Wednesday, December 8, 2010

The President's "Sanctimonious" and "Purist" Base

Well, here we are: two days after the "odious tax deal" President Obama cut with the Republican leadership on Monday. In his remarks on Tuesday afternoon, responding to the obviously-unanticipated dislike of this deal by the Democratic base, Mr. Obama referred to those members of his party visibly disturbed by this package as "sanctimonious" and "purists" -- in other words, as politically unsophisticated amateurs -- unduly lacking in knowledge and gratitude for the heavy lifting this Administration has done in standing up against the hostage-taking brinksmanship of the Republican party. This is not a pretty sight: the American President, the historic, articulate, intelligent and Nobel Peace Prize-winning Chief Executive dressing down his own supporters and likening his predicament in Neustadt-like negotiations with eleven people on Monday as "negotiating with hostage-takers." Not only has Eric Cantor taken exception with the President's characterization of his party, but the President's self-martyred depiction is essentially saying that the most powerful office in the world doesn't actually command leverage in policymaking here; rather, it's the hostage-taking, tantrum-throwing, rich-protecting crowd who lead the party who created this mess.

I'm sorry, but "the devil-made-me-do-it" rationale doesn't cut it: it's not presidential; and it's not leadership. And that doesn't say anything about the preposterously unjust provisions proposed in the "framework" announced Monday. That our President would concede to the extension of an absurd continuation of the marginal rate for the ubber-wealthy who have seen the sum total of their wealth as the upper 5% of American households go from $5 trillion in 1980 before Reagan took office to $40 trillion in just three decades, while real income for the vast majority of the families in America has remained stagnant at best, is indefensible -- morally, economically, pragmatically, in every respect.

Polls tells us -- and have for a while == that only a quarter of Americans favor an extension of the high-end tax cuts. That the President would reverse his oft-stated intentions to end this supposed "temporary" subsidy to those not needing it, while refusing to take Sam Kernell's advice and "go public" with a case that -- the 2010 elections notwithstanding -- was easy to rally support for is an abject insult to the intelligence of American citizens. Aside from the wing-nuts from the Right, those who have succommed to the fear-mongering that produced the ban in Oklahama on the scary and perennial threat of "Shariah Law," most Americans -- including a majority of self-identified Republicans -- find the decision to further subsidize the Super Rich as senseless.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Presidency in Peril?

Given the density and opaque nature of much of the detail in Kuttner's volume -- not to mention the usual end-of-the-term time pressures -- it might prove fruitful to open a line of discussion on the core argument in the book here on Obamadogs.

As the Frontline program from today, "The Warning," stressed, a major but not the sole force in the financial system's collapse was the trade in derivatives. It was not the only problem issuing from the deregulation instigated during the Clinton boom years; however, when Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999, the volume of derivative trading took off and became tied to the securitization of mortgage debt, which in turn made the whole system vulnerable to a sharp setback when the housing market boom went bust. The story of Brooksley Born's efforts to get the Rubinistas to think about the lack of transparency is told in Kuttner's chapter on the loyal opposition, as is Sheila Bair's opposition to the way Summers and Geithner proposed to regulate the financial industry in the bill that was passed this year. It is noteworthy that the common denominator in this part of the story -- apart from the fact that Sheila Bair, Chair of the FDIC is also a woman fighting against so-called captains of finance -- is that the derivatives market remains largely dark and hence beyond transparency, let alone regulation. The problem was that the so-called regulatory reform bill was written by the bankers it supposedly regulated; as a result, we still have no idea of the extent to which toxic assets still cloud the balance sheets of major banks that are investment houses as well as banks. This flaw in the so-called reform is one reason why Kuttner sees Obama as no different than Bush in economic policy. (Obviously, there are other reasons such as Obama's waffling on the Bush tax cuts that make the two presidents more alike than different. But for Kuttner's story the difference lies in how the banks that created the mess have been treated: with kid gloves, including bailouts with taxpayer money with little in return by way of real regulation.) Consequently, the original purpose of banks -- to provide capital to entrepeneurs and thus help grow the economy so that growth produces jobs -- has taken a back seat to the search for profits by selling derivatives to clients stupid enough to buy them. The effect is seen is the anemic recovery: capitalism can't work without capital, and the too-big-to-fail investment banks and bank holding companies have no real "market incentives" (let alone government rules) to extend credit despite the fact that the Federal Reserve has forced interest rates to historically low rates.

All of this raises the question of what powers a president really has in Obama's situation. After all, he inherited the financial meltdown and the TARP Phase I rescue written by Bush Treasury Secretary. But, as Kuttner notes, he had choices on his economic advisers in the campaign and the leftist advisers got pushed aside for the Rubinistas as he made his key economic appointments. And, as Kuttner notes, Obama could have demanded more from the banks that were saved. In fact, he could've taken them over as Sheila Bair and the FDIC does for commercial banks and as the Resolution Trust Corp during the Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s. That didn't fit with his Rubinista adviser's worldview. In retrospect, his failure to get tough with Wall Street is the most consequential of his shorcomings thus far because of the lack of credit. Meanwhile, the diversion provided by the deficit keeps policymakers' eyes on the wrong ball. Deficits like ours will not shrink without dealing with unemployment first.

Anyway, that's a lot by way of summarizing the link between Kuttner's volume and today's video. There are lots of other things to look at, not least of which is how the heck Larry Summers is still regarded as such a genius given the way he messed up Harvard's once-untouchable economic stature. His track record of failure after failure would seem to speak for itself, loudly enough for Obama to pass over on him. Cristina Roemer's resignation as Chair of the CEA was due to Summers' bullying, which was predictable. Being cautious is one thing, but making appointments of known jerks is another.

I wish the Kuttner book were a bit shorter; but its critique is well documented and, unfortunately for those hoping that Obama would take down the Reagan demonization of government, a strong dose of reality. (As in real, not reality t.v.).

Please feel free to air questions, complaints, crticisms of the Kuttner volume on this blog. It might prove to be a huge help.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

The Post-election Campaign

The old Yogi Bera saying that it's never over til the fat lady sings is modified a bit with American elections. An election in this country is not over until the press and the political class have distilled the major meanings and messages in narrative form dmfrom the disaggregated votes of over a million voters voting in over 400 separate districts with different lists of candidates on each ballot. From those millions of votes for hundreds of candidates, the post-election campaign of forging these results into a coherent narrative replete with lessons for winners and losers alike going forward is perhaps more a test of political storytelling talent than writing good campaign speeches or state of the union addresses.

My own first take away from 2010 is that the story is in who voted and didn't. The differences between the 2008 electorate that provided Obama with this big win stayed largely at home yesterday, while grandpa and granda showed up in droves. In fact, the 65 and older crowd comprises nearly a quarter of the electorate Tuesday while in 2008 they totalled only 16% of all voters. In contrast, under-thirty voters who to yea% rs ago bouyed Obama to the White House in collective numbers of nearly a fifth of all votes (18%) shrank to almost half that size to 11% of the electorate. As a result those casting ballot this time were far older, far more conservative, and far whiter than their counterparts two years ago. You could say that this cycle can be summed up as one where "the revenge of the grannies" is responsible for replacing Nancy Pelosi with John Boehner as the Speaker of the House. Now why a group of retired folks for who the jobless numbers are personally not critical, would be so likely to deliver such an anti-Obama message is not at all obvious -- unless the Republican line that Healthcare Reform included a raid on Medicare spending -- broke through with alarming effect on the widows in Florida. And for some of the seniors there is the tanking of their pension funds from the stock market crash that was caused by the very party they voted by in the House Tuesday. And finally, there is the generational-socialization view that notes that this group of seniors came of political age in the early sixties and were by and large still loyal members of the New Deal Coalition, until the 1964 election when Barry Goldwater began the breakup of the Solid South, paving the way for Nixon's "southern strategy" in 1968 where white voters, just as Kevin Phillips predicted, would join the GOP because they saw black Americans, especially in the South, enjoying all the fruits of the Democratic party's new commitment to civil rights under Lyndon Johnson. It's not out of the question that the combination of a sour economy and a black president brought back memories that fell short of our better angels for his particular demographic. It's a possibility that is strenghtened when we look at the signs of dramatic white flight from the Democrats in 2010 compared to 2008. No matter how we spin it, it'd be hard to claim that Tuesday's vote -- and the months of attack ads that preceded it == ranks among the finest hours of this Republic.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Bill and Newt's Bond over Infidelity?

