DOMA DOWN

There isn't much to say here except...AWESOME! Progress is too often painfully slow, but today's Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act is one step in the right direction. This is a nation for everyone. Period.

I often find myself writing these posts feeling angry or frustrated with the state of affairs in America, but today I write this proudly. For all the issues we face, for all the wrongs left to right, I couldn't be happier about this decision and proud of my country today.

Let us all celebrate today's historic decision. Though we still have work to do, we should rightfully rejoice our triumphs. Today is a good day. Goodbye, and good riddance, DOMA.

Scandaless

Just a month ago the Obama administration was embroiled in scandals: Benghazi; the IRS; the AP. As I blogged last month, some of this was serious stuff, some of it was political theater. It now seems that as we learn more, we are exposed not to scandalous activity, but scandaless activity.

Before I clarify, let me rehash what I wrote last month: Benghazi was never a scandal but a witch-hunt; the IRS case was troubling, not because the IRS was seeking to limit tax-exemptions from groups that are exploiting loopholes to gain tax-exempt status, but because they were supposedly targeting only conservative groups; and the seizure of phone records from AP reporters was - and still is - very troubling.

I will leave the last piece unaddressed until more info is available (I still find it very troubling), and I will continue to dismiss the Benghazi episode for what it was: a chance for Darryl Issa to look angry and important on national television. However new information has changed my take on what is happening at the IRS from scandalous to scandaless.

New documents released by the IRS show that the agency was actually applying the same targeting to both conservative and liberal groups, using a dragnet that included terms like "occupy" and "progressive" as well as "tea party." Far from being an attempt by Obama and Democrats to thwart their political opponents, this seems like an (ill-advised) effort by an overworked agency to determine which groups were trying to exploit 501(c)(4) loopholes and bill themselves as social welfare groups when in fact all they do is advertise for political candidates. That the IRS is tasked with this is a monumental task that reflects the inane influx of private money into politics, but since the law currently allows that, the IRS (or someone) must address it. Furthermore, groups that seemed to have no political inclinations at all were included in the list of suspicious terms.

This wasn't a scandal from on high, in fact it wasn't a scandal at all. This was the IRS doing its job. This new evidence just became public so I'll give Darryl Issa the benefit of the doubt - though I cringe to do so - and assume he didn't know about it, but now that we know what was actually happening at the IRS, perhaps we can get back to the real business of running the country, or at least figuring out what is going on with those AP phone records since the government doesn't seem to concern itself much with running the country even when there aren't scandals upon which to seize.

Obstruction of Justice

A common theme in my writing is the overlap between doing what is morally right and fiscally responsible. Time and time again we see that doing what is morally sound is often financially savvy and vice versa.

We find that this is true again when we examine immigration reform. A Congressional Budget Office reports finds that putting illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship will ultimately save the country a trillion dollars. That's a pretty substantial sum of money to save just for doing the right thing.

Of course, this report came out just hours after intellectual lightweight and leadership-devoid Speaker of the House John Boehner announced that he would not allow a vote on the immigration bill on the House floor unless it had the support of the majority of House Republicans. The bill could probably pass the House with bipartisan support, but we'll probably never know because it is incredibly unlikely it can get the support of the majority of Americans, most of whom hate the idea of amnesty.

This is an obstruction of justice. Our government has been at a near standstill for years, the political reality that exists is one in which so little progress is possible that our most recent legislative accomplishment recently has been a recovery-killing sequester.

The immigration bill in question was developed by a bipartisan group of Senators, so it's not as though it represents only Democratic priorities. In fact, it recently underwent changes to include more provisions for border security. By all accounts it seems that this bill is a good one, and not just by our current low standards. If we are going to move forward, we need our government to be a partner in progress, not an impediment to it. The current Republican crusade against immigration reform is nothing different than their opposition to everything else: a facade to do anything that makes the president look good.

Our country simply cannot function if we cannot reach compromises and pass legislation. It is especially bad when the legislation has been found to have positive economic effects. This is totally unacceptable. Our government is an obstruction to justice. Millions among us live in the shadows wanting nothing more than a chance, and we won't help them to save ourselves a buck (or two, or a trillion). What sense does that make?

