Support Just Because

I previously wrote about situations where the opposition party opposes a policy just because theya re in the opposition but don't have any alternatives. There are also situations where the president's party will support something that is against their ideology but want to give the president a victory. I will point to two examples:

-Medicare Part D: Republicans voted for this under President Bush. This is good policy, but goes against the limited government ideology of Republicans. If Obama had proposed this, it would have been called socialism and received not one Republican vote.

-Drone Strikes (especially against Americans): Democrats are staying mostly quite while Obama does something that clearly violates civil liberties. These are bomb strikes away from the field of battle (unless increasing the field of battle to the point of meaninglessness). If this is okay, how is Guantanamo Bay illegal? If a Republican were doing this, there is no way Democrats would be silent.

In both cases, victories for the President (and therefore the party) are more important than sticking to ideology. Medicare Part D was popular, even though it wasn’t paid for. And drone strikes make Obama and Democrats look tough on foreign policy.

The same is true in reverse. What is important is not whether Healthcare reform was good policy (which Cato, Romney, and Gingrich all thought it was), but whether Healthcare will give Obama a victory.

I should give Republicans some credit though. While their opposition on things like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan have been stupid and just done to oppose Obama for the sake of it, they haven’t opposed the drone strikes. They are happy to let Obama take some credit here, maybe only because they can say they were right all along. 

Great Modern Presidents? No.

On some professional-ish blog somewhere, the author took a poll of the best (and worst) president since FDR. So I figured I would give my two cents here. Basically, I don't think there have been any great presidents since FDR. You won't be surprised to know that I won't consider any Republicans great, since by and large they want less services and smaller government. And of the Democrats, I don't think any were very good. But let's go through the list.

Truman: To be sure, my knowledge is a little limited here. I watched the American Experience documentary but I haven't read the McCullough book. And it seems most Truman-lovers have read the McCullough book. So maybe there is something I am missing. And maybe the American Experience movie was biased or gave a bad impression.

But I just don't see a lot to be excited about. Among his first acts was to drop two atomic bombs on Japanese cities. He could have first shown their power by dropping on a military target or somewhere underpopulated. Instead, he chose to massacre (or allowed his military leaders to choose to massacre) tens of thousands of people. 

Further, his prosecution of the Korean War lead to thousands more American deaths than necessary. Now, maybe he received bad advice from MacArthur and the CIA. But it still seems obvious that China would in fact intervene if the UN proceeded north of the 38th parallel. And they did and we almost lost the war because of it.

On the domestic front, he was anti-union at almost every turn. And although his Marshall Plan is seen as a major success, it came at the cost of starting the Red Scare. And in so doing, Truman started an effort to ruin the lives of people just because they held an economic belief in communism. So much for freedom of speech and thought.

Dwight Eisenhower: He might be the best of the bunch. In his 8 years, there isn't anything too exciting. The interstate highway system, though supportive of cars over public transportation, was probably smart for its time and in a country as big as America. He also enforced school desegregation and implemented integration of the military. His foreign policy isn't great (especially with the CIA if you believe Legacy of Ashes) but it wasn't terrible. Overall, a competent and not too conservative president. In fact, maybe it was better to have a pause on the New Deal programs than further expansion (which might have led to a knee-jerk reversal).

John F. Kennedy: He only had three years (1961-1963) but there isn't much good to say. His foreign policies were a disaster: Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis (not as bad as it could have been, but JFK and RFK come off looking like amateurs), Vietnam, etc. Peace Corps however is a positive. What else is there?

Lyndon Johnson: I like the ideas of Great Society, though it didn't seem to have a lasting impact. Maybe the policies weren't well thought out. But more likely, Vietnam pulled needed resources away. And nothing was worse for America since World War II - maybe in our history - than Vietnam. Over 50,000 Americans died and a million or more Vietnamese. The bombing campaigns were brutal and disgusting. Just truly appalling.

Richard Nixon: Maybe the worst of the bunch. He had no respect for the rule of law and blatantly abused his office (Watergate; Daniel Ellsburg). He continued the Vietnam War despite a campaign promise to end it "with dignity". His detente with China is laudable. But his anti-communist policies in Chile et al were despicable.

Gerald Ford: I don't actually know what to say about Ford. All I really know about his presidency is that he pardoned Nixon. I don't have strong feelings about that decision, but I certainly don't love it.

Jimmy Carter: Egypt / Israel peace deal was a success and thanks to his hard work. However, his work on the Iranian hostage crisis was ineffective. And he didn't give Americans confidence during the energy crisis. Overall, not a great presidency.

I will say though that his work since being president has been truly a marvel. His efforts on curable and preventable diseases in developing countries has been amazing. I think he has been a good, though controversial voice on Israel / Palestine; I don't know if I agree with all he has said, but I think he is raising some strong points. I don't know if Bill Clinton acknowledges this, but I bet he is using Carter as an example for post-president activity.

Ronald Reagan: On domestic programs, he was heartless. His rhetoric about welfare moms driving Cadillacs set us back decades in the fight to improve the lives of low income families. He gutted so many social programs and justified it by talking about government waste. His line that government is the problem has lead to the current conservative climate that actually believes such nonsense without qualification.

On foreign policy, he wasn't much better. Many give him credit for ending the Cold War - by spending so much on military that the Soviet Union could not keep up, but tried, and eventually collapsed. Maybe he could have accomplished the same thing by spending as much on social programs. It is also possible that the Soviet Union was on its way with or without our military deficit-spending (in other words, Gorbachev ended the Cold War, not Reagan). His decisions to trade arms for hostages in Iran, despite saying he wasn't, was despicable. And he continued policies to fight any and all "leftist groups" even by supporting worse right-wing groups.

So overall, I would say Regan was a disaster.

George H.W. Bush: He made the right decision in the Gulf War (not to go on to Baghdad). Some say his calm (and inactivity) during the fall of the Soviet Union was just what was needed. He raised taxes when we needed it. And some argue that he put us on the road to economic recovery but didn't see the electoral benefits. Not a bad presidency. But nothing great to be proud of.

Bill Clinton: He passed welfare reform, so blaming the poor could now be a bipartisan issue. He continued America's trend of not getting involved to stop genocides - this time in Rwanda. His serious personal problems led to an impeachment. On the bright side there was Bosnia, where we did finally get involved in a genocide (better late than never). And we had a very strong economy and budget surpluses - though how much of that was due to Clinton is unclear. There isn't a lot to love, and a few things to hate. 

Like Carter, his post-president life has been much better. His work on AIDS and energy seems to be paying great dividends.

George W. Bush: He turned budget surpluses into budget deficits (but has avoided blame). Much of this is due to his unfunded tax cuts. He pushed us into an unnecessary war in Iraq. He opened Guantanamo Bay as well as worse "black site" international prisons. He pushed for illegal NSA surveillance of Americans. He took his eyes off of the War in Afghanistan, which is why we are still fighting it. He condoned torture, including in the form of waterboarding. (As bad as this is, the current crop of Republican contenders don't have Bush's moderate streak, meaning its hard to imagine a Medicare Part D or No Child Left Behind, the first of which was unfunded and the second I don't love but could have been much worse.)

Barack Obama: He let Congress pass pretty good health care legislation (which he didn't defend and is now unpopular). He was successful at passing an updated nuclear treaty with Russia. He also let Congress pass decent, though not strong enough, financial reform. However, we have a terrible economy, in part because he took his eyes off of it and focused instead on long term budget deficits. He has expanded drone strikes, including killing of Americans without due process. And he hasn't closed Guantanamo Bay. 

Conclusion: It is difficult to be completely objective. I go easy on Republican presidents that were competent but made little major changes. However, I am obviously very tough on Democratic presidents - holding them to the liberal ideal.

In fact, if I were to be as objective as possible, I might see that Carter and Obama, and George H.W. Bush and Eisenhower, were all relatively effective and did not make the world much worse. Truman (Atomic Bomb, Communism, Korea), Johnson and Nixon (Vietnam), Reagan (domestic policy, oppressive right-wing governments), Clinton (welfare reform, Rwanda), and George W. Bush (torture, deficits, Iraq) all did things that either were terrible domestic policy or needlessly killed tens of thousands of people in foreign countries.

So none of these presidents did enough to be considered great. If I had to pick a best, I might go with Eisenhower. If I had to pick the worst, it would be Nixon - though he has some people right on his heels: Johnson and Reagan. 

Putting aside objectivity, I will say that despite my lukewarm feelings on all presidents, I am willing to let my infant son wear shirts with Democratic presidents - even ones I don't think were terribly effective. But there is no way I would put him in a onesie with a Republican on it. Well, maybe Eisenhower. Maybe.

Also, I will continue this thread looking further back. I have plans to read more about FDR, Jackson, and Wilson. I imagine I will also eventually get to Teddy Roosevelt and Jefferson at some point after that. So far, the only presidents I would consider great are Lincoln and Washington (though I need to remind myself about Washington). Somehow, I think I am too critical to think highly of anyone else. We'll see though.

