The CRU has admitted that its email was hacked, granting a face validity to the whole trove.
This ought to demonstrate the bias of much of the global warming expertise. Clearly this important center has gone about its work with a clear predisposition, and a decided intolerance for any dissent from its conclusions. But the larger blogal warming community is also implicated. They have relied on this center's work, despite the obvous and outward signs of that bias, and so demonstrated their own preference for a particular conclusion to an actual understanding of the situation.
The bias of this community shouldn't be news: the temperament and predisposition of much of the global warming science has been on display for years. These researchers refuse to share their data, they will not entertain obvious questions or qualifications, and they endorse transparently selective presentations like "Earth In The Balance." Ask a real scientist for a definitive conclusion from an experiment and you'll get a maddeningly caveated statement of the theories consistent with its results, followed by an exhaustive discussion of the next question to be nailed down. Ask a global warming researcher the implications of a polar ice core sample and you'll get a conclusive statement of the evils of coal-fueled generation. The difference in tone and rhetorical strength ought to be obvious.
The question ought to be, why has our discourse allowed these figures so much authority? I suggest that many of their sympathizers were suspicious of consumption, and industrial production, and business, long before "global warming" became an issue. Regulation of business and constraint on consumption have long been desired by progressives so as to redisribute wealth and reduce the political power of capital and business. The solutions to global warming are nicely consistent with this agenda, and so the issue became one more argument for progressive policies. The inability of most citizens to analyze the scientific claims forestalled a proper discussion, and the willingness of most citizens to take experts and politicians at their word left the debate in the hands of those willing to speak with the greatest urgency.
Now we're beginning to see that these claims don't pass truly scientific scrutiny. The whole effort has eroded the credibility of a corner of the scientific world, and the political establishment that accepted its claims so uncritically.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Shuffling
The Washington Post covered the cost of the mandated health insurance for young people.
Yes. Requiring insurance may be simple legislating social responsibility, since our society will provide care of some kind to sick people whether they can pay or not. But controlling the price of that insurance, and requiring it be very comprehensive insurance with limited deductibles and cost sharing, forces the insurer to charge everyone the same premium. In that model, the less risky to subsidize the more risky. The premium paid by the less risky in excess of the expected cost of their particular needs is really a subsidy for the more risky. The mandate essentially becomes a tax on the less risky, administered by the insurers and spent on the more risky.
Perhaps a subsidy for the more risky makes sense, but this structure is problematic. It obscures the debate, as the subsidy is hidden and so more difficult to discuss. Its very definition becomes divisive if liberals insist that it isn't a subsidy at all but a payment for service and that any other definition of the service terms would be "unfair." The structure makes the subsidy and benefits provided more difficult to adjust, whether for social needs or the economy's ability to bear the cost.
This structure also complicates any effort to reduce the cost inflation at the center of the problem. Economists agree that the separation of the consumers from the costs of their care removes their diligence from the service selection process, denying the system the strongest force for putting pressure on costs. Consumers certainly understand quality at a very granular level, and they certainly understand cost -- forcing them to participate in the cost / quality tradeoff decision would give providers incentive to produce better choices. In such an inefficient system, that force would create a long period of declining costs and improving quality. (But I wouldn't underestimate the time or market restructuring required to get it started. This really would be a revolution in health care provision, and wouldn't come easily.) But everyone is covered, and that coverage is comprehensive and restricted in its cost sharing, it would become extremely difficult to introduce consumer forces into the cost control solution.
That would leave cost control to either a regulatory approach, or some negotiated standoff between insurers and providers. Given the local market concentrations of many important providers (eg, hospitals), it's hard to see their incentives to reduce costs. Insurers would have to bring forth new providers, and encourage patients to use them -- and why should patients cooperate without some price or quality incentive? We would probably get some cost control through improved efficiencies in care for the currently uninsured, currently met through uncompensated care pools. But that's a one-time only event.
So it is very hard to see how this helps people who already have insurance. It offers a one-time cost reduction, but then mutes the incentives for cost reduction going forward. It could well increase their premiums by reducing insurers' latitude for medical underwriting. It certainly imposes excess premiums on younger, healthier people who are not currently insured. And it doesn't do much to squeeze the excess costs out of the system and make the resources they consume available elsewhere in the economy.
How did we get here? The Democrats very much want universal coverage on a subsidized basis. Their preferred option is single payer, but this is a nonstarter because of the economic and agency problems it creates. So they turn to other formulations, but it turns out that these have the same problems. You can't get away from economic realities, no matter what structure you use.
What should we do? Address the economic realities. First take the difficult steps to make the system more transparent and economically efficient, which would reduce costs and improve care. That would alleviate many of the coverage problems we see. Then move to address the problems that remain. It's cleaner economically, and a policy matter, and as a political debate.
But it's also essential that young, healthy people participate, said Linda
J. Blumberg, a health-care expert at the Urban Institute, because the
requirement that people have insurance "is really a mechanism for financing
health-care reform."
Yes. Requiring insurance may be simple legislating social responsibility, since our society will provide care of some kind to sick people whether they can pay or not. But controlling the price of that insurance, and requiring it be very comprehensive insurance with limited deductibles and cost sharing, forces the insurer to charge everyone the same premium. In that model, the less risky to subsidize the more risky. The premium paid by the less risky in excess of the expected cost of their particular needs is really a subsidy for the more risky. The mandate essentially becomes a tax on the less risky, administered by the insurers and spent on the more risky.
Perhaps a subsidy for the more risky makes sense, but this structure is problematic. It obscures the debate, as the subsidy is hidden and so more difficult to discuss. Its very definition becomes divisive if liberals insist that it isn't a subsidy at all but a payment for service and that any other definition of the service terms would be "unfair." The structure makes the subsidy and benefits provided more difficult to adjust, whether for social needs or the economy's ability to bear the cost.
This structure also complicates any effort to reduce the cost inflation at the center of the problem. Economists agree that the separation of the consumers from the costs of their care removes their diligence from the service selection process, denying the system the strongest force for putting pressure on costs. Consumers certainly understand quality at a very granular level, and they certainly understand cost -- forcing them to participate in the cost / quality tradeoff decision would give providers incentive to produce better choices. In such an inefficient system, that force would create a long period of declining costs and improving quality. (But I wouldn't underestimate the time or market restructuring required to get it started. This really would be a revolution in health care provision, and wouldn't come easily.) But everyone is covered, and that coverage is comprehensive and restricted in its cost sharing, it would become extremely difficult to introduce consumer forces into the cost control solution.
That would leave cost control to either a regulatory approach, or some negotiated standoff between insurers and providers. Given the local market concentrations of many important providers (eg, hospitals), it's hard to see their incentives to reduce costs. Insurers would have to bring forth new providers, and encourage patients to use them -- and why should patients cooperate without some price or quality incentive? We would probably get some cost control through improved efficiencies in care for the currently uninsured, currently met through uncompensated care pools. But that's a one-time only event.
So it is very hard to see how this helps people who already have insurance. It offers a one-time cost reduction, but then mutes the incentives for cost reduction going forward. It could well increase their premiums by reducing insurers' latitude for medical underwriting. It certainly imposes excess premiums on younger, healthier people who are not currently insured. And it doesn't do much to squeeze the excess costs out of the system and make the resources they consume available elsewhere in the economy.
How did we get here? The Democrats very much want universal coverage on a subsidized basis. Their preferred option is single payer, but this is a nonstarter because of the economic and agency problems it creates. So they turn to other formulations, but it turns out that these have the same problems. You can't get away from economic realities, no matter what structure you use.
What should we do? Address the economic realities. First take the difficult steps to make the system more transparent and economically efficient, which would reduce costs and improve care. That would alleviate many of the coverage problems we see. Then move to address the problems that remain. It's cleaner economically, and a policy matter, and as a political debate.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Evidence
Here is footage of some angry citizen chewing out Arlen Specter. I'm not wild about language like "someday God will judge you", but the gentleman is angry not about Senator Specter's health care position but the management of the meeting and the control of the questions asked.
The Senator may want an "orderly procedure", but the problem seems to be that the attendees don't trust his management of that procedure.
The Senator may want an "orderly procedure", but the problem seems to be that the attendees don't trust his management of that procedure.
Monday, August 10, 2009
No Man Can Serve Two Masters
I haven't been to one of these raucous town halls, so I can only speculate from news reports about what is going on in these things.
But it wouldn't surprise me if Members, their staffs, and their allies are often trying to manage the message and tone of these things. We've seen stories of sections reserved for union attendees, who enter after arriving later than long lines of people who are held at the door. And I've read at least one report of a Member taking questions as selected for him by his staff, without opening a floor mike. Talk of "balance" and "participation" comes easily to any politician seeking to find space for his allies, and it isn't hard to imagine discussions set up to emphasize apparent support for health care reform out of all proportion to the views of the attendees.
And in such staged and stilted environments, it isn't hard to imagine attendees getting angry, and finding a way to express the real proportions of sentiment in the room.
It's also easy to imagine the dilemma of many of these Members. Computerized gerrymandering has created many safe seats in Congress and state Legislatures -- obtaining office in such a district is as much a matter of building support within the party as it is winning the general election. I suspect many of our Congressmen are more adept at intraparty politics than general elections, because the latter is far less important in their jurisdiction.
The general electorate tolerates such stuff when the stakes are low, because they are less invested in particular issues than the various constituents making up the governing coalition. But when the coalition's agenda becomes so ambitious that it clearly conflicts with the general interest, and/or the particular interests outside the coalition, the general voices become a lot stronger.
I imagine that many Congressmen now find their districts generally opposed to the policies so avidly supported by their intraparty coalitions. These face a tough problem, as they need both to stay in office, and to advance their careers, but can't please both. It would be only natural for them to try to minimize the problem by managing the discussions of the issues so as to minimize the voice of the opposition, in the hope that the issue will go away by the next general election.
At this point, I'm very worried that the liberals in Congress will ram through as many benefits for their constituents as they can, calculating that even if they lose their majorities, it will be very hard to unwind those concessions. Under a Democratic President, they might well be right.
At that point, we don't have any good outcomes. The concessions couldn't be unwound without bitter fights, and the disappointment of a lot of people who have been educated to believe they deserve all this stuff. And it would be quite hard to unwind them under a Democratic President. I'm afraid that Congress is now poised to do a great deal of damage to our economy, our governance, and our politics.
But it wouldn't surprise me if Members, their staffs, and their allies are often trying to manage the message and tone of these things. We've seen stories of sections reserved for union attendees, who enter after arriving later than long lines of people who are held at the door. And I've read at least one report of a Member taking questions as selected for him by his staff, without opening a floor mike. Talk of "balance" and "participation" comes easily to any politician seeking to find space for his allies, and it isn't hard to imagine discussions set up to emphasize apparent support for health care reform out of all proportion to the views of the attendees.
And in such staged and stilted environments, it isn't hard to imagine attendees getting angry, and finding a way to express the real proportions of sentiment in the room.
It's also easy to imagine the dilemma of many of these Members. Computerized gerrymandering has created many safe seats in Congress and state Legislatures -- obtaining office in such a district is as much a matter of building support within the party as it is winning the general election. I suspect many of our Congressmen are more adept at intraparty politics than general elections, because the latter is far less important in their jurisdiction.
The general electorate tolerates such stuff when the stakes are low, because they are less invested in particular issues than the various constituents making up the governing coalition. But when the coalition's agenda becomes so ambitious that it clearly conflicts with the general interest, and/or the particular interests outside the coalition, the general voices become a lot stronger.
I imagine that many Congressmen now find their districts generally opposed to the policies so avidly supported by their intraparty coalitions. These face a tough problem, as they need both to stay in office, and to advance their careers, but can't please both. It would be only natural for them to try to minimize the problem by managing the discussions of the issues so as to minimize the voice of the opposition, in the hope that the issue will go away by the next general election.
