A conversation with a fiscal conservative

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was on CNN yesterday (Jan. 30, 2011). He opined that Republican talk of shutting down the government by refusing to raise the federal debt ceiling was gross irresponsibility. He argued that would cause much human suffering and could lead to damage to the U.S.'s credit rating.

Indigenous southern California wildlife

That was preceded the day before by the following conversation with a fiscal conservative (FC). Paraphrasing:
FC: I hope that people in congress block a debt ceiling increase.
Calmoderate: Huh? That would be grossly irresponsible. That would cause much human suffering. We need to ease our way back to fiscal sanity to minimize collateral pain and damage.
FC: I disagree. What if our economy collapses before we ease out? That would lead to even more suffering. Politicians spend irresponsibly to buy votes and get reelected, we are now deep in debt partly, maybe largely, because of that irresponsible spending. I see nothing that changes that. I don't believe we can ease our way out. If things spin out of control, we could be in trouble we cannot get out of without horrendous collateral damage.
Calmoderate: Hm. You have a point or two there.
FC: I liked what Arnie (former governor Schwarzenegger) tried to do and did. He got blocked in focused cuts so he just tossed out an across the board cut, a 10% decrease I think it was. At least that got through the idiot legislature and maybe had some impact.
Calmoderate: What about 1994 when the Republicans tried to shut down the federal government and got whacked by voters?
FC: That was then and this is now. I do not think there will be the same kind of backlash. Even if there is, that's OK. People in congress need to do their jobs and if that means they get kicked out of office, then that's just what happens. People like me are angry and want restraint right now. If we can't do it in a smart, focused way like Arnie tried but failed to do, then I want a meat axe used to hack off big chunks of government, including the military, social entitlement programs and every other sacred special interest ox there is. We are way over extended and can't support it any longer.

Shifting sands

This vignette got me to thinking. America's economy is complex and dynamic. Nobody sees our economy the same way, not even experts like the financial crisis inquiry commission can agree on much. It is under financial stress. It is unclear how close to real disaster we are. Maybe the economic recovery can save us by leading to increased tax revenues. But, maybe that will come too late to avoid catastrophe. When things in the economy turn sour, they can go south real fast. Remember how fast we came to the verge of collapse in the 2008 financial meltdown? When things go bad, they can go there fast.

Moody's is warning that time is running out and America's federal credit rating just might get reassessed and downgraded. If that happens, we could be in real trouble with no way out except by taking a massive collateral damage hit. If we refuse to raise the debt ceiling, that should bolster our credit rating, not impair it like Sen. Schumer argues.

Wild turkey!

Maybe my friend FC has it right. Better to take a bad hit now, than a horrendous hit later. Maybe time has just about run out. Either way, some politicians will pay the price of allowing us to get into this mess in the first place. That would be more than just fine with me.

The 2008 financial crises report: Bipartisan failure

Context: The financial crisis inquiry commission (FCIC) was formed in 2009 and issued its final report a couple of days ago. The FCIC analyzed the causes of the financial and economic crisis of 2008. Democrats Reid and Pelosi appointed only Democratic commissioners and Republicans McConnell and Boehner appointed only Republicans. No surprise there.

I see it my way, you see it yours

Also not surprisingly, the conclusions by the 6 Democrats and 4 Republicans showed splits along party lines: The Democrats all signed the majority report conclusions while the Republicans split into two dissents. Why might that be? Probably because reality the Democratic commissioners saw through the lens of their ideology differed compared to how reality looked through the lens of Republican ideology.

But neither of you really see it

In all likelihood, reality doesn't fit well with either ideologically based world view. No one can know what the FCIC would have concluded if commissioners were appointed on the basis of merit and without regard to their politics. Pragmatic independents with no political agenda would probably have come to differing conclusions than either the Democrats or Republicans. Because politics dictated the selection of the commissioners, there were splits. To a large extent that's a case of political ideology trumping reality. Again, no surprise.

Majority (Democratic) conclusions

The FCIC report came to some conclusions about how we got into the crisis, including the following main conclusion at page 17:

"We conclude this financial crisis was avoidable. The crisis was the result of human action and inaction, not of Mother Nature or computer models gone haywire. The captains of finance and the public stewards of our financial system ignored warnings and failed to question, understand, and manage evolving risks within a system essential to the well-being of the American public. Theirs was a big miss, not a stumble. While the business cycle cannot be repealed, a crisis of this magnitude need not have occurred."

Minority (Republican) conclusions

The first dissent: Three of the four Republicans disagreed with the Democratic assertion that the crisis was avoidable. They concluded this in their dissent (at page 416):

"By focusing too narrowly on U.S. regulatory policy and supervision, ignoring international parallels, emphasizing only arguments for greater regulation, failing to prioritize the causes, and failing to distinguish sufficiently between causes and effects, the majority’s report is unbalanced and leads to incorrect conclusions about what caused the crisis."

 In their dissent, these three commissioners said this (at pages 414 and 416):

"When everything is important, nothing is. . . . . A credit bubble appeared in both the United States and Europe. This tells us that our primary explanation for the credit bubble should focus on factors common to both regions. . . . . . These facts tell us that . . . . the credit bubble is likely an essential cause of the U.S. housing bubble, and that U.S. housing policy is by itself an insufficient explanation of the crisis."

My confusion

This dissent was confusing. It focused on Europe and argued that similar problems there, e.g., a housing bubble, under differing regulatory structures meant that the source of the 2008 crisis was grounded in factors present in both the U.S. and Europe. These three argued the 2008 economic failure was therefore not just due to insufficient regulation, because regulation in Europe differed from that in the U.S. These commissioners focused on a credit bubble in Europe and concluded that a credit bubble in the U.S., loans too easy to get, probably was an "essential cause" of the housing market crash. 

That is confusing (to me at least) because, if it were true, then the obvious way to deal with that and prevent the problem in the first place would have been to clamp down on "excess" or "risky" lending through our regulatory agencies. In my mind, that points to regulatory failure. The following dissent sees this aspect of this problem the about same way  I do.