Update: I didn't mention civil rights under LBJ. Including that only changes my opinion slightly. I give way more credit to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., SNCC, SCLC, and all the other groups that really made it happen by bringing attention to the issue. But I do concede that LBJ did his best to get the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act passed, where a different president might not have tried or might not have been successful. But Vietnam is such a huge disaster that it looms over everything else.

Hitchens Considered

The passing of Christopher Hitchens this week has created countless articles about his life, his work, and his impact. A lot of it is flattering. Some are critical and harsh - though as these articles point out, Hitchens believed you should write honestly about someone even once they have died. So if that person was terrible, you should still feel free to write that.

My feelings on him are more mixed. On his positions, I think he was too harsh towards Mother Theresa. And while I am glad he is so vocal about Kissinger, I can't quite reconcile that with his full-throated support of the Iraq War and the War on Terrorism generally. Though his piece on water-boarding was smart (and yet he didn't seem to attack those who push that policy - the same people that pushed the war).

But I loved his thoughts on atheism and why religion is bad for society. I don't agree with it, but his thoughts and arguments were so well constructed.

In fact, I think the way most felt about Hitchens was that because he is a strong debater / arguer, you want him on your side. But if he isn't on your side, you hate him. He was pugnacious and intense, but definitely logical and pretty well-read.

What I really appreciated about him was how seriously he took debating and writing. I think we need much more of that - not what we see on TV, but more like what you would get in a Hitchens debate. Debates should be very smart and informed but also tough and combative. We should be able - in fact we should love - to debate with the other side. I'm not saying anyone will come away changing their mind, but creating a culture where debates happen - where ideas are tested - is necessary.

I'll let you in on a dream I have. I dream of creating a popular debate forum - one that is part Hitchens and part John Stewart (his good interviews with conservative guests on the Daily Show), where really smart people can take a really long time debating relevant issues. I saw glimpses of that when Hitchens would square off with someone. And I want to see much more of it. 

Oppose Just Because

After watching a Republican president deal with a difficult and unpopular situation and now a Democrat deal with a different but difficult and unpopular situation, I am convinced that in these cases, the opposition party often just makes sure to disagree with the leader without any good solutions.

The first situation I am talking about is Iraq before the surge. At that time, the Iraq War was going very badly - it was unpopular and Bush was being criticized for the very poor management of the war. Democrats at that time played on the president's unpopularity by attacking the war. But the only solution they offered was to leave, even though leaving meant allowing the country to devolve completely into civil war. Fortunately, Bush pushed through the surge - and even more fortunately the Sunni awakening happened at the same time - and Iraq came back from the brink.

The second situation is the current economic malaise and Obama's handling of it. There is unemployment near 9% and interest rates that cannot get any lower to create growth. Republicans will not support fiscal stimulus and even oppose further easy money policies (calling it treason). They use the economy to beat up on the president but offer no real solutions. Their one big talking point is decreasing regulations, which is not at all serious (though admittedly would do less harm than Democratic proposals to pull out of Iraq).

The major difference is that Bush was able to push through the surge in spite of Democratic objections. So he saved Iraq despite Democrat's opposition. Obama is unable to do anything similar for the economy.

What is important is that in both cases, the best solution is / was more of what the president has / had been trying. For Bush it was more troops. For Obama it is more stimulus (and easy money). But the opposition party cannot admit that what the president was doing was right but not enough, especially when that is unpopular. So the best they can do for themselves is to oppose everything, let the situation deteriorate, and reap the political rewards. Sad.

On the Economy and No Lost Decade

So I've been thinking about the long term prospects for the economy - but through a political lens. As I see our economic woes (as they exist right now we have a stagnant economy - if the Eurozone collapses, we'll have a whole other set of problems), we need much more action to really get a recovery going. We need either (or both) a big stimulus or more aggressive monetary efforts including allowing changing inflation expectations until unemployment decreases.

But given our political situation, neither of those options seems likely. President Obama is not going to get much if any stimulus. And the fed is stuck doing things that would have seemed wildly aggressive five years ago but are now far too feeble with little indication that it will get bold (truth be told, the fed is still acting like it has one mandate - inflation - when it in fact has two - inflation and employment).

Worse still, with a dragging economy, Obama is unlikely in my book to be reelected (nor do I think he particularly deserves it - he decided, or at least acquiesced, to focus on balancing the budget while unemployment was still above 9 percent). And with a conservative president, we are even less likely to get any stimulus. Maybe we could get a tax cut, though with Republicans pretending to be fiscally responsible, we might not even get that. We haven't so far, as Republicans are happy to let the economy suffer if it means better electoral prospects and denying Obama any victories.

So this should mean that the economy will be stuck for the next five years (ie lost decade). What has got me thinking however is the possibility that the economy does start to really recover sometime in 2013 or 2014 even absent any intervention by then-President Romney or the federal reserve. If that happens, what does that say about liberal prognostications on the economy?

It would at least allow Republicans to say that the best medicine was to do nothing. But is that what it really means? Or does it mean that the economy will / would have eventually recover(ed) and that Republican obstructions slowed the recovery? I would assume the later, but it is difficult to prove. And it certainly decreases the urgency of liberal action. In other words, if the recovery will happen in five years without help, is it worth it / necessary to do something in year two - especially if some effects (construction programs) might take a year or two to show an effect?

Clearly I don't have any answers right now - especially since the question is hypothetical and based on Obama losing and Romney doing nothing (short of rolling back some regulations). But it is something I want to be prepared to think about.

Gingrich v. Romney

Dear Conservative, 

I see that in the latest, and probably last, iteration of the your anyone-but-Romney fickleness, Newt Gingrich has surged in the polls. In the past, I have avoided writing on the newest surge because I assumed the person would crash. There are a lot of reasons why Gingrich might (money, staff, erratic behavior, skeletons), but the right is desperate, and he might actually stick around.

Since I think I am pretty good at thinking like a conservative, I am going to talk through with you the decision you might face: Romney versus Gingrich.

First, I want to acknowledge that you face a difficult task. Between the two, there is only one similarity I can think of: Both candidates have a history of supporting positions that are now unsupportable - namely carbon cap and trade and health care individual mandate.

Other than that, the candidates are pretty different. Romney is perceived as a moderate that has flipped to win the primary - which makes him untrustworthy. However, he is also seen as competent and probably a good manager; his business successes and time as governor support that perception. And though he seems slippery, maybe robotic, he doesn't have any baggage around family issues that Gingrich has.

Gingrich has conservative credentials. So his flipping is perceived as erratic - or better, excused because others in the party have flipped (ie Heritage Foundation). He is seen as an ideas man, though maybe too wildly seeking new ideas and not grounded enough to manage an administration well. And though he is smart, some of his ideas and theories are not well thought-out. Also, his history with his wives shows a major lack of compassion, loyalty and moral decency - and his timing with the impeachment reeks of hypocrisy (though you probably don't care about that - better to go after a liberal like Clinton hypocritically than to be consistent and therefore not impeach a Democratic president). 

Finally, and perhaps the worst unless he can continue to disingenuously sweet talk his way out of it, is his lobbying. I don't think people will continue to buy that Gingrich was only providing history lessons for millions of dollars. And, if you are getting paid to support an idea, even if you would like the idea anyway, it is still lobbying.

In looking at the two options, I think you, dear conservative, have a difficult choice. A robotic but competent former governor whose core positions and values seem open for change with the winds or an erratic but full of ideas former legislator and lobbyist who lacks compassion and loyalty. I would probably go with the one more likely to be a good manager. But then again, maybe having loyalty to conservative principles is more important. And despite his erraticness sometimes, Gingrich is better on that front.

My Predicament

In November of 2012, I will face a difficult decision. I will need to vote for a candidate for president. Here is where the predicament is. Ideologically, I will be more closely aligned with the Democrat - Barack Obama. However, I don't think President Obama has been very effective, especially on the policy that is and has been most urgent: the economy and jobs.

In fact, I think our president hasn't even been good at articulating what needs to happen to improve the economy. He passed a stimulus that he knew at the time was too small but pretended it was big enough. And then he changed the conversation to budget deficits (going along with Republicans) way too soon when job growth was non-existent. And now he is pushing for a jobs plan that is decent, but has no chance of passing.

Having said all that, his Republican challenger, whoever that may be (but hopefully Romney), will have much worse ideas. The GOP candidate will probably talk about decreasing regulation and cutting taxes for the rich - two solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.

So what am I to do? Clearly, I will vote Democrat and so vote for Obama. His policies are at least better than his opponents will be. Unfortunately though this means returning someone to a job he probably doesn't deserve. But when your choice for a job is between only two candidates, you have to choose the better of the two - the perfect doesn't exist.

Having said all that, my decision still isn't complete. In 2008, I volunteered a good amount of my time for candidate Obama's campaign. I know many other people did this as well. I have decided now that I won't do that this time around. I volunteered because I believed in Obama. I believed in his message - of moving past the baby boomers' arguments and divisiveness; of accomplishing real change.

