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.
Friday, September 09, 2011
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
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:
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:
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.
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.
Monday, August 29, 2011
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, August 07, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, August 06, 2011
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?
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?
Friday, August 05, 2011
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.
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:
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.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
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
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
Sunday, July 24, 2011
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:
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 couldn't agree more.
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.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, July 22, 2011
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Ground Control to Major Joe
My good friend has a post about the Space Shuttle. Instead of responding in his comments, I thought I would post a response on my blog. His post on the Shuttle is well-written. However, I very much disagree with it. (By the way, I talked this through this past weekend with someone my friend and I know well. This person shares my friend's opinion on the matter.)
His premise is that space exploration should continue through the Space Shuttle until an alternative is found. He says that research and national pride compensate for what he sees as marginal costs. I disagree with all of those points and more. Allow me to take you through my argument by topic.
The Shuttle
First, I want to describe the Shuttle. It is a very expensive and dangerous vehicle with a very limited capability - achieving low earth orbit. I think there is consensus that we can achieve low earth orbit more cheaply and more safely.
Costs
The costs of the Shuttle are far from marginal. If we trust Wikipedia (which I only do to a certain extent, but lack the time right now to validate it - fortunately I don't have to because my debate opponent does trust it), one space shuttle launch costs $450 million and the total average cost of a Shuttle trip is $1.5 billion. In the grand scheme of the federal budget, this is small - the annual Shuttle budget is much less than one percent.
However, if you think of other things this money could fund, I see it as a significant amount of money. For example, my back of the envelope calculation says one shuttle trip could instead be used to house maybe 45,000 homeless individuals. This is a rough estimate, so even half that to me would be more useful than sending the Shuttle into space anymore.
Or we could use the money to decrease class sizes in our most troubled schools. Or it could fund an increase in case workers for families in crisis. Or further increase funding on cancer research. The point is that in a system of limited funds, we have to make decisions between spending options based on our priorities. The Shuttle falls low on my priority list, as you'll see below.
Research
I believe that government should fund science and research and I don't think that we should always choose social services over science and research. But I don't see any examples of great research being done because of the Shuttle anymore. It has proven quite useful in the past, but my sense, and I'd be happy to hear evidence to the contrary, is that payoffs from research related to the Shuttle have plateaued.
Jobs
One more thing I want to mention - I have heard people talk about the jobs that have been lost as a result of this. While that is regrettable, jobs should never be a reason to continue any one program; it isn't a logical reason.
The jobs defense is too vague and can therefore be used to support anything (and often is - see prison closings, and unnecessary war planes). Instead, we need to decide if the particular thing is worth doing, and if not, the money should be moved into something else, which will then create different jobs.
Imagination / National Pride
I do not think we should be spending as much as we do on the Shuttle for national pride or to further the imagination of science fiction authors, their geek readers (including yours truly), or anyone else. And furthermore, the Shuttle isn't even inspiring people anymore. The only time it makes news is when it fails or takes on its last mission.
Where To Go From Here
Whether to continue the Shuttle is a no-brainer to me. The difficult question is what do we do in the future. Even if we continue the Shuttle for a few more years, we still have to decide whether we should have bigger ambitions - like going back to the moon or even mars. My gut tells me no - but I have more thinking to do.
I haven't seen the numbers, but I hear that either one of those things would be extremely expensive. Now, I think there can be research gains from doing something much more ambitious, but I am skeptical that they would justify the steep costs.
I am inclined to say that we should take a break on ambitious space exploration for the moment, give the private sector a chance to move the technology forward, and reassess in five years. In the meantime, we can use the savings for desperately needed government spending.
By the way, if you want to read what people smarter than me think, look at Bad Astronomy author Phil Plait's column in the NY Post or this article at Scientific American.
Update: For an example of a science / research project that I think definitely should be funded, look no further than the James Webb Space Telescope. Too bad Republicans think everything government does, even science, is bad. I wish the House of Representatives wasn't hijacked by uninformed extremists.
His premise is that space exploration should continue through the Space Shuttle until an alternative is found. He says that research and national pride compensate for what he sees as marginal costs. I disagree with all of those points and more. Allow me to take you through my argument by topic.
The Shuttle
First, I want to describe the Shuttle. It is a very expensive and dangerous vehicle with a very limited capability - achieving low earth orbit. I think there is consensus that we can achieve low earth orbit more cheaply and more safely.
Costs
The costs of the Shuttle are far from marginal. If we trust Wikipedia (which I only do to a certain extent, but lack the time right now to validate it - fortunately I don't have to because my debate opponent does trust it), one space shuttle launch costs $450 million and the total average cost of a Shuttle trip is $1.5 billion. In the grand scheme of the federal budget, this is small - the annual Shuttle budget is much less than one percent.
However, if you think of other things this money could fund, I see it as a significant amount of money. For example, my back of the envelope calculation says one shuttle trip could instead be used to house maybe 45,000 homeless individuals. This is a rough estimate, so even half that to me would be more useful than sending the Shuttle into space anymore.
Or we could use the money to decrease class sizes in our most troubled schools. Or it could fund an increase in case workers for families in crisis. Or further increase funding on cancer research. The point is that in a system of limited funds, we have to make decisions between spending options based on our priorities. The Shuttle falls low on my priority list, as you'll see below.
Research
I believe that government should fund science and research and I don't think that we should always choose social services over science and research. But I don't see any examples of great research being done because of the Shuttle anymore. It has proven quite useful in the past, but my sense, and I'd be happy to hear evidence to the contrary, is that payoffs from research related to the Shuttle have plateaued.
Jobs
One more thing I want to mention - I have heard people talk about the jobs that have been lost as a result of this. While that is regrettable, jobs should never be a reason to continue any one program; it isn't a logical reason.
The jobs defense is too vague and can therefore be used to support anything (and often is - see prison closings, and unnecessary war planes). Instead, we need to decide if the particular thing is worth doing, and if not, the money should be moved into something else, which will then create different jobs.
Imagination / National Pride
I do not think we should be spending as much as we do on the Shuttle for national pride or to further the imagination of science fiction authors, their geek readers (including yours truly), or anyone else. And furthermore, the Shuttle isn't even inspiring people anymore. The only time it makes news is when it fails or takes on its last mission.
Where To Go From Here
Whether to continue the Shuttle is a no-brainer to me. The difficult question is what do we do in the future. Even if we continue the Shuttle for a few more years, we still have to decide whether we should have bigger ambitions - like going back to the moon or even mars. My gut tells me no - but I have more thinking to do.
I haven't seen the numbers, but I hear that either one of those things would be extremely expensive. Now, I think there can be research gains from doing something much more ambitious, but I am skeptical that they would justify the steep costs.
I am inclined to say that we should take a break on ambitious space exploration for the moment, give the private sector a chance to move the technology forward, and reassess in five years. In the meantime, we can use the savings for desperately needed government spending.
By the way, if you want to read what people smarter than me think, look at Bad Astronomy author Phil Plait's column in the NY Post or this article at Scientific American.
Update: For an example of a science / research project that I think definitely should be funded, look no further than the James Webb Space Telescope. Too bad Republicans think everything government does, even science, is bad. I wish the House of Representatives wasn't hijacked by uninformed extremists.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Economics: Too Wonkish
Okay, so I wrote a post a few days ago about how I was confident that I understood our economic condition and so knew the cure. Well, this Paul Krugman post makes me doubt that a little bit.
