Never try to explain to a Democrat how not soaking "the rich" is good--it wastes your time and annoys the Democrat.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Comment on preceeding article
From a comment attached to the preceding article:
Recommended: America Needs a 12-Step Recovery Program
Also in Forbes Dec 13, 2010 is a good article by Rich Karlgaard (publisher of Forbes), America Needs a 12-Step Recovery Program. The allusion to the Alcoholics Anonymous program is not incidental, since as a nation we are clearly addicted to a number of unhealthy things, like debt-financed social programs and Middle Eastern oil. Karlgaards suggestions make sense to me. The question is how can we get a ruling elite in Washington to ever enact any of these policies?
Recommended: The Bush Tax Cuts Were (Very Mildly) Progressive
Forbes has an interesting article entitled The Bush Tax Cuts Were (Very Mildly) Progressive. The author, Clifford Asness, says at the start
In fact, taxes have to increase (and government spending has to be reduced) if we are to avoid a catastrophic failure of our national finances. There is a valid argument against raising the taxes in the middle of an economic recession, but that excuse only lasts for the next year or two. Where is the plan to raise taxes and cut spending after that?
There is a perception that the Bush income tax cuts were a massive gift to the wealthy. Well, that's kind of true. But along with that perception seems to come the notion that they were massively regressive, benefiting the wealthy at the expense of the middle-class and poor. That's just not true.Jingoism unsupported by facts seems to be the currency of politics, I guess because most people are easily seduced by simple ideas, especially if they fit their preconceived beliefs or political philosophy. This is certainly evident in the current tax debate, which seems to be almost completely fact-free. Asness does the math in this article (which will lose the 90% of the population that are math-illiterate) to prove his point.
In fact, taxes have to increase (and government spending has to be reduced) if we are to avoid a catastrophic failure of our national finances. There is a valid argument against raising the taxes in the middle of an economic recession, but that excuse only lasts for the next year or two. Where is the plan to raise taxes and cut spending after that?
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Recommended: Why Not Soak the Rich?
Victor Davis Hanson had a good post yesterday entitled Why Not Soak the Rich? He asks why the number $250,000 was picked to become the dividing line in the new class warfare. Is that magic number what really discriminates between "the rich" and "the rest of us"? Worth reading and thinking about.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Ineffectiveness
Walter Russel Mead has a piece in The American Interest, Bureaucrats Swindle Greens in Cancun, in which he argues that Cancun was a win only for UN bureaucrats, who can keep the "process" going (more all-expense paid trips, more jobs) even though they are doing nothing effective about the underlying problem. The piece is worth reading in its own right, but it made me stop for a moment and re-asses how effective the US government has been over the past couple of decades at addressing any of the major issues of the day.
To my way of thinking , the US faces at least six major long-term issues these days (the current economic problems are not included because, bad as they are, they are relatively short-term issue, though they have an impact on long-term issues). Most of these issues are faced by other nations as well, but the issues of particular concern to the US include :
1) Unsustainable government debt at all levels, national state and local.
2) Climate change.
3) Over-dependence on non-renewable fossil fuels.
4) Impending water shortages.
5) Terrorism in a modern society whose infrastructure is highly vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
6) Nuclear proliferation among rogue nations or nations unfriendly to the US.
Now think, has anything truly effective been done about any of these six issues in the past two decades, under either Republicans or Democrats? I can't think of any effective steps that have been taken -- lots of symbolic steps, pledges, rhetoric and campaign promises, but no effective steps I can think of.
There certainly haven't been any effective steps taken on the debt crisis in the US. Indeed, the bipartisan agreement on tax cuts just negotiated between Obama and the Republicans just makes the debt problem $900 billion worse.
Climate change is a joke. The Kyoto agreement, weak and ineffective as it was, wasn't followed even by the nations that signed it, and now is effectively dead with nothing to replace it. And the US can't seem to do anything meaningful to help.
On the issue of our dependence on oil nothing effective has yet been done. Oh, we subsidize ethanol production (which takes more oil energy to produce than it replaces, but subsidizes corn-belt farmers and their politicians) and build a few wind farms. But we have yet to do anything that would have a significant impact on the problem.
The water shortage problem hasn't even gotten on the US political radar yet, even though we have major cities on the verge of water shortages, and a major battle in California's central valley over water rights.
About terrorism, as far as I can tell our adventures in Afghanistan just moved Bin Laden's organization to Pakistan and Yemen, and all our Iraq adventure has done (besides cost us a fortune and a lot of American lives) is to remove pressure from Iran and help recruit more terrorists. The massive new Homeland Security bureaucracy has proved even more cumbersome and expensive, and somewhat less effective, than the array of agencies it replaced.
And on nuclear proliferation, nothing we have done has stopped India, Pakistan, North Korea or Iran in their (largely successful) efforts to master nuclear weapon technology.
Yes, one can point to the occasional small gain here or there on these issues, but nothing that has actually significantly reduced the magnitude of any of these problems. I conclude from this that the current political system - Republican and Democratic alike - is simply not up to the task of addressing today's major issues. It may be time to start thinking about a wholesale replacement of the current political establishment with a third party. (and no, I don't think the Tea Party is the best candidate for this).