I realize now that I was naive to do that. And while, part of the fault lies with me, part of the fault also lies with him. You see, debates are necessary. Sometimes being disagreeable is necessary. But more than that, change comes through leadership and strength. And I haven't seen that in our president. He seems to lead from behind.

So I won't volunteer. And I know many others feel the same way. Which might doom President Obama's campaign. That is too bad. But if you campaign on change, you need to achieve it. Or at least look like you are really fighting for it.

Volker Rule Brief Analysis

I completely agree with this WSJ Op-Ed on the Volker Rule. 

Reasonable people have seen enough to say that Washington is incapable of drawing bright lines and applying clear rules fairly across all securities markets. The result is all but certain to be a final rule that different people will interpret different ways, leading to loopholes for traders and arbitrary enforcement.

Under this Beltway rendering of Volcker, trading will continue but with a much higher bureaucratic cost and with the illusion of safety that only regulation can create. Until the government is willing to create a durable financial system that allows failure, the best policy response is to make the rules so simple that even Washington can enforce them. That means higher, even very high, bank capital standards and margin requirements on risky trades between banks. Those aren't panaceas, but they offer more hope for taxpayers than the bureaucratic and bank-lobbyist jump ball that is now the Volcker Rule.

I am frustrated with what I am learning about the financial reform legislation (Dodd-Frank). In the interest of compromise (or should I say giving special interests what they want), Volker was watered down and punted to the admin. What we have is weak, confusing, and worst of all has the illusion of safety.

While some blame goes to Republicans and moderate Democrats for blocking a strong Volker Rule, I think the lions share of the blame goes to Democrats in Congress. They were unable to create an easy bright line rule. As if trying to conform to stereotypes, they created excessively long and confusing legislation. But also legislation that punts to the admin and forces them to create longer and more confusing rules.

This isn't good policy. And it doesn't make Democrats look good.

Too Big to Fail

Moderate GOP candidate Jon Huntsman had brief attention recently for suggesting Dodd-Frank did not end Too Big to Fail and for proposing some solutions. After reading Matthew Yglesias, I have to agree that Huntsman doesn't propose anything serious to deal with this problem.

I don't completely disagree with Huntsman's analysis that Dodd-Frank financial reform bill did not end Too Big to Fail. While it provides for a way to wind down big banks if they face trouble, the government might still feel the need to provide a bail out instead (or in addition?).

Huntsman seems to call for a repeal of Dodd-Frank, then that a provision similar or the same as Dodd-Frank's wind-down be enacted. He also calls for a tax on these large institutions (which I think Republicans opposed). None of this seems new or too strong.

If we want to end Too Big to Fail, we need to actually break up big banks. Otherwise, I think we are doing all we can.

My Move Left

For those of you that are long time followers of my blog (anyone?) or people close to me, you might be thinking that I seem to have moved left over the years*. One or two people have said this outright, and so I have given it some thought.

Ultimately, my conclusion is that I was more moderate during the Iraq War, mostly because I found that Democrats had no viable solution except to attack the war and attack Bush. I thought we had to stay in Iraq (you break it, you own it). So I wanted to support people that understood that and had good proposals. Along those lines, I liked people like McCain, Powell, Biden (though his solution was crazy).

But I don’t think my domestic policies have changed any. And now that domestic policy dominates, I think it appears that I have moved left, when in reality, the issues changed to things on which I am more liberal.

To be honest though, I cannot say for sure that I haven't moved left on foreign policy. I still think I was right to defend staying in Iraq. And I think I always supported the surge. But I do have a vague feeling that I was a bit more hawkish, at least at in 2004. Thoughts?


*There was a time when I had said that I would support John McCain for president. This was long before his 2008 campaign though, when he turned far to the right to appease his base.

The Reason for Taxes

Democrats are often accused of favoring redistribution of wealth. I think that is inaccurate. Some liberals may feel this way, but I think most do not. And I especially do not feel this way. Instead, I believe in having energetic government that protects rights (courts, regulatory oversight), provides for growth (education, research, and infrastructure) and helps those at the bottom (by providing social safety net, food and housing) and helps them move up (education, job training).

In order to achieve this, we need to raise revenues. If we agree that we need these programs, and I think a majority of Americans do agree, than we need to pay for it. And to do so, the burden should fall on everyone, but the rich should pay more. This is why we do, and should, have a progressive income tax structure. It isn’t to punish the rich. It is to pay for necessary programs.

Furthermore, talking about who should pay for the services we need, and pointing out that the rich keep trying to get tax cuts at the expense of the poor is not class warfare. Implementing policies that actually do increase the burdens on the middle and lower classes so the rich can pay less is class warfare.

A Mistake

I agree with this series at Foreign Policy - the Nobel Peace Prize given to President Barack Obama was a mistake. Here is the relevant quote:

Obama also surprised many by devoting much of his Nobel lecture to a defense of the legitimate use of force.

Indeed, the Nobel seems to have been given to candidate Obama -- the one defined by his opposition to the war in Iraq, promise to close Guantánamo, and pledge to foster dialogue with hostile governments -- rather than President Obama, better known for the Afghan surge, a massively expanded drone war, military intervention in Libya, and the extrajudicial killings of Anwar al-Awlaki and Osama bin Laden. Not to mention that Gitmo's still open and there's been little progress made on Middle East peace.

These actions may all be justifiable, but they're likely not what the committee had in mind.

Flat Tax v. Simple Tax

There has been a log of talk lately about the need to simplify the tax code. Let's start by assuming that is true (at the end of this post, I'll briefly address whether it is true). Right now, we have a tax code that is both progressive - meaning tax rates change as income changes - and has a lot of exemptions and deductions.

What makes the tax code complicated are the exemptions and deductions, which are numerous and the wealthy can use to decrease their tax liability. The progressive nature of the code is not what is complicated. In fact, without exemptions, figuring out your tax liability would be simple. You pay a certain percentage on your income below a certain amount, and a higher percentage on income above that amount.

What we are seeing from Republican candidates are proposals for flat taxes, which eliminate deductions and the progressive tax code. They are trying to make it sound like a flat tax is necessary to simplify the code while hiding that what will really happen is a tax cut for the wealthy. They are also adding back in some exemptions (Herman Cain's 999), which seems to be the worst of both worlds - a regressive tax that remains complicated.

Before I end, I do want to address whether the complication is necessary. The exemptions and deductions are used to incentivize certain behaviors. We can argue the merits of each exemption, but in general, we should decide whether we want a simple code and forgo providing incentives for things like homeownership, donations to charity, and affordable housing to name a few.

I don't have a strong opinion at the moment. I would rather affordable housing be provided through direct spending rather than tax spending. However, I realize tax spending is easier to implement than direct spending - contrary to rational economics models, there appears to be a psychological difference between the two. And I think charity spending is often to museums and private colleges, which may not be the most deserving or urgent needs. But I could be convinced that we need the incentives if there are better examples.

Who are the 99 Percent?

The recent Occupy Wall Street protests have been referencing the 99 percent versus the 1 percent - ie the percentiles of income distribution in the US. But I think it is important that we all see what the different income levels are at the different percentiles.

Income percentiles (from Tax Policy Center) 
25%: $19,375
50%: $42,327
75%: $85,811
90%: $154,131
99%: $506,533

There is more nuance available if you want it. Numbers are different based on location (median income in NYC is $50,173) and tax filing status (median income for married filing jointly is $74,608). But this should give a general sense.

I won’t say where I am on this chart, but I will say that I don’t feel as high up as I am, which is apparently a pretty common phenomenon. I think I, and others, feel this way because purchasing power among much of the chart is relatively similar. I am still facing things I cannot afford that seem like basics. In other words, I would expect that someone at my position in the percentiles would have much more disposable income than I do. But overall, I am pretty comfortable, so I am not complaining.

Anyway, now when people talk about the 99 percent, we know who that is. And we know who the 99th percentile are. 

About the Occupation (of Wall Street)

The protests on and near Wall Street continue and are starting to get regular coverage. I work a few blocks away and so have witnessed them in their element at Liberty Square Park as well as marching and speaking outside my building near City Hall.

My initial thoughts about the protests were that they were kind of silly. They seemed to lack a purpose and goal. Why protest Wall Street? Even at its most successful, would a protest convince Wall Street to be less profit-driven? If you want to affect Wall Street, you need to change laws.

But I am starting to feel differently. While I still think it is more than a little nebulous, I think it might serve a really good purpose. This could finally be the response to the Tea Party - which is itself nebulous and a little silly. I think we need a strong and vocal liberal wing of the party that can actually push our moderate leaders to move away from center-right policies and embrace at the very least center-left.

I had been thinking that there would eventually be a left-wing movement again (I think I first heard Peggy Noonan raise the possibility). But my prediction, which I hadn't voiced yet, was that it would come after the 2012 elections. I figured we would probably get a Republican president, almost definitely get a Republican senate, and might keep a Republican House. If that happened, the Republicans would definitely overreach and try to ax popular government programs. And this would prompt the liberal awakening. Independents would also revolt because they would finally realize that smaller government means less services and cuts to programs they actually like.

