TW: Read the piece then work through what you read about politics today or this week or last week...it has become almost entirely process...substance be damned.
From George Packer at New Yorker:
"David Broder had a devastatingly unremarkable assessment of Sarah Palin in the Post the other day. Her speech at the Tea Party convention in Nashville “showed off a public figure at the top of her game—a politician who knows who she is and how to sell herself.” She used the televised occasion to “display the full repertoire she possesses.” Palin is not only “the most visible Republican in the land,” she has also “locked herself firmly in the populist embrace” and mastered “a pitch-perfect recital of the populist message that has worked in campaigns past.” Broder’s conclusion: “The lady is good.”
Broder wasn’t analyzing Palin’s positions or accusations, or the truth or falsehood of her claims, or even the nature of the emotions that she appeals to. He was reviewing a performance and giving it the thumbs up, using the familiar terminology of political journalism. This has been so characteristic of the coverage of politics for so long that it doesn’t seem in the least bit odd, and it’s hard to imagine doing it any other way. A couple of weeks ago, the Times ran a piece by its lead political reporter, Adam Nagourney, about a Republican strategy session in Hawaii: “Here in Honolulu, the strains within the party over conservative principles versus political pragmatism played out in a sharp and public way, especially as the party establishment struggled to deal with the demands of the Tea Party movement.” The structure of the sentence, and of the article, puts the emphasis entirely on tactics and performance. This kind of prose goes down as easily and unnoticeably as a glass of sparkling water, with no aftertaste. Readers interested in politics drink quarts of it every day without gaining weight. And Broder and Nagourney are at the top of their game.
It would be strange if the Times’s coverage of the financial crisis, which has been stellar, focussed entirely on things like Richard Fuld’s handling of his P.R. problems while Lehman was going down. And it would be strange if the paper’s coverage of Afghanistan, which has also been stellar, focussed entirely on things like Hamid Karzai’s use of traditional Pashtun rhetoric in his effort to ride the wave of public anger at the Americans. Imagine Karzai’s recent inaugural address as covered by a Washington journalist:
“Speaking at the presidential palace in Kabul, Mr. Karzai showed himself to be at the top of his game. He skillfully co-opted his Pashtun base while making a powerful appeal to the technocrats who have lately been disappointed in him, and at the same time he reassured the Afghan public that his patience with civilian casualties is wearing thin. A palace insider, who asked for anonymity in order to be able to speak candidly, said, ‘If Karzai can continue to signal the West that he is concerned about corruption without alienating his warlord allies, he will likely be able to defuse the perception of a weak leader and regain his image as a unifying figure who can play the role of both modernizer and nationalist.’ Still, the palace insider acknowledged, tensions remain within Mr. Karzai’s own inner circle. At one point during the swearing-in ceremony, observers noted that Mohammad Hanif Atmar, his interior minister, seemed to ignore the greeting of Amrullah Saleh, the intelligence chief. The two have been rumored to be at odds ever since last year’s controversial election. A palace spokesman, speaking on background, denied that the incident had any significance. ‘The sun was in Hanif’s eyes—that’s it,’ the spokesman said.”
A war or an economic collapse has a reality apart from perceptions, which imposes a pressure on reporters to find it. But for some reason, American political coverage is exempt. It hasn’t always been true. Back in 1993, the late Michael Kelly, who was then a Times Washington reporter, wrote a brilliant Times Magazine piece called “David Gergen, Master of the Game.” It was about the culture of American politics, including those who write about it: “the story of how the idea of image became the faith in Washington.” According to Kelly (and to Gergen), it happened early in the Reagan Presidency. Kelly included a paragraph so damning that I still remember it almost two decades later: “A New York Times article in February reports that the President’s advisers are worried about ‘the perception thus wrought’ by his rocky beginning, and says the Administration is working ‘to refocus its image as a Government of broad, middle-class interests.’ A Times report in May finds ‘a perception that the President,’ who won office as a political centrist, ‘has come to look very much like the same old—liberal—thing.’ These bits of fatuousness are unexceptional in contemporary Washington journalism; they stand out in my mind only because I wrote them myself.”
It’s hard to imagine Kelly’s piece being published today—its scathing critique would seem quaint, if not mystifying. Anyone covering Washington, not excluding me, will sooner or later turn to a phrase like “refocus its image” or “a perception that the President has come to look” or “a pitch-perfect recital of the populist message,” because they come so easily, and because they make it unnecessary to say anything substantial, which means thinking hard and perhaps suffering the consequences. Still, as an exercise in accountability, political journalists should ask themselves from time to time: Would I write this about a war, or a depression? In the same vein, a government official once told me that the best way to cover Washington is as a foreign capital—as Baghdad, or Kabul."
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2010/02/david-broder-had-a-devastatingly.html
Showing posts with label Improving Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Improving Government. Show all posts
Monday, February 15, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Actually Governance v. Pontification And Obstructionism
TW: Spot on stuff from Klein (and Collins). So much opposition employs the method outlined below. Actual governance requires not tidy sound bites and fantasy policy but actionable policy. Yet opposition to actionable policy is easy by comparing it to fantasies (i.e "less guvmint, lower taxes...and psst oh btw lets not cut any services of any significance in fact...psst lets increase this or that of MY favored spending).
Responsible opposition makes some effort to recognize the realities of governance. Hence for example, filibustering might have a role but NOT as a tool to be employed on every freaking nomination or piece of legislation.
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"You don't usually get this much real talk in the conversations between Gail Collins and David Brooks. Here's Collins describing her colleague's M.O.
'You’re a man of good will with a fatal attraction to tidy programs. I admit it’s a very powerful approach. All during that health care debate, whenever things got impossible you could always say: “What I think they should do is pass the Wyden-Bennett Reform Plan,” and everybody would shut up and slink home to look it up on Google.
It’s a more elegant version of the Bipartisan Study Commission. Which, by the way, the Republicans recently filibustered.'
We're all vulnerable to this tendency. Skeptics of messy cap-and-trade legislation get to advocate elegant carbon taxes that wouldn't survive two seconds in the legislative process. Critics of the messy health-care reform bill get to call for Wyden-Bennett or single-payer despite the absence of any evidence that either policy is remotely achievable. Folks frustrated by the budget get to look at Paul Ryan's fantastical alternative and declare it the path forward.
It would be very annoying to go to a restaurant if people insisted on ordering the dish they wanted most in the world, rather than most on the menu. The problem, of course, is that American politics doesn't offer menus, and the politicians aren't very honest about what's achievable ("I'm sorry, monsieur, but the chef does not do nationalization"). Plus, however slim the likelihood of perfect policies is, they have absolutely no chance if no one advocates for them. But for all that, there's a difference between trying to push policy in a more perfect direction and letting perfection become your excuse for never passing any policy."
Responsible opposition makes some effort to recognize the realities of governance. Hence for example, filibustering might have a role but NOT as a tool to be employed on every freaking nomination or piece of legislation.
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"You don't usually get this much real talk in the conversations between Gail Collins and David Brooks. Here's Collins describing her colleague's M.O.
'You’re a man of good will with a fatal attraction to tidy programs. I admit it’s a very powerful approach. All during that health care debate, whenever things got impossible you could always say: “What I think they should do is pass the Wyden-Bennett Reform Plan,” and everybody would shut up and slink home to look it up on Google.
It’s a more elegant version of the Bipartisan Study Commission. Which, by the way, the Republicans recently filibustered.'
We're all vulnerable to this tendency. Skeptics of messy cap-and-trade legislation get to advocate elegant carbon taxes that wouldn't survive two seconds in the legislative process. Critics of the messy health-care reform bill get to call for Wyden-Bennett or single-payer despite the absence of any evidence that either policy is remotely achievable. Folks frustrated by the budget get to look at Paul Ryan's fantastical alternative and declare it the path forward.
It would be very annoying to go to a restaurant if people insisted on ordering the dish they wanted most in the world, rather than most on the menu. The problem, of course, is that American politics doesn't offer menus, and the politicians aren't very honest about what's achievable ("I'm sorry, monsieur, but the chef does not do nationalization"). Plus, however slim the likelihood of perfect policies is, they have absolutely no chance if no one advocates for them. But for all that, there's a difference between trying to push policy in a more perfect direction and letting perfection become your excuse for never passing any policy."
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Our Form Of Governance Is In Competition...
TW:...with others and we are losing our lead. Many Americans just assume anything we do (democratic capitalism etc.) is the best. Others felt with the demise of the USSR that our way had triumphed never to be challenged again.
But there is an emerging challenge which is the illiberal, non-democratic but mostly capitalist approach of China. And to folks in other nations without a strong liberal democratic tradition, this "other" way is starting looking fairly attractive.
The USSR was illiberal and autocratic but also non-capitalist and it competed pretty effectively for decades. Now we have an autocratic form of capitalism emerging.
