensated handsomely for their efforts. However, by virtue of their connections to politicians and their virtual ownership of government in general, the financial and corporate elite have been able to press their advantage. They have built a system from the inside that favors them unfairly. They are no different than factory workers who unionize and demand outrageous or unearned pay.
Wall Street and many entrenched corporations have economic power beyond that which their productivity deserves. Tax-payer bailouts and implicit government backing of too-big-to-fail institutions. A tax code, written by armies of lawyers and voted into being by bought politicians, which is insanely complex and riddled with loopholes that benefit the authors. Entrenched corporations (think: unionized workers) with their lobbyists buy themselves government subsidies and tax breaks; these are advantages that their smaller or newer competitors (think: non-unionized labor) don't enjoy. The power of the financial and corporate elite, like unionized workers in a factory, is greater than the sum of their parts. This is the Union of the 1%.
While Democrats are funded by traditional middle-class unions, Republicans are backed by the union on Wall Street - and as the financial crash in 2007 showed, the latter is more detrimental to the economy. So: want to do some union busting, and make our economy more competitive? Fine. Lets not stop with the middle class unions. We need to end corporate welfare. Simplify the tax code. Break up any company or bank that is implicitly backed by the taxpayers because it is too big to fail. Stop government subsidies and tax breaks to entrenched corporations. End attempts at regulating the internet. Re-write our ridiculous patent laws which have been woven into place by entrenched companies to keep out the competition. THAT is how you revitalize the American economy.
This is what Occupy Wall Street is all about. Americans have gone along with the de-unionization of the middle classes for decades, and the promised gains in living standards have absolutely failed to be realized. Now its time to end the union of Wall Street, of the entrenched interests, of the elites who own Washington.
On a somewhat related note, consider what the essence of unionization is: it is undeserved economic influence; economic power at above-market rates. In a union, a collection of individuals organize within the framework of a larger group such that, by virtue of that organization, they become more influential than the sum of their parts. They increase their economic power not by increasing productivity, but by pressing political advantage into economic gain. Obviously, this leads to less efficient labor markets - and many others are hurt in consequence, including non-unionized workers.
Now stop and consider the entrenched financial and corporate elite in this country. The "1%" generally is a very productive group, and in a genuinely free market they would be compensated handsomely for their efforts. However, by virtue of their connections to politicians and their virtual ownership of government in general, the financial and corporate elite have been able to press their advantage. They have built a system from the inside that favors them unfairly. They are no different than factory workers who unionize and demand outrageous or unearned pay.
Wall Street and many entrenched corporations have economic power beyond that which their productivity deserves. Tax-payer bailouts and implicit government backing of too-big-to-fail institutions. A tax code, written by armies of lawyers and voted into being by bought politicians, which is insanely complex and riddled with loopholes that benefit the authors. Entrenched corporations (think: unionized workers) with their lobbyists buy themselves government subsidies and tax breaks; these are advantages that their smaller or newer competitors (think: non-unionized labor) don't enjoy. The power of the financial and corporate elite, like unionized workers in a factory, is greater than the sum of their parts. This is the Union of the 1%.
While Democrats are funded by traditional middle-class unions, Republicans are backed by the union on Wall Street - and as the financial crash in 2007 showed, the latter is more detrimental to the economy. So: want to do some union busting, and make our economy more competitive? Fine. Lets not stop with the middle class unions. We need to end corporate welfare. Simplify the tax code. Break up any company or bank that is implicitly backed by the taxpayers because it is too big to fail. Stop government subsidies and tax breaks to entrenched corporations. End attempts at regulating the internet. Re-write our ridiculous patent laws which have been woven into place by entrenched companies to keep out the competition. THAT is how you revitalize the American economy.
This is what Occupy Wall Street is all about. Americans have gone along with the de-unionization of the middle classes for decades, and the promised gains in living standards have absolutely failed to be realized. Now its time to end the union of Wall Street, of the entrenched interests, of the elites who own Washington.
Friday, February 03, 2012
The Tragedy of the Komen Foundation
Public health has taken another blow. They say these things come in threes. We have leading conservative presidential candidates telling people that vaccines cause autism. A conservative senator in Tennessee just told his constituents that it is "virtually impossible" to spread HIV through heterosexual contact. And now, we are politicizing the screening and treatment of breast cancer. I can't stop thinking about the cultural damage here. Has anyone else considered what we just lost as a nation? We disagree on just about everything these days. The notion that breast cancer is a disease worth fighting is one of the few remaining things everybody could agree on. That has now been destroyed; and for what? At the end of the day, this was over $700,000 dollars. To destroy such a cherished and unitary cultural icon for such a petty trifle, for such a cheap political victory. It must take an exceptionally vindictive person to want to make that trade.
At any rate, this was an unforced error of staggering proportions on the part of the Komen Foundation itself. Before this story broke, I suspect that very few people knew that Komen gave money to Planned Parenthood. Even if people knew Komen was providing breast cancer care at Planned Parenthood clinics, what kind of person would possibly care? One would think self-interest alone would have led Komen to stay out of this debate. Now that they have taken sides, its probably too late. If they stand firm and abandon low-income women, they will alienate at least the 75% of Americans who support abortion rights in some form or another. Arguably they will lose more than that, since obviously not everyone who is anti-choice thinks depriving poor women of breast cancer screening is worth a political point. Alternatively, Komen could do the right thing and reverse course. In doing so they would become a perpetual target for religious bullies who are always looking for another battle to fight. Either way, what used to be a non-controversial, unitary force, the fight against breast cancer, will be reduced into another yearly battle in our incessant culture wars.
I do think there is a way out. Komen needs to stand with low-income women and support breast cancer services, and provide concrete data that show that donors' money is being used only for breast services. Conservative women should stand with them when they do - because they should recognize that this isn't worth it, and that there are better and less destructive venues in which to have the abortion fight. People should remember why they supported the Komen Foundation in the first place and leave politics aside for once.
At any rate, this was an unforced error of staggering proportions on the part of the Komen Foundation itself. Before this story broke, I suspect that very few people knew that Komen gave money to Planned Parenthood. Even if people knew Komen was providing breast cancer care at Planned Parenthood clinics, what kind of person would possibly care? One would think self-interest alone would have led Komen to stay out of this debate. Now that they have taken sides, its probably too late. If they stand firm and abandon low-income women, they will alienate at least the 75% of Americans who support abortion rights in some form or another. Arguably they will lose more than that, since obviously not everyone who is anti-choice thinks depriving poor women of breast cancer screening is worth a political point. Alternatively, Komen could do the right thing and reverse course. In doing so they would become a perpetual target for religious bullies who are always looking for another battle to fight. Either way, what used to be a non-controversial, unitary force, the fight against breast cancer, will be reduced into another yearly battle in our incessant culture wars.
I do think there is a way out. Komen needs to stand with low-income women and support breast cancer services, and provide concrete data that show that donors' money is being used only for breast services. Conservative women should stand with them when they do - because they should recognize that this isn't worth it, and that there are better and less destructive venues in which to have the abortion fight. People should remember why they supported the Komen Foundation in the first place and leave politics aside for once.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Time to see if I was right
Over 3 months ago, I posted my predictions for the debt ceiling battle over the horizon. Well, judgment day is here. A recap of two essential points:
1. Republican intransigence was, and continues to be, unwarranted. The Republicans were always holding a weak hand, although it actually shocks me that apparently none of them figured this out. When they approached this debt ceiling issue as a battle, they set themselves up for defeat. At this very moment, the pressure is relentlessly building. The House is being inundated with angry phone calls from constituents. The IMF and credit agencies are warning of a downgrade and economic calamity. Obama is taking to the bully pulpit nightly to (rightly) berate the GOP for being uncompromising. And at the end of the day, the Tea Party isn't playing chicken with Obama. Rather, Boehner and powerful GOP backers are playing chicken with the 41 most liberal members of the senate, led by recently re-elected Harry Reid.