I don't actually remember what the IS curve is and what it means, nor do I fully understand the bond market - including how supply and demand works in that market. So maybe I need to consult my old macro-econ text book and see if I can figure it out.
Otherwise, maybe I'll need to just say that I get the basics, but beyond that, I trust Paul Krugman. Not a great place to be in, but since I am not an economist, that might be the best I can do. I'll report back for sure.
I don't actually remember what the IS curve is and what it means, nor do I fully understand the bond market - including how supply and demand works in that market. So maybe I need to consult my old macro-econ text book and see if I can figure it out.
Otherwise, maybe I'll need to just say that I get the basics, but beyond that, I trust Paul Krugman. Not a great place to be in, but since I am not an economist, that might be the best I can do. I'll report back for sure.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Marriage Equality!!!
New York State passed same sex marriage on Friday, June 24. My wife and I watched it streaming live, and the key moment being when Republican Senator Saland signaled that he would be approving not only the religious exemption amendment, but the full bill. As I said on Facebook, I have never been more proud and never been more happy about a piece of legislation. I think this is the civil rights issue of our generation and I am thrilled to see that attitudes are changing. It gives me so much hope to see that we can progress as a society.
If you want a great article on the behind-the-scenes push, read this article in the NY Times. It seems clear - and has seemed this way all along - that the person that deserves a huge amount of credit is Governor Cuomo. While the two previous governors also supported same sex marriage, Cuomo wanted to expend significant political capital to make it happen. And the bill passed largely because Cuomo is actually good at using his political capital strategically.
I also know that my boss, Speaker Quinn, spent a lot of her time lobbying to get the bill passed. And I can't wait for her wedding (not that I assume I will be invited, but just to know that it has happened will be great).
In the NY State Senate, Tom Duane has been lobbying his colleagues since before the 2009 vote. What is the most remarkable thing about his lobbying is that it seems to be full of patience and tolerance. In his speech on the floor he said there were not villains that night, only heroes. And from what I hear, that has been his message in meeting with his colleagues - he has asked them to show their support for his relationship with his partner but never made them feel like bad people for opposing it. I don't know if I could be that way, and it is more remarkable that he could.
I also think we need to thank Republican State Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos. That a Republican would bring this to a vote, knowing it very well might pass, it amazing. It is even more remarkable when you consider it wasn't a given that Democrats would bring it to a vote in 2009. So even though I doubt Dean Skelos wants my thanks, he has them.
As for the non-villains, I will say I was disappointed with Senator Lanza's no vote and his explanation. And I have a lot of anger for Senator Diaz - his animosity against gay marriage seems to know no bounds. But I won't respond to either because I don't need to. We won.
If you want a great article on the behind-the-scenes push, read this article in the NY Times. It seems clear - and has seemed this way all along - that the person that deserves a huge amount of credit is Governor Cuomo. While the two previous governors also supported same sex marriage, Cuomo wanted to expend significant political capital to make it happen. And the bill passed largely because Cuomo is actually good at using his political capital strategically.
I also know that my boss, Speaker Quinn, spent a lot of her time lobbying to get the bill passed. And I can't wait for her wedding (not that I assume I will be invited, but just to know that it has happened will be great).
In the NY State Senate, Tom Duane has been lobbying his colleagues since before the 2009 vote. What is the most remarkable thing about his lobbying is that it seems to be full of patience and tolerance. In his speech on the floor he said there were not villains that night, only heroes. And from what I hear, that has been his message in meeting with his colleagues - he has asked them to show their support for his relationship with his partner but never made them feel like bad people for opposing it. I don't know if I could be that way, and it is more remarkable that he could.
I also think we need to thank Republican State Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos. That a Republican would bring this to a vote, knowing it very well might pass, it amazing. It is even more remarkable when you consider it wasn't a given that Democrats would bring it to a vote in 2009. So even though I doubt Dean Skelos wants my thanks, he has them.
As for the non-villains, I will say I was disappointed with Senator Lanza's no vote and his explanation. And I have a lot of anger for Senator Diaz - his animosity against gay marriage seems to know no bounds. But I won't respond to either because I don't need to. We won.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Scientific American on Health Care
I love Scientific American for two reasons. One, it is amazing to see new advances - or theories - in science as they are unfolding. Two, in appropriate situations, they weigh in on policy and politics. When they do, I trust them because, more than anyone else, I feel they are free from ideology and base recommendations on science and data.
In this month's issue, they write about health care and what needs to be done to control costs. Here is what they say about Obamacare and Paul Ryan's plan:
Now, if we are really going to compare Obama v. Ryan, we would acknowledge that Obamacare does this stuff, albeit slowly, and Ryan's doesn't at all. But it is good to see the scientific community weighing in. And it is good to see that they support Democratic plans - although they clearly think they need to be more ambitious.
In this month's issue, they write about health care and what needs to be done to control costs. Here is what they say about Obamacare and Paul Ryan's plan:
Politicians have acknowledged the crippling cost of medicine, yet their proposals do little to fix these basic flaws. For instance, replacing Medicare benefits with vouchers that individuals can use to buy their own health insurance, as was recently proposed by House Committee on the Budget Chair Paul Ryan, merely shifts more of the financial burden to private citizens. And most of the cost-saving initiatives found in the Affordable Care Act are demonstration projects—not large-scale reforms. The factors that inflate health costs must be addressed widely and directly. Fortunately, promising solutions are beginning to emerge:What they recommend is not particularly new, but they give these proposals more credibility: reduce fragmentation, phase out fee-for-service, and compare effectiveness of procedures.
Now, if we are really going to compare Obama v. Ryan, we would acknowledge that Obamacare does this stuff, albeit slowly, and Ryan's doesn't at all. But it is good to see the scientific community weighing in. And it is good to see that they support Democratic plans - although they clearly think they need to be more ambitious.
Ryan on Healthcare
Paul Ryan is getting a lot of attention for his budget plan, including his plan for medicare. I think what he is saying needs to be analyzed and responded to. So here is a good quote from WashtingtonStakeout (hat tip Paul Krugman - I didn't actually know this website).
If Medicare is going bankrupt, then we have a few options. One is to increase funding. Another is to decrease services - either by cutting spending on the government side, or, as Ryan proposes, by making it a voucher program and underfunding it. My main problem with Ryan's plan is how he describes it; he tries to say that by using vouchers, he won't be underfunding services and that markets will magically bring down prices so that services won't be cut. This is stupid. He is cutting costs by cutting services - plain and simple.
A fourth option would be to keep it government-funded but to change incentives and structures to bring down costs. What is driving increased medical costs is in part an aging population and in part unnecessary services driven by our for-profit, fee-for-service system. Obama's health care plan plays with fixes, but only does so as pilots - afraid to change too much too soon. It is a prudent approach, but it means health care costs won't change very soon - instead all we can expect is that it might bend the curve so that future costs are less than we are projecting.
In retrospect, I think maybe he shouldn't have been so prudent. By taking on health care and only expanding coverage and doing modest pilots on cost-control, he left the door open for conservatives like Ryan to talk about cost control and to propose terrible schemes like consumer choice.
