Ruth Marcus’ column in the Post on Wednesday, 31 December, arguing against torture trials attempts to minimize the crime, in a number of incredible ways.
1. She suggests that the threat of internal investigations or Congressional hearings would be effective deterrents. This would be laughable, if the subject were not so serious. The threat of criminal convictions and serious jail time is what is needed to deter those who would torture in the name of patriotism. Remember, this is a crime under both U.S. and international law. It is a crime against humanity. It is inexcusable for anyone, anywhere, to impose torture upon another. Indeed, the threat of punishment needs to be so strong and so credible, that those so inclined would fearfully resist the impulse. An internal investigation? A Congressional hearing? Not threats at all, as experienced under the Bush administration.
2. She suggests that the threat of criminal sanctions did not deter Bush officials anyway. Right: it is actual swift convictions and sentences which would provide the deterrent, not the possibility of someday facing the consequences.
3. She suggests stronger oversight to prevent torture. This is both after the fact and too late, and lacking in penalty: what would the oversight group do, but perhaps censure the torturers? Again, this is not enough.
4. She suggests that the costs of criminal prosecutions would be too high, and that officials could err on the side of excessive timidity. Given the choice between a tortured victim and a timid official, give me the timid official every time. There are some lines which should never be crossed. Torture is one such line.
5. She suggests that criminal prosecutions would drain energy from the new administration. Rather, I believe that the new administration is capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time; it can pursue revitalizing the economy, undoing the legislative and executive excesses of the Bush administration, and presecuting torturers. In fact, it must do this, to restore America’s moral standing with the world.
6. Finally, she raises the bar to “conscious law-breaking.” This is not necessary. Someone who tortures another, relying upon orders, or legal memos, still is guilty. It is time to remember the Nuremburg principles, and seek justice for those who would throw out the law and morality in pursuing their agendas.
Torture is a crime against humanity. In the name of humanity, it must be punished by criminal trial.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
A radical fix for housing and the economy
It is time to go further than the current discussion and programs to help America's home owners in a meaningful way. Here is one idea, which would cost the public nothing, and put money into people's pockets for years to come.
We need federal legislation to reset every primary home mortgage in the country to a 4 1/2 % interest rate for the balance of the loans.
This would apply to current long-term mortgages, and convert every adjustable rate mortgage to a 30-year term fixed rate. Lenders would have to redo the mortgage papers at no cost to the borrowers.
In addition, no new adjustable rate mortgages would be allowed, and all new mortgages for the next two years, at least, would be at the same 4 1/2 % 30 year interest rate.
Thus, the industry which created the mess would have to absorb some losses of income, but the home owners would have lower monthly payments, and a better chance of staying in their homes. Foreclosures would be much less likely. The housing sector would be stabilized, at last.
We need federal legislation to reset every primary home mortgage in the country to a 4 1/2 % interest rate for the balance of the loans.
This would apply to current long-term mortgages, and convert every adjustable rate mortgage to a 30-year term fixed rate. Lenders would have to redo the mortgage papers at no cost to the borrowers.
In addition, no new adjustable rate mortgages would be allowed, and all new mortgages for the next two years, at least, would be at the same 4 1/2 % 30 year interest rate.
Thus, the industry which created the mess would have to absorb some losses of income, but the home owners would have lower monthly payments, and a better chance of staying in their homes. Foreclosures would be much less likely. The housing sector would be stabilized, at last.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Screening Agency Leaders
The transition to a new administration requires a close look at agency Senior Executives, many of whom already are flooding the transition team with endorsements from interest groups.
In addition to the usual reference checks, here are two suggestions for the transition team:
1. Ask the agency staff for input on managers’ leadership skills: (1) can they manage projects and people effectively; (2) do they support their staff; (3) are they innovative; and (4) are they fair. These few questions will expose both talents and faults rapidly.
2. Reject the conventional wisdom about how hard it is to remove poor managers. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which created the Senior Executive Service, gave the administration the tool: after the 120 day transition period, Senior Executives can be asked to relocate geographically, with two weeks’ notice. If they refuse, they have to leave the service, and revert to a lower GS position. A select number of such actions would send a powerful message to all executives.
In addition to the usual reference checks, here are two suggestions for the transition team:
1. Ask the agency staff for input on managers’ leadership skills: (1) can they manage projects and people effectively; (2) do they support their staff; (3) are they innovative; and (4) are they fair. These few questions will expose both talents and faults rapidly.
2. Reject the conventional wisdom about how hard it is to remove poor managers. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which created the Senior Executive Service, gave the administration the tool: after the 120 day transition period, Senior Executives can be asked to relocate geographically, with two weeks’ notice. If they refuse, they have to leave the service, and revert to a lower GS position. A select number of such actions would send a powerful message to all executives.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Hot buttons
In the last stretch of the campaign, Mr. McCain and his friends have been reaching for long discredited hot button slogans to energize his base. Just as his prior efforts to sling mud have not worked well, it appears that this new and desperate attack will fall short.
Still, one should note some of the problems with his language.
“Redistributing the wealth” is a bad thing, and sounds like “socialism.” Well, Mr. McCain, a progressive income tax has been part of our system for a really long time. You might even remember when it was established. At one time, the marginal tax rate on the very rich was 90%. More recently it was at 50% before reforms brought it down below 40%.
And why is progressivity reasonable? Our social compact and sense of mutual responsibility calls for those who can afford it to pay proportionately more than those who cannot. Do you really think that if multimillionaires paid a few hundred thousand dollars more in taxes, they would stop investing and trying to make more money? I doubt it. No, I suspect that you just are continuing the Republican tradition of trying to make the rich richer, at the expense of everyone else.
Extending the Bush tax cuts rewards the rich and punishes the rest of us. Is this how you fight for the regular guy?
Government itself is a mechanism for redistributing the wealth. We take income and reallocate it to national priorities, like defense, infrastructure, food safety, environmental protection and the like. Are you really a closet anarchist who wants no taxes and everyone on their own? If not, what level of taxes would be your bottom line? When would you stop cutting taxes? Would you limit the national government to the common defense and nothing else? If not, what else?
As for socialism, you certainly are aware of the Veteran’s hospital system. This is a government funded health care system, which competes with the private sector. One could call it socialism for the military. If you were consistent, shouldn’t you call for the abolition of this system? Will you? I doubt it.
In addition, isn’t the recent bail out of the financial system a socialist act? Getting the government into the heart of the business world? As one who believes in deregulation and the self-correcting nature of the free market system, shouldn’t you be calling to let the chips fall where they may, even if banks and companies go bankrupt in the process? The market will respond to consumer demand, even as individual companies fail, right?
As for Joe the plumber, whose name is not Joe and who is not a plumber, why do you continue the lie about Mr. Obama’s tax cuts, which you call a tax increase? If you simply say that meeting all his promises will require a tax increase, doesn’t this argument apply to you, too? Or, will you continue the Bush policy of spending money now by borrowing from the future, asking current voters to pay nothing more? Is this a responsible act, mortgaging our future, and burdening our children and grandchildren?
Enough. I’d respect the old McCain, who opposed the Bush tax cuts and supported some semblance of sound immigration policy. But that man has been eaten by the radical right of the Republican party. R.I.P.