2. This in particular turned out to be true:
I absolutely believe that if Republicans put partisan battles aside, Democrats would join them and real progress on spending could be made. There are tons of low-hanging fruits that could be plucked to get real reductions in government spending.
Obama was offering Republicans a bill that cut the debt by FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS. It was something like 85% spending cuts, including cuts to entitlements. 85% is a very historically fair figure when looking at austerity situations. Democrats were furious at Obama for making such an offer, but luckily the GOP bailed them out by refusing Obama's deal. The Economist, a right-of-center newspaper, had a few good editorials about what a great deal the GOP passed up.
At this moment there is what, a week left before D-Day? I think the Democrats have the advantage at this moment. The Republicans WILL jump, but it remains to be seen whether the Democrats get scared and jump first.
1. Republican intransigence was, and continues to be, unwarranted. The Republicans were always holding a weak hand, although it actually shocks me that apparently none of them figured this out. When they approached this debt ceiling issue as a battle, they set themselves up for defeat. At this very moment, the pressure is relentlessly building. The House is being inundated with angry phone calls from constituents. The IMF and credit agencies are warning of a downgrade and economic calamity. Obama is taking to the bully pulpit nightly to (rightly) berate the GOP for being uncompromising. And at the end of the day, the Tea Party isn't playing chicken with Obama. Rather, Boehner and powerful GOP backers are playing chicken with the 41 most liberal members of the senate, led by recently re-elected Harry Reid.
2. This in particular turned out to be true:
I absolutely believe that if Republicans put partisan battles aside, Democrats would join them and real progress on spending could be made. There are tons of low-hanging fruits that could be plucked to get real reductions in government spending.
Obama was offering Republicans a bill that cut the debt by FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS. It was something like 85% spending cuts, including cuts to entitlements. 85% is a very historically fair figure when looking at austerity situations. Democrats were furious at Obama for making such an offer, but luckily the GOP bailed them out by refusing Obama's deal. The Economist, a right-of-center newspaper, had a few good editorials about what a great deal the GOP passed up.
At this moment there is what, a week left before D-Day? I think the Democrats have the advantage at this moment. The Republicans WILL jump, but it remains to be seen whether the Democrats get scared and jump first.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
The intent of the founders: representing the people while avoiding gridlock
I've always been a moderate person who believes, contrary to Herman Cain, that the problem with America isn't too much compromise, but rather a lack of compromise. My vision of a smoothly functioning American government is when civil and well-informed representatives of the people converge on Washington, hash out their differences, and produce well intentioned legislation based on the best possible compromises. The goal is to give everyone some of what they want, nobody all of what they want, and always to move America forward.
Some people have intimated, from time to time, that it is fundamentally anti-democratic that I might wish that the representatives decide among themselves what the important issues would be and deal with them accordingly. And I fully admit that I believe that representatives should prioritize their constituents' interests, and even ignore some of them. Some would claim this position reeks of elitism, and that the truly democratic model is to elect representatives who follow their constituents' short-term inclinations to the letter.
If my view is wrong, why did the founders make America a republic? If the founders wanted direct democracy, they would have written into our constitution a form of direct democracy: but they didn't. I believe the founders understood that most Americans have better things to do than worry about politics, or alternatively, don't have the information access or facilities to really grasp the complexities anyway. Elitist? Sure, I'll cede that. But the founders counted on the people electing competent representatives who would follow the spirit of their constituents as best they could within the context of the federal government of a very large and diverse nation.
I've been trying to figure out what exactly is wrong with our political system, and it seems to me that we really almost have moved to a form of direct democracy. Especially with the advent of rapid communications, information technology, massive advertising budgets, messages matter. A hundred years ago, a well meaning representative could sacrifice some of his constituents' priorities in order to gain a compromise that was essential for the nation or one that advanced his voters' interests in other ways.
These days, its different. When a representative insults that small fraction of his support, he gets crucified for it. This is particularly true among the GOP today, which is more a consequence of them being the out-of-power party than anything else. Any one Republican who has bucked any one interest has paid a price. Mitch Daniels saw what most credible economists see: we cant balance the budget without some revenue increases. So why not a VAT? And yet, in today's GOP, proposing a tax of any sort is sacrilegious. Dick Lugar recognized a good START treaty with Russia and supported it along with all of the top military brass, and he was rewarded with a primary. I don't see any way that John Boehner makes it out of the 2012 election with a job. He will vote to increase the debt ceiling, and he will get primaried because of it.
In essence, the rapidity of the response to politics has moved us into an era of what is essentially direct democracy. And unfortunately, the American people don't always know exactly what they want. We want the government to keep its miserable hands off of our Medicare. We want to cut spending, but not cut medicare, social security, or defense. We think that cutting foreign aid to Pakistan will balance our budget. Direct democracy was most obvious in California, where the people consistently vote themselves more services but then refuse to increase taxes to pay for them. The founders knew that there needed to be a competent crew manning the rigging of the ship that we call America. Just let the passengers run things and there is chaos.
Many try to argue that this sad state of affairs is the fault of a misleading media or lying politicians, but I don't buy that. Politicians have always lied, and the media has always been biased. The single biggest thing that has changed is that politicians are now held in an environment where they are unable to make any sacrifices in the name of compromise whatsoever. It is this inability which has led to the intractable gridlock that we now see, and probably will continue to see, for some time. Until American politicians again act as the founders intended them to act, as representatives of a great republic rather than as mere puppets of fickle and conflicted constituents, this ship will continue to drift aimlessly at sea.
Some people have intimated, from time to time, that it is fundamentally anti-democratic that I might wish that the representatives decide among themselves what the important issues would be and deal with them accordingly. And I fully admit that I believe that representatives should prioritize their constituents' interests, and even ignore some of them. Some would claim this position reeks of elitism, and that the truly democratic model is to elect representatives who follow their constituents' short-term inclinations to the letter.
If my view is wrong, why did the founders make America a republic? If the founders wanted direct democracy, they would have written into our constitution a form of direct democracy: but they didn't. I believe the founders understood that most Americans have better things to do than worry about politics, or alternatively, don't have the information access or facilities to really grasp the complexities anyway. Elitist? Sure, I'll cede that. But the founders counted on the people electing competent representatives who would follow the spirit of their constituents as best they could within the context of the federal government of a very large and diverse nation.
I've been trying to figure out what exactly is wrong with our political system, and it seems to me that we really almost have moved to a form of direct democracy. Especially with the advent of rapid communications, information technology, massive advertising budgets, messages matter. A hundred years ago, a well meaning representative could sacrifice some of his constituents' priorities in order to gain a compromise that was essential for the nation or one that advanced his voters' interests in other ways.
These days, its different. When a representative insults that small fraction of his support, he gets crucified for it. This is particularly true among the GOP today, which is more a consequence of them being the out-of-power party than anything else. Any one Republican who has bucked any one interest has paid a price. Mitch Daniels saw what most credible economists see: we cant balance the budget without some revenue increases. So why not a VAT? And yet, in today's GOP, proposing a tax of any sort is sacrilegious. Dick Lugar recognized a good START treaty with Russia and supported it along with all of the top military brass, and he was rewarded with a primary. I don't see any way that John Boehner makes it out of the 2012 election with a job. He will vote to increase the debt ceiling, and he will get primaried because of it.
