I am struck by the connection between power and immaturity in the world today. I see immaturity in the exercise of power in so many places. Perhaps it is a metaphor that can tell us something about ourselves and where we put our own power.
It seems to me that the power in the Islamic countries had been in the hands of two groups: the fundamentalist Islamic religious fanatics and the governmental brutal dictators. Neither of these groups have been exactly paragons of maturity.
The religious fundamentalists perceived the world in strictly black and white terms, good and evil, the Islamist purists vs. the devils of the West. This seems to me to be one of the defining traits of adolescence, living in a black and white universe with no room for nuances and grays. Keep things simple, easy to understand, just know the dogmas in order to avoid the need to think and feel each situation newly. Just decide long ago on the rigid rules and wage holy wars to promulgate the Truth, capital "T."
The dictators created a pretty black and white world as well. Keep it simple, whatever brutality and domination that is needed to get and keep power is all that matters. The needs of others only meant anything as it related to the need, demands, desires of the rulers. In other words, the dictators were and are self centered to levels that are hard to comprehend. This seems to me to be one of the defining traits of children and adolescents: self-centeredness and self importance.
But we can look closer to home to find immaturity and power linked together. Certainly, the self-centerdness and lack of caring for others was pretty much the defining characteristic of the Financial Industry as it inflated the housing bubble in order to extract vast fortunes from the middle classes of the developed world. The smartest of our youth went to Wall Street to make their fortunes rather than to be engineers or scientists like the older generations had that created NASA and built the industrial miracle that empowered and enriched and grew a vast middle class after WWII.
Unfortunately for us, creating lots of money for themselves had very little to do with actually creating a growing economy, and had so much more to do with creating insider games that rewarded super risky financial behavior that eventually blew up in all of our faces.
And, of course, immaturity was the hallmark of the millions of homebuyers who saw a chance to "move on up" into bigger and grander homes, beyond what they had any reason to think that they could actually afford. It was all just going to work out because real estate would always increase in value, or so thought the home buyers and mortgage sellers and politicians and almost everyone. The immaturity of following the crowd and believing what everyone else believed, especially if it made you feel richer.
Fortunately, of course, not everyone in the world has been immature, and I really do expect that there has been a lot of growing up in the last three years since the financial bubble collapsed. I expect that there has been a lot of re-evaluation by people as to what is important to them and as to what really matters in their lives. I expect that as people who have been self centered, short sighted, and immature in so many ways see how they have hurt themselves and others, people are choosing to grow up, and mature, and find themselves in ways they hadn't before.
In another way, perhaps the Arab Awakening is another metaphor - a metaphor of a new kind of power, the power of taking charge of our own lives, of taking our power back. The Arabs are taking their power back from their dictators, and perhaps in similar ways Westerners are taking our power back from the demands of success and ever-climbing wealth and external symbols of "making it." Maybe America can finally stop being driven by the need to "keep up with the Jones's."
Maybe the Arab Awakening is a metaphor of an awakening for all of us, by saying no to being ruled by others, whether obviously and directly by dictators, or being ruled in more indirect ways of trying to live the lives dictated to us through cultural expectations.
Or maybe I'm just talking about myself.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Qaddafi is dead
Qaddafi is dead. This is a good thing. I send my hopes and prayers to the Libyan people as they take the long road to building a country from scratch. Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
The mismanagement of institutions we rely on
The lives of ordinary people in America and the world have been affected by mismanagement of institutions that they rely on.
The failure of management in the financial industry was, and still is, dramatic and nearly catastrophic (catastrophe is still a possibility, however). By creating opaque and impossibly complex financial instruments that grossly inflated the housing bubble, the wizards of Wall Street created two things: massive fortunes for themselves and massive unemployment and underemployment for their societies.
The failure of management in government was to lower the standards for loans for home-buyers, and to reduce the financial regulations and government oversight of the financial industry. This started the housing bubble and gave the financial industry the ability, and even permission, to transform itself from a service industry, designed to help business and the economy grow, into becoming an end unto itself whose nearly sole purpose was, and still is, to create Pharaoh-like wealth for themselves and their progeny.
These two very badly managed institutions teamed up in a negative synergy that has threatened the way of life in America and the developed world. It looks like we are in a long period of struggling and perhaps even failing economies.
I am just starting to read the brilliant Michael Lewis's latest book "Boomerang." At this point it looks like his main point is that the financial crisis in the world is a series of financial crises country by country, and each country's crisis is a function of its national character. In addition, David Brooks writes in today's New York Times that America is turning inward to restore more prudent and thrifty values to their own lives and thus are in the process of a culture change that hopes to create a zeitgeist that obstructs such greed driven excesses in the future.
In the famous old words of Pogo "We have met the enemy and he is us." But we can change, and we are doing just that. This is an internal process, individual by individual, that creates real change from the ground up. It is not a political movement, but a look-in-the-mirror-come-to-your-senses moment for individuals that end up in a value shift of a country.
It is going to work, and we are going to transform our world into a better place to live, one person at a time, I believe.
The failure of management in the financial industry was, and still is, dramatic and nearly catastrophic (catastrophe is still a possibility, however). By creating opaque and impossibly complex financial instruments that grossly inflated the housing bubble, the wizards of Wall Street created two things: massive fortunes for themselves and massive unemployment and underemployment for their societies.
The failure of management in government was to lower the standards for loans for home-buyers, and to reduce the financial regulations and government oversight of the financial industry. This started the housing bubble and gave the financial industry the ability, and even permission, to transform itself from a service industry, designed to help business and the economy grow, into becoming an end unto itself whose nearly sole purpose was, and still is, to create Pharaoh-like wealth for themselves and their progeny.
These two very badly managed institutions teamed up in a negative synergy that has threatened the way of life in America and the developed world. It looks like we are in a long period of struggling and perhaps even failing economies.
I am just starting to read the brilliant Michael Lewis's latest book "Boomerang." At this point it looks like his main point is that the financial crisis in the world is a series of financial crises country by country, and each country's crisis is a function of its national character. In addition, David Brooks writes in today's New York Times that America is turning inward to restore more prudent and thrifty values to their own lives and thus are in the process of a culture change that hopes to create a zeitgeist that obstructs such greed driven excesses in the future.
In the famous old words of Pogo "We have met the enemy and he is us." But we can change, and we are doing just that. This is an internal process, individual by individual, that creates real change from the ground up. It is not a political movement, but a look-in-the-mirror-come-to-your-senses moment for individuals that end up in a value shift of a country.
It is going to work, and we are going to transform our world into a better place to live, one person at a time, I believe.
Friday, October 14, 2011
How the government can stimulate the economy
Conservative economist, Milton Feldstein, has proposed a solution to falling home prices that would stimulate the economy.
Since most people's form of wealth is in their homes, and since home prices continue to fall because so many are in homes where their mortgages are greater than the home values, the economy is at the mercy of home prices and we all live in a prolonged era of high unemployment, limited consumer demand, and a stagnant economy.
Feldstein's solution is to stimulate spending by stopping the decline in home prices caused by floods of mortgage defaults which are driving prices down. His suggestion is for the government to reduce mortgage principle when it exceeds 110% of the home value. He calculates that this would be a one time cost of $350 billion, and would be shared 50 - 50 by the government (taxpayers) and the banks (who created the housing bubble for their own ludicrous bonuses in the first place). In addition, the borrowers would also pay a price, and that would be a price of risk. The borrowers would get the lower mortgage, but the terms of the new mortgages would be different. If they defaulted on their mortgage, all of their assets would be available for collection, i.e their loans would become full recourse loans, rather than nonrecourse loans they currently have where only the house is taken in case of default.
This arrangement would have both borrowers and lenders making sacrifices to refinance at lower principles, and the government makes a one time payment in order to stop the housing slide and allow people the economic breathing room to spend more rather than be crushed under housing debt they can't handle. And the banks finally would get to clean their balance sheets with honest loans with high probabilities of payment.
Like other Martin Feldstein proposals, this makes a lot of sense to me, and will likely be ignored. I think it would work.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Occupy Wall Street has changed the dialogue
Eliot Spitzer writes that the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations may not morph into a full blown left wing Tea Party Movement, but in a very important way it has already won. What it has done is change the political debate in the country. The issues now in dialog are income distribution, fairness, justice, and accountability for the economic disaster we are all affected by.
I think if one can step back from the political partisanship, where the left demonizes the right and the right demonizes the left, both the Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party people speak to legitimate issues that should concern us all.
Occupy Wall Street is passionately decrying the oligarchical control of the government and income disparities that are so large they haven't been seen in this country until just before the Great Depression of the '30s. The Tea Party is passionately decrying the growing power of the faceless bureaucracies of government as they extended their reach into the health care of every American.
Both of these are legitimate concerns. As Spitzer points out, the passion comes from unsophisticated, emotional naifs, but these passions can turn into real political movements as more traditional politicians get involved and create agendas and programs to address the issues raised by the passionate.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Arab Awakening obstacles
The Coptic Christians in Egypt are being attacked and killed while they try to demonstrate for rights. I am not following it real closely, but it appears that the army is the oppressive force here, including anti-demonstrator propaganda and the use of armed personnel carriers and bullets. At least 24 were killed and hundreds wounded.
In addition to the army, it appears that ultra-conservative Islamists are also being violent against the Coptic Christians in Egypt, who comprise about ten percent of the population.
Key quote from the story:
" Christians also complain of long-standing discrimination, and of an Islamist discourse that is increasingly aggressive and denigrating of Christians. Ultra-conservative Islamist groups have been emboldened since the revolution, demanding the full application of Islamic law."
It looks like the generals in charge of the government are fomenting sectarian discord and violence as a pretense to reassert their brutal control over the population. The Arab Awakening was never going to be smooth and easy, but here it is hitting some pretty tough roadblocks even in Egypt, the heart of the movement and the world's best hope for establishing a some form of at least moderately workable democracy in the Middle East.