Still, one should note some of the problems with his language.
“Redistributing the wealth” is a bad thing, and sounds like “socialism.” Well, Mr. McCain, a progressive income tax has been part of our system for a really long time. You might even remember when it was established. At one time, the marginal tax rate on the very rich was 90%. More recently it was at 50% before reforms brought it down below 40%.
And why is progressivity reasonable? Our social compact and sense of mutual responsibility calls for those who can afford it to pay proportionately more than those who cannot. Do you really think that if multimillionaires paid a few hundred thousand dollars more in taxes, they would stop investing and trying to make more money? I doubt it. No, I suspect that you just are continuing the Republican tradition of trying to make the rich richer, at the expense of everyone else.
Extending the Bush tax cuts rewards the rich and punishes the rest of us. Is this how you fight for the regular guy?
Government itself is a mechanism for redistributing the wealth. We take income and reallocate it to national priorities, like defense, infrastructure, food safety, environmental protection and the like. Are you really a closet anarchist who wants no taxes and everyone on their own? If not, what level of taxes would be your bottom line? When would you stop cutting taxes? Would you limit the national government to the common defense and nothing else? If not, what else?
As for socialism, you certainly are aware of the Veteran’s hospital system. This is a government funded health care system, which competes with the private sector. One could call it socialism for the military. If you were consistent, shouldn’t you call for the abolition of this system? Will you? I doubt it.
In addition, isn’t the recent bail out of the financial system a socialist act? Getting the government into the heart of the business world? As one who believes in deregulation and the self-correcting nature of the free market system, shouldn’t you be calling to let the chips fall where they may, even if banks and companies go bankrupt in the process? The market will respond to consumer demand, even as individual companies fail, right?
As for Joe the plumber, whose name is not Joe and who is not a plumber, why do you continue the lie about Mr. Obama’s tax cuts, which you call a tax increase? If you simply say that meeting all his promises will require a tax increase, doesn’t this argument apply to you, too? Or, will you continue the Bush policy of spending money now by borrowing from the future, asking current voters to pay nothing more? Is this a responsible act, mortgaging our future, and burdening our children and grandchildren?
Enough. I’d respect the old McCain, who opposed the Bush tax cuts and supported some semblance of sound immigration policy. But that man has been eaten by the radical right of the Republican party. R.I.P.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Starting from the bottom
The right way to begin to deal with the Wall Street financial crisis is from the bottom: protecting the people who took out those adjustable mortgages and complex products which offered no interest loans, and other "free lunch" incentives.
The first step should be a nationwide freeze on foreclosures and interest rate "resets." People who could make mortgage payments at low interest rates could keep on making their payments. This freeze should be indefinite, while we sort out the complexities of the global situation. The at-risk mortgages would hold their value, rather than turn into foreclosure liabilities.
The second step is to resist the call to bail out the Wall Street firms who took unnecessary risks. If public funds are to help stabilize Wall Street, then the government should take over entire companies, restructure them, then resell them, rather than buying only their bad debts.
This is a beginning: the principle is people first, not the companies who brought about the crisis.
The first step should be a nationwide freeze on foreclosures and interest rate "resets." People who could make mortgage payments at low interest rates could keep on making their payments. This freeze should be indefinite, while we sort out the complexities of the global situation. The at-risk mortgages would hold their value, rather than turn into foreclosure liabilities.
The second step is to resist the call to bail out the Wall Street firms who took unnecessary risks. If public funds are to help stabilize Wall Street, then the government should take over entire companies, restructure them, then resell them, rather than buying only their bad debts.
This is a beginning: the principle is people first, not the companies who brought about the crisis.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Questions for McCain
Mr. McCain, you supported the war in Iraq because you, like many others, thought that we were in imminent danger from Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Well, he is gone, and there were no weapons of mass destruction. Are we still in imminent danger from Iraq? If not, what is our basis for staying there?
It is nice to want a stable democratic Iraq. Under international law, do we have a right to impose this on Iraqi citizens by force? How can tens of thousands of Iraqi dead and many more wounded be justified?How can thousands of American military dead and wounded be justified?
Two words to worry by
The words are "Adlai Stevenson." Intelligent, qualified, courageous, and a loser to a simple military man. What is needed is a comfort with jokes, an emotional capacity for outrage, and a willingness to use punch lines and sound bites, rather than nuance. Be a fighter, don't say you are a fighter. People want a personal connection, beyond eloquence.
Attack radical Republicanism, rather than Bush, since McCain is running against Bush, too.
Radical Republicanism squandered a budget surplus, and created huge new debts, passing on the costs of war and tax cuts to our children.
Radical Republicanism shredded the Constitution, tortured people, spied on Americans, claimed executive privilege to hide its misbehavior, cancelled treaties and waged illegal wars.
Radical Republicanism stomped on state rights, whenever states tried to do more than the federal level on business regulation and the environment.
Radical Republicanism wants to regulate the bedroom, but not the boardroom.
Radical Republicanism strives to make the world safe for business, while making it more dangerous for Americans.
Radical Republicanism deregulates, then bails out big businesses as too big to let fail. OK, let's go back to another time, and break up the oligopolies. Then, they won't be too big to fail. The public has paid for the risks, while the private has pocketed the profits. This has to stop.
Radical Republicanism favors the super rich over everyone else, forgetting the American Dream of egalitarianism.
McCain has contradicted his maverick positions to satisfy his base. McCain is a radical Republican. Palin is even more radical, and out of step with main street America.
This election IS about change. Change from Radical Republicanism back to main street values. Back to common purpose. Back to shared sacrifice. Back to the democratic ideal. Back to a government that serves the people. This is what Mr. Obama should be shouting about!Thursday, July 3, 2008
Mr. Obama Loses His Principles - 1
The day after clinching enough delegates for the Presidential nomination, Mr. Obama spoke to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC long has been perhaps the strongest supporter of Israeli interests in the U. S., virtually to the point of indifference to right or wrong on issues. It can be characterized as “conservative,” and certainly not representative of the broad range of opinions in Israel.
Mr. Obama chose this moment to align himself with the right-wing views of AIPAC. This was widely seen by the media as pandering, and unnecessary. A strong leader does not have to compromise principle, while respecting other views. In this case, he demonstrated weakness, not strength.
Some excerpts from the speech, with my comments:
“We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle and decades of patient work.”
Israel’s establishment may have been necessary in a sense: at that time, most countries did not want to accept Jewish refugees in large numbers. However, it is cruel to say that it was a just act, when it involved displacing indigenous people who had lived there for so long. This one statement was an insult to Middle Eastern Arabs.
“Because of the war in Iraq, Iran — which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq — is emboldened and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation.”
Recently, Mr. Obama has made many such statements about the threat of Iran, joining the crowd marching unthinkingly toward a confrontation with Iran. This language undercuts his assertions that he would use diplomacy, rather than the military, to deal with regimes we consider threats. It also exaggerates the threat Iran poses to the U.S or to Israel, as do so many hard-liners in the Administration and the media. Why cave on this issue, when one could stand up for a more reasoned approach?
“Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security.”
“Unshakeable”??? This limits the leverage we could bring to the table to promote human rights in Israel, at the least.
“I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade — investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation.”