If all of this can start before the 2012 elections and avoid a Republican government, that would be great. So I really do hope this movement, which had humble beginnings, can create a space where liberal / progressive values are once again championed - and loudly. And remember, we don't have to agree with everything in the movement, but we do need it to be counterbalance to the crazies on the right that are at the moment driving policy.

Goodbye to a Friend

A few weeks ago I went to a celebration of the life of a friend. I went to graduate school with her and she died recently from an aggressive form of cancer. There are a lot of reasons why this has affected me, but I want to focus on one part in particular for this blog.

My friend was a government superstar. We had both received Master's Degrees from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. It is one of the best schools in the country for public administration, and at one of the best schools, she has been one of the most successful. Her obituary in the Washington Post talks briefly about her work on human rights at the State Department. And at the celebration of her life, her coworkers talked about all of her amazing accomplishments. (She seemingly had my dream job - though for me it is just a dream and not something I actually work towards nor am even near qualified for. For her it was a dream job and she lived it and was amazing at it.)

What I take away from this is that while she died young and leaves behind a loving husband and young daughter, she can take solace in the life she lived and what she accomplished; she has done so much for human rights around the world.

At Maxwell, we were taught the Athenian Oath, which ends as follows:

We will transmit this city not only not less, but greater, better and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us.

This means, at its most simple, to make sure that when we leave, that we have improved the world around us. My friend did this. And she did so much so soon, that even at the young age of 34 she can say she delivered the city much, much greater.

You might guess that there is political commentary coming. And you are right. I want to be able to say the same thing when I leave. And that is what I don't understand about conservatism. At it's base, it is about smaller government - less taxes and less services. Most often this means less services for those in need. And whether intentional or not, it often means under-producing other beneficial public goods like education and infrastructure.

The point is that I just can't imagine being satisfied with a life that is spent not improving the world, not trying to make things better, and not trying to help people. Without that, what is your legacy? We are only here for a brief time, and so we should be making sure we are improving the world while we are here. And that is why I am a Democrat.

I can only hope to come close to the example my friend left for us.

Why Not Monetary Policy

I wonder if we (liberals) made a bad decision not to focus more on monetary policy solutions to our unemployment problems. I have taken a lot of my cues from Paul Krugman, and while he acknowledged that there were things the fed could do, he seemed to calling more strongly for fiscal stimulus.

There was a speech by the head of the Chicago Federal Reserve calling for greater fed action. His logic is simple and clear: the fed has a dual mandate - to maintain optimal levels of inflation and unemployment. We can say that the optimal levels are probably 2 percent for inflation and 6 percent for unemployment (a conservative estimate for full employment).

With unemployment 3 points higher than optimal, the fed should be doing way more. In fact, it should be willing to accept 3 percent inflation if it means bringing unemployment down to say 7 percent. And the Fed signaling their willingness to tolerate higher inflation is one of the non-standard tools Krugman said was possible to help bring down unemployment.

I - and many liberal economics commentators - love the speech. But I really think we should have been pushing for this much harder already. Fiscal stimulus was a non-starter. Obama couldn't achieve it. I believe he should have called for it and made Republicans look bad. But he couldn't get it. But he could have gotten more action from the Fed.

And he could have turned it into a great argument with Republicans. Imagine them fighting against monetary policy - so extreme they oppose Milton Freedman. And we could have had a debate about which is more important, inflation or unemployment? Republicans favor bankers, Democrats favor the unemployed.

In this case, all he had to do was convince the Fed that he was right - not ideologically extreme Republicans. And I think he could have won the debate as well.

But it's not too late (though Obama didn't mention it in his jobs speech). We need to push this front. Obama's jobs initiatives will be helpful (depending on how much is passed). But this could do a lot and sooner. And with less budget implications.

Failed Stimulus

I don't think this analysis of the stimulus is too off-base. Basically, the stimulus was poorly targeted. That is what happens when Congress gets to pass a stimulus. They see it as an opportunity to fund things they like, not necessarily things that will do the most for the economy.

I get that. I do. But I still think that a less-effective stimulus is better than no stimulus at all. It helped, but was too small and poorly targeted. And that is one reason we are where we are.

On a side note, I think they are unfair to Krugman. If I am not mistaken, I think he acknowledged that the stimulus was poorly targeted.

Clean Air - Later

Last week, Obama announced he wouldn't allow the EPA to change the clean air regulations to toughen the ground level ozone standards. At some level, I get it. During a recession - or in this case a very weak recovery - government is reluctant to increase the costs on companies. Even in a situation when it seems companies don't lack money, they lack sales and any reason to hire and expand (ie demand is depressed).

But the way Obama did it seemed poor political strategy. What he should have said was, "Considering the state of our economy, I am being risk averse. I don't want to do anything that might add costs. But I want to be clear, we are not facing 9 percent unemployment because of regulations. And changing regulations won't get us out of the recession."

He should have used it as an opportunity to pick a fight with Republicans. Instead, once again he changed a policy and adopted Republican talking points. It made him look weak and unprincipled. And it made it look like Republicans are right about regulations.

Intelligence in Politics

I am sure I have written about this in the past, I want to add some new thoughts. With Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry in the running for the Republican presidential nomination, there is talk again about whether those two are smart enough to be president. Republicans often bristle at this and I think often misunderstand what is meant.

First, let me say that I agree that a president needs to be smart as a minimum qualification. But that isn't at all based on education. And the best way to illustrate this is to look at some examples. George W. Bush was educated at private high school and ivy league undergrad and business school (Exeter, Yale, and Harvard, respectively). But I would not consider him smart and often felt that he wasn't up to the job intelligence-wise.

Compare that to someone like Karl Rove, whom I do not like at all, but I would consider pretty smart. But Rove does not have a college degree. As you can see, that doesn't matter to me in terms of assessing his intelligence.

Much was made of Sarah Palin's peripatetic college history. Someone with her history could still be very smart. However it was used as another piece of evidence of her lack of intelligence - something people could tell based on how she answered questions.

The point is that many Republicans are very smart: John McCain (last in his class at Naval Academy but I don't hold that against him), John Boehner, New Gingrich (though he is accused of having an undisciplined mind), Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, Mitch McConnell. The problem many liberals have is with the few that squeak by that don't seem to be very smart. George W. Bush, Rick Perry (maybe less so), Michelle Bachmann, and Sarah Palin are the ones that come to mind that I would consider not up to the task.

To be clear, intelligence should be necessary, but not sufficient. John Kerry went to Harvard and is very smart. But I would say he might not have made the best president. And as smart as Obama is, he is not doing as well as many had hoped.

One last thing: I am realizing how Sarah Palin has set the bar lower in terms of intelligence. With her at one point considered a very strong contender for the nomination had she entered, I think we witnessed a new low (even Ann Coulter seems to admit that Palin isn't smart enough). And since she hasn't run, I feel so relived and am now more inclined to view Bachmann, Perry, and even Bush as smart enough since they are smarter than Palin. I don't think that is a good thing.

On Compromise and Obama

This is the second of two related pieces on Obama. The first talked about Obama's decision to be a moderate. This one will talk about Obama's belief in compromise above all else. 

First, let me state clearly that I don't mind compromise. In fact, I think it is often necessary for anything to happen and for us as a society to progress.

It seems that the president has decided that voters want compromise. But he thinks that he has to start out by showing how willing he is to compromise. In other words, if he says the word compromise early enough and often enough, voters will see that he is the reasonable one and the Republicans the crazy ones.

But I don't think voters care when you say compromise, as long as you do compromise. In fact, in every situation, Obama has shown signs of good faith and not been rewarded by voters or his adversaries in the Republican party. He put forward a stimulus with significant tax cuts instead of making them demand it (and received 3 Republican votes for his troubles). He put forward a health care bill modeled on Romney's plan in Massachusetts instead of something more liberal (and received not votes). And his positioning on the debt limit has been nothing other than bending over backwards to show his willingness to compromise. 

In none of these cases have voters shown signs of approving of his signs of good faith. And it certainly hasn't helped his negotiating position.

What he should do is start from a position of strength, and let the deal in the end be the sign of his willingness to compromise. And this would benefit liberal positions as well because he could spend time defending liberal ideals and then reach a compromise that has more of what he wants.

The bottom line is this: I and most voters want leaders to compromise, but we expect them to at least defend their position first.

On Moderation and Obama

I respect the idea of moderation and centrism. The answer is sometimes in the middle. And moderates can do good to blunt the edges of the extremes on each side. But if you are going to be a moderate, you need to own it; in other words, it needs to come from core beliefs and not smell of political opportunism.

I can think of two examples of moderates that own it. David Brooks is a good example. He is a moderate conservative. Overall he believes in limited but energetic government. He is sometimes skeptical of government programs and thinks communities are better at solving problems. But he does believe government should do things like spend money on education and infrastructure.

