Right in San Francisco

Current Scandals in Perspective

    Let's not over-state the significance of this week's emerging scandals in Washington.

    The history of Western civilization is a story of the rise of the standing of the individual against the coercive power of the state. From Socrates' poison hemlock, to the Magna Carta, to the French Revolution, to the American Constitutional Convention "we the people" gained ascendency. More recently the power of the state under Soviet and Maoist communism failed to subjugate the people despite killing millions in trying. The next to fail, Insha'Allah, will be Barack Obama.

    Until now the behavior of the Obama administration has been met by a shrug by the media and most of the public.

        -- Money has always had an influence in government. Wall Street donates millions to the campaigns of Obama, Shumer, and other Democrats. The banks don't get broken up. Hedge fund managers have their incomes taxed at capital gains rates. Jon Corzine steals million from his depositors with impunity. That's bad, but that's the way it has always been.

        -- Politically connected people have always benefited from government contracts. Obama's "green energy" constituents have seen their donations followed by contracts and favorable treatment such as Solyndra. It is not unusual that Diane Feinstein's husband would get the contract to sell surplus Post Office facilities and the contract for building California's High Speed Rail. That's worse than normal, but that's the way that it has always been.

        -- The people really don't need to bother themselves with the details of what we are doing abroad. Reckless behavior by the State Department in Benghazi; no response during the attack; lies about what happened; a desultory investigation. That's worse than normal, but that's the way it has always been.

    But, as they say on Wall Street (at least my broker does), this time it is different.

        -- The supposedly independent, non-political Internal Revenue Service - which is to be the primary enforcer of Obamacare's mandates - has been caught red-handed singling out conservatives for illegally intrusive audits, passing tax return information to liberal groups to use in attacking a Republican presidential candidate, and lying to Congress about their behavior. Eric Erickson has an excellent post describing the connection between the encouragements of a ruler and the misdeeds of subordinates. This is not the way it has always been - maybe similar to some Nixonian transgressions, but never this pervasive.

        -- The Justice Department has finally riled up the pliant main stream media by secretly collecting months of phone data from 100 Associated Press journalists and managers to find a leak. After years of accepting a White House press secretary whose main virtue is a plausible ability to plead ignorance, an avalanche of media groups - even Rachel Maddow - are crying foul. This is not the way it has always been - the 'Plumbers" of Watergate fame were formed to plug National Security Council leaks, but generally reporters have been off limits for such intimidation.    

    For the paranoid Constitutional small government advocates on the Right, their time has come. The federal take-over of one sixth of the economy in Obamacare, or at least the IRS' role in it, is back in play. And the 2014 elections promise to be a repeat of the 2010 tsunami with the righteous wrath of the Tea Party energized. Up with the individual; down with the coercion of the state. Let the march of history resume.

                                                    -----

    This week's video is an assessment of ObamaCare's implementation by Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the chair of the Senate Finance Committee and one of the original major sponsors of the bill, shortly before he announced that he was not running for reelection in 2014.

bill bowen - 5/17/13               

Seeking Optimism

    At a recent large family outing I got cornered by a liberal Democrat who was lamenting the growing disparity between the rich and the poor and the bleak prospects for the younger generation. With the hard-earned lesson that one doesn't seek converts in such settings, we steered off to the steep financial bifurcation in sports, music, and writing. Here is what I would have liked to say:

    1. These things come and go. It helps to study the presidencies since World War II to see the impact of different policies, personalities, and management approaches. Particularly look to Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton (with help from Gingrich) as leaders of energetic growth - and Carter and Obama as overseers of decline. Partisans and ideologues can parse the causes, but it is clear that America is strong enough to overcome an ineffective president who does not understand or appreciate the vitality of the free enterprise system.

    2. We all want peace and prosperity, we just start with different approaches. Democrats, particularly of the Obama variety, start with "fairness", wanting to build the social safety net with resources taken from those who have done well. Republicans want to provide the opportunity for all to rise, believing that society prospers when it captures the talents and initiative of all, without limits. Equal results versus equal opportunity.   

   3. On an individual basis, Rick Santorum had it right. We know the keys to a successful life:

        - Get an education. Income levels jump and unemployment levels plummet when one gets a high school degree, and further again with a college degree.

        - Get a job. Don't expect to start as president of Google. Everybody in my family worked in restaurants at one time or another, learning self discipline, customer service, and the value of a dollar.

        - Get married before you have kids. The hill is steep enough for moms and kids to not be part of the trend where half of today's births occur in one parent families.

    I doubt that any of this would have had an impact on a life-long San Francisco Democrat. Nor would adding data - Jimmy Carter's 12 % inflation; Obama's $17 trillion debt; Reagan's 18% growth in after-inflation per capita GDP; the top 10 % currently paying 71 % of federal income taxes with 43 % of the income; the difference in growth in Red states versus Blue states. Maybe the history of the country's transition from agricultural employment to industrial employment, to office employment, to the new information age would have fostered some optimism - so long as it wasn't couched in terms of success of individuals and the free market system rather than the government' accomplishment - as in "you didn't build that."

    The next time I will bring the baby pictures.

                                               -----

    In this week's video the "Iron Lady" addresses the gap between the rich and the poor.

    And as a bonus, a tribute to the other female world leader to die this week.   

bill bowen - 4/12/2013  

 

Global Leadership? : Nyet

    One could make the case - and Dinesh D'Souza has quite convincingly - that President Obama's policies for much of the world reflect the anti-imperial activism of his Kenyan father and, to a lesser extent, his Indonesian stepfather. Thus, his non-response to the Arab Spring in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria. Thus his retreat from Iraq without leaving any forces behind. Thus his leaving the fight against Al Queda in North Africa to the French. Thus his ineffectual and ambivalent treatment of the war which he escalated in Afghanistan. Among the progressives on the left and many libertarians on the right, this is OK. There is too much global discord for us to settle it all.

    But what about the "leading from behind" strategy in the rest of the world?  What will eight years of President Obama do to the military and economic Pax Americana that has existed since 1945? There are plenty of clues:

    -  With all of the histrionics about the impact of the sequester on the social safety net, there has been nary a peep from the Commander in Chief about the impact on the military. The closest thing has been the call of narrowly-confirmed Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel for "fundamental (downward) Pentagon spending changes".

    -  The decennial change of leadership in China has received little fanfare in the United States, but it no accident that the first foreign trip of new President Xi Jinping was to Moscow. Or that China is beginning efforts with Australia, Brazil, Russia, and Iran to replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

   -  From Vladimir Putin's perspective, the Eurozone's confiscation of Russian deposits in Cyprus, with the blessing of the American-led International Monetary Fund, stimulates a rethinking about Russia's place in the world at a time when the Obama administration has demonstrated its "flexibility" by cancelling the planned Eastern Europe missile defense shield - with no quid pro quo. The Russians have reason to be offended, and latitude to respond.

   - And what of the remaining two members of George W Bush's "axis of evil"?  North Korea and Iran barrel ahead on their paths to become realistic nuclear threats. Realizing that the American "nuclear shield" may no longer be operable, Japan and South Korea are taking first steps to develop their own deterrents. Without a credible assurance of American protection, the same will undoubtedly happen in the Sunni world once Iran crosses the threshold.

   It's not a pretty picture. Maybe the world will move slowly or the House and Senate will be able to exert real pressure on President Obama's military and foreign policies. Maybe there is enough financial strength in the European and American economic systems to retain primacy for a decade or two. But don't look to Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Chuck Hegel to usher in a new era of American global leadership.  Quite the opposite.

                                                    -----  

    For this week's video we have NBCs Brian Williams expressing shocked surprise that Obamacare's requirements for extended coverage without real cost containment are driving double digit rate increases. Next step - price controls.  

bill bowen - 4/5/13   

The Fiscal Cliff: 3 Clear Goals

    A couple of friends in London (here for the holidays) have asked "why would you Republicans risk so much damage to prevent 2% of the population from moving from a 35% to a 39.6% marginal tax rate." Republicans are obviously terrible marketers, but there are three clear considerations as they manage their two points of leverage - the fiscal cliff, and the companion debt ceiling increase.

    1.  We cannot continue with trillion dollar deficits and the Democrats refuse to slow down the pace of spending. In the short run there is little pain from the deficits- except for those looking for a job or trying to live on income from bonds - but in the long run high inflation is inevitable. That may not matter much to people on the dole or working people with salary leverage, but to the rest of us - particularly pensioners and bond-holders - it will be ugly. Very ugly.  

    2. The expansion of the federal government from 20% to 24% of the Gross Domestic Product under President Obama is not just a statistic. It reflects a transfer of power from individuals to government in the form of mandated healthcare insurance, control of student loans and the mortgage market, more payments for those not working, and more EPA and financial regulators and IRS agents. Like France where employers are reluctant to hire because they cannot fire unneeded employees (and top marginal tax rates are now 75%), American employers are reluctant to hire because of Obamacare mandates and a hostile tax environment.

    Goals 1 and 2 say "lets go off of the cliff" and pick up the pieces. Recent history has shown that we do not have the discipline to manage our finances any other way.  Goal number 3 requires a more nuanced calculation.

    3. Republicans must control the House to provide some check on a presidency controlled by the left wing of the Democratic party. In 2009 and 2010 when the Democrats controlled everything we got Obamacare and and an expensive, corrupt, and ineffective Stimulus Plan. With another Pelosi/Reid/Obama trifecta in 2014 we could get Democrat-dominated corporate and individual tax reform, blanket immigration amnesty, "cap and trade" climate legislation, and any number of other liberal wish list items. So, what is the risk of Republicans losing the House?

        - Most Americans want taxes raised for those earning over $250,000, and that was enough of an issue to carry Obama to re-election with a lousy economy and scarce other ideas.  Few seem to care that a "tax the rich" victory would do little to solve our financial problems. While a majority now feel "a pox on both your houses" if agreement cannot be reached, the public's attention span is short and the impact in November 2014 is anything but clear. If  Republican ideology is correct, a path to a balanced budget would be a major boon for the economy which would overshadow any residual blame for a two-year old conflict.   

        - And, few incumbents are really at risk.  In our polarized country only some 85 Congressional contests had two reasonable, well-funded candidates this year - 350 were not seriously contested. The allocation of seats to the states and the district boundaries shaped by the 2010 census together allowed Republicans to  win 54% of the House seats with 48% of the national House vote and will continue for a decade. Also making austerity more attractive, off-year elections draw lower turnouts favoring activists and partisans who usually have more to fear in primaries than in general elections.  With the Republicans holding a 234 to 201 majority in the new House (down seven from the exiting Congress), and relatively few facing a serious threat from the left in 2014, the Republicans would seem to have a secure blocking position, given the right leadership.  

    Perspectives change during prolonged, complex negotiations. Since impasse seems to be the only path to reducing spending and stopping the growth of government, and Boehner's effort to go beyond the will of his caucus met a stiff-arm from Obama, the Republicans would be better to let the current forces work themselves out and hire some good PR people back home. The country will survive.

                                                                    -----

    This week's video offers a glimpse at soon-to-be Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, another dynamic young Republican leader.

bill bowen - 12/29/2012             

The Fiscal Cliff: Negotiating Lessons

    Several years ago, along life's wonderous journey, I had the responsibility for buying stuff - bottles, flour, spices, filling equipment, transportation services, and the like -for a couple of large corporations.  In the process I learned some universal truths about negotiation- some obvious; some not  - and tried to pass on some of the difficult lessons to my junior purchasing agents. In politics some is different, but most is not. Would that John Boehner had been in the class.

Lesson Number One: You have to be sure that the guy you are negotiation with has the capability and inclination to deliver on an agreement.

         -  Boehner gets this. By sending a letter signed by Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan outlining his demands, he has the House on record that increased tax revenues are OK, not only with him (as per his 2011 effort), but also with the fiscal hawks. 

        -  Obama is less clear. By sending lame duck Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to deliver his absurd opening position ($1.6 trillion tax increase; another round of stimulus spending; elimination of the concept of a debt ceiling) he missed the chance to empower a credible deal maker. Last time Obama walked away from an agreed deal - presumably after getting push back from other Democrats. Somewhere it would be good to get a signal that Obama will deliver the Pelosi/ Reid cohort this time.  

Lesson Number Two: You have to know what is most important to your adversary.

        -  For Boehner it is comprehensive agreements that will rein in budget deficits and make entitlement programs sustainable. Comprehensive revision of the tax code is important, primarily to make it more efficient. The end of the year matters less than the entire package.

        -  Obama is simpler. He wants higher tax rates for the rich as a legacy. Forget that the same result could be obtained by limiting deductions.  He has been campaigning for a year on a platform of taxing the rich (and not much else), and needs to nail that pelt to the wall with symbolic rates, not just eliminated deductions. Forget the other 90% of the budget problem - that is all negotiable as long as you don't touch the heart of Obamacare.  

Lesson Number Three: You have to be clear with yourself about who you need to please.

        - In the corporate world it is the boss, the users of the supply or service you are buying, and the top finance guy. Here's where politics is a bit different.

        -  Boehner has the more serious calculation. On the one hand he has a lot of members in his caucus who really believe (and have constituents who really believe) that trillion dollar deficits and insolvent entitlement programs are a big problem. Republicans also lost a presidential election because of their steadfast support for the 2% of the voters who already pay most of the bill and create most of the jobs. Boehner understands that Romney and company made the case and lost. Grover Norquist, who Democrats love to demonize, is not to be feared. Conservatives have been purged from key House committees.  Deficit hawks matter; tax hawks not so much.

        -  Obama would like to please his father, his early mentors, and his friends on the Left by leveling the field. Nobody knows how to deal with the root causes of growing inequality - globalization and technology - but taxes are pretty easy to understand - and popular with the 98% who are not being asked to pay more. Yet.  

Lesson Number Four: You need a flexible plan, including clear objectives, a timetable, priorities, and a communication strategy. Recognize that in America "fairness" generally results in meeting about half way.

        -  Both sides recognize that this is a multi-step process. A comprehensive agreement on taxes, entitlements, budget cuts, and the debt limit will require the buy-in of many constituencies and will not happen in 2012, but a year-end patch is necessary to head off pre-ordained calamity. One hopes that the staffs are working behind the scenes on the patch.  

        -  By agreeing to a revenue increase on the day after the election and offering a comprehensive plan starting about where the last negotiations broke off in 2011, Boehner ceded much ground for nothing in return. That may sound fair to the media and the public, but it adds pressure on House Republicans to not give much more.

        - By being so focused on a tax rate increase, Obama leaves much to give on entitlements and budget cuts- once he realizes that Boehner's first offer is serious and near his limit. (It is, isn't it? We'll know if Boehner cedes tax rates or a large debt ceiling increase as part of the year end patch.)        

Lesson Number Five: You have to be willing to walk away. Alternatively stated, it is "the principle of least interest" - the party who cares less about reaching an agreement has the most leverage.

        - For Boehner there is the ghost of Newt Gingrich who shut down the government in 1995, thus helping to drive Bill Clinton's budget surpluses and a public residue of ill-will toward Republicans. Boehner has to be ready to take the lion's share of the blame from Democrats, the pliant media, and even some Republicans if everybody's tax rates go up and everybody's favorite government program gets cut - even if temporarily. 

        -  Obama? In four years the "leading from behind" president has rarely done the hard work of governing. By nature or calculation he has rarely taken a courageous position on contentious issues (immigration reform and gay marriage as well as the Arab Spring and budget deficits) and is unlikely to risk a recession which he cannot blame on Bush if he gets his tax rate for the rich. And it is just possible that he does not want to be remembered for a second four year term with the lowest growth and highest unemployment since the 30s - and realizes that Boehner can help him avoid this distinction.   

       By agreeing to revenue increases and the framework of the Simpson-Bowles proposals Boehner has made a strong case for putting the blame for failure at the feet of Obama. The irony will be if - after a year-end patch and comprehensive 2013 negotiations - Boehner stands strong (but throws in a small rate increase as a deal clincher), our financial deficits start to heal, and the credit goes to the incumbent. That wouldn't be all bad.     

                                                -----

    This week's video reminds us that there are more important things than getting a political win.   

bill bowen - 12/7/12

Mitt's Polish Connection

     As the political discussion shifts for a moment to the international stage the Romney camp's hope is to capitalize on Mitt's role in saving the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics and stress his two foreign policy themes: he will be a stronger military and diplomatic leader of the Free World; and he will be a more reliable partner for our long term allies. Beyond the Olympics, most attention will go Romney's fourth visit to Israel where he will meet with former Boston Consulting Group colleague Benjamin Netanyahu. The Polish visit is being shrugged off by much of the media, but it may be more important.  

    On the substance:

          -  The Poles, caught between Germany and Russia, have embraced the West and the United States since Reagan backed down the Soviet Union.  They joined NATO in 1999, the European Union in 2004 (but not the common currency), and have provided units of 2500 troops in Iraq and 2600 in Afghanistan.

           -  After six years of missile defense negotiation and agreement between the Bush Administration and the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic, Obama abandoned the plan in 2009 without consulting with the Poles and Czechs, and getting nothing in return from the Russians. He chose the 70th anniversary of Russia's invasion of Poland to make the announcement.  

           -  Beyond the substance, relations with the Obama administration have been prickly. In May Obama offended many Poles by refusing Lech Walesa's request to represent a WW II Polish hero at a Medal of Freedom ceremony - probably due to Walesa's caution about our "slipping into socialism". Obama's inadvertent reference to "Polish (not Nazi) death camps" at the ceremony, brought the current Polish president's response that "we always react in the same way when ignorance, lack of knowledge, bad  intentions lead to such a distortion of history, so painful for us here in  Poland, in a country which suffered like no other in Europe during World War  II." Reagan and the Bush's were friend of Poland; Obama not so much.

           -  Romney's characterization of Russia as "our number one geopolitical foe" plays well in Poland, following Obama's accidental on-mike assurance to Russian leaders that he would have "more flexibility" to deal with central European issues after the election.

    And on the politics:

           -  Narrowly, there are about 10 million people of Polish ancestry in the United States.  In a time of ethnic politics - African-Americans for Obama; Hispanics for Obama - they are an identifiable subset of "Reagan Democrats", making up 9.3% of voters in Wisconsin, 8.6 % in Michigan, and 6.7% in Pennsylvania where the election promises to be very close.

           -  Few seem to be watching the large geopolitical trends, but as we have been focused on the Muslim world since 9/11 (Iraq; Afghanistan; the Arab Spring), Putin's Russia has gone about consolidating the Kremlin's power internally, and reestablishing it's hegemony over much of the former Soviet Union with the Georgia War in 2008, and the establishment of the Belarus/Kazakhstan/Russia Customs Union in 2010.

    There are lots of options for Romney to make symbolic visits to allies who have been shorted by the Obama Administration - Canada; Mexico; the United Kingdom; Germany; Japan - but his choice of Poland shows both a bit of "out of the box" thinking, and a broad geopolitical grasp. Not that the media will give him credit for a very real foreign policy difference with the Obama administration.

