Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Day After
The Senate Democrats successfully squeaked through their key vote on the healthcare bill at about 1:15 a.m. Eastern time Monday, the 21st. Needing 60 votes to set a fixed end to debate, they got exactly 60 votes: 58 Democrats and two independents--all 40 Republicans voted against cloture.
Now that the Senate bill will gain approval (final passage expected Thursday) the bill's backers are reluctant to allow any tinkering with the delicate formula which got it through. Thus, there will be very touchy negotiations with the House backers of the bill, who will not give up the differing provisions of their bill easily. From the Senate's point of view, this means no public option, and most particularly, leaving in the deal that bought the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (of Nebraska, allegedly a Democrat). Nelson's vote came in line in the last stages of negotiation when he got a change that suited him better regarding the wall blocking any public funds for insurance policies which could pay for abortions in "the exchange" (a change which likely stand up through final passage in both Houses), and a special dispensation on increased Medicaid costs for Nebraska (which probably will not).
Other differences can be worked out, like the source of funding for subsidies--whether taxes on the wealthy, increase in Medicare payroll taxes, or on "Cadillac" insurance policies, or, most likely, a combination of all three. The question of whether there should be one national exchange (in the Senate bill--less costly to operate) or fifty state exchanges is a tricky one. I lean toward the decentralized version, as the national exchange will be dominated by the insurance conglomerates, who have already gotten way too much.
The bill is largely a bowl of mush, but it has one essential, important characteristic: it makes access to health care a right--and an obligation--for all Americans. Progressive supporters in both Houses of Congress have reluctantly come aboard because of that virtue.
Needed: A Trigger with Teeth...
OK, it's a mix of metaphors (unless we're talking about equine dentures), but the English teachers wouldn't have approved of "Change You Can Believe In", either. Anyway, at this point, I'd accept a public option with a trigger clause. It would require only a minor outlay to prepare a public option offering or two, such as the House bill includes. The program would not be offered if coverage reached certain benchmarks and costs were contained.
For me, such a provision would be tantamount to ordering implementation of the public option, because I don't believe in the effectiveness of the mandate in the Senate bill that all must obtain insurance. There are too many people who have been mistreated by the private insurers and will never go back. Some of them will take insurance because the law says so, some will pay the fine, but more will find a way to do neither.
The trigger would also depend on the ability of the private insurers to develop low-cost catastrophic health policies for the young and low-income, a task they have not performed so far, though having decades to develop. If the coverage level neared completeness, they would have a better chance of offering it profitably, but the question is whether they will want to do it, particularly without a public option lurking over their collective shoulder.
Such a public option trigger with teeth (potwt, pronounced "Po-tweet", or, in honor of Kurt Vonnegut, "Poo-tee-weet") would be germane and consistent with a compromise between the House's public option and the Senate's absence of it. It might even get the support of a couple of Senators from the other side, if it were put to a vote. It won't be, though: too risky. It will probably be brought forward--to groans from many--in the next session of Congress.
Now that the Senate bill will gain approval (final passage expected Thursday) the bill's backers are reluctant to allow any tinkering with the delicate formula which got it through. Thus, there will be very touchy negotiations with the House backers of the bill, who will not give up the differing provisions of their bill easily. From the Senate's point of view, this means no public option, and most particularly, leaving in the deal that bought the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (of Nebraska, allegedly a Democrat). Nelson's vote came in line in the last stages of negotiation when he got a change that suited him better regarding the wall blocking any public funds for insurance policies which could pay for abortions in "the exchange" (a change which likely stand up through final passage in both Houses), and a special dispensation on increased Medicaid costs for Nebraska (which probably will not).
Other differences can be worked out, like the source of funding for subsidies--whether taxes on the wealthy, increase in Medicare payroll taxes, or on "Cadillac" insurance policies, or, most likely, a combination of all three. The question of whether there should be one national exchange (in the Senate bill--less costly to operate) or fifty state exchanges is a tricky one. I lean toward the decentralized version, as the national exchange will be dominated by the insurance conglomerates, who have already gotten way too much.
The bill is largely a bowl of mush, but it has one essential, important characteristic: it makes access to health care a right--and an obligation--for all Americans. Progressive supporters in both Houses of Congress have reluctantly come aboard because of that virtue.
Needed: A Trigger with Teeth...
OK, it's a mix of metaphors (unless we're talking about equine dentures), but the English teachers wouldn't have approved of "Change You Can Believe In", either. Anyway, at this point, I'd accept a public option with a trigger clause. It would require only a minor outlay to prepare a public option offering or two, such as the House bill includes. The program would not be offered if coverage reached certain benchmarks and costs were contained.
For me, such a provision would be tantamount to ordering implementation of the public option, because I don't believe in the effectiveness of the mandate in the Senate bill that all must obtain insurance. There are too many people who have been mistreated by the private insurers and will never go back. Some of them will take insurance because the law says so, some will pay the fine, but more will find a way to do neither.
The trigger would also depend on the ability of the private insurers to develop low-cost catastrophic health policies for the young and low-income, a task they have not performed so far, though having decades to develop. If the coverage level neared completeness, they would have a better chance of offering it profitably, but the question is whether they will want to do it, particularly without a public option lurking over their collective shoulder.
Such a public option trigger with teeth (potwt, pronounced "Po-tweet", or, in honor of Kurt Vonnegut, "Poo-tee-weet") would be germane and consistent with a compromise between the House's public option and the Senate's absence of it. It might even get the support of a couple of Senators from the other side, if it were put to a vote. It won't be, though: too risky. It will probably be brought forward--to groans from many--in the next session of Congress.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Avatar: 8 out of 10 (light spoilage)
This review will be posted also on IMDb under the name 'j1stoner"; my ratings of movies and a few other reviews can be found at this address: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=4662915.
James Cameron's Avatar is a landmark film, a fully-realized and brilliantly-executed vision of complexity and passion. It promises to be a runaway hit, a strong contender for the Best Picture Oscar, and a point of reference for movies of its genre--special effects-driven sci-fi epic thrillers--for decades to come.
Avatar is a story set in the future (the date shown is 2154, a point to which I'll return). At any rate, it's close enough to the present that people are more or less the same in their motivations and ways of thinking and acting, but they have greater technological capability, including suspended hibernation and interstellar travel. Our hero is a Marine veteran named Jake Sully who's lost use of his legs, but is recruited nevertheless to accompany a "scientific" expedition on an alien planet, populated by 10-foot tall blue humanoids, who live in a forest world (called "Pandora") which the human invaders covet. Human society's imminent collapse due to overpopulation and environmental degradation has sent our descendants on a mission of colonization and exploitation.
I am no technical expert and am certainly not qualified to explain how the movie was filmed. Certainly computer-generated imagery is central to the many scenes set in Pandora, but that doesn't begin to describe the various effects, or how it affects us. I will say that the use of 3D is better, and more meaningful, than I have ever seen.
The key leap of faith for our story is the development of a hybrid of human and "Ni'va" (the Pandorans), which the human can mentally inhabit through some sort of sleep in a chamber. Our hero, in his "avatar" hybrid form, accidentally ends up with the locals, becomes accepted by them, and ultimately is brought into their society as a full member--just in time for the onslaught by the human invaders who want their land. Between sessions, Jake Sully comes out of his dream state and reports on what he is learning.
The beauty of the film is in the sequences in which Jake, in his "avatar" persona among the Ni'va, experiences their world and learns their customs. Their world is unsettling and dangerous to us, but once Jake gets used to his new, blue body and its powers, we get used to the idea that he isn't going to fall to his death. He comes to love his adopted Pandorans (and one in particular), to the point that when the crunch comes, he finds a way to stand with them and help rally them in their defense.
This movie is unique in its execution (the best effect is probably the 3D computer screens used for Jake's latter-day YouTube video logs), but the story has several identifiable antecedents. In the depiction of human aggression and ruthlessness, of course one thinks of the history with Native Americans, our extermination of many species, and even perhaps our involvement with exotic earthbound populations like the Vietnamese or Afghans. There are definite parallels with Cameron's own "Aliens", like the immoral businessman who sells his soul for a buck--and the casting coup of Sigourney Weaver in the role of a linguist/scientist who tried to understand and help the Ni'va. I saw elements of "Dune" in the transformation of our hero into a near-deity, and the strong culture of the natives (and saw at the film's end that the production company is called "Dune Entertainment"). A bit more obscure, but even closer parallel, is to a classic sci-fi novella from the '70's by Ursula LeGuin called "The Word for World is Forest", which I suggest for some closer study. I wonder whether Cameron himself knows the story and acknowledges the many similarities...
So why do I rate this movie an 8 out of 10, if I acknowledge its extraordinary quality for a movie of its type? My objections are three:
1) There is a fundamental flaw around the date of the story; it is necessary to make it soon, in order to make the existential dilemma of this human society believable, but it is impossible to believe that we can achieve interstellar travel and some of the other technological marvels so soon. One could suggest that people could travel in suspended animation for hundreds of years to get to another solar system, and that they could have continuity in their way of thought until arrival, but not that the social dilemma could be so protracted that the voyage would have immediate value (nor would they have the short-term profit motives that are cited).
2) The love story between Jake/Avatar and the Ni'va woman is not really necessary for the plot, nor is it totally believable. I see it as being a way to make the movie more palatable for women, a very successful device he used in "Titanic" to great commercial effect.
3) The view of humanity is so unredeemably negative that it leaves a bad taste. Another reference one cannot avoid is to "The Lord of the Rings" (large-scale special effect fantasy epic), but here we are the Dark Lord, the agents of Mordor. Let's hope that dystopian messages of this sort inform humanity when we finally go a-calling into the galaxy.
The ending, I'll just say, is satisfying--if we buy into the story--and "eye-opening".
James Cameron's Avatar is a landmark film, a fully-realized and brilliantly-executed vision of complexity and passion. It promises to be a runaway hit, a strong contender for the Best Picture Oscar, and a point of reference for movies of its genre--special effects-driven sci-fi epic thrillers--for decades to come.
Avatar is a story set in the future (the date shown is 2154, a point to which I'll return). At any rate, it's close enough to the present that people are more or less the same in their motivations and ways of thinking and acting, but they have greater technological capability, including suspended hibernation and interstellar travel. Our hero is a Marine veteran named Jake Sully who's lost use of his legs, but is recruited nevertheless to accompany a "scientific" expedition on an alien planet, populated by 10-foot tall blue humanoids, who live in a forest world (called "Pandora") which the human invaders covet. Human society's imminent collapse due to overpopulation and environmental degradation has sent our descendants on a mission of colonization and exploitation.
I am no technical expert and am certainly not qualified to explain how the movie was filmed. Certainly computer-generated imagery is central to the many scenes set in Pandora, but that doesn't begin to describe the various effects, or how it affects us. I will say that the use of 3D is better, and more meaningful, than I have ever seen.
The key leap of faith for our story is the development of a hybrid of human and "Ni'va" (the Pandorans), which the human can mentally inhabit through some sort of sleep in a chamber. Our hero, in his "avatar" hybrid form, accidentally ends up with the locals, becomes accepted by them, and ultimately is brought into their society as a full member--just in time for the onslaught by the human invaders who want their land. Between sessions, Jake Sully comes out of his dream state and reports on what he is learning.
The beauty of the film is in the sequences in which Jake, in his "avatar" persona among the Ni'va, experiences their world and learns their customs. Their world is unsettling and dangerous to us, but once Jake gets used to his new, blue body and its powers, we get used to the idea that he isn't going to fall to his death. He comes to love his adopted Pandorans (and one in particular), to the point that when the crunch comes, he finds a way to stand with them and help rally them in their defense.
This movie is unique in its execution (the best effect is probably the 3D computer screens used for Jake's latter-day YouTube video logs), but the story has several identifiable antecedents. In the depiction of human aggression and ruthlessness, of course one thinks of the history with Native Americans, our extermination of many species, and even perhaps our involvement with exotic earthbound populations like the Vietnamese or Afghans. There are definite parallels with Cameron's own "Aliens", like the immoral businessman who sells his soul for a buck--and the casting coup of Sigourney Weaver in the role of a linguist/scientist who tried to understand and help the Ni'va. I saw elements of "Dune" in the transformation of our hero into a near-deity, and the strong culture of the natives (and saw at the film's end that the production company is called "Dune Entertainment"). A bit more obscure, but even closer parallel, is to a classic sci-fi novella from the '70's by Ursula LeGuin called "The Word for World is Forest", which I suggest for some closer study. I wonder whether Cameron himself knows the story and acknowledges the many similarities...
So why do I rate this movie an 8 out of 10, if I acknowledge its extraordinary quality for a movie of its type? My objections are three:
1) There is a fundamental flaw around the date of the story; it is necessary to make it soon, in order to make the existential dilemma of this human society believable, but it is impossible to believe that we can achieve interstellar travel and some of the other technological marvels so soon. One could suggest that people could travel in suspended animation for hundreds of years to get to another solar system, and that they could have continuity in their way of thought until arrival, but not that the social dilemma could be so protracted that the voyage would have immediate value (nor would they have the short-term profit motives that are cited).
2) The love story between Jake/Avatar and the Ni'va woman is not really necessary for the plot, nor is it totally believable. I see it as being a way to make the movie more palatable for women, a very successful device he used in "Titanic" to great commercial effect.
3) The view of humanity is so unredeemably negative that it leaves a bad taste. Another reference one cannot avoid is to "The Lord of the Rings" (large-scale special effect fantasy epic), but here we are the Dark Lord, the agents of Mordor. Let's hope that dystopian messages of this sort inform humanity when we finally go a-calling into the galaxy.
The ending, I'll just say, is satisfying--if we buy into the story--and "eye-opening".
Iranian Provocations
The news that an Iranian military force (the infamous Revolutionary Guards, under a thin camouflage) seized an oil well in Iraq has provided the latest incredibly foolish provocation by a government that is out of bounds and headed for disaster.
The previous ones were reneging on an agreement to peacefully process some of Iran's enhanced uranium, which would have gone a long way toward defusing the building crisis over the country's nuclear program, testing a new long-range missile, and announcing they would build 10 (!) new, secret enhancement facilities in response for being condemned for their lack of cooperation with international nuclear regulatory authorities.
The 10 new sites bit was pure bluster--they wouldn't need anything like that to build a bomb, and they will never be built--but the knee-jerk nationalism was targeted to try to rally domestic public support for their regime's aggressive behavior. There is deep anger with Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad in the country, and demagoguery is about all they have left.
It's high time for severe sanctions on Iran, particularly the sleazy front groups for the Revolutionary Guards' business deals--Khamenei's main source of support these days. Constructive engagement has not worked--it should not be permanently abandoned, but it should be shelved. Support for Iraq's sovereignty--backed by implicit threat of force, if necessary--should end this current mini-crisis, but if the current thread of Iranian government provocations continues, they will give the US or Israel plenty of opportunity to punish their regime with full international support. The Iranians are always claiming that what they want is respect for their theocratic regime in the world community, but their recent actions undermine their own aims, and they need to be convinced clearly that developing a nuclear weapon will similarly defeat their purposes.
The previous ones were reneging on an agreement to peacefully process some of Iran's enhanced uranium, which would have gone a long way toward defusing the building crisis over the country's nuclear program, testing a new long-range missile, and announcing they would build 10 (!) new, secret enhancement facilities in response for being condemned for their lack of cooperation with international nuclear regulatory authorities.
The 10 new sites bit was pure bluster--they wouldn't need anything like that to build a bomb, and they will never be built--but the knee-jerk nationalism was targeted to try to rally domestic public support for their regime's aggressive behavior. There is deep anger with Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad in the country, and demagoguery is about all they have left.
It's high time for severe sanctions on Iran, particularly the sleazy front groups for the Revolutionary Guards' business deals--Khamenei's main source of support these days. Constructive engagement has not worked--it should not be permanently abandoned, but it should be shelved. Support for Iraq's sovereignty--backed by implicit threat of force, if necessary--should end this current mini-crisis, but if the current thread of Iranian government provocations continues, they will give the US or Israel plenty of opportunity to punish their regime with full international support. The Iranians are always claiming that what they want is respect for their theocratic regime in the world community, but their recent actions undermine their own aims, and they need to be convinced clearly that developing a nuclear weapon will similarly defeat their purposes.