In essence, the rapidity of the response to politics has moved us into an era of what is essentially direct democracy. And unfortunately, the American people don't always know exactly what they want. We want the government to keep its miserable hands off of our Medicare. We want to cut spending, but not cut medicare, social security, or defense. We think that cutting foreign aid to Pakistan will balance our budget. Direct democracy was most obvious in California, where the people consistently vote themselves more services but then refuse to increase taxes to pay for them. The founders knew that there needed to be a competent crew manning the rigging of the ship that we call America. Just let the passengers run things and there is chaos.
Many try to argue that this sad state of affairs is the fault of a misleading media or lying politicians, but I don't buy that. Politicians have always lied, and the media has always been biased. The single biggest thing that has changed is that politicians are now held in an environment where they are unable to make any sacrifices in the name of compromise whatsoever. It is this inability which has led to the intractable gridlock that we now see, and probably will continue to see, for some time. Until American politicians again act as the founders intended them to act, as representatives of a great republic rather than as mere puppets of fickle and conflicted constituents, this ship will continue to drift aimlessly at sea.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Does Obama hate Israel?
Here are some quotes from Obama's speech that pertain to Israel.
------------------------------------------
"Antagonism towards Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression [in repressive Middle Eastern nations]."
This is implicitly a defense of Israel. There is no doubt that in general the people in the Middle East don't like Israel. The question is why. Pro-Israeli people believe that is because Israel has been used relentlessly as a scapegoat by autocratic dictators to focus their peoples' anger elsewhere. Anti-Israeli people believe it is Israeli policies that create the resentment among its neighbors. Obviously there is an element of truth to both, but extremists tend to believe one or the other. I believe it is primarily the former, and apparently so does Obama, which is implicitly a pro-Israeli stance.
"Standing up for Israel's security...we will continue to do these things."
That doesn't sound very anti-Semitic to me.
"Efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure."
Opponents of Israel are pursuing a strategy that results in the destruction of Israel not by military means, but by political and economic means. This is what Obama means by "delegitimize". The strategy in a nutshell is to isolate Israel in the same way that South Africa was isolated because of apartheid. Obama is aware of this strategy, which means he no doubt thinks like I do: that Israel shouldn't play right into the hands of the people who are using it. This means striking a balance between deterrence and use of force, and it means not deliberately provoking Muslims for no reason (IE expanding settlements).
"Symbolic actions in September won't create an independent state."
In September, the PA is going to submit to the UN assembly a vote that would create a Palestinian state. I'm not sure how the rules of the UN work so I'm not sure if they can legally do this or not. I'm not sure if the US can even veto this. We couldn't stop the PRC from taking the ROC's seat in the security council in the 1970's so we may not be able to stop this. It would be a major blow to Israel if it happens. It is a part of the delegitimization strategy that anti-Israeli activists have been pursuing.
"Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of violence and rejection...Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying Israel's right to exist."
Obama reaffirms that Hamas must renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist, and honor previous agreements. This is all very standard stuff.
"Our committment to Israel's security is unshakable, and we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums."
In other words, the US has and will veto UN resolutions that condemn Israel for this or that while allowing other nations to perpetrate far worse crimes with no mention.
"Israel must be able to defend itself, by itself, against any threat."
IE the US will continue to support the Israeli military.
"[Palestine should be a] sovereign, non-militarized state."
One of the sticky parts of establishing a Palestinian state is whether or not it gets to develop a military. Obviously the Israelis might be uncomfortable with that. Obama here is coming down squarely on Israel's side of the issue.
-------------------------------------------
There is lots of room for criticism over how Obama approached the Israeli-Palestinian question. The speech was decidedly unambitious and did not budge the status quo even a single iota. Everything in the speech was very standard, widely accepted stuff. Everyone* agrees that peace will come with a two-state solution. Everyone* agrees that the 1967 boundaries are the basis for the future borders. Everyone* agrees that Israel isn't going to take down their West Bank settlements, and so land-swaps are necessary. On the issues that people aren't sure about, such as over the status of Jerusalem or right-of-return for Palestinians, Obama just punted.
What there isn't any room for is criticism that Obama is anti-Israeli. And yet, the only thing I see plastered all over the front page of Fox News is precisely that. This is being echoed all over the conservative blogosphere. And you know what? I get it. I get why the Republicans are jumping all over this big lie. Their attempt at following through to the promises they made in the 2010 elections have been absolutely pathetic. They have been outfoxed by Obama and the Democrats at every turn. Boehner's 38 billion in "cuts" actually ended up increasing the deficit by 3 billion. Paul Ryan has been thrown under the bus by half of his party. The GOP will vote for the debt ceiling increase, but they will only get token cuts for it IF Obama is feeling generous. The GOP presidential candidates are all awful, save one or two who probably can't win a primary.
So like I said, I get it. We're going to hear over the next few weeks how Obama is a vicious anti-Semite, which fits in perfectly with accusation that Obama is also a secret anti-colonialist Muslim America-hater. Netanyahu is of course going to play along, just as a spoiled child will manipulate their divorced parents, and will cement himself in history as one of the most short-sighted Israeli leaders ever. But yea, anything to distract from the train wreck that has been the GOP agenda; I can't say I blame them for wanting something else to talk about. Whether or not there is any truth to what they are saying is irrelevant.
*When I say "everyone", what I mean is "reasonable people who we might listen to". There are lots of people who don't agree on a two-state solution, 1967 boundaries as a basis for that, and land swaps. These people are unreasonable, and should all be ignored. This includes, but is not limited to: Hamas and Islamic extremists, the international far-left extremists, ultra-right wing orthodox Jewish settlers in Israel, ultra-right wing evangelical Christians in the US. To name a few. None of these groups think there should be a compromise, just endless war until their side wins and the other side is dead.
------------------------------------------
"Antagonism towards Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression [in repressive Middle Eastern nations]."
This is implicitly a defense of Israel. There is no doubt that in general the people in the Middle East don't like Israel. The question is why. Pro-Israeli people believe that is because Israel has been used relentlessly as a scapegoat by autocratic dictators to focus their peoples' anger elsewhere. Anti-Israeli people believe it is Israeli policies that create the resentment among its neighbors. Obviously there is an element of truth to both, but extremists tend to believe one or the other. I believe it is primarily the former, and apparently so does Obama, which is implicitly a pro-Israeli stance.
"Standing up for Israel's security...we will continue to do these things."
That doesn't sound very anti-Semitic to me.
"Efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure."
Opponents of Israel are pursuing a strategy that results in the destruction of Israel not by military means, but by political and economic means. This is what Obama means by "delegitimize". The strategy in a nutshell is to isolate Israel in the same way that South Africa was isolated because of apartheid. Obama is aware of this strategy, which means he no doubt thinks like I do: that Israel shouldn't play right into the hands of the people who are using it. This means striking a balance between deterrence and use of force, and it means not deliberately provoking Muslims for no reason (IE expanding settlements).
"Symbolic actions in September won't create an independent state."
In September, the PA is going to submit to the UN assembly a vote that would create a Palestinian state. I'm not sure how the rules of the UN work so I'm not sure if they can legally do this or not. I'm not sure if the US can even veto this. We couldn't stop the PRC from taking the ROC's seat in the security council in the 1970's so we may not be able to stop this. It would be a major blow to Israel if it happens. It is a part of the delegitimization strategy that anti-Israeli activists have been pursuing.
"Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of violence and rejection...Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying Israel's right to exist."
Obama reaffirms that Hamas must renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist, and honor previous agreements. This is all very standard stuff.
"Our committment to Israel's security is unshakable, and we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums."
In other words, the US has and will veto UN resolutions that condemn Israel for this or that while allowing other nations to perpetrate far worse crimes with no mention.
"Israel must be able to defend itself, by itself, against any threat."
IE the US will continue to support the Israeli military.
"[Palestine should be a] sovereign, non-militarized state."