Committing to a decade of military assistance to Israel is hardly a nuanced and flexible approach to foreign policy. Again, why was it necessary to make such an extreme statement at this time?
“We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot.”
Democratic elections and local self-determination are ideals not easily compromised, but here Mr. Obama aligned himself with the Bush White House in rejecting the results of a fair election. In many other countries, previous terrorists have been brought into the political process, as a means of reconciliation and peace-making. Why reject this possibility in the case of Hamas?
“Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps — consistent with its security — to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements — as it agreed to with the Bush administration at Annapolis.”
At last, a gentle nudge toward balance in his approach.
“…but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”
Here Mr. Obama endorses a theocratic form of government, contrary to the tradition of separation of church and state so valued in the U.S. He could have supported at least consideration of the one-state, democratic, option, but he again he chose the hard line. As for Jerusalem, why not consider once again international supervision of this unique world heritage city?
“If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States, it will be clear — to the people of Iran, and to the world — that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation. That will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council. And we should work with Europe, Japan and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the U.N. to isolate the Iranian regime — from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.”
Once again, Mr. Obama chooses the hard line on Iran, hardly the stance of a peace-maker. One must question the judgement of someone who so easily accepts the charge that the Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization. What is the utility of such a label?
Overall, it is puzzling why Mr. Obama chose an approach which so contradicts the principles he spoke for during the primaries. Surely, it was not to promote fund-raising for the Fall?
Mr. Obama chose this moment to align himself with the right-wing views of AIPAC. This was widely seen by the media as pandering, and unnecessary. A strong leader does not have to compromise principle, while respecting other views. In this case, he demonstrated weakness, not strength.
Some excerpts from the speech, with my comments:
“We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle and decades of patient work.”
Israel’s establishment may have been necessary in a sense: at that time, most countries did not want to accept Jewish refugees in large numbers. However, it is cruel to say that it was a just act, when it involved displacing indigenous people who had lived there for so long. This one statement was an insult to Middle Eastern Arabs.
“Because of the war in Iraq, Iran — which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq — is emboldened and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation.”
Recently, Mr. Obama has made many such statements about the threat of Iran, joining the crowd marching unthinkingly toward a confrontation with Iran. This language undercuts his assertions that he would use diplomacy, rather than the military, to deal with regimes we consider threats. It also exaggerates the threat Iran poses to the U.S or to Israel, as do so many hard-liners in the Administration and the media. Why cave on this issue, when one could stand up for a more reasoned approach?
“Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security.”
“Unshakeable”??? This limits the leverage we could bring to the table to promote human rights in Israel, at the least.
“I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade — investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation.”
Committing to a decade of military assistance to Israel is hardly a nuanced and flexible approach to foreign policy. Again, why was it necessary to make such an extreme statement at this time?
“We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot.”
Democratic elections and local self-determination are ideals not easily compromised, but here Mr. Obama aligned himself with the Bush White House in rejecting the results of a fair election. In many other countries, previous terrorists have been brought into the political process, as a means of reconciliation and peace-making. Why reject this possibility in the case of Hamas?
“Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps — consistent with its security — to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements — as it agreed to with the Bush administration at Annapolis.”
At last, a gentle nudge toward balance in his approach.
“…but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”
Here Mr. Obama endorses a theocratic form of government, contrary to the tradition of separation of church and state so valued in the U.S. He could have supported at least consideration of the one-state, democratic, option, but he again he chose the hard line. As for Jerusalem, why not consider once again international supervision of this unique world heritage city?
“If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States, it will be clear — to the people of Iran, and to the world — that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation. That will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council. And we should work with Europe, Japan and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the U.N. to isolate the Iranian regime — from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.”
Once again, Mr. Obama chooses the hard line on Iran, hardly the stance of a peace-maker. One must question the judgement of someone who so easily accepts the charge that the Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization. What is the utility of such a label?
Overall, it is puzzling why Mr. Obama chose an approach which so contradicts the principles he spoke for during the primaries. Surely, it was not to promote fund-raising for the Fall?
Notes for an Obama Presidency - 1
It is important to start the first term with some dramatic changes in the tone of the Presidency. For the executive agencies, where morale has fallen so drastically, here is one thought:
Start by issuing an executive order, which voids every executive order issued by Bush. It can be accompanied by an offer for the executive agencies to petition the President to restore any which actually made sense, or which promoted the people's interests.
The second step would be to order a review of Bush's "signing statements," with the intent of rescinding the most radical and destructive provisions. Respecting Congressional intent and the rule of law would be the motive.
These dramatic moves would announce the arrival of change in a big way.
Start by issuing an executive order, which voids every executive order issued by Bush. It can be accompanied by an offer for the executive agencies to petition the President to restore any which actually made sense, or which promoted the people's interests.
The second step would be to order a review of Bush's "signing statements," with the intent of rescinding the most radical and destructive provisions. Respecting Congressional intent and the rule of law would be the motive.
These dramatic moves would announce the arrival of change in a big way.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Globalization and My Discontents
The destructive effects of globalization have been described as “the race to the bottom.” Free market advocates have disparaged this slogan, arguing that free global markets keep prices low, and spread wealth to poorer nations. But is globalization really a good idea?
Globalization is about profit. Expanding markets, access to resources, and new labor pools all contribute to this end. If both developing and developed nations benefit, why should anyone object? In one word, exploitation.
Globalization is about making the world safe for business, but this is not quite the same as making the world safe for people. While many in the business community argue for a international level playing field, they mean the least restrictive regulatory systems for products, workers and the environment, not the most protective systems.
Low wages. Manufacturing and service jobs have been moved to countries where wages are very low, undercutting workers in developed nations. Recent declines in U.S wages in union contracts, for example, indicate the power of out-sourcing to drive down wages in the developed world. People whose monthly incomes are only a few tens or hundreds of dollars obviously will be willing to work for wages considered unacceptable in developed countries. Moreover, underdeveloped nations have been forced to compete for the most lax regulatory and wage environments, to get and keep businesses. The logical conclusion of this trend is the constant migration of jobs to the lowest-wage countries.
Environmental destruction. Environmental protection requirements are a means to both protect the natural world, and include the true costs of production in the prices of goods. For example, strip mining and clear-cutting of forests are cheaper than careful resource extraction, but the cost in lost species, polluted rivers, cleanup of wastes, and human/natural habitat rarely is paid by those who create the problems.
While the European Union and the U.S, and a few other developed countries, have well-developed, science-based, environmental protection programs in place, most of the developing world is not capable or willing to restrict poor environmental practices. How many Fortune 500 companies voluntarily meet EU/US environmental standards in their overseas operations? Is a river in South America or Africa somehow better able to absorb pollution than a river in Germany? Not likely, and not scientifically.
Worker safety and standards. The developed world takes for granted reasonable working hours, some measure of benefits, such as health and retirement benefits, and a safe working environment for its workers. In much of the developing world, however, these concepts are but a distant dream. In such situations, workers may work very long hours, in hazardous or unsafe environments, and have no means to protest their conditions without being fired.
The overall impact is that keeping costs low in the developing world involves exporting pollution, wages, worker exploitation, and resource destruction to the underdeveloped world. The field is not level.
What would a long-term and sustainable business environment look like?