The second dissent: One commissioner, Peter J. Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute** concludes this in the other Republican dissent (at page 444):

"I believe that the sine qua non (essential condition or prerequisite) of the financial crisis was U.S. government housing policy, which led to the creation of 27 million subprime and other risky loans—half of all mortgages in the United States—which were ready to default as soon as the massive 1997-2007 housing bubble began to deflate. If the U.S. government had not chosen this policy path—fostering the growth of a bubble of unprecedented size and an equally unprecedented number of weak and high risk residential mortgages—the great financial crisis of 2008 would never have occurred."

Who done it and what did they leave us with?

So, what really led to the 2008 financial crisis and ensuing recession? Its hard to know. What I conclude is that everyone involved, government regulators, congress, the president, think tanks and academics all failed for the most part.

It is harder to assess what "blame" private sector players should get. To me, it looked like when they acted legally, they were just capitalists trying to make as much money as possible, as fast as possible. To a large extent, that is what capitalism is all about. Its a different story for people who broke laws in the feeding frenzy before the collapse. Regardless of who is at fault, we are still paying the price for their failures. To keep things in focus, this is what they left us with:

• high unemployment
• massive federal spending and debt
• a continuing awful housing market
• loss of trillions of dollars in the stock market and peoples' 401k plans
• excessive loss of home values
• taxpayer bailouts
• lots of bank failures (sour commercial loans)
• responsible people (not speculators and not the clueless or the reckless) losing their jobs, then losing their homes for failure to pay mortgages and then being unable to sell at even a break even point
• recent bipartisan crisis-related legislation (extending Bush tax cuts, unemployment benefits, etc), possibly imperiling America's credit rating with potentially catastrophic consequences (see comments about this at Rise of the Center)

Looking through the report, you can see the ideology of both Democrats and Republicans behind and shaping their analysis and opinions. The question is whether either ideology is mostly correct, partly correct or mostly wrong. One could argue that one of the three opinions or conclusions has to be closer to reality than the other two. However, one could also argue that an analysis unpolluted by ideology might lead to conclusions that are equally far away from all three opinions.

An unnecessary partisan move

One annoyance with the the partisanship of the commission was the Democrats voting to limit dissents to 9 pages (another source of confusion: the first dissent is at pages 413-437 - that's more than 9 pages). The three dissenters pointed this out at page 413. This is annoying because (i) the Republicans used it as an excuse for not fully explaining themselves and (ii) it said to me that the Democrats wanted to shut the Republicans up in case they actually had better explanations and analysis.

Despite the page limitation on dissents, whatever it was, I believe that the Republicans could fully explain themselves if they had wanted to. If they had more to say all they had to do was to publish their full dissents and analysis elsewhere online. It is easy. Is is a simple posting of a file on the internet, like the FCIC report itself is online and easily available. Instead, Republicans used this as an excuse to avoid giving the public a full explanation. A pox on the Democrats for that unnecessary and purely partisan move to limit dissent. It allowed the Republicans to weasel out. A pox on them for weaseling out. Its just politics as usual.

Thunder from the pundits

According to some commentators (on NPR and POTUS satellite radio) familiar with the FCIC commission and the final report, the Democratic conclusion that the crisis was unavoidable didn't sit well with Republican ideology. They believe that is what provoked Republican dissents. After looking through the FCIC report, that assessment seems to be right.

So, what caused the financial crisis of 2008? It looks to me like another case of bipartisan failure grounded in a view of reality distorted by failed political ideology. Given the tone of rhetoric coming from the two parties, the financial crisis and other failures of recent decades (Vietnam, our dependence on our enemies for oil, etc), nothing is likely to change. Given recent history and our prospects for the future, Democrats and Republicans govern without my consent. I hereby respectfully submit my own dissent.

---------------------------------

** Although it calls it calls itself nonpartisan, the American Enterprise Institute is a think tank that is about as hard core pro-business, anti-government, anti-regulation and pro-Republican as you can get. It is probably fair to characterize Mr. Wallison as a hard core Republican ideologue and partisan second to none. It is probably also fair to believe that if someone had come to Mr. Wallison a few years before the 2008 crash suggesting that regulators needed to clamp down on easy money in housing, he probably would have blown them out of the room with a rhetorical bazooka.

Why? Because decreasing regulation is what anti-regulation, anti-government ideologues believe in. However, since things did blow up, now is the time for anti-government philosophers like Mr. Wallison to blast government for failing to do its job. He criticizes government policy for failing, even though Mr. Wallison himself would likely have implemented a similar hands-off policy if he was in charge himself. 

Jinxed?

In his dissent Mr. Wallison also said this (page 448): "But the Commission’s investigation was not structured or carried out in a way that could ever have garnered my support or, I believe, the support of the other Republican members. One glaring example will illustrate the Commission’s lack of objectivity. . . . "  Given that comment, it is no wonder that there was no bipartisan consensus in the FCIC report. It is clear that the two sides never could agree right from the get go.

Is there any value at all?

One can reasonably ask, is there anything of real value in the FCIC report? Yes, there is. The report is just one more concrete example showing how far apart the two parties are. They are so far apart in how they see the world that they cannot and will not work together efficiently. The report shows the depth and intensity of our political two-party dysfunction. In my opinion, that dysfunction correlates well with the depth and intensity of the two differing ideologies. In that regard, the FCIC report is a valuable public asset.

In terms of providing guidance for policymakers, the FCIC report may be of little or no value. That may be the case because, as Wallison points out at page 443: "Without waiting for the Commission’s insights into the causes of the financial crisis, Congress passed and the President signed the Dodd-Frank Act (DFA), far reaching and highly consequential regulatory legislation. Congress and the President acted without seeking to understand the true causes of the wrenching events of 2008, perhaps following the precept of the President’s chief of staff —“Never let a good crisis go to waste.” "

Things we don't understand - the Afghan war, part 3

I don't understand the Afghan war. Not at all. My first Afghanistan post was about pedophilia. The second was about how our Afghan allies don't care squat about us, how our military operates and how Americans are uninformed. This is about the bizarre way our military operates there. It raises the question, yet again: Why are ordinary Americans like me so terribly uninformed? Why do our tax dollars support it? How do we withdraw our consent to be governed like this? Those are the questions.