One of the sticky parts of establishing a Palestinian state is whether or not it gets to develop a military. Obviously the Israelis might be uncomfortable with that. Obama here is coming down squarely on Israel's side of the issue.
-------------------------------------------
There is lots of room for criticism over how Obama approached the Israeli-Palestinian question. The speech was decidedly unambitious and did not budge the status quo even a single iota. Everything in the speech was very standard, widely accepted stuff. Everyone* agrees that peace will come with a two-state solution. Everyone* agrees that the 1967 boundaries are the basis for the future borders. Everyone* agrees that Israel isn't going to take down their West Bank settlements, and so land-swaps are necessary. On the issues that people aren't sure about, such as over the status of Jerusalem or right-of-return for Palestinians, Obama just punted.
What there isn't any room for is criticism that Obama is anti-Israeli. And yet, the only thing I see plastered all over the front page of Fox News is precisely that. This is being echoed all over the conservative blogosphere. And you know what? I get it. I get why the Republicans are jumping all over this big lie. Their attempt at following through to the promises they made in the 2010 elections have been absolutely pathetic. They have been outfoxed by Obama and the Democrats at every turn. Boehner's 38 billion in "cuts" actually ended up increasing the deficit by 3 billion. Paul Ryan has been thrown under the bus by half of his party. The GOP will vote for the debt ceiling increase, but they will only get token cuts for it IF Obama is feeling generous. The GOP presidential candidates are all awful, save one or two who probably can't win a primary.
So like I said, I get it. We're going to hear over the next few weeks how Obama is a vicious anti-Semite, which fits in perfectly with accusation that Obama is also a secret anti-colonialist Muslim America-hater. Netanyahu is of course going to play along, just as a spoiled child will manipulate their divorced parents, and will cement himself in history as one of the most short-sighted Israeli leaders ever. But yea, anything to distract from the train wreck that has been the GOP agenda; I can't say I blame them for wanting something else to talk about. Whether or not there is any truth to what they are saying is irrelevant.
*When I say "everyone", what I mean is "reasonable people who we might listen to". There are lots of people who don't agree on a two-state solution, 1967 boundaries as a basis for that, and land swaps. These people are unreasonable, and should all be ignored. This includes, but is not limited to: Hamas and Islamic extremists, the international far-left extremists, ultra-right wing orthodox Jewish settlers in Israel, ultra-right wing evangelical Christians in the US. To name a few. None of these groups think there should be a compromise, just endless war until their side wins and the other side is dead.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Impressions from East Africa: historical development, communities, and finances
Imagine Tanzania in the year 1900. This is a land that is 50% larger than the state of Texas, supporting a population of maybe 3 million. There was no infrastructure, no centralized government, and really, no history of a centralized government. Contrast that to Qing China, the Manchurian dynasty which ruled China up to modern times. Qing China in 1900 was arguably still one of the great powers of the world even if it was quickly falling apart. Back then, the population of China was several hundreds of millions. There was a history of civilization going back four millennia and certainly a tradition of strong centralized government, despite the fact that China is so geographically large.
One of the things required to create a modern nation state and the appropriate institutions is a sufficient population density in the surrounding area. China apparently hit that necessary population density thousands of years ago, but we should remember that Tanzania was nowhere near that threshold even one hundred years ago. A great book that expounds on this topic is "Guns, Germs, and Steel" for anyone interested. Despite these great contrasts, GDP per person in China and Tanzania 30 years ago was not so different. The take-home point is this: strong economic and political development doesn't just happen by default. It can get hindered by any number of things.
Think back to Tanzania in 1900: sparsely populated, inaccessible, every community for themselves. These communities, like other small communities throughout history, would need to be close knit. Vertical ties may involve patronage from a chief or leader who has surplus resources. That leader can distribute those resources to neighbors and subordinates in order to strengthen ties and bonds between them. Horizontal ties would involve relationships between friends, relatives, and neighbors who are on equal footing. In a small self-sufficient society, it is all about hedging risk. Sometimes one family has a good hunt, or a good harvest. Another family may fail to find an animal, or will have crops which get killed by fungus. Obviously, if neighbors are willing to readily share everything they have, the risk gets hedged throughout the community as a whole and everyone is better off.
In a century, the population of Tanzania has increased by 10-fold or more. It has been thrown into the modern world, and expected to develop sound Western institutions of government. Are these aforementioned cultural survival traits just going to disappear in a single human lifetime? Vertical ties of patronage in 1900 are manifested in the modern world as endemic corruption. Horizontal ties between neighbors manifest as a lack of savings. Let me expound on this last point. When we were in Kenya, one Westerner was telling me that if any person makes money or has a big payday, they immediately go out and spend it on all of their friends at the bar or restaurant. An employee of this person didn't want to keep her money at her house. She was afraid a friend or family would ask for it, and she would be obligated to give it away. These two examples help illustrate a source of serious economic problems. Without savings, there can be no investment. Without investment, there is no productivity growth.
I do appreciate that this dynamic is a testament to the strength of the community in Tanzania and Kenya, which is a wonderful thing. I've figured out that it is a big part of the attraction that Colleen feels to east Africa. Really, it is the same for me. The palpable sense of community is something we just don't have in the West anymore for the most part, and its something one can never perceive from photos of Africa. One has to be there to feel that pulse. Not to denigrate my own culture, because I love the West and I think it is the pinnacle of human existence: but this resource-sharing dynamic in east Africa is more instinctively "normal", in the sense that humans are hard-wired to operate that way. Sharing of resources in small, close-knit communities has been the norm throughout human history.
The communal spirit is what enabled clans and small groups of people to survive, because everyone is hedging their successes and failures on their close relatives. Only with the advent of larger towns and cities using national currencies have people in the West in particular moved away from this. There is still an intense attraction to what they have in east Africa, because I believe our brains were designed to function in small communities like they have (and we used to have) instead of the relatively lonely and unfriendly places in which we live in the West. In fact I've read psychological studies which suggest that 150 people is the ideal community size for Homo sapiens; we can keep tabs on and socially interact with that many people.
The move from small self-sufficient community groups to larger cities and towns in the West occurred over an extended period of hundreds of years. This gradual transition allowed for the culture to adjust slowly. We were able to develop a norm of anti-corruption (even though it still happens everywhere). Since everyone was participating in government we began to think in terms of nation or kingdom instead of tribe or clan. Notice in places where political participation was forbidden by some group or another (Jews in Europe, African Americans in the USA) there remained into modern times sort of "tribal" (us versus them) schisms that we see in the news all the time in east Africa and are oh so shocked by. Tribal tendencies, xenophobia, racism - we are talking about the same thing. Barack Obama, show us your birth certificate!
Anyway. If I had one point to this post, I guess it would be this: many people look at the lack of economic development in Africa and think "what has gone wrong?" My reaction is completely different: How could they be anywhere else? There has been so much change in such a short amount of time in east Africa, there is just no way it could have happened smoothly. In east Africa we've been expecting them to make the sort of adjustments in 100 years that in the West we made over the last 700 and in China they made over the last 4,000. This isn't even adding in the complicated history of colonialism, the effect instability of neighbors has on local development, and the effect of poor government economic policies. I don't even need to think about colonialism to not be surprised by the current political and economic position in east Africa. Yet only 30 years ago China was every bit as poor as Tanzania. 70 years ago Italy still had endemic malaria, a high birth rate, and extremely high infant mortality. I don't know how the current situation could make anyone pessimistic about the future of Africa, because to me it makes perfect sense that Africans are where they are now given from where they have come.
Its all about where they are going, and I think the future is promising. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but its never smart to bet against humanity. Topic for another post.
