In 2008, Candidate Obama wanted to prevent bills from being rushed through Congress without people reading them (like the US PATRIOT Act), so he promised to allow five days for public comment and debate after Congress passed a bill before he would sign it. That way, everyone would have a chance to air their views and public oversight would rule the day. Why do birds suddenly appear...?
Okay, back in reality, this was a ridiculous and stupid promise to make. Most bills are debated for ridiculously too long in Congress before being passed. Are you really going to risk a precariously, meticulously constructed majority consensus that took months to build on the passing whims of a public tortured by sensationalist news reports and razor-sharp partisanship? Any bills passing faster than a dead snail are "emergency bills" which Obama's promise explicitly made exception for anyway. Even the US PATRIOT Act was touted as an emergency response to the 9/11 WTC bombing and, thus, would have been immune to Obama's promise.
Of course he didn't keep it. He shouldn't keep it. Anyone passingly familiar with politics should have realized it was an untenable, possibly irresponsible goal and no promise should ever have been made.
Unless he never intended to keep it. Then it was a work of evil genius. It makes him sound like a uniter, not a divider. It's the kind of promise that makes him sound like a champion of government transparency with his fingers on the pulse of mundane America. It's the kind of promise that makes him sound like a great moderate leader, aloof of the establishment but in touch with the people, until the inevitable failure to achieve it makes him look hypocritical and manipulative. Which, on this point, Obama clearly was.
In other news, video game programmers have decided that anytime they figure out a cool new technology they're going to post details online and wait five days for other developers to try to copy the new trick before publishing any game that uses it. And Duke Nukem Forever was released to rave reviews. Pre-order today by sending me money!
Showing posts with label obameter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obameter. Show all posts
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Obameter #225: Energy Partnership for the Americas
I started to write an explanation why I haven't been posting much lately, but I realized that it was boring and that it would take just as much time as writing a politically interesting post. So forget explanations and on with the politics!
As much as the USA likes to pretend they're alone in the world, there are actually many other nations in the Americas. One of Obama's campaign promises was to pursue a eco-friendly energy plan agreement between many of the nations in our Western Hemisphere, with emphasis on promotion of clean coal, "next generation" biofuels, wind, solar and nuclear energy.
It's a politically astute goal, at least rhetorically, since it unites traditionally left-wing environmental goals and traditionally right-wing financial goals. (I should probably make a reference to the movie Amazing Grace here.) The theory is that the USA will invent all these great environmentally-friendly energy technologies and the rest of the Americas will buy them up. It's green in two senses, environmentalism and profitability. It even bares some similarities to free trade agreements like NAFTA, and I like free trade.
Basically, Obama wants the USA to become the OPEC of green energy. Which is a pretty good ideal, if you think about it. Having dictatorships and tyrants running the world's energy supply has been… awkward in recent history. It heralds back to the early American ideals of prosperity and freedom supporting and improving each other.
But it's a false impression. Governments promoting green energy inherently means one of two things: putting taxpayer money towards research and infrastructure, or crippling traditional energy with regulations to make green energy seem more financially reasonable by comparison. Both are decreases in financial freedom. The Energy Partnership will actually be the rich USA throwing buckets of money into research (admittedly, throwing money at things is one of Obama's strengths) and as much of the hemisphere as possible regulating all other energy until the USA is the core of an artificial green energy industry.
I'm all for the USA having more financial power. Strong economic power has been an American tradition since Hamilton argued for it at the Constitutional Convention. The pursuit of happiness has always inherently allowed for the freedom to pursue prosperity. But harvesting individual prosperity to pay for environmental friendliness in order to pursue economic prosperity? Harming prosperity to pursue prosperity? That clearly contradicts itself. The economic costs and benefits are clearly working against each other, leaving only naked environmentalism.
I'm not going to rehash the Green debate again. It is sufficient to say that environmentalism remains controversial and disputable, and if a diplomatic session between a few heads of state ends up changing the lives of hundreds of millions regardless of their personal views it will be a poisonous dose of authoritarianism.
In the end, the nations of Canada, Mexico, and the United States agreed to cooperate on environmental research and development and to harmonize energy efficiency standards. It's certainly a promise kept. For me and others who see environmentalism pursued only as an excuse for leaders to amass power, it's a fairly benign development. It might even be advantageous for my views to have an international environmental research partnership outside the UN to compare. It is a bad principle was pursued so slightly that perhaps no harm was done. I reckon, then, that I'm only opposed on principle.
As much as the USA likes to pretend they're alone in the world, there are actually many other nations in the Americas. One of Obama's campaign promises was to pursue a eco-friendly energy plan agreement between many of the nations in our Western Hemisphere, with emphasis on promotion of clean coal, "next generation" biofuels, wind, solar and nuclear energy.
It's a politically astute goal, at least rhetorically, since it unites traditionally left-wing environmental goals and traditionally right-wing financial goals. (I should probably make a reference to the movie Amazing Grace here.) The theory is that the USA will invent all these great environmentally-friendly energy technologies and the rest of the Americas will buy them up. It's green in two senses, environmentalism and profitability. It even bares some similarities to free trade agreements like NAFTA, and I like free trade.
Basically, Obama wants the USA to become the OPEC of green energy. Which is a pretty good ideal, if you think about it. Having dictatorships and tyrants running the world's energy supply has been… awkward in recent history. It heralds back to the early American ideals of prosperity and freedom supporting and improving each other.
But it's a false impression. Governments promoting green energy inherently means one of two things: putting taxpayer money towards research and infrastructure, or crippling traditional energy with regulations to make green energy seem more financially reasonable by comparison. Both are decreases in financial freedom. The Energy Partnership will actually be the rich USA throwing buckets of money into research (admittedly, throwing money at things is one of Obama's strengths) and as much of the hemisphere as possible regulating all other energy until the USA is the core of an artificial green energy industry.
I'm all for the USA having more financial power. Strong economic power has been an American tradition since Hamilton argued for it at the Constitutional Convention. The pursuit of happiness has always inherently allowed for the freedom to pursue prosperity. But harvesting individual prosperity to pay for environmental friendliness in order to pursue economic prosperity? Harming prosperity to pursue prosperity? That clearly contradicts itself. The economic costs and benefits are clearly working against each other, leaving only naked environmentalism.
I'm not going to rehash the Green debate again. It is sufficient to say that environmentalism remains controversial and disputable, and if a diplomatic session between a few heads of state ends up changing the lives of hundreds of millions regardless of their personal views it will be a poisonous dose of authoritarianism.
In the end, the nations of Canada, Mexico, and the United States agreed to cooperate on environmental research and development and to harmonize energy efficiency standards. It's certainly a promise kept. For me and others who see environmentalism pursued only as an excuse for leaders to amass power, it's a fairly benign development. It might even be advantageous for my views to have an international environmental research partnership outside the UN to compare. It is a bad principle was pursued so slightly that perhaps no harm was done. I reckon, then, that I'm only opposed on principle.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Obameter #224: $2 bn for Bryne/JAG
Back in 1994, then-President Bill Clinton signed into law an omnibus law enforcement bill that became known as "the Crime Bill" (as if there were no others). It was a major centralizing reform of law enforcement which, among other things, instituted a federal law enforcement grants system wherein states and local level law enforcement agencies can petition the federal government for funding called the Bryne Justice Assistance Grant (one of the few things Wikipedia does not have a page for, by the way).
In his late-term attempts to cut domestic spending, President Bush (hefting his veto-stamp menacingly) convinced Congress to cut the funding of the Bryne/JAG program from $520 million down to $170 million. Democrats generally and Obama specifically were appalled by the cuts, spouting rhetoric about police agencies crippled by the cuts and, as a result, crime running a muck.
Obama promised to refund the program, and fulfilled his pledge with a $2 billion stimulus to Bryne/JAG.
The idea seems to be that anytime law enforcement needs money for a new task force or a new police helicopter or whatever, they dig through some red tape and find Uncle Sam's out-stretched fist full of dollars on the other side.
Now, it makes perfect sense to my right-wing brain that a Republican would be cutting domestic spending and a Democrat would be increasing spending and centralization. But it instantly struck me as bizarre that the law-and-order Republican was cutting law enforcement spending while the same Democrat President that recently declared the de facto decriminalization of medical marijuana at the federal level was restoring funding to the major source of most anti-drug task forces and enforcement programs.
Even stranger, I couldn't find any Republican articles defending the choice. The only article I found that favored cutting JAG funding was from StopTheDrugWar.com. Bush allied with legalize it libertarians... that's just plain strange.
The JAG program limits grant approvals to proposals that fit into one of these distinct areas:
As for the program itself, I don't like the centralization aspect of the program. If two local governments are enforcing dramatically different rules in different precincts and on populations with with different local cultures and habits, why should they get the same funding from the same source? I can see a police station in Nebraska trying to crack down on marijuana use and a station in coastal California trying to keep people from hassling the potheads both using the same funding, and one of them seemingly in contradiction to the administration's position on marijuana use.
There's also the issue that the program dispenses money with little oversight. Isn't that one of the major causes of the financial collapse? It seems pretty stupid to be doing the same thing again when we're not even out of the pit dug by doing it the first time.
I also expect a good deal of that funding to be going to "solutions" to crime of questionable efficacy that I expect to hear from the American left: prisoner rehabilitation, job training programs, community corrections (actually I don't know what that is, but it sounds like it fits), and other plans straight from after school specials. Not every prisoner is Jean Valjean.
But all of these are rather vague impressions, not solid fact-based reasoning. For that, I'm going to have to trust the Office of Budget Statistics: they described the program with the phrase "results not demonstrated." They scored it weak in it's Management (67%) and just terrible in it's Purpose & Design (20%), Strategic Planning (38%), and Results/Accountability (13%). In other words, they find it to be a half-formed idea, badly implemented, mismanaged, unaccountable, and ineffective. If it was that incompetent with half a billion dollars, what is it going to do with two billion?
Still, despite this reasoning, it weirds me out to be ruling with StopTheDrugWar.com and against law enforcement funding. I mean, their overall reasoning is basically sound: don't make overly restrictive laws you can't enforce. But their solutions continue to be "nothing works, so try nothing." Opposing JAG doesn't oppose law enforcement universally, it just opposes a specific, ineffective funding mechanism... right?
This whole issue feels like a setup. It's too weird to be true.
In his late-term attempts to cut domestic spending, President Bush (hefting his veto-stamp menacingly) convinced Congress to cut the funding of the Bryne/JAG program from $520 million down to $170 million. Democrats generally and Obama specifically were appalled by the cuts, spouting rhetoric about police agencies crippled by the cuts and, as a result, crime running a muck.
Obama promised to refund the program, and fulfilled his pledge with a $2 billion stimulus to Bryne/JAG.
The idea seems to be that anytime law enforcement needs money for a new task force or a new police helicopter or whatever, they dig through some red tape and find Uncle Sam's out-stretched fist full of dollars on the other side.
Now, it makes perfect sense to my right-wing brain that a Republican would be cutting domestic spending and a Democrat would be increasing spending and centralization. But it instantly struck me as bizarre that the law-and-order Republican was cutting law enforcement spending while the same Democrat President that recently declared the de facto decriminalization of medical marijuana at the federal level was restoring funding to the major source of most anti-drug task forces and enforcement programs.
Even stranger, I couldn't find any Republican articles defending the choice. The only article I found that favored cutting JAG funding was from StopTheDrugWar.com. Bush allied with legalize it libertarians... that's just plain strange.
The JAG program limits grant approvals to proposals that fit into one of these distinct areas:
- Law Enforcement
- Prosecution & Court
- Prevention & Education
- Corrections & Community Corrections
- Drug Treatment & Enforcement
- Planning, Evaluation, & Technology
- Crime Victim & Witness (except compensation)
As for the program itself, I don't like the centralization aspect of the program. If two local governments are enforcing dramatically different rules in different precincts and on populations with with different local cultures and habits, why should they get the same funding from the same source? I can see a police station in Nebraska trying to crack down on marijuana use and a station in coastal California trying to keep people from hassling the potheads both using the same funding, and one of them seemingly in contradiction to the administration's position on marijuana use.
There's also the issue that the program dispenses money with little oversight. Isn't that one of the major causes of the financial collapse? It seems pretty stupid to be doing the same thing again when we're not even out of the pit dug by doing it the first time.
I also expect a good deal of that funding to be going to "solutions" to crime of questionable efficacy that I expect to hear from the American left: prisoner rehabilitation, job training programs, community corrections (actually I don't know what that is, but it sounds like it fits), and other plans straight from after school specials. Not every prisoner is Jean Valjean.
But all of these are rather vague impressions, not solid fact-based reasoning. For that, I'm going to have to trust the Office of Budget Statistics: they described the program with the phrase "results not demonstrated." They scored it weak in it's Management (67%) and just terrible in it's Purpose & Design (20%), Strategic Planning (38%), and Results/Accountability (13%). In other words, they find it to be a half-formed idea, badly implemented, mismanaged, unaccountable, and ineffective. If it was that incompetent with half a billion dollars, what is it going to do with two billion?
Still, despite this reasoning, it weirds me out to be ruling with StopTheDrugWar.com and against law enforcement funding. I mean, their overall reasoning is basically sound: don't make overly restrictive laws you can't enforce. But their solutions continue to be "nothing works, so try nothing." Opposing JAG doesn't oppose law enforcement universally, it just opposes a specific, ineffective funding mechanism... right?
This whole issue feels like a setup. It's too weird to be true.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Obameter #222: Open Cuba
Since the 1959 Communist Revolution in Cuba, it has been a thorn in America's side. It was the only US territory to be lost to Communism in the time of the Cold War, and the site of the Cuban Missile Crisis (the closest the world has ever come to global nuclear war). It is awash with human rights violations, including harsh penalties for opposition to the Castro government, extreme censorship of media and the press, and alleged "re-education camps" where forced labor and torture are performed on such groups as homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, conscientious objectors, and political dissidents. Travel within the nation and emigration to other nations are both prohibited barring special approval by the government.