Either way though, the point is that Ryan may be right that Medicare is not on solid footing, but his plan is the least fair, least effective and therefore least desirable option out there.
There are three facts about medicare that you simply can’t dispute: 10,000 seniors are retiring everyday with fewer workers going into the workforce to pay for them; healthcare costs are skyrocketing at about four times the rate of inflation, which threatens medicare’s ability to give affordable care; and number three, the non-partisan experts agree that Medicare is going bankrupt. So Medicare’s status quo is bankruptcy and that threatens healthcare not only for current seniors but obviously for future seniors, so I believe a patient-centered healthcare system — reforms that put the patient at the center of the healthcare system, not the government — are the best for people who need healthcare and they’re best for the economy, and they’re the best way to avert a debt crisis.To start, let's assume that his three facts are true; I don't see anything I disagree with. But even if all the things he says are true, his solution isn't the only option based on those facts.
If Medicare is going bankrupt, then we have a few options. One is to increase funding. Another is to decrease services - either by cutting spending on the government side, or, as Ryan proposes, by making it a voucher program and underfunding it. My main problem with Ryan's plan is how he describes it; he tries to say that by using vouchers, he won't be underfunding services and that markets will magically bring down prices so that services won't be cut. This is stupid. He is cutting costs by cutting services - plain and simple.
A fourth option would be to keep it government-funded but to change incentives and structures to bring down costs. What is driving increased medical costs is in part an aging population and in part unnecessary services driven by our for-profit, fee-for-service system. Obama's health care plan plays with fixes, but only does so as pilots - afraid to change too much too soon. It is a prudent approach, but it means health care costs won't change very soon - instead all we can expect is that it might bend the curve so that future costs are less than we are projecting.
In retrospect, I think maybe he shouldn't have been so prudent. By taking on health care and only expanding coverage and doing modest pilots on cost-control, he left the door open for conservatives like Ryan to talk about cost control and to propose terrible schemes like consumer choice.
Either way though, the point is that Ryan may be right that Medicare is not on solid footing, but his plan is the least fair, least effective and therefore least desirable option out there.
Post Tries to be Reasonable About Gay Marriage
I do find it interesting that even conservative papers like the Post are trying to make anti-same sex marriage arguments sound reasonable. They even acknowledge “the frustration of gay couples who insist that they be treated the same as everyone else.” Unfortunately, that’s not enough to convince them to allow it.
Of course, the editorial falls on two familiar but illogical arguments. First, they try to say that marriage as an institution promotes procreation and gay marriage will undermine procreation. The problem is that society - and government - is perfectly willing to accept heterosexual couples that are obviously marrying for love and have no plans to have children. If we were honest about wanting marriage to be only about children, there would be a question for couples seeking a license asking if they can and intend to have children. But there isn't because heterosexual love is okay, homosexual love isn't - but reasonable people don't want to say it that way.
Second, they argue that allowing marriage would prevent religious freedom. We do not condone racism, even if it is part of someone’s religion. Religious freedom is not unlimited. We should never condone bigotry, even if someone is hiding behind their religion. Unfortunately, it takes time to recognize bigotry.
Now, I am willing to accept exemptions for religions for now as a first step to get more people used to the idea. And after society gets used to idea, we might finally see opposition as illogical and only explainable as bigotry. And at that point, we won't need a religious exemption. And we'll be happy to promote marriage for love, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual.
Of course, the editorial falls on two familiar but illogical arguments. First, they try to say that marriage as an institution promotes procreation and gay marriage will undermine procreation. The problem is that society - and government - is perfectly willing to accept heterosexual couples that are obviously marrying for love and have no plans to have children. If we were honest about wanting marriage to be only about children, there would be a question for couples seeking a license asking if they can and intend to have children. But there isn't because heterosexual love is okay, homosexual love isn't - but reasonable people don't want to say it that way.
Second, they argue that allowing marriage would prevent religious freedom. We do not condone racism, even if it is part of someone’s religion. Religious freedom is not unlimited. We should never condone bigotry, even if someone is hiding behind their religion. Unfortunately, it takes time to recognize bigotry.
Now, I am willing to accept exemptions for religions for now as a first step to get more people used to the idea. And after society gets used to idea, we might finally see opposition as illogical and only explainable as bigotry. And at that point, we won't need a religious exemption. And we'll be happy to promote marriage for love, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual.
On Growth
Dear Conservative,
I find Republican plans to grow the economy so frustrating. They are a one-trick pony with little understanding of what makes capitalism function.
Their one trick is of course tax cuts. In their mind, all capitalist systems need is less taxes and a government always gets out of the way. Granted, I think this is mostly an attempt at pandering to a base that is rabidly anti-government, but I am disappointed at how they either pander against their better judgment or don't have the judgment enough to know that government serves an important function.
The truth is that our capitalist system has been as successful as it has been because of certain government investments. Over the long-term, our government has invested in research, infrastructure, including roads, power, railroad, ports, as well as significant investment in education and the creation of a legal system and security that is necessary to protect confidence in a capitalist system.
As we are mired in a major recession, it is enraging that Republicans are in a race to the bottom as each trots out programs that will cut the most taxes and therefore have to gut government spending and program. They claim they are proposing pro-growth policies, but if they actually understood capitalism, they would favor the right kind of government spending to promote growth, instead of pretending that all government spending, excluding the military, is bad spending.
A real pro-growth policy would increase spending on these items: education, infrastructure and research - and maintain spending on our legal system. By investing in education, we'd further improve the quality of our workforce and make it more likely that new inventions and innovations start here. And big gains could be made in inner cities were education outcomes are so poor.
By investing in infrastructure - whether it is a smart grid or otherwise improved electricity transportation or rail, roads and ports - we'll be allowing our businesses to be more productive than they otherwise would be. We can set the groundwork for more cost-effective power distribution and usage and decrease costs for businesses. And whether it is high-speed rail or other forward-thinking and smart transportation items, we can similarly make our businesses more productive. And research can help our firms develop new technologies and medicines that will change the world - and bring profits to domestic firms.
All of these things should be considered public goods - things that otherwise would be under-produced in our capitalist system. And one of government's best roles is in providing public goods. Unfortunately, the Republican party is too ideological to see any role for government, which means the miss opportunities for actual pro-growth policies and actually helping our economy for the future.
I find Republican plans to grow the economy so frustrating. They are a one-trick pony with little understanding of what makes capitalism function.
Their one trick is of course tax cuts. In their mind, all capitalist systems need is less taxes and a government always gets out of the way. Granted, I think this is mostly an attempt at pandering to a base that is rabidly anti-government, but I am disappointed at how they either pander against their better judgment or don't have the judgment enough to know that government serves an important function.
The truth is that our capitalist system has been as successful as it has been because of certain government investments. Over the long-term, our government has invested in research, infrastructure, including roads, power, railroad, ports, as well as significant investment in education and the creation of a legal system and security that is necessary to protect confidence in a capitalist system.
As we are mired in a major recession, it is enraging that Republicans are in a race to the bottom as each trots out programs that will cut the most taxes and therefore have to gut government spending and program. They claim they are proposing pro-growth policies, but if they actually understood capitalism, they would favor the right kind of government spending to promote growth, instead of pretending that all government spending, excluding the military, is bad spending.