I always thought that the new Middle East would be quite a bit more Islamic than the more secular tyrannies that it replaces, but I have been hoping and expecting that it would not be dominated by the Islamist extremists. These clashes are an attempt, I am afraid, of the Islamists to overwhelm the process and keep the people under the boot of their form of tyranny.
But, I guess this was predictable and all part of the very messy process of reinvention of a country.
In addition to the army, it appears that ultra-conservative Islamists are also being violent against the Coptic Christians in Egypt, who comprise about ten percent of the population.
Key quote from the story:
" Christians also complain of long-standing discrimination, and of an Islamist discourse that is increasingly aggressive and denigrating of Christians. Ultra-conservative Islamist groups have been emboldened since the revolution, demanding the full application of Islamic law."
It looks like the generals in charge of the government are fomenting sectarian discord and violence as a pretense to reassert their brutal control over the population. The Arab Awakening was never going to be smooth and easy, but here it is hitting some pretty tough roadblocks even in Egypt, the heart of the movement and the world's best hope for establishing a some form of at least moderately workable democracy in the Middle East.
I always thought that the new Middle East would be quite a bit more Islamic than the more secular tyrannies that it replaces, but I have been hoping and expecting that it would not be dominated by the Islamist extremists. These clashes are an attempt, I am afraid, of the Islamists to overwhelm the process and keep the people under the boot of their form of tyranny.
But, I guess this was predictable and all part of the very messy process of reinvention of a country.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Condolences
My condolences to all those who are grieving the loss of Steve Jobs, a genius whose impact on the world brought us into the Information Age. So many who bought his products felt that they had a personal relationship with him, and feel his loss in a personal way.
A grateful world will miss him.
A grateful world will miss him.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Why California is the Greece of the U.S.
The brilliant Michael Lewis writes in Vanity Fair about the terrible budget problems of California. He makes three main points.
First, California is set up to destroy itself financially because the politicians have rigged the electoral process so that they only run in highly partisan districts. They have done this through the politically corrupt practice of gerrymandering the districts to make them safe seats for one party or the other. In addition, California has a referendum process designed so that the ideologues of either side can bypass the legislation altogether and craft ballots to get their way.
That means that the Democrats get to add services and the Republicans get to block spending increases, with the inevitable result that the state spends more than it takes in. Greece, here we come!
His second point is more general. The human brain was designed to survive in the wilderness, a place of scarcity, or at least a place that required a lot of energy to tame, manage, and survive. But the human race has now entered a time of enormous abundance, and it is no accident that we are living in times of internet bubbles, housing bubbles, drug addiction, and rampant obesity. The parts of our brains that say "grab all that you can while you can" was not designed for times where all the food, drugs, and credit that you want is just there for the taking. So, we have been taking, and taking, and taking without much in the way of restraint, and the result is the average Californian has debts of $78,000 against an income of $43,000. The levels of addictions have become epidemic - shopping, drugs, sex, overeating, etc. Whatever we want is available, especially if you have a nice collection of credit cards to buy now and not think about until, well...maybe never think about it at all, just keep shopping, consuming, eating.
He made a very interesting point in the article that is a corollary to why we are prone to overspending. Many of us live next to rich people. Or we see rich people in the media. And we think we are rich too, or at least we think we should be entitled to the same things that the rich people can afford, but we can't, and we buy it anyway...on credit.
The state of California is a reflection of the people of California: we are spending more than we can pay for.
His final point is that we are all like a fat pheasant who finds itself with no other competition for food and eats itself to a point where it is too fat to fly, and finally is eaten by a fox. That is, the environment provides the restraint that responsible action and self discipline fails to provide.
The message is pretty clear from his article. He ends up quite hopeful that Americans will figure this out and become responsible and adopt the kinds of personal character and restraint needed to keep from becoming the pheasants too fat to fly that get eaten by the foxes.
First, California is set up to destroy itself financially because the politicians have rigged the electoral process so that they only run in highly partisan districts. They have done this through the politically corrupt practice of gerrymandering the districts to make them safe seats for one party or the other. In addition, California has a referendum process designed so that the ideologues of either side can bypass the legislation altogether and craft ballots to get their way.
That means that the Democrats get to add services and the Republicans get to block spending increases, with the inevitable result that the state spends more than it takes in. Greece, here we come!
His second point is more general. The human brain was designed to survive in the wilderness, a place of scarcity, or at least a place that required a lot of energy to tame, manage, and survive. But the human race has now entered a time of enormous abundance, and it is no accident that we are living in times of internet bubbles, housing bubbles, drug addiction, and rampant obesity. The parts of our brains that say "grab all that you can while you can" was not designed for times where all the food, drugs, and credit that you want is just there for the taking. So, we have been taking, and taking, and taking without much in the way of restraint, and the result is the average Californian has debts of $78,000 against an income of $43,000. The levels of addictions have become epidemic - shopping, drugs, sex, overeating, etc. Whatever we want is available, especially if you have a nice collection of credit cards to buy now and not think about until, well...maybe never think about it at all, just keep shopping, consuming, eating.
He made a very interesting point in the article that is a corollary to why we are prone to overspending. Many of us live next to rich people. Or we see rich people in the media. And we think we are rich too, or at least we think we should be entitled to the same things that the rich people can afford, but we can't, and we buy it anyway...on credit.
The state of California is a reflection of the people of California: we are spending more than we can pay for.
His final point is that we are all like a fat pheasant who finds itself with no other competition for food and eats itself to a point where it is too fat to fly, and finally is eaten by a fox. That is, the environment provides the restraint that responsible action and self discipline fails to provide.
The message is pretty clear from his article. He ends up quite hopeful that Americans will figure this out and become responsible and adopt the kinds of personal character and restraint needed to keep from becoming the pheasants too fat to fly that get eaten by the foxes.
Monday, October 3, 2011
The left wing Tea Party?
The Occupy Wall Street demonstrations probably won't become the left wing version of the right wing Tea Party movement. But they are both pretty angry at an elite that seems to them to be taking away America as they know it.
The fear of the right wing is the ruin of America by an immensely powerful socialist government, and Obama's massive stimulus package and the massive overhaul of health care were proofs of their worst fears. So, the Tea Party rose up in anger and became an unsophisticated but important political force.
The fear of the left wing is the ruin of America by an immensely powerful corporate oligarchy, and the Wall Street created housing bubble and subsequent financial disaster, creating high unemployment and a long term "Great Recession", while Wall Street itself remains unpunished and ever more wealthy are proofs of their worst fears. So, Occupy Wall Street demonstrations are rising up in anger and could become an angry and important political force similar to the Tea Party.
The left is afraid of corporate greed, i.e. the super wealthy amassing enormous fortunes while the nation becomes more and more poor; and right is afraid of government greed, i.e. government amassing more and more power and taking more and more control over individual's lives. Both are afraid of becoming helpless at the expense of those in power.
Both have a point. But, we do have a system that can overcome excesses of power, the Constitution and elected officials are designed to give us the tools needed to break up excess power when it accumulates. Teddy Roosevelt was the Trust Buster and diminished the powers of the corporate oligarchies of his day, and Ronald Reagan dismantled the overly powerful government of his day.
But today, we may have both a government that is too powerful and an oligarchy that is too powerful at the same time. Now what? Those who want to dismantle the oligarchy want to make government more powerful, which may be a step in the wrong direction. And those who want to dismantle the government could end up making the oligarchy more powerful, which may be a step in the wrong direction also.
I have some hope for a new centrist movement embodied in the Americans' Elect movement which is trying to put centrist names on the presidential ballots. Rather than be stuck with Tea Party influenced Republicans or Occupy Wall Street influenced Democrats, we may get some pragmatic but powerful forces in the middle getting elected. People like Simpson and Bowles, who put together the Simpson-Bowles report on reducing the deficit by raising revenues and reforming entitlements - things that need to be done but which our extremes driven politics forbid.
The fear of the right wing is the ruin of America by an immensely powerful socialist government, and Obama's massive stimulus package and the massive overhaul of health care were proofs of their worst fears. So, the Tea Party rose up in anger and became an unsophisticated but important political force.
The fear of the left wing is the ruin of America by an immensely powerful corporate oligarchy, and the Wall Street created housing bubble and subsequent financial disaster, creating high unemployment and a long term "Great Recession", while Wall Street itself remains unpunished and ever more wealthy are proofs of their worst fears. So, Occupy Wall Street demonstrations are rising up in anger and could become an angry and important political force similar to the Tea Party.
The left is afraid of corporate greed, i.e. the super wealthy amassing enormous fortunes while the nation becomes more and more poor; and right is afraid of government greed, i.e. government amassing more and more power and taking more and more control over individual's lives. Both are afraid of becoming helpless at the expense of those in power.
Both have a point. But, we do have a system that can overcome excesses of power, the Constitution and elected officials are designed to give us the tools needed to break up excess power when it accumulates. Teddy Roosevelt was the Trust Buster and diminished the powers of the corporate oligarchies of his day, and Ronald Reagan dismantled the overly powerful government of his day.
But today, we may have both a government that is too powerful and an oligarchy that is too powerful at the same time. Now what? Those who want to dismantle the oligarchy want to make government more powerful, which may be a step in the wrong direction. And those who want to dismantle the government could end up making the oligarchy more powerful, which may be a step in the wrong direction also.
I have some hope for a new centrist movement embodied in the Americans' Elect movement which is trying to put centrist names on the presidential ballots. Rather than be stuck with Tea Party influenced Republicans or Occupy Wall Street influenced Democrats, we may get some pragmatic but powerful forces in the middle getting elected. People like Simpson and Bowles, who put together the Simpson-Bowles report on reducing the deficit by raising revenues and reforming entitlements - things that need to be done but which our extremes driven politics forbid.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Congrtatulations to Obama
I have been critical of Obama about how he has been dealing with the economy, wishing he had, or would, take significant tax reform and entitlement cutting to the Congress and the country. However, I say congratulations to him and his administration for their killing of a major player in the war on the terrorists - the significant propagandist, Anwar al-Awlaki, plus another major propagandist in his company, Samir Khan.