                                                                   ----- 

     Senator Scott Brown's "Let America Be America Again" is the best political ad in a long time - bipartisan references, patriotic, pro-jobs, and even pro Red Sox.

bill bowen - 7/27/2012 

         

   

Catholic Justice(s)

Let me push this envelope a bit further than most pundits are willing to go. I don't believe that the Court's decision on ObamaCare will reflect any belated reaction to the President's unprecedented snub of the Court at his 2010 State of the Union presentation to Congress. I also don't think that the justices will be intimidated by his inappropriate and erroneous demagoging of the Courts rights and obligations - or that they will over-react in the opposite direction. (Do read Leon Wolf's posting on Red State.) But I do believe that the members are not blank sheets upon which Truth is projected.

Background item I. The March 27-29 hearing on ObamaCare in which Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Kennedy unsuccessfully sought to find, under the administration's theory, if there were any limits on the power of the federal government relative to the individual if the individual mandate were allowed to stand. Even many liberals were disappointed by Solicitor General Verrilli's inability to provide an answer. A theoretical question? Perhaps not.

Background item II. The January pronouncement by HHS Secretary Sebelius that the mandatory insurance to be provided by all employers must include "free" contraceptives, sterilization, and morning after (abortion) pills. If we are to have mandatory insurance, we need clear definitions of what must be covered. If the administration's decision to re-neg on commitments to Congressman Stupak and others to exclude abortion from the legislation results in a mandate which offends Catholic employers - or any employer for that matter - they need to get over it.

And who are these members of the Supreme Court in this center-right country where the most visible religious group are the Protestant evangelicals? Three Jews (Ginsberg; Breyer; Kagan) and six Catholics (Roberts; Scalia; Kennedy; Thomas; Alito; and Sotomayor.) Coincidence? Not really. Presidents Reagan (Scalia; Kennedy), HW Bush (Thomas), and GW Bush (Roberts; Alito) have chosen to not re-fight Roe v Wade in their Senate confirmation hearings. Observant Catholics were equally conservative and more acceptable than observant Protestants, and - in the eyes of Republican presidents - less controversial.

So President Obama finds himself arguing to expand the power of the state, overriding both the conservative view of the constitution's importance and the Catholic Church's moral objections. And he gets a Supreme Court full of Catholics. This is not to say that the majority of the Court agrees with the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion or any other matter. It is to say that they understand more personally and profoundly than most the significance of allowing the federal government to force individuals as well as institutions to compromise their moral beliefs.

This didn't come about by accident, and the political implications may favor Obama. He may well lose the guts of his major legislative accomplishment, but he seems to have outmaneuvered the Republicans (with the help of Rush Limbaugh) by letting the issue of Sibelius' regulations be viewed as an assault on women rather than the unnecessary imposition of offensive requirements on those with religious or ethical objections. He is now setting the stage for an election theme that Republican control of the presidency and the Senate will result in locking in a disasterous conservative Supreme Court. It is ironic that Rick Santorum is not the candidate who would be using the prospect of overturning Roe v Wade in the 2012 election - Obama will be.

-----

Here's a quick take of a recent House vote on a 2013 budget proposal - not Paul Ryan's which passed 228-191, but President Obama's which failed 409 to 0. I would offer a comparison with the Senate vote, but once again there is none.

bill bowen - 4/6/12

RomneyCare 3.0

However Justice Kennedy votes, the Supreme Court's action will not end the health care debate. A partial (seems likely) or complete (possible) overturning of Obamacare will leave a large mess to be cleaned up. Likewise, affirmation would leave a large mess and a central election issue.

There is more than a little truth to Rick Santorum's claim that nominating Mitt Romney puts at risk a major issue on which the voters side 56 to 39% with the Republicans - but only if Romney plays defense and does not follow "Repeal" with "Replace". This is one subject about which Mitt Romney has a deep understanding, and one which plays more easily in the election than in the primaries. Lets hope that by summer he plays offense with a proposal about like this:

1. Obamacare has shown the dangers of a government take-over of health care in terms of intrusion into individual liberties, real financial costs, and an unacceptable burden on businesses and jobs. We need to start over, regardless of the Supreme Court's decision. But we will start over.

2. RomneyCare 3.0 (probably not a term that he will use) will be based on several realistic principles:

a. The demand for health care is infinite. The question is whether it is rationed by the government ("death panels") , by private entities (employers; insurance companies); or by the individual (health saving accounts; choices on scope/cost of insurance purchased; co-pays). Republicans favor more decisions by the individual and fewer by the government.

b. Our society can afford a minimum level of medical care for all citizens. It is best to not have this occur in the emergency room. A voucher or tax credit system would cover all citizens and leave decisions in their hands. Citizens who wish to should be able to pay more for greater coverage as with Medicare.

c. Our current system is unnecessarily expensive. Medicaid should be structured as block grants to the states who would set their own parameters. Insurance should be purchased across state lines. Tort reform is needed to limit the cost of lawsuits and unnecessary tests. Federal agencies should be allowed to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies. Employer plans should be voluntary. In short, all of the special interest compromises to buy support for Obamacare should be voided.

The Democrats are hoping that the public is tired of this discussion, that the amount of confusing detail and conflicting claims will prevent voters from re-thinking the controversy of 2009 - and that the simple alternative is "Medicare for All". What is needed by the Republican candidate is not cautious abandonment of the issue in the election - what is needed is a set of clear principles and good speechwriters. It would also help if there were a specific bill for John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to pass and President Romney to sign early in 2013.

-----

This week's "bonus" is the brief section of Justice Anthony Kennedy's discussion of the "individual mandate" in which the swing vote seems to lean heavily against the Obama administration's lawyer - who incorrectly calls him the Chief Justice.

bill bowen - 3/30/12

The Flat Earth President

President Obama has continued his campaign for civility and common ground with the observation that those who oppose his "green energy" policies are akin to the Flat Earth Society. Let's take a brief look at the frequent media sop that the hayseed conservatives are the anti-science faction while the enlightened liberals are the 21st century's objective thinkers.

An easy example: genetically-engineered foods. Somehow George Washington Carver's development of hybrids was a marvelous step forward, while the application of DNA technology to seeds for corn, and soybeans results in "Frankenfoods." Forget that these crops require fewer pesticides and fertilizers and less irrigation, that some 70% of US corn, 75% of cotton, and 94 % of soybeans are now genetically engineered, and that the ability of the planet to sustain its 7 billion human souls is dependent upon this type of technology. In San Francisco I still am asked to sign petitions to shut down that evil corporation Monsanto's seed operations, and to require labelling which will, it is hoped, scare consumers to patronize local organic producers. Lets use the science.

A bit more difficult example, reflecting a breakdown in the "scientific method" (observation; formulation of hypothesis; prediction; and experimentation by independent scientists with various views): global warming. This posting from 2009 still provides a good review of the temperature realities, the potential causes, and a reasonable (scientific) approach to governmental response. Most of the media continues to ignore scientific malpractice of the proponents, using the erroneous "all scientists agree" theme while touting a warm American winter (and ignoring that global temperatures have cooled a bit from the past few years), and Al Gore and President Obama believe that a louder yell will overcome the lack of objective discussion. Lets use the science and really get this right.

And a most difficult example: intelligent design. I was struck at a recent Bar Mitzvah by a Torah reference of God's design of the human body. I thought that it was only Southern rubes who had the audacity to say this. In public! With no embarrassment! The liberal demand that a Godless evolution is the only acceptable explanation for how we got here and a complete one is patently false. What caused the Big Bang?; what caused the beginning of life?; who wrote the laws of mathematics, physics, and chemistry? Let a conservative utter any of this and beware the wrath of Rachel Madow for being "unscientific". Let's understand the limitations of science.

Perhaps the Harvard professor, the superb politician, understands that science itself is not partisan but it can be a tool to marginalize those who disagree with him. And just maybe in the echo chamber in which he lives, he really believes that he has the scientific Truth. I'm betting that the American public learned enough in high school to recognize that what "everybody knows" is often not true and that the volume level of one's speech is inversely related to the quality of the content.

-----

This week's audio is a collage from Red State upon the second anniversary of Obamacare. With significant public disapproval even before the Republican candidate rolls out his "repeal and replace" program, lets hope that the voters don't get bored with the subject.

bill bowen - 3/23/12

Slinking Home From Iraq

I recently heard the leader of the Democratic National Committee list the end of the war in Iraq as one of President Obama's major achievements. Lets take an inventory.

-The war cost the United States some 4500 killed, 32,000 wounded and over $1 trillion. (For comparison, the Vietnam War cost some 58,000 Americans killed and 350,000 wounded, more than ten times as many.) Iraqi suffering was much greater. There is room to argue about the war's genesis, but there is little doubt that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein - his invasion of Iran in 1980 led to a war which cost at least 500,000 lives; his invasion of Kuwait in 1990 led to our first Gulf War; his retribution against the Kurds and Iraqi Shiites led to his eventual execution. George W Bush's "surge" in 2007, achieved its military and political objectives of a unified country with an elected government and a commitment to withdraw US combat forces by the end of 2011.

- There were options as to how the end of American involvement would be handled. President Obama's approach has been consistent with his broader approach to the Middle East - not attempting to influence the direction of local political or military developments - Iran in 2009; Libya in 2011; Egypt in 2011; Yemen; Palestine; Syria.

-- While it may have been possible to retain a small military presence in a training role and to mediate between the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds, Obama did not seek that role.

-- Rather than move remaining high profile prisoners to Guantanamo he chose to turn them over to the Iraqis, with the likelihood that the Shiites will be released.

-- Hillary's State Department will have the world's largest embassy in Baghdad to oversee some police training and watch the regional politics.

-- Understanding the new Iraqi order, Exxon Mobil has decided to explore in the semi-independent Kurdistan with the likelihood that they will be expelled from the major Iraqi oil fields.

-- The December 20 ceremony to welcome home the colors and the final troops was attended by President Obama and Vice President Biden had little fanfare and no hint of "mission accomplished."

In the first week after the American withdrawal events have gone predictably badly:

- The Shiite president Malaki has issued an arrest warrant for the Sunni Vice President who is hiding in Kurdistan. So much for the balanced government that Gen. Petreus had forged.

- The Iranians have demonstrated their ascendancy - in response to western sanctions against their nuclear program, but also as a demonstration to their neighbors - staging major war games in the Persian Gulf, and threatening to close the Straights of Hormuz through which one third of the world's oil exports pass if a US aircraft carrier reenters the Gulf.

And, per Representative Wasserman Schultz, this is one of Obama's great achievements.

-----

This week's video is an introduction to the Wounded Warriors Project for those who are reviewing their charitable giving in the new year.

bill bowen - 1/6/12

Newt: Judge This

Hearing that Iowa has recently recalled three judges for approving same sex marriage, the Newtster has apparently decided that the civil libertarian caucus goers will vote for Ron Paul anyway and he should swing for the fences with the evangelicals who are on the warpath about the courts. His Waterloo.

The "historian" presidential candidate has determined that the Founding Fathers were wrong in establishing three co-equal branches of government, that U.S. Marshall's should be used to force federal judges to explain their rulings to Congress, and that President Gingrich would ignore Supreme Court decisions that he didn't like. Shades of "It Can't Happen Here."

Like many conservatives, I am conflicted when it comes to civil liberties in an age of terrorism and technology.

- The Patriot Act, passed shortly after 9/11, increased the government's ability to conduct secret searches of property, conduct wiretaps, access third party data bases, and trace internet communications. Maybe an understandable response in a time of war (after all, Gingrich argues, Lincoln suspended the right to a trial during the Civil War), but uncomfortable in a free society.

- In September Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a drone-fired missile in Yemen, the first time since 9/11 that an American-born citizen was deliberately targeted and killed by American forces. OK by me as an act of war - assuming proper controls over identification and authorization.

- This very month Congress has passed and the president will sign a bill specifically authorizing indefinite detention of anyone (foreign or American; captured in the United States or abroad) who "substantially supports" groups such as Al Queda or "associated forces." No duration; no guaranteed trial.

- Medical record systems are being rapidly expanded to improve quality and reduce cost. Privacy controls are included, but ...

- Massive data bases, public and private, contain detailed purchase and banking records, internet viewing histories, e-mail histories, and on and on. Cameras on every corner in some cities. Amazon knows enough about you to recommend books; Apple can recommend music; Yelp can recommend restaurants. Good luck with privacy there.

So, who is going to protect a semblance of habeus corpus and the right to privacy if not the court system? Citibank? The CIA? Congress? President Gingrich? We all know that we'd be safe with him, but what about the next guy or gal?

I really don't know the answers to the privacy and civil liberties questions, but I do rely on an independent judiciary to help the country stay on track. And, as alarmist as it may sound, I do know that folks like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao have sounded the same notes that Newt is using on the courts.

-----

This week's video provides a bit of levity for those not particularly interested in Hanukkah, Quanza, or Muharram. Merry Christmas!!!

bill bowen - 12/23/11

Occupy Corzine

So, the folks out here on the Left Coast have largely been evicted from their encampments and, in looking for something to keep their faces on the front page, have decided to take on the shipping industry for no particular reason other than that they can. I've got a better suggestion. The centerpoint of the movement which has broad resonance is the web of greed and corruption that connects Wall Street and the political system. John Corzine of MF Global is a holiday season gift, putting a face on the crime.

For those who have been vacationing in Mongolia, Corzine was the chairman of MF Global, a commodities brokerage which made a losing $6.3 billion bet on European government bonds and, as they were going bankrupt, "borrowed" and lost some $1.2 billion from customer accounts. As the story unfolds, MF Global's chief risk officer resigned in March as Corzine bullied the board into approving his European bond strategy; Corzine, his Chief Operating Officer, and his Chief Financial Officer have testified under oath that he did not authorize any inappropriate transfers and they do not know what happened to the client's money; and an officer of the exchange where MF Global operated has testified that Corzine was at least aware of some of the transfers. As they say in the mainstream media, numerous investigations are under way, but as yet no indictments have been issued.

For a moment, the broader context: Commodities, unlike stocks, are regulated by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission rather than the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Commission's chair is a former employee of Corzine's at Goldman Sachs. Regulations allow commodity brokerage firms to use cash in customer accounts as collateral for government bond purchases made on company accounts. (Yes, you read that right - specifically CFTC Regulation 1.25.) When Corzine testified that he had not authorized any "inappropriate transfers", the Senators were not sharp enough to ask what he considered to be an "appropriate transfer". Corzine has successfully lobbied for these looser regulations. Many of the injured parties are farmers and ranchers who use commodity futures as conservative hedges; others are speculators.

And the political context: Corzine was a Democratic Senator and Governor of New Jersey. (Chris Cristie has been cleaning up some of the mess that he left.) More importantly, he has been a major bundler for Barack Obama, raising some $500,000 in this election cycle. And the icing on the cake - as the assets of MF Global have been quickly disposed of in bankruptcy, enough have gone to George Soros (the funder of uber-liberal Media Matters and MoveOn.org, which have been big supporters of Occupy Wall
Street) to give him a $130 million overnight paper profit. Consider it recycling.

Enough? If the scandals of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not enough; if the generous bailouts of the politically-connected banks under TARP were not enough; if the sweetheart deals in the Stimulus Plan were not enough; if the zero prosecutions for the 2008 fiasco were not enough; if the scandal of Solyndra was not enough; perhaps this is enough to convince the Occupy protesters - who largely support Obama - that the messiah's administration is the most financially corrupt in a century.

-----

This week's brief video is the Gingrich interview which helped turn many leading conservatives against him: his attack on Mitt Romney's success in free market capitalism - as compared to Gingrich's success in Washington lobbying.

bill bowen - 12/16/11

Occupy: A Tale of Two Cities

With apologies to my snowbound friends in the Northeast and the Midwest, last Saturday I spent a 65 degree, clear day at the San Francisco and Oakland Occupy encampments looking for their purpose.

First, a comment on the settings. Each has 200 to 300 tents, a majority of scruffy youngish denizens who are there for the experience, a goodly number of the omnipresent homeless, and a sampling of curious tourists. San Francisco's effort, in a park between the Ferry Building and the financial district, was ringed by police who were there to prevent any incidents which might have impacted the November 7 mayoral election. Mellow and almost exclusively white in the local protest tradition. Oakland was much more interesting, located in front of the City Hall, featuring a media tent, bulletin boards listing upcoming events, numerous handouts of petitions and discussions of governmental abuses, a bicycle repair station, an active meditation group for the Berkeley contingent, and a smattering of African Americans (no Asians or Hispanics.) The Oaklandites benefit from an incompetent, but sympathetic mayor and inflamatory actions by a police force with a history of abuse - which on Saturday was totally absent, but has to periodically show up to deal with a small band of active anarchists who, the camp's conventional wisdom would say, have come in from outside along with "unidentifiable, but obviously present" right wing provocateurs to jeopardize their right to peaceful assembly.

Their issues, IMHO in order of legitimacy:

1. Banks. (See my October 13 posting). Both camps are are conveniently located for easy marches to major bank edifices for drum beating and speech giving with advance notice to the local TV stations. A plurality of signs talk about banks in one way or another. In Oakland the community credit unions have an active effort to get people to transfer their meager assets from the Wall Street institutions.

2. The corrupt corporation - politician alliance. Folks understand that GE pays no federal income taxes, and that Google, with their "do no harm" motto parks their assets offshore. From here the lack of public economic education comes to the fore, as banks, big corporations, and small businesses (except the small ones in downtown Oakland) all are part of the one percent of the exploiters, and various conspiracy theories abound. Public financing of elections is a must after the Citizens United decision opened the floodgates to the Koch brothers and the corporations. (No response to questions about George Soros, the SEIU or the First Amendment.)

3. Debt. An "Aha moment" for me. The $15 trillion national debt is too abstract - a Bush legacy - but the debt of college students is a big deal, violating the social contract which gives young people the right to upward mobility. For background, California is broke and has been substantially increasing tuition at state schools, while cutting community colleges.

4. Political prisoners. In fairness, if you live in a 5 X 5 tent 24/7 for a couple of weeks you need something to talk about. Among the persecuted victims are Bradley Manning (the Army private of WikiLeaks fame - actually there is a legitimate question here), Leonard Peltier (an AIM member who killed two FBI agents in 1977) and Mumia Abu-Jamal (who killed a Philadelphia policeman in 1981). Every movement needs martyrs, even if they have to be borrowed.

And the politics:

1. Obama supporters all - now and forever. Bush caused the problems; the Republicans are too powerful and can block all of the good things that he is trying to do. Obama has been a disappointment, not fighting hard enough for what he believes in. The good news is that most of the tent-dwellers don't vote. There is, however, an active Obama election storefront a block from the Oakland site - somebody in Chicago is paying attention.

2. By design there is no leadership. Maybe they have read Animal Farm. Maybe just nobody has come forward yet to lead the dictatorship of the proletariat.

3. A majority of the political effort seems to be going into the maintenance of the camps and the political conflict with the authorities about their right to be there. In Oakland there is a hope to split the sympathetic police officers (who are after all part of the 99%) from their corrupt leadership.

4. They have made some effort at social media - www.occupySF.org, and www.occupyoakland.org - but I did not see a laptop or i-phone in either camp, outside of the media tent. Maybe buried away in some corner under a sleeping bag. In contrast, on the train platform waiting for BART many of the people living in the real world were on line.