Context: Baghram Air Force base and it's security is under the control of the U.S. Air Force. It is an air base, not an army fort and not where navy boats land and do their things. Because of that, the USAF (air force) is responsible for Baghram's security and the security of all U.S. military personnel on the base, including Marines, army folks and all the rest.

Ship going

It's my toy and I don't share

The question of security at Baghram comes to mind because the base receives periodic shelling from insurgents and that occasionally kills our personnel. How does the Air Force deal with that? Apparently, they don't take it seriously. Once a shell lands in the base, the Air Force refuses to use a quick strike retaliatory weapon that both it and the Army has. Maybe they don't even have it deployed. This weapon** can target and return fire to the point of attack within a few seconds. It has computers, GPS stuff and acoustic or other types of sensors. It is an efficient killing machine.

Other toys: The Air Force also refuses to deploy a drone to patrol the area, except when a big cheese like Vice President Biden shows up for a visit (that happened in the last week or two). When big cheese shows, the USAF deploys all the hardware, software and finest crockery with a vengeance. They are just showing what a great job they do (with our tax dollars). The big cheese is, as usual, clueless. Or, if the cheese isn't out to lunch, it isn't telling us boob taxpayers about anything of import. The whole thing reeks of the Python hospital skit from decades ago about the big cheese (an idiot administrator) showing up in the operating room. Unfortunately, this isn't funny - its real.

Ship coming

So, what is the situation? Apparently this. About once or twice a week a mortar or rocket or two (or three) lands somewhere in Baghram. Sometimes one of our soldiers is wounded and falls. Regardless of carnage, the USAF refuses to send an ambulance or medical personnel until the all clear is sounded. The Army (presumably also marines, but I have no info on that) medical guys are willing to go out immediately and help the wounded. Unfortunately, they are limited in what they can do and in particular cannot access the USAF trauma unit at Baghram until the all clear is given.

How long??: The all clear isn't given for 20-30 minutes, which is the amount of time the USAF needs to get a ferocious warplane off the ground and into the general neighborhood of where the attack came from. By then of course, the bad guys are long gone (they are not stupid - all the stupid ones were killed long ago) and there's nothing left to shoot at except rocks and bugs. But, at least the roar of the jet en route is impressive, by golly.

You can't play with your toys here

because its my sandbox

According to my source, the Army has the same weapon to locate incoming fire, quickly target it and kill the offending low-tech boobs or insurgents (Taliban, Al Qaida, whatever else they are) who have the audacity to lob shells into Baghram. Although our USAF can use this wonderful weapon we paid for, they won't. Why? Just because, that's why. No other reason. And, they won't permit the Army to deploy it either for the same "reason".

Arrogance sometimes knows no bounds.

The sorry result: Unfortunately, the USAF's penchant to hide in safety and comfort while wounded U.S. military personnel lie wounded on the ground occasionally has bad consequences. Sometimes (a few times a year) one of our folks bleeds to death before the USAF ends their hunkering down and blows the all clear klaxon. Then the ambulance comes out, siren screaming, officers bellowing and all the other cool stuff. Access to the trauma unit is then allowed.

The question

Remember the question posed at the beginning? Why are ordinary Americans like me so uninformed? Well, if this story is true (and I believe it is), it is pretty clear why the U.S. government and military wants to keeps us fool mushroom taxpayers in the dark. We get to pay and they get to play. At our expense and without the consent of us who do not consent.

-----------------------------------------

** I can't find a link to this weapon and my source at Baghram doesn't know what it is called. I have asked and my inquiries continue. Based on my research, means to detect the location of incoming fire has been available to the U.S. military since about 2006. Other stories on military discussion sites confirm some other stories (not yet posted) I have heard (guns without bullets but not nail clippers going thru airport security). Given the situation, I imagine that a weapon to detect incoming fire and quickly return fire exists. If the level of our military spending is any indicator, it darn well better exist. We paid for it in spades.

I can only keep looking for confirmation (or denial) that this weapon (and the rest of this sick story and others I posted) exists and my information is accurate. What I am hearing is so disturbing and strange, that I now demand independent confirmation or denial. This stuff just freaks me out.

Ships passing in the light

So far, my forays into military discussion fora for information and confirmation or denial of what I am hearing has created some enemies and shed no light. Our military folks just don't want to talk about this stuff. Good grief, why is it so hard to get honest, unspun information about almost anything?

The only semi friendly response from the unofficial militaries were these (paraphrasing and reading between the lines): "Bug off. I don't like you. If you want information, ask the military press office (or sign up and serve yourself, asshole - and I hope you get shot). All you will get from the military press office is a pack of lies. If you talk to anyone here (on the discussion forum), all you will get is scuttlebutt, which is also a pack of lies." Jeez. What did I do wrong?

America's FY 2010 military budget is about $500 - $800 billion. For all that money, I can't even get one straight answer from anyone with knowledge, including the U.S. Government or our military personnel. What can I conclude? Even our own military is our enemy? Us taxpayers aren't just hosed, we are screwed. All I ask is truth. So far (about 6 hours of trying), I cannot get it.

Democrats and Republicans govern without my consent.

Self-interest before public interest

One can argue that given our current situation the two party system has not done so well in the last few decades. That was despite our advantages. There is discontent with both parties and that suggests some sort of failure. Reasonable questions include asking how and why we got here.

Human nature, human weakness

Although there are multiple reasons, three major factors seem to be involved: Special interest money, rigid political and religious ideology and self-interest before public interest. They seem to be three sources of political failure. The last one is harder to pin down than the other two. Politicians in office vary rarely admit they ever put self-interest above the public interest. However, politicians out of office occasionally do admit that self-interest can be a deciding factor.