The western economies are floundering and our governments (which is to say our publics) appear unable or unwilling to face up to the challenges of aging populaces, overpromised pensions and entitlements and how to deal with threats such as Al Qaeda.
Meanwhile the autocratic but thus far effective rulers in China are providing an intriguing alternative. Our forms of governance do not (unlike I believe the view of some) have some divine right towards pre-eminence. We must earn that respect via performance. And we must earn that respect not only externally, as in time internal interests will yearn for such an alternative as well should the current system falter without any sign of improving.
From Tom Friedman at NYT:
"...You can understand why foreigners are uneasy. They look at America and see a president elected by a solid majority, coming into office riding a wave of optimism, controlling both the House and the Senate. Yet, a year later, he can’t win passage of his top legislative priority: health care.
“Our two-party political system is broken just when everything needs major repair, not minor repair,” said K.R. Sridhar, the founder of Bloom Energy, a fuel cell company in Silicon Valley, who is attending the forum. “I am talking about health care, infrastructure, education, energy. We are the ones who need a Marshall Plan now.”
Indeed, speaking of phrases I’ve never heard here before, another goes like this: “Is the ‘Beijing Consensus’ replacing the ‘Washington Consensus?’ ” Washington Consensus is a term coined after the cold war for the free-market, pro-trade and globalization policies promoted by America. As Katrin Bennhold reported in The International Herald Tribune this week, developing countries everywhere are looking “for a recipe for faster growth and greater stability than that offered by the now tattered ‘Washington Consensus’ of open markets, floating currencies and free elections.” And as they do, “there is growing talk about a ‘Beijing Consensus.’ ”
The Beijing Consensus, says Bennhold, is a “Confucian-Communist-Capitalist” hybrid under the umbrella of a one-party state, with a lot of government guidance, strictly controlled capital markets and an authoritarian decision-making process that is capable of making tough choices and long-term investments, without having to heed daily public polls.
...It was hard to read President Obama’s eloquent State of the Union address and not feel torn between his vision for the coming years and the awareness that the forces of inertia and special interests blocking him — not to mention the whole Republican Party — make the chances of his implementing that vision highly unlikely. That is the definition of “stuck.” And right now we are stuck.
The sad and frustrating thing is, we are so close to being unstuck. If there were just six or eight Republican senators — a few more Judd Greggs and Lindsey Grahams — ready to meet Obama somewhere in the middle on deficit reduction, energy, health care and banking reform, I believe that in the wake of the Massachusetts wake-up call the president would indeed meet them in that middle ground to forge not just incremental compromises, but substantial ones on these key issues. But so far, the Republicans are having a good year politically by just being the Party of No..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/opinion/31friedman.html?scp=4&sq=tom%20friedman&st=cse
But there is an emerging challenge which is the illiberal, non-democratic but mostly capitalist approach of China. And to folks in other nations without a strong liberal democratic tradition, this "other" way is starting looking fairly attractive.
The USSR was illiberal and autocratic but also non-capitalist and it competed pretty effectively for decades. Now we have an autocratic form of capitalism emerging.
The western economies are floundering and our governments (which is to say our publics) appear unable or unwilling to face up to the challenges of aging populaces, overpromised pensions and entitlements and how to deal with threats such as Al Qaeda.
Meanwhile the autocratic but thus far effective rulers in China are providing an intriguing alternative. Our forms of governance do not (unlike I believe the view of some) have some divine right towards pre-eminence. We must earn that respect via performance. And we must earn that respect not only externally, as in time internal interests will yearn for such an alternative as well should the current system falter without any sign of improving.
From Tom Friedman at NYT:
"...You can understand why foreigners are uneasy. They look at America and see a president elected by a solid majority, coming into office riding a wave of optimism, controlling both the House and the Senate. Yet, a year later, he can’t win passage of his top legislative priority: health care.
“Our two-party political system is broken just when everything needs major repair, not minor repair,” said K.R. Sridhar, the founder of Bloom Energy, a fuel cell company in Silicon Valley, who is attending the forum. “I am talking about health care, infrastructure, education, energy. We are the ones who need a Marshall Plan now.”
Indeed, speaking of phrases I’ve never heard here before, another goes like this: “Is the ‘Beijing Consensus’ replacing the ‘Washington Consensus?’ ” Washington Consensus is a term coined after the cold war for the free-market, pro-trade and globalization policies promoted by America. As Katrin Bennhold reported in The International Herald Tribune this week, developing countries everywhere are looking “for a recipe for faster growth and greater stability than that offered by the now tattered ‘Washington Consensus’ of open markets, floating currencies and free elections.” And as they do, “there is growing talk about a ‘Beijing Consensus.’ ”
The Beijing Consensus, says Bennhold, is a “Confucian-Communist-Capitalist” hybrid under the umbrella of a one-party state, with a lot of government guidance, strictly controlled capital markets and an authoritarian decision-making process that is capable of making tough choices and long-term investments, without having to heed daily public polls.
...It was hard to read President Obama’s eloquent State of the Union address and not feel torn between his vision for the coming years and the awareness that the forces of inertia and special interests blocking him — not to mention the whole Republican Party — make the chances of his implementing that vision highly unlikely. That is the definition of “stuck.” And right now we are stuck.
The sad and frustrating thing is, we are so close to being unstuck. If there were just six or eight Republican senators — a few more Judd Greggs and Lindsey Grahams — ready to meet Obama somewhere in the middle on deficit reduction, energy, health care and banking reform, I believe that in the wake of the Massachusetts wake-up call the president would indeed meet them in that middle ground to forge not just incremental compromises, but substantial ones on these key issues. But so far, the Republicans are having a good year politically by just being the Party of No..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/opinion/31friedman.html?scp=4&sq=tom%20friedman&st=cse
Thursday, February 4, 2010
MoveOn.Org = Stupid
TW: Ideologues do not govern, they chastise and bitch and live in their own parallel universes. Learning the difference is beyond most ideologues. Do MoveOn et al. actually believe the Lincolns, Landrieus and Nelsons of the world would be replaced by more progressive types. I would like to take the MoveOn and Code Pink types and put them on a boat with most of the Teabaggers and send them far away.
From Economist:
"IF THE clever chaps at MoveOn.org want to elect more Republicans, they are going the right way about it. See their hard-hitting ads attacking Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson—all Democratic senators. The gist is that these dreadful people are against clean air. There are some harrowing pictures of babies and pregnant moms smoking cigarettes.
The ads are thoroughly misleading. None of the senators wants to "roll back the Clean Air Act", as MoveOn.org puts it. They just don't think the Environmental Protection Agency is the most appropriate body to regulate greenhouse gases.
The polls now show Senator Lincoln trailing her possible Republican opponents this year by double digits. Senator Landrieu is vulnerable, too. Small wonder Rahm Emanuel sometimes refers to the angry left as "fucking retarded". I'd phrase it differently, but I can't fault his judgment."
From Economist:
"IF THE clever chaps at MoveOn.org want to elect more Republicans, they are going the right way about it. See their hard-hitting ads attacking Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson—all Democratic senators. The gist is that these dreadful people are against clean air. There are some harrowing pictures of babies and pregnant moms smoking cigarettes.
The ads are thoroughly misleading. None of the senators wants to "roll back the Clean Air Act", as MoveOn.org puts it. They just don't think the Environmental Protection Agency is the most appropriate body to regulate greenhouse gases.
The polls now show Senator Lincoln trailing her possible Republican opponents this year by double digits. Senator Landrieu is vulnerable, too. Small wonder Rahm Emanuel sometimes refers to the angry left as "fucking retarded". I'd phrase it differently, but I can't fault his judgment."
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
More Whiny Beeetches....
TW:... or also how doing the right thing receives so little press. Obama apparently is not stroking wealthy donors the way his recent predecessors did. This would appear to be a good thing relative to reducing the influence of big money within government although one never hears about it. The Trib probably frames the piece to make the donors come off as whiny beetches but then having known some of these types at least peripherally, they live to have their egos stroked and when the stroking is not there...they become whiny beeetches.
From Chicago Tribune:
"Some of President Barack Obama's wealthiest supporters are becoming a bit whiny, and it has nothing to do with policy.
Tickets for tours of the presidential residence are scarce, even for those who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for last year's campaign. Private fundraisers tend to be brief, businesslike affairs. And there have been no sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom, weekends at Camp David or intimate lunches with the first couple.
Nearly a year into his presidency, that pattern has led some top Democratic donors across the country to grumble that they aren't getting the kind of personal attention from Obama and special access to the White House that they became used to during the eight years of the Bill Clinton presidency..."There is no connection between the administration and money people," he said. "If they do have any connection ... it is very limited as far as the fun stuff is concerned."
