TW: As you may recall, the SCOTUS threw serious wrenches in the FDR New Deal policies in the mid-30's declaring many attributes of his programs unconstitutional. It was iffy for awhile whether social security would survive a court made up of very conservative cro-magnons judicial appointees leftover from the Taft/Wilson/Harding/Coolidge/Hoover period. The infamous court packing crisis resulted whereby FDR threatened to expand the number of justices from 9 to 11 in order to alter the majority view.
Some are speculating Obama may run into similar constraints dealing with the current SCOTUS now composed largely of increasingly conservative Republican appointees. The last 30 years have been the longest heyday for laissez-faire since the 1920's (things crashed after that period too, wonder why?) and the longest stretch of conservative judicial appointments as well. A collision is likely.
From Newsweek:
"...From the TARP bank bailout, to climate change "cap and trade," to health-care reform, new laws could face an array of judicial doctrines recently honed by conservative lawyers.
...In fact, for most American of history, this alignment has been the norm. From the time Thomas Jefferson faced an array of Federalist judges, the unelected third branch has tended to be more conservative, more protective of private property, than the elected branches...In the early 20th century, the Supreme Court blocked Progressive Era laws, such as the minimum wage for women and limitations on working hours. It began to strike down key New Deal laws, too, until Franklin Roosevelt threatened to pack the bench by expanding the number of justices. When the court abruptly started to uphold FDR's laws, wags dubbed it "the switch in time that saved nine." The era marked by Chief Justice Earl Warren, when liberal federal judges sometimes raced ahead of the public and political leaders, was something of a fluke that lasted only about two decades.
For the past quarter century, the courts have been conservative, but so has the government. Few new sweeping regulatory schemes became law. Now the Roberts Court has tilted markedly more conservative than the Rehnquist Court—at the same time the voters elected a more liberal set of politicians than they had in half a century.
...Challenges to TARP, which gives vague powers to the executive branch, may unfold soon. If banks are nationalized, shareholders may assert they have been unfairly deprived of the value of their investments. Other goals, such as health-care reform and climate-change curbs, inevitably involve a blizzard of new rules, mandates and taxes. These will face challenges from businesses, who have found a sympathetic hearing in many recent cases. As law professor Jeffrey Rosen points out, of 14 antitrust cases heard by the court over the past two terms, business won every time. Conservatives increasingly cite the limits of the Constitution's "commerce clause," or states rights, to blunt federal action.
...In some ways, the biggest battles will be over doctrine—over the meaning of the Constitution and how to interpret it. Once, liberals like Justice William Brennan relied on what he called a flexible "living Constitution." In response, conservatives argued for relying on the original intent of the Founders and decried "activist judges." Now debates have turned topsy-turvy. Arguably the most visible advocates of a "living Constitution" are John Yoo and Dick Cheney, who claim it gives the president nearly unlimited power, while liberals are more likely to quote Madison and Hamilton on checks and balances. Justice Stephen Breyer, in his book "Active Liberty," argued that the Constitution at its heart seeks to boost the participation of citizens in their government. This deference to the idea of democracy may give room to uphold energetic new statutes. Faced with the prospect of courts far more likely to strike down liberal laws, many progressives may again embrace the virtues of "judicial restraint."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/189234
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Things I Like - Books
It seems at times that everything is connected. Might not be a deep, profound connection, but patterns are everywhere.At least I see them.
For example, when we were in DC in mid-February, I picked up something to read at Kramer Books (one of my all time favorite book stores). The title caught my eye - An Arsonist’s Guide to Writers’ Homes in New England by Brock Clarke.
The reviews included in the paperback edition from, among others, The New Yorker ("A deadpan satire of all things literary") and the Utne Reader ("A witty, intensely clever piece of writing that scrutinizes our relationship with stories and storytelling") indicated that the read would be entertaining.
I bought the book and brought it home but didn't get around to starting it for a couple weeks. Now here comes the connection - I started reading the book on a Saturday afternoon.
The next morning, the Chicago Tribune had an article in the Travel section about the Agatha Christie home in South Devon, England which has just been restored and opened to the public. The ground floors will be open to visitors while several rooms on the top two floors will be available for vacation rentals. I'm pretty sure the vacation rooms come without dead bodies.I'm sure no one else would see a connection here, but I don't spend a lot of time thinking about authors' homes and to find myself reading a book and an article not related to the book about them in the space of 24 hours was odd.
If you don't plan to be in South Devon soon and want to know more about the house, see the link here: http://www.culture24.org.uk/art/art30570
Btw, the Arsonist's Guide is definitely entertaining - there were more than a couple things that made me laugh. But it's also pretty dark. Despite the great writing and the pretty funny situations that the main character gets himself into, I had this sense of foreboding and overall unhappiness the whole time I was reading.
Check out the website to read the first chapter and find out more about the author - he did some posts while on tour in 2008 that were pretty amusing.
http://arsonistsguide.com/index.html
Should We Let the Brits In?
TW: I posted recently about the Scotland potentially wanting devolve away from the UK. This piece suggests the UK joining the U.S. I like the concept. I have always thought the Canadians would make for a nice expansion as well. Am tired of the EU claiming to be the world's biggest economy only because they keep adding new countries.
Will it happen? Of course not, the Republicans would freak as we would be adding about 8-16 new Democratic senators and a commensurate amount of representatives. Not to mention the Brits and Canadians might have concerns (I mean the piece might have been written with a bit of sarcasm).
From the Independent:
"...Becoming the 51st State of the Union would be a colossal promotion. There would be downsides to yielding what passes for our sovereignty, of course. The Sovereign would have to go, and most of us would miss her and the amusement her family selflessly provides. Any residual misplaced sense of superiority would need to be jettisoned as well.
But the upsides would more than dwarf the regrets. At a stroke we would inherit a written constitution – and what a constitution – guaranteeing such essentials for a functioning democracy as fixed-term government, proper checks and balances to executive power, and freedom of speech. We'd be defended from the worst ravages of economic collapse by belonging to what will, with the euro facing mounting pressure from the imminent bankruptcy of member countries, remain the world's premier reserve currency. We would have a political leader to revere, for eight years at least. And in the US tradition of slightly out-of-the-way cities holding the honour, we could make Norwich our state capital, with the Union Jack replaced as flag by a pot of Colman's Mustard.
...Now there will be objections, and not just from royalists. Some, fretful of our place in the pecking idea, will feel slighted at ranking 32nd in size between Louisiana and Mississippi. But New York state's square mileage isn't much more, so size couldn't matter less. Others may think us too distant to make it practicable. Yet we're only a few hundred miles further away from the US mainland than Hawaii – a state with a useful recent record of producing Presidents despite having four electoral college votes to the hundred or so that our population would merit.
...It is ever more apparent that on its current path, or rather trapped in its current stasis, Britain is absolutely stuffed. Whatever ersatz prestige devolved from London's status as global financial services capital has gone, while the tacky veneer of the "young country" of Mr Tony Blair's lively imagination faded long ago. Britain is a befuddled geriatric, roughly cared for by a political class without energy, original thought or compassion, its populace too fatigued and apathetic to care about the incessant infringements on personal liberty.
....Dribbling and muttering incoherently about the glory days when the map was suffused with pink and the sun never set, clinging to the permanent seat on the Security Council like the second childhood security blanket it is...