It was to encourage democracy and human rights, and perhaps to "break" the Castro regime, that the United States established a complete trade embargo on Cuba - if you want to trade with Cuba, you cannot trade with the United States or any company based therein. Most people choose to trade with the $12.5 trillion behemoth economy rather than $46 billion speck on the map.
However, signs from Cuba show subtle reforms: gays are no longer openly penalized for their sexuality, religious meetings can now be held openly and freely, and health care and education are doing very well. Many in human rights organizations and the UN now see the embargo as part of the problem. Maybe things are worse precisely because of the sanctions imposed by the USA.
In this political atmosphere, President Obama has fulfilled his promise to open Cuba to travel and remittances from Cuban Americans. People can visit their families and send them money, even bring them cell phones, satellite radios, and televisions as gifts. Broadcasters can extend their services to Cuban shores. US sanctions on these things have been lifted.
Will the lifting of these restrictions send the message of democracy, freedom, and prosperity to the Cuban people, thus undermining or reforming the Cuban regime? Or will it be the sanctions and embargo that is undermined, thus empowering the oppressive Castro government?
Honestly, I can't begin to guess. The complexity of the problem is beyond me. All I see are families separated by an ocean and two governments, and Obama moving one of those governments out of the way. Family is sacrosanct. All else is just hope or fear.
Obama has my support on this one. He also has the support of most Cuban-Americans, who largely favor visitation rights but oppose an end to the embargo and are largely Republican voters. Smart political strategy as well as support for families.
It was to encourage democracy and human rights, and perhaps to "break" the Castro regime, that the United States established a complete trade embargo on Cuba - if you want to trade with Cuba, you cannot trade with the United States or any company based therein. Most people choose to trade with the $12.5 trillion behemoth economy rather than $46 billion speck on the map.
However, signs from Cuba show subtle reforms: gays are no longer openly penalized for their sexuality, religious meetings can now be held openly and freely, and health care and education are doing very well. Many in human rights organizations and the UN now see the embargo as part of the problem. Maybe things are worse precisely because of the sanctions imposed by the USA.
In this political atmosphere, President Obama has fulfilled his promise to open Cuba to travel and remittances from Cuban Americans. People can visit their families and send them money, even bring them cell phones, satellite radios, and televisions as gifts. Broadcasters can extend their services to Cuban shores. US sanctions on these things have been lifted.
Will the lifting of these restrictions send the message of democracy, freedom, and prosperity to the Cuban people, thus undermining or reforming the Cuban regime? Or will it be the sanctions and embargo that is undermined, thus empowering the oppressive Castro government?
Honestly, I can't begin to guess. The complexity of the problem is beyond me. All I see are families separated by an ocean and two governments, and Obama moving one of those governments out of the way. Family is sacrosanct. All else is just hope or fear.
Obama has my support on this one. He also has the support of most Cuban-Americans, who largely favor visitation rights but oppose an end to the embargo and are largely Republican voters. Smart political strategy as well as support for families.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Obameter #221: Double the Peace Corps
In good ol' election year 2008, there were about 8,000 Peace Corps volunteers. Candidate Obama promised to double that number by 2011. A whole year later, his 2010 budget is out and it calls for "9,000 Americans enrolled in the Peace Corps by the end of FY 2012 and 11,000 by the end of FY 2016." Epic fail.
Okay, technically he hasn't failed yet. He has until Dec. 31st, 2011 to turn things around. It's not impossible, but it's also not likely.
At least the promise was good. The Peace Corps has a long track record of helping people on an impressive scale in pursuing their goals of spreading technology and cultural understanding. Those rare times that criticism is leveled against the organization tend to be textbook examples of baseless bias (for example, Nixon claimed it was just a loophole for draft-dodgers, and a Colombian urban legend claims it was Peace Corps volunteers who first created cocaine from coca leaves).
Obama supports doubling the program as part of his efforts to make America popular in the international community. That overreaching goal is a little silly (It's better to be right than popular), but I can't fault the expansion of the Peace Corps itself and Americans doing substantial good seems like a good way to drum up international goodwill.
Overall, his promise was commendable but his failure isn't. Kinda the reverse of his national security promises.
Okay, technically he hasn't failed yet. He has until Dec. 31st, 2011 to turn things around. It's not impossible, but it's also not likely.
At least the promise was good. The Peace Corps has a long track record of helping people on an impressive scale in pursuing their goals of spreading technology and cultural understanding. Those rare times that criticism is leveled against the organization tend to be textbook examples of baseless bias (for example, Nixon claimed it was just a loophole for draft-dodgers, and a Colombian urban legend claims it was Peace Corps volunteers who first created cocaine from coca leaves).
Obama supports doubling the program as part of his efforts to make America popular in the international community. That overreaching goal is a little silly (It's better to be right than popular), but I can't fault the expansion of the Peace Corps itself and Americans doing substantial good seems like a good way to drum up international goodwill.
Overall, his promise was commendable but his failure isn't. Kinda the reverse of his national security promises.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Obameter #193: Summit on Nuclear Terrorism
Einstein proved that a little matter can be converted to a massive amount of energy. Atoms of some isotopes of some elements are capable of breaking down into several smaller atoms in such a way that some mass is lost and, thus, a great amount of energy is gained. Uranium-235 is one such isotope, the only naturally-occurring isotope of any element that can sustain a chain reaction of atomic fission; that is, that the fission of one atom can trigger the fission of another, over and over until the U235 is all used up. Thus, a great enough mass of U235 at a sufficiently extreme density can cause a massive output of energy - an atomic chain reaction. The theoretical maximum energy production is 19.54 TJ/mol - in other words, one mole of U235 (235 g or ½ pound) is enough to heat 18 Olympic swimming pools from frozen to boiling.
Click to see the math.
Nuclear fission is powerful. The concept of that power in the wrong hands is frightening. Even the most peace-loving international cooperation advocate must recognize the security risk posed by nuclear terrorism.
Thus, the Obama/Biden ticket promised to hold international conferences on nuclear terrorism, first in 2009 and then periodically forever after. After campaigning on the premise that Saddam's Iraq was not a threat to global or US national security, and that the Iranian nuclear program is not a threat to global or US national security, and that various programs instituted to fight international terrorism were overreactions to the global and US national security threat posed by terrorism, Obama/Biden needed to prove they weren't universally opposed to protecting national security on principle.
Thus, they retooled the half-century old anti-nuke campaign with anti-terrorist rhetoric and sold it as a national security issue that a liberal internationalist could support - that is to say, a national security threat that could be opposed by international diplomacy and UN talks rather than military force.
It really is the absolute least they could possibly do.
Further proving their lack of interest in the topic, the first meeting has been announced for March 2010 - not sometime in 2009, as was promised. PolitiFact calls it a compromise.
Don't misunderstand - they're not wrong. Nuclear terrorism is a horrible concept, something that should be prevented and something that too little is being done to prevent. There are many places in the world where cold war era nuclear bombs and rockets are being protected by decaying or failed security systems, and the risk of them being found operational, repaired, or even just studied is a serious nuclear proliferation risk. Aside from that, Uranium is found naturally throughout the Earth's crust at about 40 times the rate of silver, though only 0.72% of that is the U235 that is useful for nuclear reactions. That means U235 is about 1/4th as common as silver. That is a LOT of potential for mining by terrorists.
But it should be an important detail of a defensive foreign policy of a much broader scope. Leaving Iraq, the possibility of a troop surge in Afghanistan, and diplomacy about nuclear terrorism do not combine Voltron-style to form a comprehensive plan for national defense. I have, in the past, expressed hope that Obama is beginning to understand that and develop his defense policy in his breaking of anti-defense promises, but his having made those promises shows a great gap between the defense policy he should have and what he vocally advocates.
I do technically support Obama's position on this issue so I'm counting it as a point in his favor, but his overall weakness on the issue of defense is understated because of his lack of strong promises in that regard.
In case you're curious, the score so far is 9 points in support vs. 10 points opposed. 47% correct is an F in any classroom I know of, but it's not that bad for government efficiency. Also, the informal mathematical proof that a mole of U235 will boil 18 Olympic pools was a ton of fun to research and write. I wish I could get a job doing stuff like that.
Click to see the math.
Nuclear fission is powerful. The concept of that power in the wrong hands is frightening. Even the most peace-loving international cooperation advocate must recognize the security risk posed by nuclear terrorism.
Thus, the Obama/Biden ticket promised to hold international conferences on nuclear terrorism, first in 2009 and then periodically forever after. After campaigning on the premise that Saddam's Iraq was not a threat to global or US national security, and that the Iranian nuclear program is not a threat to global or US national security, and that various programs instituted to fight international terrorism were overreactions to the global and US national security threat posed by terrorism, Obama/Biden needed to prove they weren't universally opposed to protecting national security on principle.
Thus, they retooled the half-century old anti-nuke campaign with anti-terrorist rhetoric and sold it as a national security issue that a liberal internationalist could support - that is to say, a national security threat that could be opposed by international diplomacy and UN talks rather than military force.
It really is the absolute least they could possibly do.
Further proving their lack of interest in the topic, the first meeting has been announced for March 2010 - not sometime in 2009, as was promised. PolitiFact calls it a compromise.
Don't misunderstand - they're not wrong. Nuclear terrorism is a horrible concept, something that should be prevented and something that too little is being done to prevent. There are many places in the world where cold war era nuclear bombs and rockets are being protected by decaying or failed security systems, and the risk of them being found operational, repaired, or even just studied is a serious nuclear proliferation risk. Aside from that, Uranium is found naturally throughout the Earth's crust at about 40 times the rate of silver, though only 0.72% of that is the U235 that is useful for nuclear reactions. That means U235 is about 1/4th as common as silver. That is a LOT of potential for mining by terrorists.
But it should be an important detail of a defensive foreign policy of a much broader scope. Leaving Iraq, the possibility of a troop surge in Afghanistan, and diplomacy about nuclear terrorism do not combine Voltron-style to form a comprehensive plan for national defense. I have, in the past, expressed hope that Obama is beginning to understand that and develop his defense policy in his breaking of anti-defense promises, but his having made those promises shows a great gap between the defense policy he should have and what he vocally advocates.
I do technically support Obama's position on this issue so I'm counting it as a point in his favor, but his overall weakness on the issue of defense is understated because of his lack of strong promises in that regard.
In case you're curious, the score so far is 9 points in support vs. 10 points opposed. 47% correct is an F in any classroom I know of, but it's not that bad for government efficiency. Also, the informal mathematical proof that a mole of U235 will boil 18 Olympic pools was a ton of fun to research and write. I wish I could get a job doing stuff like that.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Obameter #181: Habeas Corpus Rights for Enemy Combatants
The phrase habeas corpus is Latin, meaning "You have the body." The premise is that one cannot be imprisoned for murder unless a murder has certainly happened: therefore, there has to be a body. It was originally used by the King or his representatives to ensure local governments were not impeding Crown business with false charges against Crown agents. Then it was extended to all subjects of the King, allowing the King to protect their rights (if he felt like it). When the 13 original colonies declared independence, they also provided the authority to demand formal, legal proof of habeas corpus to every citizen. It was a universal civil right only after a long evolution.
It is a central philosophy of criminal law everywhere the English Empire touched in it's imperial heyday. As such, it is one of the most universal legal principles there are: there can be no imprisonment without proof of a crime. That is what separates legal imprisonments from illegal kidnappings.
Except for prisoners of war. It is inherently entangled in the motivations of war to prevent captured enemy soldiers from ever again being about to fight against you. In ancient times this was accomplished by wholesale slaughter, or more beneficially by slavery, or more ethically by imprisonment. Even the Third Geneva Convention requires only allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the detaining power as reason enough to hold a person as a prisoner of war. And if there is any doubt as to whether a prisoner constitutes a prisoner of war, they are to be treated as one.
During the War in Iraq, the United States faced the phenomenon of "enemy combatants" for perhaps the first time. These are people who fight for the other side, but do not obviously fit the Geneva definition of "soldiers". Many such combatants were captured and held without trial by the US, often in Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, an American military prison on the island of Cuba.
Critics of the USA's handling of these "enemy combatants" argue that all prisoners are either prisoners of war or be civilians. "There is no intermediate status." I'm no legal scholar, but assuming that's true still doesn't guarantee enemy combatants habeas corpus rights. If they must be one, Geneva says "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons[ are prisoners of war], such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention" [source]. Thus, Geneva says these disputed persons should be prisoners of war and have no habeas corpus rights.
That is not the reasoning given by the Bush Administration. Neither is it the reasoning given by the Obama Administration. But it is Geneva's reasoning.
Candidate Obama promised to restore habeas corpus to the enemy combatants, which is identical to declaring them civilians subject to due process. Since his election (May 21, to be precise), President Obama classified 5 fates for enemy combatants:
This is a kind of reasoning called deconstruction: if you cannot determine a solution that works for all in a group, subdivide them into groups based on what decision applies. It forks from Candidate Obama's reasoning that all were civilians, instead treating enemy combatants as a complex and diverse group that needs further classification.
I completely agree with Obama's deconstructionist thinking: they are a diverse group. Humanity always is. By the same reasoning, I dispute the claim that there can only be soldiers and civilians. Humanity is more diverse than that. A good soldier can also be a petty criminal against civilian laws; should he be immune by reason of his military prowess? A good civilian may, in time of local unrest, fight to defend his land, family, or life. Civilian laws condemn his violent behavior, but he deserves military respect in proportion to his successes.
I do not consider any of these lines of reasoning infallible. Like all reasoning pertaining to reality, they are all flawed to some extent. Bush's reasoning is utilitarian: they must be kept out of the war, and this is the reasoning that will a accomplish that. Candidate Obama's is rejection: Bush was extremely wrong, so the opposite extreme must be right. Geneva's is committee authoritarianism: our committee agreed this is true, and thus all must concede it to be. President Obama's is perhaps the best of the four. It is a concession between a generalist's idealism and the harsh complexity of reality, an aspiration to do what is right for the combatants tempered by a necessity to do what is right for everyone outside of Guantanamo.