A real pro-growth policy would increase spending on these items: education, infrastructure and research - and maintain spending on our legal system. By investing in education, we'd further improve the quality of our workforce and make it more likely that new inventions and innovations start here. And big gains could be made in inner cities were education outcomes are so poor.
By investing in infrastructure - whether it is a smart grid or otherwise improved electricity transportation or rail, roads and ports - we'll be allowing our businesses to be more productive than they otherwise would be. We can set the groundwork for more cost-effective power distribution and usage and decrease costs for businesses. And whether it is high-speed rail or other forward-thinking and smart transportation items, we can similarly make our businesses more productive. And research can help our firms develop new technologies and medicines that will change the world - and bring profits to domestic firms.
All of these things should be considered public goods - things that otherwise would be under-produced in our capitalist system. And one of government's best roles is in providing public goods. Unfortunately, the Republican party is too ideological to see any role for government, which means the miss opportunities for actual pro-growth policies and actually helping our economy for the future.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Women - Stereotypes Need Apply
The recent news about Congressman Weiner has lead to discussions about why this happens to men and not women. Of course many of these discussions rely on generalizations and stereotypes - and this NY Times article is no different. When I see articles like this (or in a Political Science class I took in college studying leadership in politics), I often wonder how helpful and accurate the generalizations are. A statement like this seems way too comprehensive and therefore not accurate:
I realize that at first, this quote sounds good: women are the workhorses and men are the show-horses; women are about substance and men about style and ego. But actually it is pigeon-holing women. When you say women run for office to do something, men to becomes someone, you are essentially saying women shouldn't have ambition or ego.
And as this drives our expectations, when women do want to become someone, we bristle at that because she is acting unladylike. And as much as I didn't support Hillary Clinton's campaign (more on that in the future), I think she suffered from this.
And in fact, the reckless line creates the expectation that women won't do that and likely would make the backlash worse. And when I think back to my class on leadership, one of the articles identified differences in leadership styles between men and women where men are more commanding and women more about consensus. Again, this boxes women in.
The bottom line is that we should be very careful with generalizations and creating expectations about how people should act because of the group they are in. This way, they can be free to be who they are - women can be more interested in becoming someone or can be reckless and have only as much backlash as men get. Or they can continue to be the workhorses of government.
"There are certain men that the more visible they get, the more bulletproof they feel," Ms. Myers said. "You just don’t see women doing that; they don’t get reckless when they’re empowered."Really? No women get reckless? But it is the quote that I find actually harmful:
"The shorthand of it is that women run for office to do something, and men run for office to be somebody," said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. "Women run because there is some public issue that they care about, some change they want to make, some issue that is a priority for them, and men tend to run for office because they see this as a career path."The problem with generalizations is that they lead to stereotypes which then puts people into a box. Soon, we think all people in a category are a certain way or should be a certain way.
I realize that at first, this quote sounds good: women are the workhorses and men are the show-horses; women are about substance and men about style and ego. But actually it is pigeon-holing women. When you say women run for office to do something, men to becomes someone, you are essentially saying women shouldn't have ambition or ego.
And as this drives our expectations, when women do want to become someone, we bristle at that because she is acting unladylike. And as much as I didn't support Hillary Clinton's campaign (more on that in the future), I think she suffered from this.
And in fact, the reckless line creates the expectation that women won't do that and likely would make the backlash worse. And when I think back to my class on leadership, one of the articles identified differences in leadership styles between men and women where men are more commanding and women more about consensus. Again, this boxes women in.
The bottom line is that we should be very careful with generalizations and creating expectations about how people should act because of the group they are in. This way, they can be free to be who they are - women can be more interested in becoming someone or can be reckless and have only as much backlash as men get. Or they can continue to be the workhorses of government.
What Would Tell Me I am Wrong?
Dear Conservative,
I know you and I have a different perspective on how to improve the economy. I strongly believe that we need more fiscal stimulus and you believe that we don't and need to focus on cutting the budget instead. I get frustrated that the evidence is on my side and that you can't be looking at the evidence clearly to arrive at your position. It makes me crazy that you aren't challenging your assumptions.
So let me show you how it's done by challenging my assumptions. Here is the way I see it. We have high unemployment that isn't improving in any real way. So the two options for fixing that are monetary policy or fiscal policy.
Normally, to use monetary policy, the Federal Reserve would lower interest rates. This has the effect of making saving money less attractive than investing and spending money, having an expansionary effect. However, monetary policy will not work because interest rates cannot get any lower - they are at the zero bound (liquidity trap). In other words, it would take a negative interest rate to get people to decide to spend instead of save. So the only option is fiscal policy.
But what would it take to convince me that I am wrong? Any number of things. If unemployment were decreasing. Or if someone could show me that monetary policy would work (some say if we announced a policy to let inflation increase and promised to maintain it for a certain number of years). Or that fiscal policy will do more harm than good.
It seems conservatives (you) are trying to say that we should try neither monetary or fiscal policy - that things will get better if government gets out of the way. I thought the great depression proved that wrong.
There is also a mindset that if we cut budget deficits, the magic confidence fairy will allow for growth. But there is no evidence that current short-term budget deficits are causing investor concerns. Inflation and interest rates on government bonds remain low.
They (you) are also saying that fiscal policy will cause more problems, that more fiscal stimulus and the higher deficits that would go along with it will increase bond rates. But again bonds are very low right now.
In other words, I am convinced that I have already thought about what would convince me that I am wrong and none of those things hold. We are in a recession, and we need to take action to get out of it. Unfortunately, monetary policy won't work. And you won't let us pass fiscal stimulus. Maybe you should reconsider your position.
Update:
Further evidence that convinces me that I am not wrong: surveys by the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Small Business (hat tip, Jared Bernstein) shows that the economy or weak sales (respectively) are the biggest problems facing small businesses. Now, the NFSB finding speaks for itself, but the Chamber finding, where "the economy" is the biggest problem, needs some explaining. You'll see that the Chamber survey isn't really an attempt to figure out what businesses need, but to create a document they can use when lobbying Congress for tax cuts. Even with such a biased survey, businesses were more concerned with the economy - which I read as depressed sales (demand) - than with taxes.
I know you and I have a different perspective on how to improve the economy. I strongly believe that we need more fiscal stimulus and you believe that we don't and need to focus on cutting the budget instead. I get frustrated that the evidence is on my side and that you can't be looking at the evidence clearly to arrive at your position. It makes me crazy that you aren't challenging your assumptions.
So let me show you how it's done by challenging my assumptions. Here is the way I see it. We have high unemployment that isn't improving in any real way. So the two options for fixing that are monetary policy or fiscal policy.
Normally, to use monetary policy, the Federal Reserve would lower interest rates. This has the effect of making saving money less attractive than investing and spending money, having an expansionary effect. However, monetary policy will not work because interest rates cannot get any lower - they are at the zero bound (liquidity trap). In other words, it would take a negative interest rate to get people to decide to spend instead of save. So the only option is fiscal policy.
But what would it take to convince me that I am wrong? Any number of things. If unemployment were decreasing. Or if someone could show me that monetary policy would work (some say if we announced a policy to let inflation increase and promised to maintain it for a certain number of years). Or that fiscal policy will do more harm than good.
It seems conservatives (you) are trying to say that we should try neither monetary or fiscal policy - that things will get better if government gets out of the way. I thought the great depression proved that wrong.
