Thursday, July 31, 2014

The importance of our next presidential election

I would argue that the upcoming 2016 presidential election is critical not only for our nation, but for the world as a whole.  We have had two two-term presidents in a row who have badly fumbled the ball – President Bush with his foreign policy overreach (principally the long, expensive, bloody and ultimately futile Iraq adventure), and now President Obama with his feckless  “lead-from-behind” inactivity. The result has been a serious decline in America’s influence in critical places in the world.  From a historical perspective, it has been American influence and power that has kept the relative peace in the world since the end of World War II, despite the endless carping from the left.  If that power wanes significantly, I would expect the world to become a much less pleasant place in the future.

The world faces some serious problems now: Africa and the Middle East are both aflame with lawless jihadist groups, armed sectarian militias, and plain criminal gangs. Thousands of people are being murdered every week in Nigeria, in Iraq, in Syria, in Afghanistan, and in Pakistan to name just a few of the trouble spots (murdered largely, by the way, by Muslims, not by Jews, though the UN and the world press are conveniently ignoring this these days). Hamas is clearly a threat, not only to Israel, but also to other Arab regimes in the area, including especially Egypt, which is why many of the Arab governments have tacitly and quietly backed Israel in this attempt to destroy Hamas. The brutal fanatics in Iraq and Syria now calling themselves “The Islamic State” have plans to expand (violently) everywhere.

In the Ukraine I think it highly likely that President Putin has backed himself into a corner where he will be forced by the very hawkish domestic forces he himself has been whipping up to invade to save his so-called “rebels”.   That will pose a very, very serious dilemma for America, NATO and Western Europe.  If we let him get away with it, why should he stop there (shades of Hitler and World War II)?  If we oppose him with military force, we are in a war with Russia. It will take a better president than we have had recently to find a relatively safe way through this thicket.

So while domestic politics – the immigration crisis, Obamacare and the like - may dominate the mid-term elections, America’s national security issues may well be the core issue for the 2016 presidential election.  I would be a lot happier if I saw any potential presidential candidates in either party who looked up to managing these crises wisely.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Recommended: 7 Things to Consider Before Choosing Sides in the Middle East Conflict

My daughter just pointed me to a current Huffington Post article that is probably the best and most balanced analysis of the current Israel-Hamas war I have seen, written incidentally by someone who grew up in Pakistan in the Muslim culture: 7 Things to Consider Before Choosing Sides in the Middle East Conflict.

I would only add this to his excellent piece - there are constant complaints that while Israel certainly has the right to respond to Hamas rocket attacks, kidnappings and murders, and suicide bombers, its response has been disproportionate.  So think about this. An exactly proportional response would be for Israel to go into Gaza every time an Israeli was killed, and pick at random a man or woman or child off the street and shoot them on the spot. That would be exactly proportional.  Would the world think that was fair, or civilized?  I don't think so.  It's hard to think of what the world would consider a "proportional" Jewish response, but whatever it is it almost certainly wouldn't be enough to deter vicious thugs like Hamas.

So do we want Jews to just acquiesce to brutality, like they did in the Holocaust?  I think what Jews learned from the Holocaust was that Europe (and America for that matter) are not dependable allies, and they had better look out for themselves.  And I think they are right. Now their political choices for handling the enemies around them haven't always been the wisest, but what nation can you point to that has always picked the wisest course - certainly not ours! (As Churchill said -"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else".)

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

There is something inexorable….

There is something inexorable about events these days. Human stupidity and short-sightedness seems to dominate the world’s affairs.

In Gaza the Palestinians seem to have reacted to Israel’s attempts to stop the rocket fire by supporting Hamas even more strongly, apparently oblivious to the fact that their pain and misery has been largely caused by Hamas. In Israel the Israeli public is now almost totally behind the Gaza war, even though there is no conceivable way they can fully suppress Hamas short of reoccupying the Gaza strip, with all the guerrilla war that would entail.  And Secretary Kerry seems to have managed to alienate everyone on both sides with an unbelievably inept performance that has clearly diminished America’s leverage in that region of the world.