It is certainly true that this is the result of very intelligent hard work on the part of our outstanding military, and they should get the bulk of our gratitude. But, Obama has supported our efforts in terrorist wars pretty full heartedly, taking out Osama bin Laden, and now al Awlaki as well. Next up, I expect that bin Laden's number two, al Zawahiri, will be a headline before too much time passes.
Obama came into the presidency on promises of getting the U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as he could. He was contrasted to McCain who said he wouldn't leave until the job was finished. At the time of the campaign, I thought those two positions were very much the same, just worded differently. Once Obama took office and became debriefed on the actual situation in our war against the terrorists, he pretty much continued W's policies at home and abroad. Which I think just shows what any responsible president would have to do, given the realities of the threats he sees.
So, a very major defeat for the bad guys, and a success for our president. Congratulations!
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
It's not just the Republicans
Even though it is certainly true (as liberals believe it to be) that the Republicans have been totally obstructionist to just about anything that Obama and the Democrats have wanted to do about the economy, it is not true (even though liberals want to believe it to be) that the Republicans just decided to do this out of the blue for reasons primarily based on their attempts to take over the government and do anything to stop the Obama administration from succeeding even if it means that they hurt America in the process of stopping Obama.
In other words, Obama and the Democrats aren't the poor little innocent victims being bullied by the nasty old Republicans that they want to pretend to be.
Or, another way to say it is, Obama and the Democrats are reaping what they sowed, or so it seems to me.
When Obama and the Democrats were swept into power in 2008 after having been frustratedly and furiously out of power for the eight years of W, they over-read their mandate. Parties that win often over-read their mandates and decide that they have finally won an argument that has spanned decades and the country has decided that their side was right all along, and that the country is eager to go along with the winners' sweeping programs and totally change the face of the country. To the Democrats, it seemed like a new era of liberalism, and they were going to create a change in the country that would rival the watershed presidencies of FDR and LBJ.
So, the first thing that Obama did was create a $900 billion Keynesian stimulus plan (which is more money than has been spent on the war in Iraq!). There were three problems with this bold move. First, the Republicans didn't believe in Keynesian economics and thought it was a disastrous idea. Second, Obama turned the thing over to the Democrats in congress who, in turn, pretty much ignored, and certainly did not invite, Republican input to the stimulus package. And third, the huge quantities of money spent were not smartly targeted to stimulate the economy, but had far too much of the odor of sending vast sums to liberal fellow travelers and long treasured liberal pet causes.
A short way of saying that is that Obama and the Democrats did pretty much what they wanted to do with this gigantic fortune of taxpayer money and pretty much told the Republicans to shove it.
Indeed, it may have saved some jobs along the way, but certainly didn't have the impact on jobs that the liberals thought it would.
Then, the second thing that Obama did was create a massive reform of the health care system. There were three things wrong with this bold move as well. First, the Republicans didn't believe in a national health care system and thought it was a disastrous idea. Second, Obama again turned it over to the Democrats of congress who, in turn pretty much ignored and certainly did not invite, Republican input to the Orwellian named "Affordable Care Act". Republicans screeched in protest, but it was mostly conservative Democrats that acted as a moderating influence on the final law. And third, the final product never had a large support from the general public despite the avid enthusiasm of liberals. Obamacare did not come to life as a result of a uprising of popular will, but rather was passed by hard core political action that ran roughshod over the opposition - the Republicans.
A short way of saying that is that Obama and the Democrats did pretty much what they wanted to do with this massive overhaul of a major portion of the economy and pretty much told the Republicans to shove it.
Indeed, it may actually be an improvement over the old health care system, if it survives a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court, but the health care costs and system will continue to be a terrible problem in the country for a long time to come.
So, guess what happened? The Republicans won a major electoral victory in 2010, and they... over-read their mandate.
The Republicans decided that they would do pretty much what they wanted to do and would tell the Democrats to shove it. So, they came up with the terrible tactics of holding the government hostage by refusing to pay its bills by extending the debt ceiling until they got what they wanted on budget cutting without raising taxes.
So, let's see what the score is: Democrats got $900 billion stimulus spending and massive health care reform, and Republicans got a small amount of budget cutting without increasing taxes.
Now, who have been the bullies?
In other words, Obama and the Democrats aren't the poor little innocent victims being bullied by the nasty old Republicans that they want to pretend to be.
Or, another way to say it is, Obama and the Democrats are reaping what they sowed, or so it seems to me.
When Obama and the Democrats were swept into power in 2008 after having been frustratedly and furiously out of power for the eight years of W, they over-read their mandate. Parties that win often over-read their mandates and decide that they have finally won an argument that has spanned decades and the country has decided that their side was right all along, and that the country is eager to go along with the winners' sweeping programs and totally change the face of the country. To the Democrats, it seemed like a new era of liberalism, and they were going to create a change in the country that would rival the watershed presidencies of FDR and LBJ.
So, the first thing that Obama did was create a $900 billion Keynesian stimulus plan (which is more money than has been spent on the war in Iraq!). There were three problems with this bold move. First, the Republicans didn't believe in Keynesian economics and thought it was a disastrous idea. Second, Obama turned the thing over to the Democrats in congress who, in turn, pretty much ignored, and certainly did not invite, Republican input to the stimulus package. And third, the huge quantities of money spent were not smartly targeted to stimulate the economy, but had far too much of the odor of sending vast sums to liberal fellow travelers and long treasured liberal pet causes.
A short way of saying that is that Obama and the Democrats did pretty much what they wanted to do with this gigantic fortune of taxpayer money and pretty much told the Republicans to shove it.
Indeed, it may have saved some jobs along the way, but certainly didn't have the impact on jobs that the liberals thought it would.
Then, the second thing that Obama did was create a massive reform of the health care system. There were three things wrong with this bold move as well. First, the Republicans didn't believe in a national health care system and thought it was a disastrous idea. Second, Obama again turned it over to the Democrats of congress who, in turn pretty much ignored and certainly did not invite, Republican input to the Orwellian named "Affordable Care Act". Republicans screeched in protest, but it was mostly conservative Democrats that acted as a moderating influence on the final law. And third, the final product never had a large support from the general public despite the avid enthusiasm of liberals. Obamacare did not come to life as a result of a uprising of popular will, but rather was passed by hard core political action that ran roughshod over the opposition - the Republicans.
A short way of saying that is that Obama and the Democrats did pretty much what they wanted to do with this massive overhaul of a major portion of the economy and pretty much told the Republicans to shove it.
Indeed, it may actually be an improvement over the old health care system, if it survives a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court, but the health care costs and system will continue to be a terrible problem in the country for a long time to come.
So, guess what happened? The Republicans won a major electoral victory in 2010, and they... over-read their mandate.
The Republicans decided that they would do pretty much what they wanted to do and would tell the Democrats to shove it. So, they came up with the terrible tactics of holding the government hostage by refusing to pay its bills by extending the debt ceiling until they got what they wanted on budget cutting without raising taxes.
So, let's see what the score is: Democrats got $900 billion stimulus spending and massive health care reform, and Republicans got a small amount of budget cutting without increasing taxes.
Now, who have been the bullies?
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Back from vacation
I'm back from a week long vacation, and I see that not too much has changed. Although I think that the bloom is going off the Rick Perry rose. Even conservative editorialist Peggy Noonan is criticizing Perry as being too extreme, incendiary, and un-nuanced. He seems to play to the far right, and does so in a way that alienates pretty much everybody else.
As she pointed out, Obama can't win re-election, but the Republicans can lose it. At this late date, only Romney or Huntsman have any chance of becoming Republican presidents, it seems to me. The rest would make a fairly unpopular, and pretty much failed president, look pretty good in comparison.
As she pointed out, Obama can't win re-election, but the Republicans can lose it. At this late date, only Romney or Huntsman have any chance of becoming Republican presidents, it seems to me. The rest would make a fairly unpopular, and pretty much failed president, look pretty good in comparison.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Time to get the Federal house in order
Obama has found something to run on. I was stumped as to what he was going to do. Run as the guy who could reach across the isle and create a post-partisan era of government? He kind of ran on that in 2008, and he failed miserably, to put the kindest light on it. Run as the guy who would take it to the Republicans and force good government down their throats? He didn't seem to have the temperament to engage in the battle.
Well, he seems to have decided to try option B, run as the guy with the good ideas and fight the obstructionist Republicans and take it to the people to back him and win the fight of good vs evil. That seems to me to be his only hope.
Bill Clinton was interviewed this week and made an excellent political point. Right now Obama is running against himself, and people are scared, angry, and frustrated, and they are taking it out on the president. Just looking at his presidency, he looks bad, especially if you ignore foreign policy and focus on the economy. As we all know, the economy is in bad shape and looking worse all the time. So, if the election were only about re-electing Obama, he loses.
Fortunately for him, he has only one chance of winning, and that is if he runs against a Republican. Especially if he runs against a right wing Republican like say, Perry. Then, he starts to look better. If he runs against a RINO, Republican in Name Only, like say, Romney or Huntsman, he will have a very tough time being re-elected.
His biggest weakness seems to me to be competence. It is strange that a man we all believe to be so smart's biggest weakness seems to be making mental mistakes, mistakes of choices, mistakes of strategy, mistakes of thinking.
I believe he made a terrible mistake on the first massive stimulus bill that ceded strategy and power to congress, meaning he gave the government over to the Pelosi Democrats, i.e. the left wing of the Democratic Party, who turned the stimulus into a boondoggle of left wing goodies that had been waiting in the wings for decades, rather than targeted, temporary, job creating investments in the future. Or, to say it another way, he didn't spend the money smartly.