The promise was stupid, but the compromise is smart. I cautiously support Obama on this issue. He might just bring justice without abandoning security. He might, maybe, just manage to do it right.
It is a central philosophy of criminal law everywhere the English Empire touched in it's imperial heyday. As such, it is one of the most universal legal principles there are: there can be no imprisonment without proof of a crime. That is what separates legal imprisonments from illegal kidnappings.
Except for prisoners of war. It is inherently entangled in the motivations of war to prevent captured enemy soldiers from ever again being about to fight against you. In ancient times this was accomplished by wholesale slaughter, or more beneficially by slavery, or more ethically by imprisonment. Even the Third Geneva Convention requires only allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the detaining power as reason enough to hold a person as a prisoner of war. And if there is any doubt as to whether a prisoner constitutes a prisoner of war, they are to be treated as one.
During the War in Iraq, the United States faced the phenomenon of "enemy combatants" for perhaps the first time. These are people who fight for the other side, but do not obviously fit the Geneva definition of "soldiers". Many such combatants were captured and held without trial by the US, often in Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, an American military prison on the island of Cuba.
Critics of the USA's handling of these "enemy combatants" argue that all prisoners are either prisoners of war or be civilians. "There is no intermediate status." I'm no legal scholar, but assuming that's true still doesn't guarantee enemy combatants habeas corpus rights. If they must be one, Geneva says "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons[ are prisoners of war], such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention" [source]. Thus, Geneva says these disputed persons should be prisoners of war and have no habeas corpus rights.
That is not the reasoning given by the Bush Administration. Neither is it the reasoning given by the Obama Administration. But it is Geneva's reasoning.
Candidate Obama promised to restore habeas corpus to the enemy combatants, which is identical to declaring them civilians subject to due process. Since his election (May 21, to be precise), President Obama classified 5 fates for enemy combatants:
- trial in federal courts (domestic civilians)
- trial through military commissions in his superficially modified version of the Bush-era system (military criminals)
- freed by the federal court decisions (free civilians)
- turned over to other countries (foreign civilians)
- no trial and no release (prisoners of war)
This is a kind of reasoning called deconstruction: if you cannot determine a solution that works for all in a group, subdivide them into groups based on what decision applies. It forks from Candidate Obama's reasoning that all were civilians, instead treating enemy combatants as a complex and diverse group that needs further classification.
I completely agree with Obama's deconstructionist thinking: they are a diverse group. Humanity always is. By the same reasoning, I dispute the claim that there can only be soldiers and civilians. Humanity is more diverse than that. A good soldier can also be a petty criminal against civilian laws; should he be immune by reason of his military prowess? A good civilian may, in time of local unrest, fight to defend his land, family, or life. Civilian laws condemn his violent behavior, but he deserves military respect in proportion to his successes.
I do not consider any of these lines of reasoning infallible. Like all reasoning pertaining to reality, they are all flawed to some extent. Bush's reasoning is utilitarian: they must be kept out of the war, and this is the reasoning that will a accomplish that. Candidate Obama's is rejection: Bush was extremely wrong, so the opposite extreme must be right. Geneva's is committee authoritarianism: our committee agreed this is true, and thus all must concede it to be. President Obama's is perhaps the best of the four. It is a concession between a generalist's idealism and the harsh complexity of reality, an aspiration to do what is right for the combatants tempered by a necessity to do what is right for everyone outside of Guantanamo.
The promise was stupid, but the compromise is smart. I cautiously support Obama on this issue. He might just bring justice without abandoning security. He might, maybe, just manage to do it right.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Obameter #178: Handling Military Combatants
The classic idea of war is that two nations each build up an army and try to bash the other nation's army and country to bits. In order to minimize the inhumane damage war causes to the wounded, the sick, prisoners, civilians and other victims of war, several conventions were held in Geneva, Switzerland starting in 1864. These rules of wartime conduct are well-known under the name "the Geneva Conventions".
A new convention was held in Geneva in 1929 (at the beginning of WW2) to extend rules of humane conduct to the treatment of prisoners of war. This third Geneva Convention is the best known of the four, and is what people refer to when they say "the Geneva Convention" in the singular. The most widely known offenders of this third convention are the horrible concentration camps of Nazi Germany; the war crimes trials that followed WW2 made the term "Geneva Convention" a household name. A fourth convention was held in 1949 to protect noncombatant civilians from the horrors of war.
When the United States under George W. Bush invaded Iraq under Saddam Hussein, a problem quickly arose. The enemy soldiers were quickly defeated when they fought as the Geneva definition of "soldiers", and instead abandoned their uniforms and open opposition for subtle antagonism and terrorism. As they no longer qualified as soldiers in combat, they no longer qualified as prisoners of war under the 3rd Geneva Convention.
To be a soldier under Geneva, one must either belong to an official armed forces or militia for a government or other central authority or meet four other requirements:
But the war dragged on. Facing public pressure, the Bush Administration established a military tribunal system for trying the enemy combatants. In 2006 the Supreme Court ruled that the process violated US military law and the Geneva Conventions, specifically declaring these violations of :
The previous system having thus been eliminated, Congress passed and Bush signed a new system by the name The Military Commissions Act of 2006. Two years later, a part of this process was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, specifically the part where detainees of Guantanamo Bay Detention Center were not eligible for trial by the US civil justice system. This ruling occurred in June of 2008, only months before Barack Obama's election.
Obama, as a candidate, denounced the existing mess of a policy and promised, as President, "to distinguish between those prisoners who should be prosecuted for their crimes, those who can't be prosecuted but who can be held in a manner consistent with the laws of war, and those who should be released or transferred to their home countries." Almost immediately after his election (21 Jan 09), he made a powerful move toward that end: he suspended all the military commissions for 120 days to give the administration "time to review the military commissions process, generally, and the cases currently before military commissions, specifically."
On 15 May 09, just days before military tribunals would continue, the Obama Administration announced it was instituting a system of military tribunals. It denounced "the Military Commissions Act that was drafted by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress" that "had only succeeded in prosecuting three suspected terrorists in more than seven years." It announced the administration's intent to "ensure swift and certain justice against those detainees" and to "seek more time to allow us time to reform the military commission process." and concluded that "These reforms will begin to restore the Commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law."
While the White House is calling it a wholesale change in approach, human rights advocates are furious, calling it a continuation of the inhumane Bush policies. Specifically, they oppose the impression given that the Military Commissions Act was generally on the right track though wrong on specifics. One legal expert disapproved that Obama's plan lacked provisions for "detainees [to] have the opportunity to employee a civilian lawyer from their own country."
The announcement gives Congress 60 days to offer opinions and advice on how to reform the system, but it went into effect 60 days after the announcement whether altered or not. That deadline expired on July 14th. The superficially altered "Bush-era relic" is currently being used to try detainees.
Most will consider this a failing of Obama's ability to enact moral policies, perhaps even a flaw in his respect for human rights. I disagree. His respect for human rights stands as powerfully as ever. It is his respect for the legal complexity of the situation that has changed; in fact, it has grown. Where his rhetoric as a candidate spoke of the absolute moral choice and Bush's flawed choice, the reality of the situation requires implementing the choice and suffering it's effects. Bush was responding ably to a surprising, overwhelming issue, adapting the policy gradually toward a policy that would work. Obama assumed (or at least claimed) Bush's gradual adaptation was a moral failure; in essence, that Bush should have got it right the first try regardless of all circumstances. When faced with the same complexity and responsibility Bush had faced, Obama now sees that he can only put the final touches on a Bush creation that was adapted extremely well to the circumstances.
Sure, it'd have been preferable to have the finished work in 2002. But it was a puzzle that had to be solved, and the solving of it necessitated time spent. In the race for a winning policy, Bush didn't run a 4-minute mile. But he ran the distance, and in a respectable time. It speaks to Obama's naïveté that he judged Bush's attempt at a higher standard than Obama himself could achieve. His rhetoric is greater than his ability.
Thus, I count this issue as a mark against Obama, not because his policy is wrong but because he failed to contrast with the policy he denounced. Either his rhetoric is an ambitious lie or he has failed just as his predecessor did. Either is a mark against him.
Your biblical thought for the day is Matt 7:2. "with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." It applies all over this issue.
A new convention was held in Geneva in 1929 (at the beginning of WW2) to extend rules of humane conduct to the treatment of prisoners of war. This third Geneva Convention is the best known of the four, and is what people refer to when they say "the Geneva Convention" in the singular. The most widely known offenders of this third convention are the horrible concentration camps of Nazi Germany; the war crimes trials that followed WW2 made the term "Geneva Convention" a household name. A fourth convention was held in 1949 to protect noncombatant civilians from the horrors of war.
When the United States under George W. Bush invaded Iraq under Saddam Hussein, a problem quickly arose. The enemy soldiers were quickly defeated when they fought as the Geneva definition of "soldiers", and instead abandoned their uniforms and open opposition for subtle antagonism and terrorism. As they no longer qualified as soldiers in combat, they no longer qualified as prisoners of war under the 3rd Geneva Convention.
To be a soldier under Geneva, one must either belong to an official armed forces or militia for a government or other central authority or meet four other requirements:
- be accountable to a commander.
- wear a uniform that demonstrates your allegiance from a distance.
- carry weapons openly.
- follow the laws of war.
But the war dragged on. Facing public pressure, the Bush Administration established a military tribunal system for trying the enemy combatants. In 2006 the Supreme Court ruled that the process violated US military law and the Geneva Conventions, specifically declaring these violations of :
These grievances against due process were ruled to violate Article 3 of Geneva requirement for "all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
- The defendant and the defendant's attorney may be forbidden to view certain evidence used against the defendant; the defendant's attorney may be forbidden to discuss certain evidence with the defendant;
- Evidence judged to have any probative value may be admitted, including hearsay, unsworn live testimony, and statements gathered through torture; and
- Appeals are not heard by courts, but only within the Executive Branch
The previous system having thus been eliminated, Congress passed and Bush signed a new system by the name The Military Commissions Act of 2006. Two years later, a part of this process was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, specifically the part where detainees of Guantanamo Bay Detention Center were not eligible for trial by the US civil justice system. This ruling occurred in June of 2008, only months before Barack Obama's election.
Obama, as a candidate, denounced the existing mess of a policy and promised, as President, "to distinguish between those prisoners who should be prosecuted for their crimes, those who can't be prosecuted but who can be held in a manner consistent with the laws of war, and those who should be released or transferred to their home countries." Almost immediately after his election (21 Jan 09), he made a powerful move toward that end: he suspended all the military commissions for 120 days to give the administration "time to review the military commissions process, generally, and the cases currently before military commissions, specifically."
On 15 May 09, just days before military tribunals would continue, the Obama Administration announced it was instituting a system of military tribunals. It denounced "the Military Commissions Act that was drafted by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress" that "had only succeeded in prosecuting three suspected terrorists in more than seven years." It announced the administration's intent to "ensure swift and certain justice against those detainees" and to "seek more time to allow us time to reform the military commission process." and concluded that "These reforms will begin to restore the Commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law."
While the White House is calling it a wholesale change in approach, human rights advocates are furious, calling it a continuation of the inhumane Bush policies. Specifically, they oppose the impression given that the Military Commissions Act was generally on the right track though wrong on specifics. One legal expert disapproved that Obama's plan lacked provisions for "detainees [to] have the opportunity to employee a civilian lawyer from their own country."
The announcement gives Congress 60 days to offer opinions and advice on how to reform the system, but it went into effect 60 days after the announcement whether altered or not. That deadline expired on July 14th. The superficially altered "Bush-era relic" is currently being used to try detainees.
Most will consider this a failing of Obama's ability to enact moral policies, perhaps even a flaw in his respect for human rights. I disagree. His respect for human rights stands as powerfully as ever. It is his respect for the legal complexity of the situation that has changed; in fact, it has grown. Where his rhetoric as a candidate spoke of the absolute moral choice and Bush's flawed choice, the reality of the situation requires implementing the choice and suffering it's effects. Bush was responding ably to a surprising, overwhelming issue, adapting the policy gradually toward a policy that would work. Obama assumed (or at least claimed) Bush's gradual adaptation was a moral failure; in essence, that Bush should have got it right the first try regardless of all circumstances. When faced with the same complexity and responsibility Bush had faced, Obama now sees that he can only put the final touches on a Bush creation that was adapted extremely well to the circumstances.
Sure, it'd have been preferable to have the finished work in 2002. But it was a puzzle that had to be solved, and the solving of it necessitated time spent. In the race for a winning policy, Bush didn't run a 4-minute mile. But he ran the distance, and in a respectable time. It speaks to Obama's naïveté that he judged Bush's attempt at a higher standard than Obama himself could achieve. His rhetoric is greater than his ability.
Thus, I count this issue as a mark against Obama, not because his policy is wrong but because he failed to contrast with the policy he denounced. Either his rhetoric is an ambitious lie or he has failed just as his predecessor did. Either is a mark against him.
Your biblical thought for the day is Matt 7:2. "with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." It applies all over this issue.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Obameter #174: Speaking to Islam
Dang, that's a good speech!
I heard a small part of Obama's April speech to the Turkish Parliament on the radio the day it happened. I read it again just now, to renew my impressions. Both times, my strongest impression was "That's a good speech."
The speech was given at 3:30 PM Turkey time, which is 9 hours later my native Mountain time. So that's 6:30 AM to me.
Obama promised to reach out to the Muslim world with such a speech, and in that he clearly delivered. I'm going to go through it one more time, watching for specific points of interesting history, partisanship, or of stretching the truth for political ends.
"Turkey is an important part of Europe. […] So let me be clear: The United States strongly supports Turkey's bid to become a member of the European Union."
• Turkey has been fighting a controversial battle to be accepted as an official part of Europe and it's Union as long as such international organizations have existed. It's membership is supported by the UK, Greese, and Sweden, but opposed by Austria by habit (they were a historic bulwark against the old Ottoman Empire) and France on the basis that it expands the borders of Europe (only a small part of Turkey is actually on the European continent). There are also concerns about waves of Muslim immigrants (France recently had serious problems an unruly subset of their Muslim population seemingly enforcing Sharia law on non-Muslims by vigilante violence) and the sudden great strength Turkey would have as the second largest body of MEPs, which representatives are proportional to national population.