Meanwhile in Russia the Russian people seem to have drunk the cool-aid and largely bought into President Putin’s propaganda about Western culpability in the Ukraine, and about the promise of restoring a “Greater Russia”, never mind that the Russian economy, never strong to begin with, is now headed down the toilet.  Europe has finally found their spine today, at least temporarily, and added some economic pressure on President Putin, but he has probably already passed the point of no return on this issue – backing down now after whipping his public up to a fever pitch would probably end his political career, so he almost certainly won’t back down, but will probably double down on his Ukrainian adventure.  And indeed he may calculate, perhaps correctly, that the Europeans are too feckless, too greedy, and too worried about losing business to hold together in their opposition very long. One can only hope that some of the oligarchs that support him will feel the pinch enough to try to remove him –but it won’t be easy.

If the Ukrainian “rebels” continue to lose ground, despite the continued flow of “volunteers” and heavy weapons across the Russian border, Putin may well use the excuse of “defending Russians” to openly invade, and there is no evidence that either Europe or America has the will to actively oppose him with military forces, or even to supply the Ukrainian government with weapons to help defend themselves.  And if he isn’t opposed, he will no doubt move on to gather in other bordering regions he covets, like Moldovia.  This is eerily reminiscent of the muted and temporizing European reaction to Hitler’s early advances, which led ultimately to World War 2. So much for President Obama’s much vaunted “Russian reset”.

Meanwhile in the Middle East the new “caliphate” is busy taking territory and killing anyone who doesn’t share their religious views (with hardly a peep from the very media that is so outraged at the deaths in Gaza), but the Iraqis can’t manage to get together to form a cohesive government to oppose them, even with their very existence at stake. And in the background the civil war is Syria just bubbles along like a festering wound, creating ever more jihadist movements and recruits.

And across much of the world peoples and nations hope for the diminution of American influence, even for the downfall of America itself, apparently oblivious to the consequences that would follow.  The disappearance of America hegemony in the world would almost surely be followed either by a much more repressive hegemony by some authoritarian nation like Russia or China, or more likely by the sort of worldwide anarchy that is beginning to pervade the Middle East.

Perhaps it is because I have a cold today, but I really don’t see much to be optimistic about in all of these situations. Our current administration isn’t showing much competence in handling these issues, and I don’t see anyone in either party who looks likely to do better.  We in America are as trapped by the illusions of our world view as the Russians are by theirs and the Israelis by theirs and the Palestinians by theirs, etc, etc, etc.  Barbara Tuckman’s excellent book “The Guns of August” documents how the world drifted inexorably toward World War I through the illusions and incompetence of the people in power, and the gullibility of their publics, and it looks to me like much the same is happening now.

Here is a proposition

Here is a proposition: Ex-governors make better presidents than candidates who have never run a state. Why? Because governors have had to learn to work with a legislature, frequently a legislature dominated by the other party. They need to have learned how to compromise and make deals before they get to the White House.

Our last two presidents, Bush and Clinton, had both been governors, and, whether you like their policies or not, they were generally effective at working with Congress. President Obama was an academic, a community organizer, and a junior Senator before becoming president, but never a governor, and he has proven to be woefully inept at working with Congress, even with members of his own party.

As an independent, I am not bound by party loyalties (in fact my current attitude is “a pox on both your houses”). On the basis of my proposition above, in the upcoming 2016 presidential election I am not going to vote for any candidate in either party who does not have a record as a reasonably successful governor.

That eliminates Hillary Clinton, nice as it would be to have our first woman president. On the Republican side it also eliminates Paul Rand and Ted Cruz (though Cruz would have been eliminated anyway for other reasons). Governor Chris Christie is a possibility, as is ex-Governor Jeb Bush, who seems to have done a pretty good job in Florida (but are we ready for a third Bush?)

On the Democratic side, with Clinton already eliminated, the requirement to be an ex-governor would leave New York’s Andrew Cuomo and Maryland’s Martin O’Malley , but eliminate Senator Elizabeth Warren and vice-President Joe Biden.

It will be interesting to see who, in the end, each party puts up as their candidate, But if the candidate isn’t a governor or ex-governor, they won’t get my vote. Of course, both parties might fail to nominate someone with governor experience, in which case I’ll be back to square one, and so, probably, will the nation.

Recommended: John Kerry’s Big Blunder

David Ignatius has a thoughtful piece today: John Kerry’s Big Blunder. He argues that Kerry, in his haste to stop the bloodshed in Gaza, is actually making the long-term problem worse. By dealing directly with the supporters of Hamas, and bypassing the supporters of the more moderate Palestine Authority, he is enhancing the status of Hamas at the expense of more moderate forces. It is an interesting perspective.