The BCS Disaster: This Year's Version
College football will have a reasonably good championship game this year, between unbeatens (and major conference champions) Alabama and Texas. I will be backing Alabama, for the first time in any game since the 1965 Cotton Bowl, when young Joe Namath led the Crimson Tide against Texas. Alabama earned its spot with an impressive win in the SEC championship game against Florida, knocking down Gator Tim Tebow's bid for a second Heisman.
Texas QB Colt McCoy ruined his bid for the Heisman with a bonehead play in the final minute of the Big 12 championship game with Nebraska (Alabama running back Mark Ingram finally survived, in the closest voting for many years; a good result for this year's popularity contest). With 15 seconds left and the ball deep in Nebraska territory, the Longhorns down by two, McCoy failed to call a timeout, then ran a rollout play that went too long, followed by a long downfield dump pass out of bounds. The clock read :00 and everyone started going on the field. For a few seconds, the BCS plans for the championship game were in total turmoil, but the referees restored order, gave Texas one second (replays showed the decision was right), and planned order was restored when Texas' winning field goal was converted.
If Texas had lost, it would've been another typical BCS disaster. There were two other unbeaten teams that won their minor conferences--TCU and Boise State. One would have been chosen to play in the championship (a certain ratings disaster, and probable football quality mismatch), and the other would have a major beef. Now, both do, but they can be discounted rather easily for the disparity in schedule difficulty vs. the two teams who will actually be matched.
The narrow escape does not in any way vindicate the improper way NCAA Division I determines its football champion every year. The U.S. House has passed a bill abolishing the BCS system, and I expect the Senate will do the same, or at least threaten to do so, once they emerge from the health care labyrinth. A little light on this insane system should press the college presidents to change to an eight-team playoff system--the first round during this pre-Christmas dead season, semifinals on New Year's, and a proper championship game around Jan. 15. A little coordination with the major league (the NFL) should ensure there would be no counterprogramming mishaps, and the game will benefit greatly as a result.
Texas QB Colt McCoy ruined his bid for the Heisman with a bonehead play in the final minute of the Big 12 championship game with Nebraska (Alabama running back Mark Ingram finally survived, in the closest voting for many years; a good result for this year's popularity contest). With 15 seconds left and the ball deep in Nebraska territory, the Longhorns down by two, McCoy failed to call a timeout, then ran a rollout play that went too long, followed by a long downfield dump pass out of bounds. The clock read :00 and everyone started going on the field. For a few seconds, the BCS plans for the championship game were in total turmoil, but the referees restored order, gave Texas one second (replays showed the decision was right), and planned order was restored when Texas' winning field goal was converted.
If Texas had lost, it would've been another typical BCS disaster. There were two other unbeaten teams that won their minor conferences--TCU and Boise State. One would have been chosen to play in the championship (a certain ratings disaster, and probable football quality mismatch), and the other would have a major beef. Now, both do, but they can be discounted rather easily for the disparity in schedule difficulty vs. the two teams who will actually be matched.
The narrow escape does not in any way vindicate the improper way NCAA Division I determines its football champion every year. The U.S. House has passed a bill abolishing the BCS system, and I expect the Senate will do the same, or at least threaten to do so, once they emerge from the health care labyrinth. A little light on this insane system should press the college presidents to change to an eight-team playoff system--the first round during this pre-Christmas dead season, semifinals on New Year's, and a proper championship game around Jan. 15. A little coordination with the major league (the NFL) should ensure there would be no counterprogramming mishaps, and the game will benefit greatly as a result.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Obama's Grade
President Obama went on Oprah recently, and in a scene heavily replayed, graded his administration, so far, as "a solid B+".
I have to differ: although I would grade what has been done so far very highly--maybe higher than a B+--if I were grading him at this point, I could not report any mark at all: It has to be an Incomplete. Those who have been through this process know that an Incomplete implies no prejudice on the final mark; it's just that the work required to complete assessment is not finished. As a former professor at University of Chicago, Obama should know about the prevalent Incomplete grade, and he should have taken that as a diplomatic dodge to Oprah's question.
Until we see the final healthcare legislation, until something is done to commit to limitations on the US' greenhouse gas contributions, until the stimulus program is further along, until we know how the surge is going in Afghanistan, we cannot give a passing mark, though "we fully expect that Mr. Obama will do very well." Nominally, the grading period for the first year will end January 20, but I will be glad to report the Incomplete and leave it open for a few more months until he completes these tasks.
I would only criticize him for making the scope of his first-year project a bit too large with the tactical error of demanding the healthcare legislation in this first year, during the Great Crater. What has become clear through this process is that healthcare is not just 18% of domestic spending, but it also provides something like 18% of domestic jobs,and nothing can be done in the name of healthcare reform which will affect the huge growth in healthcare workers of various kinds (so many paper pushers!) during this recession.
I have to differ: although I would grade what has been done so far very highly--maybe higher than a B+--if I were grading him at this point, I could not report any mark at all: It has to be an Incomplete. Those who have been through this process know that an Incomplete implies no prejudice on the final mark; it's just that the work required to complete assessment is not finished. As a former professor at University of Chicago, Obama should know about the prevalent Incomplete grade, and he should have taken that as a diplomatic dodge to Oprah's question.
Until we see the final healthcare legislation, until something is done to commit to limitations on the US' greenhouse gas contributions, until the stimulus program is further along, until we know how the surge is going in Afghanistan, we cannot give a passing mark, though "we fully expect that Mr. Obama will do very well." Nominally, the grading period for the first year will end January 20, but I will be glad to report the Incomplete and leave it open for a few more months until he completes these tasks.
I would only criticize him for making the scope of his first-year project a bit too large with the tactical error of demanding the healthcare legislation in this first year, during the Great Crater. What has become clear through this process is that healthcare is not just 18% of domestic spending, but it also provides something like 18% of domestic jobs,and nothing can be done in the name of healthcare reform which will affect the huge growth in healthcare workers of various kinds (so many paper pushers!) during this recession.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Health Care Update
The latest outrage is the report this evening that the Senate Democratic leaders are abandoning the hard-won agreement made by the Group of 10 (five Blue Dogs, five liberals) in order to get the bill's debate ended.
The particulars are as follows: Sen. Lieberman, who was dropped from the group's deliberations after he failed to attend its meetings consistently, informed the leadership that he would not vote for cloture on the bill if it included the provision to expand Medicare to (some) people between the ages of 55 and 64, nor if it had a public option. This was a serious betrayal by Lieberman, actually of a position (the expansion of Medicare) that he has supported consistently in the past. He deserves richly all the condemnation he is going to receive for this backstabbing flip-flop.
It's not that there couldn't be doubt about the wisdom of expanding Medicare, although the proposed expansion may have been relatively modest in terms of people who would actually have been able to take advantage of it (it's hard to be sure about that, as the details of the agreement were never revealed). Medicare is a good health program, but it is chronically underfunded and unpopular with some health care providers because of the lower rates of payment for services.
What Lieberman's phonily principled stance provides, though, is a blatant sellout to the private insurers, who want the expansion of coverage to be given them--through mandates for all to have health insurance--with the least strings attached and the least competition possible from outfits not working off the profit motive. The reason why Medicare expansion is not acceptable to certain Senators is the reason why the public option can not be tolerated by them.
It is clear now that the Senate bill will have the form of whatever can get all 60 votes of the 58 Democrats, plus Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, whose vote might now need some serious coaxing, as well, on the other side. It is possible, though, that this latest set of retreats may be enough to gain one big Republican vote, that of Sen. Olympia Snowe.
It almost doesn't matter what the Senate bill has in it, because the bill will need some serious reconciliation in the conference committee with the House's bill. The House will have just as much say in the product to be returned to both houses for final approval as the Senate, and we should expect the House conferees to be tough about letting go of the public option. One thing that won't be in the conference committee's report now, though, is this expansion of Medicare.
I'm hoping Sen. Harry Reid has a parliamentary trick up his sleeve to get a conference committee report approved that will be quite different from what the Senate is going to approve. This Senate bill will not achieve what it aims to do, because the uninsured are not going to be signing up for the bad deal offered privately outside of group employer insurance, mandate or no.
I repeat my statement to the DSCC (the fundraising committee for the Democratic Senate campaign) that accompanied my final contribution to it earlier this year:
1) If there is no vote in the Senate on the public option, I will give no money for the 2010 campaign to Democrats;
2) If the public option is included in a bill the Senate approves, I will give as usual;
3) If it is voted upon, and not approved, I will not give to general funds for Senate Democrats, but will give selectively.
Anyway, I see no urgency to contribute to Senate Democrats, in general: there is no way Democrats can "lose control" of the Senate (if you call this having control). The Republicans have just as many tough races as the Democrats in 2010: I would say, even with a poor economic environment, that the range of results goes from -3 to +3 for the Democrats and their current 59 votes (after Lieberman is booted from the caucus and his committee chairmanship, which should happen quietly early next year).
I'm ready to declare war on Lieberman, who has clearly been bought and paid for by the private insurers (who are, of course, big employers in Connecticut). It's too bad he will probably never run again for public office after this betrayal.
Baby, You Can Drive My Car
From the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that this healthcare bill has nothing to do with providing choice for the public. I am not so sure, even in its most malevolent, ill-considered form, such as with the House's "Stupak" Amendment, that it will do much directly to affect the right of women to choose an abortion (to the extent they already have it).
First of all, Stupak (a Democratic Representative from Michigan) himself denies it. He has gone on record that his objective is merely to maintain the status quo, which since the so-called "Hyde amendment" for some 20 years has been that no Federal funds may be used to pay for abortions. The danger foreseen by abortion opponents is that subsidies helping to pay for poorer people's health insurance in this legislation will include coverage for abortions.
I will say very clearly that this amendment is very bad design for public policy: poor people are exactly the ones who need to have contraception--and abortions, if necessary--in their health insurance. Taking this feature out of their policies will be one more reason they will not take up the ripoff policies that would be foisted coercively upon them in upcoming years by this legislation.
Nevertheless, I feel confident that private health insurers can come up with a practical and profitable solution to this problem. The answer is an inexpensive, optional rider to basic health insurance plans which I would call "contraception insurance".
The way it should work is as follows: sexually active women of childbearing age should have access to a plan, which should cost about the same monthly as the retail price of birth control pills. The coverage would provide the insured with birth control (which was purchased for their clients' use wholesale), any necessary consultation with a doctor for them to choose the appropriate method, and coverage against "accidents"--which all methods of birth control are subject to--as well as any medical side-effects. Now that the "morning after pill" has finally been approved by the FDA, that would be the normal (covered) recourse for failures of contraception, but abortions would be covered, as well, for those who couldn't "nip it in the bud".
I don't see a big problem here--it's almost comparable to auto insurance, which is competitively priced and provides the necessary coverage. Yes, those who have repeated "accidents", or refuse to avoid unsafe behavior, might eventually have to be dropped from coverage.
The real threat to accessibility to abortions in America is the scarcity of those who perform them in large sections of our country, and this bill isn't going to do anything about that in any case.
The particulars are as follows: Sen. Lieberman, who was dropped from the group's deliberations after he failed to attend its meetings consistently, informed the leadership that he would not vote for cloture on the bill if it included the provision to expand Medicare to (some) people between the ages of 55 and 64, nor if it had a public option. This was a serious betrayal by Lieberman, actually of a position (the expansion of Medicare) that he has supported consistently in the past. He deserves richly all the condemnation he is going to receive for this backstabbing flip-flop.
It's not that there couldn't be doubt about the wisdom of expanding Medicare, although the proposed expansion may have been relatively modest in terms of people who would actually have been able to take advantage of it (it's hard to be sure about that, as the details of the agreement were never revealed). Medicare is a good health program, but it is chronically underfunded and unpopular with some health care providers because of the lower rates of payment for services.
What Lieberman's phonily principled stance provides, though, is a blatant sellout to the private insurers, who want the expansion of coverage to be given them--through mandates for all to have health insurance--with the least strings attached and the least competition possible from outfits not working off the profit motive. The reason why Medicare expansion is not acceptable to certain Senators is the reason why the public option can not be tolerated by them.
It is clear now that the Senate bill will have the form of whatever can get all 60 votes of the 58 Democrats, plus Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, whose vote might now need some serious coaxing, as well, on the other side. It is possible, though, that this latest set of retreats may be enough to gain one big Republican vote, that of Sen. Olympia Snowe.
It almost doesn't matter what the Senate bill has in it, because the bill will need some serious reconciliation in the conference committee with the House's bill. The House will have just as much say in the product to be returned to both houses for final approval as the Senate, and we should expect the House conferees to be tough about letting go of the public option. One thing that won't be in the conference committee's report now, though, is this expansion of Medicare.
I'm hoping Sen. Harry Reid has a parliamentary trick up his sleeve to get a conference committee report approved that will be quite different from what the Senate is going to approve. This Senate bill will not achieve what it aims to do, because the uninsured are not going to be signing up for the bad deal offered privately outside of group employer insurance, mandate or no.
I repeat my statement to the DSCC (the fundraising committee for the Democratic Senate campaign) that accompanied my final contribution to it earlier this year:
1) If there is no vote in the Senate on the public option, I will give no money for the 2010 campaign to Democrats;
2) If the public option is included in a bill the Senate approves, I will give as usual;
3) If it is voted upon, and not approved, I will not give to general funds for Senate Democrats, but will give selectively.
Anyway, I see no urgency to contribute to Senate Democrats, in general: there is no way Democrats can "lose control" of the Senate (if you call this having control). The Republicans have just as many tough races as the Democrats in 2010: I would say, even with a poor economic environment, that the range of results goes from -3 to +3 for the Democrats and their current 59 votes (after Lieberman is booted from the caucus and his committee chairmanship, which should happen quietly early next year).
I'm ready to declare war on Lieberman, who has clearly been bought and paid for by the private insurers (who are, of course, big employers in Connecticut). It's too bad he will probably never run again for public office after this betrayal.
Baby, You Can Drive My Car
From the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that this healthcare bill has nothing to do with providing choice for the public. I am not so sure, even in its most malevolent, ill-considered form, such as with the House's "Stupak" Amendment, that it will do much directly to affect the right of women to choose an abortion (to the extent they already have it).
First of all, Stupak (a Democratic Representative from Michigan) himself denies it. He has gone on record that his objective is merely to maintain the status quo, which since the so-called "Hyde amendment" for some 20 years has been that no Federal funds may be used to pay for abortions. The danger foreseen by abortion opponents is that subsidies helping to pay for poorer people's health insurance in this legislation will include coverage for abortions.
I will say very clearly that this amendment is very bad design for public policy: poor people are exactly the ones who need to have contraception--and abortions, if necessary--in their health insurance. Taking this feature out of their policies will be one more reason they will not take up the ripoff policies that would be foisted coercively upon them in upcoming years by this legislation.
Nevertheless, I feel confident that private health insurers can come up with a practical and profitable solution to this problem. The answer is an inexpensive, optional rider to basic health insurance plans which I would call "contraception insurance".
The way it should work is as follows: sexually active women of childbearing age should have access to a plan, which should cost about the same monthly as the retail price of birth control pills. The coverage would provide the insured with birth control (which was purchased for their clients' use wholesale), any necessary consultation with a doctor for them to choose the appropriate method, and coverage against "accidents"--which all methods of birth control are subject to--as well as any medical side-effects. Now that the "morning after pill" has finally been approved by the FDA, that would be the normal (covered) recourse for failures of contraception, but abortions would be covered, as well, for those who couldn't "nip it in the bud".
I don't see a big problem here--it's almost comparable to auto insurance, which is competitively priced and provides the necessary coverage. Yes, those who have repeated "accidents", or refuse to avoid unsafe behavior, might eventually have to be dropped from coverage.