1. First, workers rights need to be protected everywhere. This means reasonable hours, living conditions, on-the-job safety provisions, health care, whistle-blower protections, retirement benefits, and a living wage.
2. Businesses operating anywhere in the world should have to meet minimum common environmental standards, based upon the EU/US systems. Exceptions could be made only with approval by an international science-based regulatory body.
3. Compensation for injuries, or for health impacts from their work, should be paid to the workers or their heirs.
4. The cost of cleanup of past environmental degradation or habitat destruction should be borne by those who created the problem.
5. Some part of the difference between developed nation wages and developing nation wages should be paid back to the developed nation, to compensate workers displaced by globalization.
6. Businesses not complying with these conditions should be barred from operating in, selling products to or providing services to the developed nations.
7. Verification of compliance needs to be conducted by impartial international bodies.
This framework is a tentative beginning toward a sustainable and fair level playing field in the global arena. The obvious implication for businesses in developing countries is that if they are unable or unwilling to comply with these principles, then they will be barred from commerce with the developed world.
This probably would create a transitional two-tiered trading system, with underdeveloped countries trading with each other, rather than with the developed world. With assistance from the developed countries, the underdeveloped world could move toward greater technical expertise, regulatory integrity, worker benefits and protections, and product safety, without major global resource and environmental impact. Whether this approach is practicable and beneficial remains to be seen, but I think it is worth the try.
Globalization is about profit. Expanding markets, access to resources, and new labor pools all contribute to this end. If both developing and developed nations benefit, why should anyone object? In one word, exploitation.
Globalization is about making the world safe for business, but this is not quite the same as making the world safe for people. While many in the business community argue for a international level playing field, they mean the least restrictive regulatory systems for products, workers and the environment, not the most protective systems.
Low wages. Manufacturing and service jobs have been moved to countries where wages are very low, undercutting workers in developed nations. Recent declines in U.S wages in union contracts, for example, indicate the power of out-sourcing to drive down wages in the developed world. People whose monthly incomes are only a few tens or hundreds of dollars obviously will be willing to work for wages considered unacceptable in developed countries. Moreover, underdeveloped nations have been forced to compete for the most lax regulatory and wage environments, to get and keep businesses. The logical conclusion of this trend is the constant migration of jobs to the lowest-wage countries.
Environmental destruction. Environmental protection requirements are a means to both protect the natural world, and include the true costs of production in the prices of goods. For example, strip mining and clear-cutting of forests are cheaper than careful resource extraction, but the cost in lost species, polluted rivers, cleanup of wastes, and human/natural habitat rarely is paid by those who create the problems.
While the European Union and the U.S, and a few other developed countries, have well-developed, science-based, environmental protection programs in place, most of the developing world is not capable or willing to restrict poor environmental practices. How many Fortune 500 companies voluntarily meet EU/US environmental standards in their overseas operations? Is a river in South America or Africa somehow better able to absorb pollution than a river in Germany? Not likely, and not scientifically.
Worker safety and standards. The developed world takes for granted reasonable working hours, some measure of benefits, such as health and retirement benefits, and a safe working environment for its workers. In much of the developing world, however, these concepts are but a distant dream. In such situations, workers may work very long hours, in hazardous or unsafe environments, and have no means to protest their conditions without being fired.
The overall impact is that keeping costs low in the developing world involves exporting pollution, wages, worker exploitation, and resource destruction to the underdeveloped world. The field is not level.
What would a long-term and sustainable business environment look like?
1. First, workers rights need to be protected everywhere. This means reasonable hours, living conditions, on-the-job safety provisions, health care, whistle-blower protections, retirement benefits, and a living wage.
2. Businesses operating anywhere in the world should have to meet minimum common environmental standards, based upon the EU/US systems. Exceptions could be made only with approval by an international science-based regulatory body.
3. Compensation for injuries, or for health impacts from their work, should be paid to the workers or their heirs.
4. The cost of cleanup of past environmental degradation or habitat destruction should be borne by those who created the problem.
5. Some part of the difference between developed nation wages and developing nation wages should be paid back to the developed nation, to compensate workers displaced by globalization.
6. Businesses not complying with these conditions should be barred from operating in, selling products to or providing services to the developed nations.
7. Verification of compliance needs to be conducted by impartial international bodies.
This framework is a tentative beginning toward a sustainable and fair level playing field in the global arena. The obvious implication for businesses in developing countries is that if they are unable or unwilling to comply with these principles, then they will be barred from commerce with the developed world.
This probably would create a transitional two-tiered trading system, with underdeveloped countries trading with each other, rather than with the developed world. With assistance from the developed countries, the underdeveloped world could move toward greater technical expertise, regulatory integrity, worker benefits and protections, and product safety, without major global resource and environmental impact. Whether this approach is practicable and beneficial remains to be seen, but I think it is worth the try.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Saving on Gas, for Patriots
Not long ago, I noticed that the mileage on my 15 year old Toyota Corolla had slipped, from its usual 24-25 mpg to 20-21 mpg. Several checks at the repair shop showed only that the car was in fine shape. Most of my driving was short trips around town, usually three to ten miles at a time, the worst driving for good mileage.
Theory: perhaps my driving style had changed?
Experiment: try to get the best mileage possible from the car.
Result: my mileage improved to 27-28 mpg! So, how did I do it? Slow driving…
1. Shift to neutral at red lights.
2. Coast as much as possible. I often started coasting one to two blocks from a red light or a stop sign. It is amazing how far one can coast with little loss of speed, in today’s cars. Coasting downhill is easy, of course, but coasting uphill also works better than you think.
3. Accelerate slowly. Listen to the engine, and have a light foot on the accelerator. You can tell when gas is wasted from the engine’s sound. This means 0-60 in much more time. Who needs to be an Indy driver?
4. Brake slowly, starting earlier than usual. If you think of coasting to a stop, you will brake more lightly.
5. Stay within the speed limits, or at most five miles over the limit. We know that most cars on the road routinely are going 10-15 miles over the limit. We also know that the faster you drive, the worse the mileage. Moral: take your time!
What does all this mean? You can cut the cost of gas by 10%, 20%, or more immediately, just by changing your driving style. Not a bad investment! Longer term, you can lower the cost of gas by reducing your demand: the market will respond. You will keep more money in your pocket, and at home, rather than sending it to the oil companies and the oil producers abroad.
Conclusion: join the slow drive movement, and be a slow driver – It’s the patriotic thing to do.
Theory: perhaps my driving style had changed?
Experiment: try to get the best mileage possible from the car.
Result: my mileage improved to 27-28 mpg! So, how did I do it? Slow driving…
1. Shift to neutral at red lights.
2. Coast as much as possible. I often started coasting one to two blocks from a red light or a stop sign. It is amazing how far one can coast with little loss of speed, in today’s cars. Coasting downhill is easy, of course, but coasting uphill also works better than you think.
3. Accelerate slowly. Listen to the engine, and have a light foot on the accelerator. You can tell when gas is wasted from the engine’s sound. This means 0-60 in much more time. Who needs to be an Indy driver?
4. Brake slowly, starting earlier than usual. If you think of coasting to a stop, you will brake more lightly.
5. Stay within the speed limits, or at most five miles over the limit. We know that most cars on the road routinely are going 10-15 miles over the limit. We also know that the faster you drive, the worse the mileage. Moral: take your time!