5. The rainy season is coming. Without aligning with the left wing of the establishment of the Democratic Party - similar to what the Tea Party did with the Republicans - they will not elect candidates, even to local offices. Some unions (the nurses in San Francisco) are trying to deflect the media attention for Occupy to their causes, but the Occupy folks don't seem to be interested.

Ironically, the Left has tried so hard to vilify the Tea Party that the Occupy folks cannot see the common thread of disgust with the excesses of Wall Street.

Next week I'll probably try a real Oakland cultural experience - a Raiders game.

-----

This week's video is a series of clips of Newt Gingrich for those who want to take a second look (or a first) at the guy who gave us the 1994 Contract with America and the Republican foundation for Clinton's economic success.

bill bowen - 11/11/11

Occupy Wall Street: In Support of the Message

    In thinking about the Occupy Wall Street movement, it is useful to focus on the main impetus rather than the presence of the crazies, the supportive statements of folks like Nancy Pelosi, the litany of issues addressed on the OWS web site, or the effort to get attention by various unions and anti-capitalism activists.  (Living in San Francisco I see enough protests to not be bothered by the trash heaps left behind by the environmentalist protesters or the verbal conformity demanded by the "free speech" groups.)

    We do have a problem - a big problem - that has not been addressed by the Obama administration or by the Republican presidential candidates: Wall Street almost brought our whole economic system down; they got bailed out at great public expense; nothing significant has changed; and the bankers have been able to thumb their noses at us.

    The why is easy. Barack Obama receives more campaign donations from Wall Street than any politician in history - millions more than his Republican opposition in 2008. Thus far for 2012, financial bundlers are leading Obama's fundraising which may reach $1 billion.  This is not news. If the Democrats weren't the largest recipients, the New York-based media might be harder on the New York-based financiers, but what is is. And everybody knows it.

    The Obama administration has given us a sop in Dodd-Frank which addresses the small things which directly affect consumers - credit card fees and the like - while huffing and puffing about transparency and accountability.  But look at what has not been done:

    1. The Depression-Era Glass - Steagall Act which prohibited investment banks (which issue and trade securities) from owning commercial banks (which loan to individuals and companies) was repealed under President Clinton and has not been reinstated. The casino owners have access to our money. (The"Volker Rule" which would limit banks using deposits to speculate for their own accounts continues to get discussion, but has not been decided upon.)

    2. "Too big to fail" banks have not been broken up. In fact due to the acquisitions that occurred during the 2008 crisis - Lehman Brothers; Countrywide; Merrill Lynch; Chase; and many others - the six largest banks now control assets equal to 60% of GDP, up from 20% in the 90's.   

    3.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain in place as the purchasers of bundled mortgages, without the discipline brought by originating banks holding their commitments. So far this has cost the taxpayers $130 billion with no plan for fundamental change or accountability for the politically-connected leaders.

    4. The rating agencies - S&P, Moody's, and Fitch - continue to be paid by the issuers of the bonds that they are rating. The only punishment thus far is directed at S&P which had the temerity to state that USA debt wasn't AAA.

    5. Hedge fund managers, some of whom made billions by accelerating the near-collapse of 2008, continue to have their income taxed at the 15% capital gains rate rather than the marginal 35+ % that mortals pay.

    6. Nobody has gone to prison for the blatant fraud (for example, Goldman Sachs touting mortgage-backed securities which they were shorting on their own account) that preceded the 2008 collapse. In contrast, over 1000 folks were jailed after the Savings and Loan scandal of the 90's.

    The center-right Tea Party movement, focused on small government and fiscal responsibility, has done a very good job of policing itself, disappointing the Left by not going after social issues or allowing right-wing crazies on the stage. If the center-left component of the Occupy Wall Street movement can keep their crazies out and force movement to really reform Wall Street, more power to them.

    As for the politics of attacking Wall Street, it is hard to see how the attention can help a president who is owned by the enemy. On the Republican side, it is probably not good for Bain Capital's Mitt Romney.

                                                            -----

    This week's video lightly touches on the political corruption of the Solyndra loan, which included a perhaps illegal restructuring to place the government last in collecting any residual value. The larger principle: government support of targeted research is essential; serving as a venture capital fund to pick companies inherently leads to corruption and failure.

 

bill bowen - 10/14/11

Kindergarten Lessons

    It is increasingly apparent that Barack Obama's early schooling in Indonesia missed some of life's lessons contained in Robert Fulghum's classic "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten".  A few related thoughts from this week's international news:

    1. Don't needlessly antagonize your rivals. China's official news agency condemned Obama's July 16 meetingwith the Dalai Lama claiming that Obama supports anti-China separatists and "has grossly interfered in China's internal affairs, hurt the feelings of Chinese people and damaged the Sino-American relations." Obama demurred on such a meeting in 2009, but held a similar provocative meeting a few months later. For what purpose?

   2. Respect the kids who are trying. In a July 10 visit to Turkey Hillary Clinton found it necessary to reverse her praise of 2009 that  “Turkey has made tremendous progress in freedom of speech and freedom of religion and human rights,”  and instead to publicly chastise our NATO ally for mistreating the press.  At a point when we are seeking the cooperation of highly popular, publicly electedPresident Recep Erdogan to use Turkey's rising regional power to help solve problems with Palestine/Israel, Iran, Syria, and Libya the administration chooses a poke in the eye.  

   3. When playing with strangers, ask for references. The administration's July 15 recognition of the ragtag opposition as the legitimate government of Libya in order to give them access to impounded financial accounts violates several current principles of international law.  For one, we recognize countries, not governments; for another, they do not control all (or a majority?) of the population or territory of the country. With no clear mission or plan, no Congressional approval,  a military standstill, and no ability to kill Qaddafi with a bomb, we'll latch on to this group, whoever they are.  

    So, the question is: if you were the leader of a country looking for a reliable partner in this dangerous world, who would you trust to keep your back?  If you were Israel worried about a dangerous neighborhood? If you were Saudi Arabia worried about Iran? If you were Columbia worried about Venezuela? If you were Japan or South Korea worried about a resurgent China? If you were Pakistan worried about a rapidly growing India? Leading from behind would be bad enough, but the Obama administration is choosing to irritate important countries for no purpose while giving billions to people that we don't know.

    Fortunately most world leaders understand that American politics ebb and flow, that long term relationships are built upon mutual self interest, and that this administration is an aberration.

                                                             -----

 

This week's "video" is stunning evidence that Barack Obama has hired Jimmy Carter's speech writer.

bill bowen - 7/22/11

Joining the Internet Marketing Age, my web site is now up at www.BillBowenAuthor.com.

The NASA Metaphor

    Many know that wounded Congresswoman Gabby Gifford's husband is an astronaut, but few seem to care that the last American space shuttle mission launched on July 8.  

    I've got an economist-type problem: On the one hand I enrolled at the USAF Academy in 1962 intending to learn to design spacecraft, in part in response to the Sputnik launch in 1957 and Yuri Gagarin's 1961 initial space flight. (Calculus 221 intervened.) On the other hand I believe that extreme measures are needed to close our $1.5 trillion budget deficit. We face tough choices.

    A few factoids:

        -  The FY 2011 budget for NASA is $18.45 billion, compared to $14.3 billion a decade earlier.  In inflation-adjusted dollars the budget has stayed at around that level since 1962, with the exception of the mid 60s when it doubled at the peak of the moon effort.  President Obama's budget framework foresees expenditures remaining at about this level for the next five years. The agency has plenty of powerful political, public, and business advocates.  

        -   While there is no plan for any further moon landings (the first of the six was in 1969; the last in 1972) or American shuttle flights to the International Space Station, NASA's strategies call for continued active scientific use of the US built and Russian-serviced station, early developmental work on capabilities to explore further out into the solar system, and private enterprise options for low earth orbit missions.  President Bush had planned to use the savings from ending the Space Shuttle program to extend the life of the station and to return to the moon in a larger way in 2020; President Obama cancelled the moon program in what former astronauts Neil Armstrong, Jim Lovell, and Eugene Cernan call "a long downhill slide to mediocrity."

        -  In one way or another NASA has given us things that don't matter to most people (a close analysis of the composition of our neighboring planets; a look into origins of the universe), a lot of things that do (global positioning satellites; weather forecasting, telecommunications, medical, and transportation breakthroughs), and a sense of national pride.

    And the melancholy:

        -  In the long sweep of history the first steps of Neil Armstrong on the moon on July 20,1969, will be the most important event in a century or perhaps a millennium. My wife and I happened to be in downtown Montreal where euphoria reigned.  It will be generations, if ever, before a similar uplifting experience is available to the grand-kids of our grand-kids.

        -  The space program, instigated by the shocking Russian successes and responding to President Kennedy's commitment and inspiration vividly demonstrated the best aspects of America in an era where we were preeminent in virtually every field.

        -  On a personal note I went to school with Fred Gregory, the first African American astronaut and a deputy administrator of NASA.  Fred's journey mirrored the nation's.

    So, the American space program is now a large stable bureaucracy with no clear (or at least interesting) objectives. We rely on the Russians for transportation to the International Space Station.  The Chinese, with whom Congress has prohibited space cooperation, have plans to start assembling their own space station this year, launch a lunar probe in 2013, and put a man on the moon some time after 2020. Those who favor government 5 year plans over free market capitalism applaud.  Some wonder why we are spending our money on fast trains to nowhere.

                                                        -----

    On an optimistic note, this week's video is classic Ronald Reagan - explaining his principles and American exceptionalism.   His slogan "Yes We Can" related to much more than winning elections.

bill bowen - 7/15/11

        

Four Middle Eastern Truths

    Like them or not, there are four truths that govern Middle Eastern outcomes from Pakistan to Morocco. Forget the power of tweets and the Arab Spring. This is the big picture.

    1. We are Israel's guarantor. With the strength of the Jewish lobby there is no alternative. And with Barack Hussein Obama being the darling of Academia where the Palestinians are seen as the subjugated victims there is no chance that he can improve upon the comprehensive proposition which nearly was accepted in 1993 under the Clinton administration. Obama's "lets start with pre-1967 borders" is an effort to get things going, but it is a non-starter and uber-envoy George Mitchell's resignation reflects that Obama is not the arbiter.

    2. Iran will have the bomb; the question is how the neighbors will react. Since China developed theirs, the bipartisan American commitment to defend Japan (and Taiwan and eventually Korea) prevented an East Asian arms race. When India developed theirs the Pakistanis felt that they needed their own.  For Iran's neighbors (Saudi Arabia; Egypt; maybe Turkey) to rely on the United States instead of starting an arms race would require a belief in an unshakable bipartisan American commitment to their defense. Sorry President Mubarek. Sorry President Karzai. Sorry President Zardari. Sorry President Saleh. We need to find leaders who better represent our ideals; but, trust us, we really will have the Sunni Arab backs when Iran comes calling.  Good luck with that. (The key in a list of bad situations - support Zardari in Pakistan, the Saudis, and the Egyptian generals.)

    3. Oil matters - and Saudi Arabia controls oil. UN Ambassador / CIA Director / President George H W Bush got it.  Texas oilman George W Bush got it. The relationship with the Saudi royal family was genuine and personal. Not so Barack Obama of the wind farms, solar panels, and subsidized electric cars. At least we are staying out of the way as the Saudis clean up their neighborhood in Bahrain and Yemen and we are not calling for "power to the people" of the Arabian Peninsula.

    4. Terrorism is transnational and permanent. Congratulations to President Obama for finishing the job that President Bush began with bin Laden. We can push these guys from Afghanistan to Pakistan to Somalia to Yemen and kill each generation of new leaders, but human history is filled with more Pol Pots and bin Laden's than Mother Theresa's and Ghandi's.  The question is not how to raise the global standard of living to the point where Nirvana will break out (our apparent Afghan policy); it is how to contain the risk in an age of physical, communication, and financial globalization. Better governance throughout the Middle East would help, but not as much as Seal Team 6.  

    My apologies to those who are looking for more optimistic answers. We need Kissinger more than Carter.  Maybe he could explain why the President is defying the War Powers Act to prosecute a war in Libya that has no apparent connection to American interests.

                                                                  -----

   This week's video is President Obama's self-congratulatory auto industry speech which The Washington Post calls "one of the most misleading collections of assertions we have seen in a short presidential speech. Virtually every claim by the president regarding the auto industry needs an asterisk, just like the fine print in that too-good-to-be-true car loan." That is the Washington Post.

bill bowen - 6/10/11

The View From London

    What luck!!! We were in London visiting our daughter's family and President O'bama shows up; then we take a train to Oxford and Michelle is there. Nevertheless, I'll try to fight off my depression and provide a perspective on the world's events from across the pond.

    First, my sources: I am English/Welsh by family background and visit the UK often enough to have some feel for local issues and attitudes. When there I try to read The London Times, The Guardian, the Independent, and some free commuter papers, to watch some BBC, and to talk with family, friends, cab drivers and pub denizens. The sample is unscientific and subject to my biases - but it beats MSNBC.  

    In approximate order of importance:

    1. The capture of Public Enemy Number One. That would be Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladic, the leader of the shelling of Sarajevo and the murder off 8000 defenseless Bosnian Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica in 1995 in the greatest European atrocities since World War II. For the pan-Europeans this moves the Continent a step closer to peaceful integration - probably bigger than bin Laden's demise in their perspective.

    2. The International Monetary Fund. After that unpleasantness with the French aristocrat and the maid in New York it is necessary to find a new leader of the IMF.  The IMF has always had a European head (the World Bank has a US head) and the developing countries want to break the monopoly by appointing somebody else; the Europeans need a sympathetic leader with the challenge to the euro currency given the debt problems in Greece, Ireland, Spain, and Portugal.  Fortunately the French have another aristocrat to offer up - if just the Chinese and the others will stay in their place for one more cycle.

    3. The Arab Spring. The UK would like to help move things along toward a democratic Middle East and is sending attack helicopters to escalate the "kinetic military activity" in Libya, but the pundits wonder who we are supporting in Libya,Tunisia, and Egypt; what Obama is trying to do in Israel/Palestine; what the objectives and strategies are in Afghanistan and Pakistan; why the inconsistencies in Syria, Bahrain, and Yemen; and how the UK can afford billions there when they are cutting everything at home. There is an obvious pining for the day when the US led and the Europeans followed.

    4. The Obama visit. The Brits were still basking in the aftermath of the royal wedding and willing to forgive Obama's earlier slights to Gordon Brown and the "special relationship" between our countries. (In a macro sense, they miss the empire and get their satisfaction from a uniquely close relationship with their "child", the globally dominant United States. But they recognize the decline of empires.)  The papers were full of articles gushing about Obama's oratory - wishing that the British leaders weren't mere mortals - but usually ending with a soft comment that words needed to be followed by actions.

    5. Politics of austerity. When the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition won the May 2010 elections, the new Prime Minister, David Cameron, announced a "Big Society" program in which government spending would be cut by 25 to 40%, with a major dismantling of the welfare state, and major tax increases. (It helps to be British to understand this coalition - all politics is local and much is personal. Labour had their 13 years under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and the public understood that what they had built was not affordable.) Interestingly, the Brits seem to accept the changes and are carrying on with a stiff upper lip - except for a rejection of the plan for major changes to the National Health Service which would have required doctors to take on a major cost management role. Republicans beware.

    6. Popular issues. Truth be told, the guy on the street was probably more concerned with a scandal in the management of the world soccer governing body, a prominent Member of Parliament who had his penalty points for speeding assigned to his wife's driver's license, the return of Simon Cowell as head judge on "Britain's Got Talent", and the lottery for tickets to the 2012 London Olympics.  Oh, and the waves of ne'er do well immigrants from the old Commonwealth and the new European Union.

    So different, yet so much the same.

                                                                -----

    This week's video is Presidential Press Secretary Jay Carney explaining that President Obama has led on deficit reduction - shortly after his budget was defeated 97 - 0 in the Senate. "Leading from behind" I suppose.

bill bowen - 6/3/11

bin Laden - Reflections

    Few events merit the discussion that the killing of Osama bin Laden is generating. President Obama exhibited uncharacteristic leadership; years of rigorous intelligence work were vindicated; Seal Team 6 performed at the highest standards imaginable. A lifetime ago I spent some years in military intelligence and have the highest regard for the participants. Some reflections:

    1. The Bush policies of agressive interrogation, electronic surveillance, and overseas prisons each played a role in identifying the courier who led us to bin Laden's compound.  Bush's creation of the joint terrorism operations center and expansion of special operations capabilities also deserves some credit. On the other hand, the Obama/Holder policies of closing Guantanamo, restricting surveillance, and treating terrorists as common criminals would not have. Nor does the Holder/Obama decision in 2009 to investigate CIA interrogators for "improper" behavior. There is room for liberals to argue morality or legalisms here, but the "effectiveness" argument is destroyed - and the American people would seem to care more about effectiveness.

    2. Jay Carney, the president's PR guy is in over his head. In events such as this it is critical that there be one spokesman - not having Carney, Brennan, Panetta, Clinton, and others giving their shifting versions of what happened. That said, most of the substantive decisions have been good - deny the Muslim fanatics a martyr by giving him a proper burial at sea and not showing the photos.

    3. The praise for Obama's courage is a bit misplaced. Given strong evidence that bin Laden was there, the (improper) courageous act would have been to NOT follow the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs and the Director of the CIA. (A bomb would not have provided the necessary direct physical evidence, would have caused collateral damage, and would not have allowed the collection of other materials from the site.) What is amusing is the reaction of Obama's remaining acolytes who opposed aggressive interrogation but have no problem with what amounted to an execution.

    4. Panetta was apparently the hawk in the group. With him taking over Defense and Petreus taking over the CIA, we will have robust national security leadership. Nevertheless, the timely exit from Afghanistan seems to be more likely.

    5. We sometimes over estimate our adversaries. It is stunning that bin Laden would have extensive unprotected information in paper and electronic form. His loss is a big deal to al Queda (people had taken an oath of fealty to him personally), but we should also have the ability to roll up much of the second tier. And if they expect that they have been compromised many may take risky measures to find alternative cover.

    6. The question of whether the Pakistani government is duplicitous or incompetent is false. They were duplicitous. What is disappointing is that we didn't have anybody in the high command or in Abbottabad who would tell us what was going on. (Or maybe we did and some of this other story is a cover.) In any case Hillary's positioning is correct: that Pakistan has suffered greatly from Islamic militants (presidential and other assassinations for example), that they have helped us a great deal (giving up Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for example), that their nuclear stockpile must be protected, and that we need to be responsive to the entire complex relationship.

    7. The domestic politics will play out to Obama's advantage - particularly in finally acting as the Commander in Chief rather than a law professor.  Understandably President Bush chose not to be a foil, opting to hold his Ground Zero appearance until the 10th anniversary.  Perhaps Obama's previous history of attacking the Supreme Court justices and then Paul Ryan at major "non-partisan" public events went into the calculation.    

    In any event, this was a great day - for the Seals, for the intelligence community, for the administration, and for America.