The real threat to accessibility to abortions in America is the scarcity of those who perform them in large sections of our country, and this bill isn't going to do anything about that in any case.
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Analysis of a News Week
By now, we have a good idea what to expect from Jon Meacham's Newsweek. The young and dynamic editor, surely a rising star who we can expect will have a long, productive career--in journalism, and as an author--has led a reformatting of the weekly book that seems to work, and Newsweek's issues mix serious news pieces, both domestic and international, with trend-watching of popular culture, religion (way too much, for my taste), science, and the arts.
Political Provocations
Meacham is not above stooping to conquer a few extra newsstand sales (with the differential between the per issue costs and the subscription rates, it only makes sense) with overwrought cover headlines and photos. He ran a cheesecake photo of Sarah Palin in athletic garb with bare legs (her fault for posing, if you ask me), then when some Palinists complained, dipped again with a photo of Obama in swimming garb to demonstrate his willingness to offend the other side, as well.
In this week's model(Dec.7 issue), the headliner is a scare piece by respected economic historian Niall Ferguson of Harvard. His argument is that the US will fall as other great empires have done, with the sequence being uncontrolled deficit spending, leading to excessive debt, followed by reduced military spending. This sounds right except the part about the military cutback being a problem: our long-term goal should not be eternal dominance and empire (hint: not going to happen) but to preserve and enhance our legacy to humanity, which includes self-governance, innovation, and liberty. If we can bequeath our successors a secure, prosperous, free world, why do we have to rule it with coercive military force? Just asking.
Meacham's editorial note is more provocation: he plugs Dick Cheney to make a bid for the Republican nomination in 2012. He actually seems serious: it's true that Cheney could present a powerful challenge on national security issues, though proposing the least popular major politician would seem an unlikely direction for the party to choose. If he did run, he would face big issues of Bushite favoritism (no-bid contracts for Halliburton, for example, or his engineering of environmental degradation as policy), disastrous decisions (in Iraq, which he'd defend, unconvincingly), authorization of torture (same), and, most of all, his heavy missing hand and lying testimony in the case of the outing of covert agent Valerie Plame. If the choice were Palin or Cheney, his candidacy would be a better service to the country but an equal electoral disaster. I think Meacham's being disingenuous--"What, me sly?" he might ask, slyly.
Along a similar line is Jonathan Alter's column on "faux populists" Palin, Dobbs, and Beck, and their expected future bids to run for high-profile public office. I have to acknowledge that the double pun in the phrase (on "vox populi"--Latin for "voice of the people" and "Fox" Tv populism) would have been irresistible to me, too. His argument that these guys are somehow not real populists ("faux", or false) didn't really convince me, though. The line between populism and demagoguery (what he's accusing the "faux" guys of, though he doesn't use the word) is fuzzy: both are about giving the public what they think they want, the difference being whether the manipulation is sincere or merely self-serving. I just think that the "real" populists of the past that he cites (William Jennings Bryan, Huey Long, Father Coghlan) were better able to hide their insincerity from others and maybe themselves than the new ones in today's spotlight. He cites one other, America's first (and last) populist President, Andrew Jackson (Meacham's biographical subject, probably a sop to his editor), a wholly different animal from a completely different political era.
Cleveland Rocks Health Care
I recommend reading the piece on the Cleveland Clinic ("The Hospital that Could Cure Health Care") for several valuable lessons the vaunted facility provides for us when considering health care reform (better record-keeping, salaries for physicians, strong advocacy for healthy behaviors). My strongest take from it, though, is that health care reform can not succeed in its task of reducing expenditures, beacuse it can not--at this time--take on the greatest source of waste: armies of paper-pushers on the private insurers' side (which must be matched by similar forces from the health care providers' side). At the bottom of this economy's Great Crater, we can't give up the jobs. Maybe we can take another whack at health care reform's cost in a few years, if the economy recovers sufficiently.
Turkish Triumph
For this reader, the Fareed Zakaria pieces are worth the price of the subscription, and the rest is bonus (or not). This week, hard-working Zakaria, the magazine's international editor, has nothing, but to compensate there is an outstanding piece of analysis called "The Triumph of the Turks". The argument is that Turkey has taken advantage of its unique role--NATO member in good standing, democratic, secular, but led by a popular Islamic party--to score several major successes in the international arena. Turkey is positioned to have great success in this century, and it was astute of Newsweek's Owen Matthews and Christopher Dickey to capture it.
Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan is meeting with President Obama this week--look for some progress with regard to Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, as well as coordination of policies toward Russia and the European Union (particularly on Turkey's aspiration for membership in the EU). On the other hand, don't look to Erdogan to take on the Palestinian impasse: he has given up in disgust on Israel, with which there was once a detente, since Netanyahu's election and the incursion into Gaza.
The final piece from that issue I wished to discuss was Ruth Marcus' one on the abortion issue and how it's entered into the healthcare legislation debate. Her position is that, despite the Stupak amendment's being passed in the House bill, the final legislation will not unduly hamper women's access to abortions, nor will pro-choice people bring the health care bill down because of the amendment. This topic, and the new developments on the health care front, deserve a separate posting of their own.
Political Provocations
Meacham is not above stooping to conquer a few extra newsstand sales (with the differential between the per issue costs and the subscription rates, it only makes sense) with overwrought cover headlines and photos. He ran a cheesecake photo of Sarah Palin in athletic garb with bare legs (her fault for posing, if you ask me), then when some Palinists complained, dipped again with a photo of Obama in swimming garb to demonstrate his willingness to offend the other side, as well.
In this week's model(Dec.7 issue), the headliner is a scare piece by respected economic historian Niall Ferguson of Harvard. His argument is that the US will fall as other great empires have done, with the sequence being uncontrolled deficit spending, leading to excessive debt, followed by reduced military spending. This sounds right except the part about the military cutback being a problem: our long-term goal should not be eternal dominance and empire (hint: not going to happen) but to preserve and enhance our legacy to humanity, which includes self-governance, innovation, and liberty. If we can bequeath our successors a secure, prosperous, free world, why do we have to rule it with coercive military force? Just asking.
Meacham's editorial note is more provocation: he plugs Dick Cheney to make a bid for the Republican nomination in 2012. He actually seems serious: it's true that Cheney could present a powerful challenge on national security issues, though proposing the least popular major politician would seem an unlikely direction for the party to choose. If he did run, he would face big issues of Bushite favoritism (no-bid contracts for Halliburton, for example, or his engineering of environmental degradation as policy), disastrous decisions (in Iraq, which he'd defend, unconvincingly), authorization of torture (same), and, most of all, his heavy missing hand and lying testimony in the case of the outing of covert agent Valerie Plame. If the choice were Palin or Cheney, his candidacy would be a better service to the country but an equal electoral disaster. I think Meacham's being disingenuous--"What, me sly?" he might ask, slyly.
Along a similar line is Jonathan Alter's column on "faux populists" Palin, Dobbs, and Beck, and their expected future bids to run for high-profile public office. I have to acknowledge that the double pun in the phrase (on "vox populi"--Latin for "voice of the people" and "Fox" Tv populism) would have been irresistible to me, too. His argument that these guys are somehow not real populists ("faux", or false) didn't really convince me, though. The line between populism and demagoguery (what he's accusing the "faux" guys of, though he doesn't use the word) is fuzzy: both are about giving the public what they think they want, the difference being whether the manipulation is sincere or merely self-serving. I just think that the "real" populists of the past that he cites (William Jennings Bryan, Huey Long, Father Coghlan) were better able to hide their insincerity from others and maybe themselves than the new ones in today's spotlight. He cites one other, America's first (and last) populist President, Andrew Jackson (Meacham's biographical subject, probably a sop to his editor), a wholly different animal from a completely different political era.
Cleveland Rocks Health Care
I recommend reading the piece on the Cleveland Clinic ("The Hospital that Could Cure Health Care") for several valuable lessons the vaunted facility provides for us when considering health care reform (better record-keeping, salaries for physicians, strong advocacy for healthy behaviors). My strongest take from it, though, is that health care reform can not succeed in its task of reducing expenditures, beacuse it can not--at this time--take on the greatest source of waste: armies of paper-pushers on the private insurers' side (which must be matched by similar forces from the health care providers' side). At the bottom of this economy's Great Crater, we can't give up the jobs. Maybe we can take another whack at health care reform's cost in a few years, if the economy recovers sufficiently.
Turkish Triumph
For this reader, the Fareed Zakaria pieces are worth the price of the subscription, and the rest is bonus (or not). This week, hard-working Zakaria, the magazine's international editor, has nothing, but to compensate there is an outstanding piece of analysis called "The Triumph of the Turks". The argument is that Turkey has taken advantage of its unique role--NATO member in good standing, democratic, secular, but led by a popular Islamic party--to score several major successes in the international arena. Turkey is positioned to have great success in this century, and it was astute of Newsweek's Owen Matthews and Christopher Dickey to capture it.
Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan is meeting with President Obama this week--look for some progress with regard to Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, as well as coordination of policies toward Russia and the European Union (particularly on Turkey's aspiration for membership in the EU). On the other hand, don't look to Erdogan to take on the Palestinian impasse: he has given up in disgust on Israel, with which there was once a detente, since Netanyahu's election and the incursion into Gaza.
The final piece from that issue I wished to discuss was Ruth Marcus' one on the abortion issue and how it's entered into the healthcare legislation debate. Her position is that, despite the Stupak amendment's being passed in the House bill, the final legislation will not unduly hamper women's access to abortions, nor will pro-choice people bring the health care bill down because of the amendment. This topic, and the new developments on the health care front, deserve a separate posting of their own.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Movies of the Decade: Pt. 1
Before I give my list, some reasoning, and honorable mentions,I have a bone to pick: It's about the competition to withhold the best movies of the year until the end of the year, when they are all released in a rush that makes it impossible to follow, let alone view them all.
Take a look at this report of the awards of the National Board of Review for 2009's best. These are very much the thinking persons' Oscars, and there is a high level of predictability from these awards to the Academy Awards--as long as some blockbuster doesn't come along and blow away all critical reason.
Anyway, of 14 major awards in standard Oscar categories, 11 went to eight different movies not yet released (though three, including Best Film, were for "Up in the Air", being released tomorrow). The exceptions were Woody Harrelson for best supporting actor ("The Messenger"), best documentary ("The Cove"), and best foreign film ("A Prophet"--actually I'm just assuming that one is already out, somewhere anyway). Further to my point, "The Messenger" was just released, the other two categories are specifically non-Hollywood ones, and "The Fantastic Mr. Fox", which made the mistake of releasing before Thanksgiving, received a special award for its creator, Wes Anderson, but nothing else.
The rest of the year, and all the movies released through it, are simply chopped liver from the point of view of consideration for awards. This is partly a commentary on those movies, partly either the short memory spans or preference for the new of the voters, but mostly a critical failing of the pros in the industry who hold back their good stuff for the end of the year.
If I were a voter in the Academy, I'd give preference in any award category to movies released before Thanksgiving (to counter the others' bias) and would withhold voting for anything given a fake opening after Christmas so as to qualify for awards. I guess that's one good reason why I'm not.
So, I guess I can't consider any 2009 movies for Best Of, because the year's best haven't come out yet. Actually, yes.
The Decade in Movies
The last decade ended with some movies that threatened to turn narrative structure on its head, and sequential storytelling inside out. For the most part, this trend wasn't continued. Though there were exceptions, such as "Memento", "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", and some time-travel movies, these were ones that were basically about tangled narrative structure, rather than ones using it as a tool of storytelling.
The big theme for this decade was technique, and how it has opened up the range of stories beyond all limits. The combination of serious resources behind animation and improvements in combining computer graphics with live-action filming are making just about anything possible. This winter's release "Avatar" should be another case in point.
I take issue with those who argue that TV has now replaced the movies as the chief artistic driver of the day. There are a handful of series on TV with good writing and acting, but they are overwhelmed by the quantity of unrealistic cops-and-robber dreck, staged "reality" time-filler, and amateur hour performance shows. But if you're talking about real thrills and chills, or social or emotional impact, movies are still where it's at.
Take a look at this report of the awards of the National Board of Review for 2009's best. These are very much the thinking persons' Oscars, and there is a high level of predictability from these awards to the Academy Awards--as long as some blockbuster doesn't come along and blow away all critical reason.
Anyway, of 14 major awards in standard Oscar categories, 11 went to eight different movies not yet released (though three, including Best Film, were for "Up in the Air", being released tomorrow). The exceptions were Woody Harrelson for best supporting actor ("The Messenger"), best documentary ("The Cove"), and best foreign film ("A Prophet"--actually I'm just assuming that one is already out, somewhere anyway). Further to my point, "The Messenger" was just released, the other two categories are specifically non-Hollywood ones, and "The Fantastic Mr. Fox", which made the mistake of releasing before Thanksgiving, received a special award for its creator, Wes Anderson, but nothing else.
The rest of the year, and all the movies released through it, are simply chopped liver from the point of view of consideration for awards. This is partly a commentary on those movies, partly either the short memory spans or preference for the new of the voters, but mostly a critical failing of the pros in the industry who hold back their good stuff for the end of the year.
If I were a voter in the Academy, I'd give preference in any award category to movies released before Thanksgiving (to counter the others' bias) and would withhold voting for anything given a fake opening after Christmas so as to qualify for awards. I guess that's one good reason why I'm not.
So, I guess I can't consider any 2009 movies for Best Of, because the year's best haven't come out yet. Actually, yes.
The Decade in Movies
The last decade ended with some movies that threatened to turn narrative structure on its head, and sequential storytelling inside out. For the most part, this trend wasn't continued. Though there were exceptions, such as "Memento", "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", and some time-travel movies, these were ones that were basically about tangled narrative structure, rather than ones using it as a tool of storytelling.
The big theme for this decade was technique, and how it has opened up the range of stories beyond all limits. The combination of serious resources behind animation and improvements in combining computer graphics with live-action filming are making just about anything possible. This winter's release "Avatar" should be another case in point.
I take issue with those who argue that TV has now replaced the movies as the chief artistic driver of the day. There are a handful of series on TV with good writing and acting, but they are overwhelmed by the quantity of unrealistic cops-and-robber dreck, staged "reality" time-filler, and amateur hour performance shows. But if you're talking about real thrills and chills, or social or emotional impact, movies are still where it's at.
Movies of the Decade: Pt. 2
Enough preamble.
Return of the King--We have to start with Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson's achievement with the trilogy is unprecedented and historic. Of the trilogy, "Fellowship" proved the concept, "Towers" was great action, but the climax was the best movie. And, yes, that's despite the longest anticlimax in the history of great movies since "Gone with the Wind".
The Departed-Yes, it is cops and robbers, of which I've had more than enough to last my lifetime. I found the acting and scripting to be superlative, though: the tension involved in being undercover was captured beautifully, and Jack Nicholson's mob chieftain provided a welcome corrective to decades of trying to make them too human, too good, too powerful (not that I didn't enjoy The Godfather, Pt. II).
The PianistWorld War II was never done bigger or better. The Eastern Front was the critical one of the War, and we have rarely seen it, certainly not like this. The history of Warsaw is one of the most poignant in the entire saga; the choice of the protagonist and his story emphasizes nicely the culture that was consumed in the chaos.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind What a brilliant idea, and so well executed! There are few among us who wouldn't like to wipe out memory of a relationship or two. And then, somehow, do it again, right this time.
The Man Who Wasn't There My vote for the best Coen Brothers movie of the decade (pending "A Serious Man", coming out soon) goes for this underrated noir about the death penalty. Billy Bob gives his best performance, easily better than "Monster's Ball".
Angels in America (TV miniseries)--Best drama of the decade. Miracles visit AIDS patients in New York (retrovirals being one, though not emphasized as such). Incredible performances too numerous to list, though I have to mention Jeffrey Wright and Meryl Streep (even better than "Julie and Julia", which for my vote has to be the Best Actress performance of '09, with the caveats that I won't consider anything yet to come out, as discussed in Pt. 1). I wish I'd seen the original theater production, which I've heard was shattering and life-changing.