At this point, I'm very worried that the liberals in Congress will ram through as many benefits for their constituents as they can, calculating that even if they lose their majorities, it will be very hard to unwind those concessions. Under a Democratic President, they might well be right.
At that point, we don't have any good outcomes. The concessions couldn't be unwound without bitter fights, and the disappointment of a lot of people who have been educated to believe they deserve all this stuff. And it would be quite hard to unwind them under a Democratic President. I'm afraid that Congress is now poised to do a great deal of damage to our economy, our governance, and our politics.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Small Changes, Large Changes
The Post reports that President Obama's poll numbers are slipping:
". . . public approval of President Obama's stewardship on the issue has dropped below the 50 percent threshold for the first time . . . . Obama's approval ratings on other front-burner issues, such as the economy and the federal budget deficit, have also slipped over the summer, as rising concern about spending and continuing worries about the economy combine to challenge his administration."
I'm not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, every President's polls slip after their inaugural highs. The difficulties of realizing policy goals begins to peel off the previously hopeful as they are disappointed with various policy details.
On the other hand, Obama's strength was based on his identity as a new and different figure, with a different approach. He's losing support among exactly those who should be part of a new coalition, and rapidly: "Among independents and Republicans, confidence [in the stimulus plan] has decreased by 20 or more points; it has dropped seven points among Democrats." The article doesn't give the initial number, but that's a whopping drop from any level. "Nearly a quarter of moderate and conservative Democrats (22 percent) now see Obama as an 'old-style tax-and-spend Democrat,' up from 4 percent in March." Such Democrats are unique in their sympathy for a Democratic presidency and their interest in middle-of-the-road economic policy. In March, they were sure Obama wasn't a traditional liberal. Suddenly, a significant number of them have changed their mind, which suggests that the "change" message is under serious pressure.
These moves suggest that the core themes of Obama's image are eroding. It would be harder for Obama to claim that he's "bipartisan" if the independents and conservative Dems think he's a traditional liberal. And he has deliberately sold that unique character, so his credibility is bound up in people's agreement with that self-assessment.
The legislative implications are clear. If Obama's centrist image collapses, Democrats from swing districts and states will be a lot less willing to co-operate, as they'll doubt his ability to continually make the sale to their constituencies. He'll then have to choose between moving further left to keep the liberals on board, which would accelerate the erosion. Or he'll have to move his policy proposals to the right, to shore up his image and coalition. That would not play well with Congressional liberals, who have so far largely had their way and have expansive hopes for this Administration. They might co-operate out of self-interest, but there would be considerable tensions within the party. Obama would then have to organize cohesive and saleable policies from those tensions, requiring considerably more legislative involvement than he's had so far. His ability to reach out could also be compromised by a new impression in Congress that he really is a liberal, and any concessions he makes are only momentary and incidental.
These difficulties passing legislation would only make it more difficult to address the country's immediate problems, whose resolution are the chief driver of general impressions.
This doesn't have to be fatal. Obama might be able to weave harmony among the party's factions. Though I haven't yet been impressed with his political or philosophical acumen, I'm in the minority, and deft leadership through crisis is certainly what we've been told to expect of the man. That would be impressive in its own right. If he can pass a health care bill that satisfies his party conservatives, and starts to see improvement in the economy, the moment could validate the skill and poise. It might establish the bona fides of his centrism, and cast quibblers like myself as reactionaries.
But those are big ifs, and contrary to my understanding of his real goals. I think the man is a true liberal, and that the polls reflect a growing realization of that. If so, time is running out on this Administration. Once they've lost that centrist label, they can't get it back -- every effort to do so would seem more calculated than anything else, and he'd lack the credibility to make the case. The President would be left with the liberal wing of his own party, and considerable disappointment and confusion over his inability to push things forward. At that point, the national discussion could get ugly.
". . . public approval of President Obama's stewardship on the issue has dropped below the 50 percent threshold for the first time . . . . Obama's approval ratings on other front-burner issues, such as the economy and the federal budget deficit, have also slipped over the summer, as rising concern about spending and continuing worries about the economy combine to challenge his administration."
I'm not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, every President's polls slip after their inaugural highs. The difficulties of realizing policy goals begins to peel off the previously hopeful as they are disappointed with various policy details.
On the other hand, Obama's strength was based on his identity as a new and different figure, with a different approach. He's losing support among exactly those who should be part of a new coalition, and rapidly: "Among independents and Republicans, confidence [in the stimulus plan] has decreased by 20 or more points; it has dropped seven points among Democrats." The article doesn't give the initial number, but that's a whopping drop from any level. "Nearly a quarter of moderate and conservative Democrats (22 percent) now see Obama as an 'old-style tax-and-spend Democrat,' up from 4 percent in March." Such Democrats are unique in their sympathy for a Democratic presidency and their interest in middle-of-the-road economic policy. In March, they were sure Obama wasn't a traditional liberal. Suddenly, a significant number of them have changed their mind, which suggests that the "change" message is under serious pressure.
These moves suggest that the core themes of Obama's image are eroding. It would be harder for Obama to claim that he's "bipartisan" if the independents and conservative Dems think he's a traditional liberal. And he has deliberately sold that unique character, so his credibility is bound up in people's agreement with that self-assessment.
The legislative implications are clear. If Obama's centrist image collapses, Democrats from swing districts and states will be a lot less willing to co-operate, as they'll doubt his ability to continually make the sale to their constituencies. He'll then have to choose between moving further left to keep the liberals on board, which would accelerate the erosion. Or he'll have to move his policy proposals to the right, to shore up his image and coalition. That would not play well with Congressional liberals, who have so far largely had their way and have expansive hopes for this Administration. They might co-operate out of self-interest, but there would be considerable tensions within the party. Obama would then have to organize cohesive and saleable policies from those tensions, requiring considerably more legislative involvement than he's had so far. His ability to reach out could also be compromised by a new impression in Congress that he really is a liberal, and any concessions he makes are only momentary and incidental.
These difficulties passing legislation would only make it more difficult to address the country's immediate problems, whose resolution are the chief driver of general impressions.
This doesn't have to be fatal. Obama might be able to weave harmony among the party's factions. Though I haven't yet been impressed with his political or philosophical acumen, I'm in the minority, and deft leadership through crisis is certainly what we've been told to expect of the man. That would be impressive in its own right. If he can pass a health care bill that satisfies his party conservatives, and starts to see improvement in the economy, the moment could validate the skill and poise. It might establish the bona fides of his centrism, and cast quibblers like myself as reactionaries.
But those are big ifs, and contrary to my understanding of his real goals. I think the man is a true liberal, and that the polls reflect a growing realization of that. If so, time is running out on this Administration. Once they've lost that centrist label, they can't get it back -- every effort to do so would seem more calculated than anything else, and he'd lack the credibility to make the case. The President would be left with the liberal wing of his own party, and considerable disappointment and confusion over his inability to push things forward. At that point, the national discussion could get ugly.
Monday, June 15, 2009
"Their voices should be heard and respected"
The President has, after a long delay, commented on the Iranian election:
-- White House
But, ". . . I can't state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election." And, ". . . the use of tough, hard-headed diplomacy -- diplomacy with no illusions about Iran and the nature of the differences between our two countries -- is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of our national security interests. . . "
It sounds as if the President has decided not only to look the other way, but to signal that he shall do so, and without much effect on future "diplomacy".
This is entirely unnecessary. Even conceding we don't actually _know_ that Ahmadinejad stole the election, there is still a long bill of particulars to be brought against the Iranian regime, a list of political suppressions so long as to have long ago deprived them of any presumption of legitimate popular support. Pointing out their tyrannies would go a long way to depriving them of the legitimacy they hoped to obtain from these "elections". Instead we are promising them a return to stability, and silence on their claims for legitimacy, at the very moment when they are unbalanced and unsure.
I am well aware that criticizing the regime voluteers us for the role of foil for a regimen eager to change the subject. But these are exactly the moments where Obama's "gift" for communication should shine: surely there are ways to communicate that we regard this announcement as a sham, and to signal our support for the dissidents, without claiming to tell the Iranians what to do.
I fear this could be a very dangerous precedent. Mugabe has already stolen an election last year, and the President just gave Zimbabwe aid (through the offices of Tsvangiri, but still destined for Zimbabwe). There will be people who want to steal the coming election in Iraq, who must first wonder if doing so would cost them the support of the US. The answer seems to be that if you can stabilize your domestic position, yes, we will take a "hardheaded" look at your rise to power.
Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing
on television. I think that the democratic process -- free speech, the
ability of people to peacefully dissent -- all those are universal values and
need to be respected.
-- White House
But, ". . . I can't state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election." And, ". . . the use of tough, hard-headed diplomacy -- diplomacy with no illusions about Iran and the nature of the differences between our two countries -- is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of our national security interests. . . "
It sounds as if the President has decided not only to look the other way, but to signal that he shall do so, and without much effect on future "diplomacy".
This is entirely unnecessary. Even conceding we don't actually _know_ that Ahmadinejad stole the election, there is still a long bill of particulars to be brought against the Iranian regime, a list of political suppressions so long as to have long ago deprived them of any presumption of legitimate popular support. Pointing out their tyrannies would go a long way to depriving them of the legitimacy they hoped to obtain from these "elections". Instead we are promising them a return to stability, and silence on their claims for legitimacy, at the very moment when they are unbalanced and unsure.
I am well aware that criticizing the regime voluteers us for the role of foil for a regimen eager to change the subject. But these are exactly the moments where Obama's "gift" for communication should shine: surely there are ways to communicate that we regard this announcement as a sham, and to signal our support for the dissidents, without claiming to tell the Iranians what to do.
I fear this could be a very dangerous precedent. Mugabe has already stolen an election last year, and the President just gave Zimbabwe aid (through the offices of Tsvangiri, but still destined for Zimbabwe). There will be people who want to steal the coming election in Iraq, who must first wonder if doing so would cost them the support of the US. The answer seems to be that if you can stabilize your domestic position, yes, we will take a "hardheaded" look at your rise to power.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Lookee Here
Hmm.
AP, via Instapundit, via Gateway Pundit.
That doesn't sound good. IG Walpin referred the matter to the local U.S. attorney, who negotiated a settlement that retrieved over $424K from the recipient group but declined to prosecute. That, too, seems a little off -- Attorney Brown said the referral had open questions and had no audit stating the amount of misspent funds. But Attorney Brown also said the recipient group had a culture of "sloppiness", which would sort of complicate an audit, no?
Then again, IG Walpin's "office made repeated public comments just before the Sacramento mayoral election, prompting the U.S. attorney's office to inform the media that it did not intend to file any criminal charges." So maybe the IG had an ax to grind? Which would seem odd, the story details him a New York guy, so what scores would he have to settle in Sacramento?
IG Walpin was appointed in January 2007. It wouldn't surprise me to learn there is a lot of real sloppiness, and maybe some, er, "sloppiness", in the deployment of public service grants. Programs of this sort often have vague objectives and metrics, leaving lots of discretion to local officials. I doubt they've got kids handing out campaign literature, but they can hire administrators, influence the sort of kids hired, and decide whose neighborhood gets beautified. That sort of soft patronage that helps build a coalition. It's an inevitable part of any government program, and I suspect part of the real political motivations of these things, which doesn't necessarily mean they don't still try to serve their stated purposes, and doesn't mean necessarily mean that local officials are abusing the program. But it's easier for them to focus on their particular agendas if "sloppiness" confuses oversight of their compliance with the regulations directing activity to the stated purposes. An IG who insisted on commonplace compliance could interfere with the political purposes of these programs.
That's all speculative. The case ought to be researched. Apparently the White House has to advise Congress of the reasons for dismissing an IG, clearly that ought to happen. Someone ought to look at all the internal email and documentation on the Sacramento case. Also up for review: the cases IG Walpin had in the hopper, complaints about him from other Congresspeople, his record relative to predecessors, a second look at the U.S. attorney's decision not to prosecute. GAO is the logical investigator, but they aren't exactly hard-hitting, and they can take forever. So while they're working, all the documents ought to be available via FOIA, muck to be raked by the enterprising.
