Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

The Big Game That Matters

From early childhood, we Americans are conditioned to believe the most important human events are the big game. Athletic contests define us. What are our loyalties? Red Sox or Yankees? Giants or Dodgers? Redskins or Cowboys? UNC or Duke?

A little over a week ago the Big Game was a Super Bowl that wasn't very (super, that is). This week and next the Big Game is the Winter Olympics at Sochi in Russia.

Much as we enjoy the spectacle of these events, hang on every slip of a ski or skate, wince at every stumble or fall, once the spectacle is over, we should remember that nothing in the real world has changed. People still die in Syria and Afghanistan and Darfur, there is no peace in the Middle East. And nothing has made lives better for human beings anywhere, including here in America.

Six hundred forty-two miles North West of Sochi, in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, a drama is playing out that could change the lives of people living there and the fates of nations. The drama gets little press here, but at stake is the future of Ukraine as a European country. Will Ukraine join Europe or be captured in the orbit of a resurgent Russia?

Two decades ago, not long after the Soviet Union broke up, I met a dozen or so Ukrainian judges at a bar in Georgetown, District of Columbia. They were in this country to study our legal system, including some pretty esoteric issues of corporate law. They were interested to learn that I was vice president of a limited liability corporation. They had just learned about that legal structure.

After a few beers, they made it clear that their aspiration was for Ukraine to become a "normal European country." I found the same sentiment when I visited Kiev a few years later. It was as though the disaster at Chernobyl had broken a dam, releasing a vast reservoir of disdain and resentment at not only the former Soviet Union but also at Russia.

The story may seem complicated. The characters have funny-sounding names like a Dostoevsky novel.  Here is one account of what is going on and why it is happening.

This is an actual Big Game - and the outcome does matter.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Speeches From The Past

What does the Democratic party stand for?

In a recent New York Times, Paul Krugman reminds us that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spelled it out pretty well in a speech of 78 years ago here.

The speech, delivered at Madison Square Garden in October, 1936, would need only minor edits to apply today. Here are some excerpts:

"Tonight I call the roll—the roll of honor of those who stood with us in 1932 and still stand with us today.
Written on it are the names of millions who never had a chance—men at starvation wages, women in sweatshops, children at looms. Written on it are the names of those who despaired, young men and young women for whom opportunity had become a will-o'-the-wisp.

"Written on it are the names of farmers whose acres yielded only bitterness, business men whose books were portents of disaster, home owners who were faced with eviction, frugal citizens whose savings were insecure.
Written there in large letters are the names of countless other Americans of all parties and all faiths, Americans who had eyes to see and hearts to understand, whose consciences were burdened because too many of their fellows were burdened, who looked on these things four years ago and said, "This can be changed. We will change it...."


"For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent....

"We had to struggle with the old enemies—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

"Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today," President Roosevelt said. "They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred...."

"....today there is only one entrance to the White House—by the front door. Since March 4, 1933, there has been only one pass-key to the White House. I have carried that key in my pocket. It is there tonight. So long as I am President, it will remain in my pocket....Those who used to have pass-keys are not happy...." 

"The very employers and politicians and publishers who talk most loudly of class antagonism and the destruction of the American system now undermine that system by this attempt to coerce the votes of the wage earners of this country. It is the 1936 version of the old threat to close down the factory or the office if a particular candidate does not win. It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them....

"This is our answer to those who, silent about their own plans, ask us to state our objectives.
Of course we will continue to seek to improve working conditions for the workers of America—to reduce hours over-long, to increase wages that spell starvation, to end the labor of children, to wipe out sweatshops. Of course we will continue every effort to end monopoly in business, to support collective bargaining, to stop unfair competition, to abolish dishonorable trade practices. For all these we have only just begun to fight.
Of course we will continue to work for cheaper electricity in the homes and on the farms of America, for better and cheaper transportation, for low interest rates, for sounder home financing, for better banking, for the regulation of security issues, for reciprocal trade among nations, for the wiping out of slums. For all these we have only just begun to fight....