I believe he then made another terrible decision, a not very smart decision, when he decided that he was done with creating jobs and reviving the economy after a catastrophic financial crisis, and he decided to go for another left wing fantasy of decades - massive health reform. And he did so by pointing the direction and handing it over to Congress again. Back came the Pelosi Democrats while he seemed to be mostly watching on the sidelines and giving fairly meaningless speeches along the way. He seemed to be mostly helplessly watching the terrible people doing terrible things to his lovely ideas without any real notion of how to take charge of the situation himself.
His last very not smart decision came when the Simpson-Bowles commission came out with their report as to how to revive the catastrophically damaged economy with a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases for the Federal Government. He took that powerful document, and the powerful proponents of the thinking behind it, and ... made a nice little speech, offering a few fairly meaningless tidbits out of it, none of it amounting to much at all.
Well, now he has at least come up with an actual bill, his "jobs bill", that he is actually promoting. Too bad it is so transparently a campaign strategy rather than an actual bill that he is trying to pass through Congress. It is pretty obvious to me that he has decided that he cannot get anything passed through a congress that has any Republicans in it and has decided that what he must do is put forward a pretend bill that the Republicans will obstruct so that he will have something to campaign on over the next fourteen months.
I think his bill is actually a pretty good one. It has the basic approach that I think is obvious and necessary, i.e. it cuts spending and raises revenues. But it just doesn't seem to be serious to me. What would be serious would be a major tax reform, that raises revenues, and entitlement reform that cuts the real spending in government, the entitlements, and oh, yes, by the way, cut the massive defense spending that neither party wants to touch while you are at it.
We are becoming Greece, or at least becoming Europe. We need to come to grips with the obvious notion that we need less government and need to pay more for it. As it is, we are borrowing forty cents of every dollar that the government is spending. So many of us have tried that in our personal lives and have found out what it means to have our credit cards, mortgages, and other debts eat up all of our financial, mental, emotional, and spiritual energies.
The American people have already made the adjustment to get their own houses in order, i.e. cut spending and raise revenues if they can. It seems to me that if a leader were to step forward to lead the country in doing that same thing on a national level, the response would be very favorable indeed.
Well, he seems to have decided to try option B, run as the guy with the good ideas and fight the obstructionist Republicans and take it to the people to back him and win the fight of good vs evil. That seems to me to be his only hope.
Bill Clinton was interviewed this week and made an excellent political point. Right now Obama is running against himself, and people are scared, angry, and frustrated, and they are taking it out on the president. Just looking at his presidency, he looks bad, especially if you ignore foreign policy and focus on the economy. As we all know, the economy is in bad shape and looking worse all the time. So, if the election were only about re-electing Obama, he loses.
Fortunately for him, he has only one chance of winning, and that is if he runs against a Republican. Especially if he runs against a right wing Republican like say, Perry. Then, he starts to look better. If he runs against a RINO, Republican in Name Only, like say, Romney or Huntsman, he will have a very tough time being re-elected.
His biggest weakness seems to me to be competence. It is strange that a man we all believe to be so smart's biggest weakness seems to be making mental mistakes, mistakes of choices, mistakes of strategy, mistakes of thinking.
I believe he made a terrible mistake on the first massive stimulus bill that ceded strategy and power to congress, meaning he gave the government over to the Pelosi Democrats, i.e. the left wing of the Democratic Party, who turned the stimulus into a boondoggle of left wing goodies that had been waiting in the wings for decades, rather than targeted, temporary, job creating investments in the future. Or, to say it another way, he didn't spend the money smartly.
I believe he then made another terrible decision, a not very smart decision, when he decided that he was done with creating jobs and reviving the economy after a catastrophic financial crisis, and he decided to go for another left wing fantasy of decades - massive health reform. And he did so by pointing the direction and handing it over to Congress again. Back came the Pelosi Democrats while he seemed to be mostly watching on the sidelines and giving fairly meaningless speeches along the way. He seemed to be mostly helplessly watching the terrible people doing terrible things to his lovely ideas without any real notion of how to take charge of the situation himself.
His last very not smart decision came when the Simpson-Bowles commission came out with their report as to how to revive the catastrophically damaged economy with a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases for the Federal Government. He took that powerful document, and the powerful proponents of the thinking behind it, and ... made a nice little speech, offering a few fairly meaningless tidbits out of it, none of it amounting to much at all.
Well, now he has at least come up with an actual bill, his "jobs bill", that he is actually promoting. Too bad it is so transparently a campaign strategy rather than an actual bill that he is trying to pass through Congress. It is pretty obvious to me that he has decided that he cannot get anything passed through a congress that has any Republicans in it and has decided that what he must do is put forward a pretend bill that the Republicans will obstruct so that he will have something to campaign on over the next fourteen months.
I think his bill is actually a pretty good one. It has the basic approach that I think is obvious and necessary, i.e. it cuts spending and raises revenues. But it just doesn't seem to be serious to me. What would be serious would be a major tax reform, that raises revenues, and entitlement reform that cuts the real spending in government, the entitlements, and oh, yes, by the way, cut the massive defense spending that neither party wants to touch while you are at it.
We are becoming Greece, or at least becoming Europe. We need to come to grips with the obvious notion that we need less government and need to pay more for it. As it is, we are borrowing forty cents of every dollar that the government is spending. So many of us have tried that in our personal lives and have found out what it means to have our credit cards, mortgages, and other debts eat up all of our financial, mental, emotional, and spiritual energies.
The American people have already made the adjustment to get their own houses in order, i.e. cut spending and raise revenues if they can. It seems to me that if a leader were to step forward to lead the country in doing that same thing on a national level, the response would be very favorable indeed.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
9/11 Ten Years Later
Ten years after that shocking and terrible day we have not had a major attack on the U.S., a miracle demonstrating the country's ability to respond, and to do so effectively, even though the task has been enormous, the bureaucracies cumbersome, the mistakes rampant, and the criticisms unceasing.
We have spent about a trillion dollars on war in the Middle East, where thousands of Americans and tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Muslims have died, including the one who started it all, Osama bin Laden.
We are trying to get out of these expensive wars, and are starting to see them as unnecessary, as the Arab Awakening is painfully marching across the Middle East, providing an Arab vision of overthrowing the tyrannies of the Middle East quite different than the Islamist vision of attacking the U.S. and the West in order to free the people from tyranny.
The country is deeply divided, but interestingly enough, the focus is on the economy, not the war.
The war that started with a bang, might eventually, slowly, dwindle out and end with but a whimper as both America and the Middle East turn to things they now see as more important than killing each other - for America, to heal and grow its economy, for the Middle East to overthrow tyranny by rising up against their homegrown tyrants and trying to learn how to govern themselves.
In the face of what is really important, prosperity and freedom, who has time for stupid wars?
We have spent about a trillion dollars on war in the Middle East, where thousands of Americans and tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Muslims have died, including the one who started it all, Osama bin Laden.
We are trying to get out of these expensive wars, and are starting to see them as unnecessary, as the Arab Awakening is painfully marching across the Middle East, providing an Arab vision of overthrowing the tyrannies of the Middle East quite different than the Islamist vision of attacking the U.S. and the West in order to free the people from tyranny.
The country is deeply divided, but interestingly enough, the focus is on the economy, not the war.
The war that started with a bang, might eventually, slowly, dwindle out and end with but a whimper as both America and the Middle East turn to things they now see as more important than killing each other - for America, to heal and grow its economy, for the Middle East to overthrow tyranny by rising up against their homegrown tyrants and trying to learn how to govern themselves.
In the face of what is really important, prosperity and freedom, who has time for stupid wars?
Thursday, September 8, 2011
The election, an overview
I am not emotionally invested in any candidate for this upcoming election. I think the reason is that I see both parties as obsolete.
On the one hand are the people who believe in Government. Government is fine and is needed, but as an overview, I think it is pretty clear to me that the idea of the over-sized government, the entitlement state has failed. The European countries all voted themselves gigantic governments that provided ever expanding benefits and services to their people, and the most profligate of them, the PIGS (Portugal, Italy and Ireland, Greece, and Spain) are essentially bankrupt and can only continue with drastic cuts in government spending and huge loans from the productive countries, especially Germany. So, the experiment of a socialist-light approach to governing looks to me like an idea that didn't work. And the left in America is still trying to push us into that uber-government model.
So the Government as The Solution is an obsolete idea, it seems to me.
On the other hand, there are people who believe in the Free Market. It is also pretty clear to me that the Reaganite, conservative, Republican idea that all the government needs to do is get out of the way of the magnificent, wealth creating, abundance overflowing free market is also a lovely dream that has been exposed as a cruel failure and hoax. The Republican mantra of cutting taxes and regulations to produce economic prosperity was decisively disproven by George W Bush. He cut taxes and jobs shrank rather then grew. He cut regulations and the financial industry opportunistically, and very successfully transferred billions of dollars from the middle classes into their own multi-million dollar bonuses and generational fortunes. When their financial-industry-created housing bubble collapsed, they used their wealth and influence to transfer hundreds of more billions of dollars to themselves in bailouts and stopped any attempts to raise taxes on them or impose meaningful regulations or meaningful financial industry reform.
So, the Free Market as The Solution is also a obsolete idea, it seems to me.
So, who is running for president? for Congress? All I can see are people who are captive of one of the two obsolete fantasies mentioned above.
So, whom do I vote for? I wish I knew. I have been waiting for a non-ideological problem solver for about a decade now. W ran as a "uniter, not a divider" so I thought he might be the one to be able to reach across the isle and find non-ideological solutions. He was brutally divisive. Obama ran as a "post-partisan" politician who thought that people on the other side of the isle had some good ideas. He is brutally divisive.