Mitt Romney is another example - at least the Mitt Romney before he developed presidential aspirations. That Mitt Romney wants less taxes on businesses and fewer regulations. But he isn't opposed to new health care programs or social security. And he doesn't disbelieve science like global warming or evolution. That the current Mitt Romney no longer stands by those positions helps prove my point. By going more extreme, people don't believe he is genuine. 

President Obama does not own his moderation. His previous positions sometimes show that he doesn't come by it naturally. And other times he shows it by trying to have it both ways.

Let's look at some examples for Obama. On same sex marriage, Obama has staked out an absurd position. He tries to support New York's law allowing same sex marriage, but he does this by nodding to states' rights. He also says that he personally supports civil union but that his position is evolving. So he is staking out a position in the middle - civil unions - but also winking to the left saying he really agrees with them.

As as a senator, Obama was a leading critic of the Bush administration on foreign policy. Yet as president, he has barely changed anything but the most extreme. He has ended the use of torture, but won't close Guantanamo Bay and uses drone attacks with reckless abandon. He even argued for war while receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. And his policy towards Israel has only barely changed compared to Bush. All of this lack of change has left the Muslim world liking him no more than Bush.

And most recently, he has committed to shrinking the budget. He uses language like, "Government needs to live within its means," but also says government needs to take care of its people. It's as if he wants to defend government spending.

Some see this as trying to be all things to all people. I see it as someone that believes in liberal values, but doesn't trust the voters to support him if he stands up for those things. He thinks voters want him to be moderate. But voters can tell when you aren't being yourself.

Republican Primary Prediction

Rick Perry's entrance to the field has shaken things up a bit. He is now in front in most polls. This has shaken up my prediction a bit.

Before Perry joined the race, I was convinced Romney would win the nomination and then beat Obama. After all, with the economy as bad as it is, and Obama unable to blame Republicans for it because he has gotten everything he asked for, I was convinced voters would not give him another 4 years.

I am now unsure who will win the nomination. Part of me thinks that Perry will win - he is conservative enough to please the base but he isn't too crazy to completely scare the establishment. The big question will be whether he can hold it together.

This matters for the primary and the general. I think if Perry wins the nomination, he might be able to beat Obama. But he might also implode. Comments like the following might turn off moderates:

If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I dunno what y'all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treasonous in my opinion.

He is referring to Ben Bernake. Now that comment enrages me - Perry is trying to scare Bernake away from improving the economy because that would help Obama. Of course we know this is what the Republican party wants - they want the economy to stay bad so they can win the election. But to see it out there so flagrantly is appalling.

But I hope and mostly believe that it also scares away moderate voters. It even seems to scare Peggy Noonan.

So my new prediction is this. I think Romney will still win the nomination, although I am much less sure of that. If he wins, he'll be our next president. If he loses to Perry, Obama has more of a chance. But there is also a good chance that Perry's staff could reign him in a bit. In which case, he may be our next president.

I will say that as much as Bush was a disaster for the world, his domestic policy wasn't terrible. I very much fear domestic policy under a president Perry.


One more quick note, I just wanted to include this quote from Peggy Noonan's piece:

And the nation is roiling and restive. After Mr. Obama was elected, the right became angry, feisty, and created a new and needed party, the tea party. The right was on fire. The next time a Republican wins, and that could be next year, it will be the left that shows real anger, with unemployment high and no jobs available and government spending and services likely to be cut. The left will be on fire. The only thing leashing them now is the fact of Mr. Obama.

I don't agree that Obama is leashing the left, but I do agree that the left is very close to being on fire. And I think that both parties are overreaching and believing too much in their "mandates". Maybe the left went too far with health care reform - we certainly didn't sell it very well. But if the right really enacts massive program cuts, I am sure they will face a backlash. Because the public does not want that. As much as they want less taxes and more freedom, they still like their services.

Cheney's Blame Tour

I know I have already commented on torture, but I just want to make my point again now that former VP Dick Cheney is on his book tour. The former VP is again insisting that torture works, therefore we should use it. According to that logic we should use it against regular criminals as well. But we don't and for a reason.

We decided long ago that we, as a society, are not willing to torture. Other societies - North Korea, Egypt under Mubarak, Iraq under Saddam, Iran - do use torture. But we are better than them. We follow the rule of law. And we recognize that accused criminals have the right to be treated decently and to refuse to cooperate.

What it boils down to is that it matters not whether torture works (though that is very much up for debate). What matters is that we are not willing to do it.

Where Are They Now?

You'll have to bear with me. There is a lot to analyze with the whole debt limit situation, so I have a lot to write. I think the bipartisan commission is an important component. I want to start with a quote from a NY Times article.

In his budget proposal in January, Mr. Obama declined to suggest a plan along the lines proposed by a majority of his bipartisan fiscal commission, which in December recommended $4 trillion in savings over 10 years through cuts in military and domestic programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and a tax code overhaul to lower rates while also raising more revenue.

Even though Mr. Obama was widely criticized, administration officials said at the time that to have embraced that approach then would have put him too far to the right — where he ultimately wanted to end up in any compromise with Republicans, not where he wanted to start.

I understand his sentiment, but then why did he suggest a bipartisan commission? He should have known it would have put in the middle - where he wanted to end up, not where he wanted to start.

It just doesn't make any sense and suggests he didn't think it through all the way. If you are going to call a bipartisan commission, you do so because you are going to support what they put forward. If he really thought it, he should have put forward his own plan - to the left - then let Republicans put out their plan (which they did in the Paul Ryan plan), then called for a bipartisan commission to bridge the gap.

I just can't get past the thought that Obama is in way over his head.

And this isn't small potatoes. We are in a situation now where we have a bad short term solution to a long term problem. And I think we have no hope of getting to the middle ground of the bipartisan commission now. There will be no compromise.

Where's the Debate

As I continue to contemplate where we are as a country right now, one of the most frustrating things is the lack of real debate going one between our politicians. Or maybe just from our president.

As you know, this blog is called Lunchroom Debate and is meant to spark debate. Unfortunately, not many friends and family have the time to engage on this blog, and I understand that. But I have created this blog because I think honest, intelligent debate is necessary in a democracy. You have to put yourself out there - be willing to say what you think. And you also have to be open minded and willing to learn new things and think in new ways.

But it seems that our president is too scared to really debate. After health care turned out to be unpopular he refused to defend it. After the Democrats lost big in the midterm elections, he backed away from liberal positions.

Now he is stuck on trying to convince the country that we need to find unity. I completely disagree. There are major disagreements over major issues. We need to disagree. And I think we need to be disagreeable sometimes.

What has really bothered me lately is that the only people willing to stand up for their positions are the crazies. The smart ones seem to be trying to keep their heads down. Ron Paul isn't afraid to say we should be on the gold standard - something I don't think Milton Freedman would even agree with. But Barack Obama won't stand up and call for more government action in the face of 9 percent unemploytment.

And Rick Perry is willing to say that if Ben Bernake tries to use more monetary policy to help the economy, people in Texas will treat him unkindly - a mildly threatening phrase. But Ben Bernake will only meekly call for fiscal policy solutions and be totally opaque when it comes to his monetary policies.

We don't have a debate right now. We have crazies saying whatever they please while smart and responsible people are lying low. It is truly depressing.

New Thoughts on S&P Downgrade

I might be having some second thoughts about the downgrade - both the fiscal and political arguments. Politically, I think I was too blase about what this debt limit fight signified. The truth is that it is more likely that future Congresses are more likely to threaten default for political purposes (I do hate all the stupid and over-heated rhetoric like terrorists and hostage-takers, etc). And maybe it is responsible for S&P to make it clear that showing a willingness to risk default will lead to downgrades. Not a bad lesson for everyone to learn.

As for the fiscal reasons, I am now undecided. Felix Salmon argues that the fiscal argument should be ignored; the downgrade was the right decision and the fiscal argument is just there to provide some cover for what is inherently a political statement.

I disagree; I think since they made the fiscal argument, we need to analyze it. And on the fiscal argument, I am now torn. I don't agree that we have a short- or medium-term problem. And saying so only allows Republicans to point to that to suggest they were right to be so obstinate and dangerous with the debt ceiling in order to get deeper cuts.

However, if we avoid terms like medium-term and long-term, and try to simplify it further, I might agree with their point. I might agree if they are saying: that current budget deficits are not a problem, but future projected deficits are; that the recent budget deal shows that we are not serious about our long-term problems because it only cut discretionary spending, which can be easily reversed in the future, when the real problem is with entitlements and revenue.

But even if that is what they are saying, does that mean we need a downgrade now? If the problem is down the road but we aren't willing to deal with it now, is that worrisome enough for a downgrade? That I still don't know. I agree that we have problems down the road. And I agree that we should be able to deal with that right now but we aren't. But since it is so far down the road, I question whether it really means we need a downgrade now.

Anyway, to conclude, I think the recent developments - a willingness by some to default on our debt and an inability to actually deal with long term problems - are troubling. But I am still trying to decide if the later issue - inability to deal with problems down the road - is urgent enough to support a downgrade.