To my way of thinking , the US faces at least six major long-term issues these days (the current economic problems are not included because, bad as they are, they are relatively short-term issue, though they have an impact on long-term issues). Most of these issues are faced by other nations as well, but the issues of particular concern to the US include :
1) Unsustainable government debt at all levels, national state and local.
2) Climate change.
3) Over-dependence on non-renewable fossil fuels.
4) Impending water shortages.
5) Terrorism in a modern society whose infrastructure is highly vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
6) Nuclear proliferation among rogue nations or nations unfriendly to the US.
Now think, has anything truly effective been done about any of these six issues in the past two decades, under either Republicans or Democrats? I can't think of any effective steps that have been taken -- lots of symbolic steps, pledges, rhetoric and campaign promises, but no effective steps I can think of.
There certainly haven't been any effective steps taken on the debt crisis in the US. Indeed, the bipartisan agreement on tax cuts just negotiated between Obama and the Republicans just makes the debt problem $900 billion worse.
Climate change is a joke. The Kyoto agreement, weak and ineffective as it was, wasn't followed even by the nations that signed it, and now is effectively dead with nothing to replace it. And the US can't seem to do anything meaningful to help.
On the issue of our dependence on oil nothing effective has yet been done. Oh, we subsidize ethanol production (which takes more oil energy to produce than it replaces, but subsidizes corn-belt farmers and their politicians) and build a few wind farms. But we have yet to do anything that would have a significant impact on the problem.
The water shortage problem hasn't even gotten on the US political radar yet, even though we have major cities on the verge of water shortages, and a major battle in California's central valley over water rights.
About terrorism, as far as I can tell our adventures in Afghanistan just moved Bin Laden's organization to Pakistan and Yemen, and all our Iraq adventure has done (besides cost us a fortune and a lot of American lives) is to remove pressure from Iran and help recruit more terrorists. The massive new Homeland Security bureaucracy has proved even more cumbersome and expensive, and somewhat less effective, than the array of agencies it replaced.
And on nuclear proliferation, nothing we have done has stopped India, Pakistan, North Korea or Iran in their (largely successful) efforts to master nuclear weapon technology.
Yes, one can point to the occasional small gain here or there on these issues, but nothing that has actually significantly reduced the magnitude of any of these problems. I conclude from this that the current political system - Republican and Democratic alike - is simply not up to the task of addressing today's major issues. It may be time to start thinking about a wholesale replacement of the current political establishment with a third party. (and no, I don't think the Tea Party is the best candidate for this).
Recommended: Democrat's Existential Debt Problem
David Paul Kuhn has an interesting article, Democrat's Existential Debt Problem, over on the RealClearPolitics site. He argues that while Republicans have been in the lead (rhetorically, at least) in arguing for the importance of reducing the nation's debt load, it is Democrats who are most at risk from debt problem, and it is Democrats who - if they were wise - would press hardest for debt reduction, because it is progressive social programs like Social Security and Medicare and the health bill and union pensions that are most likely to be cut in a debt crisis.
I made a similar argument a few days ago in one of my posts - liberals ought to care passionately about the nation's economic health because business is the ultimate source of the revenue needed to sustain their social programs. But I see no sign yet that Democrats understand that.
I made a similar argument a few days ago in one of my posts - liberals ought to care passionately about the nation's economic health because business is the ultimate source of the revenue needed to sustain their social programs. But I see no sign yet that Democrats understand that.
Recommended: Reality Check
Thomas Friedman's Op Ed in the Dec 11, 2010 New York Times is right on. The article, Reality Check, argues that the U.S. can do nothing to help the Israel-Palestine problem until the two sides themselves decide to negotiate seriously. Until then, U.S. aid just perpetuates the illusion on both sides that they can wait until the U.S. makes a better offer, and by the way avoid having to deal with their own people. It is a well-argued thesis, I think it is right, and I wonder why after some 50 years of American negotiators and presidents trying fruitlessly to get the two sides to agree on something we haven't learned that it is useless. (Einstein: Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results). Until they themselves want an agreement, it isn't going to happen. And they may never want an agreement - more fools they.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Recommended: Voyager: Seeking Newer Worlds in the Third Great Age of Discovery
Voyager: Seeking Newer Worlds in the Third Great Age of Discovery, by Stephne Pyne is a wonderful book and I highly recommend it.
The Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft are the first man-made objects to escape the gravitational pull of the sun and begin to travel to the stars. In their journey they have done a “Grand Tour” of the outer planets and sent back enough new data on them to keep astronomers busy for a lifetime. Pyne tells the story of these remarkable spacecraft, from the early political and scientific battles to fund them through to their last planetary encounter, though they are still operating and sending data back and may continue to do so until about 2020. He sets their exploration of the solar system in the context of the two previous great ages of exploration, the First Age led by intrepid Portuguese explorers at the time of the Renaissance and the Second Age, in the 18th century, that coincided with the Enlightenment. This is a wonderful book, part science and part history/philosophy, that shows the continuity of today’s explorations of space with previous periods of great explorations.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Recommended: The Crisis of the American Intellectual
Walter Russel Mead has a fascination post today on The American Interest site entitled The Crisis of the American Intellectual. Well worth reading and pondering.