There is also a mindset that if we cut budget deficits, the magic confidence fairy will allow for growth. But there is no evidence that current short-term budget deficits are causing investor concerns. Inflation and interest rates on government bonds remain low.
They (you) are also saying that fiscal policy will cause more problems, that more fiscal stimulus and the higher deficits that would go along with it will increase bond rates. But again bonds are very low right now.
In other words, I am convinced that I have already thought about what would convince me that I am wrong and none of those things hold. We are in a recession, and we need to take action to get out of it. Unfortunately, monetary policy won't work. And you won't let us pass fiscal stimulus. Maybe you should reconsider your position.
Update:
Further evidence that convinces me that I am not wrong: surveys by the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Small Business (hat tip, Jared Bernstein) shows that the economy or weak sales (respectively) are the biggest problems facing small businesses. Now, the NFSB finding speaks for itself, but the Chamber finding, where "the economy" is the biggest problem, needs some explaining. You'll see that the Chamber survey isn't really an attempt to figure out what businesses need, but to create a document they can use when lobbying Congress for tax cuts. Even with such a biased survey, businesses were more concerned with the economy - which I read as depressed sales (demand) - than with taxes.
Brooks on Fannie Mae
David Brooks has a column about Fannie Mae that is almost entirely accurate - except for one major distortion. Brooks talks about the problems of this particular public / private partnership. Fannie was a private lender with an implicit government guarantee and so was able to take big risks, make big profits, with the knowledge that they would be bailed out. And through lobbying and support from affordable housing-supportive congresspersons with pro-business congresspersons were able to prevent oversight and regulation.
All of this is true. But this following sentence is not true and I find it appalling:
But Fannie Mae did not spread risky behavior across the market. In fact, the evidence shows that Fannie Mae was late to the game when it came to risky loans. It had to play catch-up to the private groups like Goldman, et al. It frustrates me that this myth among conservatives, even moderates like Brooks, spreads without any evidence to back it up. The evidence is clear that the bulk of the risky behavior was in the private sector and started in the private sector.
All of this is true. But this following sentence is not true and I find it appalling:
Of course, it all came undone. Underneath, Fannie was a cancer that helped spread risky behavior and low standards across the housing industry. We all know what happened next.Look, Fannie Mae's setup was very problematic (And if I remember right, George W. Bush wanted to increase oversight). They either need to be fully government-run or fully private with no government guarantee. There is an argument to be made that their role in providing liquidity to smaller banks is important for the housing market and can be done without making unsound loans.
But Fannie Mae did not spread risky behavior across the market. In fact, the evidence shows that Fannie Mae was late to the game when it came to risky loans. It had to play catch-up to the private groups like Goldman, et al. It frustrates me that this myth among conservatives, even moderates like Brooks, spreads without any evidence to back it up. The evidence is clear that the bulk of the risky behavior was in the private sector and started in the private sector.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Early 2012 Forecasting
My favorite site now by far for election forecasting is the NY Times 538 blog, which looks at politics through polling and statistics. They have had some good posts recently about the 2012 elections, so let's have a look. They are handicapping the Republican field in an interesting way and looking at Obama's chances given our economic situation.
First, the Republicans. The 538 blog feels that early polling can be a pretty good predictor of who will win the nomination. But in this case, they combine polling with name recognition to get an adjusted score. The theory here is that if a candidate polls well among the people who know him or her, then they have a good chance of winning. Looking back, this method fits the outcomes pretty well. So what do we see?
When the post was written, the two front-runners were Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee - who has since declined to run. Depending on the exact model, Tim Pawlenty looks good, too. After that, Palin, Trump (also not running - big surprise), Bachmann, etc don't look as good. In future posts, the blog says that Herman Cain actually looks pretty good - good support among people who know him but also little election experience - so something to keep an eye on.
Now for Obama. The blog tells us that there is no clear relationship between unemployment and presidential election outcomes. However, the overall state of the economy will be a factor. Obama's current ratings are better than the state of the economy would suggest but this tends to change as we get closer to the election.
Of course it is going to come down to whether the economy is seen as improving slightly and whether voters blame Republicans for the economy or think Obama has had enough time to make improvements and therefore is responsible. My personal feeling is that Obama has a tough case to make. He asked for one stimulus and said that would be enough. It clearly wasn't. He didn't ask for another one, even though good economic analysis clearly showed the need for it.
He probably could not have gotten it, but because he didn't ask, he can't blame the anemic growth and lack of improvement in jobs on obstructionist Republicans. Instead, it looks like fiscal stimulus failed. He went weak and he might pay for it. In some situations, it doesn't pay to be moderate.
All might not be lost, since his foreign policy looks pretty strong. Things are improving in Afghanistan and troops are coming home from Iraq. Also, Bin Laden has been killed, and he looks pretty good on Egypt and Libya.
The 538 blog (and Intrade) thinks Obama is still the favorite. I feel that the Republican field is pretty weak - Romney is a hypocrite, Pawlenty is both boring and his plans are laughable*, and the rest of the field is crazy. That being said, the economy is not looking good and I feel that if he loses because of the economy, it's Obama's own fault.
*In the original version of this post, I called Pawlenty a liar. That isn't what I meant, but was tired and left it in there. I was meaning to refer to his laughable prediction that he could get 5 percent growth over 10 years. It isn't exactly lying, but he is a fool or purposely exaggerating what he can achieve.
First, the Republicans. The 538 blog feels that early polling can be a pretty good predictor of who will win the nomination. But in this case, they combine polling with name recognition to get an adjusted score. The theory here is that if a candidate polls well among the people who know him or her, then they have a good chance of winning. Looking back, this method fits the outcomes pretty well. So what do we see?
When the post was written, the two front-runners were Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee - who has since declined to run. Depending on the exact model, Tim Pawlenty looks good, too. After that, Palin, Trump (also not running - big surprise), Bachmann, etc don't look as good. In future posts, the blog says that Herman Cain actually looks pretty good - good support among people who know him but also little election experience - so something to keep an eye on.
Now for Obama. The blog tells us that there is no clear relationship between unemployment and presidential election outcomes. However, the overall state of the economy will be a factor. Obama's current ratings are better than the state of the economy would suggest but this tends to change as we get closer to the election.
Of course it is going to come down to whether the economy is seen as improving slightly and whether voters blame Republicans for the economy or think Obama has had enough time to make improvements and therefore is responsible. My personal feeling is that Obama has a tough case to make. He asked for one stimulus and said that would be enough. It clearly wasn't. He didn't ask for another one, even though good economic analysis clearly showed the need for it.
He probably could not have gotten it, but because he didn't ask, he can't blame the anemic growth and lack of improvement in jobs on obstructionist Republicans. Instead, it looks like fiscal stimulus failed. He went weak and he might pay for it. In some situations, it doesn't pay to be moderate.
All might not be lost, since his foreign policy looks pretty strong. Things are improving in Afghanistan and troops are coming home from Iraq. Also, Bin Laden has been killed, and he looks pretty good on Egypt and Libya.
The 538 blog (and Intrade) thinks Obama is still the favorite. I feel that the Republican field is pretty weak - Romney is a hypocrite, Pawlenty is both boring and his plans are laughable*, and the rest of the field is crazy. That being said, the economy is not looking good and I feel that if he loses because of the economy, it's Obama's own fault.