Who do we throw out? Who do we replace them with?
We need a new vision of government, one that is not centered on how big or how small government is. I wish I knew what that vision is, or who is that visionary. I don't.
On the one hand are the people who believe in Government. Government is fine and is needed, but as an overview, I think it is pretty clear to me that the idea of the over-sized government, the entitlement state has failed. The European countries all voted themselves gigantic governments that provided ever expanding benefits and services to their people, and the most profligate of them, the PIGS (Portugal, Italy and Ireland, Greece, and Spain) are essentially bankrupt and can only continue with drastic cuts in government spending and huge loans from the productive countries, especially Germany. So, the experiment of a socialist-light approach to governing looks to me like an idea that didn't work. And the left in America is still trying to push us into that uber-government model.
So the Government as The Solution is an obsolete idea, it seems to me.
On the other hand, there are people who believe in the Free Market. It is also pretty clear to me that the Reaganite, conservative, Republican idea that all the government needs to do is get out of the way of the magnificent, wealth creating, abundance overflowing free market is also a lovely dream that has been exposed as a cruel failure and hoax. The Republican mantra of cutting taxes and regulations to produce economic prosperity was decisively disproven by George W Bush. He cut taxes and jobs shrank rather then grew. He cut regulations and the financial industry opportunistically, and very successfully transferred billions of dollars from the middle classes into their own multi-million dollar bonuses and generational fortunes. When their financial-industry-created housing bubble collapsed, they used their wealth and influence to transfer hundreds of more billions of dollars to themselves in bailouts and stopped any attempts to raise taxes on them or impose meaningful regulations or meaningful financial industry reform.
So, the Free Market as The Solution is also a obsolete idea, it seems to me.
So, who is running for president? for Congress? All I can see are people who are captive of one of the two obsolete fantasies mentioned above.
So, whom do I vote for? I wish I knew. I have been waiting for a non-ideological problem solver for about a decade now. W ran as a "uniter, not a divider" so I thought he might be the one to be able to reach across the isle and find non-ideological solutions. He was brutally divisive. Obama ran as a "post-partisan" politician who thought that people on the other side of the isle had some good ideas. He is brutally divisive.
Who do we throw out? Who do we replace them with?
We need a new vision of government, one that is not centered on how big or how small government is. I wish I knew what that vision is, or who is that visionary. I don't.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Qaddafi vows never to surrender
Why on earth would Qaddafi and those loyal to him surrender? They only face death after trials either in Libya or the by the International Criminal Court. Die in battle or die in jail, which is better? Haven't they been pushed into a position where they must fight to the death? This is a terrible thing, and means fire fights street by street, house by house, hand to hand, just more and more death.
I suppose that the rationale for the International Criminal Court's accusing brutal tyrants of war crimes is that in so doing other tyrants will be forewarned and prevented from committing war crimes. But I don't think that tyrants ever think they are going to lose power, and if they think their reigns of terror are in danger, they just up the terror and kill off the opposition to stay in power. That they will ultimately lose power just doesn't come into their brains, as best I can guess.
Qaddafi seems to have lost control of the country, but that is different than ending the fighting. As I wrote earlier, I expect Qaddafi loyalists to fight on for some time, and maybe even be a counter-revolutionary force in the country for years to come.
I think there is no doubt about Qaddafi's decision: as in the movie "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" - go out with both guns blazing.
I suppose that the rationale for the International Criminal Court's accusing brutal tyrants of war crimes is that in so doing other tyrants will be forewarned and prevented from committing war crimes. But I don't think that tyrants ever think they are going to lose power, and if they think their reigns of terror are in danger, they just up the terror and kill off the opposition to stay in power. That they will ultimately lose power just doesn't come into their brains, as best I can guess.
Qaddafi seems to have lost control of the country, but that is different than ending the fighting. As I wrote earlier, I expect Qaddafi loyalists to fight on for some time, and maybe even be a counter-revolutionary force in the country for years to come.
I think there is no doubt about Qaddafi's decision: as in the movie "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" - go out with both guns blazing.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Steve Jobs, a mixed bag visionary
I am a Boomer, and for a large portion of my life I realized that my grandfather's life had been changed more by technology than mine had. Even though I was living in a remarkable, technological era with TV, fast cars and planes, rockets to the moon, etc. his personal experience was transformed in a way for him that it hadn't been for me. He and his generation had been personally empowered by the technological changes in a way that had been unprecedented in history.
He went from an era of horse and buggy to cars and planes. The radio connected him to the world in a way that his parents hadn't known. Electricity and transportation transformed his world dramatically. My world had better versions of the things that his world had introduced: the TV was an upgrade of the radio, the cars were faster and the roads were better, electricity modernized the home, the kitchen, and the workplace. But his world changed from a rural world to an industrial world.
The symbols of that industrial transformation were Thomas Edison and Henry Ford. They changed the world.
But, my world was changed in just as dramatic a way when Steve Jobs led a new pack of transformers onto the scene. Edison and Ford brought the industrial age to everyday people. Jobs and Gates brought the information age to everyday people. With the advent of the personal computer, followed by many outgrowths of it, people are connected to each other and the the world and to infinite sources of information in ways that were unthinkable to my grandfather, and unthinkable to my younger self.
Like Henry Ford, Steve Jobs is a mixed bag. He is being rightly praised as his illness forces him to step aside at his company, Apple, for his remarkable vision and the force of his charismatic personality to carry that vision into the world. It seems to me, however, that along with the amazing positives of Steve Jobs and the unquestionable benefit that he has been, and perhaps will continue to be for a while at least, he also carries a very dark and destructive impact as well.
It seems to me that part of his legend, and thus part of his influence, is his obsessive, demanding, domineering, abusive personality and management style. The biggest problem with that is that it looks to me like people have conflated the two - the visionary and the abusive tyrant. They seem to think that the way to be like Steve Jobs is to be an abusive tyrant, as if visionary genius will spring forth from abusing people in their organization and in their competition.
It's pretty easy to be as abusive and demanding as Jobs, but that has nothing to do with being an intuitive, visionary genius. So, Apple will plod along under the reign of another workaholic, perfectionistic, perhaps abusive manager. And Apple may even still benefit from visionaries within it. But I fear that Steve Jobs wannabees in the high tech area and beyond will drive themselves and the poor souls under their reigns of terror to ever more imbalanced, workaholic lives. But none of that will replicate that part of Steve Jobs that transformed the modern world - being a visionary genius.
So, I am hoping and expecting new visionaries to step forward and, being themselves rather than trying to be Jobs imitators, will become even greater visionaries and take the world into even more remarkable and fascinating places.
Thank you, Steve Jobs, for your transformational visions. I know that your were worshiped and followed nearly slavishly by employees and customers both. I just wish you had treated people better along the way.
It's up the the rest now to create their own, unique visions, along with more transformational and positive ways of bringing those visions to fruition.
He went from an era of horse and buggy to cars and planes. The radio connected him to the world in a way that his parents hadn't known. Electricity and transportation transformed his world dramatically. My world had better versions of the things that his world had introduced: the TV was an upgrade of the radio, the cars were faster and the roads were better, electricity modernized the home, the kitchen, and the workplace. But his world changed from a rural world to an industrial world.
The symbols of that industrial transformation were Thomas Edison and Henry Ford. They changed the world.
But, my world was changed in just as dramatic a way when Steve Jobs led a new pack of transformers onto the scene. Edison and Ford brought the industrial age to everyday people. Jobs and Gates brought the information age to everyday people. With the advent of the personal computer, followed by many outgrowths of it, people are connected to each other and the the world and to infinite sources of information in ways that were unthinkable to my grandfather, and unthinkable to my younger self.
Like Henry Ford, Steve Jobs is a mixed bag. He is being rightly praised as his illness forces him to step aside at his company, Apple, for his remarkable vision and the force of his charismatic personality to carry that vision into the world. It seems to me, however, that along with the amazing positives of Steve Jobs and the unquestionable benefit that he has been, and perhaps will continue to be for a while at least, he also carries a very dark and destructive impact as well.
It seems to me that part of his legend, and thus part of his influence, is his obsessive, demanding, domineering, abusive personality and management style. The biggest problem with that is that it looks to me like people have conflated the two - the visionary and the abusive tyrant. They seem to think that the way to be like Steve Jobs is to be an abusive tyrant, as if visionary genius will spring forth from abusing people in their organization and in their competition.
It's pretty easy to be as abusive and demanding as Jobs, but that has nothing to do with being an intuitive, visionary genius. So, Apple will plod along under the reign of another workaholic, perfectionistic, perhaps abusive manager. And Apple may even still benefit from visionaries within it. But I fear that Steve Jobs wannabees in the high tech area and beyond will drive themselves and the poor souls under their reigns of terror to ever more imbalanced, workaholic lives. But none of that will replicate that part of Steve Jobs that transformed the modern world - being a visionary genius.
So, I am hoping and expecting new visionaries to step forward and, being themselves rather than trying to be Jobs imitators, will become even greater visionaries and take the world into even more remarkable and fascinating places.
Thank you, Steve Jobs, for your transformational visions. I know that your were worshiped and followed nearly slavishly by employees and customers both. I just wish you had treated people better along the way.
It's up the the rest now to create their own, unique visions, along with more transformational and positive ways of bringing those visions to fruition.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Qaddafi finally gone?
It ain't over until the crazy man is dead, and his sons as well, but I am hopeful that the end game is coming.
I am guessing that the rebels have pretty good control of Tripoli and the country, but I am also guessing that Qaddafi loyalists aren't done fighting, and might carry on for years against whatever new regime takes over. I worry about Qaddafi sons and old regime power players having either substantial roles in a new power structure or playing significant destabilizing roles against a new power structure. And, I still wish Obama and the West had responded in opposition to Qaddafi within a very few days rather than the weeks it took to do so. There was at least a chance, in my mind, that Qaddafi military and power cronies would have turned on him, the way the Egyptian powerful turned on Mubarak.