IG's who bust the President's buddies build credibility for the purposes of this massive spending increase. Firing them, not so much. We won't get, or believe, a straight answer from the Administration, so let's open the books and see what others may find in them.
President Barack Obama says he has lost confidence in the inspector general who investigates AmeriCorps and other national service programs and has told Congress he is removing him from the position.
Obama’s move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star, into the misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group that Johnson headed. . . . The IG found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used
AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.
AP, via Instapundit, via Gateway Pundit.
That doesn't sound good. IG Walpin referred the matter to the local U.S. attorney, who negotiated a settlement that retrieved over $424K from the recipient group but declined to prosecute. That, too, seems a little off -- Attorney Brown said the referral had open questions and had no audit stating the amount of misspent funds. But Attorney Brown also said the recipient group had a culture of "sloppiness", which would sort of complicate an audit, no?
Then again, IG Walpin's "office made repeated public comments just before the Sacramento mayoral election, prompting the U.S. attorney's office to inform the media that it did not intend to file any criminal charges." So maybe the IG had an ax to grind? Which would seem odd, the story details him a New York guy, so what scores would he have to settle in Sacramento?
IG Walpin was appointed in January 2007. It wouldn't surprise me to learn there is a lot of real sloppiness, and maybe some, er, "sloppiness", in the deployment of public service grants. Programs of this sort often have vague objectives and metrics, leaving lots of discretion to local officials. I doubt they've got kids handing out campaign literature, but they can hire administrators, influence the sort of kids hired, and decide whose neighborhood gets beautified. That sort of soft patronage that helps build a coalition. It's an inevitable part of any government program, and I suspect part of the real political motivations of these things, which doesn't necessarily mean they don't still try to serve their stated purposes, and doesn't mean necessarily mean that local officials are abusing the program. But it's easier for them to focus on their particular agendas if "sloppiness" confuses oversight of their compliance with the regulations directing activity to the stated purposes. An IG who insisted on commonplace compliance could interfere with the political purposes of these programs.
That's all speculative. The case ought to be researched. Apparently the White House has to advise Congress of the reasons for dismissing an IG, clearly that ought to happen. Someone ought to look at all the internal email and documentation on the Sacramento case. Also up for review: the cases IG Walpin had in the hopper, complaints about him from other Congresspeople, his record relative to predecessors, a second look at the U.S. attorney's decision not to prosecute. GAO is the logical investigator, but they aren't exactly hard-hitting, and they can take forever. So while they're working, all the documents ought to be available via FOIA, muck to be raked by the enterprising.
IG's who bust the President's buddies build credibility for the purposes of this massive spending increase. Firing them, not so much. We won't get, or believe, a straight answer from the Administration, so let's open the books and see what others may find in them.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Cairo
I hope President Obama's overtures lead to greater peace and stability. Because if they don't, he is laying out a basis for considerable future trouble. For a guy who talks so much about listening and dialogue, he seems to overlook a great deal of the nuance and complexity of his predecessor's policy -- and that neglect founds most of his unusually strong critique of that policy. Obama positions his policy as a dramatic break from Bush, but there really isn't much that is new, and much of the "innovation" are things Bush was doing that Obama won't acknowledge. Bush was differentiating Islam from terrorism three days after the World Trade Center was bombed. If Obama ever does anything controversial, he may want a better hearing for the complexities of his policies than he has afforded Bush.
I don't see how it is helpful to frame the Iranian nuclear problem as simply a formal deviation from treaty commitments; these wouldn't matter so much if Iran weren't a terror sponsor with a sizeable faction founded on the destruction of Israel. Is it really good idea to focus our complaint on Iranian compliance with a treaty that Israel hasn't signed? Doesn't that lead to an equivalence between Iranian nukes and Israeli, especially when the President is setting out the reduction of all nukes as a policy goal?
Nor do I understand how it helps to tacitly accept the criticisms of American policy. The CIA intervened in Iran fifty years ago; maybe it wasn't the right thing to do, maybe we needed to do it, but it was a long time ago.
I don't like the President very much. I think he vastly overestimates his own understanding, and attributes the apparent contradictions of others to their errors rather than his own incomplete knowledge of their views or the problem. He is far too quick to make declarative statements with little basis, and this leads him to some very questionable rhetoric. Barack Obama has very little basis to tell Muslims what their own faith commands of them. And while he might speak more with more authority on Christian values, he softens their clear statements with universal implications to uncontroversial and meaningless formulations like "progress". Obama is constantly telling people universal truths that are obvious to anyone who will drop their ill-conceived ideas in disagreement with him, but offers surprisingly thin arguments for those truths.
So perhaps I look too hard for the negatives and weaknesses in his rhetoric and policy. Perhaps he will convince our opponents that we are genuinely not in opposition to them, and sway the larger mass of Muslims to greater sympathy and cooperation with us. Perhaps these gestures of trust and openness will inspire reciprocal movement. I would happily rethink the lessons I've drawn from history to understand how we've arrived at a new vision of peace and harmony. I'm already obscure, I have no reputation to lose, and in any should rather lose a reputation to error than live in a world of warfare because I was right.
But if this outreach falls short, I'm afraid we may find that the President has strengthened the rhetoric of our enemies, confused our ability to argue against them, and undermined our credibility.
I don't see how it is helpful to frame the Iranian nuclear problem as simply a formal deviation from treaty commitments; these wouldn't matter so much if Iran weren't a terror sponsor with a sizeable faction founded on the destruction of Israel. Is it really good idea to focus our complaint on Iranian compliance with a treaty that Israel hasn't signed? Doesn't that lead to an equivalence between Iranian nukes and Israeli, especially when the President is setting out the reduction of all nukes as a policy goal?
Nor do I understand how it helps to tacitly accept the criticisms of American policy. The CIA intervened in Iran fifty years ago; maybe it wasn't the right thing to do, maybe we needed to do it, but it was a long time ago.
I don't like the President very much. I think he vastly overestimates his own understanding, and attributes the apparent contradictions of others to their errors rather than his own incomplete knowledge of their views or the problem. He is far too quick to make declarative statements with little basis, and this leads him to some very questionable rhetoric. Barack Obama has very little basis to tell Muslims what their own faith commands of them. And while he might speak more with more authority on Christian values, he softens their clear statements with universal implications to uncontroversial and meaningless formulations like "progress". Obama is constantly telling people universal truths that are obvious to anyone who will drop their ill-conceived ideas in disagreement with him, but offers surprisingly thin arguments for those truths.
So perhaps I look too hard for the negatives and weaknesses in his rhetoric and policy. Perhaps he will convince our opponents that we are genuinely not in opposition to them, and sway the larger mass of Muslims to greater sympathy and cooperation with us. Perhaps these gestures of trust and openness will inspire reciprocal movement. I would happily rethink the lessons I've drawn from history to understand how we've arrived at a new vision of peace and harmony. I'm already obscure, I have no reputation to lose, and in any should rather lose a reputation to error than live in a world of warfare because I was right.
But if this outreach falls short, I'm afraid we may find that the President has strengthened the rhetoric of our enemies, confused our ability to argue against them, and undermined our credibility.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Conspiracy Theories
Bloggers are speculating that perhaps Chrysler dealers were closed for selection on the basis of donations to Republicans (via Jonah and sfexaminer.com).
I doubt the Administration would do anything so colossally stupid, at least directly. I expect that list was compiled by Chrysler people, and how could they receive such directions without leaving a paper trail?
It is conceivable that the Administration was consulted on the list, and drew Congress into those consultations, and that lists with more Democrats were discovered to have various business problems, and that such business problems kept emerging until the list became Republican through a process akin to natural selection. It's also possible that the demographics of the redundancies in Chrysler's network overlapped with the demographics correlated with Republican membership. We would have to see a pattern of Republican dealerships closed in proximity to Democratic dealerships, and that against the patterns we would expect from some reasonable business logic, and without a plausible business logic for those patterns.
If there is an apparent pattern, it deserves scrutiny. But it would be shocking to see that this happened on any plausible basis. Let's remember that a lot of these dealers are getting screwed, and the Republicans among them already dislike this Administration, so they are primed to see something sinister.
To quickly review the situation, I took all dealer owners whose names appeared
more than once in the list. And, of those who contributed to political
campaigns, every single one had donated almost exclusively to GOP candidates.
While this isn't an exhaustive review, it does have some ominous implications if
it can be verified.
I doubt the Administration would do anything so colossally stupid, at least directly. I expect that list was compiled by Chrysler people, and how could they receive such directions without leaving a paper trail?
It is conceivable that the Administration was consulted on the list, and drew Congress into those consultations, and that lists with more Democrats were discovered to have various business problems, and that such business problems kept emerging until the list became Republican through a process akin to natural selection. It's also possible that the demographics of the redundancies in Chrysler's network overlapped with the demographics correlated with Republican membership. We would have to see a pattern of Republican dealerships closed in proximity to Democratic dealerships, and that against the patterns we would expect from some reasonable business logic, and without a plausible business logic for those patterns.
If there is an apparent pattern, it deserves scrutiny. But it would be shocking to see that this happened on any plausible basis. Let's remember that a lot of these dealers are getting screwed, and the Republicans among them already dislike this Administration, so they are primed to see something sinister.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
More Mush
We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two
opposite and absolutist ends. . . . On the other end of
the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two
words: "anything goes."
Just a few days after preaching at Notre Dame on fairness among disputants, the President is reducing his opponents' arguments to a caricature. Perhaps "enhanced interrogation" was a mistake, and perhaps the legal justification was faulty. But even if the Bush Administration was wrong about the rules, it certainly took pains to abide by them as it understhood them.
More could be said about the President's speech. He deploys his usual rhetorical devices to mask his assertions under the guise of argument, and to expand his supporting facts well beyond any reasonable implication. Those tools are most effective when the subject matter is soaring principles. When applied to more pedestrian details, it becomes easier to notice their inaccuracies and misrepresentations. And he is here deploying these tools against a core constituency, disappointed at the continuity of his terror policy with that against which he ran, and so less likely to uncritically applaud his conclusions, and more likely to first study the substance of his argument.
The President is popular, and seems successful as the economy and markets have seemingly improved, and still enjoys the prestige of what he might achieve in Congress. But his few achievements are still untested, and the possibilities face enormous hurdles. As he is tested, people will review the founding principles he has laid out, and will find that they do not hold together, or do not respond to the actual critiques and so miss the actual problems, or do not correspond with the promises of his campaign. His popularity has depended on the suggestion that he can meet the many conflicting hopes, and on a vision of egalitarian and prosperous promises. As he disappoints those hopes, his supporters will scrutinize his principles more closely. I do not think they will be satisfied by the rigor they find there.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Surveying the New Foundations
The President is playing well abroad. Couple that to his personal press offensive before leaving and the market's positive reaction to Geithner's public-private partnership and the Administration has had several positive weeks. It's a step in the right direction for an Administration that had been facing growing concern among its own supporters.
The G20 didn't accomplish much substantively, outside perhaps the IMF funding item. To my ear, the President' rhetoric is laying the groundwork for future difficulties. I don't think it strengthens our standing or that of the Presidency to so actively criticize the prior Administration. He gains little by emphasizing personal differences with Bush that are already well understood, and confuses people by inviting them to question which American commitments he'll adopt and which he'll discard. And he encourages everyone to wonder about the duration of his own commitments by emphasizing that policies change with Presidents. Anyone counting on US support must read through Obama to estimate which policies will garner American public support after him; anyone resisting him is invited to consider whether they can wait him out. Obama won and of course he wants to change direction, but he seems to have discounted the value of some kind of continuity down to zero.