                                                            -----

    This week's You Tube is the interview of Leon Panetta by Brian Williams in which Panetta was clear that waterboarding was one source of information that led to the locating of bin Laden.  Williams did a nice job in not letting Panetta get by with a vague answer.

bill bowen - 5/6/11 

The 2012 Election: Messaging

    Sometimes how you say something is more important than what you say. Listening to some of the potential 2012 Republican candidates and reading lots of conservative blogs, I get nervous that people don't understand the basics of messaging. The key point that seems to get lost: candidates that win are optimists. Some applications:

    1. Yes we have a terrible debt and budget problem. Yes Obama and the Congressional Democrats have tripled down on a problem that they inherited from the 2000-2006 Republican Congresses and President Bush. Yes, we run the  risk of our kids and grand kids paying for the last fling of the Baby Boom generation. So the political positioning can be that the adults have finally arrived at the party and are beginning an era of austerity or that the Republicans are here to save Social Security and the financial opportunity for future generations. The first loses; the second wins.

    2. Yes we have a lot of international problems and President Obama has acted like the rookie that he is jumping on emotion without thinking through an end game or a strategy. So the political positioning can be to focus on the decline of America and Obama's abdication of leadership, or it can be a recommitment to our allies (the UK, Israel, Japan) and a vision of the US as the leader of the Free World at a time when the world needs leadership. The first loses; the second wins.

   3. Yes there are dimensions in which the Chinese are doing better than we are these days, the Mexican government seems incapable of controlling violence which threatens to spill over into the US (along with millions of illegal immigrants), and capitalism has not yet recovered from the 2008 collapse.  So we can be anti-China, anti-Mexico, and on the economic defensive or we can believe that this is still the best country in the history of the world and that our system of political and economic freedom is resilient and will prevail over government-controlled socialist solutions. Reagan will be remembered for his "Shining City on the Hill"; Carter will be remembered for his call to turn down thermostats.

    As you listen to the Republican candidates for president, think not only about whose ideology is the furthest left or right, not only about who has the best experience, not only about who is the most competent. Those are not the things that got the "Hope and Change" president elected or the things that will defeat a "Winning the Future" candidate. 

    Arthur Brooks' 2007 opus, "Who Really Cares", shows that Republicans/conservatives are more giving of time and money than are Democrats/liberals, and that they are happier - partly because they are more religious; partly because they believe in personal responsibility. Lets hope that this shows through in the Republican 2012 presidential candidate.  

                                                                ----- 

    Here's a brief commentary on President Obama's humanitarian intervention in Libya's civil war. It would be nice to have the media ask him about the current civil war in the Ivory Coast where President Gbagbo has refused to step down despite UN and EU pressure after losing a November election and the advance of a rebel army has caused a comparable human crisis with some million refugees.  We don't need consistency (see Iran, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain), just an explanation of why we get involved if there is no significant US interest at stake.  

bill bowen - 4/1/11

Libya: Knowns and Unknowns

    As Don Rumsfeld so cleverly said, there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.  Unfortunately the administration is floundering in the latter.

    First the known knowns:

        -  Perhaps the best early military strategist, Sun Tzu, stressed having profound understanding of your enemy and allies and maneuvering in such a way that battle is unnecessary. This was extended in the post-Vietnam "Powell Doctrine": if you do need to go to war, bring overwhelming force. In his defense, Robert Gates understands these principles and cautioned against Libyan intervention without Congressional approval.

        -  Libya is a third-tier player in the broader Middle East, of little strategic importance to the United states.  See my posting of March 3.

        -  Engagement in a foreign conflict may not require prior congressional approval, but the "advise and consent" function requires more than a letter postmarked from Rio. Legislators on both sides of the aisle have egos.

        -  Liberal Obama apologists in the media and the Democratic party can tie themselves in knots explaining why this is not like George Bush's war in Iraq, how great leadership can be from the back of the parade, and good intentions are more important than executable plans.

       Second the known unknowns:

        -  We do not know the objectives - the UN resolution to protect the innocent with a no-fly zone; the correlary of stopping Khadafi''s ground attacks on rebel cities; Obama's strategy that "Khadafi must go" - which encouraged the rebels in the first place, but is not in the UN resolution and promises a very brief and limited engagement.

        -  We do not know the chain of command - with Obama's commitment to turn over leadership within a few days, NATO is the only realistic military option but that is opposed by France, Germany, Turkey, and Italy for various political reasons. France's suggestion of a "political steering committee" of US, European, and Arab foreign ministers is patently absurd - but Obama may well seize on it as a way to avoid responsibility.

        -  We have little idea who we are fighting for.  Stratfor has a great analysis of the mistaken premise that throughtout the region there is a thirst for liberal democracy. (It is largely about tribal power.)  In Libya there is neither a likelihood that the rebels can succeed without extensive military support nor a likelihood that they can govern in a way acceptable in the Park Avenue salons - whoever they are.  

        Third the unknown unknowns:

        -  What if Khadafi survives?  Tons of mustard gas. Sons to continue on for decades. A world willing to buy oil from anybody. Decades of documented terrorist acts against Western and Arab states? A resurrected nuclear program? A "wounded bear" syndrome.

        -  What are the implications for the countries that matter - Iran, Israel, Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia; for the lesser regional players; for our posture toward the rebellions spreading across the Arab world; for anybody else who is watching the decline of American power. Fortunately Bush got Khadafi to give up his nuclear program in the 2003, but what is the lesson for North Korea or other wannabe's.

    There are reasons that Khadafi has been in power for 42 years, and they haven't changed.  Unfortunately, what has changed is that we have a president who has not read Sun Tzu or spoken with Colin Powell. And one who believes that a speech wishing for a result is the same as making the commitments necessary to achieve it.

                                                            ------

    Here is Tim Pawlenty's video announcing the official start of his presidential campaign. Within the party he is not the first choice of many, but is offensive to few and may well be the leading "Anybody but Romney" candidate.

bill bowen - 3/25/11

Egypt: Giving Credit

    As the news cycle moves on to President Obama's feckless budget (next week's posting), a quick reprise of the events in Egypt is in order.

    -  First, I assume that the Army will maintain order until elections are held in the Fall, that the Muslim Brotherhood will be one of several political blocks, that we will continue to buy the Army's support, and that the new government will reflect the country's dependence on Western tourism. Best case, most likely IMHO. The next daunting task - turning political energy into economic energy.

    -  The Egyptian people deserve a great deal of credit for remaining purposefully nonviolent despite reasonable gripes and a spate of provocation. Wael Ghonim, Google's chief of marketing for North Africa and the Middle East, will probably get a Nobel Peace Prize for his use of Facebook to organize protesters. One hopes that the next couple of years are not filled with a Truth and Reconciliation Commission for retribution against the supporters of the Mubarak regime.

    -   President Obama deserves credit for the voice which he eventually found ("decisions are up to the Egyptian people; we support representative government and free expression") after false starts by Hillary Clinton ("regime stable"), Robert Gibbs ("transition must start now"), and Joe Biden ("no dictator"). Obama probably got some courage from perfect pitch editorials by Charles Krautheimer and Bill Kristol which far outshone Glenn Beck's rants about a new caliphate aligned with the objectives of the political Left. Most perplexing was the fact that CIA Director Paneta found it necessary to prematurely announce Mubarek's resignation and to proclaim that the Muslim Brotherhood was a secular institution. Perhaps next time the administration will have a single public voice.

    -  Fortunately our policy has been consistent since Condi Rice's 2005 Cairo speech  (more forceful and four years before Obama's): democracy and personal liberty are universal objectives; friends encourage friends to take preemptive steps in that direction. The policy is bipartisan, with virtually no elected Republicans criticizing Obama for his handling of the Egyptian uprising. 

    Egypt (and Tunisia) may be just the beginning. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and the Gulf states will not be so enlightened in their dealing with protesters. Iran's democracy movement may replay the protests of 2009, hoping (probably futily) for American support this time. Israel may be faced with its Palestinian citizens. Yemen has an al Queda presence and a long open border with Saudi Arabia. Each country has its own history, factions, and limitations - lights will be on late at night at the State Department, the Central Command, and Langley. Beyond Egypt, our government remains eerily quiet, reflecting a belief that we have lost our influence in the region. Lets ask Allah for some more luck.  

                                                            -----

      This week's video shows our dear leader responding to criticism that he forgot to include fixing Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security in his 2012 budget.  Clueless or politically calculating?

Chinese Relations: Scruting the Inscrutable ChiComs

    Discussions about President Hu Jintao's recent visit to the United States have been remarkably shallow, given the importance of the relationship between the two countries and the availability of information. Perhaps it is a European bias in our East Coast media or our current sense of national financial angst that prevents a meaningful discussion. (It did give Obama an "investment" theme for his State of the Union address.)  I will provide a perspective on this most important relationship nurtured out here on the West Coast.

    The Chinese leadership - not a single dictator; a Politburo of a couple dozen members - must feel quite good about themselves. With the past decade's annual 9% GDP growth they have lifted 300 million people out of poverty and passed Japan as the world's second largest economy. They have had no wars. They were little affected by the 2008 global financial meltdown. They enjoy the traditional "Mandate of Heaven".

    The century before this had not been so harmonious for the Middle Kingdom: the Boxer Rebellion; Sun Yat Sen's overthrow of the Qing Dynasty in 1912; World War I; Mao's Revolution; World War II; the Korean War; the Great Leap Forward; and a few million casualties from other internal and external conflicts. Today's leaders grew up in these latter days. They like peaceful, prosperous order.

    China's self-image has been helped by the shaking of the Western economic system, but they do have their problems. They have lost their family-based social security system as hundreds of millions have migrated for jobs and government policy has required a single child; thus a high personal savings rate. Lack of confidence in the currency and the stock market has driven a real estate bubble. Highway construction has not kept up with 12 million auto sales per year. Pollution abounds. Despite a population four times the US, their GDP is still only about one third of ours - one tenth in per capita terms.  

    So what do we need from them?

        1. Support for a soft landing while we get our financial house in order. That means reasonable currency and export policies and continued purchases of our debt.  In exchange they'd like to see a plan. (So would I.)

        2.  Peace in East Asia. Mostly this means corralling North Korea. A low profile in neighborhood disputes would be a bonus. (Their recent test of a "stealth" aircraft matches where we were 30 years ago.  Our military budget is six times theirs.)

        3. A market for our agricultural and tech stuff. We are still the world's largest manufacturer and have a comparative advantage in computers, telecom, pharma, aircraft, and a number of other industries.

    And what do they need from us?

        1. A continued market for their lower end stuff. They still have a couple hundred million more folks in the interior to get off of the farm and become consumers and they need jobs to soak up internal migration.  And as their labor costs increase, global manufacturing of textiles, shoes, and plastic junk moves to Bengladesh and Vietnam. But WalMart still becons.  

        2. No meddling in their internal affairs.  Democracy activist  Liu Xiaobo and Tibet independence leader The Dalai Lama do have more Nobel Peace Prize "cred" than Barack Obama, but there is understandable resentment that the West would focus on a developing democracy rather than more worthy honorees in Russia, Pakistan, Africa, or Latin America.

        3. Respect. This was the gift of Obama to the Chinese, as "parity" was trumpeted in the Chinese press.  The reciprocal gift?

    It is ironic that we have been lurching toward an enlarged central government which intervenes extensively in the economy while the Chinese success is driven largely by an adoption of capitalism. (Their favorite presidents are probably Nixon who opened relations and George W who allowed a massive trade imbalance.) We will inevitably compete with the Chinese for natural resources and we need to stand up for our friends in the neighborhood, but the Chinese have never had global military ambitions. They do not export religious zealots. And they don't insist that the rest of the world adopt a One Child Policy, outlaw the burning of coal, or speak Mandarin. We could do a lot worse for a partner with whom to share global leadership in the new century.

                                                                ----- 

    This week's video is Paul Ryan's ten minute response to President Obama's State of the Union address.  Obama has apparently made the political calculation to ignore the recommendations of his Deficit Reduction Commission, put on a sunny face, and defer to the leadership of Ryan and the Republicans on all matters financial.  While that may be good cynical politics, the experience of Chris Cristie suggests that the American people are at the point where they will reward adult supervision. Let's hope.

bill bowen - 1/28/11  

The Year of the Child

    As I get older I fear sounding like Ebeneezer Scrooge - particularly at this time of year - but a number of recent events have made me look askance at the behavior of the children (with an apology to those under 20.)

    WikiLeaks. A definitive article by George Friedman in STRATFOR on the three rounds of disclosures points out that none have provided "new news" for those who have been paying attention, that the first two on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq put some of those who have helped us at risk, and that the State Department cables reveal no duplicity or illegality.  One striking point ignored by the site's founder, the naive anarchists on the Berkeley City Council, and the Russian call for a Nobel Peace Prize is that conflicts between countries can be solved by armed conflicts or by diplomacy, and diplomacy requires frank discussions and exploration of alternatives with confidence that such conversations will be handled discreetly. The press focuses on the gossip and the anti-Americans have a brief high, but American diplomacy is the real casualty.

    The end of the party. Not to be confused with the $858 billion bill to extend tax rates, prolong unemployment insurance, and reduce Social Security tax rates (plus some help for ethanol and other stuff), on December 14 the Senate Democrats sprung a 1,924 page $1.1 trillion "omnibus spending bill" for 2011 (with over 6500 earmarks) which must be approved by December 18 to avert a government shutdown. (Concurrence with the House's proposition to punt to the new Congress had been expected.) Congress has been operating on "continuing resolutions" (spend at current levels) since the fiscal year began on October 1 rather than go through the messy hearings and trade-offs of doing a real budget and passing targeted appropriation bills. This last suck at the punch bowl may be defeated in the Senate or House, but many lame duck members are deaf and it may actually pass. (Update: After publication Senate Majority Leader Reid, recognizing unified Republican opposition, withdrew the bill while citing the legitimacy of earmarks and the independence of the Senate from the White House.)  Circle January 3 on your calendar for when the adults arrive.

    Playing with trains. Out here in California we are thankful to Secretary of Transportation Ray Lahood (and the newly elected governors of Ohio and Wisconsin who rejected the gift) for the recent $3.5 billion of Stimulus funds to lay track (without electrification or trains) between two small towns in the Central Valley. This is a bit hard to explain to folks east of the Sierras, but in 2008 we passed an initiative for a $40 to 50 billion high speed rail network, with a first $10 billion to pay for the consultants, lobbyists, designers, and prototype folks with the expectation that the feds (you) would pay for the rest. Meanwhile we are stalled on a $13 billion project to supply water for one fifth of our population, the farmers in the Central Valley, and the delta smelt ... oh, and we are broke. I have visions of the grandkids some day going to visit this quaint "short line" partially covered by sand dunes.  

    But that's not the way that Bob Cratchit would see it. Next week I'll try to find something in the spirit of the original Tiny Tim.    

                                        ---- 

     Actually, regular reader Herb McClannan has submitted this video which strikingly shows the health and wealth progress of mankind over the past couple of centuries. Spectacular. Perhaps we just need a long enough perspective and a good statistician.

bill bowen - 12/17/2010

Washington's Pending Perfect Storm

    Occasionally you really can see over the horizon. Washington's November 15 "lame duck" session and the first few months of the 112th Congress that begins on January 3, are worth at least a squint.  

The Players

    - Obama's team will be filled with second tier staffers who have moved up with the departure of Peter Orzag at Budget, Christina Romer at the Council of Economic Advisers, Larry Summers at the National Economic Council, National Security Adviser General Jones, crisis loving Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod (early in 2011), and perhaps even Robert Gates at Defense. None of the replacements is perceived to add strength or business, military, or foreign policy experience.

    - The House will likely be in the hands of John Boehner who has been excluded by Nancy Pelosi and vilified by Obama. There will be a small army of energized conservatives with a mandate, and many fewer "blue dogs". Darrell Issa stands ready to investigate everything.

    -  The Senate will be deadlocked with the filibuster strengthened even if the Republicans do not take over.  Moderate Republicans and Red State Democrats will understand what the Tea Party has done to their absent liberal colleagues. With 23 of the 33 Senate seats up in 2012 belonging to Democrats, look for an effort to recruit a party-changer or two before the high tide.

    -  President Obama will stand ready with his newly-activated veto pen.  Fresh off of his 50 Democratic fund raisers in 2010, the post-partisan president will soon be in full 2012 campaign mode for himself - the one thing that he knows how to do. Look for a class warfare theme.

The Issues

     -  The Democrats adjourned without passing a FY 2011 budget (not unusual) or a tax structure for 2011 (income; capital gains; dividends; estate), leaving those details for a lame duck session starting November 15. (Conspiracy theorists look for all types of mischief, but Congress will be lucky to get the tax issues settled.)  

    -  The Bowles/Simpson Deficit Reduction Commission is to make its recommendations by December 1, with an "every-thing's on the table" approach - Social Security; health care; whatever. With 14 of 18 votes needed for a recommendation, nothing substantive will emerge, but the effort does provide a vehicle for shaping discussion in the new Congress where "fiscal responsibility" will be the watchword. Repeal of Healthcare will be tried and quickly changed to a major effort at modification.

    -   The Afghan War strategy review is set for December, with the  National Security Adviser, Tom Donilon - earlier called a "disaster" by the Defense Secretary - leading the "we need to focus on domestic politics" camp. Pity our Afghan allies.  

    -  Meanwhile, the "blame it on China" camp has Congress calling for a major appreciation of the value of the yuan as the solution to our employment problems. And free trade agreements ... forget it.

The Outcome

    It is hard to imagine the downgraded administration and the new Congress doing anything other than muddle contentiously toward the 2012 elections. Along the way, there are, however some real risks:

    1. Unless the Tea Party Republicans can really grab the fiscal responsibility moment, the national debt will push past the $14 trillion Gross Domestic Product. Look to Paul Ryan's leadership for any hope.

    2. The push to devalue the dollar and otherwise antagonize China, could lead to the end of the dollar as the international reserve currency. Refinancing our debt will become very expensive.

    3. The military community (domestic and NATO) will become highly critical of Obama's strategy of sending our kids to die in a war that he had no intent of winning.

    This might be a good time for that extended trip to Australia.  

                                            -----    

     For this week's video, here's the Axelrod/Schieffer interview about Obama's baseless Chamber of Commerce foreign money claim. No evidence? No problem? The tragedy is the damage to the presidency.

                                            -----

    We look forward to seeing seeing some of our Wisconsin and Chicago readers during our October 16-25 tour for my nuclear terrorism novel, The Target.

bill bowen - 10/15/10

Afghanistan No; Mexico Si

It is nice to have another speech from President Obama about his victory in Iraq and the "get in / get out" strategy in Afghanistan. It would be nice to hear something from him about the escalating war on our southern border.

As a preamble, I would note that Mexico abuts four states while Afghanistan is 7000 miles away; we have a stalwart ally in Mexico's Felipe Calderon (who recently fired 10% of the federal police force for corruption) as compared to Hamid Karzai (who fired the chief investigator of Afghan corruption); and we now spend over $70 billion per year on the Afghan War as compared to $400 million supporting Mexico's anti-drug efforts.  

It is hard to know what to think about the cartel-driven violence in Mexico. Since Calderon began his crackdown on drug smuggling in 2006, some 28,000 people have been killed - mostly members of the Gulf, Familia, Zeta, and other cartels, but also many targeted government officials and a significant number of civilians. While the greatest problem is drugs (a $13 billion dollar a year business), attempted kidnappings have caused the removal of US consulate dependents in the business center of Monterrey; and last week 72 Central and South American migrants were killed 100 miles from the Texas border when they did not pay extortion demands. Kingpins keep getting killed or captured, but new ones pop up. In several border areas, the cartels represent an alternate government.