"Of course we will continue our efforts in behalf of the farmers of America. With their continued cooperation we will do all in our power to end the piling up of huge surpluses which spelled ruinous prices for their crops. We will persist in successful action for better land use, for reforestation, for the conservation of water all the way from its source to the sea, for drought and flood control, for better marketing facilities for farm commodities, for a definite reduction of farm tenancy, for encouragement of farmer cooperatives, for crop insurance and a stable food supply. For all these we have only just begun to fight....

"Of course we will provide useful work for the needy unemployed....

"Here and now I want to make myself clear about those who disparage their fellow citizens on the relief rolls. They say that those on relief are not merely jobless—that they are worthless. Their solution for the relief problem is to end relief—to purge the rolls by starvation. To use the language of the stock broker, our needy unemployed would be cared for when, as, and if some fairy godmother should happen on the scene.
You and I will continue to refuse to accept that estimate of our unemployed fellow Americans. Your Government is still on the same side of the street with the Good Samaritan and not with those who pass by on the other side....

"Again—what of our objectives?
Of course we will continue our efforts for young men and women so that they may obtain an education and an opportunity to put it to use. Of course we will continue our help for the crippled, for the blind, for the mothers, our insurance for the unemployed, our security for the aged. Of course we will continue to protect the consumer against unnecessary price spreads, against the costs that are added by monopoly and speculation. We will continue our successful efforts to increase his purchasing power and to keep it constant.
For these things, too, and for a multitude of others like them, we have only just begun to fight...."

"We have need of that [faith] today....which makes it possible for government to persuade those who are mentally prepared to fight each other to go on instead, to work for and to sacrifice for each other. That is why we need to say with the Prophet: "What doth the Lord require of thee—but to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God."








 

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Where Have All The Singers Gone? - Long Time Passing

Learned with sadness of Pete Seeger's passing. I miss the gentle passion of the folk singers like Seeger, Woody Guthrie, Joan Baez and others who used song to remind Americans of our better angels. Good article in today's New York Times.

I was pleased recently to learn of the new Woody Guthrie museum in my home town, Tulsa, Oklahoma. As I read the lyrics of Guthrie's songs, I hear the voice of the ordinary people of rural Oklahoma from my childhood.

We need to recapture such voices and bring them forward to our own times.

Pete Seeger's was a giant voice in that tradition. We are fortunate to have lived in his time.

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Who Are The Rebels - Who Are The Anarchists?

“The poor have been rebels, but they have never been anarchists; they have more interest than anyone else in there being some decent government. The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn’t; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. Aristocrats were always anarchists.” (G. K. Chesterton, The Man Who Was Thursday)

G. K. Chesterton may have a point here.  At least, the part about the rich objecting to being governed at all. As for the aristocrats being anarchists, they are one-way anarchists at best. Before letting anarchism loose, they do their very best to load the dice in their own favor. Both tendencies are at work among Tea-Party activists and Libertarians. Old-fashioned Conservatives, not so much, but there don't seem to be many of those around any more.

Today, not many of the rich would go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The natives are too restless and their own country (which many rich do in fact despise) lacks the power to rescue them if (when) things go awry. Instead, they are happy to fly away to Switzerland or some tax haven in the Caribbean.

Sunday, January 5, 2014

Why I Am A Democrat

I have heard people ask, in apparent confusion: "Just what does the Democratic Party stand for?"

There should be no confusion. Here is what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said about it in 1932:

"There are two ways of viewing the Government's duty in matters affecting economic and social life. The first sees to it that a favored few are helped and hopes that some of their prosperity will leak through, sift through, to labor, to the farmer, to the small business man. That theory belongs to the party of Toryism, and I had hoped that most of the Tories left this country in 1776
But it is not and never will be the theory of the Democratic Party."

Here is what presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan said about it in 1896:

"There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it."

From Thomas Jefferson to the present day, the central idea of the Democratic Party has been to achieve "the greatest good to the greatest number of our citizens."

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Mark Thoma Reminds Us Of The State Of The Labor Market

Emp-pop

We have a lot of headline activity every time the "unemployment rate" goes up or down. But what matters much more is the overall percentage of working age population that is employed. Here is that picture, and the ratio is going down.

Then there is the issue of wages and salaries. As Jim Hightower observes, "It isn't about jobs. Slaves had jobs!"