*In the original version of this post, I called Pawlenty a liar. That isn't what I meant, but was tired and left it in there. I was meaning to refer to his laughable prediction that he could get 5 percent growth over 10 years. It isn't exactly lying, but he is a fool or purposely exaggerating what he can achieve.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Do Republicans Listen to Brooks?
As you probably know, I am a fan of David Brooks. I think he is good at reigning in the extreme elements of both parties and pointing out their excesses. I especially like him because as a conservative (I use the term loosely here), he gives me the sense that I could find some common ground with Republicans.
My question though is whether the party actually listens to him. I sense that Democrats like him, but as the Republican party gets more and more extreme, I wonder if his recommendations are just laughed at by the party.
Here are some parts from a recent column on the debt ceiling:
The fact is, the Republicans have backed themselves into a corner by saying all government spending is bad and all taxes are too high. The only solutions this leaves them are serious and unpopular cuts. The sort of moderate, smart, and reasonable policies that Brooks proposes do not fit in with Republican rhetoric, which means I doubt that the party listens to him at all - unfortunately.
Side Note: I strongly disagree though with Brooks' love for Paul Ryan. Instead, I side with Paul Krugman who has shown quite convincingly that Ryan's plan, while acknowledging Medicare's unsustainable future, chooses to put costs onto seniors to solve the problem.
My question though is whether the party actually listens to him. I sense that Democrats like him, but as the Republican party gets more and more extreme, I wonder if his recommendations are just laughed at by the party.
Here are some parts from a recent column on the debt ceiling:
First, Republicans have to make a grand offer on raising the debt ceiling. This offer should include a bipartisan commitment to reduce the growth of Medicare spending. Republicans need Democratic fingerprints on a plan to restrain entitlements. In exchange, Republicans should offer to raise tax revenues on the rich. They should get rid of the interest deductions on mortgages over $500,000 and on second homes. They should close corporate loopholes and cap the health insurance deduction. They should offer a plan that follows the outline of the Simpson-Bowles report and what the now “Gang of Five” in the Senate is working on. (Senator Mark Kirk has a proposal roughly on this latter point.)I can't see the Republican party doing anything to increase taxes. In fact, I see them allowing the status quo of budget deficits before they agree to fix the deficits with any tax increases. Also, the idea that Republicans would support community colleges or infrastructure banks, even though they are pro-growth policies, is also unbelievable.
[Edit]
They need to lay out the facts showing that Medicare is unstable and on a path to collapse, as Representative Paul Ryan is doing. But they also need to enmesh Medicare reform within an agenda to build solid communities: more money for community colleges and technical schools, an infrastructure bank, a values agenda to shore up marriage and family cohesion, tax holidays to help the unemployed start businesses, tax reform to limit special interest power.
The fact is, the Republicans have backed themselves into a corner by saying all government spending is bad and all taxes are too high. The only solutions this leaves them are serious and unpopular cuts. The sort of moderate, smart, and reasonable policies that Brooks proposes do not fit in with Republican rhetoric, which means I doubt that the party listens to him at all - unfortunately.
Side Note: I strongly disagree though with Brooks' love for Paul Ryan. Instead, I side with Paul Krugman who has shown quite convincingly that Ryan's plan, while acknowledging Medicare's unsustainable future, chooses to put costs onto seniors to solve the problem.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
America Proportional
Ralph Nader's (and others') talk about the lack of third parties made me want to spend more time on that notion - on our plurality / winner-take-all / first-past-the-post system as compared to a proportional system*.
As a first, and I think very fun, step, let's consider all the possible different parties that could exist in our system if we were starting from scratch. In my mind, the list of parties might look like the following:
On the Right
- Libertarian party
- Tea Party
- Conservative party
- Christian Coalition party
- Pro-Business / Pro-Growth party
On the Left
- Communist party
- Socialist party
- Liberal party
- Progressive party
- Blue Dog party
In a proportional system, all these parties would be likely to have some level of success getting votes to have membership in the elected body. But we don't have a proportional system. So let's imagine these parties in a winner-takes-all system, which is what we have.
For argument's sake, let's say that one group, the Progressive party, has the most support, if only by a small amount. (My choice wasn't totally random, I chose the Progressives because I think that's where I would vote, but for this exercise it could be any party.) So if the progressive party has the most support, two of the parties on the right would have every incentive to get together to beat out the Progressives.
For example, the Conservative party might link up with the Tea party, seeing that they have a lot in common and would hate to see a party on the left win. Well now that those two parties have linked and are in the lead, the Progressives might decide to link with another party so that a group on the right doesn't win. So they link up with the Liberal party.
This back and forth would continue until there are two parties competing for the one position because each party would rather help create a winning party on their side, even if it means compromise, then allow a party on the other side to win (this simple rationality and strategic decision-making didn't seem to appeal to Ralph Nader).
In a proportional system, you don't face that choice because all parties receive seats based on their votes. The only pressure toward fewer parties that I can see would result if the top vote-getting party gets the first opportunity to create a government. In that case, you might see parties merge to create the biggest party.
But besides that scenario, in a proportional system, the coalition-forming and governing comes after the election. If the above-listed parties were in a proportional system, and the Progressive Party received the most votes, they would have to see if they could create a majority governing coalition with other (likely left-leaning) parties.
What seems clear to me is that in a plurality system, strategic decisions (not corruption) lead to a two-party system. If people in this country want more parties, they should fight for a proportional system. I think they know that will never happen, so instead they resort to charges of corruption.
I also think compromise and incremental policy-making is a natural result in either structure. The difference, to my mind, is that in a plurality system the coalitions form before the elections and in a proportional system the coalitions form after the elections. Either way, those governing need to make decisions that are popular with a majority of the people. Those on the extreme or in the minority never like this, but it is a fact of popular government.
So when you find yourself with a belief that is in the minority, you should bemoan not the type of government or the candidates or the number of parties, but the fact that more people don't agree with you. And then you should try to change their minds. Perhaps by debating with them.
*For the purposes of this post, I am referring specifically to a party-proportional system, like that in Israel.
As a first, and I think very fun, step, let's consider all the possible different parties that could exist in our system if we were starting from scratch. In my mind, the list of parties might look like the following:
On the Right
- Libertarian party
- Tea Party
- Conservative party
- Christian Coalition party
- Pro-Business / Pro-Growth party
On the Left
- Communist party
- Socialist party
- Liberal party
- Progressive party
- Blue Dog party
In a proportional system, all these parties would be likely to have some level of success getting votes to have membership in the elected body. But we don't have a proportional system. So let's imagine these parties in a winner-takes-all system, which is what we have.
For argument's sake, let's say that one group, the Progressive party, has the most support, if only by a small amount. (My choice wasn't totally random, I chose the Progressives because I think that's where I would vote, but for this exercise it could be any party.) So if the progressive party has the most support, two of the parties on the right would have every incentive to get together to beat out the Progressives.
For example, the Conservative party might link up with the Tea party, seeing that they have a lot in common and would hate to see a party on the left win. Well now that those two parties have linked and are in the lead, the Progressives might decide to link with another party so that a group on the right doesn't win. So they link up with the Liberal party.
This back and forth would continue until there are two parties competing for the one position because each party would rather help create a winning party on their side, even if it means compromise, then allow a party on the other side to win (this simple rationality and strategic decision-making didn't seem to appeal to Ralph Nader).