There is no question that the Palestinian problem will remain intractable as long as Hamas controls the Gaza strip. Israel is right – only a demilitarized Gaza strip, with international peacekeepers to really keep it demilitarized, is ever going to stop the deadly Hamas attacks, and Hamas will never voluntarily accept those conditions because it would lose power that way.

The world (including apparently many Palestinians in Gaza) seems to have forgotten that when Hamas took over the Gaza strip in 2007 they promptly murdered hundreds of members of the Palestinian Authority. However good they are at portraying themselves in the media as “freedom fighters”, they are really just thugs more interested in maintaining their power than in representing the people of Gaza, a point that ought to be obvious as they continue to use those people as human shields.

Whether Israel’s current military approach to achieving a Hamas-free Gaza strip will be effective is a debatable point, but no one has yet offered a viable alternative. The UN, as usual, just wants a short-term fix; an end to the current war. But without an effective process that removes Hamas as a threat to Israel, any cease fire will just be another interlude to allow both sides to regroup and rearm before beginning yet again.

Hamas is holding out for a lifting of the embargo on Gaza, but all sides know perfectly well that if the embargo is lifted the first thing Hamas will do is rearm with new and probably more deadly weapons from its sponsors in places like Turkey, Iran and Qatar. Moreover, it is equally clear that any international aid that is sent to Gaza while Hamas rules will simply be diverted to building more rockets and tunnels, just as previous aid has been diverted. Clearly this problem will not go away until Hamas is eliminated from Gaza and the more moderate Palestinian Authority again rules the area. But how to do this without more bloodshed is not clear to anyone.

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Has our president just checked out?

Intelligence (probably overhead surveillance and radio intercepts) seems to show conclusively that Russia is increasing its support of the Ukrainian “rebels” (in quotes, because many appear to actually be Russian troops out of uniform).  They are apparently shipping heavy weapons (tanks, armored personnel carriers, heavy artillery and rocket launchers) across the border to the rebels in increasing numbers, apparently in response to the Ukrainian army’s increasing success in pushing the rebels back.

On the other hand the White House, according to today’s news sources, is embroiled in a contentious internal debate about whether to even share this intelligence and tell the Ukrainians where these weapons are, let alone give them any real help in destroying them.  President Obama is reportedly worried about “escalating” the confrontation with Russia – funny, President Putin seems to have no problem at all with escalation.

At a time when it seems to me any sensible leader would at least be providing the Ukrainian government with weapons to counter the Russian subversion, our president seems to be spending his time playing golf and meeting celebrities in trendy restaurants.  Has he just checked out of his job early, as some reporters are now publically speculating this weekend?  At a point when American firmness against Russian aggression is essential (especially since the Europeans appear to be unbelievably spineless in this affair), we are in pretty bad shape if our President has decided to go AWOL.

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Those who will not study history….

As I watch Europe’s feeble political reactions to President Putin's current aggressions, I am reminded of George Santayana’s oft quoted but seldom heeded saying” Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (Edmund Burke said much the same thing: “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it”.)

Apparently enough time has passed since the start of World War II that Europeans, and especially European politicians, have forgotten how a weak and timid reaction to Hitler’s 1938 invasion of Austria and the subsequent betrayal by the Europeans of Czechoslovakia at the 1939 Munich Conference led to the horrors of World War II.

Considering that the Ukraine is in Europe’s back yard, not America’s, it amazes me that we seem to be the ones who have to push for a stiffer reaction to Russian aggression.

More anti-Semitism

I see today that Navi Pillay, the UN's top human rights official, has charged that Israel "may have committed war crimes" in its battle in Gaza.  Apparently Hamas' suicide bombings, indiscriminate rocket attacks, kidnappings and murders of both Israelis and Muslims who oppose them, deliberately placing rocket launchers and fighters among civilians to maximize civilian deaths, and cross-border incursions through tunnels in an attempt to murder Jews who live near the border don't count as war crimes. But Israel's military attempt to stop the rocket fire on its own people does.  Amazing!

The UN's Human Rights Council is clearly anti-Semitic. It has little to say about war crimes anywhere else in the world, especially in the member's own countries, but is remarkably quick to jump on anything Israel does.

I also notice that the world press keeps making the point that Israel has killed more Palestinians that Hamas has managed to kill Israelis. Not surprising, since Israel has poured billions into shelters and missile defense systems to protect its population, while Hamas has poured its millions into tunnels and rockets, and spent next to nothing on protecting its own people.  But Hamas' lack of success in killing Israelis isn't for want of trying. Apparently being better and more competent than your attacker counts against you in this game.  On that basis we ought to castigate our police more, and give criminals better press.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Recommended: Can Vladimir Putin Survive?