While most of the violence remains in Mexico, we are a big part of the problem: most of the cocaine, meth, and marijuana market is in the U.S.; most of the weapons come from here; and the migrants are easy targets. Our border cities- San Diego; Albuquerque; Tucson; Phoenix; El Paso; Houston - do not have particularly high murder rates, but a third of the prisoners in Arizona are illegal immigrants. The cartels largely fight their war south of the border, but they definitely have tentacles in the north.  

On the one hand, the violence in Mexico is not our problem. We contribute some $400 million per year to the multinational Merida Initiative to provide equipment and training for the Mexican law enforcement agencies. We agreed in March 2009 to increase our efforts to reduce the flow of money and weapons from the U.S. If our tourists choose to go to the Caribbean or Hawaii, that seems like a good choice.

But, eventually we need to deal with the millions of illegal Mexican immigrants in the country, the things which we do to attract them here, and the things which make them want to leave Mexico. The Calderon administration has been understandably focused on their civil war while our political leaders have been focused on the politics of border management. It would be nice if President Obama moved beyond his polemics against Arizona's efforts to protect themselves, and put as much effort into helping the Mexicans as the Pashtuns. You can bet that John McCain would.

-----

This week's You Tube is an ad by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer focused on criminality associated with the drug trade - before Hillary's State Department included Obama's attack of the Arizona law in a report to the UN as an example of his defense of human rights. He's on our side, right? Just sayin'. 

-----

And, another plug for my new nuclear terrorism thriller, The Target, which can be purchased in paperback or Kindle versions at Amazon.com or by order from most book stores.

bill bowen - 9/3/10

 

Afghan Nation Building

The belated discussion about our objectives in Afghanistan recalls the long-standing division between the George Washington-style "Non-interventionists" and Woodrow Wilson-style "Make the World Safe for Democracy" internationalists. It is time for Washington's realism.  

    In our quest for rapid "nation building" in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have thought that military success would lead to elections and stable societies, lubricated with a few billion dollars of assistance for roads and schools. To our surprise, we are finding that the real test of democracy is not the courage of the public to vote in the face of insurgent threats, but whether leaders are willing to relinquish power - to alternative national leaders (in Iraq), or to local leaders (in Afghanistan.) To his great credit, George Washington did; to his great discredit, Al Gore did not (even though he really did lose.)  

    Most of today's major nations have taken centuries to form - Italy; Germany; the United Kingdom; China - and even at that there frequently remain separatist tendencies. We keep being shown the lesson that it is very difficult to impose nationhood, democracy, and economic development - most recently in Haiti and Kosovo. Even in the United States, nationhood is not a totally settled question; within the past few weeks:

    -  An Iroquois lacrosse team refused to travel to an international tournament on US and Canadian passports, insisting instead on their own;

    -  Senator Akaka's bill for a single Hawaiian Native governing entity burbled along in the Senate; 

     - The House passed a bill to allow a referendum on Puerto Rican statehood. (It will presumably die in the Senate.)

    These may seem like quixotic dalliances, but they do make one wonder why we think the Afghans would suddenly want a strong central government. Any "nation building" strategy which starts from that premise - including a strong central army instead of local militias - is doomed to failure.  

    Some years ago I listened to a presentation by a senior CIA officer who had helped defeat the Taliban with a few hundred Americans, a freightening mix of tribal leaders, a focused mission, and no embedded NY Times reporters. My guess is that, without calling it the Bush approach revisited, Obama will within a year see the wisdom of "less is more". 

    ----- 

This video of Congressman Pete Stark defending the right of the federal government to do anything they wanted comes courtesy of the now-famous Andrew Breitbart.

bill bowen - 8/6/10    

Media Integrity

   A friend recently asked me to write about the lack of integrity on the part of some bloggers - Andrew Breitbart in particular. In the spirit of "fair and balanced", I thought that I'd broaden the political spectrum and the discussion a bit. 

   First, obtaining an objective opinion requires work. My reading ranges from the Huffington Post on the left to the equally ideological Drudge Report on the right, with several other sources in between such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. I regularly watch MSNBC and Fox. The most noteworthy difference is what is not covered - on the left you wouldn't know much about the Justice Department's alleged policy of not pursuing discrimination complaints (such as those against the New Black Panther Party) on behalf of white clients; on the right you would have missed the latest dozen scandals in Sarah Palin's family. 

   As to Breitbart's edited video of Shirley Sherrod's NAACP speech, the difference has been in emphasis. There has been virtually no defense since he misled everybody; however, the Left has taken a delayed pound of flesh for his earlier exposure of Acorn and offers of rewards if anyone could prove claims of Tea Party racism, while the Right has preferred to focus on The White House's latest personnel ineptitude, completing the cycle from shoddy background investigations, to delayed hiring, to knee-jerk firing.  

   A more troubling media event has been much less reported (except by Rush Limbaugh and Fox) - the exposure of JournoList, a group of some 400 liberal "journalists" started by Washington Post reporter Ezra Klein, who share e-mails about talking points to protect Obama and attack conservatives - including encouragement to fabricate stories of racism on the part of Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, or whoever. Being paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't after you. (For those who doubt, read the Fred Barnes article.)  At least Breitbart was acting alone. 

   Even the "fact checking" sites can contain a bias. Snopes.com leans to the left; Factcheck.org is more to the center. Try both to see which Truth you prefer. 

   Finally, some advice as to integrity in widely divergent polls, most of which serve an ideological audience. The results become more conservative as one moves from "adults" to "eligible voters" to "likely voters." The whole range is available at www.RealClearPolitics.com, along with averages. Rasmussen (likely voters) has historically been among the most accurate. 

   But, it doesn't have to be that hard; for those seeking objective interpretation of the week's events without doing the work, there is always www.RightinSanFrancisco.com. 

                         -----

   In keeping with today's theme, here's Charlie Rangel offended that an MSNBC reporter (Tim Russert's son) would ask him real questions.  With any luck for the Republicans, the country will get to spend a good piece of the campaign season watching Nancy's swamp get drained. 

bill bowen - 7/29/10

Entrepreneurs: Hunkering Down

   One way to think about why there is anemic jobs creation while the economy has started to grow and company earnings are good is to look at the entrepreneurial class, as opposed to the large international corporations who have recovered from the Great Recession, and the "working class" who are accustomed to taking what The System gives them, or doesn't.    

The "entrepreneurial class" manages people, real estate, farms, small businesses, and investment portfolios. They figure out the rules, assess risk and reward, and make decisions about how to deploy their resources. They trust their judgment and believe that their decisions have a significant affect on outcomes. With Pelosi declaring that the Democrats needed to pass the health care bill to find out what was in it, and Chris Dodd admitting that we won't know the result of the financial regulation bill for years, those who must figure it out are screwed.

- For the shop owner or restaurateur, how long will customer demand be down; how should they deal with health care - their employees' and their own; will the bank pull the line of credit; what if the landlord goes under; which taxes will go up, and how much; how about undocumented workers?

-  For the farmer, will financial reform affect their ability to hedge crop and fuel prices; should he buy a new tractor; will the bank advance funds for the next planting season; what about his seasonal labor?

- For the small banker, how much will capitalization requirements increase; how much will FDIC fees increase; how will definitions and disclosure regulations change; will consumer credit become unprofitable; how will his borrowers be affected by changes in energy policy; when will the commercial real estate market turn? 

-  For the investor or retiree, what rate of inflation should he assume; what will capital gains, dividend, and estate tax rates be; what will happen to Medicare and Social Security; can he afford to contribute to college funds for kids and grandkids?

The natural response to waves of undefined change for the millions of people who make the decisions that drive the economy is to hunker down. For the disconnected politicians, it is to consider the job done when the 2000 page bill is passed. Let the bureaucrats write the implementing regulations, and move on to find the next apple cart to overturn - energy; immigration; whatever. Small wonder when the Obama administration has the smallest number of people with private sector experience (except lawyers) of any in the last century. This is why nobody is hiring in Obama's America.  

It is no surprise that countries are doing fine where the business managers know the rules - China; India; Brazil; Canada; Germany; Turkey. We will eventually recover, but not until much of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid legislation has been modified, the regulations have been litigated, and the managers know where they stand. Fortunately, we are an adaptive nation, blessed with leadership in technology and higher education in a century that will be dominated by technology and knowledge. Unfortunately, it will take years to undo the damage and let the entrepreneurs make informed decisions.  

-----

We don't normally endorse commercial products, but this You Tube submission by reader Themis Michos calls for an exception.

bill bowen - 7/23/10

The Race Card

Today's posting will entail a bit of risk, given the number of liberals who enjoy branding conservatives as "racist". But, I think some perspective is helpful in understanding what is going on in Arizona.

While there are many ways to categorize the electorate - geographic; religious; class; education; economic/social/security orientation - one of the most obvious is race. With the population being about 65% white, 13% African-American, 15% Hispanic, and 5% Asian, the Democratic Party calculation is that they need 40% of the white vote, 90 % of the African-American vote, and 60% of the other minority vote.  (For perspective, Obama carried 43% of the white vote in 2008.)  

-  First, the Asians are evenly split, with the Koreans and Vietnamese tending Republican, the Japanese tending Democratic, and the Chinese split. The two politically prominent Indians, Bobby Jindal in Louisiana and Nikki Haley in South Carolina, are both Republicans.

   -  The African-American vote remains a solid 85 to 90% Democratic, despite Bush Administration examples such as Colin Powell and Condi Rice. A typical day's complaints by the likes of Elijah Cummings (Blacks not getting their share of Gulf cleanup jobs), Jesse Jackson (Lebron not being treated fairly), and Michelle Obama/the NCAA (racist Tea Party epithets) serve to keep this base in line with a message of victim-hood.   

- The Latinos are the swing group that needs to be energized if the Democrats are to have any hope of winning. While concentrated in the Southwest, they form meaningful blocs in Illinois, New York (Puerto Rican), Florida (Cuban), and many swing states, and, in the aggregate vote about 60% Democrat and 25% Republican.  Although 15% of the population, they make up only 9% of the eligible voter due to legal status and a large portion of children. 

So, how can they be turned into reliable, active Democrats for 2010 and beyond, as they were by Proposition 187 (no benefits for illegal immigrants) in California in 1994?

-  The benign answer is that Obama and Holder do see events through a racial prism, and think that efforts to seal the border are inherently unfair. Obama's knee-jerk reaction to the Professor Gates incident in 2009 probably reflected his true perspective. And with the public favoring the Arizona governor's effort by a two to one majority, the Democratic governors have highlighted the political downside of Obama's lawsuit.  He must be acting on principle, regardless of the consequences in this election, and doing what he thinks is right. (Right?)

-  The more cynical answer is that Obama has a difficult balancing act - energizing the Hispanics, while not alienating the white working-class base by pushing for comprehensive immigration reform which would legitimize millions of low wage workers at a time of 10% unemployment. In 2007, he had it both ways by publicly supporting the Bush/McCain/Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform effort, then torpedoing it by advocating toxic amendments -elimination of the guest worker program; prioritizing family relationships over skills and education.  Similarly, on behalf of white union leadership, his partisan Arizona lawsuit kills any chance of real immigration reform for now, while energizing the Hispanics, and perhaps helping his party in close Senate races in California, Colorado, and Nevada.  

In the longer run, the question is how soon the Hispanics move up the economic and social ladder, as have past immigrant groups. Democratic demagoguery aside, there are many aspects of the Republican perspective that appeal to Hispanics - they tend to be socially conservative and religious; they have a disproportionate number of children in school and few in the teachers unions; they disproportionately start small businesses (not working for large corporations); they disproportionately volunteer for the armed services. And like past immigrant groups, these are the people who have left their family and friends at home in search of opportunity.  Some of this will be reflected in California this year as Meg Whitman's millions help to support moderate Republican Abel Maldonado for lieutenant governor.  

The long term challenge is, of course, for the Republicans to find a way to stem the flow of illegals while welcoming the contribution of those who accept our laws. We were not far away in 2007. In the long run, the Republicans have more to gain than the Democrats.   

-----

This week's video is eloquent Senate testimony by an Army veteran speaking  about Elena Kagan's anti-recruitment policies at Harvard. With her replacing Judge Stevens, the Supreme Court will have no veterans and no Protestants. So much for "Red State America".

bill bowen - 7/16/10

America's Funk

For the first 225 years as a country we could do pretty much anything that we wanted. For the last decade we haven't been able to do much of anything. The liberal intelligentsia blames it on Bush and Obama's timidity; less than a third of the country thinks that we are on the "right track"; the political mood is "a pox on both their houses." What's up?

Well, it has become obvious that "Yes We Can" was a vacuous campaign slogan, particularly for somebody who had never done anything of note, and had never had the personnel and budget responsibilities of a governor or business owner. It is now obvious that he can't:

1. Provide the clarity that the private sector needs in order to get the economy and hiring going again - a long, muddled health care debate that turns the system upside down; a shorter, inconclusive energy debate that threatens huge costs to producers; a long financial regulation debate which does not deal with rating agencies, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, and (to a large extent) "too big to fail"; the impending (to be adjusted?) end of President Bush's tax cuts.  What he, Nancy, and Harry have delivered is a $787 billion omnibus stimulus grab bag that many economists would say has done little to stimulate the private sector.

 2. Exercise any financial constraint - compromising away any cost containment provisions in the health care legislation; proposing budgets that project unsustainable deficits for a decade; telling the G20 that he wants another round of spending before the party is over; watching our prime lender, China, call for the end of the dollar's reign as the world's reserve currency.

3. Provide for security - Iran and North Korea; the Mexican border; an objective-less Afghan War; meaningful interrogation of terrorists.  

4. Fix the gushing metaphor in the Gulf - or at least provide skimmers to gather up what cannot be prevented.

So, where can optimists who believe in America's "exceptionalism" look for hope?

1. The first Tuesday in November. It looks increasingly possible that Nancy Pelosi will be out of a job, and that the Democrats will have a narrow majority in the Senate. Hopefully, the Tea Party fiscal conservatives will have enough influence to prevent the Republicans from returning to their pattern of the last decade.

 2. The world's greatest economic engine. We are the unquestioned technology leader in a century which will be dominated by technology. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we are still the leader in manufacturing output, and the patent office granted twice as many patents in 2008 as in 1990. We have the world's most productive agriculture and the best universities. We sit on enough energy if we can get our act together. Ongoing productivity of 3% leads to profitable companies, structural unemployment of some 10%, and a social problem, but that is under our control if we choose. 

3. The political system is self-correcting - perhaps our greatest strength. Many states and communities are starting to require that public employees retirement ages, pensions, and health care contributions look more like the rest of us. Here in California we have taken redistricting away from the legislators and mandated open primaries to help centrist candidates. Now, if we can just do what the Canadians did in the 90's (see last week's posting), and demand that the politicians produce balanced budgets.

Many Democrats who prayed that President Bush would fail now criticize Republicans for wanting the same for President Obama. On many policies this is reasonable - suing Arizona; trying terrorists in civilian courts; spending to oblivion - but in the larger sense we should be hoping that, despite much evidence to the contrary,  he has learned something about management.

-----

And this week's You Tube - the Obama administration's plan to fix the "undocumented worker" problem in Arizona.

bill bowen - 7/2/10

Obama's Age of Aquarius

A number of my friends voted for Barack Obama anticipating the dawning of the Age of Aquarius  - some seeking friendlier inn operators during their annual vacation in Provence; others confusing being liked with having greater world influence. Lets see how that's going.

One good place to start in personal or geopolitical influence is with your friends. Some Obama examples:

-  Most obvious is Israel where the botched Gaza agitator/aid incident has received most publicity - and US condemnation. But a deeper statement of policy was acquiescence in the prior week's UN resolution condemning Israel's nuclear capability. This relationship has not been so strained in decades.

-  Second would be our "special relationship" with the United Kingdom. One can dismiss the administration's slighting of Gordon Brown in an early exchange of gifts and the removal of Winston Churchill's statue from the White House as newbie mistakes, or even the bashing of BP as necessary politics, but the recent lack of support on the UK's dispute with Argentina over the Falkland Islands was intentional and members of the new UK government now call the "special" relationship over. The UK has been, after all, our greatest supporter in Iraq and Afghanistan at great domestic political cost for the Labour Party. No need for any sensitivity.

The critical (and very difficult) efforts to marshall world opposition to the nuclear aspirations of North Korea and Iran has, thus far, been a failure.

-  Most recently, China has publicly rejected meeting with Secretary of Defense Gates, and has refused to condemn North Korea's sinking of a South Korean naval vessel. Almost unnoticed in the US, the prime minister of Japan (the world's second largest economy), put his country above himself and resigned rather than fulfill a campaign promise to evict a US Marine base from Okinawa. The locals understand how big a deal the North Korean problem is, and Obama is powerless to get Chinese help.

    -  Iran is worse. The UN has passed some weak resolutions, but Ahmadinijad apparently now has enough enriched uranium for two weapons. In a sign of the "new world order", Brazil and Turkey (a NATO member, recently spurned for European Union membership) have opposed any sanctions and offered their own nuclear fuel swap with Iran. (Add Turkey to that "friends" list.)

   Even the optimist has a hard time finding some positive result for Obama's different world view:

-  Leftist President Lula of Brazil has been gathering support for a Latin American Free Trade Area without the United States, while Obama and Congress will not sign Bush's free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. 

-  The Ukraine's recent decision to withdraw its application to join NATO reflects a reevaluation of US and Russian influence in Eastern Europe.

    -  Obama's Cairo speech of 2009 reflected regional optimism that a US president with a Muslim father and step-father would be a favorable force. Recent polls show that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Obama's apparent lack of interest in the Middle East (and Indonesia for that matter - with two canceled trips) have eroded whatever support there was.  

    -  Perhaps the Congressional Democrats' standing ovation for Mexican President Calderon's criticism of Arizona shows one example of closer agreement.

It is natural that a decline in American financial power will lead to a decline in military and political influence. However, the speed with which Obama is dissipating influence in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America is shocking.   

  -----

This week, a couple of related videos: Obama telling Michigan high school graduates not to play the blame game (while talking about the problems that he inherited), and looking for some "ass to kick" for George Bush's oil spill. The irony.

bill bowen - 6/11/2010

Obama's Katrina ?

Given the geography and the politics, there is an inevitable tendency to compare the Obama administration's handling of the Deepwater Horizon disaster with the Bush administration's handling of Hurrican Katrina in 2005.  While the advocates and apologists often line up Left/Right, the issue is not ideology - it is competence.   

Much of the critique of President Obama's handling of the ongoing crisis is about the communications strategy -whether he has been fully engaged (between fundraisers and vacations); whether he is adequately infuriated (in his detatched intellectual way); who speaks for the administration?  But, it is more meaningful to look at the substantive management issues - before the explosion, in efforts to plug the leak, and in efforts to protect the coast.

Prior actions:

1. Both settings had a history of corruption - the notorious Louisiana levee boards which had allowed the defenses of New Orleans to deteriorate; the Materials Management Service which had effectively abandoned its role in regulating drilling platforms.