Monday, November 11, 2013

One Nation, Indivisible? Not Exactly

I wasn't pleased with the results of last Tuesday's municipal election in Oriental. That makes three elections in a row that I found disappointing, but I am not discouraged. My adult life has been spent defending democracy, and I still believe in it. But the older I get, the more I understand Winston Churchill's remark that democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others that have ever been tried.

We need to remember, though, that our form of democracy is not the only possible form.

Can we get better (more democratic) results with a little tweaking, or do we need more fundamental restructuring? Maybe not.

Last week, I received in the mail my copy of the Fall, 2013 alumni magazine from Tufts University. It included an article by a 1991 graduate, Colin Woodard, entitled "Up in Arms." "The battle lines of today's debates over gun control, stand-your-ground laws, and other violence-related issues," the heading declared, "were drawn centuries ago by America's early settlers."

Woodard looks at all of North America, dividing it into eleven identifiable nations: Yankeedom, New Netherlands, The Midlands, Tidewater, Greater Appalachia, Deep South, El Norte, The Left Coast, The Far West, New France, and First Nation. The Washington Post asks, "which of the11 American nations do you live in" and includes a link to the article. It is well worth reading. Building on the work of historian David Hackett Fisher, whose seminal work of cultural history, Albion's Seed, calls attention to four original migrations from the British Isles, Woodard also cites later work by the social psychologist Nisbett, Robert Baller of the University of Iowa, Pauline Grosjean of Australia and others.

The most interesting feature of Woodard's article is a map depicting, county by county, the location of each of the eleven dominant "nations" today. It turns out that I have lived in eight of the eleven nations.

How does this play out in American political life?

Since 1990, I have followed the work of the Times-Mirror Center, now the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press. Following each presidential election for the past twenty-two years, the Center has surveyed the public for opinions on public policy. Each survey results in a "political typology," breaking down the population into anywhere from nine to eleven clusters of opinion.

The most recent typology, published here, breaks the population down into ten groupings. None is likely to correspond to First Nation, but I find it interesting that the number of the Pew Center's clusters is so close to the number of "nations" in Woodard's article. It would be very interesting to see a county by county breakdown of the Pew Center's typology.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Affordable Care Act: What's The Real Problem?

Economist Brad DeLong calls attention to a piece by Jim Tankerslee in Ezra Klein's Blog. Tankerslee explains the problems poor workers in Rome, Georgia have with the ACA as "due to a quirk in the law."

DeLong makes it very plain that it is NOT due to the law. It IS due to a decision by Justice Roberts and his cohorts on the US Supreme Court, coupled with efforts by Republican Governors and State Legislators who intentionally sabotaged the law.

Here is how DeLong explains it:

"The phrases "because of a quirk in the health-care law, and the fact that Georgia declined to expand Medicaid coverage for low-income people like him, Rizer can’t qualify for a subsidy to buy coverage" are not adequate. What Tankersley means is:
  1. The ACA provides subsidies for people with incomes more than 1/3 above the poverty level to afford insurance via the exchange-marketplace.
  2. The ACA provides coverage for people with lower incomes via the expanded Medicaid program.
  3. Chief Justice John Roberts and the other four right-wing justices broke this system by giving individual states the option not to accept the federal money to pay for the expansion of Medicaid.
  4. This was a lawless and unforeseen action: no precedent for it in previous court decisions and no warrant for it in the constitution.
  5. Because it was a lawless and unforeseen action, it had never struck the minds of anybody drafting the ACA that the John Roberts, C.J., and his Four Horsemen of the Constitution-in-Exile would do such a thing.
  6. Thus people with incomes less than 1 1/3 times the poverty level are left high and dry: since they are supposed to be covered by expanded Medicaid, there is no language in the ACA allowing them to claim subsidies.
  7. If Roberts, C.J., had been a public-spirited an intelligent man, he would have realized that if he was going to rewrite the ACA to break its Medicaid expansion provision, he also needed to rewrite the exchange subsidy provision to provide people with incomes less than 1 1/3 times the poverty level with access to subsidies.
  8. Roberts, C.J., did not do this.
  9. Perhaps Roberts simply wanted to harm people with incomes lower than 1 1/3 times poverty who lived in states that would pick up the ball not to expand Medicaid he had given them and run with it, on the theory that creating an aggrieved class for whom the ACA is clearly not working would redound to the political benefit of the Republican Party.
  10. Perhaps Roberts did not understand what he was doing.
  11. In any event, Roberts rewrote the ACA from the bunch--and so left people with incomes like Donald Rizen's in red states with governors and legislatures who fear the Tea Party out in the cold. All of numbers (1) through (11) are inside Tankersley's "quirk in the health-care law". I know that that is what is inside Tankersley's "quirk in the health-care law". But how many of Tankersley's readers will know that?
  12. The state of Georgia did, indeed--in spite of the protests of doctors and hospitals that want Medicaid expansion so they don't have to keep playing the shell-game of cost-shifting in order to raise the resources to cover the treatment of the uninsured--did indeed refuse to expand Medicaid.
  13. And that is how the Governor Nathan Deal, the legislature of Georgia, John Roberts, C.J., and the Four Horsemen of the Constitution-in-Exile casually #@#&^ed Donald Rizen, a fifty-something with a bad shoulder, and many other Americans as well. All of numbers (1) through (13) are inside Tankersley's "quirk in the health-care law, and the fact that Georgia declined to expand Medicaid". I know that's what those clauses in Tankersley's article are really saying. But how many of Tankersley's readers will know?
  14. And then comes the end of Tankersley's article: "When he visited the federal health insurance exchange Web site, he found the cheapest policy available to him cost $200 a month — one quarter of his current salary. 'Obama', he said, 'he thinks that he’s helping things, but he ain’t'. He fished out a bruised green apple and tossed it aside. Only a few boxes were left." Could there be a crueler irony? The original ACA--the one that Pelosi and Reid passed and that Obama signed--provides Donald Rizen with health-insurance coverage (Medicaid, admittedly, but coverage) for free. It is Republicans John Roberts, Nathan Deal, the legislature, and the Four Horsemen who have casually #@#&^ed him. But who does he blame? He blames Barack Obama."
Make no mistake. That is the Republican scheme.

Friday, October 18, 2013

2013 Oriental NC Candidate Forum

I received a pretty complete report from Wednesday night's Candidate Forum.

No surprises.

Nothing happened to change my judgments in my last post. I will vote for Lori Wagoner for mayor and Benjamin Cox for Commissioner.

Voting shouldn't be about charisma or other personality attributes - what matters is policy. Who has the best chance of leading Oriental into a better future?

Not the incumbents.

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

More On The History Of Republican Election Strategy

Yesterday I provided a link to an article by Michael Lind shedding light on Republican strategy. A strategy, by the way, that has been pretty successful as well as destructive.

Today I offer a link to an article in Salon.com by Salon's editor, Joan Walsh: http://www.salon.com/2013/10/01/the_real_story_of_the_shutdown_50_years_of_gop_race_baiting/

This new article complements the piece by Michael Lind.

I have been following the developments described by both authors for about seventy years. They pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Bruce Bartlett Predicts: Shutdown Will Defeat Republicans In 2014

Writing for the Fiscal Times,  Republican pundit Bruce Bartlett sees a possible Republican defeat in 2014 because of the government shutdown. His analysis is here.

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

NC Health Insurance And Medicaid

Information is accumulating that the McRory Administration war on Medicaid and the General Assembly's refusal to expand Medicaid is fraudulent from beginning to end. And North Carolinians are suffering as a result.

Here is what NC Health News has uncovered. The bottom line is that NC Medicaid has one of the nation's lowest administrative costs instead of being 30% higher than similar states. But the incoming administration suppressed that information. They wanted an excuse to reject Medicaid expansion, which is a central element in keeping overall health care costs down.

Then the General Assembly prohibited the Insurance Commissioner from providing any assistance to Insurance companies interested in taking part in an insurance exchange. The News and Observer explains.

For ideological and partisan reasons, the Republicans in charge of North Carolina have intentionally sabotaged the Affordable Health Care Act and increased profits for Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

Expanding Medicaid would reduce costs and increase competition.

Lincoln On Political Extortion

“A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, ‘Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!’ ”

Abraham Lincoln, 1860

Tea Party Radicalism: Just A Bit More Extreme?