Termed out of office and free to speak

A recent example is comments made by former California legislative leader Willie Brown, who recently said that the the civil service system was "set up so politicians like me couldn't come in and fire the people (relatives) hired by the guy they beat and replace them with their own friends and relatives. . . . . . Talking about this is politically unpopular and potentially even career suicide for most officeholders."

That's an admission against his own interest (his reputation) because he was involved. If it weren't true, why would he say it? Mr. Brown is no longer an elected politician. He was termed out of office and he has nothing to lose, reelection-wise. Mr. Brown did not say those things while still in office. That could have been too politically damaging, i.e., "career suicide".

This is an example of political self-interest coming before the public interest and why the public never hears about it. Mr. Brown's comments say that at least some of the time, politicians put self-interest (hiring friends and relatives) before the public interest (hiring the best public employee for the job; telling the public the truth about how politics really works).

Blown out of office and equally free

Another example is from former senator Max Cleland (D-Georgia). His story is sad.** After losing his senate seat to Saxby Chambliss in the 2002 elections, Mr. Cleland admitted that he voted in favor of invading Iraq, even though he was not convinced by the Bush administration's evidence for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. He admitted he did that partly because of deference to the Bush administration and partly because of political self-interest.

At the time Cleland's reelection campaign was underway and he was afraid that the people of Georgia would vote him out of office if he did not vote in favor of authorizing military force to attack Iraq (Cleland's interview comments at 14:15-19:02). To his credit, Mr. Cleland said that he will regret that vote for the rest of his life. Based on his comments, I presume that Mr. Cleland would have voted against authorizing force if his political self-interest was not a factor.

Those are two examples of political self-interest coming before the public interest. Is the human trait of doing that anything to worry about? Take Mr. Brown's example of politicians not wanting to tell the public the truth about how political institutions or government operations actually work. Apply that to how America conducts itself, for example, in war.

The apocalypse

If you believe that the government doesn't want the American public to really know what is going on, then when Americans say they support or do not support the Afghanistan war, how reliable is their opinion? What if it is the case that we really and truly need to stay in Afghanistan for another 8-10 years, lose 10,000 troops and spend $700 billion more to stabilize both Afghanistan and Pakistan? What if we needed to do that to avoid thermonuclear Armageddon here in the U.S. in 10-15 years, assuming our premature withdrawal caused the Pakistani government to fall and Pakistan's nuclear arsenal gets used against us?

Wouldn't you want to know as much as possible about how things are going, e.g., in Afghanistan or the rest of government? Wouldn't you want to be as informed as you could be? Or, are you willing to just let the politicians do what they want while keeping you in the dark? Is the human trait of serving self-interest a major political problem? I think it is.

How to fix it

So, what can be done? If this really is a human trait, it won't go away. As argued here before, one way to affect political behavior is to increase transparency. Obviously, that won't be completely effective, but it would help. In the case of lobbyists interacting with politicians, if that was required to be made public, the extent of political self-dealing would need to be decreased to avoid defeat in the next election.

-----------------------------------

** In the fall of 2002, Senator Chambliss was running a dirty campaign against Sen. Cleland. He ran TV ads where Cleland's face slowly changed to Osama bin Ladn's face. In effect, he was calling Cleland a terrorist. It was so disgusting that even John McCain told Saxby to knock it off, which he did. What made it sad was the fact that Cleland had lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam in a hand grenade incident. He was willing to sacrifice himself to save his fellow marines. Chambliss never served in the military.

Things politicians say that don't make sense

Politicians say all kinds of things that are unfortunately not intended to inform the American people. Misleading statements usually serve another purpose. A recent example are comments from Speaker John Boehner, referring to a rationale for passing legislation to repeal Obamacare. Paraphrasing, he said: This bill [Obamacare] is flawed and why shouldn't it be repealed? There is no reason not to repeal it.

Well, that sounds about right, right? Or, is something missing? Of course something is missing, i.e., facts and context. They are almost always missing when a partisan politician unleashes the dogs of spin. Congress routinely passes moderately and very complex legislation, like Obamacare. They later nearly always discover errors and unintended consequences. In those cases, congress rarely or never repeals the law. It fixes it, e.g., by occasionally repealing some sections, usually changing others and otherwise doing what is needed. The United States Code (the laws congress passes and the president signs) is full of thousands of such fixes.

How easy it is

Fixing a law like Obamacare could be done like this. Assume that the law is 2,700 pages long and has 100 sections. Assume that there are 4 things (sections 1-4, for the sake of argument) in the bill the Republicans want to keep but amend, one thing (section 5) they accept as is and 95 things they want to repeal (sections 6-100). 

The repeal law that House Republicans passed on January 19, 2011 was 5 pages. It could have said the following: Sections 6-100 are hereby repealed. Section 1 is amended as follows (amendments put in). The House hereby declares its intention to amend sections 2-4 in subsequent legislation (even this isn't necessary to say, but it makes the political point). That's it. It is just that simple. The repeal law would not even need to mention the one section Republicans were willing to keep without amendments.  

If Republicans were serious about keeping sections in Obamacare that they know most Americans want and that they will keep or amend, they could have easily done that. Since they didn't do that, they must have another agenda that they do not care to tell us about. What might that be? How about killing all of Obamacare entirely before Americans realize there are some things about the bill they want and will fight to keep? 

In essence, the Republicans are fighting against time and arguably the public interest. That is why politicians routinely say things that don't make sense. That is how politics as usual works and that is why it routinely fails.

A bad smell

When Speaker Boehner says there is no reason to not repeal Obamacare, he speaks nonsense. What we have here is just garden variety spin to deceive the public. I have tried to point out that common, but nasty political tactic before. Democrats do it. Republicans do it. In this case, the Republicans could just as easily passed legislation to fix what they don't like about Obamacare, i.e., repeal what they hate and keep or tweak the rest, either now or later.

Since they want to kill the whole shebang, I just assume they want to go back to the really rotten status quo that existed before the current semi-rotten status quo. Ah, the sweet stench of Washington politics as usual. Out here in California, that means a foul wind is blowing in from the east.