2. Both administrations had appointed an unqualified supporter to lead a key agency - racing industry administrator "Brownie" at FEMA; Harvard lawyer/green activist Liz Birnbaum at the Materials Management Service. (Obama's press conference admission that he did not know how she had been fired is an eye-opener.)

Plugging the leak:

1. Particularly if there have not been prior exercises, chaos frequently accompanies disasters. Katrina had its flooding, its overwhelmed rescue facilities, and its abandoned hospitals.  Disaster preparations and decision making between BP, Transocean and the government were ineffectual at best - both before and immediately after. 

2. The root issue - the hurricane and stemming the oil flow - were uncontrollable. It would seem that the best minds are now engaged and that those in the industry are the most qualified to lead the shut down efforts. For the future, it would seem better to have an industry consortium with government oversight since the scope can be large, and there are less qualified operators than Transocean and BP.

3. Much as the daily videos of people stranded on rooftops in the 9th Ward fed the media appetite following Katrina, the real time video of gushing oil remains available 24/7 on BP's web site. I am not sure that we need either.

Protecting the coast:

1. Bush had to work through a Lousiana governor (since deposed) who refused to be woken up to address the problems and a New Orleans mayor (since deposed) who wanted his "chocolate city". While the federal/state/local issue was significant, it was clear that FEMA was in charge federally. Obama seems to be intimidated by a 1990 law which may give BP the lead responsibility for the environmental defense efforts. (One wonders how long it would take Congress to pass legislation temporarily giving authority to the federal government.) In the current disaster, somebody fired the head of the MMS, the Coast Guard on-scene coordinator has been changed, and  the leaders of Interior, Homeland Security, Justice, the EPA, and the White House Climate Change Czar have all been prominently involved.   

2. FEMA was slow to realize the magnitude of the hurricane, organize the response, and deliver housing and other supplies.  (Republican) Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal's request for sand berms to protect the coast were ignored for two weeks. A "do nothing" Army Corps of Engineers has been a problem in both events. And the MMS - Obama's FEMA - grants new drilling permits, then institutes a deep water moratorium, then extends the moratorium to shallow water, then seems to say that was a mistake.

3. The EPA apparently did a good job managing the subsequent health impact of Katrina. It is still unclear who - BP; the EPA - is making the decisions about the use of millions of gallons of chemical dispersants with their adverse impact on marine life.  

In the narrow sense, the Deepwater Horizon disaster has shown the incompetence of the "we'll keep our boot on BP's neck; criminal liability" Obama administration. (By the way, most of BP's 2008 contributions went to the Obama campaign.)  Taken together with Katrina, it raises further the public's skepticism about the government's ability to run the health care industry, car companies, insurance companies, mortgage finance companies, and whatever else may come down the pike.

But keep the faith, this will remain Obama's top priority - right up there with jobs, the Eurozone debt crisis, Israel's problems at the UN, Iran's nuclear weapon program, the Korean crisis, and everything else that is going so well for the leader of the Free World. 

----- 

For the 46% of voters who still "somewhat approve" of Obama's performance, here is his nomination speech where he intones with "profound humility" that the rise of the oceans has begun to slow and that the planet has begun to heal. Oops.

For those readers in California, please remember to support Tom Campbell for Senate in the June 8 Republican primary. And for those in San Francisco, John Dennis for Congress.

bill bowen - 6/4/10 

(Ayn) Rand Paul

Rand Paul is an opportunity and a trap - an opportunity because the country would benefit greatly from a nuanced discussion of the boundaries of big government; a trap because for the Republicans to win in November, the discussion must remain focused on the economy.

First, on the discussion. The forum will have to be the intellectual Charlie Rose show, not Rachel Maddow where Paul initially announced his candidacy and naively thought that he would get a friendly congratulations on his May 18 nomination victory.  Despite numerous statements of support for the totality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and denunciations of racism, his desire to talk about support for property rights became the story. The media and the Democrats will go for the jugular on snippets that can be made politically incorrect, one for ratings (where MSNBC is fighting for a quarter of Fox's audience) and the other for political gain.  Republican Senate whip Jon Kyle was correct that the 2 am college dormitory debates don't translate to Washington; on the other hand, that is part of the problem.  

For decades we have not been able to have a discussion about the trade-offs between two desirable, but conflicting objectives without advocacy for one being vilified as opposition to the other. In this case, Paul would have liked a discussion of the importance of property rights as well as the civil rights of minorities. In other discussions: the sanctity of life and a woman's personal freedom of choice; the right to privacy and the need for intelligent national security; national financial responsibility and military defense capabilities; support for student achievement and protection of teachers; constrained resources and Social Security commitments. If we are to find wise solutions to difficult problems, we cannot just complain about politicians who can't compromise, we need to be able to discuss the intersection of conflicting legitimate objectives.   

The Left's reaction to Rand Paul is reminiscent of Sarah Palin's reception. Certainly Paul's intellectual, libertarian strain of the Tea Party movement must be discredited and stamped out (by Democratic and Republican leaders alike) before the millions of likely supporters for smaller government get to hear what he is saying. But, somebody is reading the 500,000 copies of Ayn Rand's 1957 classic, Atlas Shrugged, that were sold last year.

As for the Republicans' 2010 focus, it must remain on the economy. The day belongs to the people with economic answers, like Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and, hopefully, Tom Campbell of California. Things like Rand Paul's libertarian ideology and the Arizona illegal immigrant controversy are important, but they give the Democrats a chance and to take the focus off of 10% unemployment, Obama's trillion dollar deficits and Greek-like $13,000,000,000,000 national debt, and the government's economic cluelessness - while riling up the African-American base and turning Hispanics toward the Democrats.  

Lets hope that Rand's advisers hold the discussion until December - and that he comes fully prepared.  

-----

This week's video is Joe Sestak's admission that he was offered a job in the Obama administration to withdraw from his ultimately successful Pennsylvania Democratic primary campaign against Arlen Specter. Don't hold your breath waiting for Eric Holder's justice department to investigate the illegal quid-pro-quo offer.

And Arizona's latest cute and substantive commercial about the illegal immigration law. The incompetents in this administration make such easy targets that it is almost unfair.

bill bowen - 5/28/10

Next Week: Obama's Katrina ?

The Greek Canary

What is perhaps most amazing is that it has taken over two years of global financial stress to cause Europe's disconnect between monetary policy (the common euro) and fiscal policy (national budgets) to come to light - questioning the viability of European economic union and providing a warning to America, if we will listen.

From Greece's perspective:

-  An economic shambles. Debt at 125 of GDP; a 12.4 % budget deficit; at least 30% tax cheats; phony government financial reporting; huge government unions; little going on in the private sector; because of the euro, unable to debase the currency to pay off debt or lower the cost of exports. With a long history of post-war communist and socialist governments, the outcome is fit for a Greek play, tragic flaws and all.   

- The 1992 Maastricht Treaty which established the euro-zone theoretically requires countries to hold deficits to 3% of GDP and accumulated debt to no more than 60% of GDP. (All participants have exemptions, but Greece is the worst.) Despite riot-inducing budget cuts, a draconian plan to increase the retirement age to 63, tax increases to include a 40% rate, and a temporary ability to borrow at European interest rates, most economists have a hard time seeing how Greece can grow out of its abyss.  

From Europe's perspective:

-  While Greece is but 2.5% of the euro-zone, the national debt of $375 billion greatly exceeds any prior International Monetary Fund bailout. There is every reason to fear contagion to include at least Spain, Portugal, and Ireland - and to the German, Swiss, and French banks which hold much of the debt. While Germany has caved in to the creation of a $640 billion fund and the IMF is putting up $320 billion, the Germans see this as a stop gap, worth perhaps three years.

-  More broadly, the common currency reflects the half-century dream of France and others for a united Europe - militarily, foreign policy, monetarily - capable of balancing the United States. Germany bought in due to European fears at the time of the integration of East and West Germany in 1990, and has prospered with their fiscal conservatism and productivity. But, the alliance is strained - Germans do not want a politicized European central bank buying Greek debt, and Angela Merkel's party is already paying a political price for bailing out the "too big to fail" Greeks. Many think that the solution is temporary.

  From America's perspective:  

- In the short term, the Greek impact is mostly one of financial markets, with a falling euro, concern about a stalled European financial recovery as countries move from stimulus to debt repayment, reduced demand for US exports, and reduced earnings from European divisions of US companies. The pressure that President Obama put on Merkel to go along with the bail out fund and the American contribution of some $50 billion to the IMF effort have received little attention.

- In the long run, it should be noted that the US budget deficit is 12.4% with no plan to get it into the 3% range, that the accumulated US debt is passing the European 60 % maximum, and that the credit default swaps markets are flashing a warning that California is now in the top 10 of likely governmental defaults (despite it being illegal.)  

 So, a daring prediction: efforts will shift to minimizing the damage from evicting the Greeks (and perhaps some other Club Med countries) from the euro zone - perhaps sooner than later. Global markets beware.  

-----

This week's video is one example of establishment-anointed Connecticut Democratic senatorial candidate Richard Blumenthal's false claim that he served in Vietnam when he, in fact, obtained 5 deferrals before joining a safe reserve unit. In an age of anti-establishment political rage, he will apparently face Republican Linda McMahon(CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment) in November - whose investigators found the story missed by the Hartford Courant, the New York Times, and all other media outlets over a period of years. Bring it on.

And my continuing endorsement of Tom Campbell for Senate in the June 8 California  Republican primary - the proven fiscal conservative.  

bill bowen - 5/21/10

Next week: Rand Paul  

Channeling Anger

Why are so many people angry - Tea Party people, liberal and conservative media hosts, Senators, me - when, for most of us, life is good and we know that it makes us less fun to be with?  

First, fear is a rational emotion when faced with waves of incomprehensible change that Obama's acolytes may believe in, but most of us don't understand - joblessness (initially not his fault, but also not a priority), a scrambled health care system, pending inflation (destroying retirement plans), wild stock market fluctuations, and reduced liberty (due to terrorism and an expanded socialist government.) And that's before scrambling the energy system, the immigration system, and the tax system and moving on to nuclear disarmament and a more equitable world order.  

Fear plus powerlessness leads to anger. The ineptitude of the Republican Party has gotten us to the point where self-identified conservatives outnumber liberals two-to-one, but the liberals control the government. And a year of highly public congressional efforts at health care and financial reform have demonstrated that this is definitely not government "of the people, by the people, for the people."  Any health care cost containment gets shredded by deals to buy support for universal health care coverage; and the bipartisan power of Wall Street money...! 

So, should we just go out and work on our golf game as a psychiatrist friend of mine suggests?  Maybe after November, if the public cannot channel its anger into political change that we can believe in. First, lets find some candidates that we can vote for, not just against.   

 In sifting through California candidates, I've found a moderate Republican advocacy group that does not believe the Tea Party movement is real; a prominent Democratic state senator who doesn't care that his constituents are angry, just that he has low name recognition; a leading Republican gubernatorial candidate who is clearly from the privileged class and doesn't seem to understand what government "by the people" means; and a bunch of other undeserving riff-raff. I've enjoyed being with the people in the Tea Party movement, and have good regard for Republican/Libertarian John Dennis who is running for Nancy Pelosi's seat - but his odds are about like buying a lottery ticket. (Beyond matching San Francisco's warped  ideology, Pelosi delivers billions in earmarks.)   

So, what does one do to get away from the negative?  Thank you Tom Campbell. While Campbell's even-money chance of beating Barbara Boxer would be incentive enough, the larger point is that you couldn't design a better senator - five term Congressman from Silicon Valley (named the most fiscally responsible member of Congress by the National Taxpayer's Union); Harvard Law; University of Chicago Economics PhD (under Milton Friedman); dean of the Cal Berkeley Business School; social moderate - a broadly qualified Senate counterpart for the House's Paul Ryan.  Californians who want to channel their anger in a positive direction can take a big step by supporting Campbell in the June 8 Republican primary. (The Republican primary is also open to the 20% of voters registered "Decline-to-State".) For the rest of the country who would like to defeat Barbara Boxer, money is welcome.

The risk is that our attention span is short. Last week's financial hearings become this week's oil spill, Times Square bomber, and Greek riots. Note to self: Stay focused. November 2. 

----- 

This week's video provides good perspective for those who have a hard time grasping Obama's budget.

Bill Bowen - 5/7/2010

The Test of Democracy

Joe Biden's claim that a successful conclusion of the Iraq War was one of the Obama administration's "greatest achievements", is a cause for concern - not because George Bush did the heavy lifting over the vociferous objections of Obama and Biden, but because it is not too late to screw it up.

The real test of democracy is not whether the public gets to vote on its rulers, it is whether those rulers are eventually willing to turn over power when those voters make a different choice. So, in Iraq we have President Maliki's party disqualifying opposition candidates and calling for a recount of a generally fair election, anti-American rabble rouser al-Sadr trying to find an opening for his pro-Iran faction, and the Sunni insurgents attempting a revived bombing campaign. Lets hope that Obama is still interested, and that there are some "facts of life" back room discussions going on - not "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory".

 In the US, we've had at least a couple of important lessons about power transfer.

- Many think that George Washington's greatest legacy is his retirement in in 1797, warning against the formation of political parties, foreign alliances, and public debt.  Many supporters wanted continued strong leadership in challenging times; others feared what John Adams might bring. Some 213 years later we can still thank him for the precedent.

-  When looking for the roots of the deep divisions in our current politics, one need go no further than Al Gore's 35-day challenge to the 2000 presidential election when, unlike Nixon in 1960, he put his substantial ego ahead of the country's need for a credible election. To this date, many of my Democratic friends will not acknowledge that Bush actually won - despite an objective recount of all of the Florida votes months later. In their minds, he was never their legitimate president.

It is both arrogant and naive to think that we can manage the process and result of elections in other countries - Iraq; Iran; Afghanistan; Pakistan.  When Obama jets off to Kabul to upbraid President Karzai, he should not be surprised to receive a rebuke that Afghans will manage Afghan elections (even corrupt ones) and if that is not OK, Karzai may even join the Taliban.  But, unlike Iraq, this is Obama's war and the credit or blame really does belong there.

The lessons for foreign policy - we need to understand our real core national interests and know who our friends are; we must understand our limits (including requirements for selecting leaders); and we need to have both friends and enemies understand the consequences of crossing us. Unfortunately the Administration's treatment of the UK, Israel, Germany and other traditional democratic allies makes these things very fuzzy in 2010.

-----

This week's video reflects a revision of my view on who Joe Biden has been trying to emulate. It is not comedian Steve Martin, but the last vice president from the Del-Mar-Va region - Spiro Agnew. (The juxtaposition with the Tea Partiers and past protesters is also interesting.)

bill bowen - 4/9/10

Health Care: A View From England

Well, the sun came up on the day after the great liberal health care victory and, at least over here in London where I am visiting, the birds are singing. The newspapers mix in a few columns about the vote numbers and the extension of coverage to 32 million uninsured (they don't seem to understand reconciliation and deeming) alongside the story about the most recent bombing in Pakistan and Angela Merkel's latest pronouncement on bailing out Greece.  Will the bill add cost, make companies less competitive, raise taxes on individuals, force people into inferior coverage, and reduce individual choice - of course. Will it be a major factor in the demise of America as a world power? Some reflections:

By chance, the United Kingdom is having a major election in May, and the ruling Labour party has published a new budget this week. So there are many snippets of information available about the state of things in this country which is probably closer to the United States than is any other European country - a reliable ally in Iraq and Afghanistan; the source of much of the philosophy in our Constitution; and a partner in what French President Sarkozy derisively calls "Anglo-Saxon capitalism".  

Some current factoids to show us how far we have to fall:

- The UK recently passed 50% of the Gross Domestic Product being in the public sector, as compared to 40% when Labour took over in 1997. We are about 41%.  

- The National Health Service is not only a universal public insurer, but it also runs the hospitals and employs the doctors.

- Some 3500 Sure Start centers for three and four year old children provide government child care and pre-school education.

- Most of the marvelous museums are free.

- Off hours bus transportation for Old Age Pensioners (above 60) is free. 

And, making the point that the masses will never be satiated, proposals in the Labour Party's manifesto for the May election:

-  A new network of publicly-owned People's Banks located in Post Offices to break the monopoly of the private system - and funnel deposits to local pork-barrel projects.  (Japan has been struggling for over a decade to privatize a similar system.) 

-  A $2 billion pound, government run venture capital fund to start small "green" businesses that are not of interest to the private sector.

-  A large increase in the $8.70 minimum wage.

-  Free school meals for all.

-  A reduction of the voting age to 16.

- Creation of a new force of public employees providing home health care.

- etc. etc. etc.

- And, oh yes, higher health care taxes, especially on the rich.  

I have long wondered where the money comes from, with the decline of manufacturing, mining, and agriculture. (Specifically, there is a 50% income tax, a Value Added Tax, and a local Council Tax, but the question is broader.) Perhaps it is cheaper to live in the buildings built by the Tudors and drive tiny cars; perhaps the upper class has well invested the spoils of the lost empire; perhaps the current leaders of the Commonwealth do their banking in London. But it is encouraging that  even at this point in the drift to socialism, things can work. In contrast, it is clear that - even with ObamaCare - the US has by far the most vibrant economy in the developed world, and we shouldn't get too despondent.    

So, my advice to my fellow Republicans: The American people are optimists; they look forward; and they have a short attention span. On the health care debate, turn the page. A focus on Repeal will lose elections, but that does not mean that this is the end. A 2010 congressional campaign season built around the Health Care Fiscal Responsibility and Fairness Act of 2011 would sweep the field. Lets get working on that. 

-----

Joe Biden is always good for a You Tube. Here we have an Israeli snub of the vice president, as US influence in the area approaches a low ebb.  

bill bowen - 3/26/10

  

Reversible Error

What Tom Brokaw called The Greatest Generation built much of America's infrastructure after World War II, laying the ground for unprecedented prosperity and world power. The Boomer Generation spent it - along with all that they could borrow from their children. In pondering the challenge left for the next generation, it is important to understand what is reversible and what they will be stuck with. I'll give it a try.

First, a premise: America's political system allows ebbs and flows, and the current liberal government will pass - perhaps in 2010, perhaps in 2012, perhaps in 2016, but almost certainly not much longer. Much of what the Obama administration is doing offends conservatives and independents, but the focus should be on what cannot eventually be reversed.

    On national security:

-  The defense establishment is fine with Bob Gates' leadership. Reduction of nukes is a good idea, if the Russians can be brought along. Congressionally-mandated weapons systems are being cut back. The balance between conventional and special forces seems to be about right.

-  Eric Holder's attack on the intelligence community - prosecuting interrogators; taking terrorists out of the military/intelligence system -  will make us less safe for awhile, but not permanently;

-  In Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan things are getting better under Generals Petreus and McChrystal. Inability to deal with Iran will probably leave the greatest permanent damage. Obama's weakness does not help, but perhaps nothing short of an additional war would.

On Economics:

-  The risk of a government take-over of the insurance industry (single payer; public option) seems to have been averted. Obama's continuing objective of creating a trillion dollar entitlement (bigger even than Bush's unfunded prescription drug entitlement) could probably not be reversed if passed. The other health care stuff is comparatively tactical and can be fixed, and look for the "Health Care Fairness Act of 2011" to correct most of the corruption that Obama and Harry Reid have put into their ugly legislation.  