Much current commentary tends to describe the Tea Party phenomenon as just a bit more extreme than mainstream Republicanism, but within the American tradition. Francis Fukuyama recently tied the Tea Party efforts to the parts of the US Constitution that make it hard for anything to get done.

Michael Lind thinks it is more than that. It may have roots going back to Jefferson and Jackson (and to the Anti-Federalists, but Lind doesn't bring that up), but it represents a fundamentally anti-democratic undertaking. Think Downton Abbey.

Here is Lind's article. It is the best analysis I have read lately, putting it in the context of the American Civil War, the failure of reconstruction, and the reaction to the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act.

There are a lot of different ways to look at current American politics. The different angles overlap, and they all seem to involve race to some degree.

I strongly recommend reading Lind's article.

Thursday, October 3, 2013

Economist Brad DeLong on "Three Kansases"

I'm not sure why economist Brad DeLong is writing from Kansas City, but he has posted some comments on the economics and politics of government in Kansas. I would like to say, "Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore - we're in North Carolina," but I'm not so sure.

Here is what he says:

"As best as I can see it, the majority political coalitions in these three different Kansas are as follows:
  • In the Petropolis [Wichita area] right now, the majority coalition votes for lower taxes because the petrocrats have convinced the voters (correctly) that state taxes transfer money out of Greater Wichita to the Prairie and to the Blue Triangle [Kansas City area], and (incorrectly) that the citizens of Greater Wichita as a group benefit from more money in the hands of the petrocrats.
  • On the Prairie right now, the majority coalition votes for lower taxes because the voters believe (incorrectly) that their state tax money goes to keep the African-American poor of Kansas City in idleness, and (correctly) that their tax money goes to support state colleges, universities, and high schools that teach evolution and "liberalism".
  • In the Blue Kansas City Social-Democratic Triangle right now, the majority coalition votes for lower taxes because the voters believe (correctly) that their state tax money goes to support the Prairie, and (correctly) that they could get better value if they kept their state tax money at home, redirected it to lower levels of government to support their schools, roads, and parks, and so had social democracy in seven counties.
  • Underpinning everything in all three areas, the majority coalition suffers from Fear of a Black President: Lots of people in Kansas's three regional majority coalitions appear to be thinking: "For 500 years we kept the Black Man down. Now somehow one of them is in charge. What would we do if the Black Man had kept us down for 500 years, and now one of us was in charge? That's right--we would try to disadvantage them, and so he is trying to disadvantage us, and we must oppose everything he wants to do, for if we cannot figure out how it is intended to disadvantage us that only shows that he is clever, and we must oppose everything he plans even more strongly."
I really wish I were joking. But that really appears to be how it is right now--really appears to be What Is the Matter with Kansas"

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Economist Mark Thoma On Inequality And The Republican Shutdown Shakedown

In a column in the Fiscal Times, economist Mark Thoma explains the real reason for the current fight over the debt limit. He actually puts it more politely than I do, but the article explains pretty clearly what is at stake.

"We have lost something important as a society," Thoma explains, "as inequality has grown over the last several decades, our sense that we are all in this together. Social insurance is a way of sharing the risks that our economic system imposes upon us. As with other types of insurance, e.g. fire insurance, we all put our money into a common pool and the few of us unlucky enough to experience a “fire” – the loss of a job, health problems that wipe out retirement funds, disability, and so on – use the insurance to avoid financial disaster and rebuild as best we can."

One of the themes that jumps out at me from my reading of actions during World War II: American servicemen completely grasped that we were all in this together - they didn't abandon their fellow soldiers and sailors to the enemy. The order to "abandon ship" didn't mean "abandon your shipmates." It didn't mean "you're on your own." The French say "sauve qui peut," literally "save [oneself] who can" or "every man for himself." That wasn't the way of the American warrior. It is the way these days of wealthy Republicans.
 

"But growing inequality has allowed one strata of society to be largely free of these risks while the other is very much exposed to them." The two strata Thoma is referring to are the 1% at the top of the ladder and the other 99%. "As that has happened," Thoma goes on, "as one group in society has had fewer and fewer worries about paying for college education, has first-rate health insurance, ample funds for retirement, and little or no chance of losing a home and ending up on the street if a job suddenly disappears in a recession, support among the politically powerful elite for the risk sharing that makes social insurance work has declined."