What does all this mean? You can cut the cost of gas by 10%, 20%, or more immediately, just by changing your driving style. Not a bad investment! Longer term, you can lower the cost of gas by reducing your demand: the market will respond. You will keep more money in your pocket, and at home, rather than sending it to the oil companies and the oil producers abroad.
Conclusion: join the slow drive movement, and be a slow driver – It’s the patriotic thing to do.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Why Barack Obama?
This was developed as a script for the Moveon.org "Obama in 30 Seconds" contest, but not produced:
(Still photos with pans over the pictures. Obama making speeches, audiences listening attentively, and so on.)
They say he speaks too well: it can’t be real.
They say his vision is too good: it can’t be practical.
They say he won’t fight back: not tough enough.
They say he should abandon his friends: he won’t.
They say a Chicago politician can’t be trusted: he's risky.
They say judgement is not enough: he lacks experience.
Eloquence, vision, dignity, loyalty, character, judgement: The right kind of experience.
Obama for President
(Still photos with pans over the pictures. Obama making speeches, audiences listening attentively, and so on.)
They say he speaks too well: it can’t be real.
They say his vision is too good: it can’t be practical.
They say he won’t fight back: not tough enough.
They say he should abandon his friends: he won’t.
They say a Chicago politician can’t be trusted: he's risky.
They say judgement is not enough: he lacks experience.
Eloquence, vision, dignity, loyalty, character, judgement: The right kind of experience.
Obama for President
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Why not Hillary Clinton?
Iraq: Her initial vote to authorize the Iraq war can be understood: a large majority of the Senate voted the same way. What is harder to understand is her consistent defense of that vote for the next three years, long after it was apparent that Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, and that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Even today, during the primary campaign, she has resisted stating that her vote was a mistake, instead saying that the issue was more complex than people appreciated. And, after initially refusing to commit to troop withdrawal by the end of her first term (January 2013), she toughened her position to be closer to Obama’s. Stubbornness and reluctance to admit a mistake?
Iran: Her subsequent vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization is much harder to understand. It was clear to many in Congress and the media that the White House was trying to stir up anti-Iranian sentiment, with little substance to back it up. The resolution was an obvious step toward military action against Iran, but she went along with it. Afraid to look weak?
On Iraq and Iran, has she been a fighter, standing up to the White House? No.
On Bush: On the Bush tax cuts, on torture, on domestic spying, on habeas corpus, on extraordinary rendition, on Abu Graib, on Guantanamo, has she been a fighter and a leader, standing up to the White House? No.
On the primary campaign: For over one year in the primary campaign, she focused on her experience as the reason to vote for her: she failed to convince voters in many states. Having failed to sweep the primaries on her experience, she turned to attacking her opponents. Her campaign has subtly but clearly played the race card in recent months, too. The negative approach has helped her, but at a cost: is it Presidential to mock and attack one’s opponents? Is this the behavior of someone who wants to unify and lead the whole country?
On experience: She has claimed 35 years of experience, virtually every day since she left school. Was every day truly an experience qualifying her for the Presidency? She has claimed a major role in negotiating peace in Ireland: others now question the primacy of her role. She has claimed the lead role in enacting the State Children’s Health Insurance Program: others now question whether she really was the lead in Congress. More recently, her claim to have landed under sniper fire in Kosovo simply turned out to be false, a story she has used several times during this campaign. Has she tended to exaggerate her roles and experience? Yes. Does this promote trust and appreciation for her integrity? No.
So, why not Hillary Clinton? For all of the above, for a history of waffling on issues, for her sense of outrage that anyone would challenge her claim to the Presidency, and in the end, for her lack of good judgement: No.
Iran: Her subsequent vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization is much harder to understand. It was clear to many in Congress and the media that the White House was trying to stir up anti-Iranian sentiment, with little substance to back it up. The resolution was an obvious step toward military action against Iran, but she went along with it. Afraid to look weak?
On Iraq and Iran, has she been a fighter, standing up to the White House? No.
On Bush: On the Bush tax cuts, on torture, on domestic spying, on habeas corpus, on extraordinary rendition, on Abu Graib, on Guantanamo, has she been a fighter and a leader, standing up to the White House? No.
On the primary campaign: For over one year in the primary campaign, she focused on her experience as the reason to vote for her: she failed to convince voters in many states. Having failed to sweep the primaries on her experience, she turned to attacking her opponents. Her campaign has subtly but clearly played the race card in recent months, too. The negative approach has helped her, but at a cost: is it Presidential to mock and attack one’s opponents? Is this the behavior of someone who wants to unify and lead the whole country?
On experience: She has claimed 35 years of experience, virtually every day since she left school. Was every day truly an experience qualifying her for the Presidency? She has claimed a major role in negotiating peace in Ireland: others now question the primacy of her role. She has claimed the lead role in enacting the State Children’s Health Insurance Program: others now question whether she really was the lead in Congress. More recently, her claim to have landed under sniper fire in Kosovo simply turned out to be false, a story she has used several times during this campaign. Has she tended to exaggerate her roles and experience? Yes. Does this promote trust and appreciation for her integrity? No.
So, why not Hillary Clinton? For all of the above, for a history of waffling on issues, for her sense of outrage that anyone would challenge her claim to the Presidency, and in the end, for her lack of good judgement: No.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Abolish the Property Tax!
Once upon a time, the property tax made some sense as a way to raise governmental revenue. Most property was agricultural, and generated wealth, in terms of animals, crops and cash. But that was long ago. Now, agricultural land is a tiny fraction of our economy, and wealth is more properly measured in cash income. The ability to pay taxes depends upon one’s income, not upon one’s holdings. That is why income tax is paid on stocks when sold, not on their value when held, for example.
It is important to distinguish between the need to raise governmental income, and the means to that end. In this, the property tax no longer makes much sense, and continues to produce many pernicious and unintended consequences.
The elderly, on fixed incomes, see their assessments and taxes rise, based upon the value of neighboring homes, which are sold. Their ability to pay typically does not increase, as they get no income from their home, and their demand upon services does not increase either. Why then, accept continued property tax increases, which force people with fixed incomes to sell their homes?
Farmers see their property taxes increase, not because of anything they do, but because assessments often are based upon the possibility of a more valuable use, eg, converting the farm into a subdivision.
Landlords experience the perverse result of increased property taxes, if they invest in property improvements.
These are extreme examples, perhaps, but everyone has felt the pinch of rising property taxes as unfair, as they are asked to pay more on an assessment of expected value, rather than upon real income.
The property tax is an unfair means to raise governmental income: abolish the property tax, and base state and local revenues upon the income tax, which most fairly tracks the ability to pay.
It is important to distinguish between the need to raise governmental income, and the means to that end. In this, the property tax no longer makes much sense, and continues to produce many pernicious and unintended consequences.
The elderly, on fixed incomes, see their assessments and taxes rise, based upon the value of neighboring homes, which are sold. Their ability to pay typically does not increase, as they get no income from their home, and their demand upon services does not increase either. Why then, accept continued property tax increases, which force people with fixed incomes to sell their homes?
Farmers see their property taxes increase, not because of anything they do, but because assessments often are based upon the possibility of a more valuable use, eg, converting the farm into a subdivision.