..."Obama is clearly not appointing bundlers to the same extent as the Bush administration did," said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen, a group that monitors ethics in government.
"Under Clinton, we did spend time in the White House. We did spend time in Camp David. We did spend time with the president in Los Angeles," Spahn said. "There has been real frustration in the donor community in general. There is so much less of that than I think ever occurred in the past."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-talk-white-house-donorsdec14,0,5720357.story
From Chicago Tribune:
"Some of President Barack Obama's wealthiest supporters are becoming a bit whiny, and it has nothing to do with policy.
Tickets for tours of the presidential residence are scarce, even for those who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for last year's campaign. Private fundraisers tend to be brief, businesslike affairs. And there have been no sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom, weekends at Camp David or intimate lunches with the first couple.
Nearly a year into his presidency, that pattern has led some top Democratic donors across the country to grumble that they aren't getting the kind of personal attention from Obama and special access to the White House that they became used to during the eight years of the Bill Clinton presidency..."There is no connection between the administration and money people," he said. "If they do have any connection ... it is very limited as far as the fun stuff is concerned."
..."Obama is clearly not appointing bundlers to the same extent as the Bush administration did," said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen, a group that monitors ethics in government.
"Under Clinton, we did spend time in the White House. We did spend time in Camp David. We did spend time with the president in Los Angeles," Spahn said. "There has been real frustration in the donor community in general. There is so much less of that than I think ever occurred in the past."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-talk-white-house-donorsdec14,0,5720357.story
Monday, December 14, 2009
The Devolution Of American Politics
TW: The tendency is always claim things were easier way back when. But what if a sea change in American politics has occurred? What if our governance processes rather than being tried and true through over 200 years of history are becoming time bound and sclerotic? What if obstructionism is a rational political approach but an irrational governance method.?
From Democratic House #2 leader Steny Hoyer (Maryland) via Ezra Klein:
"...it's not clear that minority obstructionism is bad politics. Back in the early 1990s, of course, Bill Kristol, among others, urged Republicans to kill the Clinton health-care bill. Not modify it, or improve it, or amend it, but kill it. And then they picked up more than 50 seats.
Newt Gingrich was of course the chief proponent of that policy, and he and Bob Michel, who was leader of the Republicans, disagreed. And Gingrich eventually succeeded in pushing Michel out. Michel’s view was you sit down, offer your input, and move forward. The theory was that the American people elected the legislative body to make policy and so you make policy. Gingrich’s proposition, and maybe accurately, was that as long as you, Bob Michel, and our party cooperate with Democrats and get 20 or 30 percent of what we want and they get to say they solved the problem and had a bipartisan bill, there's no incentive for the American people to change leadership. You have to confront, delay, and undermine and impose failure in order to move the public. To some degree, he was proven right in 1994."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/hoyer_draft.html
From Democratic House #2 leader Steny Hoyer (Maryland) via Ezra Klein:
"...it's not clear that minority obstructionism is bad politics. Back in the early 1990s, of course, Bill Kristol, among others, urged Republicans to kill the Clinton health-care bill. Not modify it, or improve it, or amend it, but kill it. And then they picked up more than 50 seats.
Newt Gingrich was of course the chief proponent of that policy, and he and Bob Michel, who was leader of the Republicans, disagreed. And Gingrich eventually succeeded in pushing Michel out. Michel’s view was you sit down, offer your input, and move forward. The theory was that the American people elected the legislative body to make policy and so you make policy. Gingrich’s proposition, and maybe accurately, was that as long as you, Bob Michel, and our party cooperate with Democrats and get 20 or 30 percent of what we want and they get to say they solved the problem and had a bipartisan bill, there's no incentive for the American people to change leadership. You have to confront, delay, and undermine and impose failure in order to move the public. To some degree, he was proven right in 1994."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/hoyer_draft.html
Friday, November 27, 2009
Cutting Government Fraud And Abuse
TW: Folks are getting increasingly concerned about the deficit. Demagogery usually rules the day as folks avoid the tough decisions on entitlements, defense etc. But fraud is real and programs like the one outlined below do not make headlines but IF they are actually implemented can make a difference.
From 538.com:
"You hear a lot of talk about waste, fraud and abuse in government, and how eliminating it might solve our fiscal problems. It won't. Like John McCain's repeated, annoying complaints about porkbarreling monies, which if completely eliminated would hardly dent our national deficit, the notion that, say, Medicare fraud is reason for our health care cost problems is a joke.
But that doesn't justify waste through improper government payments, which is a serious and remediable problem that cost the government $98 billion last year--nothing to sneeze at, and a sharp uptick from $72 billion the previous fiscal year. So last Friday President Obama signed an executive order that requires a systematic review of relevant agencies to correct the problem of improper payments in federal programs. Within three months, the Office of Management and Budget will identify agencies with serious payment problems, and within six months the OMB director, in conjuction with the Attorney General and Secretary of the Treasury to implement a process to correct identified problems.
...Looking at the improper payment rates above...it's clear that some of the cabinet and non-cabinet agencies that liberals tend to defend and conservatives oppose are among those with the most embarrassing improper payment rates. Holding aside the Treasury Department--which tops the list by far in the share of improper payments, at 25.5%, all of which is for the Earned Income Tax Credit program--many of the most wasteful programs are liberal favorites. Because the table above would have been too noisy, I didn't list every one of the 72 measured programs, but among the programs above the national average of 5.0 percent are the Ag Department's School Breakfast (24.6%) and School Lunch (16.4%) programs; HHS’ Medicare Fee-for Service (7.8%), Child Care and Development Fund (11.9%), Medicaid (9.6%) and Medicare Advantage Part C (15.4%) programs; Homeland Security’s Disaster Relief Fund Vendor (8.8%) and Homeland Security Grant (18.8%) programs; Labor’s Unemployment Insurance program (10.3%); Treasury’s EITC (25.5%), and the VA’s Pension (11.2%) and Fee (17.0%) programs.
This is an unacceptable level of fraud and waste in programs that are often unable to fully serve the needs of populations that require serious help. It will be interesting to watch as this oversight process takes shape, and I'll check back in six months from now to see what OMB has learned--and what they are going to do about it."
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/government-waste-through-improper.html
Monday, November 23, 2009
Looking Outward, Not Inward
From Economist:"JOHN JUDIS had a nice comparison in the New Republic of coverage of Barack Obama's South Korea visit in two American newspapers, on the one hand, and the Financial Times, on the other..."Both the Post and the Times focus not on South Korea per se, but on Obama's taking a 'stern tone' toward North Korea in his discussions with the South Koreans," Mr Judis writes. "OK, pardon me if I yawn." In the FT's story, by contrast:
'The headline reads, “Seoul trades on better ties with Beijing than Washington.” Hmm. That’s interesting and says something important about the balance of power in Asia and the world. Now here are the opening paragraphs:
'When George Bush senior visited Seoul as US president 20 years ago, things were simple – the US was the undisputed main ally and trade partner. Astonishingly, there was only one weekly flight from South Korea to China, the communist foe.'
'Barack Obama on Wednesday visits a South Korea where the US is no longer the only show in town. China is now the main trade partner, with 642 flights each week.'
...the American focus on North Korea derives from an obsession with military threats, which Americans find the most interesting stories in foreign affairs. That attitude is to some extent a holdover from the way America built its predominant international position during the cold war, so it's an attitude shared by the people who staff government. But it's also a broadly held popular worldview. Americans are not as interested in the intricacies of world trade. The kinds of shifts in the world that are reflected in the number of daily flights between South Korea and China don't really register with Americans. And that fact is not unrelated to the fact that America has spent the last decade focused on two largely fruitless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while China was focusing mainly on its commercial relationships with both emerging economies and the developed world"
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/11/action_sequences.cfm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economist%2Fblogs%2Fdemocracyinamerica+%28The+Economist%3A+Democracy+in+America%29
TW: Things they are a changing, I pound the table repeatedly about the need for American governance to compete more effectively in this evolving world where America's relative power is in decline. But the only that governance will improve will be if our populace engages and demands actual broad-minded, innovative (read non-entrenched, non-reactionary) policies. This does not mean America "surrenders" or weakens its resolve relative to core values but it does mean we look at things through evolving lens.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Byrd Sets a Unfortunate Record
TW: Completely agree with Klein here. The tradition of folks holding on far too long especially in the Senate and often on the Supreme Court is unfortunate (same could be said of some college football coaches). This dynamic demonstrates the power of incumbency which creates a self-fulfilling inertia. We have retirement ages for many professions for a reason. Why the Senate (or House etc.) should be different is not clear to me.
From Ezra Klein:
"Robert Byrd Jr...the 91-year-old West Virginian is officially the longest-serving member of Congress, having cast more than 18,000 votes and served for more than 20,000 days. Congratulations?