During World War II, even the wealthy dared not violate rationing, even when they could easily afford black market prices. Nor did they dare evade the draft. It wasn't patriotic. 

"Rising inequality and differential exposure to economic risk has caused one group to see themselves as the “makers” in society who provide for the rest and pay most of the bills, and the other group as “takers” who get all the benefits. The upper strata wonders, “Why should we pay for social insurance when we get little or none of the benefits?” and this leads to an attack on these programs."

I didn't miss the Republican message conveyed during last year's election. The theme was "you hard working white folks have to pay taxes to support those lazy, shiftless blacks and hispanics (all illegal immigrants)." Across the nation, African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Jewish Americans and recent immigrants of all varieties got the same message: The Republican Party has become the party of White Supremacists. Indeed, both supporters and opponents of the GOP understand that "politically conservative" is another way of saying "White Supremacist."

"Even worse, this social stratification leads those at the top to begin imposing a virtue and vice story to justify their desire to stop paying the taxes needed to support social insurance programs. Those at the top did it all by themselves." ( in their own imaginations) "They “built that” through their own effort and sacrifice with no help from anyone else." Balderdash!

The American industrial planner who most clearly articulated the antidote to this nonsense was the late W. Edwards Deming. He understood that success was a result of collective rather than individual effort and particularly opposed bonuses. He described giving a manager a bonus for his organization's quarterly success as akin to rewarding the weatherman for a pleasant sunshiny day.

"Those at the bottom, on the other hand," the comfortably wealthy assert, "are essentially burning down their own houses just to collect the fire insurance, i.e. making poor choices and sponging off of social insurance programs. It’s their behavior that’s the problem," according to the Koch Brothers and their ilk, "and taking away the incentive to live off of the rest of society by constraining their ability to collect social insurance is the only way to ensure they get jobs and provide for themselves." And how did the Koch brothers provide for themselves? The old fashioned way. By choosing wealthy parents.

The people who have made poor choices in recent decades are our political leaders who dismantled very effective protections put in place eighty years ago. We are all suffering as a result.

"Of course, this is a false view of how the system operates," Thoma explains. "The wealthy would not have the opportunity to make so much money if it society didn’t provide the infrastructure, educated workforce, legal protections, and other building blocks critical for their success. And we shouldn’t forget that many of the wealthy got where they are through the privilege and advantage that comes from familial wealth rather than their own merit."

I might add that another way the super wealthy got that way is by buying politicians to change the rules by which we all live. To their advantage, of course. They have rigged the system.


This political dispute over the debt limit is, plainly and simply, about the size and role of government. In particular, it’s an attempt by Republicans to use undue fear about the debt to scale back or eliminate spending on social insurance programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Obamacare, food stamps, and unemployment compensation. And it’s no accident that this attack on social insurance coincides with growing income inequality. - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf
This political dispute over the debt limit is, plainly and simply, about the size and role of government. In particular, it’s an attempt by Republicans to use undue fear about the debt to scale back or eliminate spending on social insurance programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Obamacare, food stamps, and unemployment compensation. And it’s no accident that this attack on social insurance coincides with growing income inequality. - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf
the debt is not even an immediate problem. As the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office show, we don’t have a debt problem until over a decade from now, and when the debt does finally begin increasing the main cause will be rising costs for health care. So finding a way to rein in health care costs, something that already seems to be happening, is the key to solving our future debt problem. - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf
the debt is not even an immediate problem. As the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office show, we don’t have a debt problem until over a decade from now, and when the debt does finally begin increasing the main cause will be rising costs for health care. So finding a way to rein in health care costs, something that already seems to be happening, is the key to solving our future debt problem. - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf
In fact, the debt is not even an immediate problem. As the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office show, we don’t have a debt problem until over a decade from now, and when the debt does finally begin increasing the main cause will be rising costs for health care. So finding a way to rein in health care costs, something that already seems to be happening, is the key to solving our future debt problem. - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf
In fact, the debt is not even an immediate problem. As the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office show, we don’t have a debt problem until over a decade from now, and when the debt does finally begin increasing the main cause will be rising costs for health care. So finding a way to rein in health care costs, something that already seems to be happening, is the key to solving our future debt problem. - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Medgar Evers, Non-Violence And The March On Washington

The March on Washington is one of those events that people use to mark time and transformation. "Did you go?," people ask. "Where were you on that day?"