According to the Huffington Post, an interview with Dick Armey (hardly an unimpeachable source), Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich shared details of their respective extra-marital affairs over cigars and wine at the White House. The details are here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/28/bill-clinton-newt-gingrich-affairs_n_775335.html

There was allegedly a deal in the works to negotiate a deal over the impasse that led to the government shutdowns, one that involved Clinton conceding on the rate of growth in Medicare spending, but it was ditched when news of the Lewinsky "affair" went public.

Dick Armey is hardly a reliable source, but you never know . . . Of all the "what ifS" presidential history poses, among the more tempting ones is "what if" there was no Monica to deliver Bill his pizza in the Oval Office due to the government shutdown? The impeachment poisoned the partisan well and ruined the final three years of Clinton's eight as a platform for pushing "third way" ideas that, today, are truly needed.

Op-Ed Options for PS308

For any Prez Watchers looking for issues to frame an op-ed on Obama around, what ideas can we come up with? (Without doing the work of seminar members for them?)

Jon Stewart's reference to Obama last night as "dude" when Obama said he told Summers "he'd done a heckuva job" -- language that W used when he told FEMA Director and friend Mike Brown that his work on Katrina was top-flight -- was this crossing over the line in respect that the office deserves?

Do Democrats deserve to get whacked in this election? IF so, why? And what role does Obama play in this?

Did Obama mess up by putting Health Care Reform ahead of tending to jobs on his domestic policy agenda?

Did Obama mess up by appointing ____________ to positions of key policy influence in his administration?

Did Obama mess up by failing to appoint an iconic year person to his cabinet or to a temporary post? To shore up his success on the backs of first-time voters to say, in effect, he had their back?

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Laugh at dumb right-wingers? Who has the last laugh?

Tonight's Countdown with Keith Olbermann had an interview with Thomas Frank, author of Wrecking Crew, and What's the Matter with Kansas? Franks made the observation that when "libs" laugh at the stupid things that Christine O'Donnell says -- or, for that matter, the stupid ways that W said things -- it simply reinforces the view perpetrated by Tea Party types that smart aleck "know-it-alls" who are out of touch with real people -- those who couldn't spell or do well in school and barely passed -- who are finally getting their revenge for being made fun of from their days as dumbos in the unreal world of school. The clip is not available on the website yet; I'll check tomorrow to see if it's up. But I have to say that I think he may well have a point. Not that all right-wingers are dumb; but that liberals who take a sense of satisfaction out of noting just how moronic the more noteworthy this year's right-wing candidates are just might be missing a point. Grown-ups, or at least adults age-wise, were once school kids; those who struggled were often, in my hometown anyway, made fun of. Not that the smart kids all turned out as liberals, but few liberals appear to take delight in rubbing anti-intellectualism on steroids in the face of those who prize thoughtful, articulate discourse. But for every critic of W, who felt a sense of embarrasment that such a duffus could be elected leader of the Free World, there was a pair of folks who took perverse delight in the success of an average Joe who proudly declared he didn't read books and butchered the English language, precisely because it was rubbing in the face of the smarty pants kids who laughed at them in school. I know this is a far-out intepretation of a weird strain in our politics brought to light by the Sarah Palins and the Sharon Anngles of this moment in time. But weird times call for weird understandings, and I think Thomas Frank may be on to something here.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Thirteen days and counting...

Well, it doesn't look good for the Democratic Party with thirteen days remaining in the 2010 election campaign. I have been an observer of dozens of these in my lifetime, and I have never seen one that is this pathetic. The New York Times, which now houses Nate Silver's Fivethirtyeight.org, has the GOP picking up 59 seats in the House. Today's paper claims that spending for GOP candidates is running 7 to 1 against the Dems. The race for Senate in NV is considered a toss-up, though the news today is that Sharon Anngle will no longer speak to the press and she told a group of latino students Monday that they looked like Asians to her! Sarah Palin twitted last night that Pennsylvannians should be sure to vote for Raese even though Raese is a Senate candidate in West Virginia. Christine O'Donnell cannot identify a single Supreme Court case she objects to, even though she lambasts "judicial activists" for making law from the bench. As if this is not depressing enough, the Democrats are running away from Obama and Pelosi as if they are leppers. Neither party is running on a coherent strategy for dealing with the economy. Even Carly Fiorina, who trails Barbara Boxer by 4 points in CA, cannot name a single program she'd cut to erase the deficit while preserving the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Kids in my first-year classes can tell you about Bret Favre's alledged self-photo sent via text message, but they can't tell you who Michelle Bachmann or Carl Paladino or Meg Whitman is. This is supposed to be the time we call upon our inner Aristotles and celebrate democracy by debating our collective future, but as best as I can tell, the vast majority of Americans are walking a very thin line with sanity on one side and deep, dark psychopathology on the other. The Tea Party is the big story, but honestly, what's the story? You have an unknown number of upset people, very white and of decent means, screaming like plucked chickens at a government and president who inherited a huge mess from the party which stands to gain the most from this blind animosity. What's more, those who stand to gain the most from this state of affairs are the super-rich, those whose minions brought us the meltdown in our economy in the first place. If anyone can make the slightest sense of this state of affairs short of a clinical political-psychological portrait, I'm all ears (as Ross Perot used to say).

Sunday, October 3, 2010

A Third Party Coming?

Folks, check out Tom Friedman's essay in the Sunday Times today. I have a hundred kopeckies saying he's right about a signficant -- truly significant -- third party movement with money and smarts behind it for 2012. He's unfortunately right about how inept Congressional Democrats are and how irresponsible the remnants of the Republican party have been, are, and will be. We're not talking about a faux populist Tea Party movement here; we're talking about a party that is ready to address the problems neither party is really interested in addressing let alone trying to solve.

The other piece of food for thought is Frank Rich's piece on the "useful idiocy" of Christine O'Donnell. It's a very different yet well-reasoned take on the ultimate utility for the GOP of the candidate who makes Sarah Palin look like Churchill.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

The "Obama Moment"?

Well, we've looked at a couple cyclical models of presidential leadership, Skowronek's and Hargrove & Nelson's. They're not identical, but both give the impression that Obama's inheritance problem-wise (an economy off the cliff, two wars, a fiscal mess, the BP mess, a Supreme Court's muscular exericise of "judicial activism" in _Citizen's United_, etc, etc.) is countered by a fortuitous piece of timing: following W's failed policies as either a non-fit ala Hargrove-Nelson or a failed late-regime affliliate ala Skowronek, he could well have taken the rhetorical battering ram to the philosophical foundation of the "Reagan regime" (i.e., government sucks!).

But for whatever reason, he chose not to do so. Instead, he sought to play nice by extending the hand of bipartisan cooperation to a Republican party who has consistently rejected it. Not simply refusing to play, but playing like playground bullies bent on destroying and delegitimizing the President. DeMint's hold on all policy initiatives, noted by Megan in her comment, is unprecedented in the degree to which it has cast the president as an alient, illegitimate "pretender to the throne" of the Presidency.

The question I have is this: what is the President's understanding of "politics"? Is it so naive that he'll continue to get beat up by bone heads insisting he's "not one of us?" I'm not saying he should produce a birth certificate, but you can bet that the House will hold hearings in 2011 on his citizenship. The President owns the Bully Pulpit, but he seems to be too timid to voice a visceral view that insists we are better than this, that history will judge our reluctance to address the problems before us as utterly irresponsible, with particular disdain for the leadership of the Republican party who has remained strangely silent about the craziness from the likes of O'Donnell, Angell, DeMint, Beck, and Palin. Expressing modulated aggression is not a sign of weakness; failure to do so when you've been treated with unprecedented disrespect is.

Thoughts?

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Welcome American Presidency folks!

Here's a starter question: This is raised my Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, who claims Obama is the "most mysterious American president in history." Here are his comments. Is he right? If not, what's the point?

Barbour: We Know Little About Obama
Wednesday, 08 Sep 2010 09:48 PM Article Font Size

Why do so many Americans question President Barack Obama's religious status and even his citizenship?

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour says the answer is simple: Americans know less about President Obama than any other president in U.S. history.

"I don't know why people think what they think," Barbour, the head of the Republican Governor's Association, told USA Today. "This is a president we know less about than any other president. But I have no idea."

"I accept totally at face value that he's a Christian," Barbour said of a declaration Obama has made repeatedly. "That's good enough for me."

Barbour discounted allegations of a “conspiracy” behind the questioning of Obama’s birthplace or beliefs. USA Today’s Susan Page interviewed Barbour after recent interviews in which Obama has complained about organized efforts to smear him.