"This morning I had the great privilege of visiting the tomb of your extraordinary founder of your republic. […] His greatest legacy is Turkey's strong, vibrant, secular democracy"
• Mustafa Kemal Atatürk first made a name for himself as a WW1 military commander for the Central Powers (for Americans, Brits, and Canadians that's "the other side"). The Central Powers didn't handle their defeat and the harsh sanctions levied against them very well. Most famously, Hitler led a surge of nationalist sentiment in Germany known by the abbreviation "Nazi." Atatürk, too, led a surge of nationalist sentiment in his native Turkey. In dramatic contrast to Hitler's Germany, Atatürk's national revolution was based on the principles of enlightenment philosophy and secular democracy (much like the USA's). The Kemalist ideology he originated is remarkably similar to a European parliamentary republic. It's not quite the diverse melting-pot that the USA is, but it's a remarkably strong democracy. It is one of the freest nations in the Muslim world.
"Turkey's democracy is your own achievement. It was not forced upon you by any outside power"
• There's a little criticism of the Republican hawk position that war in Iraq will provide democracy. There was, however, an attempt at an Iraqi revolution in Shia southeast in the early 90s, just after the invasion of Kuwait was repelled. Negotiations were allegedly made between them and the American diplomats for the USA to provide weapons and aid to the cause much like France did in the American Revolution. The difference was that with a change of President the US government changed policies on providing aid to foreign rebellions. Without the promised aid, the rebellion was crushed. Having thwarted the home-grown revolution, don't we then have some moral responsibility to restore it?
"Now, my country's democracy has its own story. […] I can see the Washington Monument from the window of the White House every day. […] Over time, more and more people contributed to help make this monument the inspiring structure that still stands tall today. Among those who came to our aid were friends from […] Istanbul. Ottoman Sultan Abdulmecid sent a marble plaque […] Inscribed […] with a few simple words: 'So as to strengthen the friendship between the two countries.' Over 150 years have passed since those words were carved into marble. Our nations have changed in many ways. But our friendship is strong, and our alliance endures."
• Cool story, and one I hadn't heard before. Good rhetorical use of it, too, wielding it to strengthen the alliance between the USA and Turkey.
"the future will be shaped by fear or by freedom; by poverty or by prosperity; by strife or by a just, secure and lasting peace."
• More realistically, the future will be shaped by both of each of those pairs in some proportion, and the hope is that there will be more of the latter and less of the former. It's unrealistic to expect a complete extinction of fear, poverty, or strife. It's a minor quibble, though.
"This much is certain: No one nation can confront these challenges alone, and all nations have a stake in overcoming them. That is why we must listen to one another, and seek common ground. That is why we must build on our mutual interests, and rise above our differences. We are stronger when we act together."
• I'm not so paranoid as to see New World Order conspiracies behind these statements, but I know there are people who will.
"America and Turkey are working with the G20 on an unprecedented response to an unprecedented economic crisis."
• As I've mentioned before, the unemployment rate after the stimulus is dramatically worse than was predicted by the Obama Administration if their stimulus was not implemented. It's up to 9.8% in September. That seems to suggest the unprecedented response is an unprecedented failure. I wonder how Turkey's and other international efforts are doing. Incidentally, that source for the unemployment rate also says the rate is the worst since 1983 -- when Reagan dramatically cut taxes and attempted to cut non-military spending to reverse a combination of unemployment and inflation. You know, exactly the opposite approach Obama is using.
"We should build on our Clean Technology Fund to leverage efficiency and renewable energy investments in Turkey. And to power markets in Turkey and Europe, the United States will continue to support your central role as an East-West corridor for oil and natural gas."
• In other words, we'll continue to spend money to make your major industries of oil and natural gas shipping obsolete. It takes great talent to threaten someone in such a way that they feel more secure hearing it.
"Europe gains by the diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith -- it is not diminished by it."
• Amen.
"In the last several years, you've abolished state security courts, you've expanded the right to counsel. You've reformed the penal code and strengthened laws that govern the freedom of the press and assembly."
• Turkey has never really been a liberal democracy in the sense of constitutional civil rights. State security courts were something akin to military tribunals over civilian crimes; you know, the kind of thing that exaggerated claims about the USA PATRIOT Act claimed would happen to terrorism suspects. Except it was the literal policy as implemented. Reforming that was obviously good. Implementing trial by jury would also appeal to me, but that reform isn't very likely in Turkey. Still, they are definitely improving.
"An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all citizens."
• Absolutely true.
"An open border would return the Turkish and Armenian people to a peaceful and prosperous coexistence that would serve both of your nations."
• Turkey and Armenia were enemies in WW1, with Armenian troops aiding the Russian Army in crushing the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman was divided among various Allied nations, then restored to nationhood by the war of independence I mentioned before.
"[Turkey] can play a constructive role in helping to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has continued for far too long."
• A small section of the Caucasian nation of Azerbaijan called Nagorno-Karabakh wants to secede from Azerbaijan largely at the behest of the Armenian ethnic majority in the region. This is all right near the Turkish border, perhaps as far as Florida to Cuba. An undeclared war was fought there for years until an official declaration of war in 1992. The war officially ended in 1994 with a Russian-brokered ceasefire and continuing peace talks. Tensions have risen and threats issued all through 2008, indicating peace talks taking a turn for the worse. It seems... subjective for Obama to call it a continuing war. Maybe he's playing to local sentiment. Or maybe he's just oversimplifying.
"The United States is willing to offer all the help sought by the parties as they work towards a just and lasting settlement that reunifies Cyprus into a bizonal and bicommunal federation."
• Turkey is the only nation in the world that recognizes Northern Cyprus as an independent nation. A coup was attempted by ethnically Greek Cypriots, triggering a Turkish invasion, which lead to a standoff where Turkey recognizes an independent nation and everyone else sees a region of the existing Republic of Cyprus. Turkey, apparently with approval from the USA, seeks a federation of two "zones", one ethnically Greek and one Turkish, federalized into one nation. Apparently the idea of a melting pot only applies to our own nation, not to our allies.
"The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. That is a goal shared by Palestinians, Israelis, and people of goodwill around the world."
• It's a great solution, except for the unsolvable problem of drawing borders, especially pertaining to Jerusalem. Both sides would rather fight than lose exclusive control over Jerusalem, which both sides cannot hold at the same time. That's why the peace talks never go anywhere. Only by waiting perpetually can peace talks avoid this issue and, thus, avoid open war. Unless one side gives up.
Reminds me of the sword dual at the end of Pirates of the Caribbean. "So what now, Jack? Are we to be two immortals locked in an epic battle until Judgment Day and trumpets sound?" "Or you could surrender." I think a more accurate view of the American position on the issue is "Knock it off already!"
"The peace of the region will also be advanced if Iran forgoes any nuclear weapons ambitions."
• It amuses me how Iranian nuclear ambitions are just a rumor perpetuated by Cheney and the neocons to stir up trouble... until Obama gets security clearance. Then it's accepted fact.
" Iraq, Turkey, and the United States face a common threat from terrorism. That includes the al Qaeda terrorists who have sought to drive Iraqis apart and destroy their country. That includes the PKK."
• The PKK is the Kurdistan Worker's Party ("Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan" in Kurdish). It's basically a socialist, militant extremist version of the Kurdish separatists common to the Turkish/Iraqi border region extending a little into Syria and Iran. The people Saddam Hussein bombed with chemical weapons -- this is the radical, violent, nutball version of those guys. They are listed as a terrorist organization by the USA, UN, NATO, and the European Union. Their supporters also protested the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Because the US and the Kurds of northern Iraq are strong allies in the War in Iraq, there hasn't been a lot of US effort expended against the Kurdish extremists near the border. Apparently, that's what Obama is suggesting will change.
"There's an old Turkish proverb: 'You cannot put out fire with flames.' America knows this. Turkey knows this. There's some who must be met by force, they will not compromise. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy."
• Great message. I'm tempted to call the epic economic stimulus spending and over-regulation of the health care and energy industries "destructive" and turn this principle against it's speaker. I really like the use of a local proverb, a la Ronald "Trust, but verify." Reagan.
"This is not where East and West divide -- this is where they come together."
• If rhetoric were still taught in school (like it should be), this could be a lesson unto itself.
All in all, it's a great speech. Obama is still Obama, ideologically and stylistically. But it's strong, persuasive, and filled with good stuff. It made me research a lot of Turkish history, which was interesting. Even under my critical eye, it persuades me to value Turkey as a rich culture and a valuable American ally.
I can't help but admit, George W. Bush should've done some of this kind of outreach to the moderate Muslim world. Not the BS liberal internationalism, but the praise of the best traits of the best nations in the region. It would have gone a long way to diffusing the constant-but-baseless criticisms of him. Good job, President Obama.
I heard a small part of Obama's April speech to the Turkish Parliament on the radio the day it happened. I read it again just now, to renew my impressions. Both times, my strongest impression was "That's a good speech."
The speech was given at 3:30 PM Turkey time, which is 9 hours later my native Mountain time. So that's 6:30 AM to me.
Obama promised to reach out to the Muslim world with such a speech, and in that he clearly delivered. I'm going to go through it one more time, watching for specific points of interesting history, partisanship, or of stretching the truth for political ends.
"Turkey is an important part of Europe. […] So let me be clear: The United States strongly supports Turkey's bid to become a member of the European Union."
• Turkey has been fighting a controversial battle to be accepted as an official part of Europe and it's Union as long as such international organizations have existed. It's membership is supported by the UK, Greese, and Sweden, but opposed by Austria by habit (they were a historic bulwark against the old Ottoman Empire) and France on the basis that it expands the borders of Europe (only a small part of Turkey is actually on the European continent). There are also concerns about waves of Muslim immigrants (France recently had serious problems an unruly subset of their Muslim population seemingly enforcing Sharia law on non-Muslims by vigilante violence) and the sudden great strength Turkey would have as the second largest body of MEPs, which representatives are proportional to national population.
"This morning I had the great privilege of visiting the tomb of your extraordinary founder of your republic. […] His greatest legacy is Turkey's strong, vibrant, secular democracy"
• Mustafa Kemal Atatürk first made a name for himself as a WW1 military commander for the Central Powers (for Americans, Brits, and Canadians that's "the other side"). The Central Powers didn't handle their defeat and the harsh sanctions levied against them very well. Most famously, Hitler led a surge of nationalist sentiment in Germany known by the abbreviation "Nazi." Atatürk, too, led a surge of nationalist sentiment in his native Turkey. In dramatic contrast to Hitler's Germany, Atatürk's national revolution was based on the principles of enlightenment philosophy and secular democracy (much like the USA's). The Kemalist ideology he originated is remarkably similar to a European parliamentary republic. It's not quite the diverse melting-pot that the USA is, but it's a remarkably strong democracy. It is one of the freest nations in the Muslim world.
"Turkey's democracy is your own achievement. It was not forced upon you by any outside power"
• There's a little criticism of the Republican hawk position that war in Iraq will provide democracy. There was, however, an attempt at an Iraqi revolution in Shia southeast in the early 90s, just after the invasion of Kuwait was repelled. Negotiations were allegedly made between them and the American diplomats for the USA to provide weapons and aid to the cause much like France did in the American Revolution. The difference was that with a change of President the US government changed policies on providing aid to foreign rebellions. Without the promised aid, the rebellion was crushed. Having thwarted the home-grown revolution, don't we then have some moral responsibility to restore it?
"Now, my country's democracy has its own story. […] I can see the Washington Monument from the window of the White House every day. […] Over time, more and more people contributed to help make this monument the inspiring structure that still stands tall today. Among those who came to our aid were friends from […] Istanbul. Ottoman Sultan Abdulmecid sent a marble plaque […] Inscribed […] with a few simple words: 'So as to strengthen the friendship between the two countries.' Over 150 years have passed since those words were carved into marble. Our nations have changed in many ways. But our friendship is strong, and our alliance endures."
• Cool story, and one I hadn't heard before. Good rhetorical use of it, too, wielding it to strengthen the alliance between the USA and Turkey.
"the future will be shaped by fear or by freedom; by poverty or by prosperity; by strife or by a just, secure and lasting peace."
• More realistically, the future will be shaped by both of each of those pairs in some proportion, and the hope is that there will be more of the latter and less of the former. It's unrealistic to expect a complete extinction of fear, poverty, or strife. It's a minor quibble, though.
"This much is certain: No one nation can confront these challenges alone, and all nations have a stake in overcoming them. That is why we must listen to one another, and seek common ground. That is why we must build on our mutual interests, and rise above our differences. We are stronger when we act together."
• I'm not so paranoid as to see New World Order conspiracies behind these statements, but I know there are people who will.
"America and Turkey are working with the G20 on an unprecedented response to an unprecedented economic crisis."
• As I've mentioned before, the unemployment rate after the stimulus is dramatically worse than was predicted by the Obama Administration if their stimulus was not implemented. It's up to 9.8% in September. That seems to suggest the unprecedented response is an unprecedented failure. I wonder how Turkey's and other international efforts are doing. Incidentally, that source for the unemployment rate also says the rate is the worst since 1983 -- when Reagan dramatically cut taxes and attempted to cut non-military spending to reverse a combination of unemployment and inflation. You know, exactly the opposite approach Obama is using.
"We should build on our Clean Technology Fund to leverage efficiency and renewable energy investments in Turkey. And to power markets in Turkey and Europe, the United States will continue to support your central role as an East-West corridor for oil and natural gas."
• In other words, we'll continue to spend money to make your major industries of oil and natural gas shipping obsolete. It takes great talent to threaten someone in such a way that they feel more secure hearing it.
"Europe gains by the diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith -- it is not diminished by it."
• Amen.