While Obama has tried to deliver a balanced message addressing both American and European faults, it's unclear whether that will get through. It is fine to say that Europe is prone to a reflexive anti-Americanism, but he hasn't spent a lot of time there, so how would he know? Europeans may very easily discount this as intended for domestic consumption, as the President just admitted to a series of mistakes that in their view entirely justify their distaste.
His focus on US disarmament is, as Anne Applebaum puts it, "peculiar". By questioning our own arsenal, it invites Iranian and Korean arguments that their aspirations are no different than ours. The suggestion that we must lead by example makes us vulnerable to accusations that we aren't living up to our standard, though we can't entirely control our own compliance, as we must depend on Russian cooperation. It shifts the focus away from their violations of their own commitments and aggressive intentions. And it sets a poor example for future negotiations: our enemies have violated their own agreements and threatened their neighbors, and Obama's opening bid is a review of our behavior. This isn't going to discourage foreign challengers looking for a deal.
And a comparison of the President's remarks with his campaign positions doesn't bolster his reputation for thoughtfulness. He's walked back his commitments on Iraq withdrawal and recognizing the Armenian "genocide", saying things are different now that he is President. Very true, but does that admit his campaign promises didn't think ahead to the responsibilities to which he aspired? It's easy to say fine things, and harder to accomplish them.
The practical implications of all this will be long in coming. These are the foundations others will consider as they calculate their relationship with the US and its current President. The President seems to stake American objectives on the theory that clearing ourselves of any suggestion of fault with inspire others to do the same, to work with us and to amend their aggressive behaviors. There is very little in history to suggest that this sort of thing produces good results.
The G20 didn't accomplish much substantively, outside perhaps the IMF funding item. To my ear, the President' rhetoric is laying the groundwork for future difficulties. I don't think it strengthens our standing or that of the Presidency to so actively criticize the prior Administration. He gains little by emphasizing personal differences with Bush that are already well understood, and confuses people by inviting them to question which American commitments he'll adopt and which he'll discard. And he encourages everyone to wonder about the duration of his own commitments by emphasizing that policies change with Presidents. Anyone counting on US support must read through Obama to estimate which policies will garner American public support after him; anyone resisting him is invited to consider whether they can wait him out. Obama won and of course he wants to change direction, but he seems to have discounted the value of some kind of continuity down to zero.
While Obama has tried to deliver a balanced message addressing both American and European faults, it's unclear whether that will get through. It is fine to say that Europe is prone to a reflexive anti-Americanism, but he hasn't spent a lot of time there, so how would he know? Europeans may very easily discount this as intended for domestic consumption, as the President just admitted to a series of mistakes that in their view entirely justify their distaste.
His focus on US disarmament is, as Anne Applebaum puts it, "peculiar". By questioning our own arsenal, it invites Iranian and Korean arguments that their aspirations are no different than ours. The suggestion that we must lead by example makes us vulnerable to accusations that we aren't living up to our standard, though we can't entirely control our own compliance, as we must depend on Russian cooperation. It shifts the focus away from their violations of their own commitments and aggressive intentions. And it sets a poor example for future negotiations: our enemies have violated their own agreements and threatened their neighbors, and Obama's opening bid is a review of our behavior. This isn't going to discourage foreign challengers looking for a deal.
And a comparison of the President's remarks with his campaign positions doesn't bolster his reputation for thoughtfulness. He's walked back his commitments on Iraq withdrawal and recognizing the Armenian "genocide", saying things are different now that he is President. Very true, but does that admit his campaign promises didn't think ahead to the responsibilities to which he aspired? It's easy to say fine things, and harder to accomplish them.
The practical implications of all this will be long in coming. These are the foundations others will consider as they calculate their relationship with the US and its current President. The President seems to stake American objectives on the theory that clearing ourselves of any suggestion of fault with inspire others to do the same, to work with us and to amend their aggressive behaviors. There is very little in history to suggest that this sort of thing produces good results.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Who's In Charge Here?
Rep. Kanjorski is saying that he thinks the AIG bonus controversy has closed off the opportunity for Congress to pass further bailout funds. I hope not. But if so, doesn't the President bear some responsibility for the climate of outrage, and the insistence that something should be done? Isn't this a moment for someone to say, this is terrible, but we can't do anything without making it worse and let's focus on the real issues? Isn't the President supposed to lead the country through unpleasant choices to a constructive perspective?
Instead, we see Congress talking about confiscation of property via ex post facto law, and the White House signalling "openness" to such talk. Are they really that crazy?
I really think not, which makes me wonder what the real purpose is. The President just took questions and said that one question is, why were these guys making so much money in the first place, and why can't we regulate those compensation arrangements? And that, I think, speaks to the real purpose of this. The Democrats are using the episode to attack excess compensation generally, to embarrass it and to build support for regulating it. They are playing this as a class warfare episode to justify their taxes on wealth and expand government's influence through the economy.
Instead, we see Congress talking about confiscation of property via ex post facto law, and the White House signalling "openness" to such talk. Are they really that crazy?
I really think not, which makes me wonder what the real purpose is. The President just took questions and said that one question is, why were these guys making so much money in the first place, and why can't we regulate those compensation arrangements? And that, I think, speaks to the real purpose of this. The Democrats are using the episode to attack excess compensation generally, to embarrass it and to build support for regulating it. They are playing this as a class warfare episode to justify their taxes on wealth and expand government's influence through the economy.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Don't Govern Angry!
How, exactly, does the yelling about the AIG bonus payments help stabilize our financial system? Yes, it's a lot of money, and no, it's hard to imagine how people in that CDS shop deserve a dime of it. So what? The Administration's economic leadership has been occupied with this tangent for three or four days. Don't they have a G20 summit to plan for, an auto bailout to arrange, a stabilization plan to design/announce/implement?
(An aside: we don't know how much of the money is commission for some sort of salespeople, which I actually think would be justifiable and even smart. Then again, if many of the recipients weren't in the CDS shop, that fact would probably have been leaked by now.)
This is a political exercise. Some participants are trying to embarrass wealth. Others are avoiding association with apparent greed and incompetence. There may also be an atavistic response to rage against this stuff rather than address financial complexities the politicians barely understand. All told, it's one more datum for the argument that we lack policy leadership.
(An aside: we don't know how much of the money is commission for some sort of salespeople, which I actually think would be justifiable and even smart. Then again, if many of the recipients weren't in the CDS shop, that fact would probably have been leaked by now.)
This is a political exercise. Some participants are trying to embarrass wealth. Others are avoiding association with apparent greed and incompetence. There may also be an atavistic response to rage against this stuff rather than address financial complexities the politicians barely understand. All told, it's one more datum for the argument that we lack policy leadership.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Can't Anyone Play This Game?
Christina Romer was sent out Sunday to Meet the Press to explain the nuances of "fundamentally sound":
"MR. GREGORY: But perhaps Senator McCain was right when he said the fundamentals of the economy were strong, because you have President Obama saying roughly the same thing now?
"DR. ROMER: I really think you're misinterpreting the president. I think the key thing that the president was saying is we have our eyes on the fundamentals, that is why we're concerned about.
"MR. GREGORY: Hm."
Maybe it would help if the President didn't repeat his electoral rival's exact vocabulary on the issue the President himself defined as central to the economy? Staff often have to explain "what the President really meant", but they aren't often required to explain that day is night and night is day, on national television, on the defining issue of the campaign and chief policy question before the nation. I'm not thinking that asking Dr. Romer to fix this is a sign of a great boss. This was a serious mistake by the President himself, and he should have found an opportunity to clean it up. How could anyone but the President "explain his meaning"? He did actually say exactly the same thing as Senator McCain did last fall, and there is no getting around it.
I did imagine one answer: "The President thinks many elements of the economy are quite sound, and is very confident of our future once we fix the problems holding us back. So I suppose he does agree with Senator McCain in that. The difference is the moment and the emphasis. Senator McCain spoke as we were beginning to see the depth of the problem, and before it was clear that he or anyone understood its complexity and scale. At that time, the President sought to avoid diminishing the importance and scale of the challenge -- that was what that debate was about. I think everyone now sees the issues much more clearly. Certainly there is little doubt that the President thinks we have some serious challenges, or that he is doing all he can to address them. So now that we're agreed on the problem, in a way we weren't last fall, yes, it is time to make sure that everyone also understands that we have terrific opportunities once we solve the problem."
Well, shorter. And I'm not sure that's an accurate account of Senator McCain's stance at the time. But it is surely accurate enough by the standards of this White House! And I came up with that five minutes after knowing the question was out there. Dr. Romer is no one's spinmeister, but surely she should have been better prepared for this?
It seems to me that they don't entirely understand what they are doing. Perhaps there is a disconnect between the political mind, which might have come up with something like my idea, and the economic mind, which might not remember the campaign as well as it should? If the development of policy and politics aren't intertwined, their proposals won't solve the problem or won't be salable to the public. Interleaving the two is hard, and I don't see much facility in the Administration for it. We've seen that in a "stimulus" bill that seems to serve political priorities first, and to view economics as a serious of rhetorical justifications for the package.
And perhaps they aren't thinking things through, and beginning to respond reflexively to events. The President is told he has to be more positive, he agrees, they quickly write up some points to check that box, and somehow "fundamentally sound" slips through.
Their staff and culture also lack deep grounding in economics and history. Chris Wallace used a quote from the Budget including the phrase "commanding heights" -- surely the White House should be sufficiently literate to avoid Leninist terminology?
And while verifying the quote (Budget, p. 5) I noticed this: "Prudent investments in education, clean energy, health care, and infrastructure were sacrificed for huge tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected." Really? I thought Al Gore campaigned on putting the surplus in the Social Security lockbox, and Bush advocated for putting it in tax cuts because Washington would eventually spend the money if it were retained. (He then went on to spend the money anyway, which is how we got here in the first place.) Is the Budget now saying that George Bush was right and that the money would have been "invested"? I don't recall the Democrats complaining that the GOP was spending on the wrong things, just that it wasn't spending enough, and raising the deficit to boot. Telling Americans that the alternative to Bush's spending was not deficit reduction, but Obama's spending on top of Bush's, is probably the only thing that could validate Bush's economic policies as the least bad alternative.
This sort of thing has been scattered over Obama's history and campaign. They really make me wonder if Obama is as smart and competent as everyone says.
"MR. GREGORY: But perhaps Senator McCain was right when he said the fundamentals of the economy were strong, because you have President Obama saying roughly the same thing now?
"DR. ROMER: I really think you're misinterpreting the president. I think the key thing that the president was saying is we have our eyes on the fundamentals, that is why we're concerned about.
"MR. GREGORY: Hm."
Maybe it would help if the President didn't repeat his electoral rival's exact vocabulary on the issue the President himself defined as central to the economy? Staff often have to explain "what the President really meant", but they aren't often required to explain that day is night and night is day, on national television, on the defining issue of the campaign and chief policy question before the nation. I'm not thinking that asking Dr. Romer to fix this is a sign of a great boss. This was a serious mistake by the President himself, and he should have found an opportunity to clean it up. How could anyone but the President "explain his meaning"? He did actually say exactly the same thing as Senator McCain did last fall, and there is no getting around it.
I did imagine one answer: "The President thinks many elements of the economy are quite sound, and is very confident of our future once we fix the problems holding us back. So I suppose he does agree with Senator McCain in that. The difference is the moment and the emphasis. Senator McCain spoke as we were beginning to see the depth of the problem, and before it was clear that he or anyone understood its complexity and scale. At that time, the President sought to avoid diminishing the importance and scale of the challenge -- that was what that debate was about. I think everyone now sees the issues much more clearly. Certainly there is little doubt that the President thinks we have some serious challenges, or that he is doing all he can to address them. So now that we're agreed on the problem, in a way we weren't last fall, yes, it is time to make sure that everyone also understands that we have terrific opportunities once we solve the problem."