In a proportional system, you don't face that choice because all parties receive seats based on their votes. The only pressure toward fewer parties that I can see would result if the top vote-getting party gets the first opportunity to create a government. In that case, you might see parties merge to create the biggest party.
But besides that scenario, in a proportional system, the coalition-forming and governing comes after the election. If the above-listed parties were in a proportional system, and the Progressive Party received the most votes, they would have to see if they could create a majority governing coalition with other (likely left-leaning) parties.
What seems clear to me is that in a plurality system, strategic decisions (not corruption) lead to a two-party system. If people in this country want more parties, they should fight for a proportional system. I think they know that will never happen, so instead they resort to charges of corruption.
I also think compromise and incremental policy-making is a natural result in either structure. The difference, to my mind, is that in a plurality system the coalitions form before the elections and in a proportional system the coalitions form after the elections. Either way, those governing need to make decisions that are popular with a majority of the people. Those on the extreme or in the minority never like this, but it is a fact of popular government.
So when you find yourself with a belief that is in the minority, you should bemoan not the type of government or the candidates or the number of parties, but the fact that more people don't agree with you. And then you should try to change their minds. Perhaps by debating with them.
*For the purposes of this post, I am referring specifically to a party-proportional system, like that in Israel.
A Little History, A Little Lite
I just finished reading EH Gombrich's A Little History of the World. The book has a lot of good things about it, and a few negatives. It is a fast read and an easy general history of the world. And each little piece of history you get can prompt you to do further research to get more in depth.
However, because it is so fast, it is very superficial. And times it is very clear that the summary is less than accurate - or just too superficial to be useful. In those cases - or all cases - further research is probably necessary. (The most clear example is the American Civil War. I wouldn't go to this book for a description of that anyway, but when you see what is lacking in that description, you can imagine what is lacking in other descriptions.)
Granted, this book is meant for children, so the lack of depth should be considered in that context. However, children shouldn't be given inaccurate information just for the sake of brevity.
But probably the biggest deficiency of the book is the western focus. When dealing with other cultures outside of Europe, it recognizes some of their accomplishments, but through omission suggests that there wasn't much of interest going on.
The book hardly talks about Russia before the communist revolution. And its coverage of China and the Middle East is similarly lacking. And Africa and South America aren't even covered except to talk about how they were colonized.
A less western-focused book could have talked more about the other great civilizations including the Inca and the Maya, more of the Chinese dynasties, Muslim culture beyond just the conquests, the major African civilizations, and the native tribes in North America.
Considering the strong deficiencies, I am not sure if I would recommend this book to my child (when old enough to read it). I guess as long as he understands what is lacking and will do further research, I would be okay with it. But here's hoping for another author to complete a similar book that includes non-western cultures more. And finds a better way to be brief but more accurate - or admit where he is being too general.
However, because it is so fast, it is very superficial. And times it is very clear that the summary is less than accurate - or just too superficial to be useful. In those cases - or all cases - further research is probably necessary. (The most clear example is the American Civil War. I wouldn't go to this book for a description of that anyway, but when you see what is lacking in that description, you can imagine what is lacking in other descriptions.)
Granted, this book is meant for children, so the lack of depth should be considered in that context. However, children shouldn't be given inaccurate information just for the sake of brevity.
But probably the biggest deficiency of the book is the western focus. When dealing with other cultures outside of Europe, it recognizes some of their accomplishments, but through omission suggests that there wasn't much of interest going on.
The book hardly talks about Russia before the communist revolution. And its coverage of China and the Middle East is similarly lacking. And Africa and South America aren't even covered except to talk about how they were colonized.
A less western-focused book could have talked more about the other great civilizations including the Inca and the Maya, more of the Chinese dynasties, Muslim culture beyond just the conquests, the major African civilizations, and the native tribes in North America.
Considering the strong deficiencies, I am not sure if I would recommend this book to my child (when old enough to read it). I guess as long as he understands what is lacking and will do further research, I would be okay with it. But here's hoping for another author to complete a similar book that includes non-western cultures more. And finds a better way to be brief but more accurate - or admit where he is being too general.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Inside Job: A Review
This year's Oscar for Best Documentary went to Inside Job. Since I read (although didn't quite finish) Sorkin's Too Big to Fail, which is about the financial collapse, I thought I would like the movie even more. I didn't.
The movie tells a one-sided story about the financial collapse, blaming it all on Wall Street. Since Paul Krugman has actually blamed a global savings glut for the bubble and the recession, I have to accept that the documentary is not telling the full truth.
But I do believe that the financial industry along with moderate and conservative politicians and many economists, bear significant blame for the size of the recession and the need for a bailout. So I am only slightly offended that the movie beat up on those parties that called for deregulation.
What really bothered me about the movie though was that the interviewer was not very good at asking good tough questions. His questions were too broad and vague and he often allowed people to simply disagree without any explanation. He probably thinks this made the respondents just look stupid when you compare their answers to the evidence. But I think it doesn't give the interviewees a fair shake and at the same time it missed an opportunity to really get the interviewees.
For example, when talking about executive compensation, he asks if it is excessive. The industry lobbyist was able to simply say, "no". Instead he should have asked whether the compensation rewarded bad behavior by rewarding short term profit without punishing long term risk and loss.
Similarly, he asked about conflicts of interest among economists. The economists would just say no and were never pushed. Instead of asking whether it impacted objectivity when an economist was writing about complex derivatives but also being paid by companies that made a lot of money on derivatives, the interviewer just asked where the economist got his compensation from.
The whole movie had the feel of wanting to beat up on the guilty parties instead of having a real dialogue with them. It seemed to actually try to avoid conversation and using tricks to tell the viewer to hate the person on screen. In fact, most people it wanted to portray negatively refused to appear on screen, which seemed to work fine for those making the movie since they made it seem like those how refused were trying to hide something. But it would have made a better movie had they been able to convince those people that they would have had a real conversation.
As for how it won an Oscar, I wonder if Hollywood was overjoyed to see a movie that made other really rich people look like monsters and made the Hollywood-types - also very rich - feel superior. Just a hunch.
The one thing I hadn't known or thought about before seeing the movie was the issue of conflicts of interest among economists. I think it is a serious issue, but it is one that permeates so many other industries that need to be regulated (conflicts in the pharmaceutical industry has been getting attention lately, but we know that revolving door issues affect many government programs' effectiveness). An across the board - for all industries - conflicts of interest policy is much needed.
The movie tells a one-sided story about the financial collapse, blaming it all on Wall Street. Since Paul Krugman has actually blamed a global savings glut for the bubble and the recession, I have to accept that the documentary is not telling the full truth.
But I do believe that the financial industry along with moderate and conservative politicians and many economists, bear significant blame for the size of the recession and the need for a bailout. So I am only slightly offended that the movie beat up on those parties that called for deregulation.
What really bothered me about the movie though was that the interviewer was not very good at asking good tough questions. His questions were too broad and vague and he often allowed people to simply disagree without any explanation. He probably thinks this made the respondents just look stupid when you compare their answers to the evidence. But I think it doesn't give the interviewees a fair shake and at the same time it missed an opportunity to really get the interviewees.