The New World Gets my vote as the most successfully ambitious movie of the decade. Not as technically difficult as some; the challenge is creating the strange feeling of the arrival in Virginia of the first colonists. Of course, we can't know if it's the true one, but I certainly got it.
Diving Bell and the Butterfly This one edges "A Mighty Heart" as my tear-jerker of the decade. The story is gut wrenching from start to finish.
Shrek Best pure amusement of the decade. Filled with classic comic dialogue, delivered by many of the best. It shows the power of moviemaking that no one questions that the ogre can truly be lovable.
Wall-E The biggest subject there is, the legacy of humanity, tackled with humor, which makes the didacticism go down easy.
Re-hash
There's no doubt I'm a sucker for the auteurs, as follows, respectively: Peter Jackson, Martin Scorsese, Roman Polanski, Michel Gondry (with Charlie Kauffman at the pen), Joel and Ethan Coen, Mike Nichols, Terrence Malick, Julian Schnabel, DreamWorks, and Pixar.
Who's missing from this list? The answer is Clint Eastwood. I liked "Letters from Iwo Jima", a lot, but I'm waiting to see whether "Invictus" matches up with his greatest, "Unforgiven".
The first ten were unranked, but my next ten definitely starts with Children of Men--like this year's "2012", tackles the great fictional idea of what people would really be like if there were no hope. I felt "Children's" premise ludicrous until I started hearing about the chemicals in the plastic bottles which could make all men sterile. Still, I liked the execution better than the story. Clive Owen's performance gets my vote for best hero of the decade.
Eleven More Films Mentioned with High Honor
Monsoon Wedding, Into the Wild, Little Miss Sunshine, Where the Wild Things Are, Up, High Fidelity, Batman Begins (I prefer it strongly over The Dark Knight), A Mighty Heart, Julie and Julia, Pan's Labyrinth, and The Fountain.
Return of the King--We have to start with Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson's achievement with the trilogy is unprecedented and historic. Of the trilogy, "Fellowship" proved the concept, "Towers" was great action, but the climax was the best movie. And, yes, that's despite the longest anticlimax in the history of great movies since "Gone with the Wind".
The Departed-Yes, it is cops and robbers, of which I've had more than enough to last my lifetime. I found the acting and scripting to be superlative, though: the tension involved in being undercover was captured beautifully, and Jack Nicholson's mob chieftain provided a welcome corrective to decades of trying to make them too human, too good, too powerful (not that I didn't enjoy The Godfather, Pt. II).
The PianistWorld War II was never done bigger or better. The Eastern Front was the critical one of the War, and we have rarely seen it, certainly not like this. The history of Warsaw is one of the most poignant in the entire saga; the choice of the protagonist and his story emphasizes nicely the culture that was consumed in the chaos.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind What a brilliant idea, and so well executed! There are few among us who wouldn't like to wipe out memory of a relationship or two. And then, somehow, do it again, right this time.
The Man Who Wasn't There My vote for the best Coen Brothers movie of the decade (pending "A Serious Man", coming out soon) goes for this underrated noir about the death penalty. Billy Bob gives his best performance, easily better than "Monster's Ball".
Angels in America (TV miniseries)--Best drama of the decade. Miracles visit AIDS patients in New York (retrovirals being one, though not emphasized as such). Incredible performances too numerous to list, though I have to mention Jeffrey Wright and Meryl Streep (even better than "Julie and Julia", which for my vote has to be the Best Actress performance of '09, with the caveats that I won't consider anything yet to come out, as discussed in Pt. 1). I wish I'd seen the original theater production, which I've heard was shattering and life-changing.
The New World Gets my vote as the most successfully ambitious movie of the decade. Not as technically difficult as some; the challenge is creating the strange feeling of the arrival in Virginia of the first colonists. Of course, we can't know if it's the true one, but I certainly got it.
Diving Bell and the Butterfly This one edges "A Mighty Heart" as my tear-jerker of the decade. The story is gut wrenching from start to finish.
Shrek Best pure amusement of the decade. Filled with classic comic dialogue, delivered by many of the best. It shows the power of moviemaking that no one questions that the ogre can truly be lovable.
Wall-E The biggest subject there is, the legacy of humanity, tackled with humor, which makes the didacticism go down easy.
Re-hash
There's no doubt I'm a sucker for the auteurs, as follows, respectively: Peter Jackson, Martin Scorsese, Roman Polanski, Michel Gondry (with Charlie Kauffman at the pen), Joel and Ethan Coen, Mike Nichols, Terrence Malick, Julian Schnabel, DreamWorks, and Pixar.
Who's missing from this list? The answer is Clint Eastwood. I liked "Letters from Iwo Jima", a lot, but I'm waiting to see whether "Invictus" matches up with his greatest, "Unforgiven".
The first ten were unranked, but my next ten definitely starts with Children of Men--like this year's "2012", tackles the great fictional idea of what people would really be like if there were no hope. I felt "Children's" premise ludicrous until I started hearing about the chemicals in the plastic bottles which could make all men sterile. Still, I liked the execution better than the story. Clive Owen's performance gets my vote for best hero of the decade.
Eleven More Films Mentioned with High Honor
Monsoon Wedding, Into the Wild, Little Miss Sunshine, Where the Wild Things Are, Up, High Fidelity, Batman Begins (I prefer it strongly over The Dark Knight), A Mighty Heart, Julie and Julia, Pan's Labyrinth, and The Fountain.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Obama's Afghanistan Strategy
Obama's announcement of his escalation of US forces and the strategy he wants us to pursue contained few surprises and followed very much the necessary outline: reference 9/11, enlist our allies, warn the Afghan government, emphasize the importance of Pakistan. The speech was very well crafted and delivered and explained our objectives very clearly. I have written on the subject before, more than once, and I support him, and his strategy. For me, it's that simple.
CNN's coverage of the speech was outstanding: they brought in all their top guns, including Christiane Amanpour, Nic Robertson, Michael Ware, and Peter Bergin, not to mention Fareed Zakaria (fresh from a lunch with the President). And, of course, all the political advisers for both parties. They covered the speech and interpreted the implications of the policy very well. One thing I noted from their "magic map" is that the Turkish forces are, indeed, in Afghanistan: I hope we can get more of them!
I found the criticism of the planned withdrawal beginning July 2011, coming from some Republicans, as being improperly driven by political motivations, to be hypocritical: don't tell me the Iraq war timing wasn't all centered around having a big anti-terrorist military victory for the 2004 re-election campaign (even if it didn't turn out that way). I give Obama credit for understanding the criticality of having the Afghan (and Iraq) troop commitments winding down for November, 2012--it's smart. He's just more honest about what he's doing.
I have one strong recommendation for our military: we should plan on a major military offensive in the fall of 2011. If the take from the Obama strategy is, just wait until July '011, when the US forces will be pulling out, the Taliban may well plan to attack just after that. They would then like that to be their equivalent of the Tet Offensive, a shocking blow to regain strategic maneuver and embarrass and demoralize us. If we think ahead and maximize our readiness for that time, we will still have plenty of forces to combat and defeat them if they rise up. And, if they don't, it will be one last chance to hunt down remaining fighters in "our" zones.
TAZ: Yes, Uruzcan
I owed it to all my many readers to follow up my previously-expressed idea for a possible zone (which I call the Taliban Autonomous Zone) that could be largely given over to Taliban who want to live their way but are willing to give up their war with the Afghan government. After some study, my suggestion would be the province of Uruzcan (spelling varies).
It fulfills the basic requirements I outlined: a valley, non-strategic, well-removed from the key Kandahar-Kabul highway (about 150 km north of Kandahar), surrounded by impassable areas. There's basically one major road through it. It's mostly Pashtun, and not particularly loyal to the Karzai government and its policies. Reports I read indicated that it's run by a warlord who's a former Taliban. It may be--the facts are in dispute--the boyhood home of none other than Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar Mohammed.
Uruzcan is close to the Dutch forces' headquarters, and their nonviolent ways have kept things relatively quiet (as compared to nearby Kandahar and Helmand). The Dutch have announced they are leaving next year, though, and I don't see Tarin Koit as being one of the population centers we're planning to defend. The province is about the size of Connecticut and has only about 300,000 people. In my research, I read an article in The Economist that lauds it as a place of success for NATO counterinsurgency efforts, but that's really OK: better to have the retiring Taliban go somewhere that isn't a hotbed of revolutionary fervor. Let them show that they are, as they claim, willing to educate their children of both sexes if the security is present. And, if they try to bust out, they can be systematically repelled from both directions.
The TAZ in Uruzcan is probably better as a plan for a little further down the road, once the Marines and additional Army brigades have gained the upper hand in Kandahar and Helmand. The approach right now seems to be to buy retiring Taliban off with jobs wherever they are, which makes sense for those who are close to their family clans. There will be those who need to be resettled, though, or reunited with their families away from the combat zone, and for this purpose we will need a TAZ.
CNN's coverage of the speech was outstanding: they brought in all their top guns, including Christiane Amanpour, Nic Robertson, Michael Ware, and Peter Bergin, not to mention Fareed Zakaria (fresh from a lunch with the President). And, of course, all the political advisers for both parties. They covered the speech and interpreted the implications of the policy very well. One thing I noted from their "magic map" is that the Turkish forces are, indeed, in Afghanistan: I hope we can get more of them!
I found the criticism of the planned withdrawal beginning July 2011, coming from some Republicans, as being improperly driven by political motivations, to be hypocritical: don't tell me the Iraq war timing wasn't all centered around having a big anti-terrorist military victory for the 2004 re-election campaign (even if it didn't turn out that way). I give Obama credit for understanding the criticality of having the Afghan (and Iraq) troop commitments winding down for November, 2012--it's smart. He's just more honest about what he's doing.
I have one strong recommendation for our military: we should plan on a major military offensive in the fall of 2011. If the take from the Obama strategy is, just wait until July '011, when the US forces will be pulling out, the Taliban may well plan to attack just after that. They would then like that to be their equivalent of the Tet Offensive, a shocking blow to regain strategic maneuver and embarrass and demoralize us. If we think ahead and maximize our readiness for that time, we will still have plenty of forces to combat and defeat them if they rise up. And, if they don't, it will be one last chance to hunt down remaining fighters in "our" zones.
TAZ: Yes, Uruzcan
I owed it to all my many readers to follow up my previously-expressed idea for a possible zone (which I call the Taliban Autonomous Zone) that could be largely given over to Taliban who want to live their way but are willing to give up their war with the Afghan government. After some study, my suggestion would be the province of Uruzcan (spelling varies).
It fulfills the basic requirements I outlined: a valley, non-strategic, well-removed from the key Kandahar-Kabul highway (about 150 km north of Kandahar), surrounded by impassable areas. There's basically one major road through it. It's mostly Pashtun, and not particularly loyal to the Karzai government and its policies. Reports I read indicated that it's run by a warlord who's a former Taliban. It may be--the facts are in dispute--the boyhood home of none other than Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar Mohammed.
Uruzcan is close to the Dutch forces' headquarters, and their nonviolent ways have kept things relatively quiet (as compared to nearby Kandahar and Helmand). The Dutch have announced they are leaving next year, though, and I don't see Tarin Koit as being one of the population centers we're planning to defend. The province is about the size of Connecticut and has only about 300,000 people. In my research, I read an article in The Economist that lauds it as a place of success for NATO counterinsurgency efforts, but that's really OK: better to have the retiring Taliban go somewhere that isn't a hotbed of revolutionary fervor. Let them show that they are, as they claim, willing to educate their children of both sexes if the security is present. And, if they try to bust out, they can be systematically repelled from both directions.
The TAZ in Uruzcan is probably better as a plan for a little further down the road, once the Marines and additional Army brigades have gained the upper hand in Kandahar and Helmand. The approach right now seems to be to buy retiring Taliban off with jobs wherever they are, which makes sense for those who are close to their family clans. There will be those who need to be resettled, though, or reunited with their families away from the combat zone, and for this purpose we will need a TAZ.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Legislative Options
Credit to Harry Reid and the Senate Democratic caucus leaders for holding it together enough to get the health care bill to the floor. They needed every single Democratic vote to get to 60, and they did. That only gets them into the woods, though, not out of the woods. There are likely to be several balky Democratic votes for cloture, to end the debate, unless they get amendments they want--some of which could cripple the bill's effectiveness. Help from the only Republican who seems even to be considering cooperation, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, seems unlikely as well, unless she gets her way.
Three thoughts on breaking the possible roadblock:
1) The nuclear option--to change the filibuster rules to say, 51 votes for cloture--requires only a simple majority. It's a good threat to make some Republicans agree to cloture or compromise, because otherwise they lose their leverage.
2) Deal: Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) is the balker with the most to lose or gain, because she's the one with a tough re-election coming up in 2010--give her a spot on the conference committee. She only gets to vote on resolving differences between the bills, but there will be plenety, and it will give her a chance to take a high profile and get some bone Arkansans want. The others may profit from her precedent.
3) I'm sure the hypotheticals of the reconciliation approach--in which the bill would be presented (in a single bill, or as multiple bills) as a fulfillment of budget requirements, which is exempted from the 60-vote cloture rule--have been discussed with the parliamentarian and Reid knows exactly what would get through. I'm no expert, but if the bill has enough budget-beneficial effects spread through it, a lot of it would.
It's not time to give up the p.o. w/opt-out (po-woo) provision yet, but in the end, I'd be satisfied with an up-or-down vote, then taking it out. Then we'd know who the insurance tools are, and they'd be drummed out of most Democratic funds.
Three thoughts on breaking the possible roadblock:
1) The nuclear option--to change the filibuster rules to say, 51 votes for cloture--requires only a simple majority. It's a good threat to make some Republicans agree to cloture or compromise, because otherwise they lose their leverage.
2) Deal: Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) is the balker with the most to lose or gain, because she's the one with a tough re-election coming up in 2010--give her a spot on the conference committee. She only gets to vote on resolving differences between the bills, but there will be plenety, and it will give her a chance to take a high profile and get some bone Arkansans want. The others may profit from her precedent.
3) I'm sure the hypotheticals of the reconciliation approach--in which the bill would be presented (in a single bill, or as multiple bills) as a fulfillment of budget requirements, which is exempted from the 60-vote cloture rule--have been discussed with the parliamentarian and Reid knows exactly what would get through. I'm no expert, but if the bill has enough budget-beneficial effects spread through it, a lot of it would.
It's not time to give up the p.o. w/opt-out (po-woo) provision yet, but in the end, I'd be satisfied with an up-or-down vote, then taking it out. Then we'd know who the insurance tools are, and they'd be drummed out of most Democratic funds.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tax Policy Recommendations
I'm totally unconvinced by those shills for Big Business who argue for lower corporate taxes or continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, particularly their notion that this is how one helps the recovery and the reduction in unemployment.
I would argue the opposite: we should raise the taxes on both of these groups, while providing opportunities to offset tax increases with credits if they perform useful services to our society. Examples of those would be investments in renewable energy, in reducing emissions, in education and re-training, and for hiring new American workers. The Federal government should assist small business lending by taking on some of the risk for banks making new loans to smaller companies and non-profit organizations (the latter, in particular, have been decimated by the credit freeze). I would suspend the tax deductibility of personnel restructuring costs: there are some productivity improvements we can do without.
We need not worry about an increase in capital gains taxes: those who have them are going to be few and far between. Tax increases for the wealthy and for corporations with bad social habits are the perfect answer for those who are worried about our deficits growing out of control.
I would argue the opposite: we should raise the taxes on both of these groups, while providing opportunities to offset tax increases with credits if they perform useful services to our society. Examples of those would be investments in renewable energy, in reducing emissions, in education and re-training, and for hiring new American workers. The Federal government should assist small business lending by taking on some of the risk for banks making new loans to smaller companies and non-profit organizations (the latter, in particular, have been decimated by the credit freeze). I would suspend the tax deductibility of personnel restructuring costs: there are some productivity improvements we can do without.