...All of which begs the obvious question of what could possibly be in it for the United States to have us live with her in a granny flat 3,000 miles round the corner. Apart from the strategic value of adding a gigantic air base in western Europe to the control she already exerts over our "independent" nuclear deterrent, the health tourism possibilities might appeal..."
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/matthew-norman/matthew-norman-turn-us-into-the-51st-state-why-not-1637570.html
Will it happen? Of course not, the Republicans would freak as we would be adding about 8-16 new Democratic senators and a commensurate amount of representatives. Not to mention the Brits and Canadians might have concerns (I mean the piece might have been written with a bit of sarcasm).
From the Independent:
"...Becoming the 51st State of the Union would be a colossal promotion. There would be downsides to yielding what passes for our sovereignty, of course. The Sovereign would have to go, and most of us would miss her and the amusement her family selflessly provides. Any residual misplaced sense of superiority would need to be jettisoned as well.
But the upsides would more than dwarf the regrets. At a stroke we would inherit a written constitution – and what a constitution – guaranteeing such essentials for a functioning democracy as fixed-term government, proper checks and balances to executive power, and freedom of speech. We'd be defended from the worst ravages of economic collapse by belonging to what will, with the euro facing mounting pressure from the imminent bankruptcy of member countries, remain the world's premier reserve currency. We would have a political leader to revere, for eight years at least. And in the US tradition of slightly out-of-the-way cities holding the honour, we could make Norwich our state capital, with the Union Jack replaced as flag by a pot of Colman's Mustard.
...Now there will be objections, and not just from royalists. Some, fretful of our place in the pecking idea, will feel slighted at ranking 32nd in size between Louisiana and Mississippi. But New York state's square mileage isn't much more, so size couldn't matter less. Others may think us too distant to make it practicable. Yet we're only a few hundred miles further away from the US mainland than Hawaii – a state with a useful recent record of producing Presidents despite having four electoral college votes to the hundred or so that our population would merit.
...It is ever more apparent that on its current path, or rather trapped in its current stasis, Britain is absolutely stuffed. Whatever ersatz prestige devolved from London's status as global financial services capital has gone, while the tacky veneer of the "young country" of Mr Tony Blair's lively imagination faded long ago. Britain is a befuddled geriatric, roughly cared for by a political class without energy, original thought or compassion, its populace too fatigued and apathetic to care about the incessant infringements on personal liberty.
....Dribbling and muttering incoherently about the glory days when the map was suffused with pink and the sun never set, clinging to the permanent seat on the Security Council like the second childhood security blanket it is...
...All of which begs the obvious question of what could possibly be in it for the United States to have us live with her in a granny flat 3,000 miles round the corner. Apart from the strategic value of adding a gigantic air base in western Europe to the control she already exerts over our "independent" nuclear deterrent, the health tourism possibilities might appeal..."
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/matthew-norman/matthew-norman-turn-us-into-the-51st-state-why-not-1637570.html
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
We Need a Big And Successful Presidency
TW: The last "successful" presidency (defined as one the majority of folks look back upon longingly), Clinton could have been but when you screw as badly as he did with Lewinsky you disqualify yourself) would be Reagan's. Before that one could go to JFK but that one was truncated and incomplete. In other words, successful presidencies have been few and far between over the past 50 years. We need another regardless of the current circumstances.
When Obama was in the primary I supported him over Clinton because he represented the best chance for a home run POTUS, not a single or doubles hitter like perhaps Clinton would have been. There is risk to swinging for the fences but we need a homer. The fiscal challenges posed by entitlements and the evolution of the U.S.'s role in world require big time innovation and action. Unless you are a Hooverite or neo-con, Obama is the best chance for both.
From Chris Matthews:
"President Obama...delivered his most pronounced message since taking office. He wants to be a president who does more than muddle through. He wants to be a transformative president on the model of Roosevelt and Reagan. He wants to do big things...He was saying "I'm not going to be Bill Clinton and do school uniforms and family home leave, I'm going to do big stuff. Dick Morris is not advising me. I'm here to do business like the big guys, like Reagan and Roosevelt and maybe Lincoln. I'm going to be an important president or I'm not going to be a good one."
...I think President Obama has a very coherent plan: He is going to force the United States Senate to vote up or down on his budget. He's not going to let them walk away and do it piecemeal. He's going to wrap up energy, health care and education into one big casino style vote for Congress to take or leave. It looks to me like he is to insist that they take it up as a reconciliation matter where they only require 50 votes to do it. I think he's going to jam it. I think what we're seeing here day after day is this push. I think last night's speech was about President Obama saying, "I'm not here just to get by. I'm not just here to get through the business cycle. I'm going to change the American economy to compete in the future."
http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/25/1865612.aspx
When Obama was in the primary I supported him over Clinton because he represented the best chance for a home run POTUS, not a single or doubles hitter like perhaps Clinton would have been. There is risk to swinging for the fences but we need a homer. The fiscal challenges posed by entitlements and the evolution of the U.S.'s role in world require big time innovation and action. Unless you are a Hooverite or neo-con, Obama is the best chance for both.
From Chris Matthews:
"President Obama...delivered his most pronounced message since taking office. He wants to be a president who does more than muddle through. He wants to be a transformative president on the model of Roosevelt and Reagan. He wants to do big things...He was saying "I'm not going to be Bill Clinton and do school uniforms and family home leave, I'm going to do big stuff. Dick Morris is not advising me. I'm here to do business like the big guys, like Reagan and Roosevelt and maybe Lincoln. I'm going to be an important president or I'm not going to be a good one."
...I think President Obama has a very coherent plan: He is going to force the United States Senate to vote up or down on his budget. He's not going to let them walk away and do it piecemeal. He's going to wrap up energy, health care and education into one big casino style vote for Congress to take or leave. It looks to me like he is to insist that they take it up as a reconciliation matter where they only require 50 votes to do it. I think he's going to jam it. I think what we're seeing here day after day is this push. I think last night's speech was about President Obama saying, "I'm not here just to get by. I'm not just here to get through the business cycle. I'm going to change the American economy to compete in the future."
http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/25/1865612.aspx
A Conservative's Take on Education Reform
TW: Will is a conservative with certainly views to which I do not agree but he is not a polemicist along the lines of a Bill Kristol. He laments the endless promises and little progress made. Will is fairly supportive of the new Sec. of Education Duncan. Obviously I am a huge Obama fan, it is appointments like Duncan that feed my enthusiasm. Obama is trying to do much, but much needs to be done.
From George Will at Newsweek:;
"In 1994, Goals 2000 anticipated a high-school-graduation rate of "at least" 90 percent (it is 75) and American students being "first in the world in mathematics and science" in six years. In 2002, No Child Left Behind decreed 100 percent math and reading proficiency by 2014. That will not happen.
Now comes Arne Duncan, 44, the new secretary of education, fresh from seven years leading Chicago's public schools. There he showed a flair for innovation, which he acquired at his mother's knee. Now 74, she was, her son says, "the crazy white lady" who in 1961 opened, in the "absolute chaos" of a rough neighborhood on Chicago's South Side, an after-school tutoring program for young African-Americans, for whom she still toils, 48 years later.
Her son is impressively impatient with what George W. Bush called "the soft bigotry of low expectations." But under Bush's NCLB, Duncan says, "we have been lying to children and their parents because states have dumbed down their standards" of proficiency. "Sometimes," he says, "you have to call the baby ugly."