Common sense, non-ideological politics

The main point of this blog is to float ideas and rationales that could be part of a non-ideological, common sense political party. There should be plenty of voter discontent to start a new party, if party affiliation data is a reasonable indicator.

An earlier post listed policies for a smart political party. That list wasn't there to convince people to agree with all of those opinions. That won't happen and wasn't expected. The point was to show that a non-ideological, reality-based, pragmatic point of view could lead to liberal, conservative or other policies.

The range of reasonable possibilities is something the Democratic and Republican parties cannot or will not give you. Mostly, they are: (1) intellectually retarded by their blinding political and religious ideologies, (2) bought by special interest money and (3) focused on self-service before public service. My definition of self-service means doing whatever needed to get elected or reelected. Of course, yours may not be the same.

The credibility factor

Since I am an unknown, credibility is a big issue. I have little or none. If no one accepts that things I see as important social or political problems are important, then my try to argue for a new way of looking at politics will fail. Under the circumstances, it would help to cite other credible independent third parties, when they come up.

Acute in California

My list of issues included public sector labor unions as a problem, at least for states like California where they are powerful. The January 8-14 issue of The Economist at pages 9 (lead editorial), 21-23, 26 and 68 highlighted public sector labor unions in the U.S. and Europe. The Economist noted (i) an unfunded $5 trillion debt that U.S. states face for labor union pensions and (ii) resistance to real reform by labor unions, e.g., U.S. teacher unions have fought reforms to increase productivity "most cruelly in education." Ouch.

What does that have to do with politics and 

a non-ideological party?

A fair question. This what it has to do with it. Democrats easily cannot see labor unions as a corrupting special interest problem. That contradicts their political ideology and contravines what labor union money and interests want. Democrats usually see public sector labor unions serving the public interest, not any special interest. Huge amounts of labor union campaign contribution money to the Democratic party and Democratic candidates powerfully reinforces that "reality". Money talks, and other stuff walks.

By contrast, if you can see from a viewpoint grounded in reality, it is pretty easy to see that public sector labor unions are a special interest. That's especially true in our current economic and political situation. If you accept that, then it is easier to see that public sector labor unions usually serve their own interest before the public interest. Special interests look out for themselves - that's the definition of a special interest. The labor unions will, of course, deny that they are a special interest. From their point of view, everything they do is altruistic and mostly or purely in the public interest, even if it is nonsense.

What about the Republicans?

How do you think the average Republican would see this? I imagine that most of them conclude that public sector labor unions are a special interest out to serve themselves before the public. Why? Because it fits Republican anti-labor union anti-government ideology.

How pragmatic politics works

By contrast, I bet most Republicans see government regulations of some business activity, e.g., offshore oil drilling or consumer financial services, as bad and against the public interest. Why? Because that fits their political or religious ideology. On the other hand Democrats generally see the opposite because of their ideology.

Being a pragmatic realist, I see an opinion about public sector labor unions that looks and feels "Republican". However, getting there had nothing to do with any Republican ideology. It was based on a cold, hard look at reality and seeing a big problem.

I am not alone

I am not alone in seeing public sector labor unions as an issue. The Economist sees addressing this as a "huge opportunity to redesign government" (page 11). I agree. I just do not trust ideologues of any political persuasion to find the best solutions. The best solutions are ones that maximizes efficiency and public benefit while minimizing costs and pain to everyone involved, including the labor unions. Solutions to problems should balance interests to find win-win scenarios when it is feasible to do so. That takes finesse.

Partisans and ideologues generally retreat into their ideology. Or, they give in to the money and/or work for reelection instead of working for the public interest. They can't see solutions that don't fit their world view. None of that takes finesse.

Conclusion

That's how non-ideological, common sense politics works. Given the situation, the Democratic or Republican parties can't make the ideologically, personally and financially painful changes needed to be effective. They just can't do it. That is why I argue to start a new political party, not to reform the Democratic or Republican parties. If I thought that reform had a better chance of success, that's what I would try for.

--------------------------------------

Jeff Vanke posting at Rise of the Center cited this story, which has the following quotes: “Over the years, however, the civil service system has changed from one that protects jobs to one that runs the show. . . . Talking about this is politically unpopular and potentially even career suicide for most officeholders. But at some point, someone is going to have to get honest about the fact that 80 percent of the state, county and city budget deficits are due to employee costs.” Those quotes are from former California legislator Willie Brown. He ought to know what he is talking about because he was part of how the public sector labor unions became too powerful for our own good.

Did cutting congress' budget save tax dollars?

The new Republican House of Representatives under Speaker John Boehner wants to send strong messages to Americans and the rest of government. One message is a bill to repeal Obamacare as a "job killing" piece of legislation. Since that bill has no chance of passing the Senate and would be vetoed by President Obama, it is pure symbolic political theater. It will have no impact on the status quo, good, bad or indifferent. At least that measure gives the partisans and pundits something entertaining to bloviate about until the next emotionally charged thing comes along.

However, there was another Boehner measure that passed the House of Representatives, i.e., his promise to cut congress' operating budget by $35 million, which is 5%. That is not just symbolic. It can have an impact on the status quo. So, was that budget cut a good thing? It is a symbolic but real reduction in federal spending. The rational is that any cuts are good in view of our out of control deficits.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-KY) praised the 5% budget cut like this: "budget cuts should start here and now -- in our own offices. . . . . The one and only mandate we received from the American people in November was to put our economy and jobs first. ... Our budget axe will swing wide and true, and no area of the federal government will be immune from our scrutiny and cuts. Sacred cows are, for all intents and purposes, extinct."

So, is that all there is to it? Is this really good and nothing else? Is anything missing? Or, is this partisan advocacy of the kind I criticized here earlier? I cannot determine if the 5% cut was good, bad or neutral because I have insufficient information. As usual, the press did a lousy job of informing us. However, I can see a reasonable, logical argument that concludes the 5% budget cut was stupid and counterproductive. How can that be? This is how.