A Pew survey released this summer found that nearly one in five Americans believe Obama is a Muslim, up from 11 percent of Americans who held that view in 2009.

Obama was born to a Muslim father and studied during childhood at a Muslim school in Indonesia, but says in his 20s he converted to Christianity after meeting the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a controversial Chicago pastor.

Barbour dismissed any claims that conservatives are seeking to undermine the president.

"Do I think there's a vast right-wing conspiracy?" Barbour said. "No, ma'am."

Obama recently chimed in on the controversy swirling around his religious status and birth place.

"There is a mechanism, a network of misinformation, that in a new media era can get churned out there constantly," Obama told NBC News in August.

"I'm not going to be worrying too much about whatever rumors are floating out there," Obama told NBC's Brian Williams. "If I spend all my time chasing after that then I wouldn't get much done. ... I can't spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead."

But critics note that Obama has been less than forthcoming in releasing documents relating to his private life, typical of most presidents.

Obama has never released his long form birth certificate, which would include the exact place of birth, the name of the doctor who conducted the birth procedure and other birth details, fueling theories he may have been born outside the country. Hawaii state officials have stated they reviewed the full document and said Obama was born in Hawaii. Also, a local newspaper legal notice taken out by Obama's family days after his birth confirms this.

During the 2008 campaign Obama declined to release his school records for the three universities he attended. His Columbia University thesis has disappeared from the college's archives. Many records from his days as a state legislator in Illinois have also disappeared.

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

The two blogospheres

Some of you may remember a David Brooks article recently in which he argued, against the book Republic.com, by Cass Sunstein, that the Internet may be a vehicle for promoting democratic discourse after all. (I think I griped about his misreading of Sunstein, whose own view is contained in the first chapter title to that volume, "The Daily Me" -- instead of "The Daily We" which is cited by Brooks.

In any event, you will likely find this study of the Internet habits of Lefties and Righties to be of interest:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/new-study-liberals-more-o_b_555000.html

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Well, what now?

Capstone10 is basically over -- though I'm not finished appending comments to the Q study papers yet -- and I thought about closing down Obamadogs for another year. But what would I vent my spleen on with regard to the bizarre political "reality" we find ourselves in? I could continue to write the White House (and I will) and I could continue to fire off comments on the NY Times columnists. (I probably will, but I'm still ticked because my comment on David Brooks' piece today, "Riders of the Storm," where he claims the internet does not contribute to our polarized political discourse did not get published. I'm ticked because Brooks started his essay with a thought that was ascribed to Cass Sunstein, ex-husband of Martha Nusbaum (our convo lady last fall) and now an employee in the Obama White House. The piece, "The Daily We" that was attributed to Sunstein, and became the root of his argument that the Internet is indeed a pro-democratic force is actually a chapter in Sunstein's book on the internet, Republic.com; except the title is "The Daily Me," not we, and the point is that we can and do customize our access to "news" and "politics" so as not to have to engage in genuine dialogue across points of view. In other words, Sunstein was arguing exactly the opposite of what he was be cited to support by Brooks.

The Times will have to print a retraction tomorrow, but it will appear in a small-print part of the hardcopy and most will not notice it. But this ticks me off in the same way my comment about Zirra's entry on Avatar and my position on Factor 3 made me aware of. Brooks is a highly paid, well-regard journalist, conservative or not, and such an error should not pass a good copy editor. There are lots of thoughtful commentaries on our public life that don't match the market value of a NY Times columnist. Hence my irritation that, once again, there's such a disparity between real value and the market's version.

That said, I'll be leaving Obamadogs open for all you folks who'll be moving on to solve other problems and endure other challenges (and a jerk or two as well) en route to the completion of the credential thing. You have a right to feel pretty good about your Capstone class: thanks to Justin's initiative, we read a good and timely book that will not lose its value -- market or otherwise -- as the world moves to address the ills Friedman charts. You upheld obligations for doing work worthy of a senior seminar at this college without the onerous incentive or threat of the grade. That's an important lesson in itself: we have our individual standards, and we have our commitments to adhere to group standards, self-imposed as well. The Q studies were quite impressive for first-time ventures, pilot studies, to be unertaken with minimal time, no resources to pay for the dirt work of research -- data collection and the like -- and they all dealt with important aspects of the human experience. And each has possibilities for further "refinement" in pushing the envelope on what we know about phenomena that, frankly, we don't know that much about.

So congrats to all. You've on the brink of achieving an important marker in your formal educations. But whether the formal journey continues or not, perhaps the most overlooked achievement is that you've come along way down the road of learning, far enough to realize that the formal stuff is only a start, really. The informal will, God willing, never grow old; and no matter how specialized your personal inquiries might take you, may the excitement of discovery continue to be enhanced by sharing it.

Cheers,
DT

Sunday, April 18, 2010

We Are All Avatars!

What makes good entertainment? If it was easy to know, then I would be… Well, the fact is, it’s not easy to know. But, if anyone would know, it would be James Cameron. The chap directed two consecutive films that made both film-making and financial history worldwide. Worldwide. I’ve heard that music transcends culture, but the reception of film is based, largely on the cultural context for entertainment. I saw the film in the U.A. E. and it wasn’t opening night, but the theatres were packed! The Emirati who didn’t speak English had to read the subtitles in Arabic at the bottom of the screen, which, in my opinion limited their experience. But, Avatar broke records in the United Arab Emirates, and in other non-Western countries like Bahrain, Qatar, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Brazil, Mexico, Columbia, the Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Latvia, and the list goes on…

I didn’t come early, but there were only a few seats remaining in the front row. It was the first time I was seeing a film in 3-D. Throughout the movie, was fascinated by the visuals and I couldn’t believe how time passed y so fast. After it was all over, my sister said it was the best film she’d ever seen, but all I could think was that I’d seen—or at least read about this in real life—I mean, it drew almost practical parallelisms to colonialism, with a slightly better ending.

I read that 20th Century Fox (South) Korea modified and released Avatar in 4-D version. Their version included "moving seats, smells of explosives, sprinkling water, laser lights and wind." It would have been interesting to study the cross-cultural reception to the film. Cameron has confirmed that a sequel of one or two parts will follow Avatar. It took over ten years to develop the technology for Cameron’s vision (the script was actually written since 1994), and I hope the next one or ones, if anything, will live up to their predecessor. It would be sad to see an excellent filmmaker put out rubbish only because of the reception to the first one... but then again, it's Cameron.

Anyway, considering how our class received the movie, I wanted to let the class know about their response to the film. Names weren’t included in my paper, so I’ll simply let everyone know what audience they fell into, if they care to know.

Factor 1- “Film made me reflect on life” Abhay, Benson, Morgan (PS 101), and 2 unidentified females. Led by: Unidentified Female & Benson.

Factor 2- “Eye candy” Justin, Abi, Sondra (PS 101).Led by: Abi

Factor 3- “Only good part is 3-D imaging” D.T, Joe & unidentified male. Led by: D.T

Now, if you’re going to see the sequel to Avatar, you know who to go with J

P.S: I had fun doing this. Thanks, D.T!

Monday, April 12, 2010

Cartoon on American cars

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1944470_1944480,00.html

I think this is a funny, yet somewhat real depiction of the American attitude toward personal vehicles of transportation known as cars. I do not think many people want to squeeze into a European, sissy, tiny, fuel efficient car when you can have a spacious SUV. I say: carbon tax !

Sunday, April 11, 2010

What’s the Matter in the Middle East?


Believe it or not, there’s a logical explanation to everything. Including the middle-east crisis.

If we weren’t in a global recession—or just coming out of it—the crisis in the Middle East might have been the second Cold War with different actors.

If the world could afford another war, we would have been in it right now.

In Akbar Ahmed’s Journey into Islam, the former high commissioner of Pakistan to Israel unveils the fundamental misunderstandings and discrepancies between Western and Middle Eastern viewpoints. With two of his students from the American University, Washington D.C., Ahmed surveys the Islamic region from Turkey to Indonesia. Their travels take them to Turkey, Qatar, Syria, Jordan, Pakistan, India, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Each voyage is woven into a systematically logical message that urges both the Western and Middle Eastern worlds to learn more about each other.

The book is an anthropological study, a cultural expedition and a series of religious dialogues. The dialogues are facilitated by the western travelers: Ahmed himself, two non-Muslim undergraduate students—one male and the other female—and a female Arab-American research assistant from the US.