Landlords experience the perverse result of increased property taxes, if they invest in property improvements.
These are extreme examples, perhaps, but everyone has felt the pinch of rising property taxes as unfair, as they are asked to pay more on an assessment of expected value, rather than upon real income.
The property tax is an unfair means to raise governmental income: abolish the property tax, and base state and local revenues upon the income tax, which most fairly tracks the ability to pay.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Disinfectants and Public Health
Disinfectants: Marketing disinfectant products by raising public fear of bacteria runs counter to improved public health. We have evolved in a bacterial environment, and our immune systems depend upon bacterial infections to stay strong. Promoting a goal of 100% bacteria-free environments encourages disinfectant use. However, constant use will lead to resistant bacteria, and potentially great health hazards. Items such as antibacterial soaps in public wash rooms need to be banned, and people need to be told the truth about overuse of disinfectants.
Agricultural Reform
Monoculture: Intensive monoculture, or the use of only one crop variety, has become the main form of large-scale agriculture. While productivity can be high, the costs can be high, too. First, is increased soil erosion. Second, is pesticide dependency, as the pests favoring a single crop can establish themselves year-round. Third, is increased need for fertilizers. Fourth, is the loss of genetic diversity in using only one or a few different varieties of the crop. All of these costs compromise the long-term sustainability of farming.
It is important to reverse our dependency upon monoculture crops. Subsidies have to be eliminated for this kind of farming. Pesticide enforcement needs to be strengthened. Most important, genetic diversity needs to be promoted, or even required.
Factory Farming: Factory farming is heading for a dead end. Raising chickens and hogs, and fish and dairy farming under crowded conditions, increasingly rely upon constant low level doses of antibiotics. Unfortunately, such antibiotic use virtually guarantees development of resistant microbes, and increased cases of widespread disease. Rain runoff contaminated with low level antibiotics help to spread resistant organisms downstream. Farming methods which require constant antibiotic dosing need to be banned.
It is important to reverse our dependency upon monoculture crops. Subsidies have to be eliminated for this kind of farming. Pesticide enforcement needs to be strengthened. Most important, genetic diversity needs to be promoted, or even required.
Factory Farming: Factory farming is heading for a dead end. Raising chickens and hogs, and fish and dairy farming under crowded conditions, increasingly rely upon constant low level doses of antibiotics. Unfortunately, such antibiotic use virtually guarantees development of resistant microbes, and increased cases of widespread disease. Rain runoff contaminated with low level antibiotics help to spread resistant organisms downstream. Farming methods which require constant antibiotic dosing need to be banned.
Educational Reform
The country’s future depends upon properly educating its children, and we are not doing a very good job. While there have been many calls to improve our educational system, we have not yet succeeded. Here are a few modest proposals for such an improvement.
College has become too expensive for many otherwise qualified people. Our goal of equal opportunity is slipping away. Yet, a college education is more of a job requirement than ever. Every qualified student should be able to attend college.
The government should pay for college for anyone with good grades. In return, each student would commit to one year of public service for each year of college paid for. The overall program could be titled, “American Service Corps,” or ASC.
Early childhood is a time for children to learn by playing, but we subject them to discipline and passivity at ever earlier ages. We need pre-school and early school environments which allow children to follow their interests through play, well before imposing a rigid behavioral code on them. We need fun and opportunities for learning in the classroom, not more rigidity.
Elementary and High School structures tend to be lectures, but lectures are not efficient modes of learning. We think faster than we hear, meaning boredom and loss of attention are inevitable in lectures. Similarly, we learn more by doing than by sitting passively. We need to let go of the lecture as our prime teaching mechanism. Our school structures need to be more open to experimentation, and to more effective means of learning. The nation needs to begin wide-scale experimentation in alternatives to the current system.
College has become too expensive for many otherwise qualified people. Our goal of equal opportunity is slipping away. Yet, a college education is more of a job requirement than ever. Every qualified student should be able to attend college.
The government should pay for college for anyone with good grades. In return, each student would commit to one year of public service for each year of college paid for. The overall program could be titled, “American Service Corps,” or ASC.
Early childhood is a time for children to learn by playing, but we subject them to discipline and passivity at ever earlier ages. We need pre-school and early school environments which allow children to follow their interests through play, well before imposing a rigid behavioral code on them. We need fun and opportunities for learning in the classroom, not more rigidity.
Elementary and High School structures tend to be lectures, but lectures are not efficient modes of learning. We think faster than we hear, meaning boredom and loss of attention are inevitable in lectures. Similarly, we learn more by doing than by sitting passively. We need to let go of the lecture as our prime teaching mechanism. Our school structures need to be more open to experimentation, and to more effective means of learning. The nation needs to begin wide-scale experimentation in alternatives to the current system.
Corporate Accountability (2) Who Benefits from Bankruptcy?
Corporations essentially are creations of the state, by charter. It is an odd approach when the law currently provides for a corporation to be shielded from its creditors, in a bankruptcy. This places the interests of current executives and directors over those of their creditors, which is precisely what should not be allowed if they have failed in their fiduciary duties to the business. Those who go into bankruptcy should not be allowed to continue managing or profiting from the situation.
As such, corporate charters should be subject to revocation, in extreme cases, such as bankruptcy or gross violations of the law. Rather than close a business, however, states should be able to “condemn” such businesses, assume ownership, and auction them off to new owners and management. This would protect workers from the follies of executives, and provide income for the state.
As such, corporate charters should be subject to revocation, in extreme cases, such as bankruptcy or gross violations of the law. Rather than close a business, however, states should be able to “condemn” such businesses, assume ownership, and auction them off to new owners and management. This would protect workers from the follies of executives, and provide income for the state.
Corporate Accountability (1) Limited Liability
An interesting thing about the corporate shield of limited liability: it could be viewed as one of the first “family friendly” policies. Prior to the invention of the corporation, investors had unlimited liability. That is, all their wealth, including their homes and personal assets, were liable to seizure to pay their debts. Many women and children found themselves in the poorhouse as a result of such bankruptcies.
The invention of the corporation limited investor liability to the monies invested, shielding families from such catastrophic losses. In this sense, not a bad idea. However, since its start, corporations have lobbied continually to extend the concept of limited liability far beyond this modest beginning.
Today, corporate boards and officers claim free speech protections for their advertising, file slander suits for “product disparagement,” seek to minimize their personal responsibility for environmental and social damage caused by their operations, and otherwise hide behind the corporate shield. We have come a long way from limited financial liability, to minimal personal responsibility.
Restoring the original concept of limited financial liability would mean that if the corporation were judged guilty of violations of the law, then the directors and officers would be subject as individuals to appropriate civil or criminal punishment. This would provide an immediate and lasting incentive for compliance with worker safety, environmental, anti-discrimination and many other laws and regulations intended for society’s benefit.
The invention of the corporation limited investor liability to the monies invested, shielding families from such catastrophic losses. In this sense, not a bad idea. However, since its start, corporations have lobbied continually to extend the concept of limited liability far beyond this modest beginning.
Today, corporate boards and officers claim free speech protections for their advertising, file slander suits for “product disparagement,” seek to minimize their personal responsibility for environmental and social damage caused by their operations, and otherwise hide behind the corporate shield. We have come a long way from limited financial liability, to minimal personal responsibility.