Sorely Off the Mark

Generally I find Paul Krugman's economic op-eds enlightening, but I found his most recent piece sorely off the mark. Deviating from his usual evaluations of why the deficit is an issue of secondary importance to unemployment, Krugman then provides us with his vision for a future society in which even more government safeguards are needed to maintain economic equality. This will happen, Friedman says, because education is not the great equalizer after all, and technology is going to keep force more and more workers to the sidelines, "Education, then, is no longer the answer to rising inequality, if it ever was (which I doubt)." Without here voicing my objections to Krugman's vision of our future, I do want to point out how full of holes his view on education is.

Let us begin by looking at public education, an area Krugman looks at at only through the narrow lens of job preparedness, and therefore, in his view, of limited utility due to the inevitable replacement of man by machine. If you accept his conclusion, we should abandon public education, as well as higher education because all that can be done about inequality in America is creating a stronger social safety net.

But this is a shallow understanding of the goal of education. Let us remember that Paul Krugman's Nobel Prize is in economics, not educational philosophy. Job preparedness is a positive byproduct of the primary goal of public education, which is to prepare young adults for citizenship. Ideally, students leave school prepared to be active citizens and imbued with the knowledge and critical thinking skills to be good employees or employers.

This point of view broadens the scope of education and shows that that the moral and economic reasons for education are intrinsically linked. Those who leave school informed and empowered to be self-advocates will be able to access resources for the betterment of themselves and their community. They should therefore rely less on traditional safety net programs. Education, then, is an investment that should necessitate less, rather than more, spending on entitlement programs. While this is an ideal vision of what we should be striving for as a society, we still have a long way to go. However, even the woeful state of public education in America we can see how even taking minor steps will help us save money. What if, for example, in the short term, we increased high school graduation rates and decreased prison populations, would this not achieve positive financial and moral outcomes?

Furthermore, Krugman, in his apocalyptic economic forecast, neglects to take into account that while technology does indeed destroy jobs, it also opens up new fields thereby potentially creating new jobs as well. And most of these jobs will indeed require higher levels of knowledge than can be obtained in high school. So not only is primary public education important for the survival of our democracy, but secondary education is important to acquire the knowledge and critical thinking skills that will allow citizens to thrive in a world that is increasingly interconnected and changing at a faster pace each day. I cannot make projections as to how many jobs will be gained or lost because of technology, but I know someone will need to supervise the machines putting together the next generation of tablets.

Rather than being doomed to become a society in which more and more of us depend on the state for our basic necessities, America can and should be a vibrant nation of civically-engaged and intelligent entrepreneurs. Education is the path towards maintaining this society and bringing more of our countrymen into its fold. Those who rely most on the safety net are those whom we invested in least educationally. There is a strong correlation there, and the route to making our country stronger leads through schools. Krugman entitled his piece, "Sympathy for the Luddites," and indeed we should feel sympathetic towards them, those who are not fortunate enough to embrace technology and education will find themselves left behind in the world. We should endeavor to make sure that few of our fellow Americans are among them.

Piracy and Privacy

The government knows who you call and when. Google can read every word of your email. Your whole life is on Facebook. What's left of privacy when piracy abounds? More importantly, what is the balance between privacy and piracy - assuming of course that said piracy contributes to our overall safety?

I'd like to start by exonerating two persona(s) non grata(s) Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning. Snowden's name is all over the news, but you'll recall that Bradley Manning was the soldier responsible for sending videos to Wikileaks. Some people call these men traitors. Others call them patriots. I don't know if I think they fit nicely into either category, but I believe that the more we know, the better our decision making will be, and I believe that a transparent government (oxymoron of oxymorons) is essential to a free society. Both Manning and now Snowden gave the public information to which we did not previously have access. Neither of their leaks endangered our lives. So regardless of whether or not they are heroic Americans, they have provided us a service.

What information should the government be able to access in order to protect our safety? What information should private companies be able to sell to advertisers? What moral and legal obligations do companies have to report suspicious activity to government agencies, and for that matter, what qualifies as suspicious activity? To protect these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed. So the government is responsible for protecting our rights, but only with our consent. How do the actions of the NSA fit into this equation?

I won't pretend to have the answers to all of these questions, but I can chime in with some thoughts. I don't want to live in a country that spies on me, but I don't think that is what is happening here. Having said that, I also don't want to live in a world in which people fly airplanes into buildings and put pressure cooker bombs at marathons. What concessions will I make to protect myself and others from these travesties, and where is the line? Generally I think the slippery slope argument is an excuse for inaction (like, for example health insurance and broccoli), but if I submit to certain things will I ultimately have others forced upon me?