Also, while I am still trying to decide if I agree with the decision, I don't actually have a plausible reason for why S&P did it, except that they believe it. They don't have a lot of credibility in my book. However, I have to admit that their mistakes in the past seemed to be related to a conflict of interest, which doesn't seem to exist here. There doesn't seem to be a lot of upside for making a bad decision. So the only reason I can see is lack of judgment - which I certainly won't rule out.

S&P Downgrade - Onions Have Layers, Ogres Have Layers

So S&P downgraded US debt. Let me first say that I don't think the downgrade is justified or wise. Their reasons are both political and fiscal - neither of which fully support downgrade in my opinion - even taken together.

They say that the debt limit deal is not enough to give them confidence in the US medium-term debt situation - in other words, they wanted deeper budget cuts. But I haven't seen anyone except uninformed politicians suggest that we have a short- or even medium-term debt problem - in other words our current debt as a percent of GDP - or projected debt in the medium term - is not a risk (France and UK have higher levels and are still AAA). The concerns lie in the long term. And if you want evidence of this, look at interest rates on our government bonds.

Also, I don't think anyone believes that S&P would have downgraded if this debt limit nonsense had not happened. In other words, it isn't really about fiscal policy at all, but they can't justify using politics alone so they cooked up some fiscal nonsense.

As for the politics, I agree that it is deeply troubling that we were on the brink of defaulting on our debt (all because of an arbitrary debt ceiling where Congress has to approve spending it has already approved). And we were on the brink due to politics; Republicans wanted big spending cuts, and chose to extract them by showing a willingness to default on our debt. I think everyone agrees that was terribly irresponsible.

However, I don't think the troubling nature of what happened is as bad as they make it out to be. We didn't default on our debt and the debt ceiling won't be up again until 2013. And for all we know, future Congresses might raise the debt ceiling as a matter of course, like previous Congresses did over 100 times.

As for how this plays out politically, by using both fiscal and political reasons, S&P seems to be trying to pass the blame around - ie the budget cuts were not enough and Republicans were crazy. And both parties will blame the other (as they also go on the attack against S&P). And voters will continue to blame both parties for this, but probably the Republicans in Congress a little more. (Even Meghan McArdle at the Atlantic - a serious conservative - blames the GOP Congress.)

In theory, it should also completely ruin Michele Bachmann's campaign. She all along opposed raising the debt ceiling and seemed to think default is no big deal. (She was the most outspoken, but to be honest, I don't know what the other candidates said.) Unfortunately, I'm not sure it will. I think Bachmann's base will agree with her no matter the evidence.

While voters will blame Obama, I don't completely blame him for the downgrade. All along I have been critical of him because he has not lived up to what I want in Democratic president and who I thought I was electing. But I should make it clear that Republicans deserve most of the blame for where we are. Sure, Obama didn't have to let himself get dragged into this debate, or at least he didn't have to let Republicans dictate the terms, but he wasn't driving it.

I also think (and hope) that this is going to play out badly for S&P. They already have a significant credibility problem because of their role in the financial crisis and all the junk bonds they rated AAA. In fact, Noam Scheiber had this funny tweet, "What if we bundled bonds from our 10 dodgiest states, sliced them up, re-packaged them w/other dodgy slices. Could we keep AAA rating then?" Their decision to downgrade is far from a slam dunk and as I said I think both parties will go on the attack. And the fact that they had a $2 trillion math error isn't going to help. The bottom line, this was a risky decision and they don't have the credibility or trust to back it up.

What remains to be seen, and is probably the most important part of S&P's decision is how it plays out. Will other rating agencies follow suit, or will they leave S&P hanging? And will the markets react at all? I hear that federal debt should be fine because most investors know that the fundamentals are fine. However, state and local governments may see increased borrowing costs.

If that happens, we have to wonder whether it was necessary. I obviously say no. This was clearly a political statement by S&P not an objective decision based on the numbers. So now we might have higher costs just so S&P could join the fray. Are there no adults in this debate?

Obama Love

I have been bashing on Obama lately, and I expect it to continue for quite some time. But just to show that I am a good sport, I am linking to a well-written post by Kevin Drum (hat-tip Dave Benen) that suggests Obama has been very effective.

What’s more, Obama also won passage during his first two years of a stimulus bill, a landmark healthcare bill that Democrats had been trying to pass for the better part of a century, a financial reform bill, and much needed reform of student loans. And more: a firm end to the Bush torture regime, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a hate crimes bill, a successful rescue of the American car industry, and resuscitation of the NLRB. Oh, and he killed Osama bin Laden too.

In fact, I think the post has given me something to think about. Obama has accomplished many good things for the liberal agenda - although I am far from convinced that this makes him the most effective president since Reagan or Johnson.

But his accomplishments in his first two years don't give him a free pass for his second two years. Good liberal accomplishments don't excuse how much he has moved away from liberalism after Healthcare and the 2010 elections. And because he has moved away, the country has gone to the right with him. I will continue to feel that recent events have shown him unwilling to stand up for what he believes in if he thinks those things are currently unpopular.

Drumm also reminds me of the deals that Obama secured during the lame duck session - deals that are worthy of praise. And maybe it is true that he couldn't have gotten a debt ceiling increase then also. But that doesn't mean he had to negotiate in the feckless manner that he did.

He acted in good faith and trusted the Republicans to do the same, which was clearly a mistake. Worse, he let himself get pulled into the wrong fight instead of talking about jobs and beating the Republicans up for not talking about jobs. Now both groups look out of touch, which is bad for the Republicans in Congress, but bad for Obama, too. He handled this poorly, and I think he will pay by losing a second term.

Update - More Posts that Don't Blame Obama
There is a good post at the Economist linking to some people that go easier on Obama and blame all of us for not convincing America that the liberal version of government is better. I don't disagree; we can all share the blame with Obama. Here is Drumm again, quoted in the post:

I blame the broad liberal community for our failures, not just President Obama. My biggest beef with Obama is the same one I had three years ago, namely that he's never really even tried to move public opinion in a specifically progressive direction. But that hardly even matters unless all the rest of us have laid the groundwork. And we haven't. Wonks, hacks, activists, all of us. We just haven't persuaded the public to support our vision of government. Until we do, the tea party tendency will always be more powerful than we are.

Dreaming of Christie in 2012

If we are going to have a Republican president in 2012 (and we are), I wish it could be Chris Christie. Sure he’d try to cut the size of government and attack unions, but he at least seems to have some courage and decency. Here's a good example, where he strongly defends his appointing of a Muslim-American as a judge in New Jersey.

Obama's Two Flaws

President Obama has two (at least) flaws that are proving to be fatal right about now. First, and this is probably his worst flaw, he thinks he can change the world with one speech. To the extend that he articulates and defends his policies, he does so once. Meanwhile, Republicans are out there parroting their positions over and over again, to pretty good effect.

Obama said from the beginning that he wouldn't play into the 24 hour news cycle. While that keeps him from getting involved in some of the fast burning and quickly forgotten stories, it also means he isn't effectively at setting the agenda and defining the issues. If he wants to compete with Republicans, he needs to be hammering home his message - which as the leader of the Democratic party, it should be a fairly liberal message - all day everyday.

Second, he has decided that above all he should be reasonable and centrist. I'm not exactly sure why but I have a few guesses. Maybe he actually thinks that if he is reasonable, the other side will be reasonable as well. If this is why, he should have learned already that this isn't true and only makes him a terribly ineffective negotiator. He made this mistake with the stimulus, health care, and now the debt limit.

Or maybe he thinks it will help him win reelection. This is a mistake as well. His moderate policies are bad for this economy, which means he will go into reelection with a stagnant recovery or worse a double dip recession, and therefore seen as ineffective. Moderate, but ineffective doesn't sound like a good strategy for reelection.

How About Some Fun and Thoughtful Econ?

I have been spending too much time in the ultimate of frustrating activities: hoping to convince (or more likely see someone with a wide audience convince) Republicans that cuts to programs or increases in taxes in the short term will hurt the economy at a fragile time. Unfortunately, Republicans aren't reasonable and will not bother trying to understand economics; government is bad and cuts must be made now. So as our country careens towards a lost decade, let's spend some time on a less urgent issue and in a more reasonable fashion.

Casey Mulligan - who seems to be a pretty conservative economist - has been writing a lot lately on labor supply and labor demand. His main point seems to be that labor supply can be just as important (or not meaningless?) as labor demand during a recession. In this post, he uses a comparison between summer employment and Christmas / holiday employment to show the difference between the demand and supply side. During the holidays, demand for labor increases. During the summer, supply for labor increases.

Casey Mulligan says that summer employment shows that an increase in the supply of labor can increase total labor. Now, there are a few things I don't fully understand about his charts. He says total labor increases, which I can't see for sure. But it also looks like wages decrease, which isn't a good thing. Though I guess more jobs with lower wages is better than less jobs and stagnant wages. If this is part of his point, he leaves it unsaid.