We need not worry about an increase in capital gains taxes: those who have them are going to be few and far between. Tax increases for the wealthy and for corporations with bad social habits are the perfect answer for those who are worried about our deficits growing out of control.
One Year On
There has been a spate of articles about Obama's first year as President. Let's leave aside the fact that his inauguration was January 20, so one-year assessments are premature; as Jonathan Alter pointed out in his piece on the subject in Newsweek, Election Night in 2008 began the Obama Era, and his team was on the move (and the Bushites on the move out) from that day.
Mostly, the articles are by people who somehow expected more, sooner (I haven't seen much by those of the right who were hoping for less, later). In particular, groups looking for environmental legislation, gay rights, and an end to military adventures in Asia have felt Obama has failed to deliver on their expectations, as have many who expected the economy to magically recover by now under his leadership.
My own expectation from the beginning was that many were going to be disappointed, as general expectations were raised to an unreasonable level, and the Washington swamp gas has yet to clear. I tried at least to moderate mine (see for example, my "Official Pre-Inauguration Post" and its expectations.)
I am not discouraged at all; I trust his judgment implicitly. I have rarely found his decisions to have been other than correct, or at least based on sound reasoning. I find that the improvement has been most distinct in the area of foreign policy, in which a President truly has a predominant influence. I also see his initial efforts in education to be extremely promising.
On health care, I will refrain from strong criticism; his greatest mistake has been to let others put forward their thinking too much rather than insisting on his own view, and that is merely showing too much respect for our messy legislative process. With regard to military policy, as with energy, immigration, and the economy, it's still too soon to draw judgments about his administration's footprint.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel's editorial in The Nation on the topic takes the right tone in the end. While we may not agree with all that has been done, or we may think that more should have been done, we must remain firmly in the camp of loyal supporters. Only from the inside can progressive forces guide the administration toward improving its policies, programs, and regulation. The overriding objective is Obama's re-election in 2012; only this will give the victory of 2008 a full measure of time to establish marked change in our nation. Obama is the horse we must ride; if he falls, the race (toward the future) is over, at least for the next decade or two.
It will be somewhat difficult to keep this in mind in 2010; the midterm elections are going to be ugly in many ways. Unemployment will surely be too high, which will work against the Democrats, so our reasonable expectation, especially in the House, should be to limit losses. Many of our party's representatives, especially many in tight races in conservative states, will have compromised themselves through their positions and votes on healthcare, and they will be undeservedly looking for our support. Prioritizing campaign funds for true Democrats who need assistance will be a difficult task for national organizations (and for discerning contributors), and they must not settle for marginally superior candidates when the preferences are based merely on party membership.
Mostly, the articles are by people who somehow expected more, sooner (I haven't seen much by those of the right who were hoping for less, later). In particular, groups looking for environmental legislation, gay rights, and an end to military adventures in Asia have felt Obama has failed to deliver on their expectations, as have many who expected the economy to magically recover by now under his leadership.
My own expectation from the beginning was that many were going to be disappointed, as general expectations were raised to an unreasonable level, and the Washington swamp gas has yet to clear. I tried at least to moderate mine (see for example, my "Official Pre-Inauguration Post" and its expectations.)
I am not discouraged at all; I trust his judgment implicitly. I have rarely found his decisions to have been other than correct, or at least based on sound reasoning. I find that the improvement has been most distinct in the area of foreign policy, in which a President truly has a predominant influence. I also see his initial efforts in education to be extremely promising.
On health care, I will refrain from strong criticism; his greatest mistake has been to let others put forward their thinking too much rather than insisting on his own view, and that is merely showing too much respect for our messy legislative process. With regard to military policy, as with energy, immigration, and the economy, it's still too soon to draw judgments about his administration's footprint.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel's editorial in The Nation on the topic takes the right tone in the end. While we may not agree with all that has been done, or we may think that more should have been done, we must remain firmly in the camp of loyal supporters. Only from the inside can progressive forces guide the administration toward improving its policies, programs, and regulation. The overriding objective is Obama's re-election in 2012; only this will give the victory of 2008 a full measure of time to establish marked change in our nation. Obama is the horse we must ride; if he falls, the race (toward the future) is over, at least for the next decade or two.
It will be somewhat difficult to keep this in mind in 2010; the midterm elections are going to be ugly in many ways. Unemployment will surely be too high, which will work against the Democrats, so our reasonable expectation, especially in the House, should be to limit losses. Many of our party's representatives, especially many in tight races in conservative states, will have compromised themselves through their positions and votes on healthcare, and they will be undeservedly looking for our support. Prioritizing campaign funds for true Democrats who need assistance will be a difficult task for national organizations (and for discerning contributors), and they must not settle for marginally superior candidates when the preferences are based merely on party membership.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Banking on Capital Requirements
The search for blame on the banking crisis which carved out our Great Crater has now passed on to the next phase: what to do next? Thank goodness for that, but so far I haven't seen much in the way of good ideas.
One suggestion, made this week in The Nation, is very simplistic: Break Up the Big Banks! If they're "Too Big To Fail," making them smaller will fix the problem. I doubt that antitrust law as constituted will support this approach, and the trend has been the opposite: permitting--rather, facilitating--big acquisitions of troubled large institutions by the superbanks. And, while all the America's largest banks received bailouts during the peak of the crisis, not all of them remain basket cases (I'd point particularly to J.P. Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo as having strong recovery prospects, ignoring Goldman Sachs and American Express as not really being banks, though they took advantage of the bailout offer to become officially "bank holding companies"). Further, not all the large banks abroad have had deep problems, particularly the likes of Standard Chartered, HSBC, and BNP. It's not size, it's what they do (or don't).
Mark-to-market accounting is another false bogey: some of the banks have gotten behind a proposal to change accounting practices again (an emergency change was made earlier this year to allow some of the toxic assets to be kept on the books at estimated value, rather than market value, when there was no market). A new proposal would give banks the ability to review their own accounting standards, by putting them on a review council on FASB, and taking that power from the SEC. An interesting discussion of this brings out the point that this proposal has the support of the community banks, which are viewed as innocent of causing the recent debacle and which have a very receptive ear from Congress.
Capital Ideas
I'm not in favor of putting these particular lunatics in charge of their accounting asylum. As far as mark-to-market, some emergency change may have been necessary in the peak of the crisis early this year (the toxic assets were not worthless, though no one cared to bid on them), but I remain incredulous toward the notion that these could not or cannot be valued, and I am strongly in favor of regulation both of all mortgage-backed-security offerings and of who may purchase them and for what purposes.
I do have some sympathy for the banks in a predicament they are currently experiencing, though. Rising credit losses such as virtually all banks are experiencing will cause both a decrease in capital available to backstop creating new loans and an increase in the amount of capital required to be dedicated to reserves against future losses for the loans on their books. Additional pressure on banks' capital comes for those who have Federal government assets from the bailout. The result is a continuation of scarce credit conditions on Main Street and political pressure on the banks to make loans that their rules of governance will not, and should not, permit.
One idea to address this double-bind is for the government to come to the aid of community banks with assistance--perhaps for a limited time--to reduce the risk of new loans to small businesses and non-profit organizations. Taking on a share of the potential losses for loans that are destined to produce new hires, or even to reduce job losses, would make such loans more attractive to banks, reduce the capital required for them, and thus bring a boost to employment.
A more fundamental systemic revision would address the nature of banks' loan-loss reserves. These are supposed to be forward-looking, in the sense of preventing direct capital charges to banks in the future when loans go bad. This works to some extent with very large individual loans, but for ordinary mortgages and consumer loans it has the effect of magnifying the effect of cyclical economic downturns and freezing up credit.
A sensible revision would encourage banks to take extra reserves earlier in the credit cycle, in order that the remaining loans would be fully reserved against a continuing downturn and that the banks would show improving reserve costs, allowing them to resume lending, sooner in a recovery. This would actually help banks' profitability through the cycle: the problem is that they would need to act more forcefully to recognize losses sooner. The means of encouragement could be several, ranging from regulatory guidance to some requirement to incentives.
Update, Nov. 19:
I neglected in my initial posting to include another idea I have had: the way to deal with the TBTF is to give them incentives to break apart on their own through capital requirements. Very simply, a bank that has both consumer loans and deposits and also speculates on buying mortgage-backed securities and extensive hedging in derivatives should be required to carry a higher percentage of capital (to protect the public's interest, not just the stockholders') than would two banks of the same combined size, divided up into a traditional bank and an investment bank. Given those incentives, to name names, Citibank, Bank of America, and J.P. Morgan Chase would likely make the smart move to protect their margins and divide up without being coerced into doing so.
I am happy to say that it appears that the draft financial reform legislation being introduced by Sen. Chris Dodd is including this concept.
One suggestion, made this week in The Nation, is very simplistic: Break Up the Big Banks! If they're "Too Big To Fail," making them smaller will fix the problem. I doubt that antitrust law as constituted will support this approach, and the trend has been the opposite: permitting--rather, facilitating--big acquisitions of troubled large institutions by the superbanks. And, while all the America's largest banks received bailouts during the peak of the crisis, not all of them remain basket cases (I'd point particularly to J.P. Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo as having strong recovery prospects, ignoring Goldman Sachs and American Express as not really being banks, though they took advantage of the bailout offer to become officially "bank holding companies"). Further, not all the large banks abroad have had deep problems, particularly the likes of Standard Chartered, HSBC, and BNP. It's not size, it's what they do (or don't).
Mark-to-market accounting is another false bogey: some of the banks have gotten behind a proposal to change accounting practices again (an emergency change was made earlier this year to allow some of the toxic assets to be kept on the books at estimated value, rather than market value, when there was no market). A new proposal would give banks the ability to review their own accounting standards, by putting them on a review council on FASB, and taking that power from the SEC. An interesting discussion of this brings out the point that this proposal has the support of the community banks, which are viewed as innocent of causing the recent debacle and which have a very receptive ear from Congress.
Capital Ideas
I'm not in favor of putting these particular lunatics in charge of their accounting asylum. As far as mark-to-market, some emergency change may have been necessary in the peak of the crisis early this year (the toxic assets were not worthless, though no one cared to bid on them), but I remain incredulous toward the notion that these could not or cannot be valued, and I am strongly in favor of regulation both of all mortgage-backed-security offerings and of who may purchase them and for what purposes.
I do have some sympathy for the banks in a predicament they are currently experiencing, though. Rising credit losses such as virtually all banks are experiencing will cause both a decrease in capital available to backstop creating new loans and an increase in the amount of capital required to be dedicated to reserves against future losses for the loans on their books. Additional pressure on banks' capital comes for those who have Federal government assets from the bailout. The result is a continuation of scarce credit conditions on Main Street and political pressure on the banks to make loans that their rules of governance will not, and should not, permit.
One idea to address this double-bind is for the government to come to the aid of community banks with assistance--perhaps for a limited time--to reduce the risk of new loans to small businesses and non-profit organizations. Taking on a share of the potential losses for loans that are destined to produce new hires, or even to reduce job losses, would make such loans more attractive to banks, reduce the capital required for them, and thus bring a boost to employment.
A more fundamental systemic revision would address the nature of banks' loan-loss reserves. These are supposed to be forward-looking, in the sense of preventing direct capital charges to banks in the future when loans go bad. This works to some extent with very large individual loans, but for ordinary mortgages and consumer loans it has the effect of magnifying the effect of cyclical economic downturns and freezing up credit.
A sensible revision would encourage banks to take extra reserves earlier in the credit cycle, in order that the remaining loans would be fully reserved against a continuing downturn and that the banks would show improving reserve costs, allowing them to resume lending, sooner in a recovery. This would actually help banks' profitability through the cycle: the problem is that they would need to act more forcefully to recognize losses sooner. The means of encouragement could be several, ranging from regulatory guidance to some requirement to incentives.
Update, Nov. 19:
I neglected in my initial posting to include another idea I have had: the way to deal with the TBTF is to give them incentives to break apart on their own through capital requirements. Very simply, a bank that has both consumer loans and deposits and also speculates on buying mortgage-backed securities and extensive hedging in derivatives should be required to carry a higher percentage of capital (to protect the public's interest, not just the stockholders') than would two banks of the same combined size, divided up into a traditional bank and an investment bank. Given those incentives, to name names, Citibank, Bank of America, and J.P. Morgan Chase would likely make the smart move to protect their margins and divide up without being coerced into doing so.
I am happy to say that it appears that the draft financial reform legislation being introduced by Sen. Chris Dodd is including this concept.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Jagged Little Pill: Review for Amazon
Pure Estrogen High
After Alanis Morrisette's "Jagged Little Pill" came out in 1995, radio played the heck out of several different songs on it. I liked what I heard, and I purchased the CD, but put it away and listened to it rarely if at all.
Now at a distance of more than 10 years, I pulled out the CD to give it a fresh hearing and decide how it stands up to the test of time. First observation is that it still stands alone--there is nothing really like it, and that includes the subsequent albums by Alanis herself. There are some suggestions of her pull-your-hair-back-and-belt-it-out performance in others` work--I'm thinking particularly of Katy Perry or, very differently, of Slater-Kinney.. I am still struck that this is a unique artistic work, though, the female equivalent of early albums by The Who, or The Rolling Stones in their most popular phase in the `70's and `80's: a pure expression of hormonal-driven emotion.
This is not to say that she did this all by herself: full props to her partner, musical accompanist, and producer Glen Ballard for his contributions. Some of the songs were just Glen and Alanis, take after take, layer after layer, but there are other strong musical contributions, especially Benmont Tench on keyboards and some guest guitarists (Michael Landau, and Dave Navarro and Flea of Red Hot Chili Peppers). Me, I love the layered sound, and Ballard brought it right up to the line of being overproduced. But not over it: the effect is to give a full, detailed frame to enhance the power of her vocal performances.
I would generalize those performances by saying they are fairly dripping with emotion. The range of emotions, and the dynamics suiting them, vary quite a lot, though: fury at the lover who scorned her ("You Oughta Know"), and at a record producer who didn't take her seriously ("Right Through You"), disgust at the weakness of others ("Wake Up", "Not the Doctor"), but also sympathy ("Mary Jane"), a pure expression of love for her companion ("Head Over Feet"), and some real , wise recognition of the ambiguity in life ("Perfect", "Hand In Pocket", "Ironic").
One of my two favorite cuts on the disk is "All I Really Want", which I take as humorous (if not, it would be insufferable!)--a puckish, self-mocking lyric set to a whiny, Oriental soundtrack (think "hippie chick") that includes her "short list" of deliverables: patience, deliverance, companionship, sincerity, purity, spirituality, profundity, intellectuality, peace, harmony, and justice. (I'm reminded of the Stones in "Some Girls" and their stereotypes of women: "American women want...everything in the world you can possibly imagine." OK, she's Canadian, but you get the idea.)
Catholic School as Metaphor for Universal Experience
My favorite song on the album, though, and one of my absolute all-time favorites, is "Forgiven", which I notice many of my fellow Amazon reviewers have shied away from trying to interpret. On the face of it, it's a rueful remembrance of her bad old days in Catholic school, from which she has managed to recover her faith. I think there's something more, though.
The framing of the message is a supremely long crescendo, from acoustic guitar and soft crooning, to a massive, wall-banging chorus with Alanis wailing the chorus at the top of her lungs, the notes tinged heavily with emotion. And what a chorus:
There, in a few short lines, is a summary of the entire lived experience of most of humanity, from the very beginnings of time all the way to the present, and well into the future. So, yes, I think there's something there. Whatever her sins, for those lines alone I would judge her to be "forgiven".
I can see how some might not like this album: for the purist, for example, she shows a beautiful voice, then abuses it terribly. She sounds screechy at times, and the anger can be off-putting: many of my brothers had defensive, cover-your-crotch reactions. (An acoustic version of the songs put out 10 years later might be a good corrective for those who thought it "too angry".) After JLP, though, it can never be said that women can`t rock just as furiously as men, and in their own mode, not merely a pale imitation of male rock. Her performance on this album was a pure expression of human nature (for at least half of humanity), and as such it demands at least our respect.