One of the things required to create a modern nation state and the appropriate institutions is a sufficient population density in the surrounding area. China apparently hit that necessary population density thousands of years ago, but we should remember that Tanzania was nowhere near that threshold even one hundred years ago. A great book that expounds on this topic is "Guns, Germs, and Steel" for anyone interested. Despite these great contrasts, GDP per person in China and Tanzania 30 years ago was not so different. The take-home point is this: strong economic and political development doesn't just happen by default. It can get hindered by any number of things.
Think back to Tanzania in 1900: sparsely populated, inaccessible, every community for themselves. These communities, like other small communities throughout history, would need to be close knit. Vertical ties may involve patronage from a chief or leader who has surplus resources. That leader can distribute those resources to neighbors and subordinates in order to strengthen ties and bonds between them. Horizontal ties would involve relationships between friends, relatives, and neighbors who are on equal footing. In a small self-sufficient society, it is all about hedging risk. Sometimes one family has a good hunt, or a good harvest. Another family may fail to find an animal, or will have crops which get killed by fungus. Obviously, if neighbors are willing to readily share everything they have, the risk gets hedged throughout the community as a whole and everyone is better off.
In a century, the population of Tanzania has increased by 10-fold or more. It has been thrown into the modern world, and expected to develop sound Western institutions of government. Are these aforementioned cultural survival traits just going to disappear in a single human lifetime? Vertical ties of patronage in 1900 are manifested in the modern world as endemic corruption. Horizontal ties between neighbors manifest as a lack of savings. Let me expound on this last point. When we were in Kenya, one Westerner was telling me that if any person makes money or has a big payday, they immediately go out and spend it on all of their friends at the bar or restaurant. An employee of this person didn't want to keep her money at her house. She was afraid a friend or family would ask for it, and she would be obligated to give it away. These two examples help illustrate a source of serious economic problems. Without savings, there can be no investment. Without investment, there is no productivity growth.
I do appreciate that this dynamic is a testament to the strength of the community in Tanzania and Kenya, which is a wonderful thing. I've figured out that it is a big part of the attraction that Colleen feels to east Africa. Really, it is the same for me. The palpable sense of community is something we just don't have in the West anymore for the most part, and its something one can never perceive from photos of Africa. One has to be there to feel that pulse. Not to denigrate my own culture, because I love the West and I think it is the pinnacle of human existence: but this resource-sharing dynamic in east Africa is more instinctively "normal", in the sense that humans are hard-wired to operate that way. Sharing of resources in small, close-knit communities has been the norm throughout human history.
The communal spirit is what enabled clans and small groups of people to survive, because everyone is hedging their successes and failures on their close relatives. Only with the advent of larger towns and cities using national currencies have people in the West in particular moved away from this. There is still an intense attraction to what they have in east Africa, because I believe our brains were designed to function in small communities like they have (and we used to have) instead of the relatively lonely and unfriendly places in which we live in the West. In fact I've read psychological studies which suggest that 150 people is the ideal community size for Homo sapiens; we can keep tabs on and socially interact with that many people.
The move from small self-sufficient community groups to larger cities and towns in the West occurred over an extended period of hundreds of years. This gradual transition allowed for the culture to adjust slowly. We were able to develop a norm of anti-corruption (even though it still happens everywhere). Since everyone was participating in government we began to think in terms of nation or kingdom instead of tribe or clan. Notice in places where political participation was forbidden by some group or another (Jews in Europe, African Americans in the USA) there remained into modern times sort of "tribal" (us versus them) schisms that we see in the news all the time in east Africa and are oh so shocked by. Tribal tendencies, xenophobia, racism - we are talking about the same thing. Barack Obama, show us your birth certificate!
Anyway. If I had one point to this post, I guess it would be this: many people look at the lack of economic development in Africa and think "what has gone wrong?" My reaction is completely different: How could they be anywhere else? There has been so much change in such a short amount of time in east Africa, there is just no way it could have happened smoothly. In east Africa we've been expecting them to make the sort of adjustments in 100 years that in the West we made over the last 700 and in China they made over the last 4,000. This isn't even adding in the complicated history of colonialism, the effect instability of neighbors has on local development, and the effect of poor government economic policies. I don't even need to think about colonialism to not be surprised by the current political and economic position in east Africa. Yet only 30 years ago China was every bit as poor as Tanzania. 70 years ago Italy still had endemic malaria, a high birth rate, and extremely high infant mortality. I don't know how the current situation could make anyone pessimistic about the future of Africa, because to me it makes perfect sense that Africans are where they are now given from where they have come.
Its all about where they are going, and I think the future is promising. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but its never smart to bet against humanity. Topic for another post.
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Should we exit Afghanistan with dignity?
Really, the book "Nixon and Kissinger" should be required reading as the discussion about ending the war in Afghanistan starts to pick up. We should stay and fight in Afghanistan if we think our interests are at stake and we think we can win the war (however defined). By contrast, we should leave Afghanistan if our interests are no longer at stake, or if we don't believe there is a reasonable strategy through which a victory could be accomplished, given human and financial considerations. In other words, if we "win" by sacrificing thousands of soldiers' lives and trillions of dollars for meager gains, we didn't really win. We just lost in a different way.
What we should not do is stay and fight in Afghanistan so that we can "exit with dignity". That is exactly what Richard Nixon did in Vietnam. Nixon sacrificed the lives of thousands of US troops in a war that he knew we weren't going to win, and a war that he was actively terminating, because he did not want a stain on his honor (and we all know how important Nixonian honor turned out to be). We ended up losing Vietnam without dignity anyway, as the world quickly saw what a farce the face-saving agreement with the communists was. Remember helicopters evacuating the US embassy in Saigon?
The long term consequences of the US withdrawing from Vietnam without dignity were precisely nil. Nobody doubted our strength in the long-term, even if morale was sapped a bit in the short term. I would argue that morale would have been less damaged in Vietnam had we ended the war sooner and saved thousands of lives, though. Furthermore, from the perspective of credible military deterrence, America would be more feared by non-state Al Qaeda types if they believed we could get involved in effective short-term military operations without always settling down for a decade-long war.
The reason I brought this up was because I saw some candidates at the Fox News GOP Presidential Debate say that we should make sure we exit Afghanistan with dignity. The suggestion that the lives of US soldiers are worth less than such petty superficiality is nothing less than reprehensible. Any politician who places priority on such nonsense should send their sons to execute the last face-saving operations of the failing war. The politician who puffs their chest out and talks a tough game about "honor" and "dignity" when sending other peoples' children to fight and die is the worst sort of politician there is. I wish Americans could see through that garbage.
What we should not do is stay and fight in Afghanistan so that we can "exit with dignity". That is exactly what Richard Nixon did in Vietnam. Nixon sacrificed the lives of thousands of US troops in a war that he knew we weren't going to win, and a war that he was actively terminating, because he did not want a stain on his honor (and we all know how important Nixonian honor turned out to be). We ended up losing Vietnam without dignity anyway, as the world quickly saw what a farce the face-saving agreement with the communists was. Remember helicopters evacuating the US embassy in Saigon?
The long term consequences of the US withdrawing from Vietnam without dignity were precisely nil. Nobody doubted our strength in the long-term, even if morale was sapped a bit in the short term. I would argue that morale would have been less damaged in Vietnam had we ended the war sooner and saved thousands of lives, though. Furthermore, from the perspective of credible military deterrence, America would be more feared by non-state Al Qaeda types if they believed we could get involved in effective short-term military operations without always settling down for a decade-long war.
The reason I brought this up was because I saw some candidates at the Fox News GOP Presidential Debate say that we should make sure we exit Afghanistan with dignity. The suggestion that the lives of US soldiers are worth less than such petty superficiality is nothing less than reprehensible. Any politician who places priority on such nonsense should send their sons to execute the last face-saving operations of the failing war. The politician who puffs their chest out and talks a tough game about "honor" and "dignity" when sending other peoples' children to fight and die is the worst sort of politician there is. I wish Americans could see through that garbage.