This will reveal me as something of a skunk, but these records are bad things, not good ones. Byrd has spent the past year too sick to reliably carry out his day-to-day duties. It's routinely mentioned that Democrats can't count on 60 votes because they don't know whether Byrd will be able to cast his vote. Similarly long-serving public figures such as Strom Thurmond and Thurgood Marshall spent their final years virtually incapacitated, totally reliant on staff.
There's a tendency in Washington to celebrate extremely long careers despite the fact that the extra length often extends the career beyond the point of useful service. People are honored for sticking around, when the courageous and hard thing would be to cede their seat or position. The celebration and historical permanence given to these sorts of records is part of why they do it. Byrd has accomplished much in his career, and there's plenty in his service worth honoring (his eloquent opposition to the Iraq war, for instance, but this isn't a record I'm eager to see others emulate."
From Ezra Klein:
"Robert Byrd Jr...the 91-year-old West Virginian is officially the longest-serving member of Congress, having cast more than 18,000 votes and served for more than 20,000 days. Congratulations?
This will reveal me as something of a skunk, but these records are bad things, not good ones. Byrd has spent the past year too sick to reliably carry out his day-to-day duties. It's routinely mentioned that Democrats can't count on 60 votes because they don't know whether Byrd will be able to cast his vote. Similarly long-serving public figures such as Strom Thurmond and Thurgood Marshall spent their final years virtually incapacitated, totally reliant on staff.
There's a tendency in Washington to celebrate extremely long careers despite the fact that the extra length often extends the career beyond the point of useful service. People are honored for sticking around, when the courageous and hard thing would be to cede their seat or position. The celebration and historical permanence given to these sorts of records is part of why they do it. Byrd has accomplished much in his career, and there's plenty in his service worth honoring (his eloquent opposition to the Iraq war, for instance, but this isn't a record I'm eager to see others emulate."
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Spoiled Seniors
From NBC:
"There might not be a BIGGER problem for the Obama administration and the Congressional Democrats to deal with going into an election year than the fact that Social Security recipients are NOT receiving a COLA increase. Will the one-time $250 payment be enough? Seniors are as important of a voting bloc as there is, and even more so in lower-turnout midterm election years. That's why this issue of no COLA increase in Social Security payments for the first time since 1975 is potentially so politically explosive. If the president's plan to give a one-time $250 bonus to seniors goes through, it's the equivalent of a 2% COLA increase. It's hard to imagine this idea NOT passing this Congress given the precarious nature of politics in 2010. A drop in senior support has been as problematic for the Democrats and Obama as their erosion in indie support. This news does not help at all."
TW: This is follow up to my earlier post. As I repeat over and over we get the governance we deserve...
This is MSM asking- "will $250 be enough?" !!!!! and this news does not help as if it is Obama's fault that a COLA is not scheduled. Hopefully Chuck Todd from NBC is patronizing seniors instead of reflecting their true views.
"There might not be a BIGGER problem for the Obama administration and the Congressional Democrats to deal with going into an election year than the fact that Social Security recipients are NOT receiving a COLA increase. Will the one-time $250 payment be enough? Seniors are as important of a voting bloc as there is, and even more so in lower-turnout midterm election years. That's why this issue of no COLA increase in Social Security payments for the first time since 1975 is potentially so politically explosive. If the president's plan to give a one-time $250 bonus to seniors goes through, it's the equivalent of a 2% COLA increase. It's hard to imagine this idea NOT passing this Congress given the precarious nature of politics in 2010. A drop in senior support has been as problematic for the Democrats and Obama as their erosion in indie support. This news does not help at all."
TW: This is follow up to my earlier post. As I repeat over and over we get the governance we deserve...
This is MSM asking- "will $250 be enough?" !!!!! and this news does not help as if it is Obama's fault that a COLA is not scheduled. Hopefully Chuck Todd from NBC is patronizing seniors instead of reflecting their true views.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Eisenhower On the Peril Of Ignorant Populism
From Max Blumenthal at NYT:
"IN this summer of town hall disruptions and birth-certificate controversies, a summer when it seemed as if the Republican Party had been captured by its extremist wing, it is worth recalling a now-obscure letter from President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Although Eisenhower is commonly remembered for a farewell address that raised concerns about the “military-industrial complex,” his letter offers an equally important — and relevant — warning: to beware the danger posed by those seeking freedom from the “mental stress and burden” of democracy.
The story began in 1958, when Eisenhower received a letter from Robert Biggs, a terminally ill World War II veteran. Biggs told the president that he “felt from your recent speeches the feeling of hedging and a little uncertainty.” He added, “We wait for someone to speak for us and back him completely if the statement is made in truth.”
Eisenhower could have discarded Biggs’s note or sent a canned response. But he didn’t. He composed a thoughtful reply. After enduring Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, who had smeared his old colleague Gen. George C. Marshall as a Communist sympathizer, and having guarded the Republican Party against the newly emergent radical right John Birch Society, which labeled him and much of his cabinet Soviet agents, the president perhaps welcomed the opportunity to expound on his vision of the open society.
“I doubt that citizens like yourself could ever, under our democratic system, be provided with the universal degree of certainty, the confidence in their understanding of our problems, and the clear guidance from higher authority that you believe needed,” Eisenhower wrote on Feb. 10, 1959. “Such unity is not only logical but indeed indispensable in a successful military organization, but in a democracy debate is the breath of life.”
Eisenhower also recommended a short book — “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer, a self-educated itinerant longshoreman who earned the nickname “the stevedore philosopher.” “Faith in a holy cause,” Hoffer wrote, “is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves.”
Though Eisenhower was criticized for lacking an intellectual framework or even an interest in ideas, he was drawn to Hoffer’s insights. He explained to Biggs that Hoffer “points out that dictatorial systems make one contribution to their people which leads them to tend to support such systems — freedom from the necessity of informing themselves and making up their own minds concerning these tremendous complex and difficult questions.” The authoritarian follower, Eisenhower suggested, desired nothing more than insulation from the pressures of a free society.
Alluding to Senator McCarthy and his allies, Eisenhower pointed out that cold war fears were distorted and exploited for political advantage. “It is difficult indeed to maintain a reasoned and accurately informed understanding of our defense situation on the part of our citizenry when many prominent officials, possessing no standing or expertness as they themselves claim it, attempt to further their own ideas or interests by resorting to statements more distinguished by stridency than by accuracy.”
It is worth noting, of course, that these Cold War exaggerations weren’t just a Republican specialty: John F. Kennedy was making a supposed “missile gap” between the United States and the Soviet Union a key element of his presidential campaign..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/opinion/03blumenthal.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=max%20blumenthal&st=cse
"IN this summer of town hall disruptions and birth-certificate controversies, a summer when it seemed as if the Republican Party had been captured by its extremist wing, it is worth recalling a now-obscure letter from President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Although Eisenhower is commonly remembered for a farewell address that raised concerns about the “military-industrial complex,” his letter offers an equally important — and relevant — warning: to beware the danger posed by those seeking freedom from the “mental stress and burden” of democracy.
The story began in 1958, when Eisenhower received a letter from Robert Biggs, a terminally ill World War II veteran. Biggs told the president that he “felt from your recent speeches the feeling of hedging and a little uncertainty.” He added, “We wait for someone to speak for us and back him completely if the statement is made in truth.”
Eisenhower could have discarded Biggs’s note or sent a canned response. But he didn’t. He composed a thoughtful reply. After enduring Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, who had smeared his old colleague Gen. George C. Marshall as a Communist sympathizer, and having guarded the Republican Party against the newly emergent radical right John Birch Society, which labeled him and much of his cabinet Soviet agents, the president perhaps welcomed the opportunity to expound on his vision of the open society.
“I doubt that citizens like yourself could ever, under our democratic system, be provided with the universal degree of certainty, the confidence in their understanding of our problems, and the clear guidance from higher authority that you believe needed,” Eisenhower wrote on Feb. 10, 1959. “Such unity is not only logical but indeed indispensable in a successful military organization, but in a democracy debate is the breath of life.”
Eisenhower also recommended a short book — “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer, a self-educated itinerant longshoreman who earned the nickname “the stevedore philosopher.” “Faith in a holy cause,” Hoffer wrote, “is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves.”
Though Eisenhower was criticized for lacking an intellectual framework or even an interest in ideas, he was drawn to Hoffer’s insights. He explained to Biggs that Hoffer “points out that dictatorial systems make one contribution to their people which leads them to tend to support such systems — freedom from the necessity of informing themselves and making up their own minds concerning these tremendous complex and difficult questions.” The authoritarian follower, Eisenhower suggested, desired nothing more than insulation from the pressures of a free society.