Gorge Friedman has written an interesting and thoughtful analysis in his piece today Can Vladimir Putin Survive?  Up to now President Putin has appeared to be able to outmaneuver President Obama at every turn, but the shooting down of a commercial airliner with weapons undoubtedly supplied by Russia, and almost certainly manned by professional Russian soldiers (since it is far too complex a system to be run by drunken irregulars) has been a game-changer.

Worth reading.

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Isn’t it strange?

The media these days tots up hourly the number of Palestinian civilians who have been killed in the current battle between Hamas and Israel, with special attention to women and children.  And the UN is stirring itself urgently to get a cease-fire in place, because as of today over 100 civilians have apparently been killed in Gaza.

Over 100 in Gaza!  Imagine!

Funny how the media, the UN and the American administration aren’t nearly as exercised about the 100,000+ civilians who have been killed thus far in the Syrian rebellion. Or the estimated 470+ civilians killed thus far by the so-called Ukrainian rebels. Or the 1000+ civilians killed by ISIS in the past couple of weeks in Iraq.  Or the hundreds of civilians being killed by Boka Haram in Nigeria. Or even the 204 murders in Chicago thus far since the beginning of the year. Or…or…or…or.    How come the UN and the media and the American administration are not as urgently exercised about those deaths?

Can it be, as I suggested before, that latent anti-Semitism is at the root of this highly selective attention and reporting?

Recommended: Mullah Dreams: Not Counting Sheep

As I have said before, recent US administrations, both Republican and Democratic, both under President Bush and President Obama, have been amazingly naive, and even frankly clueless, in the bewilderingly Byzantine politics of the Middle East. Administrations and politicians keep thinking in simple Western, black-and-white, enemy vs friend terms. But what is really happening in the Middle East is a complex ever-changing dance of alliances being made and broken moment by moment as opportunities change. No one is anyone's permanent friend, or permanent enemy. Underlying this is a web of mutual ethnic and religious hatreds deeper and more irrational that most of us in the West (expect, perhaps, for Northern Ireland) can imagine, though we too once had that depth of hatred, in the centuries of Catholic-Protestant wars.

To get just the barest taste of this, read Adam Garfinkle's current article in The American Interest: Mullah Dreams: Not Counting Sheep. The complexity will make your head swim!

Recommended: Is Hamas Trying to Get Gazans Killed?

Jeffery Goldberg from The Atlantic has an interesting article: Is Hamas Trying to Get Gazans Killed? A few other astute writers have made the same argument that he makes - that Hamas was driven to start this latest exchange because it has become markedly weaker as many of its normal sponsors and sources of funds (like Egypt and Syria) have dropped away.

It is clear (a) that sending rockets into Israel is not going to accomplish any of the stated goals of Palestinians - it won't get them a state, nor eliminate the blockade, nor make the State of Israel go away, nor even kill many Israelies, (b) on the contrary it will make all of these things less likely, but (c) it will increase the standing of Hamas among other terror groups in the short term. For these thugs apparently that is enough to justify getting a lot of Muslim civilians killed - as many as possible in fact.

I am continually amazed at the UN and world leaders who decry Israel's response, though if the same thing happened in their own country their own response would be at least as forceful, if not more so. Is this another example of the latent anti-Semitism still around in the world?

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Israel vs Hamas

Now that we have another flareup between Israel and Hamas, I see that that the “bleeding heart” portion of the press is again cranking up a campaign to villify Israel. No matter that this whole issue started with Hamas kidnapping and murdering three Israeli teenagers.

I notice that the Palestinian public wasn’t at all upset about the murder of the three teenagers; just about the Israeli incursion to search for their murderers.  But when a single Palestinian teenage was abducted and murdered in revenge, they were really upset.

I notice that Israel is calling the homes they have targeted 15 minutes before they fire at them, allowing family members (and the militants they are targeting) to leave safely, while Hamas is firing hundreds of rockets indiscriminately and with no warning, without any worry about civilian casualties.

I wonder again how those in the press now castigating Israel would react if, say, Mexico fired 100+ rockets a day into the US.  Or how they would treat an administration that “showed restraint” and did nothing to try to stop the bombardment.  Remember what we did when some terrorists took down just three buildings in the US – we took down two whole nations in response.