Well, shorter. And I'm not sure that's an accurate account of Senator McCain's stance at the time. But it is surely accurate enough by the standards of this White House! And I came up with that five minutes after knowing the question was out there. Dr. Romer is no one's spinmeister, but surely she should have been better prepared for this?
It seems to me that they don't entirely understand what they are doing. Perhaps there is a disconnect between the political mind, which might have come up with something like my idea, and the economic mind, which might not remember the campaign as well as it should? If the development of policy and politics aren't intertwined, their proposals won't solve the problem or won't be salable to the public. Interleaving the two is hard, and I don't see much facility in the Administration for it. We've seen that in a "stimulus" bill that seems to serve political priorities first, and to view economics as a serious of rhetorical justifications for the package.
And perhaps they aren't thinking things through, and beginning to respond reflexively to events. The President is told he has to be more positive, he agrees, they quickly write up some points to check that box, and somehow "fundamentally sound" slips through.
Their staff and culture also lack deep grounding in economics and history. Chris Wallace used a quote from the Budget including the phrase "commanding heights" -- surely the White House should be sufficiently literate to avoid Leninist terminology?
And while verifying the quote (Budget, p. 5) I noticed this: "Prudent investments in education, clean energy, health care, and infrastructure were sacrificed for huge tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected." Really? I thought Al Gore campaigned on putting the surplus in the Social Security lockbox, and Bush advocated for putting it in tax cuts because Washington would eventually spend the money if it were retained. (He then went on to spend the money anyway, which is how we got here in the first place.) Is the Budget now saying that George Bush was right and that the money would have been "invested"? I don't recall the Democrats complaining that the GOP was spending on the wrong things, just that it wasn't spending enough, and raising the deficit to boot. Telling Americans that the alternative to Bush's spending was not deficit reduction, but Obama's spending on top of Bush's, is probably the only thing that could validate Bush's economic policies as the least bad alternative.
This sort of thing has been scattered over Obama's history and campaign. They really make me wonder if Obama is as smart and competent as everyone says.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
A Little Patience For the Patient
The Obama Administration is taking fire from all sides right now. Figures across the intellectual spectrum -- Brooks, Gergen, Buffet, Dowd -- are expressing concern about overreach and misaligned priorities. Responsible, thoughtful conservatives and free market types are suggesting connections between the Administration's proposals and the stock market. The less responsible are just pinning the market on the President. Political conservatives are cheerfully reminding the recently unsettled among Obama's moderate supporters that they warned of these policies all along.
Some are taking the opportunity to revisit the signs that perhaps Barack Obama thinks he knows a bit more than he actually does. Rich Lowry has a mildly sarcastic column about Obama's temperament: "Last fall, Barack Obama was deemed by all the great and good as the man to save the country from its financial crisis because of his calm. As John McCain flailed around, Obama stayed steady, and commentators ascribed to him the most extraordinary leadership qualities based merely on his equipoise. How is that working out?"
Well, we don't yet know, do we? And the outcome of those policies will provide the test of those leadership qualities, won't it?
Treasury's plans might work. They are preparing plans to finance these public/private partnerships, which will purchase "toxic" assets from the banks. They are working on these "stress tests", which will provide an occasion to reassess bank capital and identify the quantity of assets they will have to offload.
I don't entirely understand the financial issues, and the system has issues outside the banks. (The overall decrease in leverage, for one.) But if those steps stabilize confidence in the banks, we'll have secured a core element of a system that is full of uncertainties. That would provide a basis for moving forward to address other financial issues.
The Obama Administration has been criticized for the pace of its efforts and the seemingly low priority assigned to financial stabilization. But preparing a stabilization plan might always have taken considerable time. If they are moving as fast as they can on that, why shouldn't they address their other priorities? If the stabilization plan works, the complaints about timing will be forgotten, and the concerns about priorities relieved. And if the stabilization plan works and the market recovers, won't the Administration deserve as much credit for the responsibility assigned to it for the market's collapse?
There is little that I like about the Administration's economic policies, and much reason to worry they will fail to stabilize the markets or the economy. But the whole question is how those contemporary worries will eventually translate to long-term conclusions.
To the extent the current alarm over the Administration gets people thinking seriously about how the government can and can't foster Americans' productivity, that's a tonic against the recent excess of naive faith in government action to enact "common sense" reform. To the extent they are now taking seriously concerns about Obama's philosophy that were dismissed too quickly in the campaign, that's a useful reminder of the basic choices facing any government. If the nation is suddenly realizing that there is less to Obama's "new politics" than meets the eye, it will move toward a more healthy vigilance.
But it is far too soon to assign Obama responsibility for the stock market, or draw conclusions about his policy and temper. Such conclusions can't possibly have any certainty, not at this moment.
Obama's calm may be confident or arrogant. But it is also consistent with a de-emphasis on conclusions based on the very limited information we have at this particular moment, in favor of patient attention to core issues and grounding in solid information. Since last summer I have regarded Obama's political skills as highly over-rated. But he has a real gift for avoiding over-reaction to events. He seems to decide on the fundamentals of a political problem, devise strategy addressing those fundamentals, and stick to that strategy through the noise and chop of the day to day. That might seem insensitive when compared to the hypersensitivity of the typical American politician, but that doesn't mean it is the wrong posture. I don't want politicians to emulate Obama's candor, but it wouldn't hurt them to emulate his patience.
Let's focus on the fundamentals. Is policy hastening or halting the recovery? Are we laying groundwork for American productivity or not? Does the Administration improve or diminish our national debate or not? As we debate those questions, let's avoid acting as if we yet know more about the answers than we actually do.
Some are taking the opportunity to revisit the signs that perhaps Barack Obama thinks he knows a bit more than he actually does. Rich Lowry has a mildly sarcastic column about Obama's temperament: "Last fall, Barack Obama was deemed by all the great and good as the man to save the country from its financial crisis because of his calm. As John McCain flailed around, Obama stayed steady, and commentators ascribed to him the most extraordinary leadership qualities based merely on his equipoise. How is that working out?"
Well, we don't yet know, do we? And the outcome of those policies will provide the test of those leadership qualities, won't it?
Treasury's plans might work. They are preparing plans to finance these public/private partnerships, which will purchase "toxic" assets from the banks. They are working on these "stress tests", which will provide an occasion to reassess bank capital and identify the quantity of assets they will have to offload.
I don't entirely understand the financial issues, and the system has issues outside the banks. (The overall decrease in leverage, for one.) But if those steps stabilize confidence in the banks, we'll have secured a core element of a system that is full of uncertainties. That would provide a basis for moving forward to address other financial issues.
The Obama Administration has been criticized for the pace of its efforts and the seemingly low priority assigned to financial stabilization. But preparing a stabilization plan might always have taken considerable time. If they are moving as fast as they can on that, why shouldn't they address their other priorities? If the stabilization plan works, the complaints about timing will be forgotten, and the concerns about priorities relieved. And if the stabilization plan works and the market recovers, won't the Administration deserve as much credit for the responsibility assigned to it for the market's collapse?
There is little that I like about the Administration's economic policies, and much reason to worry they will fail to stabilize the markets or the economy. But the whole question is how those contemporary worries will eventually translate to long-term conclusions.
To the extent the current alarm over the Administration gets people thinking seriously about how the government can and can't foster Americans' productivity, that's a tonic against the recent excess of naive faith in government action to enact "common sense" reform. To the extent they are now taking seriously concerns about Obama's philosophy that were dismissed too quickly in the campaign, that's a useful reminder of the basic choices facing any government. If the nation is suddenly realizing that there is less to Obama's "new politics" than meets the eye, it will move toward a more healthy vigilance.
But it is far too soon to assign Obama responsibility for the stock market, or draw conclusions about his policy and temper. Such conclusions can't possibly have any certainty, not at this moment.
Obama's calm may be confident or arrogant. But it is also consistent with a de-emphasis on conclusions based on the very limited information we have at this particular moment, in favor of patient attention to core issues and grounding in solid information. Since last summer I have regarded Obama's political skills as highly over-rated. But he has a real gift for avoiding over-reaction to events. He seems to decide on the fundamentals of a political problem, devise strategy addressing those fundamentals, and stick to that strategy through the noise and chop of the day to day. That might seem insensitive when compared to the hypersensitivity of the typical American politician, but that doesn't mean it is the wrong posture. I don't want politicians to emulate Obama's candor, but it wouldn't hurt them to emulate his patience.
Let's focus on the fundamentals. Is policy hastening or halting the recovery? Are we laying groundwork for American productivity or not? Does the Administration improve or diminish our national debate or not? As we debate those questions, let's avoid acting as if we yet know more about the answers than we actually do.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Birth of An Oxymoron
Yesterday the President removed the limitations on stem cell research with the reassurance that "We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse." But there is not a single word in his remarks of the principles that should drive those guidelines, or that would define "misuse."
These are not simple issues. I cannot imagine the frustration of a person with Parkinson's Disease at the impediments to research that might materially improve their lives within a decade. But neither can I, or anyone, imagine the potential danger of exploiting a manipulated human identity.
Of the dissenters, the President says "I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view," but then states "we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology." Well, there is no "scientific" definition of human life, and no technical resolution of the chief moral difficulties. Science provides us with facts and terms, but it does not provide a clear moral interpretation of those facts. A biologist may be able to describe an embryo in technical terms, and these can inform a discussion of that embryo's humanity and the application of criteria to that embryo. But that technical description cannot speak to the philosophy by which we determine whether that embryo is human, and any rights that may inhere in that embryo. A coroner can tell us cause of death, but cannot tell us if that cause was somehow justified or amounts to criminal murder. He can only give us facts which inform our assessment of how that death came about.
The question is not whether one embryo is somehow different from another that would be removed from a mother's womb by some natural operation of her body -- the question is our intentions toward that embryo.
My view any embryo is fully human in its dignity before man, society and God is not an "ideology". I do not seek to advance this view to support some larger political purpose. I hold it because I believe it to be true. I appreciate others disagree with me, for reasons of varying quality -- but their opinions are no more "scientific" than mine. Their appeal to "science" does not settle question, it avoids it altogether.
The language of the President's announcement reflects the fundamental thoughtlessness of its logic:
"But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans -- from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs -- have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research. "
Just what, exactly, is a "consensus" of a majority? The agreement of a majority is an agreement among a faction, not an agreement across factions. Can the President find an orthodox Catholic or a conservative Baptist who agrees with him -- and as he cannot, he cannot claim support from "all backgrounds and beliefs". And if the proper course is so clear, then why does he not address the fundamental objections raised against this policy? You cannot find a single word in his statement that suggests that anyone believes his policy permits the abuse of human life. The President has resolutely avoided the arguments of his critics, and argues for the "clarity" of his course only mangling the English language. And it is worth noting that the President resolutely ignores the development of techniques and science that promise to dramatically reduce the importance of the Bush administration research constraints.
This is not "reason", it is politics. It is the very ideology of which he accuses his critics. I simply cannot see how it is possible to have a reasonable debate of principles with a person willing to distort language like this.
These are not simple issues. I cannot imagine the frustration of a person with Parkinson's Disease at the impediments to research that might materially improve their lives within a decade. But neither can I, or anyone, imagine the potential danger of exploiting a manipulated human identity.
Of the dissenters, the President says "I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view," but then states "we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology." Well, there is no "scientific" definition of human life, and no technical resolution of the chief moral difficulties. Science provides us with facts and terms, but it does not provide a clear moral interpretation of those facts. A biologist may be able to describe an embryo in technical terms, and these can inform a discussion of that embryo's humanity and the application of criteria to that embryo. But that technical description cannot speak to the philosophy by which we determine whether that embryo is human, and any rights that may inhere in that embryo. A coroner can tell us cause of death, but cannot tell us if that cause was somehow justified or amounts to criminal murder. He can only give us facts which inform our assessment of how that death came about.