Restoring the original concept of limited financial liability would mean that if the corporation were judged guilty of violations of the law, then the directors and officers would be subject as individuals to appropriate civil or criminal punishment. This would provide an immediate and lasting incentive for compliance with worker safety, environmental, anti-discrimination and many other laws and regulations intended for society’s benefit.
Restoring Fairness and Progressivity to the Income Tax
Progressivity: Once upon a time, Americans accepted a progressive income tax, in part because of an understanding that the wealthy benefited from our democratic institutions and capitalist system. The wealthy therefore owed a fair share of their income to the people as a whole, and they could pay proportionately more because they simply could afford it, without compromising their quality of life. In recent years, this principle has been under attack, and it is time to reaffirm the responsibility of the wealthy to contribute to society as a whole.
Fairness and the Alternative Minimum Tax: The core of our income tax system is an overall belief that on the whole, it is fair. Unfortunately, decades of huge numbers of special interest provisions and tax breaks, and recent tax cuts for the wealthy have undermined this belief. It is not enough to fight each provision one at a time. The way to restore fairness is to cut through the complexity of the tax code, and focus on key principles.
One option is to ensure that the principle of the Alternative Minimum Tax is a reality. For example, the following table shows how we could maintain a progressive and fair tax system, through the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Minimum Tax (% x AGI)
Under $100,000 None
$100-200,000 15%
$200-300,000 20%
$300-400,000 25%
$400-500,000 30%
Over $500,000 35%
Basing the AMT only on the Adjusted Gross Income means that tax shelters, tax breaks, and tax credits, no matter how inventive, could not reduce taxes below this minimum level. This would be fair to all.
A comparable table needs to be developed for corporate taxation. For example:
Corporate AGI Minimum Tax (% x AGI)
Under $5 million None
$5-25 million 15%
$25-100 million 20%
$100-500 million 25%
$500 million - $2.5 billion 30%
Over $2.5 billion 35%
*Note that corporate AGI needs to be defined as net of reasonable business expenses, before shelters, breaks, and other creative accounting methods are applied.
This simplified application of the Alternative Minimum Tax would go a long way toward restoring fairness to the income tax.
Fairness and the Alternative Minimum Tax: The core of our income tax system is an overall belief that on the whole, it is fair. Unfortunately, decades of huge numbers of special interest provisions and tax breaks, and recent tax cuts for the wealthy have undermined this belief. It is not enough to fight each provision one at a time. The way to restore fairness is to cut through the complexity of the tax code, and focus on key principles.
One option is to ensure that the principle of the Alternative Minimum Tax is a reality. For example, the following table shows how we could maintain a progressive and fair tax system, through the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Minimum Tax (% x AGI)
Under $100,000 None
$100-200,000 15%
$200-300,000 20%
$300-400,000 25%
$400-500,000 30%
Over $500,000 35%
Basing the AMT only on the Adjusted Gross Income means that tax shelters, tax breaks, and tax credits, no matter how inventive, could not reduce taxes below this minimum level. This would be fair to all.
A comparable table needs to be developed for corporate taxation. For example:
Corporate AGI Minimum Tax (% x AGI)
Under $5 million None
$5-25 million 15%
$25-100 million 20%
$100-500 million 25%
$500 million - $2.5 billion 30%
Over $2.5 billion 35%
*Note that corporate AGI needs to be defined as net of reasonable business expenses, before shelters, breaks, and other creative accounting methods are applied.
This simplified application of the Alternative Minimum Tax would go a long way toward restoring fairness to the income tax.
Cutting the Military Budget: A Posture for Peace
The U.S. spends vastly more on its military than the rest of the world, combined. We have the most advanced and best trained militaryforces. Anyone who claims that we are weak, is living in another world. However, it must be remembered that overspending on the military was a major factor in the economic collapse of the Soviet Union. The U.S. needs to learn from that example.
Serious questions must be asked about our military posture and strategy. What is the purpose of each of the hundreds of bases we have around the world? A global map of our bases vs those of any other country suggests that we want power and influence everywhere, but this is not the same as “providing for the common defense.”
Many have warned against trying to be the policeman of the world, but this is a mild analogy. A policeman is a neutral person, charged with enforcing the law. Our military is hardly neutral in its actions.
Do we need tens of thousands of soldiers in Europe, for example? What are they defending the U.S. against there? Why do we need bases in Latin America? Asia? Is any country there a threat to the U.S.? This is not a call for isolationism, as we can legitimately cooperate with other countries for common interests. However, our vast military commitments can safely be scaled back.
If we cannot justify our military presence in the eyes of host and neighboring countries, then perhaps it is time to reduce our commitments. Many bases in other countries should be closed, and our soldiers brought home. This would substantially reduce our military budget, and the risk to our soldiers. It also would send a message to the world that we are more interested in peace than in war.
Serious questions must be asked about our military posture and strategy. What is the purpose of each of the hundreds of bases we have around the world? A global map of our bases vs those of any other country suggests that we want power and influence everywhere, but this is not the same as “providing for the common defense.”
Many have warned against trying to be the policeman of the world, but this is a mild analogy. A policeman is a neutral person, charged with enforcing the law. Our military is hardly neutral in its actions.
Do we need tens of thousands of soldiers in Europe, for example? What are they defending the U.S. against there? Why do we need bases in Latin America? Asia? Is any country there a threat to the U.S.? This is not a call for isolationism, as we can legitimately cooperate with other countries for common interests. However, our vast military commitments can safely be scaled back.
If we cannot justify our military presence in the eyes of host and neighboring countries, then perhaps it is time to reduce our commitments. Many bases in other countries should be closed, and our soldiers brought home. This would substantially reduce our military budget, and the risk to our soldiers. It also would send a message to the world that we are more interested in peace than in war.
High Quality Health Care for All
Most of the discussion of controlling health care, Medicare, and Medicaid costs focuses on reducing benefits, or artificially capping payments. Neither of these approaches addresses the need for quality health care for all Americans.
One problem with the current health care system is that medical professionals generally are paid for “piece work,” for example, by the operation. This encourages both long hours and higher volume activity, neither of which improves the quality of service. We need a new paradigm.
Medical professionals should be salaried, with comfortable pay rates. Their work loads and hours should be cut as well. A new group of medical professionals should be recruited and trained, to make up for the reduced work loads. The government should pay for their medical education, under contracts which require one year of public service work, for each year of training.
By substantially increasing the number of medical professionals, we could reach the goal of high quality health care for every American.
One problem with the current health care system is that medical professionals generally are paid for “piece work,” for example, by the operation. This encourages both long hours and higher volume activity, neither of which improves the quality of service. We need a new paradigm.
Medical professionals should be salaried, with comfortable pay rates. Their work loads and hours should be cut as well. A new group of medical professionals should be recruited and trained, to make up for the reduced work loads. The government should pay for their medical education, under contracts which require one year of public service work, for each year of training.
By substantially increasing the number of medical professionals, we could reach the goal of high quality health care for every American.
Energy Independence and Putting People to Work
Space heating accounts for about one-third of U.S. energy use. A combination of better insulation and solar heating could save more than half of this energy. At the same time, the construction trades are hurting from the housing crisis, and the economy needs a stimulus.