For decades, state legislatures, encouraged by teachers' unions, have embraced the theory that schools' cognitive outputs were a function of financial inputs. The theory was: As with soybeans, so with education—if you want more, increase subsidies.
... One scholar estimated that about 90 percent of the differences among schools in average proficiency can be explained by five factors—number of days absent from school, amount of television watched in the home, number of pages read for homework, quantity and quality of reading matter in the home and, much the most important, the presence of two parents in the home. Government cannot do much to make those variables vary, but Duncan correctly thinks that we actually know how to make schools effective anyway. The keys are time and talent.
...In Chicago, Duncan had many schools open 10 to 12 hours a day, six or seven days a week, for voluntary activities, including instruction. There were waiting lists for placements. Until recently, almost all students attended the nearest school. Now, under a policy whereby money follows the students, 59 percent of high-school students are attending schools they choose away from their neighborhoods. By closing failing schools and opening replacements, Chicago is ensuring that the portfolio of schools is churned and improved.
...Asked which he would choose, hiring 100,000 new teachers or firing 100,000 bad teachers, there is a long pause—another good sign—before he says he would take the new teachers because most of the worst teachers are older and are retiring.
He thinks finding talented teachers is more important than reducing pupil-teacher ratios—a third good sign—and he sees a silver lining on today's dark economic clouds: Bright young people who might have gone into investment banking can be lured into teaching by better pay and forgiveness of student loans. By making teaching more fun, his Chicago innovations helped increase the number of applicants from two for each teaching position to 10. And 43 percent of recent hires had master's degrees. Five years of such replacements can, he says, shape public education for 30 years.
From his office at the foot of Capitol Hill, Duncan hopes to use federal money as a lever to move local school systems toward creative improvisations. But in Chicago he had a hammer—the support of His Honor, Mayor Richard Daley. Duncan may be about to receive an education in the difficulty of defeating local inertia from afar."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/189237
From George Will at Newsweek:;
"In 1994, Goals 2000 anticipated a high-school-graduation rate of "at least" 90 percent (it is 75) and American students being "first in the world in mathematics and science" in six years. In 2002, No Child Left Behind decreed 100 percent math and reading proficiency by 2014. That will not happen.
Now comes Arne Duncan, 44, the new secretary of education, fresh from seven years leading Chicago's public schools. There he showed a flair for innovation, which he acquired at his mother's knee. Now 74, she was, her son says, "the crazy white lady" who in 1961 opened, in the "absolute chaos" of a rough neighborhood on Chicago's South Side, an after-school tutoring program for young African-Americans, for whom she still toils, 48 years later.
Her son is impressively impatient with what George W. Bush called "the soft bigotry of low expectations." But under Bush's NCLB, Duncan says, "we have been lying to children and their parents because states have dumbed down their standards" of proficiency. "Sometimes," he says, "you have to call the baby ugly."
For decades, state legislatures, encouraged by teachers' unions, have embraced the theory that schools' cognitive outputs were a function of financial inputs. The theory was: As with soybeans, so with education—if you want more, increase subsidies.
... One scholar estimated that about 90 percent of the differences among schools in average proficiency can be explained by five factors—number of days absent from school, amount of television watched in the home, number of pages read for homework, quantity and quality of reading matter in the home and, much the most important, the presence of two parents in the home. Government cannot do much to make those variables vary, but Duncan correctly thinks that we actually know how to make schools effective anyway. The keys are time and talent.
...In Chicago, Duncan had many schools open 10 to 12 hours a day, six or seven days a week, for voluntary activities, including instruction. There were waiting lists for placements. Until recently, almost all students attended the nearest school. Now, under a policy whereby money follows the students, 59 percent of high-school students are attending schools they choose away from their neighborhoods. By closing failing schools and opening replacements, Chicago is ensuring that the portfolio of schools is churned and improved.
...Asked which he would choose, hiring 100,000 new teachers or firing 100,000 bad teachers, there is a long pause—another good sign—before he says he would take the new teachers because most of the worst teachers are older and are retiring.
He thinks finding talented teachers is more important than reducing pupil-teacher ratios—a third good sign—and he sees a silver lining on today's dark economic clouds: Bright young people who might have gone into investment banking can be lured into teaching by better pay and forgiveness of student loans. By making teaching more fun, his Chicago innovations helped increase the number of applicants from two for each teaching position to 10. And 43 percent of recent hires had master's degrees. Five years of such replacements can, he says, shape public education for 30 years.
From his office at the foot of Capitol Hill, Duncan hopes to use federal money as a lever to move local school systems toward creative improvisations. But in Chicago he had a hammer—the support of His Honor, Mayor Richard Daley. Duncan may be about to receive an education in the difficulty of defeating local inertia from afar."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/189237
Health Care: Another Treatment Example (Cont.)
TW: I keep banging on this but our health care system is DRASTIC need of reform. The easy thing to do is nothing but nothing is leading us towards a fiscal abyss whilst leaving many without effective health care.
From Ezra Klein at American Prospect:
"[recently Klein's friend was evacutated from Africa to Germany after sustaining a bad broken leg] ...My friend does not speak German. He does not know anyone in Germany. He wants to come home and receive his care in the states. He wants a doctor he can communicate with and nurses who can understand his requests and friends who can speak to him and calls that aren't subject to international fees. But his insurance is refusing the request. Medical treatment, they're arguing, is simply too expensive in America.
As a matter of economics, they're not wrong. In their seminal paper, "It's the Prices, Stupid," Uwe Reinhardt and Gerard Anderson marshal an impressive array of evidence to prove that the cost problem afflicting American health care is a per unit problem: It's not that we use more care, or use more technologically advanced care, but that we pay much more money for any given unit of care. They write:
My friend's insurers are not lying to him. They are not making a capricious decision. They simply have no wish to pay American prices when care can be obtained at German rates. And so my friend and his family must now focus their days and nights worrying over what to do, and how much to spend. As for the rest of us in America, we pay these prices anyway, and never realize how terribly we're being ripped off.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=03&year=2009&base_name=its_like_this_blog_fell_asleep
From Ezra Klein at American Prospect:
"[recently Klein's friend was evacutated from Africa to Germany after sustaining a bad broken leg] ...My friend does not speak German. He does not know anyone in Germany. He wants to come home and receive his care in the states. He wants a doctor he can communicate with and nurses who can understand his requests and friends who can speak to him and calls that aren't subject to international fees. But his insurance is refusing the request. Medical treatment, they're arguing, is simply too expensive in America.
As a matter of economics, they're not wrong. In their seminal paper, "It's the Prices, Stupid," Uwe Reinhardt and Gerard Anderson marshal an impressive array of evidence to prove that the cost problem afflicting American health care is a per unit problem: It's not that we use more care, or use more technologically advanced care, but that we pay much more money for any given unit of care. They write:
A study by the McKinsey Global Institute followed that more in-depth approach. The research team, which was advised by a number of prominent health economists, based its analysis on four tracer diseases: diabetes, cholelithiasis (gall stones), breast cancer, and lung cancer. Using PPP-adjusted U.S. dollars as the common yardstick, the McKinsey researchers found that in the study year of 1990 Americans spent about $1,000 (66 percent) more per capita on health care than Germans did. The researchers estimated that Americans paid 40 percent more per capita than Germans did but received 15 percent fewer real health care resources. A similar comparison revealed that the U.S. system used about 30 percent more inputs per capita than was used in the British system and spent about 75 percent more per capita on higher prices.