Israel has indeed been repressive in Gaza – they have had to be, since they faced and still face fanatics who are happy to use suicide bombers to kill civilians.  And of course there are civilian casualties – Hamas puts its rocket launchers deliberately among civilians to maximize the chances of civilian casualties.

There is no easy resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, as years of fruitless negotiations have proved.  And in fact Israel hasn’t always made the wisest choices in their attempts to deal with the terrorist threats.  But Hamas is a real and continuing threat, as this current mass of rocket attacks shows, and Israel simply has to do something to stop them, unpleasant as the results may be.

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Obama and Carter

Some months ago a few conservative bloggers began comparing President Obama’s presidency to the presidency of the thoroughly likeable, but thoroughly ineffectual Jimmy Carter.  At the time I thought that was going a bit too far; now I am not so sure.

To be sure, President Obama faces a perfect storm of problems these days – the new Sunni “caliphate” in Iraq and Syria, Russia’s expansionist moves, China’s increasing assertiveness, the current blow-up between Israel and Hamas, the massive influx of illegal child immigrants across the Texas border, an obstructive Republican block in Congress, continued opposition to ObamaCare and the imminent rise in health insurance premiums this fall.  He could hardly have been expected to anticipate these.

Or could he?

Serious and respected military and foreign policy experts have warned for years that letting the Syrian civil war drag on was just providing a breeding and training ground for extremists.  And sure enough, they were right, as we found out when ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) came storming out of the Syrian debacle and took over large portions of Iraq, massively increasing their supply of funds and arms in the process.  It is not comforting that after a closed-door briefing this past Monday with the President, several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, complained publically that the administration seemed unable in the meeting to define any coherent administration policy toward this problem.

Serious and respected military and foreign policy experts have followed for years, and frequently written about, the inevitable Russian moves to expand its influence back into the territories of its old Soviet empire.  Why were the events in the Ukraine such a surprise to the administration? Why did they not have a plan or policy in place, and indeed why do they STILL seem to be simply reacting ad hoc to events there, making it up as they go along?

President Obama’s much hailed “Russian reset” has come to nothing.   Nor did his famous speeches at Cairo University offering an open hand to the Muslim world seem to make the slightest difference in the current Middle East turmoil.  In retrospect it is pretty clear that he misjudged entirely both the motives and the agendas of the Muslim world, as well as of the Russian government.

Republican opposition was to be expected, given the rise of the Tea Party, but frankly I think much of the hard feeling and opposition is due to President Obama himself.  He clearly has no skill in negotiating, nor in building relationships with opponents.  When he invited the Speaker of the House to play golf with him once it was a big news item, because he had done nothing like that before (or since). His general attitude is well summed up in his 2012 comment “We won, you lost. Get over it.”  Hardly the way to work with your opposition.

As to the current influx of largely unaccompanied children across the Texas border, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how that came about.  If the president goes on and on in speech after speech pressing the case for an amnesty for illegal immigrants, especially if they came to America as children, the clear message people in poor South America nations are going to get is this: get yourself, or at least your children, into America as soon as possible, so that they will come under the amnesty.

The world is a difficult and complex place these days, and the problems the president faces are indeed very hard. The liberal press keeps trying (with increasing difficulty) to convey the picture of a thoughtful, measured president considering all the options carefully before moving.  Sorry, that isn’t what it looks like to me: I see more of a deer-in-the-headlights indecision by someone who is out of his depth, and would frankly rather be shot of the whole job.

It’s hard to tell if Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Mitt Romney would have done better in this job, but the odds are pretty good they would not have done any worse.  A new poll from Quinnipiac University made the news last week – it reported that 33% of American voters now rank President Obama as the worst president since World War II, and 45% think in retrospect that we would have been better off with Mitt Romney.  Considering how unappealing Romney was, that is a pretty harsh rating.

So perhaps the comparison with President Carter was not so far off the mark after all.

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Recommendation: Confronting Russian Chauvinism

With respect to my previous post, Zbigniew Brzezinski gave a very good analysis in a recent panel discussion, which was printed in the June issue of The National Interest: The Ukrainian Problem: Confronting Russian Chauvinism. It is well worth reading.

How much of a threat is Russia, really?

Americans have a habit of greatly overestimating their major rivals.  Perhaps it goes along with the perennial worry that America’s best days are over, and that we are in terminal decline. Now there is a great deal of public anxiety about the moves Russia, under President Putin, are making in the Ukraine.

