The Supreme Court made my day today, but more importantly, they did America a great service. As I've said many times before, Obamacare is not a perfect law, but it is a good one, and it is a real attempt to fix one of our nation's most pressing issues. While the clueless go on yapping about how the government is going to force them to eat broccoli, they offer no real ideas for reform. Obamacare is an idea and a good one at that.
So I'm breathing easier today knowing that the law is Constitutional. I will admit to not being well-versed in Constitutional Law, but the people who are made a decision that is best for the country. Healthcare is a right protected by law, a law signed by President Reagan, the supposed standard bearer for the group of people claiming to represent the legacy of conservatism. Ignorant of their own party's history and having drifted so far to the fringe of the political spectrum, these people would rather see America bankrupt by skyrocketing healthcare costs or strip Americans of their right to healthcare than support anything President Obama proposes. Obviously neither of those ideas is a good one, but fortunately the Democrats - using what were formerly accepted and lauded conservative ideas - took the lead in addressing the problem.
The law has been dissected enough times already. It is a law in need of improvement, and I have no doubt that it will be improved, but today's ruling was a huge win for America and Americans, even those who think they are better off without healthcare and now fear that big brother will compel them to eat broccoli.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Selling America
John McCain is, or at least was, the good kind of Republican - the kind who talks sense, and proposes solutions to problems. I don't agree with him on everything, but if more Republicans were like him, the country would be better off. In recent years he has drifted further right as a result of his 2008 Presidential campaign and a primary challenge by a Tea Party nut job, but recently McCain proved that he's still got a lot of sense left.
Speaking on "Meet the Press" over the weekend, Senator McCain blasted the Citizens United ruling, calling it "arrogant, uninformed, naive." It is he said, "the worst decision of the United States Supreme Court in the twenty-first century."
John McCain couldn't be more correct. Granted, the worst decision of the twenty-first century is a low bar given that we are only slightly more than a decade into the century. There is plenty of time for the Supreme Court to do worse, but Citizens United is nothing short of a disaster. The flood of money unleashed by the ruling that has found its way into Super PACs will help inundate Americans with the messages of specials interest groups. By making corporations people - thank you Mitt Romney for that gem - the Supreme Court effectively declared that America was for sale. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are already often more beholden to their donors and special interest groups than they are to their constituents.
Te rapid advancements in communications technology have made it possible for people to hide in their own little corner of the world and flood themselves with only the news they want to hear. The tidal wave of special interest money that has followed the Citizen United ruling will only strengthen the informationless bubbles in which some people choose to live.
Democracy requires an informed electorate capable of making decisions about a candidate's views based on facts and realities. When we allow an unimpeded amount of money that is directly linked to the interests of a particular group into the system we are watering down democracy. Are the views of the NRA, public service unions, and eclectic billionaires valid and credible? Perhaps, and perhaps not. Those groups and people certainly deserve to have their voices heard, but their ability to summon vast amounts of money does not make their views any more valid and credible. Giving them a bigger megaphone at best makes it harder for us to hear opposing views which may also be valid and credible, and at worst leads to the election of people who are more concerned with repaying those special interests than serving the needs of the country.
Over the past two decades of the 19th century, the United States endeavored to end the spoils system and replace it with a merit based civil service in order to prevent corruption and patronage. Strangely, we are now seeing a new manifestation of the spoils system, but instead of supporters being awarded jobs, their views and opinions are turned into laws that more often than not benefit their interests rather than the interests of the country. Citizens United will exacerbate that problem. Contrary to Mitt Romney's belief, corporations are not people. Neither are unions or other special interest groups. Treating them as such is a detriment to American democracy, and a hindrance to improving our future.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Reasons to Cooperate
Barring an unlikely deal on taxes and spending before January, automatic cuts to defense and domestic spending will go into effect, gutting $500 million from the Pentagon's budget, and a similar amount from safety net programs. While no one is too vocal about the travesty of cuts to safety net programs, politicians across the ideological spectrum have been lamenting the cuts to the Pentagon's budget. Just last week, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advised a Congressional Committee that cuts to defense spending could spread the military so thin as to invite aggression.