A common theme that is highlighted throughout the book is “the clash of civilizations,” as put forth by Samuel P. Huntington. Ahmed recognizes the strained discrepancies between Islamic and Western ideologies but for the most part, maintains an optimistic front. His ideas ooze a desperate plea to consolidate these differences, and with good reason, as he is a westerner of the Islamic world. Gone are the days that the West could live on its own political and economic space. Globalization now means that America will have to work with the Arabs, Persians and Indians.

The mission of the four takes them deep into the minds of Muslims in the Middle East: they sit and talk with any person that will bother to discuss with them. The coolest part of the dialogue is not only that the American undergraduates get to comprehend and appreciate the stances of the Muslims, but also that Middle Eastern Muslims also get to empathize with the Americans. It is beautiful that in the end, no “good” or “bad” side emerges, that labels either the West or the Middle East as the victor of moral principles.

Staying true to his diplomatic profession, Akbar Ahmed skillfully takes his reader on a “Journey Into Islam” and accompanies the reader through mosques, madrassahs, and shrines in the Islamic world to decide for themselves what needs to be done to narrow the rift between the West and the Middle east, as there is no doubt that a rift exists between both regions. As a thorough anthropologist, Ahmed provides political context for his arguments—there is a logical explanation to what people do.

Perhaps due to the basis and aim of the book, one major flaw exists—the book was simply written for the west. What pre-set notions existed before Ahmed set pen to paper in an attempt to unveil Islam in the Middle East? Nonetheless, the author address this in the sequel to the book, which will be titled “Journey into America.”

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Palestine (esp for fellow History of US Foreign Relations students)

In case Tuesday night's class had anyone else feeling a little depressed about peace prospects in the Middle East:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07westbank.html?src=me&ref=homepage

not earth-shattering by any means, but maybe non-violence is the way to go?

Friday, April 2, 2010

DT's comments on Brooks's column on fiscal policy

Dan ThomasCedar Falls, IowaApril 2nd, 20107:53 amThis is one of those essays, Mr. Brooks, that addresses a vitally important issue and mucks it up, big time. The obfuscation begins with the mocking-nature of the title, continues through the mischaracterization of the root of the problem, and culminates with the all-too-common descrediting of a solution that would hurt the folks who have benefited most unfairly from the fiscal mess that is laid at the feet of over-spending Democrats that want to give the store away to the undeserving.

To be sure, a government running fiscal policies like ours in 1960 would have been voted out on their ear in short order. But the fiscal policy it 1961 had a revenue source in an income tax code that had upper brackets for the super rich that vanished in the 1980s.

Now we have a "political class" that is as polarized as are "the voters" despite your stylistic tendency to ascribe uniform motives and miscues to both as if politics in fiscal policy, like Obama's dreams of bipartisanship, was impertinent. If the overplayed animosity of the tea-baggers at the spending side of HCR is in big part due to Republican distortions about the nature of this reform and the costs it imposes on average taxpayers -- and the so-called tea-baggers themselves are as much an artifact of Dick Armey's Freedom Works and the Sarah Palin media show -- it's fair to ask why the other side of the fiscal equation's imbalance has failed to turn out the protestors egged on by the likes of Steve King on the portico of the Capitol.

The beneficiaries, like Mr. Armey who's cashed in his government service days, as a well-paid lobbyist, of the post-Reagan and post- Bradley-Gephardt Tax Reform Act have been understandably reluctant to frame their complaints with the fiscal problem on the revenue side. It's always a lament of the need to cut spending when they know full well that, unless they're serious about gutting the popular entitlement programs or taking on the defense budget, where we spend more than a dollar of every two spent globally each year -- the root of TEA in their lexicon (Taxed Enough Already) -- the answer is on the revenue side. Like we might have with health care, there's not only much to be learned on this side of the policy challenge from our overseas advanced democratic cohorts; there's as much to be learned from our own history.

It wasn't that long ago, that the "tax expenditures" so decried by the likes of Grover Norquist, Dick Armey, and the current crop of Congressional Republicans would have been treated by the press, a half of the "political class," and a fair portion of the "voters" as bearing as much responsibility for the obscene deficits facing future generations as the projected increases in payroll taxes that wealthier taxpayers will foot to augment the bigger pool of premiums to pay for the health reform start. But why no complaints in the pundit class or in the astro-turfed popular rebellion over the big government takeover at the free-loading class that received a collective benefit of over $150 billion annually in "tax expenditures" under the Bush tax cuts -- and still do?

Until this side of the equation in our fiscal crisis is addressed honestly -- minus the imaginary "ecstacy" of such problem-solving -- folks like the derivative trader that boasted of a $4 billion profit last year will persist in gaming the system where the so-called "political class" closes its collective eyes to the fact that they, in the cold reality of our fiscal mess, are the real "free loaders" under the alleged expansion of big government at the federal level.

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Chalk one up for the good guys

http://www.truthout.org/obama-signs-sweeping-student-loan-reform-bill-into-law58162

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Us vs. Them

I'll admit that I'm deriving a guilty pleasure from the media firestorm over the evening out at the West Hollywood "Voyeur Club" where bondage and such were featured for the high-ranking members of the RNC in the aftermath of their tough strategy meetings in Honolulu. The pleasure is only partly due to the media's conviction that the $2,000 tab is a story that trumps the $36 million it costs to fire a Predator Drone at a suspected al-Qaeda terrorist in Afghanistan or Pakistan unless we get on of the estimated hundred such bad guys left in that vicinity these days.

No, the irony in all this is that Republicans for a while now have been practicing a politics of "the other" that stigmatizes non-white, non-heterosexual, non-overtly-religious, and non-military folks as somehow failing the "true American" test. This is a party that has not had an African American in Congress since J.C. Watts retired some ten years ago. This is the party that eggs on birthers, tea-baggers, and boneheads who doubt that the President is an American citizen, who last week referred to Barney Frank as a faggot and John Lewis as a n***er. This is the party that carefully put Gay Marriage Iniatives on the ballots of eleven key states in the 2004 election. The same party that went ballistic when George W. Bush sought to introduce decent legislation to deal with the immigration problem in his second term because it would accelerate the process of the demise of the caucasians as the dominant race in the U.S.

Not all Republicans are intolerant, and not all Democrats are. But it's hardly rocket science to figure out why Latinos went so heavily for Obama in '08, and why the photos of Obama as the Joker or with a Hitler mustache show up at anti-healthcare rallies. When Sean Hannity has an Oliver North or another uniformed member of the Armed Services as a guest on his show when accompanied by a liberal, it's pathetic to watch Mr. Hannity fall all over himself referring to the uniformed guest as a "fine American" while the non-Republican guest is hardly treated hospitably.

To be sure, there are differences among us--some of us are sports fans, others are music fans, some are outdoors folks, some are homebodies, some like to hunt with rifles, others like to read for pleasure. But since when in America should it matter whether you're straight or gay, black, brown or white, a Christian evangelical or an atheist? And since when were we unself-conscious about referring to some as "true Americans" and others as seeking to destroy what America stands for?

If we're not better than that or if we're not willing to insist that there's no place for this form of us vs. them in this country, then we will surely pay the inevitable price for failing to heed Elie Wiesel's advice when he said, "All that it takes for evil to triumph in the world is for good people to say or do nothing in the face of those who perpetrate evil."

Surely, all "true Americans" are better than that--no matter their race, religion, sexual orientation, party identification, or positions on issues on which we are bound to reach,in good faith and on grounds of varied yet honorable values, differing positions. In the end, there is a place where the "us vs. them" dichotomy does nothing to enhance our identity as humans who happen to be Americans as well.

And all this from a story about a stupid visit to a strip club in Hollywood by the paid staffers of the party of moral values. Is this a great country or what?!

Monday, March 29, 2010

a musical snack for you.

Just thought i'd share this youtube video i ran across.

enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpOUctySD68

California Republicanism vs Texas Republicanism

David Frum wrote an interesting column today where he compared GOP politics from WW II to 1988, where Republicans won the presidency 6 times with a Californian on the ticket. Since then, a Texan has been on the ticket 3 times.

Frum finds that a Californian on the ticket produced 100 more electoral votes on average than a Texan and suggests that "Californian" GOP was much appealing to a wide variety of individuals. He also writes about potential candiates Meg Whitman and Tom Campbell who may be able to win statewide offices in the 2010 elections. He cautions though, that the current primary state of the GOP makes it difficult for quality candidates to win elections without resorting to a far right platform.

Frum's message is that California GOP leaders could lead a comeback for the GOP, because they are forced to discuss common sense ideas rather than rhetoric in campaign stops. Whether his message will resonate with GOP primary voters is unclear. California GOPers recognize that their candidates have to have a strong independent push to win elections.