Recommended: Obamanomics Takes a Holiday
Along the same lines, it is worth reading the Op Ed in today's Wall Street Journal entitled Obamanomics Takes a Holiday. Also the article referenced in it entitled The Bush Tax Cuts Never Went Far Enough.
One of the major differences between the political parties is their attitude toward taxes. Republicans want (in theory) lower taxes and smaller government. Democrats want (again, in theory) more government services and income redistribution, of necessity paid for by higher taxes. And overlaid on these ideological differences is the short-term question of how best to stimulate the economy and create jobs in the current recession.
Democrats persist in thinking (or at least in arguing to their supporters) that if we would only tax the rich more, and tax "rich" corporations more, we could pay for all the lovely liberal government programs they would like. Republicans persist in believing that cutting taxes solves all economic problems. Both views have kernels of truth, but both are naive oversimplifications.
In fact the wealthiest 1 percent of the population already pay about 37 percent of the total personal income tax. The top 10 percent pay about 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—pay just 3 percent of the taxes. So in fact the rich are already being soaked. But it is in general only the rich (or at least those above the median income level) who have enough discretionary money to invest in businesses, which are the economic engine of the country and the ultimate source of government revenue, so money extracted from them for taxes is not available for investment. Supporters of taxing the rich more argue that the rich "save" most of their untaxed money, rather than "spending" it to drive the economy, so that tax cuts to the rich are less effective as an immediate economic stimulus, which is true. But what does "save" really mean? It means they invest most of it, either directly or through banks or funds, which creates more business and more jobs in the long run.
As for the Republican argument, it is true that higher tax rates have a negative effect on the economy. For businesses, taxes are an expense, and the higher their expenses the less competitive they are in the world market. For individuals, taxes reduce their discretionary income and hence their purchases, which in turn reduces the volume of the economy. On the other hand, the government needs revenue to do the things the electorate would like them to do (like maintaining the streets and protecting the nation). If we don't tax enough to do these things the government's only alternative is to borrow money, which is what has gotten us into this fiscal mess in the first place.
The issue of tax rates cannot be separated from the question of what services the government will provide. If we want more services, we need to tax more to pay for them, but that impacts the economy and ultimately reduces tax revenue. But if we want less taxes, then we need to reduce the services the government provides us, so that the government can pay for the remaining services with the reduced tax revenue it is receiving. (this isn't rocket science, but most politicians act as if they don't understand this).
So rather than argue about tax rates, we really ought to be arguing about which government services, at what level, we are willing to pay for -- that will determine the optimal tax rate. And clearly, since at any tax rate government revenue is tied directly to the size and health of the economy, first priority ought to logically go to government services that support, sustain, encourage and promote private enterprise and jobs - the ultimate source of government revenue.
One of the major differences between the political parties is their attitude toward taxes. Republicans want (in theory) lower taxes and smaller government. Democrats want (again, in theory) more government services and income redistribution, of necessity paid for by higher taxes. And overlaid on these ideological differences is the short-term question of how best to stimulate the economy and create jobs in the current recession.
Democrats persist in thinking (or at least in arguing to their supporters) that if we would only tax the rich more, and tax "rich" corporations more, we could pay for all the lovely liberal government programs they would like. Republicans persist in believing that cutting taxes solves all economic problems. Both views have kernels of truth, but both are naive oversimplifications.
In fact the wealthiest 1 percent of the population already pay about 37 percent of the total personal income tax. The top 10 percent pay about 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—pay just 3 percent of the taxes. So in fact the rich are already being soaked. But it is in general only the rich (or at least those above the median income level) who have enough discretionary money to invest in businesses, which are the economic engine of the country and the ultimate source of government revenue, so money extracted from them for taxes is not available for investment. Supporters of taxing the rich more argue that the rich "save" most of their untaxed money, rather than "spending" it to drive the economy, so that tax cuts to the rich are less effective as an immediate economic stimulus, which is true. But what does "save" really mean? It means they invest most of it, either directly or through banks or funds, which creates more business and more jobs in the long run.
As for the Republican argument, it is true that higher tax rates have a negative effect on the economy. For businesses, taxes are an expense, and the higher their expenses the less competitive they are in the world market. For individuals, taxes reduce their discretionary income and hence their purchases, which in turn reduces the volume of the economy. On the other hand, the government needs revenue to do the things the electorate would like them to do (like maintaining the streets and protecting the nation). If we don't tax enough to do these things the government's only alternative is to borrow money, which is what has gotten us into this fiscal mess in the first place.
The issue of tax rates cannot be separated from the question of what services the government will provide. If we want more services, we need to tax more to pay for them, but that impacts the economy and ultimately reduces tax revenue. But if we want less taxes, then we need to reduce the services the government provides us, so that the government can pay for the remaining services with the reduced tax revenue it is receiving. (this isn't rocket science, but most politicians act as if they don't understand this).
So rather than argue about tax rates, we really ought to be arguing about which government services, at what level, we are willing to pay for -- that will determine the optimal tax rate. And clearly, since at any tax rate government revenue is tied directly to the size and health of the economy, first priority ought to logically go to government services that support, sustain, encourage and promote private enterprise and jobs - the ultimate source of government revenue.