After Alanis Morrisette's "Jagged Little Pill" came out in 1995, radio played the heck out of several different songs on it. I liked what I heard, and I purchased the CD, but put it away and listened to it rarely if at all.
Now at a distance of more than 10 years, I pulled out the CD to give it a fresh hearing and decide how it stands up to the test of time. First observation is that it still stands alone--there is nothing really like it, and that includes the subsequent albums by Alanis herself. There are some suggestions of her pull-your-hair-back-and-belt-it-out performance in others` work--I'm thinking particularly of Katy Perry or, very differently, of Slater-Kinney.. I am still struck that this is a unique artistic work, though, the female equivalent of early albums by The Who, or The Rolling Stones in their most popular phase in the `70's and `80's: a pure expression of hormonal-driven emotion.
This is not to say that she did this all by herself: full props to her partner, musical accompanist, and producer Glen Ballard for his contributions. Some of the songs were just Glen and Alanis, take after take, layer after layer, but there are other strong musical contributions, especially Benmont Tench on keyboards and some guest guitarists (Michael Landau, and Dave Navarro and Flea of Red Hot Chili Peppers). Me, I love the layered sound, and Ballard brought it right up to the line of being overproduced. But not over it: the effect is to give a full, detailed frame to enhance the power of her vocal performances.
I would generalize those performances by saying they are fairly dripping with emotion. The range of emotions, and the dynamics suiting them, vary quite a lot, though: fury at the lover who scorned her ("You Oughta Know"), and at a record producer who didn't take her seriously ("Right Through You"), disgust at the weakness of others ("Wake Up", "Not the Doctor"), but also sympathy ("Mary Jane"), a pure expression of love for her companion ("Head Over Feet"), and some real , wise recognition of the ambiguity in life ("Perfect", "Hand In Pocket", "Ironic").
One of my two favorite cuts on the disk is "All I Really Want", which I take as humorous (if not, it would be insufferable!)--a puckish, self-mocking lyric set to a whiny, Oriental soundtrack (think "hippie chick") that includes her "short list" of deliverables: patience, deliverance, companionship, sincerity, purity, spirituality, profundity, intellectuality, peace, harmony, and justice. (I'm reminded of the Stones in "Some Girls" and their stereotypes of women: "American women want...everything in the world you can possibly imagine." OK, she's Canadian, but you get the idea.)
Catholic School as Metaphor for Universal Experience
My favorite song on the album, though, and one of my absolute all-time favorites, is "Forgiven", which I notice many of my fellow Amazon reviewers have shied away from trying to interpret. On the face of it, it's a rueful remembrance of her bad old days in Catholic school, from which she has managed to recover her faith. I think there's something more, though.
The framing of the message is a supremely long crescendo, from acoustic guitar and soft crooning, to a massive, wall-banging chorus with Alanis wailing the chorus at the top of her lungs, the notes tinged heavily with emotion. And what a chorus:
"We all had our reasons to be there/We all had a thing or two to learn/We all needed something to cling to/So we did";
and the second chorus:
"We all had delusions in our head/We all had our minds made up for us/We had to believe in something/So we did".
There, in a few short lines, is a summary of the entire lived experience of most of humanity, from the very beginnings of time all the way to the present, and well into the future. So, yes, I think there's something there. Whatever her sins, for those lines alone I would judge her to be "forgiven".
I can see how some might not like this album: for the purist, for example, she shows a beautiful voice, then abuses it terribly. She sounds screechy at times, and the anger can be off-putting: many of my brothers had defensive, cover-your-crotch reactions. (An acoustic version of the songs put out 10 years later might be a good corrective for those who thought it "too angry".) After JLP, though, it can never be said that women can`t rock just as furiously as men, and in their own mode, not merely a pale imitation of male rock. Her performance on this album was a pure expression of human nature (for at least half of humanity), and as such it demands at least our respect.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Offyear Election View
As I write, the polls have closed in Virginia, but no result has been announced in the governor's race. New Jersey's polls will close soon.
This election's significance can easily be overestimated; only a few states have meaningful contests, and low turnout will be the rule in all.
Virginia is a state with a solid 30% or so of Democrats, primarily in the D.C. suburbs and Tidewater area, and a solid 40% of so of Republicans. Republicans have a slight edge, but races are determined by a swing group of moderately conservative voters with loose party affiliations, if any. Virginia laws don't allow governors to run for re-election, so there is an unusual effect in which the swing vote punishes the incumbent's party if they don't like the state of affairs, an anti-incumbent effect which doesn't punish the incumbent (who can't run).
New Jersey is a state which normally votes Democratic, but politics there have been conditioned by a massive corruption problem for local politicians, primarily Democrats. Incumbent governor Jon Corzine is a rich banker, so resentment about the bank bailout may also work against him; countering that is an enormous advantage in spending for Corzine. This will probably be the race that will remain undetermined late into the evening.
The third race being closely watched is a special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District, from which the moderate Republican Congressman left to become Secretary of the Army for the Obama administration. The moderate Republican woman who had been nominated by the local party machinery was lagging badly behind a candidate from the Conservative Party (which has a long history of providing a check on tendencies of some Republican candidates to drift too far from the right wing). She dropped out last weekend and recommended her supporters vote for the Democrat (!)
The immediate result was a large increase in undecided voters and a small bump for the Conservative, probably among those who hadn't been able to decide between the Republican and Conservative when both were in the race.
There are some other races, like the mayoral race in New York City, where Michael Bloomberg is expected to win easily a third term.
This election's significance can easily be overestimated; only a few states have meaningful contests, and low turnout will be the rule in all.
Virginia is a state with a solid 30% or so of Democrats, primarily in the D.C. suburbs and Tidewater area, and a solid 40% of so of Republicans. Republicans have a slight edge, but races are determined by a swing group of moderately conservative voters with loose party affiliations, if any. Virginia laws don't allow governors to run for re-election, so there is an unusual effect in which the swing vote punishes the incumbent's party if they don't like the state of affairs, an anti-incumbent effect which doesn't punish the incumbent (who can't run).
New Jersey is a state which normally votes Democratic, but politics there have been conditioned by a massive corruption problem for local politicians, primarily Democrats. Incumbent governor Jon Corzine is a rich banker, so resentment about the bank bailout may also work against him; countering that is an enormous advantage in spending for Corzine. This will probably be the race that will remain undetermined late into the evening.
The third race being closely watched is a special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District, from which the moderate Republican Congressman left to become Secretary of the Army for the Obama administration. The moderate Republican woman who had been nominated by the local party machinery was lagging badly behind a candidate from the Conservative Party (which has a long history of providing a check on tendencies of some Republican candidates to drift too far from the right wing). She dropped out last weekend and recommended her supporters vote for the Democrat (!)
The immediate result was a large increase in undecided voters and a small bump for the Conservative, probably among those who hadn't been able to decide between the Republican and Conservative when both were in the race.
There are some other races, like the mayoral race in New York City, where Michael Bloomberg is expected to win easily a third term.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Pull Me, Pashtu!
The above title is a bit of a lame, Spoonerist pun on Dr. Doolittle's two-headed hoofed beast, the pushmi-pullyu. Right at the outset, I apologize to one and all.
As the announcement of President Obama's strategy decision on the war in Afghanistan approaches, and the atrocities of the Taliban multiply daily, I'm wrestling with the two-headed monsters of the strategy: Is U.S. escalation giving our enemies exactly what they want, and if so, would that mean that it's necessarily wrong? Or, to put it another way, is this a case where each side is playing Rope-a-dope with the other?
On the Taliban side, the Rope-a-dope concept is that the more we are sucked into the fight, the more chance they can have to win the sympathy and support of the Afghan people. The Taliban are almost all from the Pashtu group, to which a plurality of Afghans belong (it's the largest group, though not a majority). In the non-Pashtu areas, they are generally loathed; in the Pashtun areas, from what I can see, the majority of people are on the fence: they don't long for a return of the bad old days of Taliban rule, but they are not enamored of the current regime, either. In all parts, the US/NATO forces are viewed as undependable interlopers, not yet as occupiers looking to set up shop permanently.
Moving in more forces, and inevitably also the foreign civilians who provide support for them, can change that dynamic over time in the direction the Taliban would want, making us look more like colonizers. It is true that the counterinsurgency strategy would increase contact between us and the locals, though if it's done right the quality of those interactions would be improved. The question, then, revolves around whether we have the ability and persistence to pull it off, and I can't be too optimistic about that one.
Our version of the Rope-a-dope would be a fallback approach if counterinsurgency doesn't work the way we planned. It starts from the premise that we will never gain strategic success fighting guerrilla warfare. When we are the ones in the outposts, surrounded by hostile territory that is readily infiltrated, they only fight us on those occasions when they can get numerical and tactical superiority: we'd re-create the chase against the Vietcong that was so frustrating to us. What happened at the end of the Vietnam War, after the US had pulled out, and it was clear we weren't coming back, was the Communist armies came out of the jungles, well-armed, and defeated the South Vietnamese in conventional battle.
If that happens in Afghanistan, we'll still be around, and we'll bomb the hell out of them. Like in 2001, only more thoroughly and definitively. It will just be too bad for the local population, though; I don't see us, after all this effort, pulling out and turning over the country to the hostiles. The current issue of The Nation, for all the sane arguments they make for exit, ignores that reality. The opponents of escalation, or even continuation, may have all the arguments, but they are all in vain: cut-and-run is not going to happen.
The strategy that the Obama administration seems to have settled upon (see the article leaking it in yesterday's New York Times, which includes a convincing level of detail, and which I would expect had been confirmed by multiple administration sources) would allow the Taliban free movement around the settled areas which our enhanced force levels will protect. They'd have their shadow Sharia in many rural areas, particularly in the Pashtun south, while we would presumably be able to control the Northern areas without beefing up force levels too much. In terms of its design, it's a "heads we win, tails you lose" approach. It's a strategy that seems to reduce the likelihood of total defeat to a minimum without overreaching. It will also seek to deny the dichotomy between counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. The only question is, when does it end? and I'm afraid of the answer to that one.
I had advocated a more clearly identified and limited area in which to offer the Taliban their turf on a peaceable, autonomous basis. Frankly, I think the problems with my suggestion are two: 1) we can't trust them to keep the peace, and they couldn't trust our side, either (they would suspect a trap, and in a way, it would be); and 2) our side doesn't have sufficient control over the territory to ringfence them properly.
I find the Times leaked article and strategy totally credible. The details certainly need to be worked out, and also apparently more precision in the force levels required (which were not in the leaked report). The timing planned for Obama's announcement allows his emissaries to hold back on any promise of increased support for the Karzai government until the runoff election is completed Nov. 7, so as to gain their best efforts to conduct a visibly fair contest.
As the announcement of President Obama's strategy decision on the war in Afghanistan approaches, and the atrocities of the Taliban multiply daily, I'm wrestling with the two-headed monsters of the strategy: Is U.S. escalation giving our enemies exactly what they want, and if so, would that mean that it's necessarily wrong? Or, to put it another way, is this a case where each side is playing Rope-a-dope with the other?
On the Taliban side, the Rope-a-dope concept is that the more we are sucked into the fight, the more chance they can have to win the sympathy and support of the Afghan people. The Taliban are almost all from the Pashtu group, to which a plurality of Afghans belong (it's the largest group, though not a majority). In the non-Pashtu areas, they are generally loathed; in the Pashtun areas, from what I can see, the majority of people are on the fence: they don't long for a return of the bad old days of Taliban rule, but they are not enamored of the current regime, either. In all parts, the US/NATO forces are viewed as undependable interlopers, not yet as occupiers looking to set up shop permanently.
Moving in more forces, and inevitably also the foreign civilians who provide support for them, can change that dynamic over time in the direction the Taliban would want, making us look more like colonizers. It is true that the counterinsurgency strategy would increase contact between us and the locals, though if it's done right the quality of those interactions would be improved. The question, then, revolves around whether we have the ability and persistence to pull it off, and I can't be too optimistic about that one.
Our version of the Rope-a-dope would be a fallback approach if counterinsurgency doesn't work the way we planned. It starts from the premise that we will never gain strategic success fighting guerrilla warfare. When we are the ones in the outposts, surrounded by hostile territory that is readily infiltrated, they only fight us on those occasions when they can get numerical and tactical superiority: we'd re-create the chase against the Vietcong that was so frustrating to us. What happened at the end of the Vietnam War, after the US had pulled out, and it was clear we weren't coming back, was the Communist armies came out of the jungles, well-armed, and defeated the South Vietnamese in conventional battle.
If that happens in Afghanistan, we'll still be around, and we'll bomb the hell out of them. Like in 2001, only more thoroughly and definitively. It will just be too bad for the local population, though; I don't see us, after all this effort, pulling out and turning over the country to the hostiles. The current issue of The Nation, for all the sane arguments they make for exit, ignores that reality. The opponents of escalation, or even continuation, may have all the arguments, but they are all in vain: cut-and-run is not going to happen.
The strategy that the Obama administration seems to have settled upon (see the article leaking it in yesterday's New York Times, which includes a convincing level of detail, and which I would expect had been confirmed by multiple administration sources) would allow the Taliban free movement around the settled areas which our enhanced force levels will protect. They'd have their shadow Sharia in many rural areas, particularly in the Pashtun south, while we would presumably be able to control the Northern areas without beefing up force levels too much. In terms of its design, it's a "heads we win, tails you lose" approach. It's a strategy that seems to reduce the likelihood of total defeat to a minimum without overreaching. It will also seek to deny the dichotomy between counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. The only question is, when does it end? and I'm afraid of the answer to that one.
I had advocated a more clearly identified and limited area in which to offer the Taliban their turf on a peaceable, autonomous basis. Frankly, I think the problems with my suggestion are two: 1) we can't trust them to keep the peace, and they couldn't trust our side, either (they would suspect a trap, and in a way, it would be); and 2) our side doesn't have sufficient control over the territory to ringfence them properly.
I find the Times leaked article and strategy totally credible. The details certainly need to be worked out, and also apparently more precision in the force levels required (which were not in the leaked report). The timing planned for Obama's announcement allows his emissaries to hold back on any promise of increased support for the Karzai government until the runoff election is completed Nov. 7, so as to gain their best efforts to conduct a visibly fair contest.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Racial Protest Puts Us On the Map
This Associated Press article about a local hotel owner and his troubles with outraged Hispanic protestors, which ran in USA Today in the Travel News section, was no news to us. We've been watching the protestors for months (first reference in The Taos News was in its August 19 issue).
So, this little song-and-dance is getting old.
My beef starts with a safety concern: the hotel is right at the spot where the northbound Paseo del Pueblo Sur (goes from two lanes to one, usually with heavy traffic. So, there's a merge, with the right lane disappearing, right where the protestors usually hang out. I haven't heard of anyone getting run over yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if there have been a couple of close encounters between vehicle and Brown Beret.
Beyond that, I don't know what is being accomplished. Larry Whitten, the benighted, insensitive owner of the hotel, seems determined not to turn and run, though he's undoubtedly leaking money (and he probably wants to get past this disaster before he tries to sell it). The employees who were fired--for whatever reason, it has not been made real clear--aren't getting their jobs back. The protestors are getting plenty of fresh air. Taos Mayor Darren Cordova said Whitten hadn't done anything illegal--no labor violation, I guess--and I'm guessing he checked to see. There just doesn't seem to be much resolution in the air.
As far as publicity, the protestors' group and the hotel each get some, none of it good. The town was described in generally favorable terms.
The Subtext: Perceived Slights to the Majority Group
The reporting has focused on Whitten's request to a couple of Hispanic employees to Anglicize their names for calls on the switchboard. CNN picked up the story today and had a long piece, including a phone conversation with Whitten, during which two women reporters talked to each other (with him on the line) about how he needed therapy for his insensitivity. Then they cut to a colleague, Rick Sanchez, who told them he had done the same with his name--to fit in and have more success in an Anglo-dominant society--and thought Whitten had a point.