Pretty much the point I would make here is that maybe the way to solve the governing crisis is to eliminate the primary system. How about an open primary system where Republicans and Democrats run together and then a run-off between the top two candidates?? Maybe that would promote centrism and some bipartisan thinking.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Health Care Reform, Really?

Folk,

For those of you convinced that the unanimous No votes of the GOP, shouts of "Armageddon" from John Boehner, and declarations from many on the Right that last week's effort to reform our health care system -- No. 1 in the world in cost, No. 37 in terms of quality -- are truly the biggest threat to freedom in this country in more than half a century, take a look at the interview between Bill Moyers and Bill Winship:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-moyers/the-unbearable-lightness_b_515642.html

Benson, if you've not completed the statements protesting the policy, you'll find some atypical, yet persuave ones there.

Looking forward to doing some Q sorts tomorrow night, while spending a moment or two looking back at the craziness that has ensued this vote. If you haven't read Frank Rich's piece in the Sunday NYT, "It's not about healtcare," he's got a provocative piece that says, in effect, it's about race. My view (no. 135 among the readers' comments, is a bit more complex; and so far, it must be confusing the heck of the lefties and the righties, cuz it has almost no recommends). It's my opinion, though, and I'm sticking to it. I'm looking forward to what the rest of you think on what's motivating the outcry. Benson, for one, is doing a Q sort on it, so you will have a chance to weigh in that way. But it's a big story and we may have some time to discuss its historic and hysterical significance.

Cheers,
DT

Friday, March 26, 2010

Why Fox News Gets all the conservative journalists

http://www.juliansanchez.com/2008/10/14/slave-to-the-cocktail-circuit/

This blog discusses the recent fallout over David Frum's resignation (or forced removal) from AEI and the subsequent suggestion from one conservative that Frum attacked current conservatism as a way to be "invited to all the liberal social Georgetown parties." The article then goes on to say that opportunities for moderate conservatives (David Brooks, David Frum, etc.) at mainstream publications such as the New York Times are limited.

So what do aspiring conservative journalists do? According to this guy, they became right-wing ideologues, knowing such a mindset will land them a contract at conservative magazines or news programs. To me, it suggests that individuals like Limbaugh are not the true believers in their show, but understand it's the best to make money.

So, I raise the question (as Abhay and I did in our Limbaugh research): Are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and others the true believers they claim to be or just raking it in on an act?

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Good news--from Tom Friedman

This is from Tom Friedman's column for Sunday, March 21st. It's an interesting follow-on to Zirra's piece and to the whole volume. Here it is:

America’s Real Dream Team
Twitter
E-Mail
Send To Phone
Print

Share
CloseLinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: March 20, 2010
Went to a big Washington dinner last week. You know the kind: Large hall; black ties; long dresses. But this was no ordinary dinner. There were 40 guests of honor. So here’s my Sunday news quiz: I’ll give you the names of most of the honorees, and you tell me what dinner I was at. Ready?

Skip to next paragraph

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman

Go to Columnist Page »Linda Zhou, Alice Wei Zhao, Lori Ying, Angela Yu-Yun Yeung, Lynnelle Lin Ye, Kevin Young Xu, Benjamin Chang Sun, Jane Yoonhae Suh, Katheryn Cheng Shi, Sunanda Sharma, Sarine Gayaneh Shahmirian, Arjun Ranganath Puranik, Raman Venkat Nelakant, Akhil Mathew, Paul Masih Das, David Chienyun Liu, Elisa Bisi Lin, Yifan Li, Lanair Amaad Lett, Ruoyi Jiang, Otana Agape Jakpor, Peter Danming Hu, Yale Wang Fan, Yuval Yaacov Calev, Levent Alpoge, John Vincenzo Capodilupo and Namrata Anand.

No, sorry, it was not a dinner of the China-India Friendship League. Give up?

O.K. All these kids are American high school students. They were the majority of the 40 finalists in the 2010 Intel Science Talent Search, which, through a national contest, identifies and honors the top math and science high school students in America, based on their solutions to scientific problems. The awards dinner was Tuesday, and, as you can see from the above list, most finalists hailed from immigrant families, largely from Asia.

Indeed, if you need any more convincing about the virtues of immigration, just come to the Intel science finals. I am a pro-immigration fanatic. I think keeping a constant flow of legal immigrants into our country — whether they wear blue collars or lab coats — is the key to keeping us ahead of China. Because when you mix all of these energetic, high-aspiring people with a democratic system and free markets, magic happens. If we hope to keep that magic, we need immigration reform that guarantees that we will always attract and retain, in an orderly fashion, the world’s first-round aspirational and intellectual draft choices.

This isn’t complicated. In today’s wired world, the most important economic competition is no longer between countries or companies. The most important economic competition is actually between you and your own imagination. Because what your kids imagine, they can now act on farther, faster, cheaper than ever before — as individuals. Today, just about everything is becoming a commodity, except imagination, except the ability to spark new ideas.

If I just have the spark of an idea now, I can get a designer in Taiwan to design it. I can get a factory in China to produce a prototype. I can get a factory in Vietnam to mass manufacture it. I can use Amazon.com to handle fulfillment. I can use freelancer.com to find someone to do my logo and manage by backroom. And I can do all this at incredibly low prices. The one thing that is not a commodity and never will be is that spark of an idea. And this Intel dinner was all about our best sparklers.

Before the dinner started, each contestant stood by a storyboard explaining their specific project. Namrata Anand, a 17-year-old from the Harker School in California, patiently explained to me her research, which used spectral analysis and other data to expose information about the chemical enrichment history of “Andromeda Galaxy.” I did not understand a word she said, but I sure caught the gleam in her eye.

My favorite chat, though, was with Amanda Alonzo, a 30-year-old biology teacher at Lynbrook High School in San Jose, Calif. She had taught two of the finalists. When I asked her the secret, she said it was the resources provided by her school, extremely “supportive parents” and a grant from Intel that let her spend part of each day inspiring and preparing students to enter this contest. Then she told me this: Local San Jose realtors are running ads in newspapers in China and India telling potential immigrants to “buy a home” in her Lynbrook school district because it produced “two Intel science winners.”

Seriously, ESPN or MTV should broadcast the Intel finals live. All of the 40 finalist are introduced, with little stories about their lives and aspirations. Then the winners of the nine best projects are announced. And finally, with great drama, the overall winner of the $100,000 award for the best project of the 40 is identified. This year it was Erika Alden DeBenedictis of New Mexico for developing a software navigation system that would enable spacecraft to more efficiently “travel through the solar system.” After her name was called, she was swarmed by her fellow competitor-geeks.

Gotta say, it was the most inspiring evening I’ve had in D.C. in 20 years. It left me thinking, “If we can just get a few things right — immigration, education standards, bandwidth, fiscal policy — maybe we’ll be O.K.” It left me feeling that maybe Alice Wei Zhao of North High School in Sheboygan, Wis., chosen by her fellow finalists to be their spokeswoman, was right when she told the audience: “Don’t sweat about the problems our generation will have to deal with. Believe me, our future is in good hands.”

As long as we don’t shut our doors.

How to Not Get Hot, Flat, andCrowded: 10 steps to guide you through the green revolution.

Listen. The word’s telling you it doesn’t want your crap anymore. So here’s a quick and easy guide to walk you through saving yourself and the planet...according to sire Thomas Friedman... let’s hope he’s right.

Step 1: Don’t go anywhere birds don’t fly

Unfortunately, we’re already living in that zone. Our hot, flat and crowded earth is turning Americans into Russians. Gone are the good-old days of Clinton-like diplomacy. Freidman says that in America nowadays, birds don’t fly because there’s nothing “on the other side” of the War on Terror.

Americans are known to be friendly, so please don’t go cold turkey on us. Here’s how you (America) can help: Freidman says innovate. Invite those who innovate, collaborate with those who innovate, lead those who innovate—don’t keep talking green, live green America! Show the birds you’re where the nests are, or the birds will simply go to Russia... or maybe even China.

Freidman says it starts now. 1 E.C. E means that the world is hot (just look outside. This time last year, the snow didn’t melt until after Easter!). The world is flat: it’s been flat for a while, hence imports from Seychelles through Amazon. com. The world is crowded: think New York City, not China or India. It’s closer than you think.

So, with warmer weather conditions, easier commerce and communication, and more brains to innovate, it should be easier right? Apparently, not quite. Don’t become the nation where birds don’t fly: direct the birds to their right nests. The world still wants America to be a global leader. Greening is becoming an international trend and America should lead it. Not Costa Rica or Switzerland or France.