I believe General Dempsey is telling the truth. I believe such cuts to defense spending would severely handicap the United States Military, and reverberate through the economy as cuts to weapons development would further hamper the economy. I sincerely do not want these cuts to occur.
Which is why I believe that under no circumstances should politicians pass legislation that would prevent the cuts from taking place.
As Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, "It was designed as a meat ax. It was designed to be a disaster. Because the hope was, because it's such a disaster, that Congress would respond and do what was right. And so I'm just here to tell you, yes, it would be a disaster."
A disaster. And sadly this is where we find ourselves, hoping to avoid a self-created disaster by reaching an agreement that would also prevent a second self-created disaster. If no agreement on taxes and spending is reached, taxes would go up, and spending would be cut - an economic and military disaster, but one of our own making, and one that can and should be avoided. I do not want the cuts to happen, but I also want our politicians to hold themselves accountable, something that they have struggled with lately. Overturning the agreement would only further undermine America's faith in Congress's ability to legislate. What Americans want and need is an agreement that reforms entitlement programs to save money, cuts spending from appropriate discretionary programs, and raises revenue either through higher tax rates or closing loopholes.
Without the looming specter of economic and military disaster, how will this happen? Sadly it seems as though that Congress won't reach an agreement even in the face of Panetta and Dempsey's dire warnings, let alone the obvious economic consequences. It is impossible to imagine either side giving ground - though I'm looking at one group in particular, and I'm singling you out Eric Cantor - if neither has skin in the game.
America deserves politicians that can and will solve our nation's problems, and that starts with holding themselves accountable. If they can't even do that, how are we supposed to have any faith that they can put America back on the right path?
I believe General Dempsey is telling the truth. I believe such cuts to defense spending would severely handicap the United States Military, and reverberate through the economy as cuts to weapons development would further hamper the economy. I sincerely do not want these cuts to occur.
Which is why I believe that under no circumstances should politicians pass legislation that would prevent the cuts from taking place.
As Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, "It was designed as a meat ax. It was designed to be a disaster. Because the hope was, because it's such a disaster, that Congress would respond and do what was right. And so I'm just here to tell you, yes, it would be a disaster."
A disaster. And sadly this is where we find ourselves, hoping to avoid a self-created disaster by reaching an agreement that would also prevent a second self-created disaster. If no agreement on taxes and spending is reached, taxes would go up, and spending would be cut - an economic and military disaster, but one of our own making, and one that can and should be avoided. I do not want the cuts to happen, but I also want our politicians to hold themselves accountable, something that they have struggled with lately. Overturning the agreement would only further undermine America's faith in Congress's ability to legislate. What Americans want and need is an agreement that reforms entitlement programs to save money, cuts spending from appropriate discretionary programs, and raises revenue either through higher tax rates or closing loopholes.
Without the looming specter of economic and military disaster, how will this happen? Sadly it seems as though that Congress won't reach an agreement even in the face of Panetta and Dempsey's dire warnings, let alone the obvious economic consequences. It is impossible to imagine either side giving ground - though I'm looking at one group in particular, and I'm singling you out Eric Cantor - if neither has skin in the game.
America deserves politicians that can and will solve our nation's problems, and that starts with holding themselves accountable. If they can't even do that, how are we supposed to have any faith that they can put America back on the right path?
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Feigned Anger and the Politics of Accountability
I enjoy the Economist. Though I am not a subscriber, I read the allotted number of free articles, and often, the debates. Generally speaking, the debates are good ones, with two reasonable and intelligent debaters. There are certainly exceptions, such as this embarrassment on China's military, during which one of the debaters simply eschewed the topic and used the forum as an opportunity to hammer US foreign policy. I've been bitter about that since reading it and wanted the opportunity to say something about it, but that's not what this post is about.