Alluding to Senator McCarthy and his allies, Eisenhower pointed out that cold war fears were distorted and exploited for political advantage. “It is difficult indeed to maintain a reasoned and accurately informed understanding of our defense situation on the part of our citizenry when many prominent officials, possessing no standing or expertness as they themselves claim it, attempt to further their own ideas or interests by resorting to statements more distinguished by stridency than by accuracy.”
It is worth noting, of course, that these Cold War exaggerations weren’t just a Republican specialty: John F. Kennedy was making a supposed “missile gap” between the United States and the Soviet Union a key element of his presidential campaign..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/opinion/03blumenthal.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=max%20blumenthal&st=cse
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Make Congress Spend More Time Legislating
TW: Folks have suggested lengthening the congressional work week before but it is time to actually do it. Hamilton below supports it as a means to provide legislators more time to focus on actual legislating and getting to know their colleagues, all true. I would support as a means to nudge them away from doing the things they do when they are not in D.C. i.e. fund-raise and ponder how to attain their next higher office. Prior to the advent of jet travel, congressional folks could not run back to their districts weekly, they would stay in D.C. and legislate, get to know each other (and carouse at times). There are only 168 hours in a week, congressional folks need time to legislate, for personal matters and everything else (fund raise etc.). Forcing them to spend more on the first will result in them sacrificing some of the third.
And remember this is only during the time when Congress is actually in session, the rest of the year they can boondoggle, "get to know their constituents", etc.
From Lee Hamilton (fmr. Congressman from Indiana) via the Bloomington Herald:
"...there is one small improvement that Congress could put into effect that would go a long way toward making it a more successful body: extend the congressional work week.
I don’t mean to suggest that members of Congress are sloughing off. Far from it: they work extremely hard. It’s just that much of their work involves tasks other than legislating. Most of the year, they devote only three days a week to this fundamental responsibility; the rest of the time, they’re raising money, giving speeches, politicking in the district, traveling on fact-finding visits, meeting with lobbyists and constituents and attending to the myriad other responsibilities that contemporary members of Congress believe to be part of their job.
...The manic schedule that members of Congress maintain costs them more than the chance to get their thoughts in order. I would argue, in fact, that it hurts their ability to be effective as legislators. For the simple truth is that good legislating takes time. It demands the patient pursuit of consensus, the working through of alternatives, the ability to test ideas in debate and a willingness to build the broad consensus that is necessary for effective legislation.
...Many members don’t have the opportunity to get to know one another well, and therefore to build the trust required to work across party and ideological lines. Time for debate and deliberation — key constitutional responsibilities — gets constrained..."
And remember this is only during the time when Congress is actually in session, the rest of the year they can boondoggle, "get to know their constituents", etc.
From Lee Hamilton (fmr. Congressman from Indiana) via the Bloomington Herald:
"...there is one small improvement that Congress could put into effect that would go a long way toward making it a more successful body: extend the congressional work week.
I don’t mean to suggest that members of Congress are sloughing off. Far from it: they work extremely hard. It’s just that much of their work involves tasks other than legislating. Most of the year, they devote only three days a week to this fundamental responsibility; the rest of the time, they’re raising money, giving speeches, politicking in the district, traveling on fact-finding visits, meeting with lobbyists and constituents and attending to the myriad other responsibilities that contemporary members of Congress believe to be part of their job.
...The manic schedule that members of Congress maintain costs them more than the chance to get their thoughts in order. I would argue, in fact, that it hurts their ability to be effective as legislators. For the simple truth is that good legislating takes time. It demands the patient pursuit of consensus, the working through of alternatives, the ability to test ideas in debate and a willingness to build the broad consensus that is necessary for effective legislation.
...Many members don’t have the opportunity to get to know one another well, and therefore to build the trust required to work across party and ideological lines. Time for debate and deliberation — key constitutional responsibilities — gets constrained..."
Monday, August 31, 2009
Public Service Unions Need Reform
TW: I am not in the all unions are bad camp. Just like I am not in the all rapacious capitalists are bad even though many are. But there is one type of union with whom I have serious problems- public service. Public service unions wield disproportionate power due to the frequent monopolistic power of their industries (i.e. teaching, fire fighting, police etc.) and their exceedingly strong electoral impact especially locally.
Public service unions typically are a core Democratic constituency. That does not mean they should be immune to reform. I have not plowed through the New Yorker article referenced below but am looking forward to it. Improving education is a multi-faceted challenge but increasing the quality of teachers should be part of the solution.
From Economist:
"...studies have shown that the quality of one's teacher is probably the most important factor in determining a student's educational success. But in New York, where the pay and promotion schemes are nearly automatic, good teachers are treated much the same way as bad teachers. Moreover, the tenure system is such that bad teachers stick around for as long as they want. After running through the elaborate and costly system for dealing with incompetent teachers,
Mr Brill [author of New Yorker piece] notes
'[I]n the past two years arbitrators have terminated only two teachers for incompetence alone, and only six others in cases where, according to the Department of Education, the main charge was incompetence.'
Tenure is one of the biggest problems: after three years on the job, teachers are basically guaranteed employment for life. Joel Klein, the city's schools chancellor, has made a dent there, but problems persist.
[From Brill]
'In seven years, Klein has increased the percentage of third-year teachers not given tenure from three to six per cent. Unsatisfactory ratings for tenured teachers have risen from less than one per cent to 1.8 per cent. "Any human-resources professional will tell you that rating only 1.8 per cent of any workforce unsatisfactory is ridiculous," [Dan Weisberg, the general counsel and vice-president for the New Teacher Project] says. "If you look at the upper quartile and the lower quartile, you know that those people are not interchangeable...'
...Why shouldn't public-school teachers be treated like bankers or lawyers or most other occupations in America? Why should they be guaranteed employment after three years, and why doesn't performance play a bigger role in decisions about salaries and promotions? These aren't new questions. Barack Obama's education secretary, Arne Duncan, has been pushing for reforms to the current system. And Mr Klein has been battling the UTF for seven years. But the teachers' union is powerful, and the state's politicians are easily cowed. In the city, the teachers' contract is up for renewal in October, which should lead to another battle over tenure, evaluation and pay."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/those_who_cant_teach_teach.cfm
Public service unions typically are a core Democratic constituency. That does not mean they should be immune to reform. I have not plowed through the New Yorker article referenced below but am looking forward to it. Improving education is a multi-faceted challenge but increasing the quality of teachers should be part of the solution.
From Economist:
"...studies have shown that the quality of one's teacher is probably the most important factor in determining a student's educational success. But in New York, where the pay and promotion schemes are nearly automatic, good teachers are treated much the same way as bad teachers. Moreover, the tenure system is such that bad teachers stick around for as long as they want. After running through the elaborate and costly system for dealing with incompetent teachers,
Mr Brill [author of New Yorker piece] notes
'[I]n the past two years arbitrators have terminated only two teachers for incompetence alone, and only six others in cases where, according to the Department of Education, the main charge was incompetence.'
Tenure is one of the biggest problems: after three years on the job, teachers are basically guaranteed employment for life. Joel Klein, the city's schools chancellor, has made a dent there, but problems persist.
[From Brill]
'In seven years, Klein has increased the percentage of third-year teachers not given tenure from three to six per cent. Unsatisfactory ratings for tenured teachers have risen from less than one per cent to 1.8 per cent. "Any human-resources professional will tell you that rating only 1.8 per cent of any workforce unsatisfactory is ridiculous," [Dan Weisberg, the general counsel and vice-president for the New Teacher Project] says. "If you look at the upper quartile and the lower quartile, you know that those people are not interchangeable...'
...Why shouldn't public-school teachers be treated like bankers or lawyers or most other occupations in America? Why should they be guaranteed employment after three years, and why doesn't performance play a bigger role in decisions about salaries and promotions? These aren't new questions. Barack Obama's education secretary, Arne Duncan, has been pushing for reforms to the current system. And Mr Klein has been battling the UTF for seven years. But the teachers' union is powerful, and the state's politicians are easily cowed. In the city, the teachers' contract is up for renewal in October, which should lead to another battle over tenure, evaluation and pay."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/those_who_cant_teach_teach.cfm
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Why Reform Is So Hard (cont.)
TW: Micheal Steele's health care speech yesterday epitomizes why reform is so challenging. He combined blind support for the current Medicare program with untrue insinuations about the Dems' program. It is a potent prescription.
Dems can bash the hypocrisy of the Republicans coming out so strongly for the single-payer, cost expanding, voter coddling Medicare program. But why would they not support a program favored by 50MM aggressive voters. Power retention is not about what is right, it is about what gets votes.
In the mean time, Steele's program left universal care and how health care costs could actually be controlled essentially unmentioned. In other words, the opposition gains if nothing happens (as we have blogged repeatedly) so that the incumbent will be accused of amongst other things: indecisive, weak leadership; scattered focus; extremism, incompetence, yada, yada, yada.