Step 2: Stop the Carbon Copies

Taller buildings mean improved civilization, so why should the World stop displaying the wonders of modern architecture just because America’s done with its construction work? We’ve heard of Doha and Dalian, Dubai and Durban, but there are thousands more skyscraper cities sprouting up around the world, and it just won’t stop. If the world enjoys copying America, how about re-defining what it means to be American? How about leading and encouraging the newest stage of green construction? Friedman says it’s all in the design. It only makes sense to save money while designing new buildings, and this nation probably won’t want to bite its tongue, nagging China to become green while the West was the hub of the pollution industry only a few years ago.

Step 3: Don’t feed the Petro-dictatorships

Make way! The Russians are coming! And so are the Arabs!

The countries with the largest supply of oil tend to be the worst dictatorships. Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela lead the way for other deviant oil producing countries. Freidman found that as oil prices go up, so does corruption and repression in petro-dictatorship nations.

How you can help: establish proper relations with alternative oil-producing nations such as Norway, Angola, Nigeria, and Mexico—countries that have, based on common trends, welcomed improved U.S foreign relations. This nation could also manage its energy use more efficiently and channel its use of petro-energy to the most beneficial uses. There need not be a complete boycott of oil resources, but proper management is surely needed.

Step 4: Give to the poor

Poor people won’t think twice about saving the environment. America may work ten thousand times harder to become green, but the poorest Congolese, Chinese, and Indians won’t think twice about setting their entire country ablaze if it meant better living conditions for their families. All this green work is being thrown off in another country—no matter if they are rich or poor nations, where air-conditioners are used 24-hours a day, seven days a week three hundred and sixty six days a leap year, because it’s too hot. Desperately poor countries really won’t care about the environment in their suffering—they’re too hot to be bothered, and they can’t afford to be green. If we all live in the same world, the nations that can afford to be green will have to share the price of this burden, or else, we’ll all soon be fried. Rich and poor nations, alike.

Step 5: Don’t be afraid of government

Though none of us likes to be ruled or controlled, governments exist because nations can’t be managed communally—there’s simply no other way to do it. Governments and politics exist for a reason. In the United States, the littlest government-proposed reform seems to spark the greatest amount of political squabble. Goodness America! Why are you so scared of socialism? Have you ever lived in a socialist nation before? Do you know what it means to actually live in one? As a great, literate, wealthy, and powerful nation with no history, apparent or immediate desire to become a China, Russia or even England in the least, why is the American populace so scared of the slightest proposal of government management? Government management in America simply means direction from the government in a worldwide context, and successful nations do it everyday. It will save this nation energy, time, and money if it agreed to be lead by its government, and the populace worked with government more often, rather than constantly criticize its proposals. Does being American really mean being red and blue? As Friedman says, green is the new red, white and blue. It’s important to make consensus. The Democrat-Republican battle is leading to no progress, quite frankly.

Step 6: Change your habits, and government will follow

Freidman thinks it’s more effective to influence your leaders, but if don’t like their recommendations, then start with these “simple” steps and save energy on your own:

i) Ditch your car. Call for public transportation and the Waverly City Council will have to develop one.

ii) Make it smaller. Everything in the U.S is big. Not too many people are oversized. Smaller building space, smaller cars, smaller Big Macs, and smaller stuff will lead to less energy consumption and more effective use of resources.

iii) Recycle. This country is already quite good with that. Make it easy, convenient and cheap.

iv) Play the guilt card if you have to. No one likes to be a jerk. If you notice anti-green behavior, discourage immediately.

v) Compete. Why so blue? Green is the new black! Countries like China will like to pick up on this new trend. Others in the Middle-East will like to boost their image with the latest green fashion. Challenge your friends on the internet... but don’t leave your computer on for too long.

Step 7: Become a tree-hugging, vaguely European nation.

The world listens to America. When Americans endorse Susan Boyle, the world took note. When Americans objected to the treatment of the Dalai Lama, the world heard. If Americans protest against the razing of the Amazon, the world will listen. Do not under-estimate the socio-political clout of this nation, despite its economic struggles. When the U.S. reacts, the world will respond (at least slightly).

Freidman highlights loss of biodiversity as a theme throughout his book. Climate change is evident and energy resource supply and demand provide conditions for the development of a tree-hugging, vaguely European nation. Freidman says, “If it isn’t boring, it isn’t green.” The word “green” has espoused bad public relations sentiments, but it can become a standard. If Americans adopt the tree-hugging fad, this country can make it look cool, and the world will follow.

Step 8: Sustain yourself

Don’t buy too much (like I need to tell you that) don’t consume too much, and don’t “live” away too much stuff. Use just enough. (This is Freidman’s underlying theme). I know—easier said than done, but it saves time, money and energy if done.

Feeling tempted?

You should.

Step 9: Negotiate

A theme that stretches throughout the book. Friedman says we’ll have to negotiate with the NGOs, developing and developed countries, their citizens and governments, and different groups. There are too many Noah’s and too many arks. If we don’t bother to negotiate now, the world will become terribly crowded and very soon, we’ll all be able to see Russians from our houses. (Which would be quite cool, actually).

Step 10: Declare a War on Climate Change

Five themes highlight the book: Energy and resource supply and demand, Petro-dictatorships, Biodiversity loss, Climate Change, Energy poverty

Freidman endorses “out-greening” as a strategy for fighting terrorism, and it’s very convincing. Encourage Obama to declare a War on Climate Change; and the birds will soon fly again. Weather conditions will be more favorable, and though the world may still be flat and crowded, we will not be so hot, which just makes everything much more bearable.

I should know. I’m from Africa :)

Goodluck!

Thursday, March 18, 2010

And so it goes . . .

For those who are readers of Nicholas Kristof's column, today's was on access to health care--what else? It points out that access to health care was greater in this country in the mid-1940s than now.

If you're into the comments that follow these editorials -- veritable treasure troves of Q statements -- check out the one numbered 109 among the "highlighted" comments in blue following Mr. Kristof's piece. Here's the link:

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/opinion/18kristof.html

I'm still seeking a free downloadable copy of Samuel P. Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations?" Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993, vol. 72, the article that became the controversial book of the same title. But I'm having inexplicable trouble accessing the article via our library, which is very strange. But I'll not give up as it is to supplement our reviews of Friedman on Monday night, the 22nd.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

The health care debate in two pictures?

So says Nate Silver at 538.com http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/03/two-pictures-tell-story-on-health-care.html

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Tax Fairness: The Missing Piece to DIgging Out

This piece appeared in AlterNet recently, and cuts to the heart of why I personally have reservations with Obama's weak-tea effort to address our backlog of policy problems in a way that doesn't restore fairness to our tax code. The Reagan and Bush II Administrations didn't apologize for reducing the marginal rates on the taxes for the wealthy, and Democrats Bill Clinton did not get a single Republican vote for his first budget, which wasn't much different than George Herbert Walker Bush's FY91 budget except it set the top rate at 39.6% kincking in at $250,000 annual household income and Barack Obama, who will let the Bush tax lapse in January 2011. In other words, he'll go back to the marginal rate at the top that Clinton passsd without a single Republican vote, only to see three consecutive balance budgets and a net attition of 22 million jobs during his presidency. The right-wing lunatics who predicted disaster in 1992 are doing the same with Obama's "assault ofn the successful," as if Democrats are only interested in punishing success. True Democrats need to look back at the progressive tax code that created a middle class and avoided thr massive race to the bottom that we've seen under the so-called supply-side innovation. To fear the super-rich and to allow them to pile up extraordinary wealth is to deprive talented Americans of modest means of the opportunities that previous generations of Americans had and to distort the social contract whereby we admit that those to whom much is given are fairly expected to return the favor, acknowledging that their success was not entirely the product of their own effort and ability. Normally, this is an ethical judgment made by democratically elected governments whose leaders don't run and hide whenever the cheesy charge of "class warfare" is levied against a sincere attempt to restore fairness to the tax code. A brief look at the pre-Reagan tax code is instructive. At some point, a true Democrat will not be bashful about asking those whose fortunes expanded beyond reason to either pay their fair share or find a better place to live iive with a more regressive tax rate.


AlterNet / By Les Leopold COMMENTS: 98 Why Are We Afraid to Tax the Super-Rich?
We are told that we’re already living well beyond our means we’ve got to cut back on government programs at all levels. Meanwhile, the super-rich are still having a ball.
March 12, 2010 |

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Our nation is already deeply in debt. How can we possibly afford to invest in our infrastructure, renewable energy, health care, our schools — and create the millions of jobs that our unemployed desperately need?