This post is about the Economist's current debate: does Barack Obama deserve a second term? I am predisposed to believe the answer is yes, especially when compared to the alternative. However, neither of the debaters - to this point - has made the issue a comparative one, both judging the president on his merits or lack thereof. Though I disagree with the opposition, Michael Barone, I acknowledge that he makes a number of good points. It is this quality of debate that makes me a fan of the Economist.
However, there is one issue raised by Mr. Barone with which I take much grievance. It is the issue of debt. To quote Mr. Barone, "Mr. Obama's greatest failure is his refusal to confront America's long-term fiscal problems."
This rehashed argument is flimsy at best, but it is also hypocritical in the extreme. For starters I would like to point out that the outrage Republicans feign over spending is just that, feigned. For some reason, Obama is held to a standard that other presidents don't seem to have been. Republicans did not blast President Bush for his spending, nor Reagan for his. They did predict fiscal disaster when President Clinton raised taxes in the 1990s, but of course President Clinton in the only president in the past two decades who has turned in a budget surplus even once, and he did it four times. He also presided over a period of remarkable economic growth. Where were the Republican spending hawks when President Bush was chaperoning the passage of Medicare Modernization Act through a Republican Congress? That bill was more costly than Obamacare - which of course was designed based on conservative ideas that would curtail rising healthcare costs - but I don't recall any gathering of ominous fiscal clouds when it was passed in 2003. Where were the fiscal hawks when President Clinton was bringing in more money than he spent? Busy railing against tax revenue no doubt.
This can be chalked up to politics as usual. When your guy spends it is patriotic; when the other guy spends it is excessive and portends a future of fiscal ruin and decay. But all of this ignores the real issue and the facts behind it, both of which have been cited repeatedly by myself and others.
For starters, it is worth saying that President Obama can and should do more about the deficit and controlling spending. Though he has shown a willingness to cut more than most Democrats find acceptable, he should make more serious attempts to reform entitlement spending without hurting the people who need entitlements, and he should find ways to cut the military's budget without taking away America's ability to defend itself. I would actually like for Mr. Obama and Paul Ryan to sit down together for a day and see if they could find some common ground on these issues. It needs to happen.
But having said that, Mr. Barone completely ignores the fact that by attempting to fix unemployment and the economy, President Obama is attempting to fix long-term fiscal problems. Even without any increase in tax rates, a bigger tax base means more revenue. One could perhaps say President Obama hasn't done enough to fix unemployment, but of course that blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans in Congress who have opposed any and everything the President has suggested. It can therefore be argued that they are the ones failing to address the nation's long-term fiscal outlook. Furthermore, as I have already pointed out, the only President in the last two decades to bring in a budget surplus did so with the benefit of increased tax revenue which coincided with a period of economic growth. Republicans' staunch refusal to consider higher tax rates for even the most wealthy hardly supports the claim they want to right the fiscal ship. It is rather another example of feigned anger and the politics of accountability, and two things Republicans seem to be doing well are feigning anger and eschewing responsibility.
There are reasons to be disappointed in Mr. Obama. I have listed some in previous posts, and as I stated earlier, I wish the president would show more commitment to needed entitlement reform. But the claims about his exaggerated spending are nothing short of false. Could he do more? Absolutely, and I wish he would. Has he tried? Arguably more than his predecessor who spent far more than President Obama and simultaneously lowered taxes.
Unlike the debaters from the Economist, I am not above comparisons. I think Mr. Obama deserves a second term based on his merits alone, but if "his greatest failure" is his refusal to address long-term spending, then I would still much prefer him to Mitt Romney whose fiscal plan seems to be a carbon copy of the one that got us into this mess.
This post is about the Economist's current debate: does Barack Obama deserve a second term? I am predisposed to believe the answer is yes, especially when compared to the alternative. However, neither of the debaters - to this point - has made the issue a comparative one, both judging the president on his merits or lack thereof. Though I disagree with the opposition, Michael Barone, I acknowledge that he makes a number of good points. It is this quality of debate that makes me a fan of the Economist.