His policy prescription that follows from this data is that unemployment benefits decrease labor supply and therefore total labor. To the extent that this is true, it matters how big this affect is. By decreasing benefits, we are hurting unemployed families, especially the ones that still can't get jobs. So if the effect is marginal, than we would probably want to keep the benefits. If the effect is significant, then... well then I don't know. I don't love the idea of letting families go into poverty just to induce them to work more.

While I am probably willing to concede that labor supply is not meaningless, I still think that labor demand is the much bigger factor at this point. Business surveys suggest that lack of sales are driving the lack of hiring. So while decreasing benefits, as cold-hearted as it seems, might increase employment, I can't imagine it having a major impact. I think we need to work on the demand side to really drive down unemployment.

Depressed - Both Me and the Economy

As you know, I have become a big fan of Paul Krugman as of late. Recently he has been hating on the rating agencies, and I wasn't sure why. Then I read this really good post at Economix about the possible debt ceiling scenarios (which really depressed me). It seems that if the government imposes savings over the medium and short term, the rating agencies might downgrade the US anyway if the cuts aren't "credible". I don't know what that means exactly, but it isn't comforting.

What I don't get is that when most economists are saying we don't have a short term debt problem, why are the rating agencies concerned? Is Krugman right that they are ideological? Either way, it looks like Catherine Rampell is right, this is unlikely to end well. I foresee scenario 4 (if we are lucky - scenario 1 isn't out of the question) - where the cuts are in the near term, rating agencies are appeased, and our economy goes down the toilet. Thanks rating agencies!

I just want to cry. I see no way out of our stagnant economy and high unemployment and no one is even fighting for it. And anytime you talk about the people who need government support - unemployed - and how Republican policies will only hurt those people, you are accused of class warfare (which is of course an attempt to end debate because they don't actually have a response to that criticism). There is no real debate and probably will be no solution.

I've Made A Huge Mistake

I didn't want a woman to be president. I wanted to be president! - Amy Poehler as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Dear Secretary Clinton,

I am writing to express my deepest apologies. In 2008, I supported then-Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for president. As you well know, that meant I did not support you - the other strong candidate in the race. Considering the state of our government, I realize now that was a big mistake.

When I supported Barack Obama for president, I did so because he seemed to promise all the things I wanted a presidential candidate to promise. He seemed slightly more liberal generally - including on foreign policy. But most importantly, he promised a fresh start and a move away from the divisive politics of the Baby Boomers. He said we could disagree without being disagreeable.

I see now how naive it was to believe all of that. First, he wasn't nearly as liberal as he suggested he was. Although at times he also pretended to be very moderate, which is why some people called him a Rorschach test - people saw what they wanted to in him.

But secondly and more importantly, I realize now that being disagreeable is actually necessary sometimes. See, President Obama thinks that if he just acts reasonable and in good faith, the other party will, too. But it doesn't work that way. The other party is going to do whatever it takes to get the most it can for its agenda.

To be clear, I am under no illusion that you would necessarily have been more liberal than the President. At times I imagine you would have had similar economic policies as you might have hired similar people. Although at other times the President seems to be acting like a Reagan Democrat - which is actually not a Democrat at all - which would put you to the left of him.

But what is clear is that his lack of experience is translating into his being a poor negotiator. By refusing to stand up for liberal values, he is starting in the middle and having to move very far to the right. I believe that your strength and ability to disagree and to be disagreeable when necessary, as well as your greater experience, would have made you much more capable of dealing with the Republicans at this time.

Before I sign off, I do want to let myself off the hook a little bit. I must admit that you didn't campaign very well. You made a couple blunders (LBJ / MLK and the comment about white voters in Pennsylvania) and then refused to back down afterward. But I should have looked past that and realized experience is an important part of the job and while your experience wasn't overwhelming, it was more than Barack Obama's experience. And more importantly, I should have realized that you would have been a formidable negotiator and would have defended our values.

I'm sure this is little consolation to you now. But wrongs need to be admitted, and so I am admitting that I was wrong (notice I avoid the passive voice). I wish you the best in the future, and if you need my vote at any time (2012?), you'll have it.

Sincerely,
Brendan Cheney

Things You Won't Hear at a Baseball Game: We Want a Thermostat, Not a Thermometer!

The Times Magazine has an interview with Cornel West. Normally, I don't like these interviews. Maybe the medium is just difficult, but either way, the questioner comes off a little obnoxious and the interviewee (usually when it is a conservative) is often able to dodge hard questions or just give annoying and unsatisfying answers. But this one was good (maybe because it was a liberal).

I won't rehash the whole thing, but I do want to put in one question and answer:

How can Obama be the president you want him to be when he’s facing this Republican Congress?
I’ll put it this way, brother: You’ve got to be a thermostat rather than a thermometer. A thermostat shapes the climate of opinion; a thermometer just reflects it. If you’re just going to reflect it and run by the polls, then you’re not going to be a transformative president. Lincoln was a thermostat. Johnson and F.D.R., too.

I couldn't agree more.

Hopey Changey Stuff

There was a poll out recently showing Obama's approval rating in Arab countries is very low. I think this is emblamatic of Obama's presidency as a whole (save for health care). Obama, as we well know, campaigned on hope and change. And we all hoped, but he hasn't created any change.

Mario Cuomo once said that one campaigns in poetry and governs in prose. This clever saying suggests that it is easier to wax poetic about your views and beliefs, but actually delivering is hard and sometimes ugly.

But I don't think that is Obama's problem. For the most part, Obama has refused to actually fight for things that we (liberals, the international community, etc) thought he was going to fight for - and that is why he hasn't achieved any change.

If I could create a quote that fits Obama, it would be that Obama campaigned in poetry, then completely changed his mind and decided not to live up to his poetry. His stance on Israel has been enough to anger a conservative government, but not enough to really be viewed as a principled stand. He didn't defend the protesters in Egypt until late in the game (whereas the Bush Administration condemned Mubarak years before the protests).

He hasn't been able to close Guantanamo - although that can be more linked governing in prose. He renewed the Patriot Act without any discussion or changes.

Sarah Palin famously said of Obama, "How's that hopey changey stuff workin' out for ya?" Although her critique was that he was doing too much changing, and for the worse, to me the quote hits for the opposite reason: he isn't changing much. But worse, he isn't really fighting for anything.

The only big exception is in Libya, where he rightfully acted to prevent massacre of civilians. However, standing tall against Quadaffi isn't that difficult. Standing up to Saudi Arabia or Syria is difficult and would represent real change. But Obama isn't willing to do it.

The bottom line is that when you look around the world, what has Obama actually done? He hasn't invested more resources in places like Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, or Sudan. He has accomplished very little in Israel and hasn't taken many principled stands. (I think he judges a principled stand based on the blowback he gets, not on the merits of the stand. In other words, if it pisses off Republicans, it must be good enough.)

And so I look back on all the excitement and even worse, the Nobel Peace Prize, and I feel ashamed. But he should feel even more ashamed. We all thought he would make big changes from the Bush administration in ways that matter. But he hasn't. Hopey changey indeed.

More Thoughts About Apollo - the Space Program, Not the BSG Character

I was lying down to go to sleep and started thinking more about the debate I am having on manned space flights. What kept me up was the realization that I was probably too brief, and not as thoughtful as I should have been, when talking about Apollo and national pride. So let me explore it a little more and relate it back to our current situation.

Apollo was done for national pride, but I should also have acknowledged that there was more to it than that. We were pushing our boundaries. And that I believe is where much of the research gains came from. In a short time - 10 years - we conquered space. But to do so, we had to learn how to leave our planet - safely and reliably - to survive in space, to reach another body, to land on it, to take off again from it, to return to our planet, and to enter our atmosphere and land safely. Before 1960, I think we had little experience in most of those things, save for launching things from our planet into space.

And because we were pushing our boundaries so much, and because we had to develop new tools to accomplish all of those things, there were naturally many gains in research. But once we did accomplish those things, the further research payoffs were expensive to achieve (more trips to the moon) with smaller payoffs.

And that is where I see us now. Returning to the moon or going to Mars isn't pushing any significant boundaries. (And as I have said over and over again, the Shuttle is not the best way to achieve low earth orbit.) And so I don't see us making many gains in research or learning through Constellation. There will be some, but they can only be marginal - whereas the costs are extreme.

Because it is clear there are little research gains, most people have only been able to argue to continue the Shuttle or to pursue Constellation for sentimental reasons (Neil DeGrasse Tyson of the Rose Center has made these arguments). While I understand the sentiment, I don't think it is enough. There is a reason we stopped going to the moon - we had no purpose to justify the funding. And we still don't. Until it becomes cheaper, we have to be able to accept that we shouldn't be going.

This is Our Life, This is Our Song

Joe over at FroJoe has called a blog war! It is on! Joe has a good follow-up post regarding our shuttle debate.

To keep things simple, I think we can identify two main reasons to entertain the idea of manned space exploration. One is for research, the other is for national pride / inspiration (ie to keep Joe from feeling sad when he sees a private name on a space vehicle). After we decide which reason compels us to consider it, we then need to decide if the options available are good options and worth the gains.