We should train tens of thousands of new and current workers, to install better insulation and solar heating for most of the nation’s existing housing. This new public works program could start us down a 20 year path to energy independence, be a productive stimulus to the economy, and save enormous amounts of money and resources for the long-term. The major beneficiaries would be the lower and middle classes, both renters and home-owners. However, everyone would benefit from greater energy independence.
We should train tens of thousands of new and current workers, to install better insulation and solar heating for most of the nation’s existing housing. This new public works program could start us down a 20 year path to energy independence, be a productive stimulus to the economy, and save enormous amounts of money and resources for the long-term. The major beneficiaries would be the lower and middle classes, both renters and home-owners. However, everyone would benefit from greater energy independence.
Iraq is not a war
The war in Iraq is over. It was over with the declaration, “Mission Accomplished.” And, what was that mission? Neutralize the Iraqi military, remove Mr. Hussein, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction. All three were accomplished in a matter of weeks, even if it took a bit longer to verify that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
If the war ended years ago, why is the U.S. military still there? It can’t be to remove autocrats and create democracy in the Middle East, or we also would have invaded several other countries, including those of some “allies.” It can’t be to create democracy, as the U.S. rejected the results of a free election in Gaza, because we did not like the outcome. It is a cynical contradiction to support democracy in Iraq, autocracy among our allies, and simultaneously reject the exercise of democracy elsewhere.
One suspects the goal is to control Iraqi oil, especially since the U.S. has pressed to open ownership of the oil fields to foreign investors. And, most likely, the goal is to establish a base for long-term U.S. influence in the area. Why else construct such a large embassy, or several giant military air bases?
Are these legitimate aims? If Iraq no longer presents an imminent threat to the U.S., what is the basis under international law for our continued occupation of Iraq? What can justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens, or the creation of one or two million Iraqi refugees? What can justify the waste of 4,000 U.S. lives, tens of thousands of U.S. wounded, and a trillion dollars?
Whatever one thinks of the answers to these questions, it is long since time for us to change the rhetoric on Iraq. The war is long over. Iraq is no threat. It is time to speak of ending the occupation.
If the war ended years ago, why is the U.S. military still there? It can’t be to remove autocrats and create democracy in the Middle East, or we also would have invaded several other countries, including those of some “allies.” It can’t be to create democracy, as the U.S. rejected the results of a free election in Gaza, because we did not like the outcome. It is a cynical contradiction to support democracy in Iraq, autocracy among our allies, and simultaneously reject the exercise of democracy elsewhere.
One suspects the goal is to control Iraqi oil, especially since the U.S. has pressed to open ownership of the oil fields to foreign investors. And, most likely, the goal is to establish a base for long-term U.S. influence in the area. Why else construct such a large embassy, or several giant military air bases?
Are these legitimate aims? If Iraq no longer presents an imminent threat to the U.S., what is the basis under international law for our continued occupation of Iraq? What can justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens, or the creation of one or two million Iraqi refugees? What can justify the waste of 4,000 U.S. lives, tens of thousands of U.S. wounded, and a trillion dollars?
Whatever one thinks of the answers to these questions, it is long since time for us to change the rhetoric on Iraq. The war is long over. Iraq is no threat. It is time to speak of ending the occupation.
Fixing the Housing/Credit Crisis
The financial markets have been in turmoil over the unexpectedly high risks of complex bundles of mortgages. The Federal Reserve has lowered interest rates, and intervened to back the industry with guarantees and cash to help promote new loans. Many plans have been presented to resolve this crisis, but one aspect has not received enough attention. Here are some ideas to stabilize the credit markets, keep people in their homes, ease the pain to the lending institutions, and protect people and lenders from such future problems.
The Adjustable Rate Mortgage was invented by the financial industry as a way to extend housing credit to more people. The obvious goal was to make more money by making more loans, even if many of these loans were to speculators and to people who were stretching their budgets to the limit. For many years housing prices went up, and, most people did well, based upon two assumptions: (1) their incomes would increase enough to cover possible increases in their interest rates; and/or (2) they could sell their homes at a profit, if they could not make their increased payments.
We now have seen what happens when both assumptions turn out to be false. Many people are missing their mortgage payments, homes are going into foreclosure, and the lenders are posting multi-billion dollar losses.
Since the lenders encouraged many people to take ARM’s, they should absorb the pain rather than the homeowners or the government. On the other hand, lenders should be helped and not allowed to fail. The basic problem is the ARM, itself. Here is what we could do right now to stabilize the market and help people stay in their homes.
1. Limit any ARM interest rate adjustments to ¼ % per year, with a maximum interest rate no higher than conventional 30 year rates, when the adjustment reaches that level.
2. Once the ARM reaches the 30 year rate, provide no-cost conversions to a conventional loan, for the remaining life of the loan.
3. Roll back all ARM adjustments for the past year, which is when those adjustments began to outstrip people’s ability to pay their mortgages.
4. Either prohibit new ARM’s completely, or require borrowers to qualify at the highest interest rate specified in the loan.
5. Limit the highest interest rate specified in new ARM’s to current 30 year rates, plus no more than 2%.
These measures would lower the number of foreclosures substantially, enabling the market to better price loan instruments. Mortgage lenders would be able to lower their “risk premiums,” freeing up cash for the credit market. ARM’s would unwind over a long period, reducing the costs to lenders. Borrowers would have an easier time obtaining credit, and staying in their homes. All involved would benefit.
Something to think about.
The Adjustable Rate Mortgage was invented by the financial industry as a way to extend housing credit to more people. The obvious goal was to make more money by making more loans, even if many of these loans were to speculators and to people who were stretching their budgets to the limit. For many years housing prices went up, and, most people did well, based upon two assumptions: (1) their incomes would increase enough to cover possible increases in their interest rates; and/or (2) they could sell their homes at a profit, if they could not make their increased payments.
We now have seen what happens when both assumptions turn out to be false. Many people are missing their mortgage payments, homes are going into foreclosure, and the lenders are posting multi-billion dollar losses.
Since the lenders encouraged many people to take ARM’s, they should absorb the pain rather than the homeowners or the government. On the other hand, lenders should be helped and not allowed to fail. The basic problem is the ARM, itself. Here is what we could do right now to stabilize the market and help people stay in their homes.
1. Limit any ARM interest rate adjustments to ¼ % per year, with a maximum interest rate no higher than conventional 30 year rates, when the adjustment reaches that level.
2. Once the ARM reaches the 30 year rate, provide no-cost conversions to a conventional loan, for the remaining life of the loan.
3. Roll back all ARM adjustments for the past year, which is when those adjustments began to outstrip people’s ability to pay their mortgages.
4. Either prohibit new ARM’s completely, or require borrowers to qualify at the highest interest rate specified in the loan.
5. Limit the highest interest rate specified in new ARM’s to current 30 year rates, plus no more than 2%.
These measures would lower the number of foreclosures substantially, enabling the market to better price loan instruments. Mortgage lenders would be able to lower their “risk premiums,” freeing up cash for the credit market. ARM’s would unwind over a long period, reducing the costs to lenders. Borrowers would have an easier time obtaining credit, and staying in their homes. All involved would benefit.
Something to think about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)