However, there is one issue raised by Mr. Barone with which I take much grievance. It is the issue of debt. To quote Mr. Barone, "Mr. Obama's greatest failure is his refusal to confront America's long-term fiscal problems."
This rehashed argument is flimsy at best, but it is also hypocritical in the extreme. For starters I would like to point out that the outrage Republicans feign over spending is just that, feigned. For some reason, Obama is held to a standard that other presidents don't seem to have been. Republicans did not blast President Bush for his spending, nor Reagan for his. They did predict fiscal disaster when President Clinton raised taxes in the 1990s, but of course President Clinton in the only president in the past two decades who has turned in a budget surplus even once, and he did it four times. He also presided over a period of remarkable economic growth. Where were the Republican spending hawks when President Bush was chaperoning the passage of Medicare Modernization Act through a Republican Congress? That bill was more costly than Obamacare - which of course was designed based on conservative ideas that would curtail rising healthcare costs - but I don't recall any gathering of ominous fiscal clouds when it was passed in 2003. Where were the fiscal hawks when President Clinton was bringing in more money than he spent? Busy railing against tax revenue no doubt.
This can be chalked up to politics as usual. When your guy spends it is patriotic; when the other guy spends it is excessive and portends a future of fiscal ruin and decay. But all of this ignores the real issue and the facts behind it, both of which have been cited repeatedly by myself and others.
For starters, it is worth saying that President Obama can and should do more about the deficit and controlling spending. Though he has shown a willingness to cut more than most Democrats find acceptable, he should make more serious attempts to reform entitlement spending without hurting the people who need entitlements, and he should find ways to cut the military's budget without taking away America's ability to defend itself. I would actually like for Mr. Obama and Paul Ryan to sit down together for a day and see if they could find some common ground on these issues. It needs to happen.
But having said that, Mr. Barone completely ignores the fact that by attempting to fix unemployment and the economy, President Obama is attempting to fix long-term fiscal problems. Even without any increase in tax rates, a bigger tax base means more revenue. One could perhaps say President Obama hasn't done enough to fix unemployment, but of course that blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans in Congress who have opposed any and everything the President has suggested. It can therefore be argued that they are the ones failing to address the nation's long-term fiscal outlook. Furthermore, as I have already pointed out, the only President in the last two decades to bring in a budget surplus did so with the benefit of increased tax revenue which coincided with a period of economic growth. Republicans' staunch refusal to consider higher tax rates for even the most wealthy hardly supports the claim they want to right the fiscal ship. It is rather another example of feigned anger and the politics of accountability, and two things Republicans seem to be doing well are feigning anger and eschewing responsibility.
There are reasons to be disappointed in Mr. Obama. I have listed some in previous posts, and as I stated earlier, I wish the president would show more commitment to needed entitlement reform. But the claims about his exaggerated spending are nothing short of false. Could he do more? Absolutely, and I wish he would. Has he tried? Arguably more than his predecessor who spent far more than President Obama and simultaneously lowered taxes.
Unlike the debaters from the Economist, I am not above comparisons. I think Mr. Obama deserves a second term based on his merits alone, but if "his greatest failure" is his refusal to address long-term spending, then I would still much prefer him to Mitt Romney whose fiscal plan seems to be a carbon copy of the one that got us into this mess.
Monday, June 11, 2012
If at First You Don't Succeed
When we fail, we get back on the horse. That's just how it works. Try and try again. Keep working at it until you've gotten it. Don't stop.
This kind of grit has gotten a lot of people a long way. The determination to fix our problems is - in my humble anthropological and psychological opinion - part of what makes us human beings. Try and try again.
Of course, this can-do attitude can and does morph into stubbornness, which is not always a good thing. If the same "solutions" repeatedly fail to fix a problem, perhaps we should try something new? Sometimes, we need to change our approach to things even as we maintain our determination. The statement "he believes the same thing on Wednesday that he believed on Monday - no matter what happened Tuesday"
This is currently the state of Europe's economy, and the Europeans really are not learning from their mistakes. There is a problem - recession - and there is a proposed solution - austerity. The proposed solution has been failing for a few years in multiple countries, but there is no attempt to change the solution. European austerity just recently necessitated the bailout of Spanish banks. If things are happening in Europe, they're getting worse, not better.