The counterargument

Congress consists of 435 representatives and 100 senators. Two key functions of congress ares to originate spending bills and to oversee federal agencies as a check on the executive branch and its activities. That makes sense, because federal agencies can and do get out of control in all sorts of ways all the time. An independent check on federal agency activity is critical.**  The 2011 federal budget is projected to be about $3.8 trillion. In 2009, there were about 4.4 million federal employees. The context and facts show that the 535 members of congress are collectively responsible for figuring out what spending is smart and efficient and for overseeing smooth and efficient federal operations. One way to slice it is to say that each member of congress is responsible for an equal share of responsibility, i.e., about $7.1 billion of tax dollar spending and about 8,224 employees. 

That's a lot  for each member to deal with, especially for members of congress who usually have no real world management or operations experience. Given the context and facts, the question is whether or not a $35 million cut in congress' budget makes sense. Does it help more than hurt? If it is the case that the $35 million is basically waste and has no impact on congressional oversight activity, then the budget cut makes sense. But, if that cut costs us taxpayers a few billion in lost or wasted tax dollars elsewhere in federal operations because of a loss of oversight or analysis in legislating, then how much sense does that $35 million cut make? None, right?

When people like Chairman Rogers proudly boast that the "budget axe will swing wide and true", I cringe. That sounds like some partisan yahoo who checks his brains at the door and lets pure political ideology do his thinking for him. What if it is the case that adding $100 million to congress' budget results in a savings in $10 billion in federal operations due to better oversight and smarter crafting of spending bills? Why isn't that a possibility? From a government hater point of view, it isn't a possibility. From a realistic, pragmatic point of view, it is a possibility.

What were they thinking, or were they?

Unfortunately, partisan politics are grounded in ideology and not reality. Given that, blind rhetoric is the blithering nonsense we usually get from partisans in congress. I bet that neither speaker Boehner nor chairman Rogers has any idea of what impact their $35 million budget cut will have on federal operations. In their blind rush to pander to an irate electorate, congressional Republicans and all Democrats (except 11) probably never even thought about it.

Since budget cuts plays straight into mainstream Republican government hater political ideology, it was easy for the leadership to just do it with eyes wide closed. Maybe the $35 million budge cut really will save tax dollars and be a good thing. But, maybe it won't. This is the kind of political theater that can have an impact.

------------------------------------

** Remember the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and the BP oil spill of April 2010? The MMS was packed by people like Bush and Cheney with employees sympathetic to the oil industry, including former oil industry employees. The MMS was incapable of doing its job because congress did not want it to do its job. That was part of the defense of the sacred cow oil industry by congress. The MMS nonetheless gets the public blame because it was the responsible agency. For myself, I blame congress as much as the Obama and MMS - they all failed. There was no congressional oversight of the MMS and we arguably got the gulf oil spill as a result. Obviously, the executive branch alone cannot and will not oversee itself. It needs all the help it can get.

Options for new political parties

Recent polling data suggests that neither the Democrats nor Republicans are appealing to most Americans. The number of independents is slowly increasing. Party affiliation stands at 31% Democrat (dropping and tied with their all time low), 29% Republican (holding steady and 1% above their all time low) and 38% independent (increasing and tied with their all time high). Folks like Solomon Kleinsmith at Rise of the Center see it as a trend of moderates away from the left and right extremes that dominate the two parties. That interpretation sounds reasonable.

Moderate options

If moderates are discontented and leaving the two parties, then what are their options? For people who are more comfortable with conservative ideology, they have the Republican, Libertarian, Boston Tea Party and other conservative third party options. Liberals have the Democratic, Green, Socialist and other parties. Religious people have small or nascent third parties such as the American Party or America's Independent Party. All of those are grounded in some form of political and/or religious ideology, much of it pretty hard core and extreme. Despite the range of choices, none seem to have much popular appeal to independents.

Why be an independent?

In some (most?) states with closed primaries, people who register as independent cannot vote in primaries for candidates running in a qualified party like the Democratic or Republican parties. That is a big disadvantage. Despite the disadvantage, they still register as independent. A reasonable conclusion is that independents truly do not like their options, including the Democratic and Republican parties.

What else is there?

If it is true, as Mr. Kleinsmith and others suggest, that independents are rejecting political ideology or extremism on the left and right, then that would seem to be a repudiation of at least the extremes of the two dominant ideologies in America - liberal and conservative. If that is true, then what else is there? Other than compromise between the two extremes, not much, that's what.

The data shows that Democrats and Republicans are being rejected. The other third parties offer variations, usually more extreme, of liberal and conservative ideology but they aren't getting anywhere. Pragmatic realists ("moderates" as I define it) have essentially no option among any of the existing political groups. If independents are pragmatic realists more or less, that would at least partly explain why they are willing to suffer the major disadvantage of being independent in the first place. Right?

Of course, there is another definition of "moderate", i.e., someone who generally seeks compromise between Democrats and Republicans. In one sense that is pragmatic because there are no other powers to deal with. If you don't compromise with them, you get nowhere. The downside is that with this kind of moderation, you get compromise between two rejected and flawed ideologies, liberal and conservative.

That may or may not lead to effective solutions to our problems. The outcomes can be good, bad or indifferent. Sometimes what Democrats want makes sense. Sometimes what Republicans want makes sense. Sometimes compromise makes sense. Sometimes (often, I suspect) none of that makes sense. A moderate grounded in pragmatic reality (common sense) and serving the public interest over special interests may on average be better able to see the best option than a moderate looking largely for compromise.

In the world of partisan political advocacy, the two sides (Democrats, Republicans and their special interests) nearly always present us with two highly spun and thus incorrect versions of reality. We also get two, often mutually exclusive, solutions based on their false realities. Their version of reality ignores, distorts or flat out denies facts and reasoning that undercuts ideology. The truth of the matter is that problems and reality are what they are, with no regard to which ideology, if any, it fits or denies. It's like air pollution not caring about crossing state or international borders - it is just going to go wherever it goes, like it or not.

