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.