I was serving my country, stationed on Adak in the Aleutian Islands. Defending democracy.

We had no newspaper and no live television, but still I followed events in Mississippi and in the nation's capitol.

I knew of the entry of James Meredith into my alma mater, the University of Mississippi. Many college administrators and professors I knew were involved in the court battles. The University was under attack by the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission and the White Citizens' Council.

I followed the violent assault on federal marshals when Meredith was enrolled. Some lost their lives at that time.

I knew of the assassination of Medgar Evers on June 12, a little more than two months before the March on Washington.

The hallmark of response to white violence in those formative years of the Civil Rights Movement, whether in Montgomery, Birmingham, Oxford, or during the voter registration drives, was non-violence.

For anyone familiar with the violence by white supremacists against blacks in the south, the non-violent response, even in the face of massive efforts to provoke violence, was impressive. The level of organization, the discipline and restraint during large demonstrations, were unprecedented. (Well, there was the precedent of the Women's Suffrage Movement).

The power of non-violence to transform the political situation was certainly Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s greatest insight. He had read the writings of Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi, a small brown man wearing only a loincloth and carrying a walking stick, had ended the power of the world's greatest empire in India.

What power!

Martin Luther King, Jr. recognized that power and used it.

We are all the better for it.

Sunday, July 7, 2013

Adam Smith And Cooperation Among Humans (And Dogs)

Not long ago, economic historian Brad Delong published some snippets of information for students in one of his courses. One snippet was a quote from Adam Smith about dogs and trading:

"Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog.... When an animal wants to obtain something either of a man or of another animal, it has no other means of persuasion but to gain the favour of those whose service it requires. A puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours by a thousand attractions to engage the attention of its master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him. Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren, and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every occasion. In civilised society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons....

"[M]an has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love...."

Jeff Weintraub observes that this passage from Adam Smith is both clever and deceptive. It sets up a false dichotomy and ignores other forms of cooperation among both dogs and man. Weintraub's essay is very much worth reading and can be found
here. Not everything works through the magic of the marketplace.

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Return With Us Now To The Thrilling Days Of Yesteryear

Many commentators have observed that North Carolina is rapidly undoing a century of relatively progressive legislation. In Yesterday's Washington Post, Katrina vanden Heuvel explains how that came about.

The answer: money.

Friday, May 31, 2013

Economists And Politics

Today's New York Times tells the story of the political travails of Russian economist Sergei Guriev. Guriev, a prominent Russian economist who frequently advised former President Medvedev, apparently incited suspicions of Russian authorities when he co-authored a report by experts critical of the prosecution of Russian oil tycoon Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky.

Khodorkovsky, who acquired great oil wealth after the breakup of the Soviet Union, has been imprisoned since 2005 and is being investigated for further charges. Khodorkovsky apparently made the mistake of directly challenging Putin. He has now joined a long line of Russians and Soviet citizens who ran afoul of authorities, back to the time of Ivan Grozny (Ivan the Terrible) and even earlier in Russian history.

In Soviet years, the capture and prosecution of Khodorkovsky would certainly have counted as one of the most significant "show" trials.

Economist Guriev, very well connected in Russian political circles, especially the entourage of Medvedev, may have made an error in judgement by criticizing any aspect of the trial.

The phenomenon of economists getting entangled too closely with politics is not only a problem in Russia. My economics professor in graduate school, George N. Halm, made the error of giving the Nazi regime advice they didn't want to hear right after Hitler came to power. Professor Halm deemed it advisable to flee to the United States, where he became a noted professor of economics.

Guriev has found refuge at the Institut d’Etudes Politiques, a university in Paris. As the French say, "plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose."

To paraphrase a thought from Tolstoy, "Authoritarian regimes are all alike; each free country is free in its own way."