My friend's insurers are not lying to him. They are not making a capricious decision. They simply have no wish to pay American prices when care can be obtained at German rates. And so my friend and his family must now focus their days and nights worrying over what to do, and how much to spend. As for the rest of us in America, we pay these prices anyway, and never realize how terribly we're being ripped off.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=03&year=2009&base_name=its_like_this_blog_fell_asleep
Things I Like - Food
We've been drinking more hot tea lately in the White house - it's a combination of the cold weather and some great mugs I got as a holiday grab bag gift. And no, it does not bother us to be drinking out of bright red mugs with snowmen on them at the end of March - they are the perfect weight and size for a cup of tea.While I've always liked iced tea, I wasn't a big hot tea fan until I worked in London for a couple years. For some reason, the tea there tasted better - or was it that the coffee was so bad?? Anyway, I started drinking more tea. And I'm talking about real tea here, not herbal teas.
FYI, herbal tea isn't really tea - it's an infusion of herbs and/or fruit that doesn't contain any actual tea. I've always liked herbal teas but couldn't find any in London. They're very particular about their tea.
Did you know that all tea comes from the same plant? Camellia sinensis.
The four types of tea most commonly found on the market are (in descending order of oxidation) black tea, oolong tea, green tea and white tea, all of which can be made from the same bushes... Two principal varieties are used, the small-leaved China plant (C. sinensis sinensis), used for most Chinese, Formosan and Japanese teas...and the large-leaved Assam plant (C. sinensis assamica), used in most Indian and other teas.So the only real difference is the level of oxidation - or to what level the tea leaves have been dried before being processed. Black tea is fully oxidized, green tea is unoxidized. Hard to believe that the simple act of drying can change the flavor so much.
~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea
And it turns out that drinking tea is actually good for you. Based on a study conducted by UCLA,
Drinking at least three cups of green or black tea a day can significantly reduce the risk of stroke...And the more you drink, the better your odds of staving off a stroke.I'm not going to give up drinking herbal tea, but I'm definitely going to keep up with the 'real' stuff. btw, the photo above is a Tea V - a porcelain teacup made by Jana Walliser. If you hold an empty one up to the light, you see a woman in a television drinking tea.
~ Science Centric
Reforming Education So Much Talk So Little Action
TW: Every POTUS speaks of greatly improving education in America, of course he would just like he desires peace, economic growth and less crime. The goals never change- higher achievement, better preparation for the future challenges of society, yada, yada, yada. The goals are easy, the execution piece not so much.
The execution founders mainly because it is hard, but also because the federal government has limited leverage relative to local governments, unions and such. Bush did one thing, No Child Left Behind which I have not heard anyone speak well of recently other than W, not a rousing endorsement from my view. Will Obama actually make a difference on this one, he talks the talk but can he walk the walk.
From Int'l Herald Tribune:
"President Barack Obama called for sweeping changes in the U.S. education system Tuesday, urging teachers, parents and students to embrace merit pay for good teachers, a longer school day and school year and a renewed commitment to learning from grade school through adulthood that would make the United States more competitive.
Obama said it was time to erase the limits on charter schools in some states while at the same time closing those that were not working. Such alternative schools are publicly financed but independently run, and the president appeared eager to free them from some restrictions on growth even while tightening accountability.
..."His administration refers to charter schools as "laboratories of innovation." But teachers' unions - one of the Democratic Party's largest and most loyal constituencies, and part of a labor movement that has strongly supported Obama - oppose the schools, saying they take away funding for public schools.
...In a proposal sure to be greeted warily by teacher unions, he renewed his support for a merit-based system of paying educators. "It means treating teachers like the professionals they are, while also holding them more accountable," Obama said. "New teachers will be mentored by experienced ones. Good teachers will be rewarded with more money for improved student achievement, and asked to accept more responsibilities for lifting up their schools."
...The unions generally resist this approach as opening the door to arbitrary pay differentials or favoritism.
...Obama said too many people in his party have resisted the idea of "rewarding excellence" with extra pay, while too many Republicans have opposed spending money on early education "despite compelling evidence of its importance."
...the recently enacted stimulus package calls for spending some $5 billion on the Early Head Start and Head Start programs, which provide schooling for pre-kindergarten children.
That investment, he said, will be rewarded by lower welfare rolls, fewer health care costs and less crime, as well as better classroom performance..."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/10/america/prexy.php
The execution founders mainly because it is hard, but also because the federal government has limited leverage relative to local governments, unions and such. Bush did one thing, No Child Left Behind which I have not heard anyone speak well of recently other than W, not a rousing endorsement from my view. Will Obama actually make a difference on this one, he talks the talk but can he walk the walk.
From Int'l Herald Tribune:
"President Barack Obama called for sweeping changes in the U.S. education system Tuesday, urging teachers, parents and students to embrace merit pay for good teachers, a longer school day and school year and a renewed commitment to learning from grade school through adulthood that would make the United States more competitive.
Obama said it was time to erase the limits on charter schools in some states while at the same time closing those that were not working. Such alternative schools are publicly financed but independently run, and the president appeared eager to free them from some restrictions on growth even while tightening accountability.
..."His administration refers to charter schools as "laboratories of innovation." But teachers' unions - one of the Democratic Party's largest and most loyal constituencies, and part of a labor movement that has strongly supported Obama - oppose the schools, saying they take away funding for public schools.
...In a proposal sure to be greeted warily by teacher unions, he renewed his support for a merit-based system of paying educators. "It means treating teachers like the professionals they are, while also holding them more accountable," Obama said. "New teachers will be mentored by experienced ones. Good teachers will be rewarded with more money for improved student achievement, and asked to accept more responsibilities for lifting up their schools."
...The unions generally resist this approach as opening the door to arbitrary pay differentials or favoritism.
...Obama said too many people in his party have resisted the idea of "rewarding excellence" with extra pay, while too many Republicans have opposed spending money on early education "despite compelling evidence of its importance."
...the recently enacted stimulus package calls for spending some $5 billion on the Early Head Start and Head Start programs, which provide schooling for pre-kindergarten children.
That investment, he said, will be rewarded by lower welfare rolls, fewer health care costs and less crime, as well as better classroom performance..."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/10/america/prexy.php
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Pakistan the Challenge For Which No Answer Exists
From WaPo Interview with David Kilcullen*:
"Q: What is the real central front in the war on terror?
Ans: Pakistan. Hands down. No doubt.
Q: Why?
Ans: Pakistan is 173 million people, 100 nuclear weapons, an army bigger than the U.S. Army, and al-Qaeda headquarters sitting right there in the two-thirds of the country that the government doesn't control. The Pakistani military and police and intelligence service don't follow the civilian government; they are essentially a rogue state within a state. We're now reaching the point where within one to six months we could see the collapse of the Pakistani state, also because of the global financial crisis, which just exacerbates all these problems. . . . The collapse of Pakistan, al-Qaeda acquiring nuclear weapons, an extremist takeover -- that would dwarf everything we've seen in the war on terror today."