"In the last several years, you've abolished state security courts, you've expanded the right to counsel. You've reformed the penal code and strengthened laws that govern the freedom of the press and assembly."
• Turkey has never really been a liberal democracy in the sense of constitutional civil rights. State security courts were something akin to military tribunals over civilian crimes; you know, the kind of thing that exaggerated claims about the USA PATRIOT Act claimed would happen to terrorism suspects. Except it was the literal policy as implemented. Reforming that was obviously good. Implementing trial by jury would also appeal to me, but that reform isn't very likely in Turkey. Still, they are definitely improving.
"An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all citizens."
• Absolutely true.
"An open border would return the Turkish and Armenian people to a peaceful and prosperous coexistence that would serve both of your nations."
• Turkey and Armenia were enemies in WW1, with Armenian troops aiding the Russian Army in crushing the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman was divided among various Allied nations, then restored to nationhood by the war of independence I mentioned before.
"[Turkey] can play a constructive role in helping to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has continued for far too long."
• A small section of the Caucasian nation of Azerbaijan called Nagorno-Karabakh wants to secede from Azerbaijan largely at the behest of the Armenian ethnic majority in the region. This is all right near the Turkish border, perhaps as far as Florida to Cuba. An undeclared war was fought there for years until an official declaration of war in 1992. The war officially ended in 1994 with a Russian-brokered ceasefire and continuing peace talks. Tensions have risen and threats issued all through 2008, indicating peace talks taking a turn for the worse. It seems... subjective for Obama to call it a continuing war. Maybe he's playing to local sentiment. Or maybe he's just oversimplifying.
"The United States is willing to offer all the help sought by the parties as they work towards a just and lasting settlement that reunifies Cyprus into a bizonal and bicommunal federation."
• Turkey is the only nation in the world that recognizes Northern Cyprus as an independent nation. A coup was attempted by ethnically Greek Cypriots, triggering a Turkish invasion, which lead to a standoff where Turkey recognizes an independent nation and everyone else sees a region of the existing Republic of Cyprus. Turkey, apparently with approval from the USA, seeks a federation of two "zones", one ethnically Greek and one Turkish, federalized into one nation. Apparently the idea of a melting pot only applies to our own nation, not to our allies.
"The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. That is a goal shared by Palestinians, Israelis, and people of goodwill around the world."
• It's a great solution, except for the unsolvable problem of drawing borders, especially pertaining to Jerusalem. Both sides would rather fight than lose exclusive control over Jerusalem, which both sides cannot hold at the same time. That's why the peace talks never go anywhere. Only by waiting perpetually can peace talks avoid this issue and, thus, avoid open war. Unless one side gives up.
Reminds me of the sword dual at the end of Pirates of the Caribbean. "So what now, Jack? Are we to be two immortals locked in an epic battle until Judgment Day and trumpets sound?" "Or you could surrender." I think a more accurate view of the American position on the issue is "Knock it off already!"
"The peace of the region will also be advanced if Iran forgoes any nuclear weapons ambitions."
• It amuses me how Iranian nuclear ambitions are just a rumor perpetuated by Cheney and the neocons to stir up trouble... until Obama gets security clearance. Then it's accepted fact.
" Iraq, Turkey, and the United States face a common threat from terrorism. That includes the al Qaeda terrorists who have sought to drive Iraqis apart and destroy their country. That includes the PKK."
• The PKK is the Kurdistan Worker's Party ("Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan" in Kurdish). It's basically a socialist, militant extremist version of the Kurdish separatists common to the Turkish/Iraqi border region extending a little into Syria and Iran. The people Saddam Hussein bombed with chemical weapons -- this is the radical, violent, nutball version of those guys. They are listed as a terrorist organization by the USA, UN, NATO, and the European Union. Their supporters also protested the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Because the US and the Kurds of northern Iraq are strong allies in the War in Iraq, there hasn't been a lot of US effort expended against the Kurdish extremists near the border. Apparently, that's what Obama is suggesting will change.
"There's an old Turkish proverb: 'You cannot put out fire with flames.' America knows this. Turkey knows this. There's some who must be met by force, they will not compromise. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy."
• Great message. I'm tempted to call the epic economic stimulus spending and over-regulation of the health care and energy industries "destructive" and turn this principle against it's speaker. I really like the use of a local proverb, a la Ronald "Trust, but verify." Reagan.
"This is not where East and West divide -- this is where they come together."
• If rhetoric were still taught in school (like it should be), this could be a lesson unto itself.
All in all, it's a great speech. Obama is still Obama, ideologically and stylistically. But it's strong, persuasive, and filled with good stuff. It made me research a lot of Turkish history, which was interesting. Even under my critical eye, it persuades me to value Turkey as a rich culture and a valuable American ally.
I can't help but admit, George W. Bush should've done some of this kind of outreach to the moderate Muslim world. Not the BS liberal internationalism, but the praise of the best traits of the best nations in the region. It would have gone a long way to diffusing the constant-but-baseless criticisms of him. Good job, President Obama.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Obameter #125: Order Us Out of Iraq
Until the financial market collapse in October, the biggest issue in the 2008 presidential election was Iraq. Bush was The Devil™ who took us in and Obama was The Coward™ who would bring our troops home without victory. Rhetoric was heated hyperbole and exaggeration. It was bad.
Then Obama was elected. On Jan 21st, 2009, Obama used his first full day in office to talk to military and Iraqi experts for his big presidential war update. Obama said of the meeting, "I asked the military leadership to engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq." Drawdown is kind of a strange choice of words, but it demonstrates his resolve to leave Iraq acted upon on the very first day. He has acted to bring the troops home, just as he asked. Promise kept.
Perhaps more interesting is what he didn't do. He didn't spin around 180° and support a perpetual presence in Iraq as soon as he saw the confidential intelligence stuff that only Presidents see. He didn't call for troops to start being shipped home immediately and the war to be entirely declared a horrendous imperial mistake. It really was a moderate position: bring the troops home responsibly. Victory with honor in Iraq.
I like it. Fine, it's a little Nixonesque, but it's also a good thing to do. He has ended the "perpetual war" criticism of the USA (which would have been a smart trick for the Bush administration), but without actually scrapping the important work the troops are doing in Iraq (the same smart policy as the Bush administration clung to like a life raft).
Are troops actually coming home? In Feb., it was reported that "a substantial number of the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq would be home within a year." Just yesterday it was reported that "The United States will withdraw about 4,000 troops from Iraq by the end of October[.]" Is 4000 a substantial number of 140,000? Maybe if he's been doing that every month without me noticing. Also, General McChrystal (commander of the troops in Afghanistan) wants a surge similar to the one in Iraq - more troops and a major strategic adaptation; even if the troops leave Iraq, they won't necessarily be going home.
Update: this article says there will be 120,000 troops in Iraq by the end of the month. Thus, 20,000 troops have left Iraq since Obama was elected. 16 to 17% probably qualifies as "significant". I don't know how many went to Afghanistan or will in the upcoming troop surge, but it's more effect than I gave credit for. General Odierno, who made the announcement, said Iraq was an enduring U.S. interest but that insurgent problems had reduced greatly in the past two years. If Iraq loses the stability we've gained in the past two years, that will be Obama's primary legacy.
Obama also announced he would "consult with the Joint Chiefs […] in order to develop a comprehensive policy for the entire region." I like hearing him treat Iraq and Afghanistan as two fronts of the same military endeavor. They are. It's nice to hear politicians besides the Bush White House say so.
I suspect his allies on the anti-war left will be criticizing Obama for the same thing I'm praising him for: his symbolic attempts to "end the war" are diffusing criticism, but results demonstrate he's trying to win the war first. It's a beautiful thing!
Then Obama was elected. On Jan 21st, 2009, Obama used his first full day in office to talk to military and Iraqi experts for his big presidential war update. Obama said of the meeting, "I asked the military leadership to engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq." Drawdown is kind of a strange choice of words, but it demonstrates his resolve to leave Iraq acted upon on the very first day. He has acted to bring the troops home, just as he asked. Promise kept.
Perhaps more interesting is what he didn't do. He didn't spin around 180° and support a perpetual presence in Iraq as soon as he saw the confidential intelligence stuff that only Presidents see. He didn't call for troops to start being shipped home immediately and the war to be entirely declared a horrendous imperial mistake. It really was a moderate position: bring the troops home responsibly. Victory with honor in Iraq.
I like it. Fine, it's a little Nixonesque, but it's also a good thing to do. He has ended the "perpetual war" criticism of the USA (which would have been a smart trick for the Bush administration), but without actually scrapping the important work the troops are doing in Iraq (the same smart policy as the Bush administration clung to like a life raft).
Are troops actually coming home? In Feb., it was reported that "a substantial number of the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq would be home within a year." Just yesterday it was reported that "The United States will withdraw about 4,000 troops from Iraq by the end of October[.]" Is 4000 a substantial number of 140,000? Maybe if he's been doing that every month without me noticing. Also, General McChrystal (commander of the troops in Afghanistan) wants a surge similar to the one in Iraq - more troops and a major strategic adaptation; even if the troops leave Iraq, they won't necessarily be going home.
Update: this article says there will be 120,000 troops in Iraq by the end of the month. Thus, 20,000 troops have left Iraq since Obama was elected. 16 to 17% probably qualifies as "significant". I don't know how many went to Afghanistan or will in the upcoming troop surge, but it's more effect than I gave credit for. General Odierno, who made the announcement, said Iraq was an enduring U.S. interest but that insurgent problems had reduced greatly in the past two years. If Iraq loses the stability we've gained in the past two years, that will be Obama's primary legacy.
Obama also announced he would "consult with the Joint Chiefs […] in order to develop a comprehensive policy for the entire region." I like hearing him treat Iraq and Afghanistan as two fronts of the same military endeavor. They are. It's nice to hear politicians besides the Bush White House say so.
I suspect his allies on the anti-war left will be criticizing Obama for the same thing I'm praising him for: his symbolic attempts to "end the war" are diffusing criticism, but results demonstrate he's trying to win the war first. It's a beautiful thing!
Friday, September 25, 2009
Obameter #77: Fund Community-Based Prevention
I'm sick of describing health care. My view boils down to a single point: American health care is generally better, if you can get it. Our system specializes on specialization at the expense of universal insurance. So many countries have universal health care, so everyone can get B+ medical care but A+ care remains elusive. We could do the same. But why should we?
Expanded funding for that kind of broad, general care was promised by Barack Obama and $851 million to that effect was announced by Michelle Obama. The Obama Administration is very successfully pursuing the health care reforms he believes in and I oppose.
It has become redundant to say so.
I need a new perspective on the issue. I need to think about it in a new way. To that end, I present a rebuttal to the Green Party's argument in favor of universal health coverage.
The way in which this is socialism is that it cuts off the peaks of the mountains to raise lower elevations. It raises the worse case by sacrificing the best case. The American spirit is an aspiration to achieve the best case - or, preferably, to create an even better best case. To remove the best possible outcome from possibility is unAmerican. That is why we are the only industrialized nation without universal health care. We associate ourselves with the best possible outcome. Thus, eliminate the best possible outcome is to hurt ourselves.
Expanded funding for that kind of broad, general care was promised by Barack Obama and $851 million to that effect was announced by Michelle Obama. The Obama Administration is very successfully pursuing the health care reforms he believes in and I oppose.
It has become redundant to say so.
I need a new perspective on the issue. I need to think about it in a new way. To that end, I present a rebuttal to the Green Party's argument in favor of universal health coverage.
- They argue that the United States is the only industrialized nation that does not consider health care a right. That's true, and logically correct. Rights are things government cannot do to you. Government cannot restrict your associations or self-expression, take your property, punish you without a trial... those are rights. Health care is done for you. It is a service, not a right.
- They argue that the US health care system is not the best in the world because American health is low. That is because people are not using the system. Individual patients of the American health care system achieve better health than patients of other health care systems. By that measure, the American system is the best health care system in the world.
- American health care is more expensive than that elsewhere in the world. Of course it is. Most health care elsewhere is general care. Most health care in the USA is specialist care. Specialist care is more expensive than general care. It's also more effective.
- The American system denies people service based on their ability to pay. Universal health care denies people services based on limited availability of specialist services. We have the "oversupply" of equipment stated because of the redundancies of competitive industry. If you remove that cause, we will face the same limited supply of specialist services that other nations face.
- They argue that no laws, rules, or regulations would limit choice of health care provider under a universal care system. This is true. Scarcity, not rules, would dictate availability. The rest of their arguments in this section are against corporate restrictions on health care, which I oppose just as much as I oppose government restrictions on health insurance. You get more choice when you pay for it yourself.
- They argue that universal health care is not "socialized medicine" because the government is only paying for the health care, not providing it. This is true. It's socialized medical insurance. They also mention that approximately 2/3rds of people support universal coverage. Speaking of rights, why force a system onto the other third that they don't want? Individual states can already provide universal medical coverage at the state level, leaving people the choice of whether to pay for it by choosing what state they live in.
- In arguing that the American system is not being reformed, they compare for-profit and not-for-profit medical care prices. What does that have to do with government handling of payments? Apart from that, this just repeats the third point about costs: American health care is more expensive and more effective at the cost of availability.
- They blame corporate lobbies for health care not passing. Why would corporations oppose it generally? It transfers the costs of health insurance from them to government. Medical corporations lobby against universal care to save themselves. They also fund most of the world's medical technology research and development. Maybe it's a good thing they exist.
The way in which this is socialism is that it cuts off the peaks of the mountains to raise lower elevations. It raises the worse case by sacrificing the best case. The American spirit is an aspiration to achieve the best case - or, preferably, to create an even better best case. To remove the best possible outcome from possibility is unAmerican. That is why we are the only industrialized nation without universal health care. We associate ourselves with the best possible outcome. Thus, eliminate the best possible outcome is to hurt ourselves.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Obameter #76: Fund Health Care Training
Obama promised to expand the financial support government provides for the training of health care personnel. In the big stimulus bill, he did so to the tune of $500 million. Promise kept.