The question is not whether one embryo is somehow different from another that would be removed from a mother's womb by some natural operation of her body -- the question is our intentions toward that embryo.
My view any embryo is fully human in its dignity before man, society and God is not an "ideology". I do not seek to advance this view to support some larger political purpose. I hold it because I believe it to be true. I appreciate others disagree with me, for reasons of varying quality -- but their opinions are no more "scientific" than mine. Their appeal to "science" does not settle question, it avoids it altogether.
The language of the President's announcement reflects the fundamental thoughtlessness of its logic:
"But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans -- from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs -- have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research. "
Just what, exactly, is a "consensus" of a majority? The agreement of a majority is an agreement among a faction, not an agreement across factions. Can the President find an orthodox Catholic or a conservative Baptist who agrees with him -- and as he cannot, he cannot claim support from "all backgrounds and beliefs". And if the proper course is so clear, then why does he not address the fundamental objections raised against this policy? You cannot find a single word in his statement that suggests that anyone believes his policy permits the abuse of human life. The President has resolutely avoided the arguments of his critics, and argues for the "clarity" of his course only mangling the English language. And it is worth noting that the President resolutely ignores the development of techniques and science that promise to dramatically reduce the importance of the Bush administration research constraints.
This is not "reason", it is politics. It is the very ideology of which he accuses his critics. I simply cannot see how it is possible to have a reasonable debate of principles with a person willing to distort language like this.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Raise Their Rates, Until They Deduct
Budget Director Orszag explained the reduction in mortgage interest deduction to CNBC: it isn't fair that Bill Gates gets a $3500 tax break on a $10,000 interest bill while someone else gets a $2800 tax break. I think I've heard him make the same argument for the charitable deduction reduction.
But Bill Gates gets the larger break because he's paying a higher tax rate! He's paying $3500 in tax on a marginal $10,000 while someone else pays $2800. A higher rate is fair when he's paying tax, and a lower rate fair when he's deducting from them.
This isn't fairness. It's a clever formulation to justify further tax increases on wealth. It is a transparent violation of principle, a distortion of language to secure a petty increment of additional revenue.
But Bill Gates gets the larger break because he's paying a higher tax rate! He's paying $3500 in tax on a marginal $10,000 while someone else pays $2800. A higher rate is fair when he's paying tax, and a lower rate fair when he's deducting from them.
This isn't fairness. It's a clever formulation to justify further tax increases on wealth. It is a transparent violation of principle, a distortion of language to secure a petty increment of additional revenue.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
How's That?
"What you're now seeing is profit and earning ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you've got a long-term perspective on it. I think that consumer confidence -- as they see the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act taking root, businesses are starting to see opportunities for investment and potential hiring, we are going to start creating jobs again." -- President Obama, 3 March 2009
I was going to focus on the plug for the stock market. I've never heard a President say such a thing. What if the market goes up a bit, and then craters, and stays down? This will be cited as evidence the President underestimated the contemporary economic problem while pursuing his social agenda. He has just associated his success or failure with the stock market, the very thing his larger statement was supposed to avoid. Yes, he can take credit if the market rises from here, but he could have done that anyway. Now it's easier to make him wear a collapse. This is just stupid, politically, rhetorically, economically.
But what's with the rest of this paragraph? For one thing, Mr. President, will we be _creating_ jobs? Or _saving_ them -- which, by the way, might be harder to _see_. He has just undermined a key nuance of his policy claims. For another, in a single jumbled sentence he has just associated consumer confidence and business investment with his policies. Again, dandy if they go up, but he could already have claimed credit. Now he's closer to the failures.
I get it. Savvy policymakers _know_ that markets are fickle, so they don't make promises about them. Bob Rubin famously insisted that Clinton should never ring the bell at the New York Stock Exchange. This is hardly a policy address, but these aren't the words of someone who feels in his bones the complexity and uncertainty of economic events. Either he is far more confident of his policies than I had thought, or he doesn't really understand what is going.
I have always suspected that the extraordinary estimates of his intelligence were overdone. I'm now beginning to see evidence of it. Obama has an uncommon knack for projecting mastery of the subject material. Moments like this belie that mastery.
Meanwhile, Brooks confesses he underestimated how Left Obama would be, and Gergen counsels focus on the economy. Obama has a self-supporting image of savvy and intelligence and freshness that has motivated observers to overlook flaws and read all statements charitably. Anything that depends on virtuous cycles and mutal support from interlocking presumptions is vulnerable to vicious cycles and wholesale reassessments. If the wheels start to come off this wagon, this thing could get ugly in a hurry.
I was going to focus on the plug for the stock market. I've never heard a President say such a thing. What if the market goes up a bit, and then craters, and stays down? This will be cited as evidence the President underestimated the contemporary economic problem while pursuing his social agenda. He has just associated his success or failure with the stock market, the very thing his larger statement was supposed to avoid. Yes, he can take credit if the market rises from here, but he could have done that anyway. Now it's easier to make him wear a collapse. This is just stupid, politically, rhetorically, economically.
But what's with the rest of this paragraph? For one thing, Mr. President, will we be _creating_ jobs? Or _saving_ them -- which, by the way, might be harder to _see_. He has just undermined a key nuance of his policy claims. For another, in a single jumbled sentence he has just associated consumer confidence and business investment with his policies. Again, dandy if they go up, but he could already have claimed credit. Now he's closer to the failures.
I get it. Savvy policymakers _know_ that markets are fickle, so they don't make promises about them. Bob Rubin famously insisted that Clinton should never ring the bell at the New York Stock Exchange. This is hardly a policy address, but these aren't the words of someone who feels in his bones the complexity and uncertainty of economic events. Either he is far more confident of his policies than I had thought, or he doesn't really understand what is going.
I have always suspected that the extraordinary estimates of his intelligence were overdone. I'm now beginning to see evidence of it. Obama has an uncommon knack for projecting mastery of the subject material. Moments like this belie that mastery.
Meanwhile, Brooks confesses he underestimated how Left Obama would be, and Gergen counsels focus on the economy. Obama has a self-supporting image of savvy and intelligence and freshness that has motivated observers to overlook flaws and read all statements charitably. Anything that depends on virtuous cycles and mutal support from interlocking presumptions is vulnerable to vicious cycles and wholesale reassessments. If the wheels start to come off this wagon, this thing could get ugly in a hurry.
Tax Me Later, Tax Me Now
Secretary Geithner insists the Administration will not raise taxes in a recession, as the recession will be over in when their proposed increases take effect in 2011.
Let's hope the recession is over then. But people plan for taxes, and their expectations affect their perceived wealth. If they know a tax increase is coming, and suspect a larger one may follow, they will be less confident in their wealth and less likely to consume.
The reductions in mortgage interest deductions are particularly daft. We might argue about the importance of income expectations. But any responsible homebuyer will look at their service costs over the long term. They will not estimate tax savings on interest based on temporary deduction rules. To the extent those deductions affect home prices, the proposed reductions will surely act against home price recovery. Is that the policy this Administration wants to pursue?
Let's hope the recession is over then. But people plan for taxes, and their expectations affect their perceived wealth. If they know a tax increase is coming, and suspect a larger one may follow, they will be less confident in their wealth and less likely to consume.
The reductions in mortgage interest deductions are particularly daft. We might argue about the importance of income expectations. But any responsible homebuyer will look at their service costs over the long term. They will not estimate tax savings on interest based on temporary deduction rules. To the extent those deductions affect home prices, the proposed reductions will surely act against home price recovery. Is that the policy this Administration wants to pursue?
Obama and The Dow
This morning's Journal: "Yesterday the Dow fell . . . for an overall decline of 25% in two months . . . . The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem."
Well, it isn't clear whether the Administration is making things worse, or if the markets are realizing that they won't make them better. And no one can demonstrate that some other set of policies would have helped more. Perhaps the economic declines, and the market's anticipations of them, were always inevitable. The correlations between Administration statements and market declines don't necessarily distinguish between the views.
I do suspect the Administration is hurting more than it helps, that markets are pricing larger regulatory and tax burdens than previously expected, and pricing less effective financial resolution. But I can see how Obama's supporters are less concerned. I think it is really too soon to blame the markets on the President.
Well, it isn't clear whether the Administration is making things worse, or if the markets are realizing that they won't make them better. And no one can demonstrate that some other set of policies would have helped more. Perhaps the economic declines, and the market's anticipations of them, were always inevitable. The correlations between Administration statements and market declines don't necessarily distinguish between the views.
I do suspect the Administration is hurting more than it helps, that markets are pricing larger regulatory and tax burdens than previously expected, and pricing less effective financial resolution. But I can see how Obama's supporters are less concerned. I think it is really too soon to blame the markets on the President.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Tax Cuts: As Bad At The Margin As Spending
Quoth Richard Lowry, at the Corner, on the Obama Administration's priorities:
"It's as if FDR skipped the bank holiday and focused first on passing the CCC. . . . if I were Eric Cantor or John Boehner, I'd be talking about a "real recovery package" every day— payroll and corporate tax cuts, regulatory reforms for the financial and auto industries, relief for small business. "
Do conservatives favor tax cuts at _every_ margin?
If Obama is neglecting the financial system, the Congressional Republicans should be talking about it every day, never mind the tax cuts.
But they should go further. They should study and discuss the roots of the situation, and address those with their proposals. I think they'll find asset prices are collapsed by a reduction in credit for over-leveraged levels. That leverage isn't (shouldn't) return, those assets prices aren't returning, and the reversal of wealth-effect consumption will be long term. Tax cuts won't increase perceived wealth enough to overcome the perceived losses from asset price falls, especially since recipients would would anticipate higher future taxes to pay for them. The cuts would help households reduce their debt, but that would be offset by the increase in federal debt.
If they've got a better explanation of the problem, let's hear it. If they don't understand the problem, let's hear _that_ -- and when Obama et al respond with mockery, force _them_ to give _their_ explanations. I promise you, those won't make any sense at all. No one in Washington sounds like they understand the problem. They're all pretending they do, because they're supposed to, but they don't. And if everyone is just guessing anyway, "try something" sounds pretty good, and "help people at the same time" sounds good too. Confusion aids the side with the better soundbites -- and "health care for kids!" will beat "incentive for entrepreneurs!" every time.
Let's stop hearing about how complicated all this is, and start hearing people pick it apart.
If the GOP and the conservatives don't start to talk like grownups, no one will.
"It's as if FDR skipped the bank holiday and focused first on passing the CCC. . . . if I were Eric Cantor or John Boehner, I'd be talking about a "real recovery package" every day— payroll and corporate tax cuts, regulatory reforms for the financial and auto industries, relief for small business. "
Do conservatives favor tax cuts at _every_ margin?
If Obama is neglecting the financial system, the Congressional Republicans should be talking about it every day, never mind the tax cuts.
But they should go further. They should study and discuss the roots of the situation, and address those with their proposals. I think they'll find asset prices are collapsed by a reduction in credit for over-leveraged levels. That leverage isn't (shouldn't) return, those assets prices aren't returning, and the reversal of wealth-effect consumption will be long term. Tax cuts won't increase perceived wealth enough to overcome the perceived losses from asset price falls, especially since recipients would would anticipate higher future taxes to pay for them. The cuts would help households reduce their debt, but that would be offset by the increase in federal debt.
If they've got a better explanation of the problem, let's hear it. If they don't understand the problem, let's hear _that_ -- and when Obama et al respond with mockery, force _them_ to give _their_ explanations. I promise you, those won't make any sense at all. No one in Washington sounds like they understand the problem. They're all pretending they do, because they're supposed to, but they don't. And if everyone is just guessing anyway, "try something" sounds pretty good, and "help people at the same time" sounds good too. Confusion aids the side with the better soundbites -- and "health care for kids!" will beat "incentive for entrepreneurs!" every time.
Let's stop hearing about how complicated all this is, and start hearing people pick it apart.