TW: Many allude to the instability and risk associated with Pakistan. As Kilcullen mentions, it is huge, nuclear-armed, and governed loosely. It is also riven by tribalism and generally consider India its primary enemy far more so than any other potential threat. So many fear a blow up with really interesting consequences. I really do not have any suggestions on this one. The only good news is that I do not think any countries would benefit from a blow-up so they are presumably not stirring the pot as is often the case (i.e. note India did not retaliate for Mumbai bombing, Iran hardly wants a Taliban Sunni group at the head of 175MM neighbors etc.).
*Kilcullen is an Aussie counter-insurgency expert who was heavily engaged in developing the US counter-insurgency effort known as the "surge".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/19/AR2009031903038_pf.html
"Q: What is the real central front in the war on terror?
Ans: Pakistan. Hands down. No doubt.
Q: Why?
Ans: Pakistan is 173 million people, 100 nuclear weapons, an army bigger than the U.S. Army, and al-Qaeda headquarters sitting right there in the two-thirds of the country that the government doesn't control. The Pakistani military and police and intelligence service don't follow the civilian government; they are essentially a rogue state within a state. We're now reaching the point where within one to six months we could see the collapse of the Pakistani state, also because of the global financial crisis, which just exacerbates all these problems. . . . The collapse of Pakistan, al-Qaeda acquiring nuclear weapons, an extremist takeover -- that would dwarf everything we've seen in the war on terror today."
TW: Many allude to the instability and risk associated with Pakistan. As Kilcullen mentions, it is huge, nuclear-armed, and governed loosely. It is also riven by tribalism and generally consider India its primary enemy far more so than any other potential threat. So many fear a blow up with really interesting consequences. I really do not have any suggestions on this one. The only good news is that I do not think any countries would benefit from a blow-up so they are presumably not stirring the pot as is often the case (i.e. note India did not retaliate for Mumbai bombing, Iran hardly wants a Taliban Sunni group at the head of 175MM neighbors etc.).
*Kilcullen is an Aussie counter-insurgency expert who was heavily engaged in developing the US counter-insurgency effort known as the "surge".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/19/AR2009031903038_pf.html
Watch For the Coming Change In the Courts
TW: To me the judiciary is crucial, it is the third leg of the government and has been moving steadily rightward/wrongward. As this piece illustrates, Obama has arrived just in time to stave off a disastrous sealing of right-wing domination of the courts. The conservatives have gained effective control of the federal judiciary, this is change I can believe in.
From Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, which appears on the verge of stark change. Retirements on the 15-member court have left it divided with a slim 6-to-5 majority of Republican-appointed judges. That means Obama has four vacancies to fill and the potential to drastically reshape the court, which covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina.
In recent years, the Fourth Circuit had become the most assertively conservative court in the nation. Its judges have taken the lead in trying to reduce U.S. power in several areas, even once trying to lead the way in undoing the Miranda rule that criminal suspects must be apprised of their rights before they answer questions. The court's conservative majority also tried to roll back affirmative action policies and was reliably supportive of Bush administration efforts to widen presidential authority in detaining terrorism suspects without trial or charges without congressional input.
...Shaping the appeals courts, the level just below the Supreme Court, was at the heart of the strategy first put in place by conservatives during the Reagan presidency. They saw to it that President Ronald Reagan put at least one forceful and articulate conservative, usually an academic, on each of the circuit courts.
At least so far, the candidates being considered by the Obama White House for early nomination do not appear to have especially ideological profiles.
Because Republicans have controlled the White House for all of the last 28 years except the eight years of the Clinton presidency, more than 60 percent of the judiciary is made up of Republican-nominated judges.
The result is Republican control of eight of the regional appeals courts; Democrats have a majority in two circuits, the Second and the Ninth, based in San Francisco. The Third Circuit, based in Philadelphia, is split 6 to 6, with two vacancies.
Arthur Hellman, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh law school who is an authority on the circuit courts, said reliable studies regularly demonstrated that the Republican-appointed judges had moved the nation's courts in a more conservative direction in several areas.
They tend to be more restrictive of abortion rights, less accommodating to criminal defendants and sharply skeptical of expanding U.S. authority at the expense of the states."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/11/america/11judges.php
From Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, which appears on the verge of stark change. Retirements on the 15-member court have left it divided with a slim 6-to-5 majority of Republican-appointed judges. That means Obama has four vacancies to fill and the potential to drastically reshape the court, which covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina.
In recent years, the Fourth Circuit had become the most assertively conservative court in the nation. Its judges have taken the lead in trying to reduce U.S. power in several areas, even once trying to lead the way in undoing the Miranda rule that criminal suspects must be apprised of their rights before they answer questions. The court's conservative majority also tried to roll back affirmative action policies and was reliably supportive of Bush administration efforts to widen presidential authority in detaining terrorism suspects without trial or charges without congressional input.
...Shaping the appeals courts, the level just below the Supreme Court, was at the heart of the strategy first put in place by conservatives during the Reagan presidency. They saw to it that President Ronald Reagan put at least one forceful and articulate conservative, usually an academic, on each of the circuit courts.
At least so far, the candidates being considered by the Obama White House for early nomination do not appear to have especially ideological profiles.
Because Republicans have controlled the White House for all of the last 28 years except the eight years of the Clinton presidency, more than 60 percent of the judiciary is made up of Republican-nominated judges.
The result is Republican control of eight of the regional appeals courts; Democrats have a majority in two circuits, the Second and the Ninth, based in San Francisco. The Third Circuit, based in Philadelphia, is split 6 to 6, with two vacancies.
Arthur Hellman, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh law school who is an authority on the circuit courts, said reliable studies regularly demonstrated that the Republican-appointed judges had moved the nation's courts in a more conservative direction in several areas.
They tend to be more restrictive of abortion rights, less accommodating to criminal defendants and sharply skeptical of expanding U.S. authority at the expense of the states."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/11/america/11judges.php
Stimulus As an Investment
TW: One of the areas where Obama is focusing investment dollars is upgrading our electricity grid. Our electricity grid is old and inefficient, I believe something like 75% of electricity is lost during transmission. Given the conflicting incentives, risk and high capital costs associated with grid upgrades it seems an opportunity for the federal government to step in to push the ball forward.
The Republicans can bloviate on waste and deficits etc. This is not one of those things that will garner much publicity but it is a big opportunity and one that Obama should be applauded for grasping.
From Economist:
"...Obama’s stimulus package contains about $4.5 billion in grants for smart-grid investments and regional demonstrations...Obama declared that a smart grid could “save us money, protect our power sources from blackout or attack, and deliver clean, alternative forms of energy to every corner of our nation”—grand goals indeed.
America’s power system has changed remarkably little over the past century, with centralised utilities delivering electricity to passive consumers. A smart grid would use digital technology to collect, communicate and react to data, making the system more efficient and reliable. For example, sensors would help utilities locate problems and fix them quickly—power cuts now cost businesses more than $100 billion each year. A nimble grid would integrate electricity from both predictable sources, such as coal, and fickle ones, such as the sun and wind.
Meters, to monitor both use and prices, would give consumers more control over their electricity bill. Advocates predict that some consumption would move to cheaper, off-peak hours, easing congestion and reducing the need for new infrastructure. Consumers would save money and emissions would fall. Installing smart meters in 25% of American homes, GE estimates, would be equivalent to removing 1.7m cars from the roads. Plug-in hybrids, meanwhile, could charge at night, when demand is low, and even pump power back to the grid while parked during the day.