I am completely unfamiliar with any political issue surrounding this promise or it's fulfillment. Were health care personnel previously under-trained? Did they need that money? Was it enough? Was it too much? Is there any mechanism in place to make sure it's going to the right people and making a difference? It seems to come completely out of the blue.
It's one of the approximately 140 independent items passed as one huge, joint program above and beyond the usual government spending budget in the huge omnibus American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, unofficially called the Stimulus Bill. One criticism of the big stimulus bill is that you could hide entire programs in the bill and no one would even find and address them before they became law. No oversight. No debate.
I'd say this is a perfect example. It sounds good, sure. Who wants untrained medical personnel? I suppose it's part of a greater emphasis on health in America, but I wasn't aware of any major lack of training problem in the medical field or that this spending has or will actually improve American health. Wikipedia has 6 words on the topic. Google News has seemingly no related search results. Have you heard anything about it? Has there been any debate, consideration, or discussion of this point at all?
I guess it was slipped in completely under the radar. I wonder what else passed that no one noticed.
I am completely unfamiliar with any political issue surrounding this promise or it's fulfillment. Were health care personnel previously under-trained? Did they need that money? Was it enough? Was it too much? Is there any mechanism in place to make sure it's going to the right people and making a difference? It seems to come completely out of the blue.
It's one of the approximately 140 independent items passed as one huge, joint program above and beyond the usual government spending budget in the huge omnibus American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, unofficially called the Stimulus Bill. One criticism of the big stimulus bill is that you could hide entire programs in the bill and no one would even find and address them before they became law. No oversight. No debate.
I'd say this is a perfect example. It sounds good, sure. Who wants untrained medical personnel? I suppose it's part of a greater emphasis on health in America, but I wasn't aware of any major lack of training problem in the medical field or that this spending has or will actually improve American health. Wikipedia has 6 words on the topic. Google News has seemingly no related search results. Have you heard anything about it? Has there been any debate, consideration, or discussion of this point at all?
I guess it was slipped in completely under the radar. I wonder what else passed that no one noticed.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Obameter #40: Fixing The Alternative Minimum Tax
(WTC: Remember and Rebuild.)
In 1984, Secretary of the Treasury Donald Regan asked President Ronald Reagan what General Electric, Boeing, General Dynamics, and more than 50 other big companies had in common. Reagan replied that he didn't know. Regan told him that they pay no taxes at all, and provided proof. Both men agreed this was wrong. In the 1984 State of the Union address, Reagan announced his intention "to simplify the entire tax code so all taxpayers, big and small, are treated fairly."
In 1986, the Reagan Administration along with allied Democrats from the Legislature passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered tax rates while closing numerous tax loopholes and simplifying the tax rules. It also set an Alternative Minimum Tax, insuring that rich companies and individuals could not escape paying a certain level of taxes no matter how creative their use of tax shelters and tax write-offs.
However, unlike the standard tax brackets, the requirements of the alternative minimum tax were not bound to inflation. As the value of the dollar shrinks over time, more and more of the middle class began to fall under the definition of "rich" used by the alternative minimum tax. Legislatures have frequently passed AMT "patches" to exempt the middle class from the tax for a year or so, but a permanent fix was considered too expensive to the annual budget.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama and McCain both promised to make the 2007 patch permanent and index the AMT to inflation, thus preventing it from gradually covering individuals with lower and lower income levels. The permanent fix was added by the Senate to the The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Stimulus Bill) in negotiations with Senate Republicans whose votes were needed to pass the overall bill. Three Republican Senators, Susan Collins of Maine, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, were convinced by these negotiations and the ARRA passed. They are the only Republicans in the House or the Senate to vote for the ARRA package.
For Obama, that means promise kept. For Republicans, it's a depressing sign of how little influence we have in government today; even with 92% of Republicans in the Senate and 99.4% in the House opposing the ARRA, it still passed. I don't know what else was involved in those Senate negotiations, but I hope one universally supported issue point was not the purchase price of three Republican Senators' support for such a ridiculously huge chuck of government spending as the ARRA ($787 billion).
I do support the AMT changes as promised and delivered, so thumbs up for Obama on that point. The massive stimulus bill of which it was an influential part has earned my disgust and opposition. Since it is far too complex and inclusive to ever be covered as an Obama promise separately, I'm going to take this time to rant in address of the ARRA itself directly.
There are parts of ARRA I like and parts I don't like. Virtually anyone would be able to say the same thing. It has hundreds of individual programs all passed together as one incredible, huge, diverse behemoth measuring three quarters of a trillion dollars. It's five times the cost of the Bush Administration's stimulus bill of 2008, and twice the size of all the Homeland Security Appropriations Acts of that administration combined (at the time, Democrats in the House condemned the Homeland Security Act for changing too much with one monolithic bill), and it's larger than the entire US Federal Budget of 1982. It contains more than 140 separate programs that could not be addressed individually, but only confirmed or rejected as a massive whole. It's complexity ensures that everyone who voted for it voted for at least one program they do not approve of, and everyone who voted against it voted against at least one program they support. It's an intentional evasion of consideration of these programs individually on their own merits, and as such is a circumvention of critical analysis. It is wrong to circumvent critical thinking. The bill is a monument to compromised principles and deferential concession. It was passed almost exactly along party lines, also making it a monument to legislation by brute-force partisanship. Regardless of the value of the individual programs, passing them as a monolithic whole was bad governance and deserves condemnation.
In 1984, Secretary of the Treasury Donald Regan asked President Ronald Reagan what General Electric, Boeing, General Dynamics, and more than 50 other big companies had in common. Reagan replied that he didn't know. Regan told him that they pay no taxes at all, and provided proof. Both men agreed this was wrong. In the 1984 State of the Union address, Reagan announced his intention "to simplify the entire tax code so all taxpayers, big and small, are treated fairly."
In 1986, the Reagan Administration along with allied Democrats from the Legislature passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered tax rates while closing numerous tax loopholes and simplifying the tax rules. It also set an Alternative Minimum Tax, insuring that rich companies and individuals could not escape paying a certain level of taxes no matter how creative their use of tax shelters and tax write-offs.
However, unlike the standard tax brackets, the requirements of the alternative minimum tax were not bound to inflation. As the value of the dollar shrinks over time, more and more of the middle class began to fall under the definition of "rich" used by the alternative minimum tax. Legislatures have frequently passed AMT "patches" to exempt the middle class from the tax for a year or so, but a permanent fix was considered too expensive to the annual budget.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama and McCain both promised to make the 2007 patch permanent and index the AMT to inflation, thus preventing it from gradually covering individuals with lower and lower income levels. The permanent fix was added by the Senate to the The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Stimulus Bill) in negotiations with Senate Republicans whose votes were needed to pass the overall bill. Three Republican Senators, Susan Collins of Maine, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, were convinced by these negotiations and the ARRA passed. They are the only Republicans in the House or the Senate to vote for the ARRA package.
$3,600b 2009 Federal Budget
Previously discussed wasteful spending
Previously discussed worthwhile spending
$70b Alternative Minimum Tax reform
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009
I do support the AMT changes as promised and delivered, so thumbs up for Obama on that point. The massive stimulus bill of which it was an influential part has earned my disgust and opposition. Since it is far too complex and inclusive to ever be covered as an Obama promise separately, I'm going to take this time to rant in address of the ARRA itself directly.
There are parts of ARRA I like and parts I don't like. Virtually anyone would be able to say the same thing. It has hundreds of individual programs all passed together as one incredible, huge, diverse behemoth measuring three quarters of a trillion dollars. It's five times the cost of the Bush Administration's stimulus bill of 2008, and twice the size of all the Homeland Security Appropriations Acts of that administration combined (at the time, Democrats in the House condemned the Homeland Security Act for changing too much with one monolithic bill), and it's larger than the entire US Federal Budget of 1982. It contains more than 140 separate programs that could not be addressed individually, but only confirmed or rejected as a massive whole. It's complexity ensures that everyone who voted for it voted for at least one program they do not approve of, and everyone who voted against it voted against at least one program they support. It's an intentional evasion of consideration of these programs individually on their own merits, and as such is a circumvention of critical analysis. It is wrong to circumvent critical thinking. The bill is a monument to compromised principles and deferential concession. It was passed almost exactly along party lines, also making it a monument to legislation by brute-force partisanship. Regardless of the value of the individual programs, passing them as a monolithic whole was bad governance and deserves condemnation.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Obameter #36: Small Business Loans
Stop. It's Obamatime.
Obama believes that small businesses are the key to the economy, both for the recovery from our immediate situation and for long-term growth. In his own words, "Our recovery in the present and our prosperity in the future depend upon the success of America's small businesses and entrepreneurs." So when the US Small Business Administration (SBA) reported loans to small businesses were looking to be down $10 billion this year he felt compelled to act.
The old program said loans of up to $150,000 given to small businesses would be guaranteed for 85% of their value by the SBA. That way, the banks would get most of their money back one way or another. With the risk thus minimized, banks would be more willing to give out loans and small businesses would have a little boost from Uncle Sam. Larger loans might be guaranteed for as much as 75% of their value.
Obama expanded this incentive program, just as promised. For a limited time, the government will cover 90% of the amount of small business loans. The price tag on this limited time expansion will be "up to $15 billion", according to the White House website.
What kind of measure of success is this? The government is spending less money than was expected. Thus, we must increase the amount of money government is spending to $5 billion more than was expected. The unspoken assumption in this logic is that government spending makes things better. But does it?
All through 2008 the SBA was up to it's $20 billion spending expectation, encouraging banks to lend to small businesses that were less likely to be able to pay them back. At the end of 2008, there was a huge financial crisis caused, in part, by lending money to people who probably wouldn't pay it back. Now banks aren't loaning money to risky clients even with the current SBA incentives. And Obama's solution is to increase the incentive for banks to lend money to business plans risky enough that they won't do it without government taking away 90% of the risk?
The banks learned their lesson. Why won't government?
Learn from Duke Nukem Forever: some projects are doomed to fail and do not deserve continued funding. They should be allowed to die. That's why investors aren't investing in them: they don't want to be carried down into debt with them. Government should not be spending money in support of risky lending.
Thankfully, Obama's lousy business loans plan has merely a $15 billion price tag. It's a drop in the federal bucket, less than one half of 1% of the annual budget. It's too little money to seriously worry about for it's own sake. What this example demonstrates about this administration's economic sense, though, remains a strike against them.
Obama believes that small businesses are the key to the economy, both for the recovery from our immediate situation and for long-term growth. In his own words, "Our recovery in the present and our prosperity in the future depend upon the success of America's small businesses and entrepreneurs." So when the US Small Business Administration (SBA) reported loans to small businesses were looking to be down $10 billion this year he felt compelled to act.
The old program said loans of up to $150,000 given to small businesses would be guaranteed for 85% of their value by the SBA. That way, the banks would get most of their money back one way or another. With the risk thus minimized, banks would be more willing to give out loans and small businesses would have a little boost from Uncle Sam. Larger loans might be guaranteed for as much as 75% of their value.
$3,600b 2009 Federal Budget
Previously discussed wasteful spending
Previously discussed worthwhile spending
$15b Small Business loan incentive expansion
What kind of measure of success is this? The government is spending less money than was expected. Thus, we must increase the amount of money government is spending to $5 billion more than was expected. The unspoken assumption in this logic is that government spending makes things better. But does it?
All through 2008 the SBA was up to it's $20 billion spending expectation, encouraging banks to lend to small businesses that were less likely to be able to pay them back. At the end of 2008, there was a huge financial crisis caused, in part, by lending money to people who probably wouldn't pay it back. Now banks aren't loaning money to risky clients even with the current SBA incentives. And Obama's solution is to increase the incentive for banks to lend money to business plans risky enough that they won't do it without government taking away 90% of the risk?
The banks learned their lesson. Why won't government?
Learn from Duke Nukem Forever: some projects are doomed to fail and do not deserve continued funding. They should be allowed to die. That's why investors aren't investing in them: they don't want to be carried down into debt with them. Government should not be spending money in support of risky lending.
Thankfully, Obama's lousy business loans plan has merely a $15 billion price tag. It's a drop in the federal bucket, less than one half of 1% of the annual budget. It's too little money to seriously worry about for it's own sake. What this example demonstrates about this administration's economic sense, though, remains a strike against them.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Obameter #34: PAYGO
PAYGO (short for "pay as you go") is the government term for actually coming up with the money to be spent on government programs. It means either cutting spending or raising taxes to pay for any new spending increase or tax cut. It's also one of the most ignored rules in Congress.
The Obama Campaign talked a pretty good game. They invoked PAYGO as an Obama priority, throwing around phrases like "fiscal discipline", "balanced budget", and "surpluses like the 1990s". But since the election there hasn't been a single bill that has strictly followed PAYGO.
First we had the stimulus bill, the whole point of which was to flood the private sector with loose cash. Draining the flood back with higher taxes would have defeated the whole purpose, so it was given an exemption to PAYGO rules.
Then we had SCHIP, the supplement to the Children's Health Insurance Program. To cover it's expense they had benefits fall off after 5 years, but kept the tax hike for 10 years. (It's a tobacco tax, an extra 62¢ a pack. Apparently for irony.) That's not really "pay as you go" in spirit when it takes you twice as long to pay as it does to go, but it technically qualifies under the existing PAYGO rules.
The next big spending bill will be the big, controversial national health care bill. The House version of the bill looks to cost $1.2 trillion, about a third of the total annual budget. If it completely replaces Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, that'll just about cover the cost. But not all of Social Security is health-related, that would mean a lot of people (my grandmother and mother-in-law among them) would be facing some serious financial setbacks. I'm around to catch and help my family, but it seems like political suicide for Obama to actually cut all that spending to pay for his new program. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what he does.
The unsure future of PAYGO under Obama let PolitiFact to call the promise stalled rather than broken outright. I predict that breaking this promise is inevitable.
I don't mind that part, though. PAYGO is kind of stupid.