-  Trillion dollar budget shortfalls (11% of GDP compared to a "sustainable" 3%) with the cumulative deficit rapidly approaching 100% of GDP is the 1000 pound gorilla. Whatever spending cuts can be made, the pending tax increases (income tax rates; capital gains; dividends; businesses; inheritance) are just the leading edge. It is hard to see how the growth of government can be reversed - and it must eventually be fed.

-  With "Cap and Trade" a non-starter now, the EPA can do what it will to punish CO2 generation, but what can be done by executive department edict can be undone the same way.  

- The next president will have a marvelous opportunity at privatization - General Motors; Chrysler; GMAC; AIG; major bank positions; Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac; the student loan system; and whatever else the Democrats grab in the next few years.  

On Social Issues:

-  Immigration is perhaps the next big battle. With 10 to 15 million Democratic-leaning illegal immigrant voters available, Obama will undoubtedly seek an irreversible change to the political balance. With 10% unemployment and a rebellious middle class, this battle may be as big as the health care fight. 

-  The impending overturning of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will be irreversible and  forgotten before long.

Net, net - our kids will need to deal with a new round of Iran-inspired nuclear proliferation and significantly less discretionary (after tax) personal income. With the Democrats digging as fast as they can, November cannot come soon enough.  

And for our kids - thanks for the ride.

-----

This week's You Tube is a short segment of Wisconsin's Representative Paul Ryan (R) at the health care summit, demonstrating his control of the facts and the philosophy.

bill bowen - 3/5/10 

Hope, Nebraska Style

The end of 2009 had to be the most dispiriting time ever for those who follow politics and economics.  After hundreds of billions in bailouts, the financial industry pranced off with billions in bonuses and no regulatory reform - protected by tax-cheat Tim Geithner, Fannie/Freddie overseer Barney Frank, and the discredited Chris Dodd. And a year of health care debate has shown an indifference to public opinion, escalating deficits, and unbounded Congressional corruption. And that's before the airline security fiasco. About a third of the public thinks that the country is on the "right track".  Oy vey.  

Some of the dejection comes from the demeaning of icons - the Nobel Peace Prize transformed from recognition of such leaders as Nelson Mandela and Mother Teresa to a statement of encouragement for the liberal policies of Barack Obama; and the entire concept of empirical science easily put aside to serve the politics of global warming. At least baseball didn't have another gambler Peter Rose or a new steroids scandal.

Then the Senate health care corruption. A colleague and I frequently debated whether legislators should be guided by the wishes of their constituents, their consciences, or their party. At least in the halls of the US Senate, with a majority of Americans opposing Harry Reid's stealth bill, not a single vote was controlled by constituents or by conscience. And the public was shown the greatest orgy of bribery and vote buying in a lifetime. And as for the Obama and Pelosi promises of transparency - forget it, this is too important for the citizens to see the sausage made.

And Copenhagen - which the head of Greenpeace called a "crime scene".  The major unreported headline is not that Hugo Chavez received a rousing ovation from the 193 participating nations for his oration on the demise of capitalism, Hillary's specifically unauthorized commitment for the US to lead a $100 billion per year slush fund for underprivileged nations, or the snowball fight among the outside protesters. No, the big news is that Chinese President Wen Jiabao refused to meet with Obama on at least two occasions, and that Obama was upset, sarcastically asking "Are you ready now?", when he arrived uninvited at the unscheduled working group meeting of India, China, Brazil, and South Africa which actually developed the later-accepted "accord".  So much for the liberal elites of the western world.   

But the biggest loss is Obama's credibility with the American public and world leaders.  The Cuban delegation's "Obama lies" press conference in Copenhagen mirrors Joe Wilson's September outburst, and states the obvious. Perhaps the claim that we could pay for 30 million uninsured without raising middle class taxes or costs, or that we could take $400 billion out of Medicare without reducing services could be accepted by the American media as high-end political hyperbole. But as he gets down to specifics - "the Reid bill includes all of the ideas on cost reduction" (except tort reform, negotiations with pharma companies, selling health insurance across state lines); this bill (adding apples and oranges) "won't add one dime to the deficit"  - it smells more and more like deliberate knowing falsehoods.  Those who voted for Abe Lincoln got the Daly machine. Even the New York Times is now recognizing that Obama's promises of reduced deficits and huge expansion of federal health care spending with no tax impact on the middle class is nonsense.

Then, at the nadir, enter the people of Nebraska. When Ben Nelson sold his 60th vote for a bag of silver for Nebraska, his popularity plunged among his constituents to a 61%-30% deficit. What many on the coasts don't understand is that the people of Nebraska want fairness, limited government, respect for religion, and self-reliance, not to be associated with the corruption of Louisiana. Fortunately, the people of Kansas City get it, as do those in Evansville, Modesto, Colorado Springs, Buffalo, Panama City, and a thousand other places where they are organizing tea parties and preparing for a political revolution.   

-----

Thanks this week go to Scott Bowen who forwarded this video by John Coleman, the founder of the weather channel, who presents a persuasive argument to go slow in destroying our economy to prevent global warming.  

In the past few weeks there have been unusual mid-week spikes in viewer-ship of www.RightinSanFrancisco.com, perhaps caused by readers tweeting the site to their friends or forwarding it more conventionally. If this is you, thanks and keep it up.

bill bowen - 1/8/2010   

Favorites: 
    1. Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America" PAC web site. 
    2. Tom Campbell's California governor campaign web site   

The Afghan Surgelet

I must confess that the clever "surgelet" title belongs to George Will in his overly pessimistic reaction to President Obama's December 1, speech at West Point. My general premise that the region should be looked at from the perspective of Pakistan rather than Afghanistan is contained in my March 20 blog. (See archives to the right.) As much discussion as there has been of Obama's third Afghan strategy - one for the campaign; one in March when he appointed General Chrystal; one now - most observers seem to have missed important points.

First on the substance:

1. Relative to Afghanistan: We can succeed if the objectives are limited. If we need to purge governments of corruption, we should start in Louisiana, New Jersey, or Chicago. If we need to stop the flow of drugs, we should focus on Mexico and Columbia. Schools? - we can start here in California. If we just want to deny a safe haven to al Queda, we can do that with a secure government in Kabul which allows us to "search and destroy" as necessary.

2. Relative to Pakistan: I hear pundits talking about how we need to convince the Rawalpindi government of the seriousness of the need to engage the fundamentalists. They have had two prime ministers assassinated and suffer frequent suicide bombings of civilian targets and military headquarters. They get it. What they don't need - and which our media and politicians regularly give them - is embarrassing calls for governmental change attached to aid agreements, publicized discussions about violations of their sovereignty with drone attacks, and discussions about cooperative plans to secure their nuclear weapons in the event of Taliban attacks. We have been on Pakistan's side since the Cold War (when the Russians picked India); their military leaders have attended American schools; they use American military aircraft. Vagueness is necessary for internal Pakistani sensitivities - and a strategy of pushing the terrorists across the border into Pakistan makes no sense.  

3. Relative to Iraq: It is good to hear the grudging realization that the Petreus/McCain surge worked there and that the strategy of isolating extremists who abuse the population is to be copied. In a way, Iraq was harder with the Sunni/Shiite division, and the prospect of Arabs from throughout the Middle East coming for their chance at Eternity. The Afghan problem is Pashtun and largely limited to the South and East. Even there, there are not many folks wanting to die to help al Queda. (Again, limited objectives.)

4. Relative to Vietnam: (I served there in 1967-68, and worked on Southeast Asia stuff at the Pentagon in 1970-72.) Some justify the Afghanistan mission as a result of "but they attacked us and the Vietnamese never could", but it wasn't the Afghans who attacked us and al Queda could just as easily move to Yemen or Somalia.  Ironically, the true risk becomes one of a "domino theory", with failure in Afghanistan leading to disaster in nuclear-armed Pakistan.  

5. Relative to the Budget: An annual "all-in" cost for Afghanistan and Iraq since 9/11 has been about $940 billion. If we are to criticize the environmental crazies for not caring about the cost of their ideology, the Bush-era practice of carrying the cost of the Iraq War "off budget" should be avoided, and there should be a debate about guns, butter, and taxes. (Overall, we spend about 4 % of GDP for defence and 17% for health care.)

And on the politics:

1. There is little risk in the "begin withdrawal" date of July 2011. Aside from the Gates/Clinton/Jones tour to calm frayed nerves in the region and in the military, there is no way that Obama will create a Dunkirk-like collapse of his war a year before his reelection bid.

2. The New York Times had an excellent, long article on the White House's deliberations, which had two messages - there are more leaks than discussions, and the law professor asks a lot of good questions, but doesn't know how to bring it to a decision. Why he excluded General McChrystal from the discussions is anybody's guess.

3. Chris Matthews spoke from the heart for many on the Left when he called West Point the "enemy camp."  These intelligent, educated, disciplined young patriots signed up well into the Iraq War and know what service awaits them. To many on the Left, this is unfathomable.

-----

Instead of a You Tube, this week's humor comes from a conference on governmental transparency put on by the new Office of Government Information Services. George Orwell would be delighted; the Daily Show should be. The conference at the Commerce Department was closed to the public and the media.

bill bowen - 12/11/2009

Favorites: 
    1. Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America" PAC web site. 
    2. Tom Campbell's California governor campaign web site

Global Dithering

    Global leadership requires four elements: vision; capacity; skill; and resolve. One can reasonably argue that George W. Bush had the vision (spreading democracy as an antidote to Muslim fanaticism), capacity (the strongest economy and military), and resolve (the Iraq War; the East European missile shield), but suffered from a lack of skill (overbearing approach). Conversely, Obama's apparent idealistic Wilsonian vision of a lesser American role in the world is blurry, our economic capacity is reduced, the leader's inexperience (or perhaps naivete) is apparent, and dithering is a predominant feature. A quick survey:

1. Afghanistan: His appointed general provided recommendations to implement March's  "carefully crafted" counterinsurgency strategy on August 30. Nearly four months later we have nothing, our enemies are emboldened, and our NATO allies are becoming restive as they have bought into General McChrystal's recommendations.

2. Iraq: The Bush / Maliki strategy for US withdrawal continues on the pace that Obama inherited, the Iraqis have settled their election law issues, and ongoing incidents of violence do not appear likely to derail the process. We have the first significant functioning Arab democracy. No change is a good thing.

3. Pakistan: The most dangerous country in South Asia has undertaken an aggressive stance against al Queda and the Taliban in the face of rising carnage in their cities. Clumsy and offensive American conditions attached to a  $7.5 billion aid package -and Secretary of State Clinton's criticism for nor being more focused on al Queda - seem designed to paint President Zardari as an ineffective American stooge.

 4. Iran: Cancellation of the Eastern European missile shield was intended to buy Russia's good will and support for a plan to ensure that Iran's nuclear program was limited to peaceful purposes. Forget that! Likewise, the dance about Iran sending their nuclear materials to France or Russia for peaceful purpose upgrade - a temporary illusion. The policy - talk for talk's sake.  

5. North Korea: Nuclear and missile tests continue with nary a sideways glance as Obama's special envoy prepares to open bilateral discussions. At risk - the Bush policy of Six Party Talks with China in a major role.

6. Israel/Palestine: The graveyard where all good diplomats go to die. One can fault Obama/Hillary for tilting toward Israel in the latest round (which resulted in the announced retirement of Palestinian Authority President Abbas), but a peaceful "two state" solution has eluded the best diplomats for decades.

7. Honduras: We find ourselves on the side of Castro and Hugo Chavez in this battle between the Honduran Supreme Court and Legislature in their confrontation with a leftist president who tried to overthrow the constitutional provision for term limits. A recent agreement for November 29 elections would seem to overcome the Obama administration's demand that President Zelaya be reinstated.

8. Norway. Ah yes, the Nobel Peace Prize for which nominations were submitted within three weeks of Obama's inauguration.

   As Woodrow Wilson found in the 20s, it is a dangerous world and good intentions are not enough. It was initially hoped that Joe Biden (Senate Foreign Relations chair), Hillary (Bill's global legacy), and the plethora of special envoys (Richard Holbrooke in Afghanistan/Pakistan, George Mitchell in the Middle East, Stephen Bosworth in Korea) would bring experience to an effective foreign policy. Instead, the plan to delegate foreign hot spots to a team of experts from the past has captured some good will, but is accompanied by a decline in influence.

    -----

This week's You Tube is for all of the Gladys Knight fans - a parody, and the original.  

bill bowen - 11/13/09

Favorites: 
    1. Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America" PAC web site. 
    2. Tom Campbell's California governor campaign web site

The Olympic Metaphor

    He came, he saw, he gave a speech.  (My apologies to Julius Caesar.) The international community liked him personally. He departed and left not a ripple. Is this a "teachable moment?" 

   Much more broadly, the question more frequently addressed in the British press than the American is "what is the role of the United States in the 21st century?" While we have been fixated on Islamic terrorists and health care, the world order established after World War II is rapidly changing - and we are being quietly taken along for the ride. Some examples:

    1. Our current and future deficits have led to calls for replacement of the US dollar as the international reserve currency, most recently by the UN and perhaps by the oil producing countries.  In the future, countries with excess funds will not by default invest them in US dollars, and a periodic "flight to safety" will not mean buying US assets. Borrowing to cover out deficits will be much more difficult. Estimates vary on the timetable, with many believing that this will formally occur within a few years. 

2. The Group of Seven Industrialized Nations (G-7) has been formally expanded to include major developing countries in the form of the G-20. This is currently unfolding, but it appears as if the International Monetary Fund is to become the administrative arm of the G-20 - something of a global "central bank".  It should be no surprise that the 2016 Olympics went to one of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China), rather than the "old regime" United States.

3. Low level calls continue for reform of the United Nations - particularly the Security Council where the WW II victors have a dominant position to the exclusion of Germany, Japan, India, and a majority of the world's population. While such a change may be logical, it would not seem to make international peace keeping any easier.

4. Within the past week, our government has given up its contract with ICANN, the governing body for the US - developed internet, with the intent that it come under the guidance of an international organization. Among the implications are a reduction in the preeminence of English in deference to Mandarin, Arabic, and other languages and potentially a greater degree of censorship and government control.

5. With Ireland's vote for the "Lisbon Treaty" to strengthen the European Union, Europe has taken a large step toward having a president and a common foreign policy. Japan has voted for a center-left government for the first time in 50 years with unknown results. In a short time, we may not recognize our major allies.  

   There is no question that the period of American unchallenged dominance after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 is an aberration in global history, and that we will play a different role in the more pluralistic 21st Century world. But what is that role?  And how much influence will we have in shaping it? Much will depend on the vision, interests, and managerial competence of President Obama.

   What is the vision of the young man with a father from Kenya, a step-father from Indonesia, and a long-term ex-patriot mother?  He does not share the thousand little stories from history, literature, the arts, religion, and sports that make up the American mosaic - Washington's cherry tree; the "good Samaritan"; the landing at Normandy.  One must hope that the alternate stories offered by Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers did not take root. It is unlikely that either John McCain or Sarah Palin - who shared the roots of most of us - could articulate a clear 21st Century vision. They do understand, however, (as do most of the "Town Hall folks") that the Unites States of America is the greatest country on earth in terms of economic, political, and military power; democracy; ethnic, cultural, and religious diversity; generosity; and individual liberty and opportunity. One can only hope that Obama sees this as the basis for defining our world role going forward.  

  And the managerial competence? Hopefully the Olympic experience will help Obama understand that it isn't all about him (see George Will's column) , and that there is a large difference between popularity and leadership.

    -----

This week's You Tubeis a humorous, if premature, dirge for ObamaCare.

bill bowen - 10/9/09

Favorites: 
    1. Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America" PAC web site. 
    2. Tom Campbell's California governor campaign web site.

A Health Care Mulligan?

  It is probably wishful thinking (for both sides) that we could get a re-do of the health care debate. After all of the rancor, the liberals will apparently not get what they want with the Baucus Bill, and the conservatives will oppose it en masse. This effort's predictable lack of vision comes from the rushed political process without presidential leadership. There is no master plan to move from an employer-based system to one based on either the individual or the government. There is no strategy to move from a payment system based on specific treatments to one based on keeping people well. Sometimes it is best that a compromise satisfies neither party; not this time.

   Most Americans are satisfied with their own health care coverage. They would agree however, on three problems - it is too costly individually and for the country; there are too many people who do not have coverage; and the administration is too complex. Most voters now oppose the bill, feeling that the current proposals will deal with the second problem, but at the expense of the first.

  Much of the debate has centered on the "public option", which is portrayed as a way of dealing with the cost issue since it will bring more competition to the insurance industry. Many of the "public option" advocates would really like a "single payer" system where the federal government manages all health care insurance, but recognize that they do not have the political support for that proposition, and hope, like Obama and Barney Frank,  that it is a step in their direction.  There are three general arguments against the "public option" and it's extension to "single payer":

    1. As a basic consideration, conservatives prefer that services be provided by the private sector, believing that market forces drive innovation, customer service, and cost containment. The point was made unintentionally by Obama who, in arguing that the "public option" wouldn't drive out private insurers, spoke of UPS and Fed Ex as doing just fine while competing with the  Post Office which has "all of the problems". We have all sat in a DMV office.   

    2. Political forces make it impossible for a government provider to control costs by limiting benefits.  On a national basis, this has been demonstrated by Medicare (loved by doctors and patients, but going broke within eight years), and by the experience in Massachusetts where there remains considerable pressure to increase state subsidies, despite government costs being substantially above projections,and insurance rates - already the highest in the country - increasing at double digit rates. There is no limit to what can be required - dental; mental health; Viagra. And there is no stomach to give the recipients of government programs less than "the rich".  It is also a cruel fact that requiring equal coverage and premiums for everybody, regardless of "preconditions" and life style decisions does raise the cost which must be covered somehow. (That is the error of Olympia Snowe's "trigger option - rates will go up substantially, as they did in Massachusetts, and the "public option would be imposed.)

   3. While the government is not capable of rationing health care - the emotional "death panel" discussion; Medicare and Medicaid - individuals can, by determining what structure of insurance plan to purchase, and what non-covered expenses they choose to incur.  The only real solution to costs is to align the benefit recipient with the payment. That does not make us all equal in terms of health care, but society could only afford that at the lowest common denominator.  

    What is disappointing is that the Republican Party has largely been the "Party of No", without offering coherent alternatives.  Those should fall into two categories politically:

  1. Those that most everybody would agree with - ability to buy insurance across state lines (and thus escape the lobbyist-induced policy requirements); tort reform to reduce the cost of lawsuits, doctors' insurance, and preventive medicine; ability of the government to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies and equipment providers; a large investment in information technology; greater use of nurse practitioners and clinics; and elimination of a financial interest for doctors to order tests.   

  2. Those that would appeal to most Republicans and independents - a basic catastrophic insurance plan for all legal residents, subsidized for the truly poor; a few standard templates to facilitate shopping among companies for the rest of us;  restrictions on expenditures by medical providers for lobbying and advertising; and Medicare reform. Perhaps most important would be a gradual shift away from employer-based policies to private "health care accounts", a move that would help restore business' competitive global advantage, and reflect the current mobile work force. Couple that with a personal responsibility for "wellness", and you would have a winner.