If the GOP and the conservatives don't start to talk like grownups, no one will.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Compare and Contrast
Set aside any difference in the merits of the Constitutional deviations alleged of the Bush Administration and soon to be signed by the Obama Administration. The latter questioned the applicability of habeas corpus to enemy irregular insurrectionists (these being non-citizens, captured in locations outside and remote from the government's sovereign power, while operating against US troops and civilians of various nationalities). The latter question a plain language reading of "State" that has prevailed in common usage for more than two centuries.
Focus on their effects. Bush's Constitutional "deviations" operated against a dangerous and novel enemy. The Democrat's operates to increase their political power in the House (the Utah seat being ephemeral), and sets precedent for further increases of their power in the Senate, and rewards a key constituency.
Democrats argue the correction of political inequality overrides the plain language of the Constitution. But this negates the premise and strategy of that Constitution. If the meanings of terms like "justice" were obvious, our Constitution wouldn't require all these checks and balances. The Founders rejected simple majority rule for a complex of divided powers, and so denied the reliability of any understanding of "justice" prevailing in any particular election.
This focus on procedure is not new. No Constitutional inconsistency was egregious as slavery. Our forefathers still acted as if justice was best served by reforming that monstrosity with nice attention to the Constitutional powers of the Executive and proper procedure for amendment.
Maybe Bush was wrong about habeas corpus for al-Qaeda, but if so he wasn't contradicting the fundamental nature of our governing charter.
The Constitution does not establish equality, or seek to advance it. It presumes, rather than creates, its citizens' equality and individual rights. "Progressive" in its improvement over prior governments, it does not seek to create some quality or quantity that would not exist without it. While it imagines more perfect recognitions of liberty and equality, and is perhaps "progressive" in its inspiration, it leaves these improvements to a political process governed by its procedures.
The procedural protections of the Constitution have been eroded by the recognition of unstated purposes like "privacy rights", the elevation of equality among its purposes, and increasingly contemporary understandings of terms like "church" and "arms". I think we're now seeing that these procedures cannot be trumped by its unstated but implied purposes without installing the majority rule it explicitly rejected. And that majority will rule to further secure that rule.
Focus on their effects. Bush's Constitutional "deviations" operated against a dangerous and novel enemy. The Democrat's operates to increase their political power in the House (the Utah seat being ephemeral), and sets precedent for further increases of their power in the Senate, and rewards a key constituency.
Democrats argue the correction of political inequality overrides the plain language of the Constitution. But this negates the premise and strategy of that Constitution. If the meanings of terms like "justice" were obvious, our Constitution wouldn't require all these checks and balances. The Founders rejected simple majority rule for a complex of divided powers, and so denied the reliability of any understanding of "justice" prevailing in any particular election.
This focus on procedure is not new. No Constitutional inconsistency was egregious as slavery. Our forefathers still acted as if justice was best served by reforming that monstrosity with nice attention to the Constitutional powers of the Executive and proper procedure for amendment.
Maybe Bush was wrong about habeas corpus for al-Qaeda, but if so he wasn't contradicting the fundamental nature of our governing charter.
The Constitution does not establish equality, or seek to advance it. It presumes, rather than creates, its citizens' equality and individual rights. "Progressive" in its improvement over prior governments, it does not seek to create some quality or quantity that would not exist without it. While it imagines more perfect recognitions of liberty and equality, and is perhaps "progressive" in its inspiration, it leaves these improvements to a political process governed by its procedures.
The procedural protections of the Constitution have been eroded by the recognition of unstated purposes like "privacy rights", the elevation of equality among its purposes, and increasingly contemporary understandings of terms like "church" and "arms". I think we're now seeing that these procedures cannot be trumped by its unstated but implied purposes without installing the majority rule it explicitly rejected. And that majority will rule to further secure that rule.
Don't Govern Angry!
"But I also know that in a time of crisis, we cannot afford to govern out of anger, or yield to the politics of the moment." President Obama, Address to Congress
In fairness, the President said this in reference to public anger at the prospect of bailing out the banks.
But he saw fit to speak to this, not after Maxine Waters shrieked at the banks' CEOs or Rep. Capuano called for their imprisonment, and not after weeks of general pillorying of Wall Street, but after people began protesting at paying the mortgages of people who overextended themselves.
In fairness, the President said this in reference to public anger at the prospect of bailing out the banks.
But he saw fit to speak to this, not after Maxine Waters shrieked at the banks' CEOs or Rep. Capuano called for their imprisonment, and not after weeks of general pillorying of Wall Street, but after people began protesting at paying the mortgages of people who overextended themselves.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Take Notice
We're only an hour into the bank CEO testimony before the House Banking committee, and we've already seen two clear examples of the real political power of Congress.
Chairman Frank urged all the banks to voluntarily adopt a moratorium on foreclosure until the Treasury Department can announce its foreclosure relief program. This makes a certain amount of sense, if that program is imminent -- but it's also problematic. How long will it be before Treasury makes its announcement? Once the banks stop foreclosures, won't they expose themselves to criticism if they resume them? Won't the precedent become, forebear until we can fix this or that? Outside the banks, an indefinite foreclosure moratorium stops the only process currently in place to work the real estate markets to a more stable basis. The overhang of housing approaching foreclosure is a substantial discouragement to buying and investing in housing.
Likewise, the Chairman told the banks that while Treasury can't retroactively change the terms of the capital infusions, the banks can voluntarily comply with new requirements on items like compensation. And if they don't like those terms, they can return the capital. Perhaps Treasury doesn't think such returns a good idea? After all, the initial infusions were widely distributed to minimize the negative reputational affects of accepting that capital, with a view to enabling those that really needed the funds to accept them.
The Chairman will control the flow of enormous wealth through his influence over the coming revision of these banks' regulations and the Treasury's deployment of substantial funds to address the industry's problems with losing assets. Banks resist his "requests" at their peril.
Maybe these various ideas of his are sensible. But I don't notice any institutional check on them, beyond public notice, public consideration of their merit, and public speculation as to the Chairman's motives. And of course, there is the possibility of "requests" that are not publicly reported or disclosed.
Chairman Frank urged all the banks to voluntarily adopt a moratorium on foreclosure until the Treasury Department can announce its foreclosure relief program. This makes a certain amount of sense, if that program is imminent -- but it's also problematic. How long will it be before Treasury makes its announcement? Once the banks stop foreclosures, won't they expose themselves to criticism if they resume them? Won't the precedent become, forebear until we can fix this or that? Outside the banks, an indefinite foreclosure moratorium stops the only process currently in place to work the real estate markets to a more stable basis. The overhang of housing approaching foreclosure is a substantial discouragement to buying and investing in housing.
Likewise, the Chairman told the banks that while Treasury can't retroactively change the terms of the capital infusions, the banks can voluntarily comply with new requirements on items like compensation. And if they don't like those terms, they can return the capital. Perhaps Treasury doesn't think such returns a good idea? After all, the initial infusions were widely distributed to minimize the negative reputational affects of accepting that capital, with a view to enabling those that really needed the funds to accept them.
The Chairman will control the flow of enormous wealth through his influence over the coming revision of these banks' regulations and the Treasury's deployment of substantial funds to address the industry's problems with losing assets. Banks resist his "requests" at their peril.
Maybe these various ideas of his are sensible. But I don't notice any institutional check on them, beyond public notice, public consideration of their merit, and public speculation as to the Chairman's motives. And of course, there is the possibility of "requests" that are not publicly reported or disclosed.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Tea Leaves
Senator Daschle's withdrawal yesterday was surprising. His unpaid taxes were larger than Geithner's, but the underlying error -- confusion over imputed income -- is much more plausible. The stories about his lobbying/advisory income were embarrassing, but surely all of that was disclosed in vetting and to the committee and didn't constitute real news. Killefer's withdrawal put him in an awkward place, but her issues seem trivial and the Administration could have chosen to stick it out with her, too. Daschle seemed personally important to the President, and could expect tremendous sympathy on the Hill. What happened?
The key event seems to be the Times editorial calling for his withdrawal. Obama benefits from extraordinarily generous coverage, which has helped through many tight spots. He can't afford to hurt that relationship, and he can't afford to let an opinion leader like the Times get the idea that he might not be so very new. He certainly doesn't want to invite scrutiny of every nominee going forward.
But the Times' piece is itself surprising. Daschle's steady, prudent advancement of the welfare state is just their sort of thing; and while he might be cozy with the very companies he would regulate, that sort of thing is nothing new. It's very unlikely that any Obama proposal would seriously damage that industry. Perhaps the Times realized the conflicts in the Senator's work history, but frankly these are judgement calls and I would have expected the Times to look the other way.
I have two speculations. One, Daschle's dual appointment in the White House and at HHS was very unusual. This would have given him control over the information on health finance emerging from HHS, and over the flow of that information in the White House. While no one can lock down the information stream from an institution as large as HHS, Daschle's White House spot positioned him to know of "back channel" flows, and either stem them or counter them. This would have given him extraordinary control over the shape of the health care debate, and would have starved rival opinions of the raw data needed to shape arguments.
That information advantage would have threatened all sorts of people. For example, the WH chief of staff, whose influence derives from controlling information himself and whose job requires presenting the President with alternatives. And anyone hoping to play in the health care debate -- OMB, Treasury, the National Economics Council, the Domestic Policy Council -- would need information ultimately sourced from HHS. It would also have threatened the Times, whose reporters depend on leaks from these various sources to do their jobs. It's possible that this moved the Times. It's also possible that the President didn't really understand the position he'd conferred on Daschle by acceding to this dual arrangement, discovered the problem as he began building his management structure, and didn't mind so much letting this issue remove the problem. If so, the Times editorial could well have been cued from the White House.
Or, the Times had an ax of its own to grind. We read in the Washington Post:
"Daschle has frequently weighed in on communications policy and Adelstein [former Daschle staffer on the FCC] has often expressed the same views. In 2004, for example, Daschle sent an aide to an FCC hearing chaired by Adelstein in South Dakota to register his opposition to rules proposed by a Republican member that allowed owners of television stations to purchase newspaper and radio stations in the same town.
"Hindery [Daschle's sponsor at InterMedia], the former chief executive of AT&T's broadband and telecommunications division and New York regional sports channel the YES Network, also opposed the proposed rules, which would favor large companies such as Newscomm or Viacom over the smaller firms in which InterMedia had invested. The rules drew criticism from other Democratic lawmakers and Adelstein. "
(See here.)
It isn't hard to imagine the New York Times, itself a pretty large media company, objecting to rules that limit its ability to buy things like local TV stations, or to sell itself to companies that do. I know nothing of the media business, but it's at least worth asking if the Times worried that Daschle's reach might extend into shaping telecommunications policy to the advantage of (apparently) smaller players like InterMedia to the detriment of larger ones like the Times. If so, the Times' is important enough to the President that their signal of displeasure was surely enough to decide the matter.
In short, I am not convinced we have the full story here. Daschle had issues, but they were subject to interpretation and didn't constitute anything new. The whole thing could have gone either way, and Daschle is the sort of figure for which double standards were invented. Obama's supporters and progressives will surely be satisfied by the "things are changing" explanation, and maybe they are. But I think that explanation assumes that people will stop acting in their own interests, which I think unlikely, and thus isn't as simple as it looks.
The other nugget in this is the importance of media opinion leaders like the Times. Obama has surely benefited from their coverage, and surely can be expected to set the agenda. But the media do control their own standards, at least at the margin, and the Administration can't afford a fight with them. The demonstration of that importance could be a third candidate for explaining the Times' piece.
The key event seems to be the Times editorial calling for his withdrawal. Obama benefits from extraordinarily generous coverage, which has helped through many tight spots. He can't afford to hurt that relationship, and he can't afford to let an opinion leader like the Times get the idea that he might not be so very new. He certainly doesn't want to invite scrutiny of every nominee going forward.