The opportunity

Assuming the foregoing has some validity, there should be an opportunity for a new political party to form right now. Despite that, the momentum for moderates just isn't there. At least not like it is for the Tea Party (mostly hard core political and religious ideologues), who made real, tangible progress in a short period of time. Why aren't moderates coalescing like the Tea Party did?

What is missing?

Maybe some things are missing before independents or moderates, if that is what independents are, will coalesce into an organized force. One is the emotion needed to rally people around a cause. It seems to be the case that many (most?) people just can't rally around cold, rational political discussions about reasonable and effective problem solving. It's too dull. Rhetorical fire breathing dragons, or something like that, seems to be needed. The second missing item is a coherent cause or intellectual framework for independents or moderates to rally around.

The cause

As for the coherent cause, there is one possibility that no political party offers today. That is a party grounded largely in pragmatic reality and rejection of political and religious ideology to the extent it can reasonably be done. That is an alternative that none of the existing parties and movements, like the Tea Party, offer. That is something that should appeal to at least some independents and pragmatists.

The search for unspun truth and intelligent, shrewd, efficient and humane policies to address problems seen from the viewpoint of unspun truth could be the intellectual core for a new political party. That is something that none of the other parties can or will offer. From them, we get spin, more spin and service to their special interests at the expense of the public interest, i.e., the political status quo.

At the least, pursuit of honest reality and service to the public before service to the special interest is a real and different option compared to the political party chaos we have now. Any takers?

Defending the American standard of living

One of America's political failures beginning some time after the end of the second world war has been a relatively stagnant standard of living (2008-2010). There was a time when many families relied on just one worker to support a middle class standard of living. Those days are gone. It usually takes two wage earners to stay in the middle class.

The problem has been particularly apparent over the last few years. The 2007 recession seems to have exacerbated it, although how you measure the data can affect your conclusions. And, not everyone agrees that there is much of a problem, if any at all. However, recent analysis suggests that income growth will be slow at best for years to some. Most Americans can sense a problem. The problem seems to come from several sources.

Some people blame it on high CEO salaries but that can't be the whole story. It probably isn't a big factor. One likely factor is America's balance of trade, which has been negative since the late 1960s every year except 1975. America's trade deficit for 1999-2009 was over $200 billion per year, with deficits of about $700-$750 billion per year for 2005-2008. That amounts to a deficit of  about $2.8 trillion for those four years alone. Despite our $14.1 trillion 2009 GDP and some mainstream economic theory to the contrary, it is hard to imagine from a common sense point of view losing that amount of money to our trade partners while still maintaining our standard of living.

Other factors in the mix probably include (1) America's lack of an intelligent and coordinated national level policy on (i) energy and how to reduce the flow of U.S. wealth into imported oil and gas and (ii) international trade policy that puts American businesses on an equal footing with their foreign competitors, (2) ineffective and corrupt U.S. tax policies and (3) insufficient protection of U.S. intellectual property, particularly patents, which are currently under attack by U.S. federal courts, congress and some sectors of U.S. society (none of whom understand the economic power or the importance of patents, but that's a different topic).

All of these things undermine our capacity to effectively compete. To some extent, we are slitting our own throats because of our inability to clearly understand our problems and how to best use  the problem solving tools we do have. We cannot seem to devise and implement shrewd national level policies. As usual, progress in this area is hindered by the ever-present and always popular three horsemen of failure in American politics, inept political and religious ideology, corruption of politics by special interest money and politicians who put self-service before public service.

Free trade isn't fair trade

One example of an unfair playing field is America's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). When the FCPA became law, it seemed like a good idea. However, given the way the world works maybe it isn't such a good idea. Most developing nation governments are moderately to extremely corrupt. It is often the case that to do a business deal, you need to bribe one or more government officials. If you can't bribe, you can't do a deal because your competitor bribed. Many of our economic competitors have no qualms. They just bribe when needed. To them, it is just the cost of doing business, nothing more.

America has taught the rest of the world how to manufacture even the most sophisticated products. America tends to "play fair" while our trade partners cheat as much as needed, whenever needed. Maybe honest and fair free trade isn't such a great idea. We are probably the only party at the table playing the game by those rules.

A very tough problem and bad statistics

One of America's competitive strengths should lie in its ability to innovate. One would think that clever and sophisticated consumer products invented here would be a source of trade surplus. Well, maybe not so much. A Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article (Thursday, December 16, 2010, pages B1, B2) reported one study that concluded that manufacturing and sales activity in China for the iPhone actually added about $1.9 billion to America's trade deficit with China. That was the case even though Apple is American and owns the intellectual property surrounding the iPhone, including the patents.

How can that be? Bad statistics and analysis, that's how. The WSJ article reported that consideration of how the iPhone is made and assembled suggests that the iPhone does add value to the U.S. economy, but that our current ways of analyzing trade no longer accurately reflect the complexities of trade in the global economy.

Clearly, the U.S. needs to get its act together and start being smart about international trade. That we are in this situation at all is intolerable, but that's what you get from political business as usual. We need to better understand what is going on before we can get smart about international trade policy. We can do things that may be "unfair", like subtly limiting distribution channels for imported goods. The Japanese do that to us, even though they are members of GATT and other free trade treaties. China has all sorts of trade barriers against foreign competitors. Our competitors know how to block foreign competition while pretending to be fair and even handed.

Many countries cheat to defend their industries and their standard of living. America doesn't cheat nearly as much and we are paying the price for that honesty. We are not defending our standard of living. Does honesty make sense when we are essentially alone and facing huge trade deficits for who knows how long?

Why is the American standard of living stagnant or falling? If America's chronic trade imbalance is not a significant factor then what is? In other words, who failed and why? If it is the case that it is unrealistic to expect our standard of living to increase, our elected politicians should clearly and honestly tell us that.