All those qualifiers aside, a world without the madman Qaddafi is a better world, and I am extremely grateful that his fall did not cost any American soldiers' lives. Obama's stepping aside and having NATO take the lead in this affair was a real watershed moment. It may be the first time that the U.S. didn't take the overt military lead in conflicts overseas, but played a support and encouragement role.
I like that role. I am tired of American military action as a first response to difficult world problems. This revolution was and is a Libyan revolution and came out of the Libyan people. There is no question that they were someone else's puppets or proxies. Obama's real leadership in creating a new post-cold war world may be in his foreign policy. It seems vacillating and indecisive at times, but I think he is trying to create a new role for America in the world, a role that does not lead with its military power as an automatic response.
What government will emerge after Qaddafi is finally gone is quite unknown. I think that America and the West may be uncomfortable with the new powers that emerge in Libya, and I expect them to be pretty harsh Islamists, but I don't expect them to be focused on bloody jihad against the U.S., and to me, that is the chief concern for the national interest of America.
For the sake of the Libyan people I really do hope that the new government is reasonably democratic and creates room for the many disparate factions within its country, and that the Libyan people become more empowered to create meaningful lives out of a new-found freedom. But, that may take a little time to develop the art and science of democracy.
I am guessing that the rebels have pretty good control of Tripoli and the country, but I am also guessing that Qaddafi loyalists aren't done fighting, and might carry on for years against whatever new regime takes over. I worry about Qaddafi sons and old regime power players having either substantial roles in a new power structure or playing significant destabilizing roles against a new power structure. And, I still wish Obama and the West had responded in opposition to Qaddafi within a very few days rather than the weeks it took to do so. There was at least a chance, in my mind, that Qaddafi military and power cronies would have turned on him, the way the Egyptian powerful turned on Mubarak.
All those qualifiers aside, a world without the madman Qaddafi is a better world, and I am extremely grateful that his fall did not cost any American soldiers' lives. Obama's stepping aside and having NATO take the lead in this affair was a real watershed moment. It may be the first time that the U.S. didn't take the overt military lead in conflicts overseas, but played a support and encouragement role.
I like that role. I am tired of American military action as a first response to difficult world problems. This revolution was and is a Libyan revolution and came out of the Libyan people. There is no question that they were someone else's puppets or proxies. Obama's real leadership in creating a new post-cold war world may be in his foreign policy. It seems vacillating and indecisive at times, but I think he is trying to create a new role for America in the world, a role that does not lead with its military power as an automatic response.
What government will emerge after Qaddafi is finally gone is quite unknown. I think that America and the West may be uncomfortable with the new powers that emerge in Libya, and I expect them to be pretty harsh Islamists, but I don't expect them to be focused on bloody jihad against the U.S., and to me, that is the chief concern for the national interest of America.
For the sake of the Libyan people I really do hope that the new government is reasonably democratic and creates room for the many disparate factions within its country, and that the Libyan people become more empowered to create meaningful lives out of a new-found freedom. But, that may take a little time to develop the art and science of democracy.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
I'm already sick of the campaign
It's only August of 2011, the election isn't until the end of next year, and I'm already sick of the presidential campaign. It all seems so pointless.
Obama seems to be listless and ineffective. What is he going to run on, battling the evil Republicans if he wins in 2012? Finding ways to bring the parties together if he wins in 2012? He has tried both and hasn't been able to even come close on either count. If he weren't the nation's first black president he would be challenged from the left in the primaries, and he would probably lose. But no progressive can possibly challenge the nation's first black president without destroying their own political career and engendering the everlasting hatred from the black voters.
The Republican field is pathetic. Romney's only virtue is that no one believes that he believes what he is saying in order to pander to the right wing Tea Party ideologues. Bachman is frightening, but not likely to win the nomination. Huntsman is probably a pretty good, reasonable candidate but doesn't seem to be gaining any traction. Rick Perry seems to be a caricature of W, and if the Republicans think that the nation is eager for a harsher, meaner, more intolerant version of W they are even crazier than they sound.
If Chris Christie got into the race, I could get interested pretty quickly. What little I have seen of him has been interesting. He speaks from the heart and with courage, and he seems to have some level of maturity and intelligence. Of course, all candidates look attractive until they enter the race, and then who they are gets scrutinized and the bloom goes off the rose.
The amazing thing is that every president has been a truly remarkable person in many respects. They didn't get there without an enormous amount of talent. Within a year of their presidency the whole world knows exactly what their weakness are. Nixon was a power abusive paranoid, Carter was indecisive and naive, Reagan was ... pretty good, really on a personal level unless you hated his ideology, H W Bush was remote and out of touch with middle America, Clinton was devious and lacking in moral character, W Bush was bull headed and incurious, Obama is remote, passionless, too accommodating. Why anyone wants to become the president so that what the whole world knows about you is what no one wants anyone to know is quite a mystery. Ego is a strange director of one's life, but I have to give most of them credit, they seem to really want to make changes in the country that they believe in.
I just can't see what Obama can credibly run on. Vote for me, but I can't do anything about Washington, so you have to vote out all the Republicans too? Vote for Obama, he can't change anything... now there's a stirring campaign theme. Republicans are evil and Democrats are powerless, vote for the powerless rather than the evil buffoons... ah the campaign slogans that await!
Obama seems to be listless and ineffective. What is he going to run on, battling the evil Republicans if he wins in 2012? Finding ways to bring the parties together if he wins in 2012? He has tried both and hasn't been able to even come close on either count. If he weren't the nation's first black president he would be challenged from the left in the primaries, and he would probably lose. But no progressive can possibly challenge the nation's first black president without destroying their own political career and engendering the everlasting hatred from the black voters.
The Republican field is pathetic. Romney's only virtue is that no one believes that he believes what he is saying in order to pander to the right wing Tea Party ideologues. Bachman is frightening, but not likely to win the nomination. Huntsman is probably a pretty good, reasonable candidate but doesn't seem to be gaining any traction. Rick Perry seems to be a caricature of W, and if the Republicans think that the nation is eager for a harsher, meaner, more intolerant version of W they are even crazier than they sound.
If Chris Christie got into the race, I could get interested pretty quickly. What little I have seen of him has been interesting. He speaks from the heart and with courage, and he seems to have some level of maturity and intelligence. Of course, all candidates look attractive until they enter the race, and then who they are gets scrutinized and the bloom goes off the rose.
The amazing thing is that every president has been a truly remarkable person in many respects. They didn't get there without an enormous amount of talent. Within a year of their presidency the whole world knows exactly what their weakness are. Nixon was a power abusive paranoid, Carter was indecisive and naive, Reagan was ... pretty good, really on a personal level unless you hated his ideology, H W Bush was remote and out of touch with middle America, Clinton was devious and lacking in moral character, W Bush was bull headed and incurious, Obama is remote, passionless, too accommodating. Why anyone wants to become the president so that what the whole world knows about you is what no one wants anyone to know is quite a mystery. Ego is a strange director of one's life, but I have to give most of them credit, they seem to really want to make changes in the country that they believe in.
I just can't see what Obama can credibly run on. Vote for me, but I can't do anything about Washington, so you have to vote out all the Republicans too? Vote for Obama, he can't change anything... now there's a stirring campaign theme. Republicans are evil and Democrats are powerless, vote for the powerless rather than the evil buffoons... ah the campaign slogans that await!
Monday, August 15, 2011
Rick Perry - the Republican McGovern
Rick Perry, Texas governor, is running for president. As best I can tell, he is the Republican version of George McGovern - an ideological purist who will likely lose in a landslide.
McGovern lost in '72 as the ideologically pure liberal to run for president for the Democratic Party. He lost every state except one: Massachusetts. Somehow, the Democrats had decided in '72 that the country was an anti-war, nearly socialist country, and sent McGovern off to slay the Nixon dragon. Nixon won by about a two to one ratio.
Now, some conservatives seem to think that the country is a Tea Party, Evangelical nation, and they want the hardest core right winger that they can find. I think he is unelectable, fortunately.
The last two presidents ran as centrists (and each ended up being amazingly polarizing). Bush was "a uniter, not a divider", and Obama was "post-partisan." I believe the country is even more hungry for a pragmatic, non-ideological leadership than before, and now is hardly the time for a "divider, not a uniter" like Perry to be elected.
I was pretty sure, in 2008, when Obama won the presidency, that the Republicans would do what out of power parties always do - over-react to their loss and decide that the reason they lost was that they weren't being ideologically pure enough, so they would nominate a true blue extremist from their party. Perry certainly seems to fit that bill.
He has one positive, however, he seems to speak from the heart. I have long observed that when presidents are replaced, the people vote for someone who is strong where the incumbent is seen to be weak. The low character of Nixon was replaced by the perceived high moral character of Carter; the weak willed Carter was replaced by the confident Reagan; the out of touch H.W. Bush was replaced by the "feel your pain" Clinton; the vacillating Clinton/Gore was replaced by the decisive W. Bush; the close minded W/McCain was replaced by the open minded Obama. Now, Obama's perceived weakness is his lack of engagement and emotional distance from the problems of the country. When he speaks, he speaks like a professor discussing political theory. What little I've heard of Perry, he speaks very viscerally, from the heart and from the gut.
But, this is not a Tea Party nation, and he will go down pretty hard, I believe. It will be interesting to see if the Republicans fall for the ideological purity trap.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Harry Reid sabotages the Joint Special Committee of twelve, more to follow
Alan Simpson gave us all a way to tell whether the U.S. Congress has any intention of addressing our deficit crisis. He said:
"If you see the leadership not appointing members of the Gang of Six to the new commission of 12, you know they don't want to get anything done."