But the Times' piece is itself surprising. Daschle's steady, prudent advancement of the welfare state is just their sort of thing; and while he might be cozy with the very companies he would regulate, that sort of thing is nothing new. It's very unlikely that any Obama proposal would seriously damage that industry. Perhaps the Times realized the conflicts in the Senator's work history, but frankly these are judgement calls and I would have expected the Times to look the other way.
I have two speculations. One, Daschle's dual appointment in the White House and at HHS was very unusual. This would have given him control over the information on health finance emerging from HHS, and over the flow of that information in the White House. While no one can lock down the information stream from an institution as large as HHS, Daschle's White House spot positioned him to know of "back channel" flows, and either stem them or counter them. This would have given him extraordinary control over the shape of the health care debate, and would have starved rival opinions of the raw data needed to shape arguments.
That information advantage would have threatened all sorts of people. For example, the WH chief of staff, whose influence derives from controlling information himself and whose job requires presenting the President with alternatives. And anyone hoping to play in the health care debate -- OMB, Treasury, the National Economics Council, the Domestic Policy Council -- would need information ultimately sourced from HHS. It would also have threatened the Times, whose reporters depend on leaks from these various sources to do their jobs. It's possible that this moved the Times. It's also possible that the President didn't really understand the position he'd conferred on Daschle by acceding to this dual arrangement, discovered the problem as he began building his management structure, and didn't mind so much letting this issue remove the problem. If so, the Times editorial could well have been cued from the White House.
Or, the Times had an ax of its own to grind. We read in the Washington Post:
"Daschle has frequently weighed in on communications policy and Adelstein [former Daschle staffer on the FCC] has often expressed the same views. In 2004, for example, Daschle sent an aide to an FCC hearing chaired by Adelstein in South Dakota to register his opposition to rules proposed by a Republican member that allowed owners of television stations to purchase newspaper and radio stations in the same town.
"Hindery [Daschle's sponsor at InterMedia], the former chief executive of AT&T's broadband and telecommunications division and New York regional sports channel the YES Network, also opposed the proposed rules, which would favor large companies such as Newscomm or Viacom over the smaller firms in which InterMedia had invested. The rules drew criticism from other Democratic lawmakers and Adelstein. "
(See here.)
It isn't hard to imagine the New York Times, itself a pretty large media company, objecting to rules that limit its ability to buy things like local TV stations, or to sell itself to companies that do. I know nothing of the media business, but it's at least worth asking if the Times worried that Daschle's reach might extend into shaping telecommunications policy to the advantage of (apparently) smaller players like InterMedia to the detriment of larger ones like the Times. If so, the Times' is important enough to the President that their signal of displeasure was surely enough to decide the matter.
In short, I am not convinced we have the full story here. Daschle had issues, but they were subject to interpretation and didn't constitute anything new. The whole thing could have gone either way, and Daschle is the sort of figure for which double standards were invented. Obama's supporters and progressives will surely be satisfied by the "things are changing" explanation, and maybe they are. But I think that explanation assumes that people will stop acting in their own interests, which I think unlikely, and thus isn't as simple as it looks.
The other nugget in this is the importance of media opinion leaders like the Times. Obama has surely benefited from their coverage, and surely can be expected to set the agenda. But the media do control their own standards, at least at the margin, and the Administration can't afford a fight with them. The demonstration of that importance could be a third candidate for explaining the Times' piece.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Obama: "I Made A Mistake"
Obama: "Ultimately, it’s important for this administration to send a message that there aren’t two sets of rules, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes.”
Unfortunately, events don't parse that way. The nomination wasn't pulled after learning of the problems, it was pulled after growing criticism. From the article:
"I read the New York Times," Daschle told Mitchell, adding: "I can't pass health care if it's too much of a distraction ... so I called the president this morning."
It is by no means clear whether the standard is a Presidential view of integrity, or a political view of what the market will bear.
Unfortunately, events don't parse that way. The nomination wasn't pulled after learning of the problems, it was pulled after growing criticism. From the article:
"I read the New York Times," Daschle told Mitchell, adding: "I can't pass health care if it's too much of a distraction ... so I called the president this morning."
It is by no means clear whether the standard is a Presidential view of integrity, or a political view of what the market will bear.
Exeunt Daschle
The Senator has removed his name from consideration for Secretary of HHS.
I find this a little surprising, in that Daschle is far better connected than Geithner, and overlooking an "imputed income" item like a car and driver is more understandable to than signing a document saying "these funds are for my payroll tax" and then not paying the tax. But the argument for the urgency of a Treasury Secretary, and Geithner's unique familiarity with the present crisis, wasn't there for Daschle at HHS. And the Times was displeased with Daschle's work on behalf of the various health care interests he would regulate.
The conservative blogs are beating up for Obama lax standards, but I don't think this is quite right. The problem isn't guys like Daschle, but Obama's pious promise that his Administration would be different. It is just a fact that you need knowledgeable people to run government, and those people generally use that knowledge to make money. I don't think Obama understood the complexities of "reforming" the lobbyist/government relationship.
The larger problem is the presumption that these conflicts of interest can be managed. They can't. Tom Dachle had a long career building up the welfare state, and then he made considerable money explaining it and navigating it. The temptations for any one holding office, and their implications, are obvious. But the problem can't be "managed" by regulation. If you really believe career paths like Daschle's corrupt the formation of policy, you have to curb the size of govermnet to limit the value of government expertise to remove the temptations.
Power always corrupts. If you want less corruption, you need either more checks, or less power. If you can't have checks, then you have only one option.
I find this a little surprising, in that Daschle is far better connected than Geithner, and overlooking an "imputed income" item like a car and driver is more understandable to than signing a document saying "these funds are for my payroll tax" and then not paying the tax. But the argument for the urgency of a Treasury Secretary, and Geithner's unique familiarity with the present crisis, wasn't there for Daschle at HHS. And the Times was displeased with Daschle's work on behalf of the various health care interests he would regulate.
The conservative blogs are beating up for Obama lax standards, but I don't think this is quite right. The problem isn't guys like Daschle, but Obama's pious promise that his Administration would be different. It is just a fact that you need knowledgeable people to run government, and those people generally use that knowledge to make money. I don't think Obama understood the complexities of "reforming" the lobbyist/government relationship.
The larger problem is the presumption that these conflicts of interest can be managed. They can't. Tom Dachle had a long career building up the welfare state, and then he made considerable money explaining it and navigating it. The temptations for any one holding office, and their implications, are obvious. But the problem can't be "managed" by regulation. If you really believe career paths like Daschle's corrupt the formation of policy, you have to curb the size of govermnet to limit the value of government expertise to remove the temptations.
Power always corrupts. If you want less corruption, you need either more checks, or less power. If you can't have checks, then you have only one option.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Stimulus
Like most conservative-leaning folks, I dislike the stimulus bill recently passed by Congress, which seems more focused on enactment of Democratic social policy than addressing our economic ills.
I suppose the Democrats believe deeply in this stuff, and imagine that taking care of lower-income folks and "investing" in efforts like education and the environment will benefit the country. Certainly these things sound desirable, but the efforts neglect the realities that created these conditions in the first place. If the private sector doesn't see returns in broadband or health care technology, isn't that a sign that government investment therein won't produce economic returns? It is hardly comforting that the rationale for the items starts with "jobs" but moves to various social goods upon questioning, and moves again to the economic climate when those goods are questioned.
But I don't think much of the Republican tax cut proposals, either. Increasing personal income is all well and good, but currently those increases would first be saved rather than spent. And while we should increase personal savings, we should also reduce government dis-saving. A deficit-financed tax cut only increases future taxation for repayment, and probably at progressive rates. Politically, tax cuts undermine the argument for government retrenchment, as progressives will complain about benefits for the wealthy while reducing "services" to the lower income.
It seems to me that our economy has been unbalanced by years of excess consumption, private and public, and that a large amount of capacity has been built to produce things that won't actually be required. That misallocation must be unwound and those resources rededicated more productively. But what they ought to produce won't be clear until we have first reached a more sustainable level of consumption, and can divine what things we should focus on producing better and what things people will want more of. No one is going to invest until they see the way forward. If we "stimulate" now, before resolving those uncertainties, investment won't respond because it _can't_. Unfortunately, we first have to see a bottom before we can go forward. Perhaps at that point, some time in the future, a demand injection would actually accelerate the recovery process. But I fear we are now retarding the destruction that must precede that recovery.
I suppose the Democrats believe deeply in this stuff, and imagine that taking care of lower-income folks and "investing" in efforts like education and the environment will benefit the country. Certainly these things sound desirable, but the efforts neglect the realities that created these conditions in the first place. If the private sector doesn't see returns in broadband or health care technology, isn't that a sign that government investment therein won't produce economic returns? It is hardly comforting that the rationale for the items starts with "jobs" but moves to various social goods upon questioning, and moves again to the economic climate when those goods are questioned.
But I don't think much of the Republican tax cut proposals, either. Increasing personal income is all well and good, but currently those increases would first be saved rather than spent. And while we should increase personal savings, we should also reduce government dis-saving. A deficit-financed tax cut only increases future taxation for repayment, and probably at progressive rates. Politically, tax cuts undermine the argument for government retrenchment, as progressives will complain about benefits for the wealthy while reducing "services" to the lower income.
It seems to me that our economy has been unbalanced by years of excess consumption, private and public, and that a large amount of capacity has been built to produce things that won't actually be required. That misallocation must be unwound and those resources rededicated more productively. But what they ought to produce won't be clear until we have first reached a more sustainable level of consumption, and can divine what things we should focus on producing better and what things people will want more of. No one is going to invest until they see the way forward. If we "stimulate" now, before resolving those uncertainties, investment won't respond because it _can't_. Unfortunately, we first have to see a bottom before we can go forward. Perhaps at that point, some time in the future, a demand injection would actually accelerate the recovery process. But I fear we are now retarding the destruction that must precede that recovery.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Inaugural
My not-readers will not-care they must not-read my thoughts on President Obama's inaugural speech several days after the event.
It was an ungenerous speech. Obama has already won the election. Criticizing the false choices and bad science and indecision of the Bush Administration may please his base, but it irritates the still-large faction that supported and like President Bush, and does little to show the way forward.
It was an unthoughtful speech, full of small misstatements and half-truths, and without a clear vision how President Obama will govern.
I was glad to hear the defiance of terror and the promise of victory, and the touch of conservative tropes like virtue and responsibility.
I have worried that we don't know much about President Obama or how he will govern, and speculated that he would show his intentions upon taking office. But I doubt that even he knows what he intends to do. He is feeling his way without a clear set of principles, unconvinced that progressive conventions will serve but unsure of what ought to replace him. That gives hope that if he listens broadly and decides carefully, he may find his way to better approaches than expected of a Democrat. But it creates worry that if he simply tries to split the differences or log-roll majorities with a mish-mash of compromise elements will give us an indecisive policy of ill-thought and erratic measures.
It was an ungenerous speech. Obama has already won the election. Criticizing the false choices and bad science and indecision of the Bush Administration may please his base, but it irritates the still-large faction that supported and like President Bush, and does little to show the way forward.
It was an unthoughtful speech, full of small misstatements and half-truths, and without a clear vision how President Obama will govern.
I was glad to hear the defiance of terror and the promise of victory, and the touch of conservative tropes like virtue and responsibility.
I have worried that we don't know much about President Obama or how he will govern, and speculated that he would show his intentions upon taking office. But I doubt that even he knows what he intends to do. He is feeling his way without a clear set of principles, unconvinced that progressive conventions will serve but unsure of what ought to replace him. That gives hope that if he listens broadly and decides carefully, he may find his way to better approaches than expected of a Democrat. But it creates worry that if he simply tries to split the differences or log-roll majorities with a mish-mash of compromise elements will give us an indecisive policy of ill-thought and erratic measures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)