We are told that we’re already living well beyond our means — that entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security will bankrupt us. Forget the solar panels, the smaller classes and the new jobs — we’ve got to cut back on government programs at all levels.

Meanwhile, the super-rich are still having a ball. In his annual shareholder letter, mega-investor Warren Buffett wrote, “We’ve put a lot of money to work during the chaos of the last two years. When it’s raining gold, reach for a bucket, not a thimble.” And Forbes Magazine adds, “Many plutocrats did just that. Indeed, last year’s wealth wasteland has become a billionaire bonanza. Most of the richest people on the planet have seen their fortunes soar in the past year.”

Which brings us back to the federal budget. There are two sides to every ledger: the expenses…and the income. We need to start looking at the income side. With a fairer tax system, we could retrieve some of that money downpour that the elite has been siphoning away from us for decades.

In the 1950s the marginal tax rate on those earning more than $3 million a year (in today’s dollars) was 91 percent. By 1990 it was 28 percent. The IRS says that the top 400 richest tax filers actually paid a rate of just 16 percent in 2007 (the latest numbers we have). Yep, the richest earners — people who took in an average of $343 million each — probably paid a lower rate than you did. Something to consider as you sign your 2009 return.

By the way, those 400 people who do so well on tax day have a combined net worth of nearly $1.37 trillion. (According to Forbes Magazine their wealth has gone up on average by more than 16 percent over the past year — the worst economic year since the Great Depression during which 29 million Americans are without work or forced into part-time jobs. )

How do we even wrap our minds around a number so large? Here’s the example that brings it down to earth for me. If we had progressive taxes that reduced their wealth to a trifling $100 million each, we’d have enough money to set up a trust fund whose interest could provide tuition-free higher education for students at every public college and university in perpetuity. Imagine that. Our kids could actually leave college without carrying tens of thousands of dollars of debt on their backs.

Could those 400 special people be able to get by on just $100 million a year? I think they might.

So why are we so fearful of taxing the super-rich? Here are the arguments I’ve heard.

1. They’ve earned it.
Really? The concept of “earning” is murky when you consider the array of corporate welfare programs we provide. Oil companies have their depletion allowances. Big sugar farmers have their sweet subsidies. The health insurance industry is exempt from anti-trust laws.

One way corporations spend their welfare checks is by providing top management with mind-boggling compensation packages. For instance, in 2009, our financial wizards netted about $150 billion in bonuses – as if in reward for crashing the economy. Were it not for our $10 trillion (not billion) in bailout funds, they would have earned nothing at all. In fact, the financial sector’s reckless gambling has lost us over $6 trillion in wealth. But the execs did quite well, thanks to taxpayer largesse.

You’d think we’d be crying out for a windfall profits tax to reclaim our money. But no.

2. Redistribution of Income is Un-American.
During the 2008 campaign, Joe the Plumber got his 15 minutes of fame when he slammed Obama for daring to utter the phrase “redistribution of income.” Of course, we redistribute income primarily through progressive taxation – having the rich pay a higher rate.

Joe didn’t mention that we already live in a world of massive redistribution. Only it’s from the bottom to the top. We still hear about how poor folks game the system and mooch off our hard earned tax dollars. They go to emergency rooms and don’t pay. They get Medicaid for free. And many don’t pay any taxes at all (mostly because their incomes are so impossibly low). But all of that is chump change compared to the gaming going on at the other end of the economic scale.

Just think of all the scams corporations and the rich are running: ever-rising credit card fees, predatory mortgages, usurious interest rates, check cashing ripoffs, monopoly pricing. They turn income into lower taxed capital gains, find offshore tax shelters, collect subsidies for their runaway shops. And then they netted the big one: Wall Street bailouts. Post-baillout, these too-big-to fail companies are getting even bigger. It all adds up to a major redistribution plan — from the many to the few.

During the post-WWII boom we had one of the fairest income distributions in the world. Not anymore. Today the gap between rich and poor is wider than at any time in U.S. history. Here’s a telling statistic: In 1970 the compensation ratio of the top 100 CEOs compared to the average worker was 45 to one. By 2008 it was 1,071 to one. You think they got that much smarter?

3. If we tax the wealthy, we’ll hinder investment and kill jobs.
This was the justification politicians and pundits used when they started cutting taxes and eliminating regulations in the late 1970s. Tax cuts were supposed to create a robust investment class whose dollars would fuel the new service economy. Since only the wealthy can make such investments, the argument went, we have to make sure they have the money they need to invest. Otherwise, where will all the new jobs come from?

In theory this sounds good. But we tried this experiment, and it didn’t work. When we cut taxes on the super-rich, we got a different kind of investment boom than the politicians and economists had promised. The wealthy literally ran out of investments in factories, equipment and even services. So they flocked to financial investments — which were supposedly safer and more profitable anyway. The super-rich laid their money down in the Wall Street casino, and helped puff up bubble after bubble. Profits in the financial sector soared. In 1960, the sector accounted for about 15 per cent of all corporate profits. By 2008 (before the crash, that is), it was almost 40 percent. The financial sector crased as the direct result of tax cuts for the super-rich and Wall Street deregulation.

4. Government’s too big already. We should be cutting the public sector, not raising taxes to expand it.
Many people (like those in and around the Tea Party) dislike tax scams by the wealthy, but dislike government even more. They’re outraged that public sector workers often have better wages and pensions than people in the private sector. They’ve made attacking public employees the new national blood sport.

With unemployment so high, public sector workers are an easy target. Why should taxpayers, many of whom have no pensions, finance the pensions of public sector workers? Why should we protect public sector jobs when we ourselves are unemployed?

Here’s one reason: Because cutting state and local payrolls would actually add to our economic woes. If we fire public sector workers, they’ll stop paying taxes — which will only add to the tax burden on those people who still have jobs.

Laid off public sector workers — and even those whose wages and benefits have been cut — don’t buy as many goods and services. This drop in demand triggers layoffs in the private sector — and a further slide in tax revenues. In short, public sector cutbacks contribute to an economic death spiral: plummeting tax revenues and ever more cutbacks.

By failing to tax the super-rich, we’re burrowing even deeper into a billionaire bailout society in which the rich keep on gambling away our money, knowing that we will bail them out if they lose. Yes, we need to regulate Wall Street. But we also need to recognize that these gambling addicts have too much money in their pockets. And society needs that money for constructive investments, not for more gambling.

In the end the real fiscal crisis is in our minds. We don’t have to keep fighting over the scraps the wealthy have left us. We can build a new kind of economy, but only if can summon up some courage. Do we have the nerve to tax the super-rich?

Remember the Student-Loan Reform Bill?

Well, here's the latest: It's bizarre, but then why wouldn't it be?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/12/student-loan-overhaul-tak_n_496899.html

Dan Froomkin froomkin@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting Become a Fan Get Email Alerts from this Reporter Student Loan Overhaul Taking Filibuster-Proof Route To Overcome Corporate Opposition

Senate reconciliation rules to the rescue, hopefully, of the defenseless program of subsidizing banks to loaning money to students,who pay back the banks with interest, or, if they default, the federal government insures the loan and the interest. It's a $80 billion a year subsidy, and why should banks be beneficiaries for serving as middlemen for whom all risk is socialized and profit is privatized? This is not capitalism as it supposed to work, where the crony contributors to congressional campaigns are paid handsomely for their "investments." It's not really democracy either. Nor does it get the media coverage that it does deserves, because bankers' motives and their means for exercising influence to exploit the indefensible debt burden assumed by today's generation of college students whose families or scholarships or personal work earnings cannot meet the exploding costs of attending college. It's perverse public policy, it's immoral, and it's one more case of American exceptionalism run amok. And one more reason why young people ignore the antics of American politics at their own peril. The same mess described by Friedman in Hot, Flat, and Crowded -- namely, a political process that is charitably described as brain-dead -- is allowed to pesist because the illusion is created that nothing can be done to change the indefensible realities. There is much that can be done because there is no way the status quo can win on the merits when the policy pro's and con's are debated--unless the victims are so misinformed -- inadvertently or by self-insulation -- or out of the loop that they allow themselves to be victimized out of powerlessness.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Teach for the World?