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"There's no real secret behind Michael Steele's sudden adoration of Medicare: Seniors are the age group most solidly opposed to health-care reform, they vote in particularly large numbers in midterm elections, and they are uniquely active on the local level.
Still, what we're seeing here is the GOP swearing that they will protect, defend and preserve a single-payer health-care system. And this comes after months spent fighting a "government takeover" of health care. If you could hook that kind of cognitive dissonance up to a turbine, we wouldn't need cap-and-trade...."
From Micheal Shearer at Time summarizes Steele's program:
1. No cuts in Medicare, a government-run program Republicans like, which Steele admits is going "into the red in less than a decade." (Does this mean that Republicans now support tax increases to pay for the shortfalls? Or that there is no solution? Or that something else should be cut? What?)
2. No expansion of government-run healthcare, which could involve "boards that would decide what treatments would or wouldn't be funded." (Left unmentioned is the fact that such boards already exist in the private health care marketplace, and, in practice, in the Medicare system, which, in the words of its own website, "does not cover everything, and it does not pay the total cost for most services or supplies that are covered.")
3. No efforts to ration care based on age. (Left unmentioned is the fact that no one in the Democratic Party has proposed this...)
4. No government interference with end of life care. (TW: thx goodness Steele would protect us from death panels, dont get me started...)
5. Not cut the Medicare Advantage Plan. (Left unmentioned is the fact that Medicare Advantage provides a subsidy of about $17 billion a year to private insurance companies to offer services that would otherwise be offered by Medicare...)"
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/24/the-republican-partys-no-line-on-health-care/
Dems can bash the hypocrisy of the Republicans coming out so strongly for the single-payer, cost expanding, voter coddling Medicare program. But why would they not support a program favored by 50MM aggressive voters. Power retention is not about what is right, it is about what gets votes.
In the mean time, Steele's program left universal care and how health care costs could actually be controlled essentially unmentioned. In other words, the opposition gains if nothing happens (as we have blogged repeatedly) so that the incumbent will be accused of amongst other things: indecisive, weak leadership; scattered focus; extremism, incompetence, yada, yada, yada.
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"There's no real secret behind Michael Steele's sudden adoration of Medicare: Seniors are the age group most solidly opposed to health-care reform, they vote in particularly large numbers in midterm elections, and they are uniquely active on the local level.
Still, what we're seeing here is the GOP swearing that they will protect, defend and preserve a single-payer health-care system. And this comes after months spent fighting a "government takeover" of health care. If you could hook that kind of cognitive dissonance up to a turbine, we wouldn't need cap-and-trade...."
From Micheal Shearer at Time summarizes Steele's program:
1. No cuts in Medicare, a government-run program Republicans like, which Steele admits is going "into the red in less than a decade." (Does this mean that Republicans now support tax increases to pay for the shortfalls? Or that there is no solution? Or that something else should be cut? What?)
2. No expansion of government-run healthcare, which could involve "boards that would decide what treatments would or wouldn't be funded." (Left unmentioned is the fact that such boards already exist in the private health care marketplace, and, in practice, in the Medicare system, which, in the words of its own website, "does not cover everything, and it does not pay the total cost for most services or supplies that are covered.")
3. No efforts to ration care based on age. (Left unmentioned is the fact that no one in the Democratic Party has proposed this...)
4. No government interference with end of life care. (TW: thx goodness Steele would protect us from death panels, dont get me started...)
5. Not cut the Medicare Advantage Plan. (Left unmentioned is the fact that Medicare Advantage provides a subsidy of about $17 billion a year to private insurance companies to offer services that would otherwise be offered by Medicare...)"
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/24/the-republican-partys-no-line-on-health-care/
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Can We Govern Without the Imperative Of Crisis?
TW: The premise of Zakaria's piece is old: democracies move slowly until a crisis forces their hand. 9/11, Pearl Harbor, GD 1.0, JFK's assassination etc. created environments of real bi-partisanship in which for better or worse our government made big moves. The challenge is not all governmental challenges occur around hot burning crises. Many are slow burns- climate change, fiscal deficits, improving education, investing in infrastructure, addressing poverty and income disparities etc.
Our government reflecting the will of entrenched, powerful interests and a passive, ill-informed populace refuses to make challenging choices. Crisis mitigates the power of those entrenched interests and awakens the passive.
The challenges we face are not insurmountable they merely require trade-offs and some level of sacrifice, a level of sacrifice which would likely surprise many by its relative ease.
American democracy has worked fairly effectively to harness its competing interests as its demographic and material resources were waxing. As these resources wax relatively speaking will the vaunted American democracy be up for the challenge? Our fiscal deficits are causing America great harm. They are sapping our competitive strength in a drip, drip, drip manner punctuated by the occasional belch like last Fall. We can neither tax our way out of them nor wish them away with fantasies like supply side economics. Some cuts are needed but where are the folks pounding the table for that?
From Fareed Zakaria at Newsweek:
"...There is something about America—the system, the government, the people—that allows us to react to a crisis with astonishing speed.
...Now, to see the weakness of the American system, consider the past week or two and the debacle of the health-care debate. It is demonstrably clear that the U.S. health-care system is on an unsustainable path. If current trends continue—and there is no indication that they won't—health care will consume 40 percent of the national economy by 2050. The problem is that this is a slow and steady decline, producing no crisis, no Pearl Harbor, no 9/11. As a result, we seem incapable of grappling with it seriously.
It's not as if the problems aren't apparent to everyone, whatever your political persuasion. Costs are rising so fast that every day, more than 10,000 Americans lose their insurance coverage. In 1993, 61 percent of small businesses provided health insurance for their employees. Now that number is down to 38 percent. Larger firms face greater and greater health-care costs. And yet, Americans do worse on almost every health measure than most advanced industrial countries, which spend about half as much on health care per person and have proportionately more elderly people.
The political debate that is taking place is unreal...The lack of serious discussion is a tragedy,
....Health care is the nation's most serious long-term problem. But think of Social Security, government pension liabilities, state--government deficits, and energy dependence, and you face the same issue. Each one of these problems is getting worse by the day, and yet the political system seems unable to take them on and make major reforms. On these very important issues, America is caught in a downward spiral. It makes you wish for a crisis."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/212163
Our government reflecting the will of entrenched, powerful interests and a passive, ill-informed populace refuses to make challenging choices. Crisis mitigates the power of those entrenched interests and awakens the passive.
The challenges we face are not insurmountable they merely require trade-offs and some level of sacrifice, a level of sacrifice which would likely surprise many by its relative ease.
American democracy has worked fairly effectively to harness its competing interests as its demographic and material resources were waxing. As these resources wax relatively speaking will the vaunted American democracy be up for the challenge? Our fiscal deficits are causing America great harm. They are sapping our competitive strength in a drip, drip, drip manner punctuated by the occasional belch like last Fall. We can neither tax our way out of them nor wish them away with fantasies like supply side economics. Some cuts are needed but where are the folks pounding the table for that?
From Fareed Zakaria at Newsweek:
"...There is something about America—the system, the government, the people—that allows us to react to a crisis with astonishing speed.
...Now, to see the weakness of the American system, consider the past week or two and the debacle of the health-care debate. It is demonstrably clear that the U.S. health-care system is on an unsustainable path. If current trends continue—and there is no indication that they won't—health care will consume 40 percent of the national economy by 2050. The problem is that this is a slow and steady decline, producing no crisis, no Pearl Harbor, no 9/11. As a result, we seem incapable of grappling with it seriously.
It's not as if the problems aren't apparent to everyone, whatever your political persuasion. Costs are rising so fast that every day, more than 10,000 Americans lose their insurance coverage. In 1993, 61 percent of small businesses provided health insurance for their employees. Now that number is down to 38 percent. Larger firms face greater and greater health-care costs. And yet, Americans do worse on almost every health measure than most advanced industrial countries, which spend about half as much on health care per person and have proportionately more elderly people.
The political debate that is taking place is unreal...The lack of serious discussion is a tragedy,
....Health care is the nation's most serious long-term problem. But think of Social Security, government pension liabilities, state--government deficits, and energy dependence, and you face the same issue. Each one of these problems is getting worse by the day, and yet the political system seems unable to take them on and make major reforms. On these very important issues, America is caught in a downward spiral. It makes you wish for a crisis."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/212163
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Those "Congressional" Jets
TW: I saw the headlines about Congress "buying 8 new jets" and thought "what are they thinking". Like I am sure the vast majority of folks I did not pay much attention to the story beyond the headline and moved on wishing the Dems in Congress were not so porkalicious. But I did have in the back of my mind that the headlines seemed a bit too stupid even for Congress. This story frames how media loves to stir up a ruckus (and these things work both ways).
From Columbia Journalism Review:
"Let’s throw a little water on The Wall Street Journal’s page-one scoop that Congress is buying eight private jets for $550 million.