There is no doubt that Russia is a major regional power. Nor is there any doubt that Putin can – and probably will - continue to make things troublesome around Russia’s borders and in the UN Security Council.  And of course Russia still has a significant nuclear capability. But is Russia really an existential  threat to us as a super power, or even to Western Europe?  I think not.

The reason is the same as in my last post: “It’s the economy, stupid”.  Russia simply doesn’t have enough of an economic base to sustain a major conflict. In fact, it is quite likely Putin recently pulled his troops back from massing on the Ukrainian border in part because he couldn’t afford to keep them there very long. Russia, in fact, is on the verge of a major recession – they were there before the current sanctions were put in place, and even the very minor sanctions that Europe and America put in place have tipped the Russian economy closer to recession. Serious sanctions would quickly – within weeks or at most months – put the Russian economy into free fall, a fact which Putin certainly knows and which is no doubt restraining his hand in the Ukraine.

Indeed, I suspect Putin also knows his economy really couldn’t sustain a prolonged war in the Ukraine if he did invade.  And it would be a long war. The Ukrainians, at least in the Western two-thirds of the nation, are pretty angry with Russia now, and although the Russian army could certainly capture the territory pretty quickly, I suspect they understand that the guerrilla war that would follow would probably be as bad as their experience in Afghanistan, if not worse.  In fact, there are already signs that Russia is having some trouble, and some public opposition, with the high costs of supporting the moribund Crimean economy, now that they have annexed it.

At the moment, the economies of America and its allies are FIFTEEN times as big as the Russian economy. Nor is there any real prospect of Russian’s economy getting significantly stronger in the foreseeable future, because it is so culturally enmeshed in endemic corruption, from the lowest traffic cop to Putin himself. And because it is currently largely an extractive economy, based on exporting oil and gas – the Russian manufacturing base and infrastructure are still largely the same inefficient and antiquated ones inherited from the old Soviet system, and for the most part Putin has not attempted to update them to make them competitive in the world markets.

Russia can certainly afford to design and build and show off a small fleet of advanced fighter planes, or a few pretty advanced ships for its navy.  But they can’t afford to give them the continuous and intensive training that America gives its fighting men and women. Nor to build and maintain the immense logistics system a modern armed forces needs to project its power beyond its own borders. Which is probably why Russia is depending mostly on its well trained but small cadre of special forces to surreptitiously lead so-called  “popular rebellions” in Eastern Ukraine – it’s all they really can afford to do, though that does seem to be enough to keep the Ukraine in turmoil.

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

It’s the economy, stupid!

The core theme of Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign was the slogan “It’s the economy, stupid”.   It was true then, and it remains just as true now.  While the administration fusses and fumes about various liberal ideological goals, and fumbles around in our foreign policy, and while Congress dithers, the core thing that matters before all else, and the core thing they all ought to be focused on (but are not), is the state of the American economy.

Why the economy?  Because it is the economy that makes everything else possible. Want a strong military? Only a robust economy can fund it.  Want more social services and health care?  Only a strong economy can fund them. Want more soft power in the world?  It takes a strong economy to produce that.  Want a better standard of living for America workers?  That only comes with a stronger economy.  There is no free lunch – all those things liberals and/or conservatives want cost money, and that money in the end can only come from taxes and payrolls and reinvested profits in a robust economy.  It’s not rocket science!

So what would a rational administration and Congress be focused on if they really wanted to insure a strong America economy in the long run?  Here is my own top 3  list:

Revitalizing the nation’s infrastructure.  A strong economy is built on, and requires, an effective, reliable and efficient infrastructure; roads, bridges, rail lines, airports, seaports, electric grids, communication systems, water systems and the like.   We once had the best in the world, but decades of neglect at the state and federal level have taken their toll. The last major infrastructure investment in this nation was under the Eisenhower administration when the Interstate Highway system was started. Since then our national infrastructure has deteriorated significantly. For example:

·         Engineering societies (who study these things) give our bridges and roads nationwide about a D average, and we have even had a few spectacular failures recently to remind us (eg – the I-35W Mississippi River Bridge collapse in Minneapolis). The Federal Highway Administration estimates that a capital investment of about $170 billion per year would be required to (eventually) bring our roads and bridges back just to an acceptable level of performance and safety. Annual federal, state and local investments are currently running at about half that level.

