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?
Thursday, July 3, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)