Bipartisonship?
Politics has been described as the art of compromise - two sides each give a little and get a little, and while the result isn't what either side would like ideally, at least something gets done. During the Presidential campaign Obama promised repeatedly that his Democratic administration would focus on bipartisanship.
Well, after two years of Democrats ramming bills through Congress without consulting Republicans, and Republicans saying "No" to anything the Democrats propose (even ideas they themselves had proposed earlier), we now finally have a truly bipartisan bill to extend the Bush era tax cut and unemployment insurance. And what is happening? A large number of Democrats, especially in the House, are furious and threatening not to support the bill because it has compromises! The right wing of the Republican party is, of course, famous for demanding ideological "purity", even if it means they lose elections. Apparently Democrats suffer from this same insanity.
Well, after two years of Democrats ramming bills through Congress without consulting Republicans, and Republicans saying "No" to anything the Democrats propose (even ideas they themselves had proposed earlier), we now finally have a truly bipartisan bill to extend the Bush era tax cut and unemployment insurance. And what is happening? A large number of Democrats, especially in the House, are furious and threatening not to support the bill because it has compromises! The right wing of the Republican party is, of course, famous for demanding ideological "purity", even if it means they lose elections. Apparently Democrats suffer from this same insanity.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Where is reality in today's politics?
If one reads through the current writings of the various Op Ed writers and popular bloggers, one gets two conflicting messages, depending on the political persuasion of the writer:
- President Obama and the Democrats are in trouble because they aren’t standing up strongly enough for their liberal beliefs. They should have held out for the public option in the health care bill. In the midterm elections, they should have run proudly on passing the health care bill. In the current negotiations on extending the Bush-era tax cuts, they should block any bill that includes an extension of the tax cuts for the rich. They should push to make America more like Europe, with a wider government safety net and tighter government regulations. They should address the growing economic disparity between the wealthy and the middle class.
- President Obama and the Democrats are in trouble because their liberal ideas are too liberal for a nation which most polls reveal is really center-right in outlook. They should have focused more on repairing the economy and stimulating business, and not wasted so much time and political capital on serious but peripheral issues like cap-and-trade and the health care bill. They are too anti-business in outlook (or alternatively, they just don't understand business). They truly are “tax and spend” Democrats, and they are running up a ruinous national debt that will eventually cause us all a lot of pain.
Both sides have good arguments. Both sides have articulate and persuasive supporters, though, not withstanding talk radio and Fox News, the media in general appears to be biased somewhat toward the liberals, as is the academic community. And there is a grain of truth in both perspectives. So what is one to make of all of this? Where is reality among all these conflicting views? Here are some observations that may help get to reality:
First, the Federal debt truly is a huge problem. Many states are also in deep trouble financially. Our governments - Federal and state - simply spend more than they can afford at the current tax rates. Here, from http://www.usgovernmentspending.com, is the Federal debt as a percentage of GDP for the last 50 years, since 1960:
By comparison, Ireland’s debt to GDP ratio is projected to rise to 94.7% of GDP in 2011, and that has caused a monetary crisis in the EU zone. Clearly the US Federal debt to GDP ratio is approaching a similar danger zone, if it has not already reached it.
The Federal debt is currently $13.8 trillion, and the Treasury Department projects that it will rise to $19.6 trillion by 2015. We currently spend about $414 billion per year on interest payments on the Federal debt, at an average interest rate of about 3%. We get this low interest rate because the markets in general still trust US Treasury notes. The interest rates on Ireland's government bonds (what they have to offer investors to get them to buy the bonds), now that they are in trouble, have risen past 8%. Greek government bonds last year reached 15.5% interest rates before the EU bailed them out. Should that happen to US Treasury notes, with no one big enough to bail us out, the results would be catastrophic for our economy (as well as the world economy).
Second, the Federal deficit is not really a party issue, a Democrat vs Republican issue. While it is true that the national debt is ballooning uncontrollably under this Democratic administration, the previous Republican administration was also fiscally feckless. During the eight years of the second Bush administration, the Federal deficit climbed from 63.4% of GDP to 83.4% of GDP, an increase of about $4.9 trillion. During these first two years of the Obama administration, that debt has increased another $3 trillion and is projected by the administration itself to increase about $5.9 trillion by the end of his first 4-year term. So this debt problem isn’t confined to one party or the other; it is endemic in our whole current political system. It is true that there are philosophical differences between the parties – Republicans in general are against tax increases, Democrats in general are against decreases in public services – but in practice both parties really operate about the same, taking whatever is the most politically expedient course at the moment.
Third, numerous polls continue to show that the country as a whole is more conservative than liberal, by a good margin. Here, for example, is the Gallup poll tracking of self-reporting conservatives, independents and liberals since 1992:
Fourth, private business provides almost all of the government income. As of 2008, here is where the Federal government gets its money (when it isn't just printing more money out of thin air, as it is doing now):
Clearly, almost all of it comes direct or indirectly from private business - corporate taxes or taxes on what workers earn. So just as clearly a government that wants a lot of revenue to play with ought to do whatever it can to encourage and nurture private enterprise, because that is where its revenue comes from. There simply are no other significant sources of revenue for a government.