Nicholas Kristof's piece in the NYT today contains a simple idea that doesn't cost a lot, that Wartburg could even take a look at and run with -- although it has experimented with it already on a smaller scale with Diers' Program overseas experiences. The attractive part, to me, is the idea that Princeton and one other school are looking at for a "gap-year" experience abroad. This would be the international version of Teach for America, a more streamlined and yet larger version of the Peace Corps. The promised pay-off is in the added maturity of students when entering college formally, and in a host of other benefits, many of which are pertinent to a flat and crowded world that is now considered a big outlier -- deservedly so -- by the rest of the world. "Teach for the World" might be seen by some as an attempt to Americanize the world even further, but the promise to me is the reverse: it would broaden the horizons of participants, reduce harmful and ill-informed stereotypes of other nationals the world over, and create democratic citizens in the deepest and broadest sense that are ready to take the fullest advantage of the formal college experience. An interesting idea for all of us as members of the higher-ed community, but of special relevance perhaps to the IR folks. Thoughts?

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

The Pelosi Predicament, cont'd.

SPOILER ALERT: Don't read this comment if you haven't decided how you'd vote and my own vote might influence yours--either affirmatively or negatively.

Recognizing that this might be tantamount to a vote for a single term for Obama, I would cast my own vote against the Senate bill. I would do so despite the arguments of people like Howard Dean and Bill Clinton who see the weaknesses in this reform package but see an additional 30,000 that would receive coverage if this is passed. My own vote is most heavily influenced by Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, whose views on the issue can be accessed via Bill Moyers' program's website:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2010/03/is_the_presidents_health_bill.html

Her argument is that sham reform is worse than real reform and that attempted to patch a system predicated on profit for the insurers is doomed to failure without fundamental structural reforms--of the sort carried out by the Swiss, the last for-profit insurance-based system to decide to remove the profit motive from the insurance industry, allowing private insurers to continue to exist, but not as for-profit entities with shareholders or regulations on pricing. The Swiss, like Americans, were skeptical that this would work. Now, by all indications, they'd never go back. Leaving only the US alone among the western democracies as a system that allows profit-seeking to trump universal health care as a human right. I am hopeful that Angell's view that we'd be better off by scrapping the faux reform and requiring politicians to face up to the truth: that sooner or later, a system of "Medicare for all" is the sanest, most efficient, most morally defensible and, in the end, politically profitable system. Of course, it means that we tell our current leaders -- at least those in the Senate that sold out to private insurance and, yes, the President, that this is not the change we need, that we'll bank on Democrats nominating a real advocate for real reform -- say, a Howard Dean -- to split the Democrats in a manner that in the end will serve the party and the country, though in the short term it will help the hapless Republicans. Barack Obama is a good man, a decent person, and a bright individual. He's just not what we need as president at this point in our history. I say this inspite of his personal approval ratings, which arent' great but are better than they should be for an economy that's still not hiring workers and has yet to deliver on a single campaign promise from the long march and lopsided victory in 2008. Can anyone honestly say that they know where Obama's core convictions lie? Can anyone honestly justify his ill-considered efforts at bipartisanship that produced a total of three votes for a stimulus package that was too modest given the depths to which the economy hand shrunk? Can anyone honestly justify the escalation of US troop commitments in Afghanistan when there are fewer than 100 members of al-Qaeda in the entire country? Can anyone honestly defend the president's budget: the so-called "freeze" on non-security related, domestic discretionary spending, which amounts to 14% of the budget? Likewise, for the increase in the defense budget to well over 700 billion annually, greater than one-half of the entire world's defense expenditures, when we operate 700 bases outside of the US in countries all over the world while running deficits of over a trillion and fearing to raise taxes on the very wealthy whose already obscene wealth saw huge, indefensible growth under Bush 43? Are these the actions of a Democratic reformer? I say they are not even close, and this is no time for a holding-pattern presidency that seems more concerned with maintaining a semblance of popularity by "embracing" nondescript centrist "solutions" to problems that cry out for fundamental, wholesale change. That's a mouthfull, to be sure, but you can no doubt get the point. Let's put the health care "debate" we've wasted a year and one-half on behind us, cut our losses, and demand the kind of courageous leadership that the times require by sending a message to both parties: business as usual, whether under the guise of a phony reform or under the guise of "principled" opposition to a reform measure that's a big give-away to the corporate culprits that are the enemies of justice on health care, taxes, deficits, campaign finance, student loan-reform, you name it. Enough is enough!!

When the dust has settled, I remain toptimistic that this course will end up benefitting more people to a greater degree than going forward now with a fake effort of reform that doesn't take effect for three years anyway. Now please don't confuse me with the tea-baggers who oppose the HCR plan so as to prevent a government takeover. My opposition to the current reform effort is intended to do the very opposite: i,e., speed up and deepen a government takeover so that Medicare for All becomes reality sooner rather than much later.

Cheers,
DT

The Pelosi Predicament

Hi gang, happy championship week aka Mid-winter Break Week aka prelude to March Madness aka Mr. Massa's Fifteen Minutes of Infamy.... enough nonsense. We've got important matters before us, and now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country (or this country, which is in need of aid).

As promised, I'm weighing in for what it's worth on the Health Care homestretch as Speaker Pelosi and Steny Hoyer try to count votes in the House for the so-called "reform" measure that passed the Senate on December 24, 2009. The White House is busy "going public," today in St. Louis, earlier this week in Pennsylvania, in an effort to drum up support from enough citizens to make it seem like a groundswell of genuine support for the House to pass the Senate version on the hope (and prayer) that tweaks to the Senate bill will be made via "reconciliation" aka simple-majority budget rules afterward.

So let's weigh the pro's and con's. From the Speaker's point of view, this is a tall order. The House version differed substantially in two key ways from the Senate version. First, it had a strong public option; and second, it created three new tax brackets among the rich to pay for it while the Senate bill utilizes an excise tax on so-called "cadillac" health plans, but due to Labor opposition, this wouldn't go into effect until 2018. Both bills contain mandates requiring that the uninsured purchase insurance, but the Senate bill falls short of universal coverage by some 6%. Both bills expand COBRA coverage for young people currently covered by their parents' insurance, from age 24 to 26. According to the CBO, both bills would bend the "cost curve" -- i.e., slow down the growth of Medicare and Medicaid entitlements -- though this is in dispute by a Harvard Medical School projection on the Senate bill.

From Speaker Pelosi's standpoint, you can see why this is a tough vote. Members in the House who voted for the House version would have to hold their nose to vote for the Senate version. Dennis Kucinich, who voted against the initial House version because it was not a Single-Payer system, has already said he won't vote for the Senate version. And there are currently twelve Democrats that voted for the House bill who, following Bart Stupak (D-MI) are convinced that the Senate language prohibiting publicly-financed abortions is not strong enough and are threatening to vote against the Senate bill for that reason. Kucinich has called the Senate version a huge "bailout" for the health insurance industry since it gives millions of new customers to the private providers without any real guarantee that premium costs will be controlled. The recent announcements by Iowa and California branches of Blue Cross-Blue Shield that rates will increase for some by 12% to 39% this year give support to Kucinich's view. But the White House responds by saying that the failure to act -- i.e., to continue on the course we're on -- is unsustainable. We'll be bankrupt due to the health entitlements by 2020.

Then there is the politics at stake. Failure to act would be scored politically as a victory for the Republicans, and this is a terrible precedent -- though it's not really a precedent given unanimous GOP opposition to Clinton's first budget in 1993 -- given the indefensible course we're presently on. By the same token, there is plenty to object to with these bills, though the principles for objection voiced by Republicans ("opening the door to a public takeover of health care") and by progressives like Kucinich ("it's a give-away to the insurance companies") are from parallel universes. Given the cowardly way that the Senate bill has contrived to pay for the reform -- by "binding" future Congresses to implement a tax they don't have the guts to implement -- it is hard to be enthusiastic about the Senate bill. It is possible to argue that we'd be better off by canning the reform effort now and let this play out in the 2010 and 2012 elections. It might be better, in fact, to let these elections become referenda on the issue of health care reform than to go forward with the difficult-to-describe and more difficult-to-defend monstrosity that the Senate bill has become. Indeed, it could be that this would split the Democratic party between those favoring "Medicare for all" (the preference of the Pelosi Democrats) and the "Republican-lite Democrats" who think that reform is possible without changing the for-profit insurance industry that is the moral and financial enemy of reform in the first place.

This, then, is the "Pelosi predicament." She is asked to take one for the team by whipping a vote for the Senate bill, but she has real doubts about the likelihood that the Senate bill will produce the reform needed. So, before I go on record and declare how I'd vote were I a member of the House (in the Democratic Caucus, obviously), I'll solicit the group's wisdom on how Nancy should proceed and whether he choice will prove fruitful. So, what's your verdict?