Sometimes there are emergencies that demand heavy spending. Conservatives should remember Reagan's defense spending and how it broke the back of the Soviet Empire, liberals would probably see the Great Depression and the current economic crisis as good examples (I disagree, but now is not the time), and everyone should remember World War 2. Occasionally emergency spending is justified, and PAYGO does not recognize that fact.
Even in stable times, PAYGO encourages zero-sum budgeting when we should be looking to continually cut spending until the national debt is paid down. In essence, PAYGO says not increasing the debt is good enough when, in fact, it's not good enough. Just short of 10% of the annual federal budget is paying the interest on the national debt! That's $360 billion dollars per year for past bad budgeting! We could pay for half of social security, half of total defense spending, or half of the bank bailout with that.
But it's not really the size of the national debt that is the big concern, but the size of the debt relative to the total national economy (GDP). If the debt stays constant but the economy does great, that's just as good. That makes cutting taxes and economic regulation spending in unison better than increasing taxes and such spending in tandem. PAYGO doesn't reflect that, either. A big balanced budget or a small balanced budget are considered equally respectable by it's flawed rules.
Ideally, we'd want to cut taxes a little and cut spending a lot, thus creating a budget surplus and improving the national economy. Debt as a proportion of GDP would drop like a rock.
But that's the opposite of what Obama's been doing. Even if the bailouts are excused as emergency spending for the financial crisis, why pass SCHIP and national health insurance at a time of financial crisis? It not only offends PAYGO, it offends the legitimate goals PAYGO incompetently pursues. That's what I mind.
Obama gets an F- on this one. Worse Than Failure. Could not be more wrong.
The Obama Campaign talked a pretty good game. They invoked PAYGO as an Obama priority, throwing around phrases like "fiscal discipline", "balanced budget", and "surpluses like the 1990s". But since the election there hasn't been a single bill that has strictly followed PAYGO.
First we had the stimulus bill, the whole point of which was to flood the private sector with loose cash. Draining the flood back with higher taxes would have defeated the whole purpose, so it was given an exemption to PAYGO rules.
Then we had SCHIP, the supplement to the Children's Health Insurance Program. To cover it's expense they had benefits fall off after 5 years, but kept the tax hike for 10 years. (It's a tobacco tax, an extra 62¢ a pack. Apparently for irony.) That's not really "pay as you go" in spirit when it takes you twice as long to pay as it does to go, but it technically qualifies under the existing PAYGO rules.
The next big spending bill will be the big, controversial national health care bill. The House version of the bill looks to cost $1.2 trillion, about a third of the total annual budget. If it completely replaces Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, that'll just about cover the cost. But not all of Social Security is health-related, that would mean a lot of people (my grandmother and mother-in-law among them) would be facing some serious financial setbacks. I'm around to catch and help my family, but it seems like political suicide for Obama to actually cut all that spending to pay for his new program. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what he does.
The unsure future of PAYGO under Obama let PolitiFact to call the promise stalled rather than broken outright. I predict that breaking this promise is inevitable.
I don't mind that part, though. PAYGO is kind of stupid.
Sometimes there are emergencies that demand heavy spending. Conservatives should remember Reagan's defense spending and how it broke the back of the Soviet Empire, liberals would probably see the Great Depression and the current economic crisis as good examples (I disagree, but now is not the time), and everyone should remember World War 2. Occasionally emergency spending is justified, and PAYGO does not recognize that fact.
Even in stable times, PAYGO encourages zero-sum budgeting when we should be looking to continually cut spending until the national debt is paid down. In essence, PAYGO says not increasing the debt is good enough when, in fact, it's not good enough. Just short of 10% of the annual federal budget is paying the interest on the national debt! That's $360 billion dollars per year for past bad budgeting! We could pay for half of social security, half of total defense spending, or half of the bank bailout with that.
But it's not really the size of the national debt that is the big concern, but the size of the debt relative to the total national economy (GDP). If the debt stays constant but the economy does great, that's just as good. That makes cutting taxes and economic regulation spending in unison better than increasing taxes and such spending in tandem. PAYGO doesn't reflect that, either. A big balanced budget or a small balanced budget are considered equally respectable by it's flawed rules.
Ideally, we'd want to cut taxes a little and cut spending a lot, thus creating a budget surplus and improving the national economy. Debt as a proportion of GDP would drop like a rock.
But that's the opposite of what Obama's been doing. Even if the bailouts are excused as emergency spending for the financial crisis, why pass SCHIP and national health insurance at a time of financial crisis? It not only offends PAYGO, it offends the legitimate goals PAYGO incompetently pursues. That's what I mind.
Obama gets an F- on this one. Worse Than Failure. Could not be more wrong.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Obameter #33: A Credit Card 'Bill of Rights'
The title of this one irks me hard. Semi-partisan regulation of the personal credit industry should not be symbolically compared to the revered, rational basis of freedom in the United States. The Constitution before it is institutional genius, but the Bill of Rights is human aspiration in ink. This Credit Card "Bill of Rights" is just fiscal sector regulation, an interesting detail in a vast legal code. The comparison is physically revolting.
But it's just a name. On to what it's about.
Credit companies are notorious (deservedly or otherwise) for hidden fees, unexpected rate hikes, and other financially hurtful tactics if you miss a payment. We've all heard horror stories, right? In an effort to combat this, the Obama campaign offered a list of new rules to implement to correct the various abuses. The new rules were based on three central principles:
Critics of the bill include bankers questioning the logic of restricting the provision of credit during a dramatic credit crunch and politicians questioning the justice of increasing everyone's interest rates in order to save credit debtors from debt for which they are at least partially at fault. The first criticism has a factual basis in that personal credit receded by a record-setting $11.1 billion the March the bill passed. The latter is harder to verify, as it's been only a couple of months and credit card interest rates have climbed continually for years. My wife says she noticed a sharp rate increase on our credit cards' interest rates, but our single example doesn't prove a national trend.
Still, the logic behind the interest rate criticism fits. If we image credit cards offering competitive rates to attract customers and horrible "gotcha" clauses if you miss a payment or only pay the minimum due each month, then financially foolish were carrying the weight of our credit cards for us. If the law ends that, isn't it logical to think the rest of us will be carrying a bit more of the financial load necessary to keep the credit card companies in the black? I can sympathize with someone who got themselves into a credit debt mess and is looking for help out, but I loose some of that sympathy when money is taken out of my pocket regardless of my opinion on the matter and used to aid them. I imagine we'll see a recognizable rate increase once we have more data available.
Conveniently, I'll be out of debt at approximately the end of the month. I plan never to use credit cards again. If it weren't for my wife's insistence that we keep 'em around for financial emergencies, I'd happily send them through my sleek, powerful shredder today. (It'll shred CDs, cardboard, unopened credit card applications... I love that shredder!)
Anyhoo, back to Obama. I have mixed feelings about this bill, even ignoring the horrendous name. I want to see credit card debtors helped, but I disapprove of government wielding private industry in such a way as to levy more fiscal weight onto the backs of the fiscally responsible. I certainly can't fault the law enforcement principle, but overall I have to disapprove. There are already credit counseling programs, debt reduction services, and Dave Ramsey out there helping people directly. I'm not sure this government intervention improves upon their existing efforts.
I'm right on the edge, but I lean just a hair toward opposing the bill. It's probably just my conservative bias -- if a change doesn't obviously improve things overall, why make it?
But it's just a name. On to what it's about.
Credit companies are notorious (deservedly or otherwise) for hidden fees, unexpected rate hikes, and other financially hurtful tactics if you miss a payment. We've all heard horror stories, right? In an effort to combat this, the Obama campaign offered a list of new rules to implement to correct the various abuses. The new rules were based on three central principles:
- No rate hikes without advance warning and only in response to non-payment.
- Contract rules in plain English available online for easy comparison shopping.
- Effective oversight by law enforcement to ensure credit card companies are actually following the rules.
Critics of the bill include bankers questioning the logic of restricting the provision of credit during a dramatic credit crunch and politicians questioning the justice of increasing everyone's interest rates in order to save credit debtors from debt for which they are at least partially at fault. The first criticism has a factual basis in that personal credit receded by a record-setting $11.1 billion the March the bill passed. The latter is harder to verify, as it's been only a couple of months and credit card interest rates have climbed continually for years. My wife says she noticed a sharp rate increase on our credit cards' interest rates, but our single example doesn't prove a national trend.
Still, the logic behind the interest rate criticism fits. If we image credit cards offering competitive rates to attract customers and horrible "gotcha" clauses if you miss a payment or only pay the minimum due each month, then financially foolish were carrying the weight of our credit cards for us. If the law ends that, isn't it logical to think the rest of us will be carrying a bit more of the financial load necessary to keep the credit card companies in the black? I can sympathize with someone who got themselves into a credit debt mess and is looking for help out, but I loose some of that sympathy when money is taken out of my pocket regardless of my opinion on the matter and used to aid them. I imagine we'll see a recognizable rate increase once we have more data available.
Conveniently, I'll be out of debt at approximately the end of the month. I plan never to use credit cards again. If it weren't for my wife's insistence that we keep 'em around for financial emergencies, I'd happily send them through my sleek, powerful shredder today. (It'll shred CDs, cardboard, unopened credit card applications... I love that shredder!)
Anyhoo, back to Obama. I have mixed feelings about this bill, even ignoring the horrendous name. I want to see credit card debtors helped, but I disapprove of government wielding private industry in such a way as to levy more fiscal weight onto the backs of the fiscally responsible. I certainly can't fault the law enforcement principle, but overall I have to disapprove. There are already credit counseling programs, debt reduction services, and Dave Ramsey out there helping people directly. I'm not sure this government intervention improves upon their existing efforts.
I'm right on the edge, but I lean just a hair toward opposing the bill. It's probably just my conservative bias -- if a change doesn't obviously improve things overall, why make it?
Monday, August 31, 2009
Obameter #24: Income Taxes for Poor Seniors
This was posted a day late. Sorry.
Obama promised to "eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year." But since his election... nothing. It wasn't part of Obama's budget proposal. It wasn't part of the stimulus bill. It wasn't part of his tax-day speech that was specifically about his tax policies and ideas. It's not anywhere. Promise broken.
Little question, though: why only seniors? Why should a young adult be paying more taxes than a senior if their incomes are the same? Seniors already have Social Security, so they should be less poor than the young person of the same income. This change would only deepen that inequality.
The Tax Policy Center [W] has similar questions, declaring that the policy conflicted with "fair, simple and efficient" tax policy. It seems to me that the fairest, simplest, most efficient tax policy would be a universal tax rate without credits, options, or exceptions. Why is no one proposing that? Actually, someone did, but it never took hold and was criticized as being too easy on the rich. <sarcasm>Remember: all men are created equal, but the more money they make the less they deserve equality.</sarcasm>
(I have no special love for the FairTax plan. I'd also be fine with a universal income tax rate, or a income tax rate that increases as a function of income, or even the current tax bracket system so long as there are not 10,000 credits, exceptions, loopholes, incentives, and other complications.)
Anyway, as previously discussed, I oppose tax credits because it is paying people to obey more government rules. In other words, because it requires the complexity of tracking behavior and creates a line across which there is inequality in taxation. There is a suggestion of authoritarian government in that criticism, but also of ineffectual government. This example of ending income taxes for seniors circumvents the authoritarian accusation (there is no way that this could become an incentive for people to choose to be old), but the accusation of ineffectiveness remains. Rather than aiding the poor generally, this merely divides people yet again.
It's possible Obama recognized the inequality he was proposing and silently recanted. It is also possible that he was persuaded by the Tax Policy Center's reasoning. Either of those would be good things. But it's also possible he simply broke a promise to do something he thought was right, either forgetting about it entirely or judging it to be a lesser priority. I'm not very inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on this without some statement from the White House. Pretending he never said it is not an acceptable policy.
In all, he proposed a broken, hobbled tax cut, failed to deliver, and failed to explain why. That does not show good character nor good judgment. Thumbs down.
Obama promised to "eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year." But since his election... nothing. It wasn't part of Obama's budget proposal. It wasn't part of the stimulus bill. It wasn't part of his tax-day speech that was specifically about his tax policies and ideas. It's not anywhere. Promise broken.
Little question, though: why only seniors? Why should a young adult be paying more taxes than a senior if their incomes are the same? Seniors already have Social Security, so they should be less poor than the young person of the same income. This change would only deepen that inequality.
The Tax Policy Center [W] has similar questions, declaring that the policy conflicted with "fair, simple and efficient" tax policy. It seems to me that the fairest, simplest, most efficient tax policy would be a universal tax rate without credits, options, or exceptions. Why is no one proposing that? Actually, someone did, but it never took hold and was criticized as being too easy on the rich. <sarcasm>Remember: all men are created equal, but the more money they make the less they deserve equality.</sarcasm>
(I have no special love for the FairTax plan. I'd also be fine with a universal income tax rate, or a income tax rate that increases as a function of income, or even the current tax bracket system so long as there are not 10,000 credits, exceptions, loopholes, incentives, and other complications.)
Anyway, as previously discussed, I oppose tax credits because it is paying people to obey more government rules. In other words, because it requires the complexity of tracking behavior and creates a line across which there is inequality in taxation. There is a suggestion of authoritarian government in that criticism, but also of ineffectual government. This example of ending income taxes for seniors circumvents the authoritarian accusation (there is no way that this could become an incentive for people to choose to be old), but the accusation of ineffectiveness remains. Rather than aiding the poor generally, this merely divides people yet again.
It's possible Obama recognized the inequality he was proposing and silently recanted. It is also possible that he was persuaded by the Tax Policy Center's reasoning. Either of those would be good things. But it's also possible he simply broke a promise to do something he thought was right, either forgetting about it entirely or judging it to be a lesser priority. I'm not very inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on this without some statement from the White House. Pretending he never said it is not an acceptable policy.