...Advocates have many tasks, not least of which is convincing consumers that a smart grid will lower their costs, not raise them. Changing regulations, meanwhile, is even thornier. For utilities, reducing consumption means reducing revenues, hardly an appealing prospect. The stimulus encourages rewarding utilities for efficiency, but it is local commissions that must change the rules, and they may be wary of what is still seen as a risky investment..."
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13337902
The Republicans can bloviate on waste and deficits etc. This is not one of those things that will garner much publicity but it is a big opportunity and one that Obama should be applauded for grasping.
From Economist:
"...Obama’s stimulus package contains about $4.5 billion in grants for smart-grid investments and regional demonstrations...Obama declared that a smart grid could “save us money, protect our power sources from blackout or attack, and deliver clean, alternative forms of energy to every corner of our nation”—grand goals indeed.
America’s power system has changed remarkably little over the past century, with centralised utilities delivering electricity to passive consumers. A smart grid would use digital technology to collect, communicate and react to data, making the system more efficient and reliable. For example, sensors would help utilities locate problems and fix them quickly—power cuts now cost businesses more than $100 billion each year. A nimble grid would integrate electricity from both predictable sources, such as coal, and fickle ones, such as the sun and wind.
Meters, to monitor both use and prices, would give consumers more control over their electricity bill. Advocates predict that some consumption would move to cheaper, off-peak hours, easing congestion and reducing the need for new infrastructure. Consumers would save money and emissions would fall. Installing smart meters in 25% of American homes, GE estimates, would be equivalent to removing 1.7m cars from the roads. Plug-in hybrids, meanwhile, could charge at night, when demand is low, and even pump power back to the grid while parked during the day.
...Advocates have many tasks, not least of which is convincing consumers that a smart grid will lower their costs, not raise them. Changing regulations, meanwhile, is even thornier. For utilities, reducing consumption means reducing revenues, hardly an appealing prospect. The stimulus encourages rewarding utilities for efficiency, but it is local commissions that must change the rules, and they may be wary of what is still seen as a risky investment..."
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13337902
Things I Like - Art
More body art - this time from Guido Daniele.
See the link below for more.
http://www.guidodaniele.com/bodypaint01.htm
See the link below for more.
http://www.guidodaniele.com/bodypaint01.htm
Americans Have No Idea What To Do With First Ladies
TW: This piece in the Economist demonstrates the circular logic the media and presumably Americans apply to our first ladies (and I say ladies on purpose once we have a first gentleman a whole host of new dilemmas will arise). The piece laments the superficiality of the early coverage and roles of Ms. Obama, then outlines all the reasons why such roles are prevalent for first ladies. Then suggests Ms. Obama charge forward to blaze new trails given her tremendous talents.
The challenge is that if she is traditional, she is blamed for timidity see below. If she tries to blaze new trails, one can safely assume she will become a lightening rod within weeks for all of those who oppose her husband plus many others. Lots of luck Michelle.
From Economist:
"BY ANY measure Michelle Obama is a remarkable first lady. She is highly educated, with degrees from Princeton and Harvard, and professionally accomplished, having worked for a top law firm, a big-city government and a big hospital. And she is the first first lady who is the direct descendant of slaves.
Yet what have we heard about this paragon since her husband won the election? That she likes to display her “perfectly toned” arms in public. That she has a penchant for mixing designer clothes with J. Crew. That she and her husband had a romantic dinner together in a four-star Italian restaurant.
...The news stories about Mrs Obama are almost entirely devoted to fluff. CNN has run a segment on “how to get Michelle Obama’s toned arms”. Every fashion magazine worth the name has run pieces on “the secrets of Michelle’s style”.
...This is more than just a response to public demand. The White House has been doing its best to turn the first lady into a celebrity mother-cum-clothes-horse. Her White House website describes her “first and foremost” as “Malia and Sasha’s mom” before adding that, “before she was a mother”, she was “Fraser and Marian Robinson’s daughter”.
...It is not difficult to understand why the White House has chosen this tack. Hillary Clinton’s determination to act as a virtual co-president back in 1993 helped to create a backlash against her husband’s administration. It also raised uncomfortable questions about power and accountability. Given America’s continued neuroses about race, an outspoken black first lady might prove to be even more divisive than an outspoken white one.
...There is no shortage of conservative journalists who are willing to present her as “the bitter, anti-American, ungrateful, rude, crude, ghetto, angry Michelle Obama”, to quote one blogger.
...But there is a danger that the White House is overreacting to Mrs Clinton’s failures back in 1993-94, and a worry that all this fluff is both demeaning to Mrs Obama and disappointing for some of her husband’s most passionate supporters, particularly professional women. Mrs Obama did not campaign as a traditional first lady, staring at her husband with dewy-eyed admiration and limiting her comments to bland pleasantries. She criss-crossed the country giving her own speeches. And powerful speeches they were too: intelligent, substantive and well-delivered. She was particularly important in shoring up her husband’s support among blacks (who were suspicious at first of his exotic background) and professional women (who were attracted to Hillary Clinton), earning the nickname “the closer” from the campaign for her ability to get people to sign up with Mr Obama.
Mrs Obama has a unique ability to act as an advertisement for the virtues of hard work and stable families. She grew up in a solid working-class family on Chicago’s tough South Side, sitting down to family dinner every night, attending a local magnet school and following her brother to Princeton. She is now repeating this virtuous pattern with her own children.
Mrs Obama also has a unique understanding of the precariousness of black life. Born six months before LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, she has benefited from the explosion of opportunities for blacks in both higher education and the professions...she also knows the devastation that job losses, drugs, crime and family break-up have wrought on the black working class. More than 60% of black children these days are brought up without a father.
It is arguable, of course, that Mrs Obama is already doing enough to inspire her fellow Americans without running the risks inherent in pronouncing on policy. But during the campaign she raised a lot of thought-provoking questions—about “the flimsy difference between success and failure” in America, about the removal of rungs from the ladder of opportunity, and about the plight of families at the bottom of the heap. It would be good to hear a bit more about what Mrs Obama thinks and a lot less about what she wears."
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13326771
The challenge is that if she is traditional, she is blamed for timidity see below. If she tries to blaze new trails, one can safely assume she will become a lightening rod within weeks for all of those who oppose her husband plus many others. Lots of luck Michelle.
From Economist:
"BY ANY measure Michelle Obama is a remarkable first lady. She is highly educated, with degrees from Princeton and Harvard, and professionally accomplished, having worked for a top law firm, a big-city government and a big hospital. And she is the first first lady who is the direct descendant of slaves.
Yet what have we heard about this paragon since her husband won the election? That she likes to display her “perfectly toned” arms in public. That she has a penchant for mixing designer clothes with J. Crew. That she and her husband had a romantic dinner together in a four-star Italian restaurant.
...The news stories about Mrs Obama are almost entirely devoted to fluff. CNN has run a segment on “how to get Michelle Obama’s toned arms”. Every fashion magazine worth the name has run pieces on “the secrets of Michelle’s style”.
...This is more than just a response to public demand. The White House has been doing its best to turn the first lady into a celebrity mother-cum-clothes-horse. Her White House website describes her “first and foremost” as “Malia and Sasha’s mom” before adding that, “before she was a mother”, she was “Fraser and Marian Robinson’s daughter”.