From these facts, I think a reasonable person, not constrained by political ideology, would conclude:
1. The Federal debt is probably the single most important problem to tackle, and the problem is big enough that it will take both substantial cuts in spending and substantial increases in revenue (taxes) to solve it.
2. The revenue and the jobs that provide that revenue can only come from private enterprise (businesses), so one ought to do everything possible (loosen government regulations, improve education of the workforce, stimulate innovation, encourage investment, etc) to improve the US business environment and create more well-paying domestic jobs as fast as possible.
3. Cuts in government spending are of necessity going to curtail or eliminate some programs. Because of point (2) above, priority needs to go first to preserving programs that encourage economic growth and jobs creation, even if it is at the (perhaps temporary) expense of more popular liberal social programs. It may seem cruel to cut Social Security to the elderly or food stamps for the poor now, but it is nowhere near as cruel to them as a major economic collapse of the nation's (and therefore the world's) economy would be.
4. Liberal programs to redistribute wealth or increase government services (and many of these are laudable goals) can only be provided in sustainable form if the economy is healthy enough to provide the required revenue. So a healthy economy has to be the first priority, even for liberals - once the economy provides enough revenue, then and only then we can figure out what social programs might be useful.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Ingroup justice
The House of Representatives formally censured Rep. Charles Rangel (D - New York) for evading Federal taxes, filing false Federal forms, lying to investigators, misusing rent-controlled housing and several other infractions. There has been a lot of debate on the net and among news commentators about whether his punishment was not enough, too much, or just right. It seems to me a reasonable way to make this judgment is to ask what would happen to an ordinary person like you or me who was found to have evaded Federal taxes, provided false information on required Federal forms, misused rent-controlled housing, and lied to Federal investigators. Would we have just gotten a public ten minute dressing down? I don't think so. I think we would have faced prosecution, fines and even perhaps jail time.
It isn't particularly surprising that an in-group protects its own (and Congress is certainly an in-group). But it is surprising that they are so brazen about it. Personally I think Representative Rangle should have been thrown out of Congress for his misdeeds. He certainly would have been thrown out of any private company for similar misdeeds. But then Congress, while always ready to demonize others over their misdeeds, has always held itself to a much lower standard. Why do we, the voting public, let them get away with it?
It isn't particularly surprising that an in-group protects its own (and Congress is certainly an in-group). But it is surprising that they are so brazen about it. Personally I think Representative Rangle should have been thrown out of Congress for his misdeeds. He certainly would have been thrown out of any private company for similar misdeeds. But then Congress, while always ready to demonize others over their misdeeds, has always held itself to a much lower standard. Why do we, the voting public, let them get away with it?
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Recommended: The Age of Adolescence
Also worth reading this morning is Victor David Hanson's The Age of Adolescence. Yes, it's a conservative rant of sorts, but nonetheless I think his points are valid and worth thinking about. There is something adolescent about the way our elected government representatives are running things these days, and since we elect them, there has to be something adolescent about the way we vote as well. Worth pondering.
Recommended: The Big American Leak
Thomas Friedman's The Big American Leak in today's New York Times Op Ed page is worth reading. I think he is right on!
Recommended: Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future
Reich is a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, a past Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, and author of about a dozen books on public policy and the American economy. In Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future he argues that the current recession, while perhaps sparked by a housing bubble, is really due to a more fundamental problem – that the American middle class can no longer afford to buy as much as the American economy can produce. And this, he argues, is due to the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. As he points out, in the late 1970’s the richest 1% of the country controlled 9% of the wealth, while in 2007 that same 1% controlled 23.5% of the nation’s wealth, a ratio last seen in 1928, just before the Great Depression.
He argues the liberal position for stronger labor unions and tighter government control, but also for better education and job retraining and a more equitable distribution of corporate profits. While I tend to share the conservative suspicions of government effectiveness, his arguments about the pernicious effects of income inequality on the economy are persuasive. Certainly it is clear that part of our government's current problem is that it is unduly influenced by big money, whether from labor unions or corporations or special interest groups. And no one missed the fact that in the recent bailout, Wall Street brokers and bank CEOs (the very people whose poor decisions brought on the recession) got their huge bonuses while the rest of the country suffered.
So I have to say that this book made me re-examine some of my moderately conservative beliefs. Certainly large unearned inequities of any sort lead eventually to civil and political unrest, and sometimes to outright revolution, so one has to take his arguments seriously.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Unbelievable!!
From The Associate Press, December 4, 2010:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is pushing behind the scenes for lame-duck legislation that would allow poker games over the Internet but restrict initial licenses to casinos and racetrack operators that have been in businesses at least five years.Unbelievable! The Senate hasn't funded the government yet for the coming year, nor settled the question of the upcoming tax increases as the Bush-era tax cuts expire, nor dealt with the still moribund jobs market or the upcoming end of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed, nor discussed approving the START treaty with Russia - and Senator Reid is wasting time trying to get an internet gambling bill through the lame-duck Congress.