As much as I hope for Europe to get its collective act together for the sake of the world economy and suffering, unemployed Europeans, I hope that America will watch the failed economic experiment happening across the pond and inject some energy and money into spurring our own economy. I hope that we will realize that unemployment, not the deficit is the pressing issue facing America, and I hope that along with that realization comes the following revelation: if we can fix the economy we can cut into the deficit without raising taxes.
One would think and hope that the goal of fixing the American economy would be tantamount to both parities. One would also hope that Republicans could reconcile spending now with cuts and little or no tax raises later. At the very least, one would hope that austerity advocates could look objectively at the impending collapse of the Eurozone (I'm admittedly accepting a worse case scenario) and reach the conclusion that austerity has failed Europe. We were lucky enough to be the lab rat that escaped the drug test, let's not force it on ourselves.
Unfortunately, it may be too late. American politicians have not, and seemingly will not take the steps needed to fix our economy. I keep hearing about spending cuts. Spending cuts are necessary...in the future. The American government can borrow money at historically low rates. Solvency and inflation are not pressing issues. We need a government that can prioritize problems and fix the most pressing ones first. Anyone who argues that fixing the deficit is going to fix the economy doesn't understand the economy. In fact just the opposite is true. Getting people back to work will help fix the deficit, and since none of the ominous predictions of the austerity hawks have come true (rampant inflation, high borrowing costs), and since we know that austerity is failing in Europe, why don't we try something different? Something like what you would learn in macroeconomics 101 for example.
It's nice to know that the get-it-done attitude that has made America and other nations successful still exists. It would be extra nice if we could temper that attitude with some objectivity and analysis before it spirals completely out of control and leads us into an economic disaster worse than the one we currently face.
This kind of grit has gotten a lot of people a long way. The determination to fix our problems is - in my humble anthropological and psychological opinion - part of what makes us human beings. Try and try again.
Of course, this can-do attitude can and does morph into stubbornness, which is not always a good thing. If the same "solutions" repeatedly fail to fix a problem, perhaps we should try something new? Sometimes, we need to change our approach to things even as we maintain our determination. The statement "he believes the same thing on Wednesday that he believed on Monday - no matter what happened Tuesday"
This is currently the state of Europe's economy, and the Europeans really are not learning from their mistakes. There is a problem - recession - and there is a proposed solution - austerity. The proposed solution has been failing for a few years in multiple countries, but there is no attempt to change the solution. European austerity just recently necessitated the bailout of Spanish banks. If things are happening in Europe, they're getting worse, not better.
As much as I hope for Europe to get its collective act together for the sake of the world economy and suffering, unemployed Europeans, I hope that America will watch the failed economic experiment happening across the pond and inject some energy and money into spurring our own economy. I hope that we will realize that unemployment, not the deficit is the pressing issue facing America, and I hope that along with that realization comes the following revelation: if we can fix the economy we can cut into the deficit without raising taxes.
One would think and hope that the goal of fixing the American economy would be tantamount to both parities. One would also hope that Republicans could reconcile spending now with cuts and little or no tax raises later. At the very least, one would hope that austerity advocates could look objectively at the impending collapse of the Eurozone (I'm admittedly accepting a worse case scenario) and reach the conclusion that austerity has failed Europe. We were lucky enough to be the lab rat that escaped the drug test, let's not force it on ourselves.
Unfortunately, it may be too late. American politicians have not, and seemingly will not take the steps needed to fix our economy. I keep hearing about spending cuts. Spending cuts are necessary...in the future. The American government can borrow money at historically low rates. Solvency and inflation are not pressing issues. We need a government that can prioritize problems and fix the most pressing ones first. Anyone who argues that fixing the deficit is going to fix the economy doesn't understand the economy. In fact just the opposite is true. Getting people back to work will help fix the deficit, and since none of the ominous predictions of the austerity hawks have come true (rampant inflation, high borrowing costs), and since we know that austerity is failing in Europe, why don't we try something different? Something like what you would learn in macroeconomics 101 for example.