·         Despite the central importance of electric power to EVERYTHING in this nation, expansion and modernization of our electric grid system has not kept up with demand, and it is now straining at its limits, and moreover is highly vulnerable to failure from natural disasters and/or terrorist attacks. The American Society of Civil Engineers has estimated that an additional investment of at least $107 billion is needed by 2020 just to keep the current electric grid operating relatively reliably, and that doesn’t include any investment in modernization.

·         We invented the internet, yet according to The World Economic Forum the United States ranks 35th out of 148 countries in Internet bandwidth, a measure of available capacity in a country. Other studies rank the United States anywhere from 14th to 31st in average connection speed. And more than that, broadband connectivity costs about twice as much in America as in Europe. Things are pretty bad when broadband speed in Riga, Latvia is two and a half times faster than in San Antonio, Texas, and costs only one-fourth as much.

·         The US has built only two new major airports in the past 40 years, Dallas-Fort Worth and Denver International. (China, by contrast, is adding 56 new airports over the next 5 years.) The World Economic Forum ranks US aviation infrastructure 32nd in the world, behind that of Panama, Chile, and Malaysia. The FAA currently estimates that about $52 billion in investment in airport capacity expansion is needed just to manage the predicted passenger load by 2020, and that investment is not being made.  Beyond that, the US air traffic control system is woefully inadequate to handle even the current load, as frequent flight delays and periodic computer crashes demonstrate, and needs a complete redesign.  The FAA has talked about a Next Generation Air Traffic Control System for a decade now, and had just started to implement minor portions of it, but then Congress cut the funds even for that as part of the budget sequester.

Improving workforce education and training.  The world is increasingly dependent on technology, and that means more and more of the well-paying jobs in this country require technology training.  Whether it is a secretary using a word processor, a machinist running a numerical control milling machine, a medical technician running an EKG, an auto mechanic reading the problem codes from the on-board auto computer, a stock broker entering on-line orders, a webmaster building web pages, a mechanic servicing or programming an assembly-line robot, or a pilot flying a plane, more and more of the good jobs require significant technical training.

A 2013 Oxford University paper entitled The Future of Employment  estimates that up to 47% of current jobs can soon be automated.  These are the jobs that a computer can do, and do faster, more reliably, and at less cost (since a computer doesn’t need health care, sick leave, a pension, or vacations, and doesn’t belong to a union).  The jobs that are left are those that require initiative, creative and flexible thinking, interpersonal skills, complex assessments, and the like.  To maintain a robust economy we need to keep a high proportion of our labor force employed in well-paying jobs, which means we have to invest heavily in training or retraining that workforce and providing them with the skills needed for the best jobs available.

At the college and postgraduate level the US does just fine, though the costs of higher education are excessively high.  But that is even now in the process of correcting itself, as free or inexpensive on-line courses are bringing competitive market pressures to bear to drive costs down again.  But at the elementary and high school level we need to do better, and in particular we need to establish the sort of alternate track hands-on technical or trade school training route that some European countries have for those youngsters who have neither the need nor the interest in traditional academic training. In America we tend to look down at trade schools, because we have this idealized cultural myth that everyone ought to be able to go to college, but that is a mistake we need to change. Lots of youngsters have neither the aptitude nor the interest in traditional academic studies, but are fine, even sometimes brilliant, at hands-on technical work.  We need to capture that talent and put it to good, well-paying work.

Reducing the regulatory burden on small businesses and new start-ups. Here is the problem: bureaucracies tend to produce more regulations than are really needed. There are natural reasons for this. First, bureaucracies tend to make work to justify their existence and budgets. Second, bureaucracies tend to “cover their butt”, meaning they don’t want to be accused of missing something, so they over-regulate.  The public is part of this; if people get sick because of a batch of bad meat, they will promptly blame whatever food safety bureaucracy they think should have prevented the problem, and that bureaucracy will promptly add a mass more layers of regulations to protect itself in the future. Finally, big companies will sometimes press for onerous regulations to be added that help keep competitors at bay.  Big companies can afford teams of lawyers to fill out masses of regulatory paperwork, while small new start-ups can’t.

Now the problem is that despite the publicity that big corporations get, in fact small businesses make up most of the economy.  According to 2011 US Census data, small businesses with less than 500 employees make up 99.7% of all US businesses, and in fact 98% of all US businesses have less than 20 employees. And these small businesses generate about 46% of the Gross National Product, and create about 60% of new jobs.  So any time the government places a regulatory burden on a business sector, they disproportionately disadvantage small businesses and potential new start-ups, who have far less resources than large corporations to comply.  Yet it is these very small businesses and start-up who are the life blood of the economy. Just ask a local small business owner about the regulatory burden they bear. It can be enlightening.