Well, the suspense is over, Harry Reid, Democrat leader of the Senate appointed Patricia Murray, who is the chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, as the co-chair of the committee for the Democrats. That very clearly states to all of us that the Democrats' main concern in this committee is political advantage for the 2012 elections rather than finding ways to come up with a workable fiscal approach. He also appointed Max Baucus, and John Kerry.
The main point is that none of the Democrats who were on the Gang of Six will be on the committee of 12. They were Mark Warner, Kent Conrad, and Dick Durbin of the Democrats. These three have already done the hard work of hashing out a negotiated compromise for deficit reduction along the lines of the Simpson-Bowles Commission. They are being ignored, and it is clear that compromise will be ignored as well.
Once Harry Reid laid down the gauntlet of uncompromising liberals in the committee of 12, the rest will have to follow suit. Of course, McConnell already had announced that he wouldn't appoint anyone willing to consider tax increases, so I suppose my hope for a Gang of Six or Simpson-Bowles type of plan that cut spending and raised revenues was a cruel one destined for disappointment.
Too bad. Our government is being given opportunity after opportunity to get our fiscal house in order, and moves relentlessly toward deeper and deeper polarization and ideological war.
The American people deserve better than this, much better.
"If you see the leadership not appointing members of the Gang of Six to the new commission of 12, you know they don't want to get anything done."
Well, the suspense is over, Harry Reid, Democrat leader of the Senate appointed Patricia Murray, who is the chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, as the co-chair of the committee for the Democrats. That very clearly states to all of us that the Democrats' main concern in this committee is political advantage for the 2012 elections rather than finding ways to come up with a workable fiscal approach. He also appointed Max Baucus, and John Kerry.
The main point is that none of the Democrats who were on the Gang of Six will be on the committee of 12. They were Mark Warner, Kent Conrad, and Dick Durbin of the Democrats. These three have already done the hard work of hashing out a negotiated compromise for deficit reduction along the lines of the Simpson-Bowles Commission. They are being ignored, and it is clear that compromise will be ignored as well.
Once Harry Reid laid down the gauntlet of uncompromising liberals in the committee of 12, the rest will have to follow suit. Of course, McConnell already had announced that he wouldn't appoint anyone willing to consider tax increases, so I suppose my hope for a Gang of Six or Simpson-Bowles type of plan that cut spending and raised revenues was a cruel one destined for disappointment.
Too bad. Our government is being given opportunity after opportunity to get our fiscal house in order, and moves relentlessly toward deeper and deeper polarization and ideological war.
The American people deserve better than this, much better.
Monday, August 8, 2011
AA rating sounds like an honest assessment to me
Many people are upset at S&P for downgrading the U.S. to AA from AAA ratings. I think that is just a case of shooting the messenger. The U.S. is borrowing over 40 cents on each dollar it spends. This is not the actions of a country that should be considered a AAA rated country, as far as I can tell.
Those opposed to the downgrade, mostly on the political left of the isle, cite S&P's bad record during the housing bubble meltdown of the financial industry as reason to discount this new rating of the U.S. But, it seems to me that the criticism of S&P in the past was that they did not downgrade financial institutions when they should have. Now, they are downgrading a rating when they should. Looks like an honest appraisal to me.
This should be a wake up call to the ideologues in Washington, on both sides of the isle, that they must reduce the deficit. That means tax reform that raises revenues (in a way that also stimulates the economy by lowering tax rates) and cuts spending (cut the real spending of entitlements). Entitlements are the third rail for Democrats, and raising taxes is the third rail for Republicans. But they must do their actual job, governing the nation, rather than just do their political job, which is to get re-elected. What value are they to anyone if they don't do their job?
Those opposed to the downgrade, mostly on the political left of the isle, cite S&P's bad record during the housing bubble meltdown of the financial industry as reason to discount this new rating of the U.S. But, it seems to me that the criticism of S&P in the past was that they did not downgrade financial institutions when they should have. Now, they are downgrading a rating when they should. Looks like an honest appraisal to me.
This should be a wake up call to the ideologues in Washington, on both sides of the isle, that they must reduce the deficit. That means tax reform that raises revenues (in a way that also stimulates the economy by lowering tax rates) and cuts spending (cut the real spending of entitlements). Entitlements are the third rail for Democrats, and raising taxes is the third rail for Republicans. But they must do their actual job, governing the nation, rather than just do their political job, which is to get re-elected. What value are they to anyone if they don't do their job?
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
What they didn't do
So, we all take a deep sigh of relief that Washington didn't destroy the economy and finally passed a deal to raise the debt ceiling. That's nice. But, what didn't they do?
They didn't do tax reform. And they must.
They also didn't touch entitlements. And they must.
(However, they did threaten defense spending, so that is a hopeful sign)
Tax reform - Obama has a trigger that can force tax reform on the Republicans, so it should happen, right? The Bush tax cuts expire next year and Obama can use it as leverage, correct? Probably not.
Obama didn't take the Simpson-Bowles report last December and push it through Congress because, well, he just doesn't do that kind of thing.
Then, the Rivlin-Domenici commission also came up with a spending cut and tax reform plan to reduce the deficit. I don't think Obama has mentioned it.
Then, there is the bipartisan Gang of Six that has come out with their version of cutting and tax reform to raise revenues and reduce the deficit. Obama has given it some lip service, but can he draw a line and insist on it?
Unfortunately, Obama will likely use the deadline on the expiration of the Bush tax cuts to talk idealistically about taxing the rich, and trot out focus-grouped phrases like "billionaires" and "corporate jets" and promise that there will be no tax increases on the middle class if he is elected. So, he will likely squander his leverage to create real tax reform for this country that would both raise revenue and stimulate the economy (lower rates, close loopholes and eliminate tax earmarks). Actually, in order to get it done by then he needs to start now. But, oh yeah, there is that much more important thing - his re-election, or making sure that nobody gets too upset at him, or something, I'm not sure what it is that he is really concerned about.
We know what the Tea Party believes and will fight to the death for, even though I think they are moronically wrong, but I still don't know what Obama believes enough to fight for, to be in the lead and advocate for, to push for, to fight to the political death for. It is time for him to show himself and get in front rather than "lead from behind."
They didn't do tax reform. And they must.
They also didn't touch entitlements. And they must.
(However, they did threaten defense spending, so that is a hopeful sign)
Tax reform - Obama has a trigger that can force tax reform on the Republicans, so it should happen, right? The Bush tax cuts expire next year and Obama can use it as leverage, correct? Probably not.
Obama didn't take the Simpson-Bowles report last December and push it through Congress because, well, he just doesn't do that kind of thing.
Then, the Rivlin-Domenici commission also came up with a spending cut and tax reform plan to reduce the deficit. I don't think Obama has mentioned it.
Then, there is the bipartisan Gang of Six that has come out with their version of cutting and tax reform to raise revenues and reduce the deficit. Obama has given it some lip service, but can he draw a line and insist on it?
Unfortunately, Obama will likely use the deadline on the expiration of the Bush tax cuts to talk idealistically about taxing the rich, and trot out focus-grouped phrases like "billionaires" and "corporate jets" and promise that there will be no tax increases on the middle class if he is elected. So, he will likely squander his leverage to create real tax reform for this country that would both raise revenue and stimulate the economy (lower rates, close loopholes and eliminate tax earmarks). Actually, in order to get it done by then he needs to start now. But, oh yeah, there is that much more important thing - his re-election, or making sure that nobody gets too upset at him, or something, I'm not sure what it is that he is really concerned about.
We know what the Tea Party believes and will fight to the death for, even though I think they are moronically wrong, but I still don't know what Obama believes enough to fight for, to be in the lead and advocate for, to push for, to fight to the political death for. It is time for him to show himself and get in front rather than "lead from behind."
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Calm, back off, relent, soothe, soften, cooperate, relaxxxxxxx.........
My dear friend Lazaris read the tea leaves in 1997 and said that there were many things being worried about at the time that weren't real threats to the world. However, there were three things that would need our attention: world wide financial meltdown, worldwide terrorist wars, and Civil War in the U.S. Furthermore, any one of the three could trigger all three, and the world could be plunged into a catastrophic chaos.
He went on to say, by the way, that these futures were not going to happen, but these are the areas of concern for us to focus our energies of visualization, energy healing, and prayer. Clearly, all three of these energies have emerged for our attention.
I expect that D.C. will find a way to raise the debt ceiling and allow the U.S. to pay its bills. I expect that D.C. will find a way to lower the deficit. I think that the way forward was laid out be the Simpson Bowles report that cuts spending and raises revenues at a ratio of three to one on the cutting side. I send my energies to our leaders to rise to the occasion and do what they know is needed to keep our country from reneging on over 40% of its bills.
So, I think it is time for all of us to back off, to unclench our jaws and fists, to soften our eyes, to loosen our necks, to walk away from the cliff that has worldwide financial ruin and American civil war in the abyss. It is time to relaxxxxxxxxx........
He went on to say, by the way, that these futures were not going to happen, but these are the areas of concern for us to focus our energies of visualization, energy healing, and prayer. Clearly, all three of these energies have emerged for our attention.
I expect that D.C. will find a way to raise the debt ceiling and allow the U.S. to pay its bills. I expect that D.C. will find a way to lower the deficit. I think that the way forward was laid out be the Simpson Bowles report that cuts spending and raises revenues at a ratio of three to one on the cutting side. I send my energies to our leaders to rise to the occasion and do what they know is needed to keep our country from reneging on over 40% of its bills.
So, I think it is time for all of us to back off, to unclench our jaws and fists, to soften our eyes, to loosen our necks, to walk away from the cliff that has worldwide financial ruin and American civil war in the abyss. It is time to relaxxxxxxxxx........
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Does WWI show us where the debt crisis is taking us?