Some of the biggest casino operators in Reid's home state of Nevada are eager to get a piece of the online gambling industry, which generates an estimated $5 billion a year for offshore operators.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Good try....but no dice
Democrats, faced with losing control of the House of Representatives January 1st, hoped to push through a lot of bills dear to their liberal base in this lame duck session in order to strengthen their record for the 2012 elections. I see that Republicans have checkmated this effort by stating, boldly and bluntly, that the two most important issues at the moment are preventing a tax increase January 1st when the Bush-era tax cuts expire, and funding the government (This year's funding ran out Sept 30, and the temporary funding extension that Congress voted runs out this Friday), and that Republican Senators will block all other legislation until the Senate deals with these two issues.
Frankly, I think the Republicans are right. These are the two most pressing issues right now. Congress, under the Democrats, has spent all year on other issues and failed to deal with these two fundamental issues, so I'm glad the Republicans are forcing their hand. Of course the Democrats are furious at being outmaneuvered, but clearly they still haven't gotten the message from their mid-term drubbing at the polls.
Now the next question will be whether the Republicans are really serious about getting the economy going and cutting government expenditures, or whether that was just campaign talk.
Frankly, I think the Republicans are right. These are the two most pressing issues right now. Congress, under the Democrats, has spent all year on other issues and failed to deal with these two fundamental issues, so I'm glad the Republicans are forcing their hand. Of course the Democrats are furious at being outmaneuvered, but clearly they still haven't gotten the message from their mid-term drubbing at the polls.
Now the next question will be whether the Republicans are really serious about getting the economy going and cutting government expenditures, or whether that was just campaign talk.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
The real lesson from WikiLeaks
Now that WikiLeaks has exposed yet another massive trove of secret government documents there is a lot of talk about how this is illegal and WikiLeaks ought to be shut down and it's staff prosecuted. This is, I think, misdirected. If WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange were arrested and prosecuted, this would not, I suspect, stop the leaks. There are plenty of other anarchists around who would pick up the task and carry it along, and there are plenty of misguided or disgruntled people who would supply them with sensitive information.
The real question, I think, is why was someone able to download such a massive collection of sensitive documents in the first place. Clearly the government's security is pretty bad. A disgruntled employee ought to have been able to download and leak, perhaps, at most a few documents directly relevant to their work. So why was someone able to download such a massive collection?
There is no way to put the genii back in the bottle. In today's world, if it can be downloaded electronically someone will download it. Once it is downloaded, it can be on the net in minutes, visible to the whole world.
The issue that ought to be getting attention now is what does the government need to do to disseminate it's sensitive documents in a manner that cannot be so easily downloaded or copied. Certainly one step would be to build a system that unambiguously logs each download and identifies who did it. That would be a start. Another step would be to make such documents available in a form which can only be read on a screen, not downloaded onto a thumb drive or DVD (though digital cameras make that a stopgap measure at best). I'm sure creative people can think of other effective means of making such wholesale leaks at least more difficult, if not impossible. Clearly whatever the government is doing now is insufficient in today's modern digital and net-savvy world.
The real question, I think, is why was someone able to download such a massive collection of sensitive documents in the first place. Clearly the government's security is pretty bad. A disgruntled employee ought to have been able to download and leak, perhaps, at most a few documents directly relevant to their work. So why was someone able to download such a massive collection?
There is no way to put the genii back in the bottle. In today's world, if it can be downloaded electronically someone will download it. Once it is downloaded, it can be on the net in minutes, visible to the whole world.
The issue that ought to be getting attention now is what does the government need to do to disseminate it's sensitive documents in a manner that cannot be so easily downloaded or copied. Certainly one step would be to build a system that unambiguously logs each download and identifies who did it. That would be a start. Another step would be to make such documents available in a form which can only be read on a screen, not downloaded onto a thumb drive or DVD (though digital cameras make that a stopgap measure at best). I'm sure creative people can think of other effective means of making such wholesale leaks at least more difficult, if not impossible. Clearly whatever the government is doing now is insufficient in today's modern digital and net-savvy world.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Recommended: Things Fall Apart
Walter Russel Mead has an interesting post on his American Interest blog: Things Fall Apart. He argues that not just in America but all around the world, political leadership is not up to the challenges we face these days. He discusses the problems faced by the EU, China and Russia in particular. Interesting and worth thinking about.
Recommended: I'm an Illegal Immigrant at Harvard
The Daily Beast has an poignant article entitled I'm an Illegal Immigrant at Harvard. Whether it is a true story or not, it makes a strong case for passing the Dream act, to allow motivated, educated illegal immigrants who are good citizens, pay their taxes, and obey the laws to become American citizens. Despite all the Republican rhetoric about keeping immigrants out, this country has always benefited from the steady inflow of good minds and highly motivated workers who come here, either for better opportunity or to escape repression elsewhere (remember, we won World War II in part because some of the best German minds - especially the Jewish physicists - came here to escape the Nazis.).
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Recommended: Still The Best Congress Money Can Buy
Frank Rich has written an article Still The Best Congress Money Can Buy in the November 27, 2010 New York Times. In it he makes the point again that there is just too much money involved in government, and especially in the elected offices in Congress. Certainly from the outside it looks like this last session of Congress made sure the major sources of Democratic campaign money - Wall Street, big corporations and unions - got some fiscal relief, even if the rest of us didn't. That surely had something to do with money.