For example, when talking about executive compensation, he asks if it is excessive. The industry lobbyist was able to simply say, "no". Instead he should have asked whether the compensation rewarded bad behavior by rewarding short term profit without punishing long term risk and loss.
Similarly, he asked about conflicts of interest among economists. The economists would just say no and were never pushed. Instead of asking whether it impacted objectivity when an economist was writing about complex derivatives but also being paid by companies that made a lot of money on derivatives, the interviewer just asked where the economist got his compensation from.
The whole movie had the feel of wanting to beat up on the guilty parties instead of having a real dialogue with them. It seemed to actually try to avoid conversation and using tricks to tell the viewer to hate the person on screen. In fact, most people it wanted to portray negatively refused to appear on screen, which seemed to work fine for those making the movie since they made it seem like those how refused were trying to hide something. But it would have made a better movie had they been able to convince those people that they would have had a real conversation.
As for how it won an Oscar, I wonder if Hollywood was overjoyed to see a movie that made other really rich people look like monsters and made the Hollywood-types - also very rich - feel superior. Just a hunch.
The one thing I hadn't known or thought about before seeing the movie was the issue of conflicts of interest among economists. I think it is a serious issue, but it is one that permeates so many other industries that need to be regulated (conflicts in the pharmaceutical industry has been getting attention lately, but we know that revolving door issues affect many government programs' effectiveness). An across the board - for all industries - conflicts of interest policy is much needed.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
On Truman
I finished watching the American Experience documentary on Harry Truman and I have to say that I am thoroughly unimpressed. Maybe if I read McCullough's book I'll understand why people seem to love Truman, but I doubt it. Let's look at his record.
The Good
It seems Truman deserves a good deal of respect for his position on civil rights. He was ahead of his time and so took a pro-civil rights position at great political risk. He integrated the military and supported anti-lynching laws. Though his position was the right one, he wasn't wildly successful.
The Marshall Plan is probably Truman's proudest accomplishment. American aid helped get western Europe through the post-war years and prevented what might have been a move to communism. However Truman, wisely and rightly, gave credit to Secretary of State John Marshall.
Truman is also famous for the saying, "The Buck Stops Here." Accountability is a great thing, but shouldn't be considered a major feat or accomplishment.
The Bad
I already talked about the atomic bomb and how he could have and should have had it dropped on military targets first instead of two large cities leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
He was also seemingly anti-union in practice. After the end of the war, there were battles between businesses and unions. Business wanted an end to price controls and unions wanted higher wages. It seemed that Truman hated when unions went on strike. In fact, he proposed - illegally - to draft railroad union members if they went on strike. I'm sure conservatives like this, but I don't.
His conduct during the Korean War was terrible. His decision to advance beyond the 38th parallel when China made it clear they would intervene if the UN / US force did so was appalling. He seemed to blame that situation on MacArthur. Granted, MacArthur was amazingly insubordinate, but the blame for the tens of thousands of American deaths that resulted from the advance beyond the 38th parallel lays entirely with Truman. There was no reason to advance and every reason to think it would be a grave mistake.
Truman was also the first president to have to deal with the communist threat, and he used scare tactics that would persist for decades to achieve his foreign policy goals. But those same tactics boxed him in domestically where he required federal employees to take loyalty oaths. And this same rhetoric arguably gave rise to to Senator Joseph McCarthy. A more wise and able president could have presented the threat to communism in a way that didn't allow for people on the far left - ones who had no desire to overthrow the government - to have their lives ruined.
Maybe it is unfair, but there are other small examples that leave me with a low impression of him. His own draft speech against unions, portrayed in the documentary, was amateurish and extreme. Even more so was his letter to the journalist that attacked his daughter's signing.
And I can't get over his relationship with his wife. She seemed to treat him badly and maybe didn't even respect him. Yet he always seemed to grovel and flatter her. Sure, patience is a virtue, but being a doormat is not.
Conclusion
Overall, I don't see enough good from President Truman to have a high opinion of him. In fact, I get every impression that he was in over his head - which he himself thought at times. Although he originally was elevated to president after Roosevelt died, he ran for his own term in 1948.
I have long thought that President Bush was in over his head and should not have ran for president. Even more so with Sarah Palin. The "everyman" should not be president. Only extraordinary men and women should be president. This doesn't mean ivy league, but it does mean people that are smart and well-educated and well-informed on history and current events.
After watching this movie, I have to think that Truman was in over his head, as was Bush. And neither should have put the country at risk by running for president when they felt - or should have felt - under-qualified.
The Good
It seems Truman deserves a good deal of respect for his position on civil rights. He was ahead of his time and so took a pro-civil rights position at great political risk. He integrated the military and supported anti-lynching laws. Though his position was the right one, he wasn't wildly successful.
The Marshall Plan is probably Truman's proudest accomplishment. American aid helped get western Europe through the post-war years and prevented what might have been a move to communism. However Truman, wisely and rightly, gave credit to Secretary of State John Marshall.
Truman is also famous for the saying, "The Buck Stops Here." Accountability is a great thing, but shouldn't be considered a major feat or accomplishment.
The Bad
I already talked about the atomic bomb and how he could have and should have had it dropped on military targets first instead of two large cities leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
He was also seemingly anti-union in practice. After the end of the war, there were battles between businesses and unions. Business wanted an end to price controls and unions wanted higher wages. It seemed that Truman hated when unions went on strike. In fact, he proposed - illegally - to draft railroad union members if they went on strike. I'm sure conservatives like this, but I don't.
His conduct during the Korean War was terrible. His decision to advance beyond the 38th parallel when China made it clear they would intervene if the UN / US force did so was appalling. He seemed to blame that situation on MacArthur. Granted, MacArthur was amazingly insubordinate, but the blame for the tens of thousands of American deaths that resulted from the advance beyond the 38th parallel lays entirely with Truman. There was no reason to advance and every reason to think it would be a grave mistake.
Truman was also the first president to have to deal with the communist threat, and he used scare tactics that would persist for decades to achieve his foreign policy goals. But those same tactics boxed him in domestically where he required federal employees to take loyalty oaths. And this same rhetoric arguably gave rise to to Senator Joseph McCarthy. A more wise and able president could have presented the threat to communism in a way that didn't allow for people on the far left - ones who had no desire to overthrow the government - to have their lives ruined.
Maybe it is unfair, but there are other small examples that leave me with a low impression of him. His own draft speech against unions, portrayed in the documentary, was amateurish and extreme. Even more so was his letter to the journalist that attacked his daughter's signing.
And I can't get over his relationship with his wife. She seemed to treat him badly and maybe didn't even respect him. Yet he always seemed to grovel and flatter her. Sure, patience is a virtue, but being a doormat is not.
Conclusion
Overall, I don't see enough good from President Truman to have a high opinion of him. In fact, I get every impression that he was in over his head - which he himself thought at times. Although he originally was elevated to president after Roosevelt died, he ran for his own term in 1948.
I have long thought that President Bush was in over his head and should not have ran for president. Even more so with Sarah Palin. The "everyman" should not be president. Only extraordinary men and women should be president. This doesn't mean ivy league, but it does mean people that are smart and well-educated and well-informed on history and current events.
After watching this movie, I have to think that Truman was in over his head, as was Bush. And neither should have put the country at risk by running for president when they felt - or should have felt - under-qualified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)