There is a fascinating and disturbing parallel between the politics happening in July of 2011 the U.S. today over the debt crisis and the politics in July of 1914 over the European crisis caused by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo. That crisis, ninety seven years ago, led to WWI which changed Europe and the world forever. It ended the rule by aristocracy in Europe and elevated the United States to become a significant world power.
WWI was probably a war that could have been avoided, and everyone thought at the time that they would be able to find compromises and be able to negotiate their way out of the crisis. When that failed, they thought it would only be a brief skirmish and be over quickly. How wrong they were.
As I understand it, the problem in 1914 was there were webs of alliances and promises between the European powers that the various countries pledged unfailing allegiance to. These promises kept pushing the parties into greater and greater commitments to each other and, much to everyone's surprise, they ended up going over the cliff into an unimaginable horror of a war that killed or wounded almost 40 million men, ended unsatisfactorily by overly punishing the Germans, and sowed the seeds of WWII which killed over 50 million people, continued throughout the Cold War and didn't end until the Soviet Empire finally was defeated in 1991.
So, how is this like today? Today, like in 1914, there are uncompromising commitments on the parts of those in power in the United States to alliances that the parties are totally unwilling to renege on.
The Tea Party Republicans have sworn to lower taxes, so as to stimulate the economy per their undying belief, and to cut spending, so as to reduce the control of the government of the people and thus set the people free to create their own prosperity.
The Pelosi Democrats have sworn to protect the entitlement programs that they have spent their whole lives creating against what they see as uncaring reactionary corporate forces who put profits and personal greed above the welfare of the people.
The Far Right see themselves promoting prosperity and freedom; the Far Left see themselves protecting compassion and justice for the people. They have no imagination within themselves that can see any value in the positions of the people that they consider to be their deadly enemies.
So, are we arriving at an Assassination of the Archduke moment? Are our leaders, blinded by their ideological commitments, pledges, and alliances, about to take us all over the cliff? Let's pray not.
As psychologist Ira Rososfsky says:
It is time for our leaders to break their undying promises to their hard core constituency, or they they are going to take us all over the cliff. And, by the way, the Republican Party will be take the blame for it and might well destroy itself, and in their attempt to save themselves they may even be able to take the Democratic Party down as well.
We may end up with either or both political parties ended in this ideological war.
WWI was probably a war that could have been avoided, and everyone thought at the time that they would be able to find compromises and be able to negotiate their way out of the crisis. When that failed, they thought it would only be a brief skirmish and be over quickly. How wrong they were.
As I understand it, the problem in 1914 was there were webs of alliances and promises between the European powers that the various countries pledged unfailing allegiance to. These promises kept pushing the parties into greater and greater commitments to each other and, much to everyone's surprise, they ended up going over the cliff into an unimaginable horror of a war that killed or wounded almost 40 million men, ended unsatisfactorily by overly punishing the Germans, and sowed the seeds of WWII which killed over 50 million people, continued throughout the Cold War and didn't end until the Soviet Empire finally was defeated in 1991.
So, how is this like today? Today, like in 1914, there are uncompromising commitments on the parts of those in power in the United States to alliances that the parties are totally unwilling to renege on.
The Tea Party Republicans have sworn to lower taxes, so as to stimulate the economy per their undying belief, and to cut spending, so as to reduce the control of the government of the people and thus set the people free to create their own prosperity.
The Pelosi Democrats have sworn to protect the entitlement programs that they have spent their whole lives creating against what they see as uncaring reactionary corporate forces who put profits and personal greed above the welfare of the people.
The Far Right see themselves promoting prosperity and freedom; the Far Left see themselves protecting compassion and justice for the people. They have no imagination within themselves that can see any value in the positions of the people that they consider to be their deadly enemies.
So, are we arriving at an Assassination of the Archduke moment? Are our leaders, blinded by their ideological commitments, pledges, and alliances, about to take us all over the cliff? Let's pray not.
As psychologist Ira Rososfsky says:
"If Russia broke faith with Serbia, there may have been no war at all.
If the British broke faith with the French, then Germany may have won the war, and quickly, and if they had won World War I, there may have been no World War II, and its even greater devastation.
If some Republicans broke their promise of no new taxes, my neighbor's social security check will be in the mail.
Breaking a promise is a profile in courage."
We may end up with either or both political parties ended in this ideological war.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Why are they doing it?
Obama and Boehner both addressed the nation about the ongoing fight between the Republicans and the Democrats over raising the debt ceiling and how to cut the deficit. Rather than get too involved in the content of their arguments, I think it is good to review what the Republicans are up to and why.
Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is a totally arbitrary act on the part of the Republicans. Both parties have raised the debt ceiling as a matter of bureaucratic course numerous times. So, why are the Republicans refusing to do so this time?
I believe they have seized upon a strategy that can force real cuts to federal spending. By refusing to authorize the raising of the debt ceiling unless there are real cuts, cuts beyond window dressing of "discretionary spending", cutting where the real spending is happening and growing far too rapidly, i.e. entitlement spending, they actually have a lever to force the Democrats to face up to the problem of out of control government growth of the entitlement state. They see the U.S. as on the path of Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland, etc where the entitlement state took over the government and the country and killed the goose that laid the golden eggs of economic prosperity - the economy.
And I agree that the Democrats have been, and to some degree still are, in denial about the need to cut back on entitlement spending, and to do so pretty dramatically. If we don't, the deficit, the amount we are spending beyond what we are taking in, the amount we have to borrow to pay for the government that we have chosen, will continue to explode and we will end up losing our credit rating, interest rates will skyrocket, costs of mortgages, business loans, and private loans will also skyrocket, and the economy will be crushed by the weight of entitlement spending. Indeed, entitlement spending and debt payment will take over most of the government expenditures, and our country will decline into a shell of its former self, struggling to do the most basic functions of government with nothing left to help build for the future.
The real problem, I believe, is that it is not only the Democratic Party, but also the voters are in deep denial about the limits of the government's ability to keep the gravy train going. The Republicans are trying to make a splash large and dramatic enough to wake up the country to this very real problem.
There is another, less ideological force at work here too, I believe - politics. The politics of the upcoming 2012 election.
The Republicans want a temporary solution, with some cost cutting now, and the guarantee that this issue is revisited again during the 2012 election. They think that they can ride this issue to victory in 2012 for victories in the House, the Senate, and the White House.
Obama and the Democrats, on the other hand, want very much to have a long term solution to resolve the issue now so that they can get it beyond the 2012 election and not have to look at it again until 2013. I guess they agree with the Republicans that it is a losing issue for them, although I'm not sure why they think so. I think the Republicans are deeply mistaken if they think that we are living in a Tea Party nation that is nearly Libertarian in attitude that wants government significantly out of people's lives.
The problem, the danger, it seems to me, is that the Republican tactic of being totally intransigent and thus proving to its right wing Tea Party base how serious they are could take them over the cliff by accident. Or, should I say, it could take us over the cliff by accident, and they could end up having boxed themselves into their own rhetoric, unable to finally declare victory, get big cuts, and raise the debt ceiling, saving us from financial catastrophe.
As I have said over and over again, it is obvious to me that the deficit is so massive that we need both cost cutting and revenue increases, and I think that will happen, ultimately, but meanwhile the Republicans are making as big a splash as possible in an effort to awaken the voting public to the need to change the contract between the government and the people, and provide less cradle to grave care for the people. In the Republicans' minds, this is a moral cause, it reduces dependence on Big Brother and encourages more self sufficiency in the people. In truth, we just can't afford it any more because we are out of money, regardless of the goodness or evil of the argument
I really am actually pretty hopeful that Boehner in the House and McConnell in the Senate will call the game at the last minute and raise the debt ceiling and consolidate whatever gains they have been able to attain. And, I send some prayers in that direction.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
The belief in Reaganomics doesn't make sense
Back in my Republican era, I believed that lower taxes unleashed the mighty economy and created jobs. I thought the benefits of Reaganomics were obvious to all but the ideologically blind.
Reagan cut taxes. Here were the tremendous numbers that proved the economy boosting power of Reaganomics:
REAGAN'S economy from 1980 to 1988:
Reagan cut taxes. Here were the tremendous numbers that proved the economy boosting power of Reaganomics:
REAGAN'S economy from 1980 to 1988:
- After 4 years
- 6.3 million new jobs
- 6.8% increase in jobs
- After 8 years
- 16.5 million new jobs
- 18% increase in jobs
- 12% rise in the median family income
BUT:
Clinton raised taxes. And the economic numbers were even better:
CLINTON'S economy from 1992 to 2000:
- After 4 years
- 11.8 million new jobs
- 11% increase in jobs
- After 8 years
- 20.6 million new jobs
- 18.6% increase in jobs
- 12% rise in the median family income
BUSH'S economy from 2000 to 2008:
So, what does all of this prove? That tax levels don't have much to do with job creation or economic growth and prosperity.
- After 8 years
- 1.6 million fewer jobs
- 2.7% decline in median family income
So, what does all of this prove? That tax levels don't have much to do with job creation or economic growth and prosperity.
I'm sure that we could find the same kind of data that show the contradictory effects of Keynesian stimulus spending. Obama's stimulus package, where he spent more on liberal pet projects than was spent on national defense, produced ... not much actually.
Other factors have tremendous influences on the economy. Tax cutting and stimulus spending probably have a little bit of an effect, but compared to other things (inflation rates, development or lack thereof of new industries, wars, attacks on cities, the growth of toxic bubbles like the .com and housing bubbles, rising competition of third world countries, globalization of labor markets, etc., etc.) these government actions aren't all that influential.
The theology of the right wing Reaganite tax cutters is simply a fantasy. I think the same can be said of the theology of the left wing Keynesian stimulus spenders. The economy is way too complex for government action to control.
The government needs to do many things to make sure the economy is healthy and competitive, but the theologies of tax cutting and stimulus spending are false promises. Or so it seems to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)