Monday, April 18, 2011
The Ethanol Gridlock, and Orwellian Obama
The Economist had a good article a few weeks ago highlighting an anomaly: a case of "conservatives" like Grover Norquist (Americans for Tax Reform) defending big government. Every year, the United States spends billions of dollars to prop up the local ethanol industry with subsidies. At the same time, we impose a tariff on imported ethanol. The imported ethanol would mostly come from our Brazilian friends, who produce ethanol from sugarcane. In fact, Brazilian ethanol is at least 4 times more efficient than our corn-based stuff. That is why local ethanol producers need both help, in the form of subsidies, and hindrances on the competition, in the form of tariffs, to stay competitive at all.
These policies make Americans worse off in general, because we have to pay more for our ethanol (although that cost is hidden among government spending as a whole). Furthermore, corn prices are going up to never before seen levels, since we're converting so much of it to ethanol. The consequence has been devastating to people around the world, especially in nations poorer than our own. This is classic big government at its worst, and yet some of its most staunch defenders are conservatives. That such a no-brainer issue has been such a challenge to deal with is a discouraging foreshadowing of the spending battles to come. Big props to Republican Tom Coburn for fighting back against pseudo conservatives like Norquist, and trying to get this wasteful spending eliminated.
Ethanol subsidies are a form of tax expenditure, and eliminating these would save the federal government literally hundreds of billions of dollars. President Obama mentioned this as a goal in his budget speech the other night. Obama used the phrase "spending reductions in the tax code", in other words, reducing tax expenditures. Jon Stewart was making fun of Obama for using what he thought was Orwellian language to mask a call for tax increases in general, but Stewart misinterpreted what Obama was saying. Tax expenditures are just government spending by another name. Faux conservatives will try to obfuscate this point. They will accuse President Obama of trying to raise taxes, but he is really trying to eliminate big government subsidies. He is going to need all the help he can get, especially from honest Republicans like Tom Coburn.
These policies make Americans worse off in general, because we have to pay more for our ethanol (although that cost is hidden among government spending as a whole). Furthermore, corn prices are going up to never before seen levels, since we're converting so much of it to ethanol. The consequence has been devastating to people around the world, especially in nations poorer than our own. This is classic big government at its worst, and yet some of its most staunch defenders are conservatives. That such a no-brainer issue has been such a challenge to deal with is a discouraging foreshadowing of the spending battles to come. Big props to Republican Tom Coburn for fighting back against pseudo conservatives like Norquist, and trying to get this wasteful spending eliminated.
Ethanol subsidies are a form of tax expenditure, and eliminating these would save the federal government literally hundreds of billions of dollars. President Obama mentioned this as a goal in his budget speech the other night. Obama used the phrase "spending reductions in the tax code", in other words, reducing tax expenditures. Jon Stewart was making fun of Obama for using what he thought was Orwellian language to mask a call for tax increases in general, but Stewart misinterpreted what Obama was saying. Tax expenditures are just government spending by another name. Faux conservatives will try to obfuscate this point. They will accuse President Obama of trying to raise taxes, but he is really trying to eliminate big government subsidies. He is going to need all the help he can get, especially from honest Republicans like Tom Coburn.
Monday, April 11, 2011
The Republican Debt Ceiling Bluff
Last fall, Obama compromised with Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts for another two years. He was roundly criticized by the left for caving in to Republican demands. I actually thought Obama got a great deal when you consider how weak his negotiating position really was. An outcome of failed compromise was more tolerable to the GOP than it was to Obama, for various reasons, so he really couldn't force their hand on anything. Obama recognized his weak bargaining position, and took what he could get. It may not have been satisfying but it was the right move.
Fast forward to several weeks from now, when Republicans will apparently be "demanding fundamental changes in policy on health care, the environment, abortion rights and more, as the price of their support for raising the debt ceiling." This is code for Republican intent to defund planned parenthood and strip the EPA of regulatory authority. Contentious issues, no doubt, but they are also issues that don't really affect government spending. They are a partisan distraction.
In the coming battle over the debt ceiling, I don't think Republicans realize how weak their bargaining position actually will be. The fundamental problem for the GOP is that they control one house of congress, but not the other. Since they control the House, it is absolutely a foregone conclusion that the House GOP will, at some point, vote to raise the debt ceiling. Concessions by democrats or no, forcing the US government to default would be most intolerable to the GOP's powerful backers. Obama himself is shielded from the process because any bill will have to make it through the Democrat-controlled senate; a bill with lots of partisan riders won't pass. Even if the GOP managed to buy off some of the few remaining centrist democrats, there will be at least 41 liberal Democrats who would filibuster an intolerable GOP-sponsored bill.
In the context of failed negotiations, the end-game is this: the GOP-led house passes a bill with severe cuts and partisan riders while the Democrat-led senate passes a modest bill with a few token spending cuts. At that point it is a game of chicken to see who jumps first. Who fears a US government default more, the Republican Party or the 41 most liberal Democrats in the senate? Is it plausible that banks, corporations, and other business interests will tolerate a US government default over a petty battle about say planned parenthood? As the default deadline approached, the Republicans would be forced to pass the senate bill by overwhelming pressure from their powerful backers.
Conservatives, now more than ever, need to start looking for the pragmatic voices in the Republican Party to lead in these negotiations. I absolutely believe that if Republicans put partisan battles aside, Democrats would join them and real progress on spending could be made. There are tons of low-hanging fruits that could be plucked to get real reductions in government spending. I am not confident that the GOP can yet be led by pragmatists. I anticipate they will insist on continuing to fight distracting partisan battles. If Republicans charge into this looking to win a political fight, they may be dealt a defeat of staggering proportions when the Democrats call their bluff.
Fast forward to several weeks from now, when Republicans will apparently be "demanding fundamental changes in policy on health care, the environment, abortion rights and more, as the price of their support for raising the debt ceiling." This is code for Republican intent to defund planned parenthood and strip the EPA of regulatory authority. Contentious issues, no doubt, but they are also issues that don't really affect government spending. They are a partisan distraction.
In the coming battle over the debt ceiling, I don't think Republicans realize how weak their bargaining position actually will be. The fundamental problem for the GOP is that they control one house of congress, but not the other. Since they control the House, it is absolutely a foregone conclusion that the House GOP will, at some point, vote to raise the debt ceiling. Concessions by democrats or no, forcing the US government to default would be most intolerable to the GOP's powerful backers. Obama himself is shielded from the process because any bill will have to make it through the Democrat-controlled senate; a bill with lots of partisan riders won't pass. Even if the GOP managed to buy off some of the few remaining centrist democrats, there will be at least 41 liberal Democrats who would filibuster an intolerable GOP-sponsored bill.
In the context of failed negotiations, the end-game is this: the GOP-led house passes a bill with severe cuts and partisan riders while the Democrat-led senate passes a modest bill with a few token spending cuts. At that point it is a game of chicken to see who jumps first. Who fears a US government default more, the Republican Party or the 41 most liberal Democrats in the senate? Is it plausible that banks, corporations, and other business interests will tolerate a US government default over a petty battle about say planned parenthood? As the default deadline approached, the Republicans would be forced to pass the senate bill by overwhelming pressure from their powerful backers.
Conservatives, now more than ever, need to start looking for the pragmatic voices in the Republican Party to lead in these negotiations. I absolutely believe that if Republicans put partisan battles aside, Democrats would join them and real progress on spending could be made. There are tons of low-hanging fruits that could be plucked to get real reductions in government spending. I am not confident that the GOP can yet be led by pragmatists. I anticipate they will insist on continuing to fight distracting partisan battles. If Republicans charge into this looking to win a political fight, they may be dealt a defeat of staggering proportions when the Democrats call their bluff.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Privatize Medicare?