...It is not difficult to understand why the White House has chosen this tack. Hillary Clinton’s determination to act as a virtual co-president back in 1993 helped to create a backlash against her husband’s administration. It also raised uncomfortable questions about power and accountability. Given America’s continued neuroses about race, an outspoken black first lady might prove to be even more divisive than an outspoken white one.
...There is no shortage of conservative journalists who are willing to present her as “the bitter, anti-American, ungrateful, rude, crude, ghetto, angry Michelle Obama”, to quote one blogger.
...But there is a danger that the White House is overreacting to Mrs Clinton’s failures back in 1993-94, and a worry that all this fluff is both demeaning to Mrs Obama and disappointing for some of her husband’s most passionate supporters, particularly professional women. Mrs Obama did not campaign as a traditional first lady, staring at her husband with dewy-eyed admiration and limiting her comments to bland pleasantries. She criss-crossed the country giving her own speeches. And powerful speeches they were too: intelligent, substantive and well-delivered. She was particularly important in shoring up her husband’s support among blacks (who were suspicious at first of his exotic background) and professional women (who were attracted to Hillary Clinton), earning the nickname “the closer” from the campaign for her ability to get people to sign up with Mr Obama.
Mrs Obama has a unique ability to act as an advertisement for the virtues of hard work and stable families. She grew up in a solid working-class family on Chicago’s tough South Side, sitting down to family dinner every night, attending a local magnet school and following her brother to Princeton. She is now repeating this virtuous pattern with her own children.
Mrs Obama also has a unique understanding of the precariousness of black life. Born six months before LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, she has benefited from the explosion of opportunities for blacks in both higher education and the professions...she also knows the devastation that job losses, drugs, crime and family break-up have wrought on the black working class. More than 60% of black children these days are brought up without a father.
It is arguable, of course, that Mrs Obama is already doing enough to inspire her fellow Americans without running the risks inherent in pronouncing on policy. But during the campaign she raised a lot of thought-provoking questions—about “the flimsy difference between success and failure” in America, about the removal of rungs from the ladder of opportunity, and about the plight of families at the bottom of the heap. It would be good to hear a bit more about what Mrs Obama thinks and a lot less about what she wears."
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13326771
Monday, March 23, 2009
State Level Spending Contracts While Federal Spending Expands
TW: Have mentioned this before but states do not have the ability to print money and run fiscal deficits like the federal government (if the Confederates had won then they might have but I digress...). When state governments cut their spending they create a pro-cyclical dynamic whereby just when the private sector is contracting the states are contracting concurrently creating a vicious circle. Hence the need for federal stimulus (hello Hooverites!!!). Imagine if the Federal government were similarly constrained, taxes would either be shooting up or spending significantly reduced right into the teeth of a severe demand contraction. A vicious circle would ensue leading without question into GD 2.0.
From David Rosenburg Merrill Lynch economist:
"...The focus and headlines remains exclusively on what the Federal government is doing to boost the economy. But few write about what the state and local governments are doing to stay solvent – cutting back on spending at an
unprecedented rate. Indeed, what seems to be forgotten is that after consumer spending, the lower level of government, with a 13% share of GDP, is the most important part of the economy – this is a sector that represents our teachers, law enforcement, fire prevention, and health and social assistance. The state and local government sector employs 20 million, or 15% of the total, compared with 13 million in manufacturing, 8 million in financial services, less than 7 million in construction and fewer than 3 million at the federal level. Fiscal gaps have now opened up in 42 states, and, when added to the shortfalls at the start of the year, they to a whopping $80 this offsets more than 60% of the fiscal tailwind. And in 2010, the amount of fiscal tightening from the states/local governments is expected to total $85 billion which bites into 30% of the stimulus we will see at the federal level..."
From David Rosenburg Merrill Lynch economist:
"...The focus and headlines remains exclusively on what the Federal government is doing to boost the economy. But few write about what the state and local governments are doing to stay solvent – cutting back on spending at an
unprecedented rate. Indeed, what seems to be forgotten is that after consumer spending, the lower level of government, with a 13% share of GDP, is the most important part of the economy – this is a sector that represents our teachers, law enforcement, fire prevention, and health and social assistance. The state and local government sector employs 20 million, or 15% of the total, compared with 13 million in manufacturing, 8 million in financial services, less than 7 million in construction and fewer than 3 million at the federal level. Fiscal gaps have now opened up in 42 states, and, when added to the shortfalls at the start of the year, they to a whopping $80 this offsets more than 60% of the fiscal tailwind. And in 2010, the amount of fiscal tightening from the states/local governments is expected to total $85 billion which bites into 30% of the stimulus we will see at the federal level..."
Stripping Hyperbole Away From the Fiscal Debate
TW: Had a minor epiphany relative fiscal policy when reading this piece. If one strips the political hyperbole out of the equation, the debate is fairly simplistic. Toss away talk of fiscal prudence and conservatism, it is BS.
There is a consensus (except amongst certain Hooverite Republicans) amongst many Republicans and most Democrats that fiscal stimulus is necessary in order to mitigate the impact of the demand contraction. Certainly the Republicans favor tax cuts more than the stimulus spending favored by Democrats but neither side has sufficient theoretical standing to assert an all or nothing tax cut or spending approach. The opposing ideologues would push to go all one way or the other but the reality is a hybrid approach is likely the best approach.
In the long-run the U.S. needs to eventually bring its fiscal deficit back to balance no doubt. Timing is everything and the next two or three is not the time. But what happens afterward? Conservatives have a legitimate concern that government spending tends to be sticky once initiated. I would argue tax cuts are similarly sticky as evidenced by the shrieking emanating from conservatives as Obama seeks to restore the tax rates on the wealthy back to Clinton levels. And understand the Friedman philosophy about which many Republicans have an almost religious zeal states very clearly that in order to have the magical economic impacts attributed to tax cuts (e.g. Laffer curve drivel etc.) the tax cuts must be permanent in order to engender the proper incentives.
Putting stickiness aside, the baseline U.S. fiscal deficit is growing without any new spending on new wars, universal health care, green initiatives etc. So when I hear or see a politician pontificating on fiscal policy I would ask the following questions:
1) Do they believe some type of stimulus is needed? If not they are Hooverites, suspect either economic ignorance, political expediency or most likely both.
2) If they do support some stimulus, how do they propose to address the long-term fiscal challenges? Earmark reform does not count (i.e. stalks of grass amidst a meadow full of weeds). As I have said before, one either must increase taxes or cut spending in either social security, health care or defense. There is no way around these options unless one believes in the tooth fairy known as the Laffer curve whereby taxes are cut and magically more revenue appears. If the person is unwilling to define how they would address these options and you do not believe in tooth fairies then consider them BSers or merely a typical political flack.
How does Obama fair on these questions?
Re #1: He is clearing in the pro-stimulus camp using a hybrid, if you buy the need for stimulus all of this hyperventilation from these newly minted fiscal hawks (where were they prior to Obama's inauguration?) should be discounted.
Re#2: He has work to do but his restoration of the Clinton tax levels for the wealthy and the cap and trade policy would generate some revenue. He is making some baby steps on reforming the cost side of health care. He will spend less than a Republican would on defense (except massive hyperbole about throwing American security to the wolves/bears/dragons as soon as he announces some defense program cutbacks). He has yet to address social security. But given all of the fretting about him already biting more than he can chew I will be patient on the latter.