It's nice to know that the get-it-done attitude that has made America and other nations successful still exists. It would be extra nice if we could temper that attitude with some objectivity and analysis before it spirals completely out of control and leads us into an economic disaster worse than the one we currently face.
Friday, June 8, 2012
What Lies Beneath
I just returned from a trip to Iceland, and before I get into this post I would like to take a moment to do some free advertising on behalf of a beautiful country. If you are ever looking for a beautiful country to visit, pick Iceland (at least in the summer). The country is scenic, the food is good, the people are friendly. Put simply, Iceland is great.
On top of that, Iceland is also interesting. The mid-Atlantic rift runs beneath the country creating a hotbed of geothermal activity that supplies the country with almost all of its electricity. Iceland is almost entirely energy independent because of the steam that rises from beneath the Earth.
America cannot rely on geothermal activity to provide all of our energy needs, but just as steam boils forth from beneath the surface of Iceland's glaciers, natural gas is trapped under the shale formations of America, and that resource - though not green or renewable - is accessible to us. We should take advantage of it.
I've posted about fracking before, but it is worth mentioning again. There are downsides to fracking certainly, and in order for us to tap into our natural gas reserves in a safe manner, the industry and the process must be well-regulated, but even tight regulations would not significantly increase the cost of extracting natural gas.
Natural gas is certainly not the energy source of the future, and we should not be counting on fossil fuels to secure America's energy future, but we should make use of American energy - which also leads to the creation of American jobs - to bridge the gap between dirty coal and foreign oil and the green and alternative energy sources of the future in which we should be investing. Natural gas is dirty, but not as dirty as coal and oil, there is a method of extracting it which, if regulated, can be done safely, and most importantly there is an abundance of the substance underneath our feet, an estimated 100 years worth.
I certainly hope America doesn't need 100 year's worth of natural gas. I would prefer if we needed 0 year's worth of natural gas. In reality, we will need some unknown number of year's worth of natural gas, presumably between 0 and 100. That energy is right beneath us. While we explore and invest in our energy future, let's use what we have to help us get there.
We may not have Icelandic steam, but we've got American natural gas. It would be a shame to waste it.
On top of that, Iceland is also interesting. The mid-Atlantic rift runs beneath the country creating a hotbed of geothermal activity that supplies the country with almost all of its electricity. Iceland is almost entirely energy independent because of the steam that rises from beneath the Earth.
America cannot rely on geothermal activity to provide all of our energy needs, but just as steam boils forth from beneath the surface of Iceland's glaciers, natural gas is trapped under the shale formations of America, and that resource - though not green or renewable - is accessible to us. We should take advantage of it.
I've posted about fracking before, but it is worth mentioning again. There are downsides to fracking certainly, and in order for us to tap into our natural gas reserves in a safe manner, the industry and the process must be well-regulated, but even tight regulations would not significantly increase the cost of extracting natural gas.
Natural gas is certainly not the energy source of the future, and we should not be counting on fossil fuels to secure America's energy future, but we should make use of American energy - which also leads to the creation of American jobs - to bridge the gap between dirty coal and foreign oil and the green and alternative energy sources of the future in which we should be investing. Natural gas is dirty, but not as dirty as coal and oil, there is a method of extracting it which, if regulated, can be done safely, and most importantly there is an abundance of the substance underneath our feet, an estimated 100 years worth.
I certainly hope America doesn't need 100 year's worth of natural gas. I would prefer if we needed 0 year's worth of natural gas. In reality, we will need some unknown number of year's worth of natural gas, presumably between 0 and 100. That energy is right beneath us. While we explore and invest in our energy future, let's use what we have to help us get there.
We may not have Icelandic steam, but we've got American natural gas. It would be a shame to waste it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)