He references John Cassidy's New Yorker article What Good Is Wall Street? Cassidy's article makes the point that I have made at times, that our best and brightest are drawn to the big money in socially-acceptable gambling on Wall Street, rather than to productive activities that actually create something of worth to the society.
None of these observations are new, nor is it clear what, if anything, can be done to remedy the situation. The very elected officials who might change the laws to solve the problem are in fact the beneficiaries of the status quo, and so certainly aren't about to kill their own golden goose.
He references John Cassidy's New Yorker article What Good Is Wall Street? Cassidy's article makes the point that I have made at times, that our best and brightest are drawn to the big money in socially-acceptable gambling on Wall Street, rather than to productive activities that actually create something of worth to the society.
None of these observations are new, nor is it clear what, if anything, can be done to remedy the situation. The very elected officials who might change the laws to solve the problem are in fact the beneficiaries of the status quo, and so certainly aren't about to kill their own golden goose.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Recommended: Against All Enemies
Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror is not a new book (see listing in the booklist on the sidebar, under 2004), but worth reading all the same. Clarke was a major player in defense and intelligence matters in a series of administrations, from Reagan's to the second Bush's. In this book he lays out, from his perspective, what we did right and what we did wrong in those years. As in his more recent 2008 book Your Government Failed You: Breaking the Cycle of National Security Disaster, he is not happy with how our government is running.
What I took away from this book is (1) how insular and parochial the FBI and the CIA have been, to the serious detriment of our nation, and (2) how often the private manias or prejudices of a few key people bias and distort our national policy.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
State of denial
Now that the Democrats have suffered what is by any measure a shattering midterm defeat in the polls, the interesting question is: what will they do about it? A rational person, faced with this situation, would do some serious soul-searching, try to figure out what they did wrong, and make such changes as seemed likely to correct their errors.
Are the Democrats doing this? Not that I can see. As near as I can tell they are sure that everything they did in this past Congressional session was just fine, and the problem was either (a) the economy, or (b) the President's failure to"sell" their successes, or (c) the conservative press's distortions. The most obvious option (d) - that their liberal policies were unpopular with a majority of the nation - doesn't seem to have occurred to them. Surely, they think, it must have been someone else's fault, not their own.
Well, they have two years to figure things out. If they continue in this state of denial for the next two years, I'm sure the 2012 elections will reinforce the message. Politicians who forget to listen to their constituents tend to get weeded out.
The re-election of Nancy Pelosi as the Democratic minority speaker doesn't bode well for them in the long run - it suggests that the party is in the hands of a powerful few who simply didn't get the message. And of course the Congressional delegation is now more liberal than ever, having lost most of the few moderates it had. So I suppose they will keep proposing ultra-liberal legislation, most if which can no longer pass because of Republican gains in the House and Senate, so not much will get done in the next two years. But of course the Democrats are still the party "in power", since they still control the presidency and the Senate, so in 2012 they will still get blamed for everything that is wrong,or that hasn't happened.
I am remained of the saying "there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see."
Are the Democrats doing this? Not that I can see. As near as I can tell they are sure that everything they did in this past Congressional session was just fine, and the problem was either (a) the economy, or (b) the President's failure to"sell" their successes, or (c) the conservative press's distortions. The most obvious option (d) - that their liberal policies were unpopular with a majority of the nation - doesn't seem to have occurred to them. Surely, they think, it must have been someone else's fault, not their own.
Well, they have two years to figure things out. If they continue in this state of denial for the next two years, I'm sure the 2012 elections will reinforce the message. Politicians who forget to listen to their constituents tend to get weeded out.
The re-election of Nancy Pelosi as the Democratic minority speaker doesn't bode well for them in the long run - it suggests that the party is in the hands of a powerful few who simply didn't get the message. And of course the Congressional delegation is now more liberal than ever, having lost most of the few moderates it had. So I suppose they will keep proposing ultra-liberal legislation, most if which can no longer pass because of Republican gains in the House and Senate, so not much will get done in the next two years. But of course the Democrats are still the party "in power", since they still control the presidency and the Senate, so in 2012 they will still get blamed for everything that is wrong,or that hasn't happened.
I am remained of the saying "there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see."
Monday, November 22, 2010
Recommended: I Think We Lost The Election
P.J.O'Rourke has a delightful piece in the Nov 22, 2010 Weekly Standard: I Think We Lost The Election. He thinks that we (the American public) will have won an election when every political office is filled by someone who really doesn't want to be there. I think he is right. Reminds me of a delightful new word my wife happened across recently: empleomania - manic need to hold public office.
One way to Mars
NASA is studying a one-way Mars mission, which would send astronauts to Mars to establish a permanent base there, without a return mission. This is of course much easier and less expensive than a full round-trip mission. But the announcement that a one-way mission was being considered has brought a good deal of criticism from the public, as being inhuman and unthinkable.
Now it happens that I have gotten interested in genealogy in my old age, and have been tracing my family roots back into the very early days of settlement on this continent, and then to the immigrants who left the Old World to come here. I can’t help but think that to many of these early immigrants and settlers, theirs was a one-way trip into an unknown wilderness probably about as deadly as Mars. Yes they had air and plants and game to live off of, but they also had hostile natives, unpredictable weather, unknown geography, and a myriad of other unknown and unfamiliar things to deal with, and they did (enough of them, anyway) survive and plant their civilization on this new continent.