There is a consensus (except amongst certain Hooverite Republicans) amongst many Republicans and most Democrats that fiscal stimulus is necessary in order to mitigate the impact of the demand contraction. Certainly the Republicans favor tax cuts more than the stimulus spending favored by Democrats but neither side has sufficient theoretical standing to assert an all or nothing tax cut or spending approach. The opposing ideologues would push to go all one way or the other but the reality is a hybrid approach is likely the best approach.
In the long-run the U.S. needs to eventually bring its fiscal deficit back to balance no doubt. Timing is everything and the next two or three is not the time. But what happens afterward? Conservatives have a legitimate concern that government spending tends to be sticky once initiated. I would argue tax cuts are similarly sticky as evidenced by the shrieking emanating from conservatives as Obama seeks to restore the tax rates on the wealthy back to Clinton levels. And understand the Friedman philosophy about which many Republicans have an almost religious zeal states very clearly that in order to have the magical economic impacts attributed to tax cuts (e.g. Laffer curve drivel etc.) the tax cuts must be permanent in order to engender the proper incentives.
Putting stickiness aside, the baseline U.S. fiscal deficit is growing without any new spending on new wars, universal health care, green initiatives etc. So when I hear or see a politician pontificating on fiscal policy I would ask the following questions:
1) Do they believe some type of stimulus is needed? If not they are Hooverites, suspect either economic ignorance, political expediency or most likely both.
2) If they do support some stimulus, how do they propose to address the long-term fiscal challenges? Earmark reform does not count (i.e. stalks of grass amidst a meadow full of weeds). As I have said before, one either must increase taxes or cut spending in either social security, health care or defense. There is no way around these options unless one believes in the tooth fairy known as the Laffer curve whereby taxes are cut and magically more revenue appears. If the person is unwilling to define how they would address these options and you do not believe in tooth fairies then consider them BSers or merely a typical political flack.
How does Obama fair on these questions?
Re #1: He is clearing in the pro-stimulus camp using a hybrid, if you buy the need for stimulus all of this hyperventilation from these newly minted fiscal hawks (where were they prior to Obama's inauguration?) should be discounted.
Re#2: He has work to do but his restoration of the Clinton tax levels for the wealthy and the cap and trade policy would generate some revenue. He is making some baby steps on reforming the cost side of health care. He will spend less than a Republican would on defense (except massive hyperbole about throwing American security to the wolves/bears/dragons as soon as he announces some defense program cutbacks). He has yet to address social security. But given all of the fretting about him already biting more than he can chew I will be patient on the latter.
Obamanomics: He Needs To Step Up On Free Trade
TW: The left-wing is soft on free-trade. Obama must fight them. Congress has now inserted several amendments into recent legislation which are protectionist. Protectionism in a normal environment is troubling, in the current environment where international cooperation is crucial if an even worse economic crisis is to be averted, it is absolutely toxic. Obama pandered on the issue during the primaries then tacked back to the center subsequently. Lets hope he more than tacks in coming weeks.
From Economist:
"...a provision inserted into the Omnibus Appropriations Bill signed into law by Mr Obama has scrapped a pilot programme that allowed a small number of Mexican trucking companies to carry cargoes north of the border—as NAFTA requires.
Mexico’s response was swift. On March 18th it imposed tariffs of up to 45% on 90 American agricultural and industrial imports, ranging from strawberries and wine to cordless telephones. The list was carefully chosen to avoid pushing up prices of staples in Mexico while hitting goods that are important exports for a range of American states. That way, it could have maximum political effect north of the border.
Since NAFTA was signed in 1992, trade between Mexico and the United States has boomed. But the issue of road transport has turned into a political battle. Around two-thirds of cross-border trade goes by road. Transport companies from each country were supposed to be able to operate freely in the others by 2000. The Teamsters union, whose members include American truck drivers, has fought a long and largely successful rearguard action against this provision. It argues that Mexican trucks are unsafe and polluting and their drivers insufficiently trained.
An American court rejected these arguments. So did a NAFTA dispute-settlement panel, which ruled in 2001 that the United States was violating the agreement and gave Mexico the right to impose retaliatory tariffs. Mexico chose not to do so, to give the United States a chance to honour its commitment. The Bush administration tried, but was thwarted when Congress approved a measure setting 22 new safety standards for Mexican trucks.
...The Teamsters’ safety argument looks spurious. Mexican transport firms have invested in new trucks and trained their drivers to meet the safety requirements under the pilot scheme. A study commissioned by America’s Department of Transportation, which tracked Mexican trucks operating north of the border in the first year of the programme, found that these trucks clocked up far fewer safety violations than their American counterparts.
The Teamsters’ victory means that most Mexican goods going north will continue to have to be unloaded at the border, reloaded for the short hop across it, then loaded again onto an American truck...No such restrictions apply to Canadian lorries..."
http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13331117
From Economist:
"...a provision inserted into the Omnibus Appropriations Bill signed into law by Mr Obama has scrapped a pilot programme that allowed a small number of Mexican trucking companies to carry cargoes north of the border—as NAFTA requires.
Mexico’s response was swift. On March 18th it imposed tariffs of up to 45% on 90 American agricultural and industrial imports, ranging from strawberries and wine to cordless telephones. The list was carefully chosen to avoid pushing up prices of staples in Mexico while hitting goods that are important exports for a range of American states. That way, it could have maximum political effect north of the border.
Since NAFTA was signed in 1992, trade between Mexico and the United States has boomed. But the issue of road transport has turned into a political battle. Around two-thirds of cross-border trade goes by road. Transport companies from each country were supposed to be able to operate freely in the others by 2000. The Teamsters union, whose members include American truck drivers, has fought a long and largely successful rearguard action against this provision. It argues that Mexican trucks are unsafe and polluting and their drivers insufficiently trained.
An American court rejected these arguments. So did a NAFTA dispute-settlement panel, which ruled in 2001 that the United States was violating the agreement and gave Mexico the right to impose retaliatory tariffs. Mexico chose not to do so, to give the United States a chance to honour its commitment. The Bush administration tried, but was thwarted when Congress approved a measure setting 22 new safety standards for Mexican trucks.
...The Teamsters’ safety argument looks spurious. Mexican transport firms have invested in new trucks and trained their drivers to meet the safety requirements under the pilot scheme. A study commissioned by America’s Department of Transportation, which tracked Mexican trucks operating north of the border in the first year of the programme, found that these trucks clocked up far fewer safety violations than their American counterparts.
The Teamsters’ victory means that most Mexican goods going north will continue to have to be unloaded at the border, reloaded for the short hop across it, then loaded again onto an American truck...No such restrictions apply to Canadian lorries..."
http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13331117
Things I Like - Humor
Last week in London....
Seems they had a scare with the Holy Hand Grenade.
Seems they had a scare with the Holy Hand Grenade.
Buildings were evacuated, a street was cordoned off and a bomb disposal team called in after workmen spotted a suspicious object. But the dangerous-looking weapon turned out to be the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, made famous in the 1975 film Monty Python And The Holy Grail.And yes, this is just an excuse to post a brilliant scene from one of the funniest movies ever made. Thanks to John for forwarding the link!
~ Evening Standard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)