Clueless and bored

Despite its importance, the issue of our standard of living is not a major topic for most politicians or the press. When it does come up, it usually gets little or modest consideration compared to other issues of less importance. Why is that? Probably because politicians, especially ideologues, don't know what to do about it. Ideologues just check their brains at the door and let blind faith in ideology replace creative thinking. The press tends to avoid it, maybe because it is complex and boring to them and most of their audiences.

This issue urgently needs intelligent, shrewd political thinking and leadership. Unfortunately, that is something that neither the Democratic nor Republican parties can deliver. They just don't have it in them any more. They are tied to their ideology and enslaved to special interest money. Those things limit intelligent thinking and hinder implementing creative solutions. Either the ideology blocks a solution, a special interest rears its head and unleashes the lobbyist hoards or both factors conspire to sabotage meaningful action. Or, politician self service before public service tosses sand into the gears.

Addressing this will take creativity outside the small confines of liberal or conservative ideology. It will take a cold, honest assessment of both the problem and competing solutions. Solutions need to be grounded in pragmatism and unspun reality, not political ideology and spin. We have had plenty of political ideology (e.g., deregulation of all sorts of things, lower taxes and all the rest the other government-hater ideology that should have been needed, e.g., deregulation in the 1980s and 1990s, the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, etc.). It all failed. That is part of why we are in these messes.

Democratic and Republican ideologues and special interests with money had power and multiple chances to succeed. Socialists, Libertarians and other third parties were not in power for even a single day. Unfortunately for us, both the Democratic and Republican parties and the special interests that buy them failed. It is long past time for something different, much smarter and much more competent. If we don't get something different, we will pay the price for our political failures. The price will be our lost standard of living.

Things we do not understand - Afghanistan, part 2

I know a trusted source in the U.S. military (once removed) in Afghanistan. It would be a shame to waste these precious observations. Afghanistan part 1 was about pedophilia being an embedded aspect of Afghan culture. This post is going to be about our military and how it routinely does not inform us, presumably on orders from our inept civilian leaders.

From the front

Summing up the situation based on latest dispatch is simple - its SNAFU, as applied in the frustration sense.

My source is an officer in the U.S. military (above sergeant but below a flag officer). My source relays the following intel back to us boob taxpayers on the home front. According to my source, deployment of our troops to "forward operating bases" (FOBs) or something like that, that are manned by our stalwart Afghan allies reveals the true depth and scope of the sincere alliance with America's new found friend, Afghanistan. At Baghram, other strange items of interest occur. But, first things first.

Cottage cheese

If my pedophilia post and/or this one doesn't curdle your milk nothing will. That assumes you give me any credibility. For hard core war supporters, I assume that you will ignore, distort or deny the following.

Why we send them there

On deployment to a FOB, American troops, among other things, are supposed to help our steadfast Afghan allies and to train them in all sorts of modern warfare arts. As one would expect, the U.S. military wants and demands discipline and punctuality. OK, good enough. So how does that go down with our stalwart Afghan allies? Here is an insightful account.

At a FOB, the U.S. officer in charge calls for a meeting at, say, 08:00 sharp tomorrow for training on how to do something useful in war, maybe, e.g., how to purify contaminated water or stop wounded comrades from bleeding to death before they can be sent to a hospital.

In one case, at 08:00, American troops and officers show up to train our Afghan allies. Oddly, no Afghani troops show up. A runner is sent to wherever our allies are and come back with this critical intel: They are still asleep. We troops set another meeting up for 10:30 the next day. The next day, nobody shows up. Nobody knows why. We then set the meeting up for 2:30 the next day. Two Afghans out of an anticipated 10-20 show up, but they leave when they get bored.

Why?

So, why the underwhelming response? Because our allies aren't there to learn anything from us. They are there in the most minimal sense to collect their pay. That's it. Nothing else. No pay, no cooperation. Afghan troops and/or military doctors don't care if their comrades (or our troops) bleed to death or anything else. There isn't anything our troops can do about any of it. Yes indeed, we are in trouble in Afghanistan.

Back at the ranch

Meanwhile, back at Baghram, our troops get to play Russian roulette. Insurgents lob the occasional shell or rocket onto the base at times convenient to them. Most of their flying bombs hit the dirt and do nothing other than annoying U.S. troops, interrupting sleep and/or making them wear shoes to avoid shrapnel cuts. However, on one recent occasion, a shell hit a pole next to a B hut, injuring the four U.S. soldiers in the hut. The culprit was shrapnel. If it weren't for that nutty pole, that incident might have been much worse.

High command strategy

So, what was the U.S. military command's concern? This is what: Whether to give U.S. soldiers who rushed to the B hut a purple heart for cutting their feet on broken glass/plastic or shrapnel. There was no quibbling - soldiers in the B hut who got shrapneled get a Purple Heart. But what about their barefoot rescuers? Commanders were concerned that they might sue the military for bleeding - that was the focus of discussion.

There is more - at the airport, safety first

The last tale from the Twilight Zone centers on airport security. When our troops board an airplane in Afghanistan to go somewhere else in Afghanistan, they have go through security, just like the rest of us here back at the home front.

The way airport security works for our troops is this: They put their nail polish, nail clippers, knives, side arms, ammo clips, rifles, machine guns, grenades, stinger surface to air missiles, bazookas and bazooka ammo, thermonuclear weapons and what not in little trays and the hardware goes through the scan machine. The weapons are scanned to confirm that the weapons and ammo are weapons and ammo.

Then the security folks hand it all back to our troops with a heart felt greeting like "have a nice flight and be safe". It makes everyone feel safer. Then everyone boards the airplane armed to the teeth and in a foul mood. Safety first. What the are we doing over there and why are we doing it?

So, what are us taxpayers to do? We have to pay, like it or not. Success or not. Heroism or not. We always pay, regardless of how profoundly awful (or good) our civilian or military leadership is. Other than voting against a Democrat or Republican, we have no recourse if we are unhappy. For people happy with things as they are, they presumably have little or no concern about voting for the status quo or their favored political party. But speaking for my dissatisfied self, a pox on the two parties and the inept system that gave us this expensive, nonsense and 9 years of botched war policy.