Before them, of course, there had been all manner of peoples – Vikings, Chinese traders, Polynesian explorers, Spanish and Portuguese adventurers , etc – who had set off on one-way trips to the unknown. Many didn’t survive, but some did, and prospered in new lands. To any sane person, Cortez’s invasion of the powerful civilizations of mesoamerica with a pitifully small army would have looked like a one-way trip, and a short one at that.
I would hope that the spirit of adventure that founded our nation hasn’t dried up to the point that we as a people aren’t willing to undertake risky adventures to expand our horizons. Going to Mars on a one way trip isn’t everyone’s burning desire (I wouldn’t choose to do it), but there will certainly be some among us who are motivated by the spirit of adventure, the thrill of being the first, or burning scientific curiosity. I would hope this nation wouldn’t deny them the chance simply because some of us are a little squeamish.
Stephen Hawkings is correct, we do need eventually to spread off this planet if we are survive as a species. There is ample geological evidence that mass extinctions happen periodically on our planet, from asteroid strikes or other causes, and there is no reason to believe these processes have stopped. Mars is only a small step in this endeavor, but it is a necessary first step, and we ought to take it.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Recommended: Pretty in Pink? Obama's Dark Night of the Soul.
Walter Russel Mead has an interesting meditation on this administration in his piece in The American Interest: Pretty in Pink? Obama's Dark Night of the Soul. Mead argues that President Obama was never as good as his followers hoped on inauguration day, nor is he as bad as the frustrated far left now thinks he is. Mind you, Mead is not thrilled with the Republicans either (a view I share), but does think the midterm reaction was inevitable once the ultra-liberals under Nancy Pelosi had had their run. All in all some interesting ruminations.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Recommended: The Second Marriage
On Nov 1, before the midterm elections, David Brooks wrote an interesting piece in the New York Times, The Second Marriage. In it he argues that, despite the Tea Party members, the Republicans coming into power this time in the House will have a much more modest approach than they had last time they held power, and certainly much more modest than the Democrats have been over the past two years. He thinks they will focus on producing a series of small, incremental steps to improve the business environment.
There are other writers in recent days who have argued that the Democrats as a party, and President Obama in particular, just don't "get" business. That they don't understand the fundamental laws of economics. They love to demonize business, without understanding that business is in fact the engine of the entire system. Certainly the past two years seem to support that argument.
At root, economics is all that matters. Without a strong economy, we can't afford either the domestic programs liberals would like or the strong military the conservatives would like. Without a strong economy our influence and leverage and "soft power" in the world is much reduced. Without a strong economy, people can't enjoy prosperity or economic security. In the end, it is not Washington policy that creates jobs and wealth (whatever liberals may think), it is successful, innovative businesses that are competitive in the world market.
The Obama administration's big mistake, in my opinion, was to divert their efforts and political capital to peripheral things like the health care bill when they should have focused ALL their energy and political capital on things that would improve the economy immediately and make American businesses more competitive in the world market. That means focusing on reducing regulations and Washington bureaucracy that impedes businesses, improving American education, especially for adult retraining in the workforce, improving the health of banks, building or updating infrastructure that directly affects business, and encouraging innovation and the basic science that feeds innovation. To be sure, they have made half-hearted attempts at a few of these things, but none have been the primary focus of their attention, and none have gotten the sort of funding that their liberal efforts have gotten. (As a wise mentor once taught me: ignore the rhetoric and watch where the funding goes - that tells you what people's REAL priorities are).
One hopes Republicans will do better, though of course their power is still pretty limited, since they control only the House.
There are other writers in recent days who have argued that the Democrats as a party, and President Obama in particular, just don't "get" business. That they don't understand the fundamental laws of economics. They love to demonize business, without understanding that business is in fact the engine of the entire system. Certainly the past two years seem to support that argument.
At root, economics is all that matters. Without a strong economy, we can't afford either the domestic programs liberals would like or the strong military the conservatives would like. Without a strong economy our influence and leverage and "soft power" in the world is much reduced. Without a strong economy, people can't enjoy prosperity or economic security. In the end, it is not Washington policy that creates jobs and wealth (whatever liberals may think), it is successful, innovative businesses that are competitive in the world market.
The Obama administration's big mistake, in my opinion, was to divert their efforts and political capital to peripheral things like the health care bill when they should have focused ALL their energy and political capital on things that would improve the economy immediately and make American businesses more competitive in the world market. That means focusing on reducing regulations and Washington bureaucracy that impedes businesses, improving American education, especially for adult retraining in the workforce, improving the health of banks, building or updating infrastructure that directly affects business, and encouraging innovation and the basic science that feeds innovation. To be sure, they have made half-hearted attempts at a few of these things, but none have been the primary focus of their attention, and none have gotten the sort of funding that their liberal efforts have gotten. (As a wise mentor once taught me: ignore the rhetoric and watch where the funding goes - that tells you what people's REAL priorities are).
One hopes Republicans will do better, though of course their power is still pretty limited, since they control only the House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