I applaud Paul Ryan for having the guts to propose a drastic solution to our long term fiscal problem. That being said, I think his plan misses the mark. People have looked at the case of Medicare Advantage as a proxy for the effect of health care costs when using a voucher system. They've found that costs are not controlled in such circumstances. So there is no reason to think that privatizing medicare would actually slow growth in spending.
Remember: it is not medicare that is the problem, it's the fact that health spending is growing faster than the economy as a whole. If you could bring those two into line, medicare would be fine. The other problem with the Ryan plan is that the idea of privatizing medicare will be very politically toxic which will make it almost a non-starter. Any real solution to our fiscal mess needs to be politically viable.
As I've said before, Obama's ACA addresses the problem of access to health care, but does not reform the way we deliver health care. I'd love to see the Republicans and Obama agree to sit down and work on the ACA to include more cost-control measures. Obama would go along with it, no doubt, because with a bipartisan stamp of approval his bill would be implemented, Americans would get universal coverage, and the system would be sustainable. Republicans should go along with it because that is the only real shot we have to "bend the medicare cost-curve".
Yea, I'm still naive.
Remember: it is not medicare that is the problem, it's the fact that health spending is growing faster than the economy as a whole. If you could bring those two into line, medicare would be fine. The other problem with the Ryan plan is that the idea of privatizing medicare will be very politically toxic which will make it almost a non-starter. Any real solution to our fiscal mess needs to be politically viable.
As I've said before, Obama's ACA addresses the problem of access to health care, but does not reform the way we deliver health care. I'd love to see the Republicans and Obama agree to sit down and work on the ACA to include more cost-control measures. Obama would go along with it, no doubt, because with a bipartisan stamp of approval his bill would be implemented, Americans would get universal coverage, and the system would be sustainable. Republicans should go along with it because that is the only real shot we have to "bend the medicare cost-curve".
Yea, I'm still naive.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Intervention in Libya, Intervention in Congo
A lot of people have questioned why we intervene in Libya and not in places like the Congo, where civil war has resulted in the deaths of millions of people. The answer is that the nature of the threat to civilians in general is completely different. A useful analogy: if you have a gun, you can use it to protect your child from a wolf, but not from disease-carrying mosquitoes.
What is happening in the Congo and in many other failed states is a tragedy, but its very difficult for outsiders to stop the sort of low-tech civil war that goes on in places like that. The only real way to do it is to send massive numbers of US ground troops to impose order, and even then its very difficult and politically risky. There are situations in which it should be done anyway (Rwanda) but its easy to see that building up the political momentum for that kind of a mission might take longer than the conflict lasts.
By contrast, it is very easy for the US to stop civilian deaths if we can focus our efforts on a few targets, IE high-tech military forces like tanks and airplanes. Our military is built to deal with such threats. We can get there really quickly, because we have carriers all over the world. It is also far easier to secure political backing for such sorts of missions, since the risks are far lower.
Anyway, I do think that this effort has a reasonable shot at working. If you break the back of Qaddafi's military forces, and get a stalemate, then its just a war of attrition. If we are serious about getting him out, at that point we just impose an embargo on his oil exports and starve him out. Once his cronies realize the money well has dried up they will turn on him.
It is nice to dream of a world where our interventions are purely based on the gravity of the situation in the affected nation, but the reality is we have to pick our battles. We simply don't have the ground forces or the money to occupy every troubled spot in the world. But we do have an military that is really, really good at blowing up enemy tanks and airplanes. So if those are the weapons that a dictator chooses to use to kill his civilians, why not neutralize them?
What is happening in the Congo and in many other failed states is a tragedy, but its very difficult for outsiders to stop the sort of low-tech civil war that goes on in places like that. The only real way to do it is to send massive numbers of US ground troops to impose order, and even then its very difficult and politically risky. There are situations in which it should be done anyway (Rwanda) but its easy to see that building up the political momentum for that kind of a mission might take longer than the conflict lasts.
By contrast, it is very easy for the US to stop civilian deaths if we can focus our efforts on a few targets, IE high-tech military forces like tanks and airplanes. Our military is built to deal with such threats. We can get there really quickly, because we have carriers all over the world. It is also far easier to secure political backing for such sorts of missions, since the risks are far lower.
Anyway, I do think that this effort has a reasonable shot at working. If you break the back of Qaddafi's military forces, and get a stalemate, then its just a war of attrition. If we are serious about getting him out, at that point we just impose an embargo on his oil exports and starve him out. Once his cronies realize the money well has dried up they will turn on him.
It is nice to dream of a world where our interventions are purely based on the gravity of the situation in the affected nation, but the reality is we have to pick our battles. We simply don't have the ground forces or the money to occupy every troubled spot in the world. But we do have an military that is really, really good at blowing up enemy tanks and airplanes. So if those are the weapons that a dictator chooses to use to kill his civilians, why not neutralize them?
Monday, March 14, 2011
First Teachers, then Physicians?
If you view our governmental system as nothing more than a long protracted partisan war, I think the actions of Republicans make a lot of sense. Budgets need to be balanced, so why not make your political enemies foot the bill while letting allies off the hook? Teachers traditionally vote Democratic and their unions are a huge boon to Dem politics, so the GOP has come after them. I worry about this sort of 'trade warfare' as an American and as a future physician. I could be wrong, but my suspicion is that physicians as a group generally vote Republican. What if some hypothetical future extreme Democratic Party comes to power, looks at explosive health costs and deficits, notices that physicians support Republicans, and decide to punish us for it? They could simply block the medicare doc fix, or worse.
I resent the idea that one group should be faced with a disproportionate share of a social burden because they are on the losing side of politics. It is not unreasonable to expect sacrifice from public employees - and it looks like they were prepared to sacrifice in Wisconsin. At the same time, is gutting education spending the best way to secure our nation's long term prosperity? (If it was up to me, we'd cut teacher unions and tenure, but expand benefits and pay such as to make teaching jobs more competitive). There are more millionaires in New Jersey than teachers. There are other forms of public spending, including inefficient subsidies to various industries. There are of course costly entitlements, and the military. These dwarf our education spending in scale.
If Republicans are serious about improving our deficit situation, they need to do more than pay lip service to the notion of shared sacrifice. Focused partisan assaults on a few groups will never be accepted as fair. Any gains will be only temporary, and will simply be undone in the next electoral cycle. To make sustainable changes, changes that are accepted as fair by both political parties and thus not likely to be reversed, Republicans will need to cut government spending in all areas. They may have to injure some political allies in the process. That is the nature of compromise. Without mature leaders who were willing to compromise, our nation wouldn't exist; without them going forward, our nation won't exist.
I resent the idea that one group should be faced with a disproportionate share of a social burden because they are on the losing side of politics. It is not unreasonable to expect sacrifice from public employees - and it looks like they were prepared to sacrifice in Wisconsin. At the same time, is gutting education spending the best way to secure our nation's long term prosperity? (If it was up to me, we'd cut teacher unions and tenure, but expand benefits and pay such as to make teaching jobs more competitive). There are more millionaires in New Jersey than teachers. There are other forms of public spending, including inefficient subsidies to various industries. There are of course costly entitlements, and the military. These dwarf our education spending in scale.