I feel strongly that when conducting space exploration, research needs to be our main priority. To keep this post simple, I've put my explanation for why doing it for national pride is a problem in another post.

If research is our driving goal, then I fully agree that there are good research reasons for manned space exploration. But where I diverge is whether we have good policy options and whether the options are worth the research payoffs. In other words, I don't think the Shuttle or Constellation (the Bush program that would have eventually taken manned flights to the moon and mars) are good options.

As I said in my original post, I find the Space Shuttle to be too expensive and dangerous with the research payoffs too small to be worth continuing. We can find cheaper and safer ways to achieve low earth orbit.

And Constellation is also not the answer right now. Its troubles are great - over budget, behind schedule, and with some serious technical issues that need to be worked out (see the GAO paper).

Basically, I think the technology is not there to conduct bigger missions at a reasonable price (and there is no need for NASA to take on the risk of developing its own new low earth orbit vehicle).

I think it is instructive to compare another area where we could achieve research gains if we spent a lot more money - at the bottom of our oceans. If there was a decision to fully explore our depths (based on politics and national pride), we could spend hundreds of billions of dollars and take extra risks and learn a lot more. But instead, with ocean exploration we are able to let the technology progress and undertake research when the costs and risks are reasonable.

I think space exploration should be the same way. At the moment, based on where the technology is, we don't have any good options. So let’s use this time to let technology develop and reassess what our goals really are and what we can reasonably accomplish. And when we have good options to meet our research goals at reasonable costs, then let's shoot for the moon! Or Mars. Whichever.


*The title are lyrics from Twisted Sister's We're Not Gonna Take It.

National Pride - USA! USA! USA!

In another post, I made a second argument about why we shouldn't continue the Shuttle or spend money on Constellation. This post is just for me to express my warning about using national pride to make decisions on science.

My first thesis is that national pride and research, as goals for space exploration and other scientific endeavors, are not compatible but instead in conflict. To see this, we need to look no further than the Apollo program.

I think it is clear that the Apollo program was developed to compete and win a space war against the Soviet Union. And what ensued was an ambitious and dangerous program that was ultimately successful at achieving its goal - landing on the moon before the Soviets.

But since national pride was the main goal, research tagged along but took a back seat. While on the moon, we did conduct some experiments. But it was clear that we were there for pride and once we were there, we didn't have long or medium term research goals. After all, our goal was to get there first.

And in fact, once we achieved the main goal, the tag-along goal of research didn't justify many return trips. We did just enough moon missions so it didn't look like all we wanted to do was touch down then never return.

And so I fear the same thing with a program to go back to the moon or to Mars. If it is national pride that drives us, we risk getting there too soon, spending too much money, then stopping because we aren't willing to spend that much money for undefined research goals.

To tie this back to my other post about the Shuttle, I think research needs to be our main priority. Otherwise, we spend too much just for bragging rights and research takes a back seat. And while we are spending all that money on bragging rights, we could have better spent that money on current defined research opportunities that are more within our reach.

Book Report: Legacy of Ashes (Part 1)

I am currently reading Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner. While I usually wait until I have finished the book, I want to comment now lest I lose my thoughts.

First, let me say that the book - a history of the CIA - does move through each event pretty quickly. This means that we often have to trust the author's version of events because the details supporting him are somewhat slim and could be cherry-picked.

I recognize why the author did this - he has a lot of ground to cover. The alternative would be a massive three volume type series - something Robert Caro-esqe. In other words, something I probably wouldn't read.

It also means that to the extent that you want more information on an event (like the Cuban Missile Crisis for example) you should go somewhere just for that (like One Minute to Midnight).

Now, what I really wanted to comment on though is the picture that Wiener is giving us of the early CIA (though it is pretty clear he is setting us up to tell us that things haven't changed). I have only gotten through the Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations (including some info on Kennedy's assassination), but things look really bad so far.

The CIA is portrayed as an organization that is focused on covert operations to impose our will on other governments and prevent the spread of communism at the expense of intelligence gathering. Unfortunately, the CIA is mostly incompetent and mostly because it doesn't actually understand the places it is working on because it doesn't have any good intelligence.

And when it does succeed, the consequences long term are disastrous (i.e. Iran) because the policy was poorly thought through. It is also completely unaccountable; it lies or withholds information from the president (especially when it comes to their failures) and of course is not required to provide much information to Congress. So often it is making foreign policy on its own.

To the extent that this was / is true, it is appalling and terrifying. But I don't think anything can be done about it. There is a general view by the public that the US should have an organization that conducts covert operations and gathers intelligence to "protect our interests" and that we don't need to know about what it does. That is not a good recipe for good outcomes. And Legacy of Ashes shows us this.

Recommended Books: Update

You might notice that I made changes to my recommended books. I took off the following books: Autobiography of Malcom X, Game Change, and Three Cups of Tea. Here is why.

Three Cups of Tea: Greg Mortenson has come under fire recently, facing allegations of spending more than half of the nonprofit's money on promoting his book, building fewer schools than claimed, and no obvious revenue coming to the nonprofit from his books. It seems his nonprofit could avoid this with a lot more transparency. Or maybe that would show the allegations to be true.

Also, it is alleged some of his story about coming down the mountain and finding the village where he would build the first school might not be completely accurate. Anyway, for now, I can't recommend the book. I still believe that Afghanistan needs more schools, and that the sort of cultural sensitivity that Mortenson showed is necessary. Hopefully the nonprofit - and Mortenson, too - will find its way through this. Stay tuned.

The Autobiography of Malcom X: There is a new biography of him (Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention by Manning Marable) that is probably more comprehensive and objective. Until I read that book, I can't recommend it. And in the meantime, I can no longer recommend the Autobiography (which I liked because it gave a different perspective on Malcom X though it may have been a flawed book).

Game Change: It just seems dated at this point. If you haven't read it yet, I'm not sure you'll want to at this point.

To President Obama: I Give Up

I have officially given up on President Obama. His main priority when taking office was / should have been the economy and he is utterly failing at it. And to make matters worse, he refuses to even fight for the right policies.

I have been reading a lot of articles, posts, quotes and columns by economists (from Paul Krugman and Brad Delong to Bruce Bartlett and Ben Bernake) and I think there is broad agreement that monetary policy will be mostly ineffective (as interest rates are near zero and things like quantitative easing have made little difference) and that austerity is a bad idea. Both government cuts and tax increases will make an already bad situation - 9% unemployment - worse. If monetary policy won't work and austerity is a bad idea, I draw the conclusion (after having been convinced by Krugman and Delong) that the government should engage in stimulus spending.

President Obama however has decided to take a few positions that are counter to all of this. First, he is parroting the absurd position that the right first started whereby if we get government spending under control - ie budget cuts and revenue increases, business confidence will increase and the economy will rebound. To be clear, business confidence isn't meaningless, but to think that we are at 9 percent unemployment because of confidence is absurd.

Second, the president is suggesting that current high unemployment is structural - ie there is nothing in the short term that we can do about it. This is clearly him setting expectations low hoping to avoid blame. In fact, in the Twitter Town Hall, Obama said he wished he had known how bad the economy was going to be so he could have changed expectations. That's too bad, because I wish I had a president who would have done more to improve the economy if he had known how bad it was going to be.

Obama needs to be saying two things over and over again. One, we need more stimulus. Two, he should put his foot down and say there will be no budget cuts in the next two to three years - until the economy has improved. There is no need to get our budgets under control in the short term (bond rates and inflation are low) and in fact it will hurt us more than it will help us. This second point he has said, but rather meekly so that no one believes he will actually put his foot down on this.

I know there are a lot of people who say that Obama could not get a stimulus through this Congress. I don't disagree with that. But he could have at least made the case, and then when he didn't get it, he could have blamed the radical Republicans. Instead, he'll be able to say that he accomplished all he set out to accomplish - a modest $787 billion stimulus (half of what was needed and not spent well at that - but Obama tried to say that it would be enough) and a budget deal to restore confidence. And when the economy doesn't improve, he'll have nothing to say. He passed the policies he wanted but still unemployment remained high.

Now, at the moment, I can see how Obama is being smart with the short term politics. To moderates, he looks reasonable and is making the Republicans look crazy. That is all well and good. But I don't think that will make up for the fact that his policies were not successful at fixing his biggest problem when he came into office - the economy. But even if it works, it will work at the expense of the economy. He'll win an election but unemployment will remain stubbornly high.

President Obama at one point said he would rather be a really good one term president than a mediocre two-term president. We now know that was a lie; what he is doing now is political positioning at the expense of the economy. And he is doing it to win reelection. We thought we were electing someone who would inspire and fight for what he believes in. Instead, we got someone who fights for what he already thinks he can achieve and nothing more.

The bottom line is that I'll still vote for him - after all, Romney's policies would be even more conservative - but I don't think he deserves to be reelected. He is failing on the biggest issue facing the country.