   Aside from the government run insurance plans, most of the rest of what is being discussed can be reversed in the inevitable Phase II.  But a more open and reasoned approach would surely have saved a lot of national anguish.

   -----

This week's You Tube, which captures the optimism of the tea parties and town hall meetings, comes from a friend in Massachusetts.

bill bowen - 9/30/09

Favorites: 
    1. Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America" PAC web site. 
    2. Tom Campbell's California governor campaign web site.

Obama's Global Retreat

   For the last 28 years, with the support of American presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush, Western Europe has been expanding to the East with the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, and the Warsaw Pact, the addition of a dozen countries to the European Union, and a similar dozen to NATO. Some 100 million people that had previously taken their direction from Moscow chose democracy and economic integration with the West.  There were key symbolic events - Lech Walesa and Solidarity's uprising in Poland in 1980; the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 - and each country chose its own path. Several - notably Belarus, and several central Asian republics  - chose to remain centered on Russia while most central Europeans sought the economic and military security of alignment with the United States and our European allies.  

   Until Barack Obama became president. When he announced a reversal of President Bush's plan for a missile shield based in Poland and the Czech Republic, there was apparently no quid pro quo, and no engagement with these countries or our NATO allies in the decision. Secretary of Defense Gates has written about the military rationale for changing strategies, but that ignores the political implications for the East Europeans who cast their lot with the West despite Moscow's protestations and threats to withhold natural gas and oil. The choice of September 17, for the announcement - the day that Russia invaded Poland at the start of World War II - can be attributed to ignorance or arrogance. Hopefully it was no more deliberate than that.

   The reversal in Afghanistan seems to be in progress.  Obama's statement in March (when he committed to 21,000 more troops and a new commander)  that he had a “a stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy” to win the  "necessary war" which Bush had ignored, is now being replaced with deferral of newly-appointed General McCrystal's request for additional troops until there is a viable strategy.  So much for the Afghans who have put their families at risk as they rallied to American leadership.

   So, how does this look from Tel Aviv or other capitals where governments have traditionally looked to the United States for support and protection?  "Change" is obviously global. If you are trying to figure out who you can depend on and  you are a long time ally in Columbia or Honduras, Pakistan or Taiwan, it is necessary to re-write your strategic plan.

   One corner of the world that has received little attention, but which is facing its own "hope and change" agenda is Japan. For the first time since World War II, Japan's center-right government has given way to a center-left coalition with the likelihood of questioning many of our mutual assumptions relative to bases on Okinawa, benign currency and trade policies, and our role as their nuclear protector from North Korea, China and Russia.  Hopefully, the Hatoyama administration will remain more reliable than the Obama administration.

   One Obama-friendly British paper, The Guardian, has expressed a growing anxiety:

    "Unless Barack Obama is able to demonstrate a better level of political skill than he has shown so far, everyone needs to fasten their seat belts. The world is about to enter a challenging phase where the US – the undisputed leader of the free world for the past 60 years – is going to rapidly cede its place at the head of the line."  Based on his speech at the United Nations and the anticipated announcements from the G-20 meeting in Pittsburg, Obama will be leading the shift.

  Perhaps we need a global tea party.   

   -----

    This week's You Tube answers the question asked several weeks ago, "Where in the World is Hillary Clinton?"

Bill Bowen - 9/25/09

Favorites: 
    1. Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America" PAC web site. 
    2. Tom Campbell's California governor campaign web site.

Walking Stickly

    Eon's ago, back when I worked at the Pentagon and the dinosaurs roamed the earth, there was a major who worked in the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who had a sign on his desk, "The Nixon Doctrine: Walk Stickly and Carry a Big Soft."  I thought him to be a bit of a hawk, but the twist on Teddy Roosevelt's slogan has stayed with me.

   The central thrust of Barack Obama's foreign policy seems to be a push to be better liked around the world, with the assumption that other countries will then act in a way that is more in line with our view of what is good in the international community. Unfortunately, there is plenty of developing evidence that the leading country in the world needs to have the stick in evidence. (Also, with school starting, it is good to reflect on the wisdom that teachers should not start the year by trying to be friends with the students.)  Some examples:

1. North Korea. It is nice to have Al Gore's reporters back home; however, all evidence points to a continuation of efforts to develop and potentially export nuclear weapons, with no US response.

2. Iran. The voices for democratic reform have been silenced with no US response, the campaign offer to "meet without preconditions" has been rejected, and the nuclear program continues apace.

3. Israel/Palestine. The  Israeli government has re-invigorated the expansion of settlements in Palestinian territories - a blocking move for any peace process - with no US response.

4. China. China continues its call to establish an international reserve currency to replace the dollar - and now a United Nations Conference has echoed the call, with no US response.   (That is, no US response other than expanding trillion dollar deficits as we lose our global financial leadership.) 

5. Scotland. With the fig leaf of Scottish independence, the UK government has released a convicted Lockerbie bomber in exchange for commercial considerations, with no US response.

7. Pakistan. The Pakistani government has released nuclear proliferator AQ Khan, with no US response. 

8. Afghanistan. For whatever reasons Obama has chosen to make this his war; the only country to offer meaningful military support is the United Kingdom.  In the absence of US leadership, France, Germany, and the UK have called for an international conference as a step toward an exit strategy - bypassing the US and NATO.  

   I am sure that there is a positive benefit of the "charm offensive", but I cannot help but reflect back on Major Reynolds' desk top slogan.  Internationally the Community Organizer in Chief has yet to identify any "must succeed" objectives (other than the impossible Afghanistan adventure), and demand the cooperation of our allies.

   A year ago, Fareed Zakaria wrote a thoughtful essay in Foreign Affairs titled "Is America in Decline?", which concluded that the US could continue its world leadership role, "but only if it can overcome its political dysfunction and reorient US policy for a world defined by the rise of other powers."  That will not happen if being liked takes precedence over being respected.

   -----

   This week's You Tube is a portion of a speech by a Congresswoman from Los Angeles which explains why the vetting process did not exclude Van Jones from the Obama administration. He has company.

Also, a contribution by a loyal reader in Massachusetts.

Bill Bowen - 9/11/09

Favorites: 
    1. Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America" PAC web site. 
    2. Tom Campbell's California governor campaign web site.

Thoughts from London

    Each time that I visit London (this time for the successful birth of a grandson via the National Health Service) I am taken by two related questions - what makes this economy go? and, are there any lessons here for the US of A?  The answers are certainly more complex than the impression, but the impression is compelling.  

    The first thing to note is that there's not much going on here in terms of making stuff - manufacturing (down under 16% of GDP), agriculture (production equals 60 % of consumption), or mining (about 1% of GDP).  The common answer for several years has been "Financial Services", with London being the world's largest financial center.  My central premise is that the UK is living off of the residuals of the empire ... both in terms of a place where the elites of former colonies continue to invest, and in terms of having an infrastructure that can be gradually depleted over time - no wasting the country's treasure on McMansions and SUVs. Parallel to the US, the British benefit and suffer from a vibrant immigrant community - in their case from Eastern Europe (via the European Union), and South Asia. All is very comfortably similar - if 45% off of course.

    A few tidbits:

        -  The Labour Party of Tony Blair and Harold Brown has been in control since 1997, and is on its last legs with a general consensus that the Conservatives will take over in 2010's required elections. Issues include personal corruption of Members of Parliament, responsibility for Labour's part of the global financial crisis, neglect of the education system (the university system will be short some 50,000 spots this Fall) and a general tiredness with this gang of rascals. Republicans looking for some unifying themes might look to fiscal prudence, reflected in the British public's acceptance of the need to raise taxes as opposed to Obama's commitment to trillion dollar deficits.  

        -  The British Afghanistan discussion is not so much about the strategic rationale (the Brits have been there before), but rather competence ... inadequate personal armor; inadequate helicopter capabilities; continued top-level emphasis on aircraft carriers and fighter aircraft - like some of our discussions about Iraq a few years ago. The Brits are our most steadfast military ally, currently with 9000 troops in Afghanistan compared to our 62,000. The opposition Conservatives are steadfast in support of Labour's commitment.

        -  The Lockerbie bomber's release is a good example of how things can come out of left field. The United Kingdom has been moving toward a more decentralized government with Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland having more powers through a process called "devolution". My perspective: the UK deferred to Scotland; the Scottish government deferred to their justice minister; the minister wanted to put Scotland's authority on the map. In the background, there have been numerous discussions with Libyan and UK leaders about commercial (mostly oil and gas) connections, with the prisoner's release serving as a much-appreciated lubricant. The UK prime minister and the Scottish leadership found a conciliatory path with adequate "deni-ability" of a quid pro quo. Commerce trumps principle.

        - The papers here are full of defense of the National Health Service. While it is free to all legal residents, it does benefit from lower expectations. Babies are delivered by midwives (perhaps generally OK); there is minimal use of CAT scans, MRIs, hip replacements, and the like; and nursing care for the elderly has its critics.  The existence of a consumer-friendly set of performance standards is impressive - access to a health care professional within 24 hours or a doctor within 48; maximum of four hours in a waiting room; maximum of 62 days from referral to treatment for cancer; maximum of 18 weeks wait for a non-urgent operation; 95% of ambulance calls answered within 19 minutes; etc. (No lawsuits.)

    - And the miraculous Oyster Card - the pre-paid transportation pass that can be swiped on buses and subways. Imagine that in the Bay Area's 35 transportation agencies.

                                ------

   This week's You Tube seemed appropriate - British health care humor.

bill bowen - 8/28/09

 Favorites: 
    1. Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America" PAC web site. 
    2. Tom Campbell's California governor campaign web site.

         

    

Chamberlain v Kim

    When Joe Biden "guaranteed" in October that there would be a foreign crisis to test the mettle of a President Obama, he provided no specifics, and John McCain predicted that he would have the wrong response.  For the moment we seem to have evaded the collapse of the financial system, swine flu, and the retreat of the Pakistani government, leaving global warming for another day.  Enter Kim Jong-il, the Asian pillar of the Axis of Evil, with his erratic behavior seeking who knows what, and leaving little room for Obama to "meet with any world leader without preconditions" in search of "Peace in Our Time".   

    What we do know:

        -  Since Kim's father withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty in 1993, Presidents Clinton and Bush have tried everything- Six Party talks; Chinese leadership; US engagement; food and energy aid; a promise of nuclear energy assistance; non-aggression commitments; offers of a peace treaty ending the 1950's Korean war; olive branches from the South. It is not a question of finding better adjectives and adverbs.

        - North Korea, a country of 24 million,  has an Army of 1.2 million to go with its significant missile program, and the nuclear program which has achieved Hiroshima-sized explosions.  Although there is no evidence that they can deliver the bombs any distance at this point, that is not far away - at least relative to South Korea and Japan, two countries which have relied on the United States for defense, much to the relief of the remainder of Asia. Between the two allies, we have about 60,000 US troops to supplement the South Korean regular forces of some 520,000 army and 70,000 navy troops, and 600 aircraft.  This is not like the Wizard of Oz where the facade crumbles when confronted.

        -  The military has firm control, having displayed little concern during the famine of the 90's which killed between one and two million people. This satellite photo of the Korean Peninsula at night shows the state of affairs.

        -  Yongbyon, the center of the nuclear program, is too far from Tel Aviv to count on the Israeli's to clean up the mess. But the Iranians are watching the American response closely.

        -  The South Korean stock market is up 22% through May. What me worry?

   What we can assume:

        -  Smart people in diplomatic and military positions throughout East Asia are considering all alternatives. The North's nuclear and missile facilities could be destroyed with conventional weapons, but that leaves the million-man army concentrated along the DMZ, which is within 25 miles of Seoul, the South's thoroughly modern capital with over 10 million people. There is no good answer. 

        -  The hope has been that over time the next generation of leaders of the North would migrate toward the prosperity of the south, a la East Germany.  But Kim Jong-il replaced his father in 1994, and his 26-year old son, Kim Jong-un, is apparently being groomed to replace him with no change to the marriage between the military leadership and the Kim family business.  Neville Chamberlain would still bank on this path.

      -  My guess - the Obama administration will migrate from saying that a nuclear-armed North Korea is unacceptable, to saying that they cannot be allowed to export nukes. (They have been exporting missiles to Iran for decades, and were apparently involved in a nuclear site in Syria which the Israeli's took out in 2008.)  The issue will become the ability to inspect outbound cargoes, a prospect that the South Koreans have recently endorsed, but which the North Koreans consider an act of war. To paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, we will "walk stickly and carry a big soft."  The press may even give more coverage to the two naive reporters from Al Gore's "Current TV", who were captured doing an investigation of refugees going to China - real people are always more important than a few theoretical nukes.

        - Plan B would involve some elements of further economic embargo, incentives for cooperation, more UN resolutions, and a Chinese pledge to shelter the North Korean leadership in the event of a collapse.  Then, serious interdiction of shipping, large-scale civil defense planning in the South, and a collective holding of our breath.  In a year or two, even this will not be possible.

                                                                     ----- 

    To put the implications of North Korea's nuclear program in context, this week's You Tube is an investigative report by John Oliver of the Daily Show on this Fall's experiment to test the results of high energy collision of nuclear particles.  

Bill Bowen - 6/5/09

Why Afghanistan?

        "They're a mixed lot, and it won't help us to know the names of their tribes. The more tribes, the more they fight, and the better for us."     Rudyard Kipling, about the Afghans in "The Man Who Would Be King"

    A brief history: The Persians couldn't conquer them. The Hindus couldn't conquer them. Alexander the Great couldn't conquer them. The British couldn't conquer them. The Russians couldn't conquer them.  Afghanistan has particularly difficult terrain, fierce tribal loyalties, and no strategic significance other than opium, and possibly a hiding place for outlaws. Yet, Obama wants "in".

    The comparison to Iraq is stark. Easy terrain; oil; under Hussein, a threat to its neighbors, and to our Kurdish friends - with demonstrated chemical weapons with a goal of nuclear; now, an emerging Arab democracy which can serve as a barrier for Iran. Yet, Obama wants "out".

    So, why does the guy who made his leap into national prominence by early opposition to the Iraq War want to go "all in" in Afghanistan?  My premise - he got there in two stages:

        -  Early in his primary campaign against Hillary Clinton he was primarily attacking her vote for the Iraq War, and grabbed onto the failure to find bin Laden as resulting from a wrong focus. This despite not visiting Afghanistan when he had a chance, and ignoring it in his role as chair of the Senate Subcommittee on European Affairs, which had oversight responsibilities. During the campaign against John McCain this posture morphed into a need to demonstrate that he was not a naive peacenik as his connections with various leftists became known. 

      -  Once the election was over, he decided to concentrate his political might on domestic (and economic) issues, choosing not to open a second front by taking on the national security establishment yet.  The commitment to close Guantanamo was politically necessary, but even that has been announced in a way that is unsatisfactory to his liberal base.  For now, he will concentrate on his domestic agenda - healthcare; income redistribution; and climate change.   If that means a commitment of another 17,000 troops to Afghanistan with no exit strategy, so be it. 

    There are several other indicators of this domestic concentration:

        -  A perceived snub of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown during a February visit;

        -  Silence in the face of  Russian plans to operate bombers from Cuba and Venezuela, North Korean missile plans, and Iran's advance toward nuclear status;

        -  Allowing Teamster-supported abrogation of NAFTA agreements with Mexico.  

    Hopefully, General Petreus will be able to figure out a way to prevent Obama's Afghan adventure from ending like Kipling's verse:

    "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll on your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your Gawd like a soldier."  The Young British Soldier

                                                        -----

    This Glenn Beck video provides a bit of perspective for the non-economists among us. (Thanks to Jerry Roth - a long time friend in Wisconsin.)

Bill Bowen - 3/20/09

Rush to Judgement

    While I agree with much of the substance that Rush Limbaugh espouses, I see him primarily as an entertainer and do not take him too seriously. He is smart enough to understand the hot buttons for liberals and conservatives, free of the constraints of politicians and network mouthpieces, and audacious enough to push the envelope with both a conservative outrage, and a sense of humor.

    For good reason, the Left doesn't have Rush's sense of humor about Rush. For eight years the media and the left had George Bush as a punching bag; then they trained their sights on Sarah Palin. Now there is a question - do they address the good and bad of the Obama administration, or do they  find another Republican target for largely ad hominem arguments. Easy choice.

    Example One is the recent kerfuffle about Rush saying that he hoped President Obama would fail. Various in the media have criticized Limbaugh for being un-American, and Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, has challenged how anybody could not support the President's economic program. (Gibbs' "food fight" criticism includes Jim Cramer and Rick Santelli of CNBC.)  Perhaps the best response is Limbaugh's speech at the February 28, Conservative Political Action Committee conference in which he talks with his usual eloquence of Obama's mission threatening capitalism and individual liberty as the foundation of America. Obama's problem is that Limbaugh can articulate what a defeated and dispirited Republican Party cannot - and conservatives are looking for a spokesman, if not a new "Contract with America". (And does anybody remember how the Left truly wanted George Bush to fail? See Harry Reid on Iraq.)

    Example Two is the longer lasting, and more troubling effort to reinstitute the "Fairness Doctrine" in that it reflects Liberal frustration with the failure of progressive voices to gain any traction against Limbaugh on talk radio. (Top liberal personalities have followings of about one million versus Rush's 13 million; the leading liberal network - Air America - declared bankruptcy in 2006.) A brief history - The Fairness Doctrine, in force by the Federal Communications Commission from 1949 until repeal under Reagan in 1987, required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public interest in a way that was "honest, equitable, and balanced." In recent years there have been Democratic efforts to require the FCC to reinstitute the doctrine - notably by Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan (whose husband has been an executive with the failed liberal talk network), and with the support of House Speaker Pelosi. That said, President Obama has not supported reinstatement, and there is an overwhelming majority in the Senate against it. But the threat does provide good grist for Rush.

    Meanwhile, on the general subject of the public's right to decide what news they receive (from among the thousands of possible television, radio, internet, and print sources), a few comments on the potential demise of the San Francisco Chronicle:

    -- This is certainly an industry-wide phenomenon, as advertisers follow consumers to the internet. Denver's Rocky Mountain News closed last week, the Chicago Tribune (with its LA Times subsidiary) filed for bankruptcy protection in December, and the San Francisco Examiner has become a free paper with a mostly on-line presence. While there is much to be said for the original reporting (as opposed to analysis and opinion) and unearthing of scandal by local newspapers (like San Francisco's coddling of "juvenile" drug dealers), nobody seems to understand a way for them to compete in the new world.

    --  There is some satisfaction among conservatives, as the Chronicle long ago gave up any pretense of objectivity, and there is hope that some successor paper (a northern edition of the LA Times?) will not require that every news item be read through an anti-bias filter. But there will be a loss of local coverage, and it will become more difficult to follow the Bay Area's wretched sports teams. 

    -- In any case, One can still get the unbiased news from the Wall Street Journal (one of the few papers able to charge a fee for an on-line subscription), and put it in perspective with the help of Rush Limbaugh (12 to 3 pm EST.) 

                                                        ----- 

   This week's You Tube is a short Limbaugh riff after the New Yorker's controversial cover showing Barack and Michelle dressed as terrorists.

Bill Bowen - 3/13/09