If Republicans are serious about improving our deficit situation, they need to do more than pay lip service to the notion of shared sacrifice. Focused partisan assaults on a few groups will never be accepted as fair. Any gains will be only temporary, and will simply be undone in the next electoral cycle. To make sustainable changes, changes that are accepted as fair by both political parties and thus not likely to be reversed, Republicans will need to cut government spending in all areas. They may have to injure some political allies in the process. That is the nature of compromise. Without mature leaders who were willing to compromise, our nation wouldn't exist; without them going forward, our nation won't exist.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
the State of the Republican Party
Mitch Daniels, the effective governor of Indiana, recently wrote an op-ed. He went into detail about how serious the economic situation of America is, and how important it is that we lay a strong foundation for growth in the future while reducing our debts. I think all Americans agree that these are the most important challenges facing our nation, and that sentiment is why the Republican Party won a landslide election in November. To accomplish these challenges, Daniels proposed that we called a temporary truce on contentious issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc so we can focus on the economy. Leave culture warrior issues for another day.
Since taking the House of Representatives, what have the Republicans focused on? Most of their efforts have been spent redefining what "rape" actually is so they can try to restrict abortion rights for poor women (which is silly anyway, because poor women can still get food stamps or welfare, so money not spent on food and housing can go towards abortions). They've also expended a huge amount of effort trying to put in constitutional amendments to define "marriage" as between a man and a woman. From an economic standpoint, the only thing the GOP has done is promised to cut 32 billion or so in spending this year. That amounts to roughly 0.9 % of our yearly federal budget.
Republicans came to office in November promising to focus on jobs and the economy, to reduce the size of government, to balance the budget. They've done none of these things, and I don't have much hope that they will. They've fallen back on the old battles that the Bush administration focused on while the country melted all around him. My skepticism vis a vis the new libertarian-conservative revival of the Republican Party that we saw last year seems to have been well placed, unfortunately.
Since taking the House of Representatives, what have the Republicans focused on? Most of their efforts have been spent redefining what "rape" actually is so they can try to restrict abortion rights for poor women (which is silly anyway, because poor women can still get food stamps or welfare, so money not spent on food and housing can go towards abortions). They've also expended a huge amount of effort trying to put in constitutional amendments to define "marriage" as between a man and a woman. From an economic standpoint, the only thing the GOP has done is promised to cut 32 billion or so in spending this year. That amounts to roughly 0.9 % of our yearly federal budget.
Republicans came to office in November promising to focus on jobs and the economy, to reduce the size of government, to balance the budget. They've done none of these things, and I don't have much hope that they will. They've fallen back on the old battles that the Bush administration focused on while the country melted all around him. My skepticism vis a vis the new libertarian-conservative revival of the Republican Party that we saw last year seems to have been well placed, unfortunately.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Purging the moderates
I was thinking the other day about something that I think has pretty important implications, and so I am going to write it down. There were many reasons why I voted for Obama in 2008, but one of them was particularly relevant for conservatives. I've always considered myself slightly right of center, but I had grown to be so disgusted with the Republican party that I considered electing Obama to be an important repudiation of those policies. I mean here we have the "party of small government and fiscal conservatism" turning a surplus into a deficit, expanding unfunded entitlements, engaging in reckless and often aimless foreign policy...it was precisely the opposite of what "conservative" means to me. And so I told many of my friends and family in 2008, especially conservatives - vote for Obama to show the GOP how disgusted you are with them.
The problem is that over the last two years the GOP hasn't learned the lessons that I wanted them to learn. They've simply gone after the easy solutions and talking points and avoided the tough questions. The real issue Republicans should be grappling with is how we can efficiently reform our health care system...how can we reform medicare, can we privatize or reform social security? How can we moderate our foreign policy aims? These are all very, very tough questions. These questions would require very intelligent people to grapple with in an effective way. But instead of doing that, who do we have? Well, most prominently we have Sarah Palin.
She is a know-nothing, and she is a perfect metaphor for the entire GOP "revival" in the last two years. The new batch of tea-party Republicans know how to get votes by appealing to religion and xenophobia, but they have no real ideas. They've retrenched into the worst excesses of the Bush era but have learned none of the lessons of Bush's mistakes. They are going to waltz into power November 2nd, and suddenly realize how none of them has the intelligence or the political courage to even begin to come close to grappling with some of our serious problems. The most they will do is cut taxes for the wealthy and defund Obamacare - both of which will actually worsen our deficit woes. No doubt, it IS a big step backward. And this is NOT what I had in mind when I wanted to vote for Obama to teach the Republicans a lesson. They've learned all the wrong lessons.
Anyway, the main point of this article is this insight I had. I was thinking about how Mitch Daniels basically got the smack-down by the conservative establishment for proposing a value-added tax. A VAT or consumption tax would actually be a pretty effective tax because it would provide lots of revenue, could be manipulated to be progressive, but wouldn't penalize investment and saving. But anything with the word "tax" is anathema to today's conservatives, so Daniels got put in his place.
I was thinking to myself how sad it is that an entire political movement could have become so close minded and outright committed to group-think. But you know what? That is the exact same thing I thought about Democrats in 2005. I used to HATE reading progressive blogs because I found them nauseating. Anyone who so much as lifted a toe out of the accepted "party line" was immediately put back into place. I used to think that was such a great sign of intellectual weakness.
I suppose I haven't been alive long enough to really draw a correlation here, but maybe that is what parties who are out of power do. They retract into a shell, where they coalesce around their more radical ideas and shun anyone who speaks of compromise. Even when they are out of power, they become more ridiculous, more insular, and more radical. Which, intuitively, would make them STAY out of power if everyone voted like me. But I guess what they are doing is waiting until the party that is IN power screws up badly enough that they win it back by default. I guess thats the state of our political system.
This insight was oddly comforting.
The problem is that over the last two years the GOP hasn't learned the lessons that I wanted them to learn. They've simply gone after the easy solutions and talking points and avoided the tough questions. The real issue Republicans should be grappling with is how we can efficiently reform our health care system...how can we reform medicare, can we privatize or reform social security? How can we moderate our foreign policy aims? These are all very, very tough questions. These questions would require very intelligent people to grapple with in an effective way. But instead of doing that, who do we have? Well, most prominently we have Sarah Palin.
She is a know-nothing, and she is a perfect metaphor for the entire GOP "revival" in the last two years. The new batch of tea-party Republicans know how to get votes by appealing to religion and xenophobia, but they have no real ideas. They've retrenched into the worst excesses of the Bush era but have learned none of the lessons of Bush's mistakes. They are going to waltz into power November 2nd, and suddenly realize how none of them has the intelligence or the political courage to even begin to come close to grappling with some of our serious problems. The most they will do is cut taxes for the wealthy and defund Obamacare - both of which will actually worsen our deficit woes. No doubt, it IS a big step backward. And this is NOT what I had in mind when I wanted to vote for Obama to teach the Republicans a lesson. They've learned all the wrong lessons.
Anyway, the main point of this article is this insight I had. I was thinking about how Mitch Daniels basically got the smack-down by the conservative establishment for proposing a value-added tax. A VAT or consumption tax would actually be a pretty effective tax because it would provide lots of revenue, could be manipulated to be progressive, but wouldn't penalize investment and saving. But anything with the word "tax" is anathema to today's conservatives, so Daniels got put in his place.
I was thinking to myself how sad it is that an entire political movement could have become so close minded and outright committed to group-think. But you know what? That is the exact same thing I thought about Democrats in 2005. I used to HATE reading progressive blogs because I found them nauseating. Anyone who so much as lifted a toe out of the accepted "party line" was immediately put back into place. I used to think that was such a great sign of intellectual weakness.
I suppose I haven't been alive long enough to really draw a correlation here, but maybe that is what parties who are out of power do. They retract into a shell, where they coalesce around their more radical ideas and shun anyone who speaks of compromise. Even when they are out of power, they become more ridiculous, more insular, and more radical. Which, intuitively, would make them STAY out of power if everyone voted like me. But I guess what they are doing is waiting until the party that is IN power screws up badly enough that they win it back by default. I guess thats the state of our political system.
This insight was oddly comforting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)