In all, he proposed a broken, hobbled tax cut, failed to deliver, and failed to explain why. That does not show good character nor good judgment. Thumbs down.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Obameter #5: the Earned Income Tax Credit
The Earned Income Tax Credit is a complicated, rather obscure aspect of tax law that generally tries to reward low-wage workers or workers facing unusual challenges for being productive members of the workforce to the tune of several thousand dollars each. Wikipedia estimates the total cost at something like $36 billion (in 2004). It's pretty complicated, though, with various fade-ins and fade-outs for taxpayers meeting various criteria. One of the unintended consequences of the EITC is the so-called "marriage penalty" wherein two single people filing taxes separately will pay less in taxes than if they marry and file jointly. This is because being an unmarried worker was once considered a hardship, so they increased the EITC for single people.
During his campaign, Obama made a three-part promise relating to the EITC:
I've addressed tax credits before, concluding that "With a tax credit, you're paying less money because you're conforming to more governmental rules." I remain wary of tax credits as a way for government to buy obedience from us taxpayers but, just as before, it's hard to criticize government for creating an incentive to work. Maybe it's a little easier now, since it's the second tax credit doing that exact same thing.
One risk of government paying low-wage workers to work is that it makes low-wage work seem better than it is. It's better than paying people to quit, as a badly designed unemployment program potentially could, but I continue to favor tax rate changes rather than rules and regulations regarding how you live your life. How much simpler it would be if all these eligibility programs with their complicated qualifications and dependencies were replaced with a negative income tax rate on the lowest tax bracket! But government continues to favor complicated systems of eligibility as though more laws means better laws.
And for them it does. Job security for Washington insiders, IRS agents, private accountants, and other experts on the unnecessary complication legislators create. They promise to simplify the tax code to get elected, but it keeps getting more complicated. Plus, again, they're buying your obedience. There's something creepily authoritarian about that.
Given the ugly, complicated system Obama inherited, though, he did act to simplify it by removing the marriage penalty. I suppose that deserves my tentative, cautious approval. But this is the last government-paying-people-to-work tax credit that I'll be supporting. Employers are supposed to do that, not government.
A little reminder: every pixel on that dollar bill graphic stands for $150 million dollars -- about 40 times as much as the average American makes over the course of an 80 year career.
During his campaign, Obama made a three-part promise relating to the EITC:
- To remove the marriage penalty.
- To expand the credit for taxpayers with more than 3 children.
- To expand the credit for taxpayers without children.
I've addressed tax credits before, concluding that "With a tax credit, you're paying less money because you're conforming to more governmental rules." I remain wary of tax credits as a way for government to buy obedience from us taxpayers but, just as before, it's hard to criticize government for creating an incentive to work. Maybe it's a little easier now, since it's the second tax credit doing that exact same thing.
One risk of government paying low-wage workers to work is that it makes low-wage work seem better than it is. It's better than paying people to quit, as a badly designed unemployment program potentially could, but I continue to favor tax rate changes rather than rules and regulations regarding how you live your life. How much simpler it would be if all these eligibility programs with their complicated qualifications and dependencies were replaced with a negative income tax rate on the lowest tax bracket! But government continues to favor complicated systems of eligibility as though more laws means better laws.
And for them it does. Job security for Washington insiders, IRS agents, private accountants, and other experts on the unnecessary complication legislators create. They promise to simplify the tax code to get elected, but it keeps getting more complicated. Plus, again, they're buying your obedience. There's something creepily authoritarian about that.
$3,600b 2009 Federal Budget
Previously discussed wasteful spending
Previously discussed worthwhile spending
Earned Income Tax Credit (total cost)
A little reminder: every pixel on that dollar bill graphic stands for $150 million dollars -- about 40 times as much as the average American makes over the course of an 80 year career.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Obameter #3: Capital Gains Tax on Small Business
My last few posts have been slightly huge, so here's a tiny one for a change.
Everything you own is capital. If you buy something then sell it for a profit it's a capital gain, and the IRS taxes you for it. Obama promised to completely eliminate the capital gains tax for small and new businesses. Buried deep within the Stimulus Bill is some text that reduces the capital gains tax on small businesses. The tax used to apply to 50% of capital gains. Now it only applies to 25% of them. That means investors can invest more money into small businesses without losing as much of it to taxes.
It's not everything he promised, but it's a beautiful thing.
Everything you own is capital. If you buy something then sell it for a profit it's a capital gain, and the IRS taxes you for it. Obama promised to completely eliminate the capital gains tax for small and new businesses. Buried deep within the Stimulus Bill is some text that reduces the capital gains tax on small businesses. The tax used to apply to 50% of capital gains. Now it only applies to 25% of them. That means investors can invest more money into small businesses without losing as much of it to taxes.
It's not everything he promised, but it's a beautiful thing.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Obameter #240: Seperation of Lobbyist and State
It started out looking good. Presidential Candidate Obama called for ethics reform and a two-year waiting period between employment for special interest groups and employment for the state. Special interests had corrupted government policy for decades, and he was trying to fight it. No one from any political background could help but admire it. As soon as he was elected he issued an executive order demanding that federal appointees not deal in any issue for which they had lobbied within the past two years. It was an open-and-shut case: Obama had made good on his promise.
But the case wasn't closed. The executive order included a waiver clause, wherein government officials could waive certain of the order's rules based only on the claim that it is against the public interest or against the spirit of the executive order. There's no appeal process, so the mere claim that a waiver is justified is also the final word that the executive order does not apply to that appointee. The rules only apply if and when the Obama Administration says they do. PolitiFact reclassified the promise as a compromise. After all, the executive order was still a step forward.
Then more information came out. Often former lobbyists do work for the Obama Administration but are "recused" (ie prevented) from discussing the topics they used to lobby for. Thus, the judgment of whether the executive order applies or not does not even necessarily require the formality of a waiver. The people present can decide at the time whether a lobbyist is acting ethically or not, and their decision is above appeal. A rule that can be excepted on demand is not a rule at all. This evidence was enough to turn one of the most attractive of Obama's campaign promises into a substantial mark against him: promise broken.
Here is an incomplete list of former lobbyists working for the Obama Administration. According to the Obama Administration, only three waivers have been issued. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, these former lobbyists do not have waivers. They are sorted roughly by the likelihood of conflicts of interest, with the most obvious temptations for corruption listed first.
Though most of the above jobs for lobbyists do not obviously result in conflicts of interest, some obviously do. It is crystal clear that the real state of things does not match Presidential Candidate Obama's campaign promise nor President Obama's executive order.
But there is a more important question here: should Obama have ever made this promise at all?
The objective of all these appointments and this hiring is to get the most qualified people possible into positions that make the best use of their qualifications. The side effect of that is that the most qualified people often come with personal or professional biases which are detrimental to good government. Obama's promise, in essence, is choosing to abandon a certain amount of ability in order to minimize these biases; that is, to throw out all the bathwater and as few babies as possible. The obvious fallacy of throwing away parts of what you need is expressing itself in the Obama Administration's need to appoint some qualified lobbyists in order to keep the qualifications up generally.
Government needs able people, and the more able the better. The distortions of bias are contrary to good government, but so is tying an appointee's hands. Ignoring conflicts of interest is bad, but banning thousands of able people is bad, too. There's a third, better way. Rather than banning the bias, counter the bias. Rather than banning William Lynn from the Defense Department, team him with, say, a former lobbyist from another defense contractor and an Eisenhowerian critic of the military-industrial complex, all experts in the field and under orders to proceed officially only when largely in agreement. Thus, their biases defy each other, leaving only the quality of their arguments and their professional expertise to break the tie.
I'd love to say this was my original idea, but it's not. It is based on the ideas of James Madison from Federalist Paper #10, wherein he argues that the dispute of a great many factions results in policy congruent with the liberty and best interest of the whole; that is, that a great mass of respectful disagreement is more effective at producing good policy than is one or two overwhelming views. To summarize the summary, diversity is good.
It is abundantly clear, both by his promise and by the exceptions to it, that Obama is not pursuing plurality in this sense. Worse than breaking his promise is his failure to pursue at all the means with greater potential than those he promised.
Obama was right to try to prevent conflict of interest from driving Washington. In every other respect pertaining to this issue, his plan, his execution, his philosophy, he was wrong.
But the case wasn't closed. The executive order included a waiver clause, wherein government officials could waive certain of the order's rules based only on the claim that it is against the public interest or against the spirit of the executive order. There's no appeal process, so the mere claim that a waiver is justified is also the final word that the executive order does not apply to that appointee. The rules only apply if and when the Obama Administration says they do. PolitiFact reclassified the promise as a compromise. After all, the executive order was still a step forward.
Then more information came out. Often former lobbyists do work for the Obama Administration but are "recused" (ie prevented) from discussing the topics they used to lobby for. Thus, the judgment of whether the executive order applies or not does not even necessarily require the formality of a waiver. The people present can decide at the time whether a lobbyist is acting ethically or not, and their decision is above appeal. A rule that can be excepted on demand is not a rule at all. This evidence was enough to turn one of the most attractive of Obama's campaign promises into a substantial mark against him: promise broken.
Here is an incomplete list of former lobbyists working for the Obama Administration. According to the Obama Administration, only three waivers have been issued. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, these former lobbyists do not have waivers. They are sorted roughly by the likelihood of conflicts of interest, with the most obvious temptations for corruption listed first.
- William Lynn used to work for defense lobbyist Raytheon, and now works as the top operations manager over the Pentagon -- a job which entails contracting out to private defense contractors such as Raytheon. He received a formal waiver.
- Jocelyn Frye lobbied for National Partnership for Women and Families until 2008 and is now director of policy and projects in the Office of the First Lady. In 2008 she lobbied for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (which deals with gender equality in regards to executive pay), the first law Obama signed into law after becoming president. She also works for President Obama’s domestic policy team and is an old college buddy of Michelle Obama. Jocelyn received an official waiver.
- Cecilia Muñoz, former lobbyist for National Council of La Raza (a Hispanic civil rights' organization), is now the administration's principal liaison to the Hispanic community and the director of intergovernmental affairs in the Executive Office of the President, managing the White House’s relationships with state and local governments. She attained a formal waiver.
- Mark Patterson, the chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, was a lobbyist for financial giant Goldman Sachs in 2008.
- William Corr, anti-tobacco lobbyist until last year, was nominated to be deputy health and human services secretary.
- Melody Barnes lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups and is now domestic policy council director.
- David Hayes, lobbyist for clients including San Diego Gas & Electric until 2006, was nominated as deputy interior secretary.
- Ron Kirk, Austin Texas lobbyist for Merrill Lynch until 2008, is Obama's nominee for U.S. Trade Representative. Obama's executive order only applies to federal lobbyists, which he is not.
- Eric Holder, lobbyist until 2004 for his client, the now-bankrupt telecom company Global Crossing, was a nominee for attorney general.
- Patrick Gaspard was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union. Now he is the White House political affairs director.
- Mona Sutphen was registered to lobby for various clients including London-based conglomerate Angliss International in 2003, and is now deputy White House chief of staff.
- Tom Vilsack, National Education Association lobbyist until 2008, was nominated for secretary of agriculture.
- Dan Turton was a lobbyist at Timmons & Company in 2006. He was briefly on the House Rules Committee before becoming a White House’s legislative affairs aide.
- Sean Kennedy lobbied for AT&T in 2006 and is now a White House legislative liaison.
- Ron Klain lobbyist until 2005 for such clients as Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone, is currently Joe Biden's chief of staff.
- Richard Verma, a lobbyist for Steptoe & Johnson, is rumored to be in line for the post of assistant secretary for legislative affairs at the State Department
- Mark Gitenstein, former lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who left the massive international law firm Mayer Brown last summer, is said to be Obama's choice to head the Justice Department's Office of Policy Development. He is also a long-time senior aide to Vice President Joe Biden.
- Emmett Beliveau, former lobbyist for the mega-firm Patton Boggs, is the White House’s director of advance and was the executive director for the presidential Inaugural committee.
- Tom Donilon, lobbyist for Fannie Mae until 2005, is a senior aid to Joe Biden.
- David Medina was a lobbyist for the AFL-CIO and worked for the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign in 2008 and is now the first lady’s deputy chief of staff.
- Michael Strautmanis lobbied for the American Association for Justice (a plaintiffs' lawyers' lobby) until 2005 and is now chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations.
Though most of the above jobs for lobbyists do not obviously result in conflicts of interest, some obviously do. It is crystal clear that the real state of things does not match Presidential Candidate Obama's campaign promise nor President Obama's executive order.
But there is a more important question here: should Obama have ever made this promise at all?
The objective of all these appointments and this hiring is to get the most qualified people possible into positions that make the best use of their qualifications. The side effect of that is that the most qualified people often come with personal or professional biases which are detrimental to good government. Obama's promise, in essence, is choosing to abandon a certain amount of ability in order to minimize these biases; that is, to throw out all the bathwater and as few babies as possible. The obvious fallacy of throwing away parts of what you need is expressing itself in the Obama Administration's need to appoint some qualified lobbyists in order to keep the qualifications up generally.
Government needs able people, and the more able the better. The distortions of bias are contrary to good government, but so is tying an appointee's hands. Ignoring conflicts of interest is bad, but banning thousands of able people is bad, too. There's a third, better way. Rather than banning the bias, counter the bias. Rather than banning William Lynn from the Defense Department, team him with, say, a former lobbyist from another defense contractor and an Eisenhowerian critic of the military-industrial complex, all experts in the field and under orders to proceed officially only when largely in agreement. Thus, their biases defy each other, leaving only the quality of their arguments and their professional expertise to break the tie.
I'd love to say this was my original idea, but it's not. It is based on the ideas of James Madison from Federalist Paper #10, wherein he argues that the dispute of a great many factions results in policy congruent with the liberty and best interest of the whole; that is, that a great mass of respectful disagreement is more effective at producing good policy than is one or two overwhelming views. To summarize the summary, diversity is good.
It is abundantly clear, both by his promise and by the exceptions to it, that Obama is not pursuing plurality in this sense. Worse than breaking his promise is his failure to pursue at all the means with greater potential than those he promised.
Obama was right to try to prevent conflict of interest from driving Washington. In every other respect pertaining to this issue, his plan, his execution, his philosophy, he was wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)