...It’s reminiscent of the paper’s weak A1 pieces trying to create a congressional-expenses scandal like one that rocked the UK earlier this year—something I said had “more than a whiff of Rupert on” them.
First of all, the headline splashed across four columns at the top of page one: “Congress Gets an Upgrade: $500 Million Slated for Purchase of Eight More Planes as Lawmakers’ Travel Soars.”
But wait a second. These planes are for an Air Force fleet that’s barely used by Congress—at least compared to the others who also use it. Over the last five years, 86 percent of the use of the private-plane fleet has been by the White House and the military. Just 14.5 percent has been congressional use.
...The House Appropriations Committee says the new purchases are designed to replace seven aging and more expensive business jets. The net impact is one additional plane owned by the federal government and a substantial increase in its passenger capacity.
So it’s adding one plane, not eight, as the WSJ subhed implies. Changes the tenor of the story, no? Now it’s not quite such a juicy, Drudge-worthy, top of A1 piece.
...What does “expensive” mean? Is Congress actually going to save money long-term by switching to planes that are cheaper to fly? Or does it mean that the purchase prices of the planes are lower than the ones they’re replacing. The Journal doesn’t say. That’s critical information here.
...And what happens to the old planes? Presumably they’ll sell for something, offsetting part of that $550 million tab (although the market for planes isn’t exactly robust these days). That goes unexplored here.
...This is all too bad because there’s a legitimate story here about whether Congress should be spending half a billion dollars on private planes right now (does it make any economic sense given that they’re replacing “more expensive” planes?)—or whether it is abusing this privilege.
But you can’t trust this story because it distorts the facts to sex up the issue. It’s a very British-style presentation, unsurprising since the newspaper is now run by folks who hail from Fleet Street"
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/journal_misleads_congress_jets.php
From Columbia Journalism Review:
"Let’s throw a little water on The Wall Street Journal’s page-one scoop that Congress is buying eight private jets for $550 million.
...It’s reminiscent of the paper’s weak A1 pieces trying to create a congressional-expenses scandal like one that rocked the UK earlier this year—something I said had “more than a whiff of Rupert on” them.
First of all, the headline splashed across four columns at the top of page one: “Congress Gets an Upgrade: $500 Million Slated for Purchase of Eight More Planes as Lawmakers’ Travel Soars.”
But wait a second. These planes are for an Air Force fleet that’s barely used by Congress—at least compared to the others who also use it. Over the last five years, 86 percent of the use of the private-plane fleet has been by the White House and the military. Just 14.5 percent has been congressional use.
...The House Appropriations Committee says the new purchases are designed to replace seven aging and more expensive business jets. The net impact is one additional plane owned by the federal government and a substantial increase in its passenger capacity.
So it’s adding one plane, not eight, as the WSJ subhed implies. Changes the tenor of the story, no? Now it’s not quite such a juicy, Drudge-worthy, top of A1 piece.
...What does “expensive” mean? Is Congress actually going to save money long-term by switching to planes that are cheaper to fly? Or does it mean that the purchase prices of the planes are lower than the ones they’re replacing. The Journal doesn’t say. That’s critical information here.
...And what happens to the old planes? Presumably they’ll sell for something, offsetting part of that $550 million tab (although the market for planes isn’t exactly robust these days). That goes unexplored here.
...This is all too bad because there’s a legitimate story here about whether Congress should be spending half a billion dollars on private planes right now (does it make any economic sense given that they’re replacing “more expensive” planes?)—or whether it is abusing this privilege.
But you can’t trust this story because it distorts the facts to sex up the issue. It’s a very British-style presentation, unsurprising since the newspaper is now run by folks who hail from Fleet Street"
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/journal_misleads_congress_jets.php
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Liberal Democracy Faces Competition
TW: We have remarked on this before. Western nations have been ascendant since the Renaissance. Liberalized democracies were ascendant throughout the 20th century albeit not without competition from the Soviets and various fascists. With the collapse of the Soviet Union folks felt pretty arrogant about Western liberalized democracies having become the world's predominant power structure.As history has evolved over the past several years, however, this view is suffering. The Western liberalized democracy has stiff competition from alternative forms of governance. The GDP numbers above bear this out. The ramifications are immense.
Aspiring nations will have viable alternative governance models to which to benchmark their nations. China is the obvious alternative model but hegemonic regimes amongst the oil rich will also hold significant power.
The silver lining is the value of competition. The increasingly sclerotic governance processes by which Western nations and institutions seek to govern may be improved by exposure to significant international competition. The insular nationalistic tendencies of Americans may require some re-thinking. Will these changes occur without a major international crisis to force the absorption of change? We shall see.
http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/07/31/geoeconomics-in-pictures/
Friday, July 31, 2009
Kicking the Can Down the Road: US Postal Service
TW: Another example of our government (to repeat our government is not some ephemeral being it is a reflection of you), kicking the can down the road. The amount of mail being sent is plummeting due to technological and societal changes (i.e. the internet). We need less postal service not more. Yet entrenched interests want to hold on to the past as long as possible.
As usual folks are trying accounting gimmicks and borrowing to address the shortfalls but kicking the can down the road is pointless.
From NYT:
"Postmaster General John E. Potter says the Postal Service now expects to run a record $7 billion deficit in 2009, up from projections in March of $6 billion.
...Mr. Potter previously beseeched Congress to change laws that mandate delivery six days a week, a request that has met strong opposition from some lawmakers.
While some remain dead set against five-day delivery, Dan G. Blair, chairman of the Postal Regulatory Commission, the independent agency that oversees the Postal Service, said the initial “frosty reception” from Congress appeared to be changing.
“Congress certainly seems to be saying ‘no way,’ but what happens when they have another $6 to $7 billion operating debt next year?” he said, noting that the commission does not plan to take sides in the delivery debate.
Mr. Potter predicts that Congress will be more willing to change the law as the Postal Service’s financial situation worsens. He says that five-day delivery could save more than $3 billion a year. The postal commission estimates the savings at $2 billion.
...A bill to allow the Postal Service to pay health benefits from a retirement fund was voted out of committee last week and has 339 co-sponsors. The Postal Service says that could save $2 billion a year from the operating budget.
...language mandating six-day mail service has made its way into the fiscal 2010 spending bill that includes money to reimburse the Postal Service. The act also expresses opposition to the consolidation of postal stations. The Postal Service is reviewing more than 3,200 postal stations and branches to see if they could be closed or their operations consolidated, an effort that has prompted outcry in communities afraid of losing branches.
“I realize that the postmaster general thinks that this will save money, but there are other ways that they can cost-cut,” Ms. Emerson said of the potential consolidations and closures. “My constituents feel very strongly about having their postal service continue as it always has.”
...William Burrus, president of the American Postal Workers Union, said that the health benefits bill would provide enough temporary relief to survive the economic downturn, after which mail volume would rebound.
Mr. Potter said he expected the Postal Service to handle at least 27 billion fewer pieces of mail this year than in 2008. Frederic V. Rolando, president of the National Association of Letter Carriers, said the Postal Service should focus on new ways to generate revenue rather than on making substantial changes in service.
“Our take on the five-day delivery is that the Postal Service is making permanent structural changes to a problem that is the result of what is hopefully a temporary deep recession,” he said.
...Congress has authorized the Postal Service to borrow up to $15 billion, capped at $3 billion a year."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/business/30postal.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
As usual folks are trying accounting gimmicks and borrowing to address the shortfalls but kicking the can down the road is pointless.
From NYT:
"Postmaster General John E. Potter says the Postal Service now expects to run a record $7 billion deficit in 2009, up from projections in March of $6 billion.
...Mr. Potter previously beseeched Congress to change laws that mandate delivery six days a week, a request that has met strong opposition from some lawmakers.
While some remain dead set against five-day delivery, Dan G. Blair, chairman of the Postal Regulatory Commission, the independent agency that oversees the Postal Service, said the initial “frosty reception” from Congress appeared to be changing.
“Congress certainly seems to be saying ‘no way,’ but what happens when they have another $6 to $7 billion operating debt next year?” he said, noting that the commission does not plan to take sides in the delivery debate.
Mr. Potter predicts that Congress will be more willing to change the law as the Postal Service’s financial situation worsens. He says that five-day delivery could save more than $3 billion a year. The postal commission estimates the savings at $2 billion.
...A bill to allow the Postal Service to pay health benefits from a retirement fund was voted out of committee last week and has 339 co-sponsors. The Postal Service says that could save $2 billion a year from the operating budget.
...language mandating six-day mail service has made its way into the fiscal 2010 spending bill that includes money to reimburse the Postal Service. The act also expresses opposition to the consolidation of postal stations. The Postal Service is reviewing more than 3,200 postal stations and branches to see if they could be closed or their operations consolidated, an effort that has prompted outcry in communities afraid of losing branches.