The point here is that Taos is a highly progressive community with an Hispanic majority, and there is a little bit of PC bullying about the whole thing. There may be injustice involved, but there's plenty of that around. I'm just hoping this ends without any resort to violence, or to arson--as occurred recently with the homeless shelter.
So, this little song-and-dance is getting old.
My beef starts with a safety concern: the hotel is right at the spot where the northbound Paseo del Pueblo Sur (goes from two lanes to one, usually with heavy traffic. So, there's a merge, with the right lane disappearing, right where the protestors usually hang out. I haven't heard of anyone getting run over yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if there have been a couple of close encounters between vehicle and Brown Beret.
Beyond that, I don't know what is being accomplished. Larry Whitten, the benighted, insensitive owner of the hotel, seems determined not to turn and run, though he's undoubtedly leaking money (and he probably wants to get past this disaster before he tries to sell it). The employees who were fired--for whatever reason, it has not been made real clear--aren't getting their jobs back. The protestors are getting plenty of fresh air. Taos Mayor Darren Cordova said Whitten hadn't done anything illegal--no labor violation, I guess--and I'm guessing he checked to see. There just doesn't seem to be much resolution in the air.
As far as publicity, the protestors' group and the hotel each get some, none of it good. The town was described in generally favorable terms.
The Subtext: Perceived Slights to the Majority Group
The reporting has focused on Whitten's request to a couple of Hispanic employees to Anglicize their names for calls on the switchboard. CNN picked up the story today and had a long piece, including a phone conversation with Whitten, during which two women reporters talked to each other (with him on the line) about how he needed therapy for his insensitivity. Then they cut to a colleague, Rick Sanchez, who told them he had done the same with his name--to fit in and have more success in an Anglo-dominant society--and thought Whitten had a point.
The point here is that Taos is a highly progressive community with an Hispanic majority, and there is a little bit of PC bullying about the whole thing. There may be injustice involved, but there's plenty of that around. I'm just hoping this ends without any resort to violence, or to arson--as occurred recently with the homeless shelter.
Obama Approval Rating: What Gives?
If we look at Rasmussen, Obama's got a little more disapproval than approval. If we look at Gallup, there's about 15 percent more approval than disapproval.
This is not a temporary blip or statistical anomaly: both polling services have been consistent in their varying results. There has to be something significantly different either in the polling methodology, or in the question being asked to respondents.
This is not a temporary blip or statistical anomaly: both polling services have been consistent in their varying results. There has to be something significantly different either in the polling methodology, or in the question being asked to respondents.
West Wing 101
Criminally "dumb", not Criminal
My longtime friend Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post has weighed in rather heavily on the Obama Administration's press strategy of urging, and partially putting into practice, a boycott of Fox News. In a recent blog on the subject, she called the policy "dumb", then searching for stronger terms, suggested "Nixonian" or "Agnewesque" (sp?) I'll buy the first name she gives it, but I recoil from the second and third.
As she points out, the way the game is played is that administration leaks and interviews are provided to "journalists" who take good steno, and are withheld from those who fail to take good notes, or who take their inside information to write "yes...but" pieces that take advantage of their access to demolish the leaker's objectives. Extra credit is given in the scoring system for those who do more than reproduce the talking points and actually use them to come up with creative additional arguments, but that's hardly required.
The point is, the scoring is done outside the public eye in the political affairs office, not by the press secretary or his/her minions. The mistake the Obama press office made is to make public their aversion to Fox. Starve them, yes--maybe show the bad guys up by throwing a bone or two if there's a Chris Wallace or someone they think treats their tidbits properly--but don't go public with it. If the news they're giving has any value, viewers' and readers' eyes will follow their choices.
As for Nixon, though, the difference is that Nixon's political affairs desk (all administrations have one) looked for illegal ways to punish its enemies; as for Agnew, he was just a whiny, graft-driven mouthpiece. The comparison is inappropriate.
Amateur Hour
That's how Donna Brazile aptly described some Obama backgrounders' criticism of Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds' campaign.
OK, if they want to cut ties to Deeds and throw him under the bus, they can do it after election day when he's lost, but they're planning to send the President into Virginia to campaign for him, so that only reduces the value of the President's intervention.
I've said it before: I know Virginia's electorate and I don't trust it for a minute. There's plenty of reason to think they'll turn their back on a Democrat this time--there's a very fickle swing vote that decides elections there, and it's about time the pendulum swings back to the Republican side for them. In my view, they are searching for something they are never going to get; Virginia governors can't run for re-election, so their attempts to punish the incumbent always fail.
Of course, a politician can never blame the voters, who are always right. Neither can a journalist, who has to sell papers or TV ads and has to be nice to the public. That right belongs exclusively to me, and my ilk.
Measure of Success
I know that Rahm Emmanuel's job as chief of staff, controlling Obama's schedule and access to him, is important work. I'm beginning to think, though, that he should be shifted to a more overtly political job, like the one I described above. From his work heading up the Democratic Congressional campaign in 2006, we know his considerable acumen.
Obama has every right to get involved in state political races--indeed, it's pretty much an obligation: he is the leader of his party. But he needs to make sure than his subordinates assigned to the political process do it right. I'm afraid that the hamfisted political sensitivity shown by these two cases might be described as more "JimmyCarterian".
The most meaningful test of success of a new Administration is its ability to get re-elected after four years, and the main discriminator for that is its ability to get an uncontested re-nomination from its party. Jimmy Carter, despite his many talents and virtues, was not able to achieve that in 1980 and it contributed mightily to his defeat. Even George W. Bush, for all his defects, kept his party united in 2004, and his ability to keep his party together for re-nomination, and then in the general election campaign, made the difference.
Obama's proven that his electoral potential is huge, but if he allows his party unity to dissolve, he will fail that test.
My longtime friend Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post has weighed in rather heavily on the Obama Administration's press strategy of urging, and partially putting into practice, a boycott of Fox News. In a recent blog on the subject, she called the policy "dumb", then searching for stronger terms, suggested "Nixonian" or "Agnewesque" (sp?) I'll buy the first name she gives it, but I recoil from the second and third.
As she points out, the way the game is played is that administration leaks and interviews are provided to "journalists" who take good steno, and are withheld from those who fail to take good notes, or who take their inside information to write "yes...but" pieces that take advantage of their access to demolish the leaker's objectives. Extra credit is given in the scoring system for those who do more than reproduce the talking points and actually use them to come up with creative additional arguments, but that's hardly required.
The point is, the scoring is done outside the public eye in the political affairs office, not by the press secretary or his/her minions. The mistake the Obama press office made is to make public their aversion to Fox. Starve them, yes--maybe show the bad guys up by throwing a bone or two if there's a Chris Wallace or someone they think treats their tidbits properly--but don't go public with it. If the news they're giving has any value, viewers' and readers' eyes will follow their choices.
As for Nixon, though, the difference is that Nixon's political affairs desk (all administrations have one) looked for illegal ways to punish its enemies; as for Agnew, he was just a whiny, graft-driven mouthpiece. The comparison is inappropriate.
Amateur Hour
That's how Donna Brazile aptly described some Obama backgrounders' criticism of Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds' campaign.
OK, if they want to cut ties to Deeds and throw him under the bus, they can do it after election day when he's lost, but they're planning to send the President into Virginia to campaign for him, so that only reduces the value of the President's intervention.
I've said it before: I know Virginia's electorate and I don't trust it for a minute. There's plenty of reason to think they'll turn their back on a Democrat this time--there's a very fickle swing vote that decides elections there, and it's about time the pendulum swings back to the Republican side for them. In my view, they are searching for something they are never going to get; Virginia governors can't run for re-election, so their attempts to punish the incumbent always fail.
Of course, a politician can never blame the voters, who are always right. Neither can a journalist, who has to sell papers or TV ads and has to be nice to the public. That right belongs exclusively to me, and my ilk.
Measure of Success
I know that Rahm Emmanuel's job as chief of staff, controlling Obama's schedule and access to him, is important work. I'm beginning to think, though, that he should be shifted to a more overtly political job, like the one I described above. From his work heading up the Democratic Congressional campaign in 2006, we know his considerable acumen.
Obama has every right to get involved in state political races--indeed, it's pretty much an obligation: he is the leader of his party. But he needs to make sure than his subordinates assigned to the political process do it right. I'm afraid that the hamfisted political sensitivity shown by these two cases might be described as more "JimmyCarterian".
The most meaningful test of success of a new Administration is its ability to get re-elected after four years, and the main discriminator for that is its ability to get an uncontested re-nomination from its party. Jimmy Carter, despite his many talents and virtues, was not able to achieve that in 1980 and it contributed mightily to his defeat. Even George W. Bush, for all his defects, kept his party united in 2004, and his ability to keep his party together for re-nomination, and then in the general election campaign, made the difference.
Obama's proven that his electoral potential is huge, but if he allows his party unity to dissolve, he will fail that test.
p.o. news
Sen. Harry Reid is planning to announce today that the version of the Senate bill that he will bring to the floor will include a public option, with the form of option being a negative one for the states (i.e., they can "opt-out" of offering it to their publics), and, I believe, negotiated rates on reimbursement and an expanded eligibility for Medicaid (Medicare for the poor). Republicans will universally deride this compromise offering as creeping socialism, but, creep that I am, I will support it (if it's what I said it will be).
Reid has said that he is personally in favor of the p.o., but what he is doing is watering it down so that he can hold his party's caucus together on a vote to end debate on the measure (at some point). He is going with the "60 to end debate; 51 to pass" approach, rather than the "budget reconciliation" approach--which might get something through without a cloture vote requiring 60 supporting an end to debate, but could be ineffective in terms of legislation and subject to legal challenges--or the "bipartisan approach", in which there would be no p.o., or a phony one, or a triggered one (and it still might not get 60 votes in favor). This is a new version of the "Gang of 12" which solved the last "slow-motion train wreck", that of judicial appointments back in the Bushite era (see posts with that label).
I'm not going to criticize Reid for the deficiencies of the results of his head-counting, nor do I think his headcount is wrong. What he is doing is being creative in finding several Democratic senators who don't support a public option but are willing to let it through as long as their individual states can opt out of offering the program entirely. There are several small states, some of which have Democratic senators, who have some problems with Medicare reimbursement rates (though I don't think the compromise proposal will actually have them) and don't trust the Federally-backed p.o. to deal fairly.
There are also two large states which we can expect may opt out: Florida and Texas. Texas will do so just because its legislature and statehouse are controlled by greedy hogs at the trough, and their voters can't seem to get their act together to do anything about it. So, if the train pulls out without them and they see it's a fun ride, maybe they finally will get the point. Florida, I hear, has enough competition from the private insurers that they may decide--in the short run--that they don't need this option for their consumers. We'll see if that holds up.
Eat Cake, Bob, Because You Can't Also Have It
Robert J. Samuelson, frequent columnist for Newsweek and the Washington Post, is what I would call a "crank economist". He doesn't have a clear ideological slant to his economical proclamations, but he does prefer a contrarian view of any given topic. So, with the p.o., he's essentially said that it won't cut costs, won't be popular, but will somehow destroy the private insurance industry. We've covered the contradictions in this point of view before: what I want to address now is the issue of costs, and his analysis both demonstrates a popular misconception and helps us clear up another.
Samuelson is arguing that if the p.o. has the "Medicare rates" of reimbursement to health providers (early House versions had Medicare +5%), it will kill private insurers while not reducing systemic health costs (the lower reimbursement rates will be made up somewhere); if they don't have those low rates--i.e. the "negotiated rates" that I'm expecting--they will merely be on a level playing field with the private insurers, so they won't make an impact.
Samuelson may be supported by studies like the Congressional Budget Office's which will suggest that the p.o. will not cut costs, but that's because the CBO is going to be talking about costs to the government, not the consumer, or of the system in general. The way to cut costs to the consumer is to allow low-cost insurance options to those not in employer plans (which the private insurers have proven they will not do), and the way to cut costs more broadly in the system is to cut the cost of employer programs by reducing their tax-deductibility. We all know that the final bill will be tweaked so that CBO's result is neutral over a 10-year period, so their periodic readouts on the current legislation just let us know whether subsidies will need to be increased or decreased.
This issue is tied inevitably with the question of mandates, which has been another moving target in the bill. The employer mandate should be a "pay or play" one, in which employers above a certain size (and it shouldn't be too large) must either contribute to a pool, or provide a program. The amount of tax deductibility for employer-provided programs should be equal to the required contribution, so the question is just which approach provides better quality for their employees. Similarly, the amount of penalty for individuals who do not have insurance should be slightly higher than the cost they would bear for the minimum level of the p.o., and people who have no insurance should have to pay that premium (that's a true "premium") when they are treated in emergency rooms (or be arrested for vagrancy) or in doctors' offices.
This would give people a choice: pay me now--and be covered by insurance--or pay me later. Some would still choose to bet on their invulnerability and would get away with it, but most would prefer not to have to deal with it on the back end.
The combination of the proper mandates, a public option for those without employer plans, and cost controls on employer plans will be the formula for bending the systemic costs of healthcare downward over the long run.
Reid has said that he is personally in favor of the p.o., but what he is doing is watering it down so that he can hold his party's caucus together on a vote to end debate on the measure (at some point). He is going with the "60 to end debate; 51 to pass" approach, rather than the "budget reconciliation" approach--which might get something through without a cloture vote requiring 60 supporting an end to debate, but could be ineffective in terms of legislation and subject to legal challenges--or the "bipartisan approach", in which there would be no p.o., or a phony one, or a triggered one (and it still might not get 60 votes in favor). This is a new version of the "Gang of 12" which solved the last "slow-motion train wreck", that of judicial appointments back in the Bushite era (see posts with that label).
I'm not going to criticize Reid for the deficiencies of the results of his head-counting, nor do I think his headcount is wrong. What he is doing is being creative in finding several Democratic senators who don't support a public option but are willing to let it through as long as their individual states can opt out of offering the program entirely. There are several small states, some of which have Democratic senators, who have some problems with Medicare reimbursement rates (though I don't think the compromise proposal will actually have them) and don't trust the Federally-backed p.o. to deal fairly.
There are also two large states which we can expect may opt out: Florida and Texas. Texas will do so just because its legislature and statehouse are controlled by greedy hogs at the trough, and their voters can't seem to get their act together to do anything about it. So, if the train pulls out without them and they see it's a fun ride, maybe they finally will get the point. Florida, I hear, has enough competition from the private insurers that they may decide--in the short run--that they don't need this option for their consumers. We'll see if that holds up.
Eat Cake, Bob, Because You Can't Also Have It
Robert J. Samuelson, frequent columnist for Newsweek and the Washington Post, is what I would call a "crank economist". He doesn't have a clear ideological slant to his economical proclamations, but he does prefer a contrarian view of any given topic. So, with the p.o., he's essentially said that it won't cut costs, won't be popular, but will somehow destroy the private insurance industry. We've covered the contradictions in this point of view before: what I want to address now is the issue of costs, and his analysis both demonstrates a popular misconception and helps us clear up another.
Samuelson is arguing that if the p.o. has the "Medicare rates" of reimbursement to health providers (early House versions had Medicare +5%), it will kill private insurers while not reducing systemic health costs (the lower reimbursement rates will be made up somewhere); if they don't have those low rates--i.e. the "negotiated rates" that I'm expecting--they will merely be on a level playing field with the private insurers, so they won't make an impact.
Samuelson may be supported by studies like the Congressional Budget Office's which will suggest that the p.o. will not cut costs, but that's because the CBO is going to be talking about costs to the government, not the consumer, or of the system in general. The way to cut costs to the consumer is to allow low-cost insurance options to those not in employer plans (which the private insurers have proven they will not do), and the way to cut costs more broadly in the system is to cut the cost of employer programs by reducing their tax-deductibility. We all know that the final bill will be tweaked so that CBO's result is neutral over a 10-year period, so their periodic readouts on the current legislation just let us know whether subsidies will need to be increased or decreased.