According to a recent report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, at this point in the Obama admiration (which has continued to expand federal regulations at an unprecedented rate) the cost to businesses of federal regulations, at an estimated $1.8 trillion per year, is now bigger than the entire economies of all but nine countries in the world. For small businesses, federal regulations cost almost $11,000 per employee.

And some of these regulations are just ludicrous.  As The Economist recently reported
A Florida law requires vending-machine labels to urge the public to file a report if the label is not there. The Federal Railroad Administration insists that all trains must be painted with an “F” at the front, so you can tell which end is which. Bureaucratic busybodies in Bethesda, Maryland, have shut down children's lemonade stands because the enterprising young moppets did not have trading licenses. The list goes hilariously on.
and
Dodd-Frank is part of a wider trend. Governments of both parties keep adding stacks of rules, few of which are ever rescinded. Republicans write rules to thwart terrorists, which make flying in America an ordeal and prompt legions of brainy migrants to move to Canada instead. Democrats write rules to expand the welfare state. Barack Obama's health-care reform of 2010 had many virtues, especially its attempt to make health insurance universal. But it does little to reduce the system's staggering and increasing complexity. Every hour spent treating a patient in America creates at least 30 minutes of paperwork, and often a whole hour. Next year the number of federally mandated categories of illness and injury for which hospitals may claim reimbursement will rise from 18,000 to 140,000. There are nine codes relating to injuries caused by parrots, and three relating to burns from flaming water-skis.
Certainly we need regulations.  The problem is that we don’t need nearly as many as we now have, and that these excess regulations are a significant drag on the economy and a strong disincentive to start new businesses in America.

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Another perspective on Republican obstructionism

There is no question that the Republican party in Congress, and especially in the House, has tried to obstruct President Obama’s legislative initiatives at almost every turn.  Some of this is just hardball politics, some of it is pandering to Republican politician’s voter base, and some may even be driven by racism against our first black president. But there is another perspective to this steadfast opposition one might consider.

In general, a democratic government like ours ought not to implement major social policies, or major policies of any sort, without a national consensus.  Not a complete consensus of course, because there will always be those who oppose any new idea, however rational it is.  But at least a healthy majority of the nation ought to support any proposed new major government initiative before it is implemented.

The establishment of Social Security in 1935, in the depths of the depression, had overwhelming support from both parties at the time.  When President Johnson signed Medicare into law in 1965, there was overwhelming public support for it.  These were expensive programs that had a significant impact on America life, and so it was important that there be widespread support for them.

Look, by contrast, at passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). At its passage less than half the country supported it, and at no time since, up to today, has its public support (measured by periodic polls) risen above the low 40% mark.  It is no wonder it continues to be a source of such political friction. Aside from the fact that almost no one in Congress read the entire 2000+ page bill before they voted on it, and that it contained a poorly-thought out and unrealistic funding plan, it simply didn’t have the public backing that such a disruptive change ought to have had.

Or look at the current stalemate in immigration.  Liberals want to give many illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. Conservatives wonder (a) why we should reward illegal behavior with citizenship, and (b) why illegal immigrants should get citizenship ahead of the millions who have waited patiently for legal citizenship through the quota system.  These are hard questions, and it is by no means clear to anyone yet what the right answer would be, so it makes sense for the government to do nothing if it can’t yet figure out the right thing to do.

So I would propose another perspective to the current Congressional stalemate. President Obama keeps proposing liberal ideas that don’t (yet) have a national consensus behind them. Maybe they should have, but they don’t. So in fact perhaps the government is working exactly the way it should when it blocks such initiatives. Republicans are a majority in the House, and may soon be a majority in the Senate as well. They are a majority because, for better or worse, a lot of the nation’s voters elected them.  That means they more or less represent the will of a large portion of the nation, and perhaps it is right that no major legislative initiative, however rational or “right” it is, ought to be passed over the opposition of a large portion of the nation.

If a right-wing President were in office and a Democratically-controlled Congress blocked his minority right-wing initiatives, liberals would think Congress was just doing its job (and indeed, that is exactly what they thought during much of the last Bush administration).  So perhaps exactly the same logic applies here – the nation as a whole is not yet ready (and may never be) for some of the things President Obama is proposing, and until the nation is ready for them, they ought not to become law.