It is important we acknowledge that there are people out there who seek to do us harm, and it is important we take the necessary precautions to prevent future tragedies. I don't think the NSA's collection and analysis of phone call data is a problem, but I'm glad we know it is happening. The problem here, as I see it, isn't that the government is taking steps to keep us safe, and it's certainly not that they are invading my privacy - seriously I'm only calling my parents and then really only once or twice a week - it's that they did all this without telling me. Unlike some, I - for the most part - trust the government, but I trust them less when they do things I don't know about. Uncle Sam keeps me safe at the airport by putting me in a scanner and my bag in an x-ray machine. That's fine, I'm willing to let a federal agent look at an awkward image of my body in order to be safe on a plane. But I know that's happening, and if I want I can protest by taking a train. Now that I know my phone records are being analyzed, I can choose to use smoke signals...

The way the world is today our privacy is more a figment of our imagination than anything else. But that doesn't mean we should be subjected to clandestine collection of our information by an overreaching government. If we are to trust our government, we need to know what they are doing and why. If you can prove to me that analyzing phone records including mine keeps me and others safe, then analyze away, but tell me that it's happening and prove to me that it is necessary. If you don't, Uncle Sam, I'll think there is something more sinister at play.

Our privacy may be an endangered species, but we don't need to last shred of it to disappear due to piracy. Let's have an open and honest debate about what sacrifices the American people are willing to make in order to protect our safety. An important question, but one in which we the people should have a leading voice.

Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Masses

Remember when America was a nascent nation and people from all over the world came here looking for opportunities? I don't either, I hadn't been born yet, but I read about it. Put tritely, we are a nation of immigrants, at least those of us who are not of Native American ancestry. We have always opened our arms to other who come to our country looking for opportunity. We have benefited massively because of this.

People still want to come to America. They come looking for opportunity, they come looking for freedom, they come looking for a better life. As in the past, we benefit from this influx of people. But we haven't really thought through the issue of immigration. Right now, we operate a largely patchwork system to address the various aspects of immigration. What should the overall goal of our immigration policy be?

There are a number of different things at play here, and so there are a number of different objectives.

1) To retain talent. People come here from all over the world to attend our colleges and universities. Some of them will inevitably return home, but many would love to stay. Unfortunately, the process for getting on the path to citizenship is arduous, and the number of green cards and permits we are willing to give is too low. We need to make sure that if talented people from elsewhere want to remain in America after they've obtained a degree from an American university that they have that chance.

2) To figure out what to do with the people who are already here. In the political realm this is a tricky issue and is marred by the word amnesty. Of course, only the far right could find a way to turn amnesty into a bad thing. In the real world, this is an easy issue to rectify, if perhaps more difficult to implement. Amnesty is the answer. Morally speaking, we can neither deport the roughly 11 million people living here illegally, nor can we continue to let them live in the shadows. On top of being morally unjust, neither of the proposed steps is economically feasible. Again, amnesty is the answer. I submit that the majority of illegal immigrants living here committed no worse crime than the genocide perpetrated centuries ago by the Europeans who first arrived here. We cannot afford to have an entire subclass of people living in our country. It is wrong and it is expensive.

3) Fix the border. For whatever reason, when we think of immigration, we focus immediately on the border with Mexico as though this is the sole issue to address. Truthfully, it needs addressing, but it is less of a priority than the aforementioned aspects of immigration reform. Having said that, tighter border control is good for two reasons. On the surface it appeases right wingers who lack a broader understanding of the issue. More importantly, it can help stem the cross border exchange of guns, narcotics, and slaves that is the real problem with the porousness of the southern border.

Done correctly, immigration reform can rectify a moral injustice and help America retain our competitive edge. There is an opportunity here. Let's seize it. Your tired, your poor, and your huddled masses are still welcome in America.

Softball, Hardball

On Friday, China's new "president" will arrive in California for a retreat with President Obama. Unlike many formal visits, this one is supposed to be unscripted. Just the world's two most powerful men hanging out in Cali, maybe a few beers, probably a few wisecracks, hell maybe they'll make a few fun wagers. I don't know what important people do when they hang out. I actually didn't even know important people were capable of hanging out, I thought they were too busy being important.