This issue is tied inevitably with the question of mandates, which has been another moving target in the bill. The employer mandate should be a "pay or play" one, in which employers above a certain size (and it shouldn't be too large) must either contribute to a pool, or provide a program. The amount of tax deductibility for employer-provided programs should be equal to the required contribution, so the question is just which approach provides better quality for their employees. Similarly, the amount of penalty for individuals who do not have insurance should be slightly higher than the cost they would bear for the minimum level of the p.o., and people who have no insurance should have to pay that premium (that's a true "premium") when they are treated in emergency rooms (or be arrested for vagrancy) or in doctors' offices.
This would give people a choice: pay me now--and be covered by insurance--or pay me later. Some would still choose to bet on their invulnerability and would get away with it, but most would prefer not to have to deal with it on the back end.
The combination of the proper mandates, a public option for those without employer plans, and cost controls on employer plans will be the formula for bending the systemic costs of healthcare downward over the long run.
Friday, October 23, 2009
CO2: It's Just a Shame
I've seen some ads on TV recently to the effect that "Carbon dioxide is not pollution", and the more aggressive claim, "CO2 is Green". Now, there's no doubt that this is a disingenuous attempt to poleaxe our legislative attempts to control greenhouse gases, sponsored by companies with bad intentions, bad faith, and bad science. Still, I think they have it at least half-right.
Carbon dioxide is a naturally-occurring gas. It is not a pollutant, something which irreversibly contaminates all it touches, like nuclear waste or coal mining tailings. If the carbon dioxide level in our atmosphere doubled, we wouldn't notice it in our breathing. For example, we can adapt to half the oxygen of sea level; we have that, and less, up here in Taos, and it takes about a day for almost anyone--except emphysema patients--to adapt.
Still, I'm far from a climate change denier. I see huge, though not civilization-ending, negative effects if current trends continue: Bangladesh--and other poor, low-lying countries--will be catastrophically affected by rising sea levels; supplies of water will have huge disruptions; ecosystems will be badly, and unpredictably, messed with; and it looks as though major storms' destructive powers are being multiplied. We do need to do something about it, and we have to provide mentorship and assistance to the poorer countries so they can do something, too: this is clearly a global issue.
I'm just not convinced that reducing greenhouse gas emissions are the only, or even necessarily the best, route to achieve these ends. Carbon dioxide, like water, has a cycle, in which animals and plants figure prominently. There are some plants that absorb more carbon dioxide than others; carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans (an effect which causes its own problems); carbon dioxide, unlike, say, nuclear waste, wouldn't need to be sequestered for tens of thousands of years: an approach which took CO2 out of the atmosphere for 500 years, after which it leaked slowly back in, would actually be kicking the can down the road effectively. I'm thinking that there may be chemical reactions between some minerals and CO2 that might prove to be an effective approach to taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, too.
The bottom line for me is that reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gases is moral, and the inverse is true, too. The goal is not to eliminate CO2, though--it's like sin, or poverty, or war, or disease. It's something that's going to be with us, and we should seek to ameliorate its harmful effects. There is more than one way to skin a cat, but we do need to remove at least some of its fur, and we need to study the science of doing it from several different directions.
So I support the 350 movement (the number is the desired parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere; we're already above that level). I will do so with an ear conditioned by the more nuanced attitude to the gas that I've described.
Carbon dioxide is a naturally-occurring gas. It is not a pollutant, something which irreversibly contaminates all it touches, like nuclear waste or coal mining tailings. If the carbon dioxide level in our atmosphere doubled, we wouldn't notice it in our breathing. For example, we can adapt to half the oxygen of sea level; we have that, and less, up here in Taos, and it takes about a day for almost anyone--except emphysema patients--to adapt.
Still, I'm far from a climate change denier. I see huge, though not civilization-ending, negative effects if current trends continue: Bangladesh--and other poor, low-lying countries--will be catastrophically affected by rising sea levels; supplies of water will have huge disruptions; ecosystems will be badly, and unpredictably, messed with; and it looks as though major storms' destructive powers are being multiplied. We do need to do something about it, and we have to provide mentorship and assistance to the poorer countries so they can do something, too: this is clearly a global issue.
I'm just not convinced that reducing greenhouse gas emissions are the only, or even necessarily the best, route to achieve these ends. Carbon dioxide, like water, has a cycle, in which animals and plants figure prominently. There are some plants that absorb more carbon dioxide than others; carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans (an effect which causes its own problems); carbon dioxide, unlike, say, nuclear waste, wouldn't need to be sequestered for tens of thousands of years: an approach which took CO2 out of the atmosphere for 500 years, after which it leaked slowly back in, would actually be kicking the can down the road effectively. I'm thinking that there may be chemical reactions between some minerals and CO2 that might prove to be an effective approach to taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, too.
The bottom line for me is that reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gases is moral, and the inverse is true, too. The goal is not to eliminate CO2, though--it's like sin, or poverty, or war, or disease. It's something that's going to be with us, and we should seek to ameliorate its harmful effects. There is more than one way to skin a cat, but we do need to remove at least some of its fur, and we need to study the science of doing it from several different directions.
So I support the 350 movement (the number is the desired parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere; we're already above that level). I will do so with an ear conditioned by the more nuanced attitude to the gas that I've described.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
This Jobless Recovery
We seem to have found the quickest way across the Great Crater, but we've lost a good number of our passengers en route. It's no surprise that the economy can "grow" without giving Americans any net job gains. In my post in June, I predicted that the economy might make nominal gains for awhile before there were any net gains in jobs, and that gains in jobs might continue for awhile before the unemployment rate would decrease (due to the gradual return to the market of job-seekers). Well before that, I suggested that unemployment will still be an issue in the election of 2010.
In this regard, this jobless recovery is like the last jobless recovery, the Bushite one of 2002-2005. Remember that two years into the "recovery", during the election campaign of 2004 the cry often went out: where are the jobs? Eventually there were some job increases, as there were needs for folks building seemingly endless McMansions, infinite numbers telemarketing mortgage refinancing, and those sly dogs providing outsourcing and re-engineering services, but these have largely gone the way of buggy-whip manufacturers and assembling eight-track players (except for the jobs with contractors supporting our military overseas).
Productivity, The Capitalists' Love Story
After some twenty years of continuous improvements in streamlining processes, supported by wave after wave of technological improvement and the tax deductibility of restructuring costs, modern productivity is truly marvelous.
The next phase of productivity increases--there will surely be more of the same--will require such things as across-the-board wage cuts, when possible (non-unionized hourly workers); or cuts in benefits like employer-provided health insurance (don't expect to see employer mandates to provide insurance in the final legislation); or the most certain of all--a new round of reorgs paring down middle management and piling more work on the remaining salaried workers.
These kinds of measures will protect those jobs which remain here, rather than being sent overseas, but they are hardly victories for the American people. What no American politician, Democrat or Republican, will ever admit, and especially not during the current period, is that we simply don't need all of the efforts of the American work force in order to produce all the goods and services we could ever require. Far less when we consider the poorer nations who would love to take our workers' place.
Fighting Upstream on Job Creation
Documenting that unfortunate fact was the principal theme of Jeremy Rifkin's The End Of Work. Rifkin, a notable progressive activist of the late 20th century, produced that book in 1996--bad timing, in that it was in the midst of the strongest economic recovery of the past 25 years, a time when there was even something approaching a labor shortage. So, it didn't quite sink into the national consciousness that all these productivity increases weren't producing more jobs for us.
OK, so we work less: not a bad prospect on the face of it, but hardly a solution to our current portfolio of mess.
In the best case, our stimulus package will put people to work for a year or two as we re-pave roads that don't need paving, build some new bridges from or to nowhere, and develop some new, cleaner infrastructure and industries that will provide blessings down the road. Assembling wind turbines will last a few years; producing photovoltaic panels and other solar energy-producing materials will keep the silicon industry, and the materials industry generally, expanding; it will take some time to re-fit our walls and water heaters for the benefits of passive solar energy; and rewiring the grid more intelligently might take a decade or so. All these will provide continuing benefits, if not so many jobs, down the road. As for our healthcare industry, it could use some streamlining, so that it can support the increased number of sick and aging patients coming down the road.
I just don't believe that we are going to bring back "full employment"--in plain terms, an economy providing all the work that people need and desire--by just producing more stuff, and offering more services, though. We've got plenty already, though the fierce urgency to create new demand for products we never knew we needed continues unabated.
I see the solution coming from a different direction: most people in America today are either underemployed or overemployed, and it's getting worse. The former category has grown, and for economic reasons it's the less desirable of the two, but the numbers of people who have more work than they can physically or mentally support, let alone do the other things in life that they'd like, are growing all the time.
My recommendation is that, rather than rewarding companies for re-engineering away jobs or redoubling our efforts to produce make-work jobs at the cost of adding to the public debt, we provide some support for re-engineering our society, so that there is a better balance between work and leisure for all of us. Let's make part-time work more viable--affordable health insurance outside the employers' group plans is a big start toward this objective. Let's provide tax advantages for companies who allow their workers to submit their product from their homes--which will cut down on commuting, and allow for better lives--rather than to cut jobs.
Michael Moore's new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story has a closing theme of a Bill of Rights for workers, proposed by FDR in 1944 but never enacted, in which the first item is the right to a job. Frankly, we can't afford to guarantee everyone jobs anymore (maybe when all the boomers retire in 40 years or so), but we could have the federal government give a tax credit to employers bringing on workers who stay for six months or so--and especially including part-time workers of, say, 15-30 hours. Yes, to some extent we will reward companies for what they might be doing anyway, but we will be modifying their behavior in a direction that is positive for public policy.
Resolved: Corporations are only Three-Fifths of a Person
The next big political issue to rise, and this one is going to be huge, is likely to come through a controversial Supreme Court decision in the near future on political contributions and advertisements by corporations. Right now, this behavior is strictly limited by Federal legislation, but that legislation is in great danger.
The Supreme Court is looking at claims that this legislation limiting the "free speech" of companies is unconstitutional, and I feel that they are going to rule that it is. It stands to reason, with the current body of judicial interpretation: if companies are in fact "persons", why don't they have the right to freedom of speech?
Allowing companies to go wacky with political activity will quickly and rightly be seen as a huge threat to our democratic processes, which already cost way too much (for the quality they produce). It will become an imperative--probably after one national election cycle--to limit companies' political activities (for everyone except the right wing--the independents will get sick of this coup against popular democracy real fast).
There will be two ways to go: 1) make Federal election campaigns limited in duration and cost, and paid for through taxpayer funds; or 2) amend the Constitution to delineate exactly to what extent corporations should be considered "persons"--what are their rights, and what rights are limited to "human persons"?
I think that the latter route is both more likely--given the crisis which will emerge, even with our country's extreme reluctance in these latter days to any modification, no matter how minor, to the Constitution--and a better solution.
In this regard, this jobless recovery is like the last jobless recovery, the Bushite one of 2002-2005. Remember that two years into the "recovery", during the election campaign of 2004 the cry often went out: where are the jobs? Eventually there were some job increases, as there were needs for folks building seemingly endless McMansions, infinite numbers telemarketing mortgage refinancing, and those sly dogs providing outsourcing and re-engineering services, but these have largely gone the way of buggy-whip manufacturers and assembling eight-track players (except for the jobs with contractors supporting our military overseas).
Productivity, The Capitalists' Love Story
After some twenty years of continuous improvements in streamlining processes, supported by wave after wave of technological improvement and the tax deductibility of restructuring costs, modern productivity is truly marvelous.
The next phase of productivity increases--there will surely be more of the same--will require such things as across-the-board wage cuts, when possible (non-unionized hourly workers); or cuts in benefits like employer-provided health insurance (don't expect to see employer mandates to provide insurance in the final legislation); or the most certain of all--a new round of reorgs paring down middle management and piling more work on the remaining salaried workers.
These kinds of measures will protect those jobs which remain here, rather than being sent overseas, but they are hardly victories for the American people. What no American politician, Democrat or Republican, will ever admit, and especially not during the current period, is that we simply don't need all of the efforts of the American work force in order to produce all the goods and services we could ever require. Far less when we consider the poorer nations who would love to take our workers' place.
Fighting Upstream on Job Creation
Documenting that unfortunate fact was the principal theme of Jeremy Rifkin's The End Of Work. Rifkin, a notable progressive activist of the late 20th century, produced that book in 1996--bad timing, in that it was in the midst of the strongest economic recovery of the past 25 years, a time when there was even something approaching a labor shortage. So, it didn't quite sink into the national consciousness that all these productivity increases weren't producing more jobs for us.
OK, so we work less: not a bad prospect on the face of it, but hardly a solution to our current portfolio of mess.
In the best case, our stimulus package will put people to work for a year or two as we re-pave roads that don't need paving, build some new bridges from or to nowhere, and develop some new, cleaner infrastructure and industries that will provide blessings down the road. Assembling wind turbines will last a few years; producing photovoltaic panels and other solar energy-producing materials will keep the silicon industry, and the materials industry generally, expanding; it will take some time to re-fit our walls and water heaters for the benefits of passive solar energy; and rewiring the grid more intelligently might take a decade or so. All these will provide continuing benefits, if not so many jobs, down the road. As for our healthcare industry, it could use some streamlining, so that it can support the increased number of sick and aging patients coming down the road.
I just don't believe that we are going to bring back "full employment"--in plain terms, an economy providing all the work that people need and desire--by just producing more stuff, and offering more services, though. We've got plenty already, though the fierce urgency to create new demand for products we never knew we needed continues unabated.
I see the solution coming from a different direction: most people in America today are either underemployed or overemployed, and it's getting worse. The former category has grown, and for economic reasons it's the less desirable of the two, but the numbers of people who have more work than they can physically or mentally support, let alone do the other things in life that they'd like, are growing all the time.
My recommendation is that, rather than rewarding companies for re-engineering away jobs or redoubling our efforts to produce make-work jobs at the cost of adding to the public debt, we provide some support for re-engineering our society, so that there is a better balance between work and leisure for all of us. Let's make part-time work more viable--affordable health insurance outside the employers' group plans is a big start toward this objective. Let's provide tax advantages for companies who allow their workers to submit their product from their homes--which will cut down on commuting, and allow for better lives--rather than to cut jobs.
Michael Moore's new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story has a closing theme of a Bill of Rights for workers, proposed by FDR in 1944 but never enacted, in which the first item is the right to a job. Frankly, we can't afford to guarantee everyone jobs anymore (maybe when all the boomers retire in 40 years or so), but we could have the federal government give a tax credit to employers bringing on workers who stay for six months or so--and especially including part-time workers of, say, 15-30 hours. Yes, to some extent we will reward companies for what they might be doing anyway, but we will be modifying their behavior in a direction that is positive for public policy.
Resolved: Corporations are only Three-Fifths of a Person
The next big political issue to rise, and this one is going to be huge, is likely to come through a controversial Supreme Court decision in the near future on political contributions and advertisements by corporations. Right now, this behavior is strictly limited by Federal legislation, but that legislation is in great danger.
The Supreme Court is looking at claims that this legislation limiting the "free speech" of companies is unconstitutional, and I feel that they are going to rule that it is. It stands to reason, with the current body of judicial interpretation: if companies are in fact "persons", why don't they have the right to freedom of speech?
Allowing companies to go wacky with political activity will quickly and rightly be seen as a huge threat to our democratic processes, which already cost way too much (for the quality they produce). It will become an imperative--probably after one national election cycle--to limit companies' political activities (for everyone except the right wing--the independents will get sick of this coup against popular democracy real fast).
There will be two ways to go: 1) make Federal election campaigns limited in duration and cost, and paid for through taxpayer funds; or 2) amend the Constitution to delineate exactly to what extent corporations should be considered "persons"--what are their rights, and what rights are limited to "human persons"?
I think that the latter route is both more likely--given the crisis which will emerge, even with our country's extreme reluctance in these latter days to any modification, no matter how minor, to the Constitution--and a better solution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