“I realize that the postmaster general thinks that this will save money, but there are other ways that they can cost-cut,” Ms. Emerson said of the potential consolidations and closures. “My constituents feel very strongly about having their postal service continue as it always has.”
...William Burrus, president of the American Postal Workers Union, said that the health benefits bill would provide enough temporary relief to survive the economic downturn, after which mail volume would rebound.
Mr. Potter said he expected the Postal Service to handle at least 27 billion fewer pieces of mail this year than in 2008. Frederic V. Rolando, president of the National Association of Letter Carriers, said the Postal Service should focus on new ways to generate revenue rather than on making substantial changes in service.
“Our take on the five-day delivery is that the Postal Service is making permanent structural changes to a problem that is the result of what is hopefully a temporary deep recession,” he said.
...Congress has authorized the Postal Service to borrow up to $15 billion, capped at $3 billion a year."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/business/30postal.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Bottom Up Governance For Pot
TW: This Chicago Tribune editorial speaks to the confused nature of how America deals with pot. A proposed Cook County measure to reduce the sanctions against pot possession has garnered press not because of its profound substance, it would not change much either way, but because it is pot and ooooh pot is pot.
The editorial one hand appears to support reducing the possession sanctions (because they are expensive) but then blanches at the notion of perhaps legalizing it to tax and regulate (because after all it is illegal...but jeez if it were legalized would it not then be....legal). They appear to like the notion fining pot possessors just not taxing them. Perhaps because fines sound better than taxes.
Like many other political issues I suspect over time liberalized laws will grow, it is just a very haphazard (inefficient and inequitable) way of going about governance.
From Chicago Tribune:
"The measure would give...officers discretion to issue a $200 ticket instead of making a misdemeanor arrest in cases where the suspect was carrying less than 10 grams of marijuana.
....Cook County will be far from the first place to decriminalize small amounts of pot. Similar laws began popping up in the '70s, and close to one in three Americans now lives in a jurisdiction where officers are allowed to make similar calls.Whether this reflects growing acceptance of marijuana use or a more pragmatic concern for the cost of enforcement, or both, is subject to interpretation.
...Roughly 9 of every 10 marijuana arrests nationwide are for possession only, and the vast majority of them result in plea bargains or dismissals, calling into question the cost-effectiveness of arresting, jailing and prosecuting small-time users. Governments that have decriminalized such cases report little to no increase in marijuana use -- and significant savings in enforcement.
We see the sense in decriminalizing. Lately, though, the liberalization of marijuana laws is being driven by pot's potential as a revenue source. Prosecuting people for possession costs money; fining them brings in cash.
...We're grateful that Illinois leaders haven't smoked enough to fantasize about marijuana as a budget booster. It's an illegal drug, remember?
...They and other police departments will have no such discretion in the cities and villages. Dart's officers made just 173 misdemeanor pot arrests last year and 150 the year before..."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0725edit1jul25,0,7364464.story
The editorial one hand appears to support reducing the possession sanctions (because they are expensive) but then blanches at the notion of perhaps legalizing it to tax and regulate (because after all it is illegal...but jeez if it were legalized would it not then be....legal). They appear to like the notion fining pot possessors just not taxing them. Perhaps because fines sound better than taxes.
Like many other political issues I suspect over time liberalized laws will grow, it is just a very haphazard (inefficient and inequitable) way of going about governance.
From Chicago Tribune:
"The measure would give...officers discretion to issue a $200 ticket instead of making a misdemeanor arrest in cases where the suspect was carrying less than 10 grams of marijuana.
....Cook County will be far from the first place to decriminalize small amounts of pot. Similar laws began popping up in the '70s, and close to one in three Americans now lives in a jurisdiction where officers are allowed to make similar calls.Whether this reflects growing acceptance of marijuana use or a more pragmatic concern for the cost of enforcement, or both, is subject to interpretation.
...Roughly 9 of every 10 marijuana arrests nationwide are for possession only, and the vast majority of them result in plea bargains or dismissals, calling into question the cost-effectiveness of arresting, jailing and prosecuting small-time users. Governments that have decriminalized such cases report little to no increase in marijuana use -- and significant savings in enforcement.
We see the sense in decriminalizing. Lately, though, the liberalization of marijuana laws is being driven by pot's potential as a revenue source. Prosecuting people for possession costs money; fining them brings in cash.
...We're grateful that Illinois leaders haven't smoked enough to fantasize about marijuana as a budget booster. It's an illegal drug, remember?
...They and other police departments will have no such discretion in the cities and villages. Dart's officers made just 173 misdemeanor pot arrests last year and 150 the year before..."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0725edit1jul25,0,7364464.story
More Kicking the Can Down the Road
TW: Here is another insane transaction by a local government to avoid make hard choices by essentially covering budget shortfalls with the equivalent of a home equity loan. This time it is a state, Arizona and they make no qualms about setting aside money for the future. They claim all options have been exhausted. This is hopefully a political lie. Because if it were true then it would mean Arizona is functionally bankrupt. They just do not want to make tough choices- raise taxes, cut spending/services etc. They just want to kick the can down the road.
The proposal will get noticed because it involves a sale/leaseback of the state capital but what they are using as collateral is relevant only symbolically, the real issue is these deals take money from future taxes and apply it to the present. They are also going to use the old trick of privatizing prisons by selling the right to manage the prisons. Classically bad policy.
From Arizona Republic:
"Legislators are considering selling the House and Senate buildings where they've conducted state business for more than 50 years.
Dozens of other state properties also may be sold as the state government faces its worst financial crisis in a generation, if not ever. The plan isn't to liquidate state assets, though.
Instead, officials hope to sell the properties and then lease them back over several years before assuming ownership again.
...allow government services to continue without interruption while giving the state a fast infusion of as much as $735 million, according to Capitol projections.
For investors, the arrangement means long-term lease payments from a stable source.
...Earlier this month, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed such sale/leaseback provisions along with most of the rest of a fiscal 2010 state budget plan sent to her by the Legislature.
But the provisions are expected to return as part of a GOP-led legislative budget proposal surfacing this week. Although Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman called sale/leaseback deals "one of the governor's least favorite options," he conceded the likelihood that they'll play a key role in any plan to close a state shortfall estimated at $3.4 billion.
The state may have little choice. Reserves already have been drained, easier fiscal gimmicks are virtually tapped out, and there's no political will for spending cuts of the size and scope needed to close the deficit.
"This is the predicament we find ourselves in," said Tom Manos, a Brewer budget adviser. "We've exhausted the better options."
...While the state is looking to sell and lease back selected properties, it also may try to contract out the operations of some prisons. The concessions provision is expected to be included within the new budget proposal, and legislative analysts believe it could generate as much as $100 million (on top of the sale/leaseback revenue) for state coffers. Private, for-profit prison operators would bid for the right to manage selected facilities, but the state would maintain ownership."
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2009/07/29/20090729assets0729.html
The proposal will get noticed because it involves a sale/leaseback of the state capital but what they are using as collateral is relevant only symbolically, the real issue is these deals take money from future taxes and apply it to the present. They are also going to use the old trick of privatizing prisons by selling the right to manage the prisons. Classically bad policy.
From Arizona Republic:
"Legislators are considering selling the House and Senate buildings where they've conducted state business for more than 50 years.
Dozens of other state properties also may be sold as the state government faces its worst financial crisis in a generation, if not ever. The plan isn't to liquidate state assets, though.
Instead, officials hope to sell the properties and then lease them back over several years before assuming ownership again.
...allow government services to continue without interruption while giving the state a fast infusion of as much as $735 million, according to Capitol projections.
For investors, the arrangement means long-term lease payments from a stable source.
...Earlier this month, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed such sale/leaseback provisions along with most of the rest of a fiscal 2010 state budget plan sent to her by the Legislature.
But the provisions are expected to return as part of a GOP-led legislative budget proposal surfacing this week. Although Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman called sale/leaseback deals "one of the governor's least favorite options," he conceded the likelihood that they'll play a key role in any plan to close a state shortfall estimated at $3.4 billion.
The state may have little choice. Reserves already have been drained, easier fiscal gimmicks are virtually tapped out, and there's no political will for spending cuts of the size and scope needed to close the deficit.
"This is the predicament we find ourselves in," said Tom Manos, a Brewer budget adviser. "We've exhausted the better options."
...While the state is looking to sell and lease back selected properties, it also may try to contract out the operations of some prisons. The concessions provision is expected to be included within the new budget proposal, and legislative analysts believe it could generate as much as $100 million (on top of the sale/leaseback revenue) for state coffers. Private, for-profit prison operators would bid for the right to manage selected facilities, but the state would maintain ownership."
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2009/07/29/20090729assets0729.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)