But despite not having a script, there is a whole lot for these two men to talk about. Despite Mitt Romney's attempt to convince us that it is still the 1970s and that Russia is our number one geopolitical foe, President Obama's more deft "pivot towards Asia," highlights the reality that China is the nation with which the US should be most concerned.

I use the word concerned somewhat ambiguously. Certainly there are things about China that are concerning: their blatant disregard for human rights; their refusal to respect intellectual property rights or play by other established economic rules; the ongoing hacking attacks emanating from the PLA; etc. But concerned is meant more to imply that it is important for the world's two largest economies, and soon the world's two most powerful militaries, to get along. Despite all the frustrating things China does, they don't need to be our frenemy - which right now they are. In fact, our relationship with China can and should be symbiotic and to achieve this end, we need dialogue.

Let's rule out the worst case scenario: some kind of war or open conflict. I was recently fortunate enough to speak with someone who works at Mandiant, a private company that does internet security work. This person told me in no uncertain terms that we have been at cyberwar with China for the last decade. We play defense, they play offense. Most of this is based around China stealing patent information, although more recent probings into our electrical grid and Pentagon databases are more sinister. Nevertheless, an open conflict with China is out of the question. We are too dependent on each other. Despite the fact that people fret about how much of our debt China has bought, remember who owes whom money. Guess who is our biggest trading partner? Perhaps most importantly, guess who is the world's biggest polluter and its biggest producer of solar panels? China needs the American market, and American know how. America needs the Chinese market and access to labor.

Both countries are set to benefit from a proactive investment in bilateral relations, but that means playing softball and hardball with China at the same time. Let's start with softball. We need trade with China and they need trade with us. I don't know if a free trade agreement with China is feasible, but an end to protectionist tariffs certainly is. Allow China access to our market and encourage them to do the same. This of course comes with the caveat that they must adhere to the "rules." No dumping solar panels in the American market for 30 cents. More unfettered access to our markets will spur further growth in China. Furthermore, America cannot be uniformly opposed to Chinese takeover of American companies. While there are legitimate concerns about the Chinese buying Smithfield Pork, and question about Huawei's hardware, we cannot assume the worst every time a Chinese company tries to invest in an American one.

Now for hardball, which is trickier. China does not perceive itself as a little kid anymore, and rightfully so. Unfortunately, China still plays like a kid. They're bullies who do not know how to use their new found power. America must continue to push China on it's human rights agenda, economic practices, and bellicose posturing.

On human rights, it is simply unacceptable for the Chinese government to suppress dissent the way it does. Imagine if President Obama had the power to throw in jail everyone who believed he was born in Kenya. That kind of thing happens in China. As I blogged recently, the scariest of the political scandals currently facing the President is the one dealing with the confiscation of information of AP journalists. In China, there is no such thing as a free press which is why government corruption is among the country's foremost problems. I understand China won't become a blossoming democracy overnight, but the country needs to begin opening up to alternative points of view and letting people express themselves, not employing even more internet censors.

Additionally, if China wants to be a recognized and responsible member of the global community, it must adhere to the rules the global community has adopted for trade and military relations. Right now, China can sponsor hacking attacks on America with impunity because this field is so new. But this needs to be resolved immediately, and is perhaps the most pressing item on the agenda that does not exist. These attacks cost America billions of dollars each year, and are increasingly targeted and disrupting our infrastructure. I don't believe America and China will become truly involved in a real cyberwar, but the probing needs to stop before a real Pandora's box is opened.

On a similar note, China cannot continue to play by a different set of economic rules than competitors. China's currency needs to fluctuate based not on the dollar, but on normal exchange rates; Chinese companies cannot continue to dump products in foreign markets to put the competition out of business because they are propped up by the government and not driven by profit; and China must stop its cyber attacks on American businesses which cost us an estimated $50 billion in revenue each year.

I'm optimistic that this personal meeting between President Obama and President Xi Jinping will be productive. A personal approach, unscripted and off the record is more likely to yield results than a stiffer and more formal official visit, and the willingness of both sides to participate suggests how seriously both take such a visit. If President Obama brings his A-game and can build a positive relationship with President Xi perhaps we can reset a tenuous relationship and look forward to a positive future with another giant.