I remembered that I posted my suggested 10-Point Program for a Barack Obama Presidency; what I was surprised to see was that I posted it way back in December, 2006 (if I'm not mistaken, before he had even announced his run for the office). It's a very ambitious agenda with a high bar of expectations, but my goals back then, and my grading below, show that I really had high expectations (and I still do). Here's a quick synopsis of what I was looking for back then, what has been accomplished--fully or partly--what remains to be done, and whether I think he should or will do anything about it.
(Here they are--the numbers are not in a particular order, but for reference):
10. Get Control of climate-changing gases - He's done one significant thing, setting up aggressive goals for improving the fuel efficiency of the U.S. motor vehicles. There is still much to do, plenty of evidence more needs to be done, and reason to doubt it will get done. Cap-and-trade is a spoiled concept, we are congenitally opposed to participation in any global agreement, and we seem committed to fracking and tar sands use. My suggestions would be to commit also to development of: 1) solar; 2) wind; 3) better batteries; and 4) recycling of animal waste for fuel. This is playing the long game, aiming at progress that will outlive his Presidency. Obama Grade (up 'til now): C.
9. Preserve our biosphere. We are losing the battle to preserve species rather quickly--the best I can suggest are various forms of natural and artificial arks. O.G.: D-
8. Rebuild our relations with the world. With a few exceptions, this has been successfully completed. Russia, China--those are countries with which we are doing our best, their political obtuseness is not our fault; Iran--we just need a clear concept and success can be obtained; the world of Islam--some improvement, more possible; Europe, other developed world allies--no problem; the underdeveloped world--see Islam. O.G.: A-
7. Visualize our children's/grandchildren's society, and the implications of that vision. I would rate this as the most urgent and most practicable area for a focus of Obama's second term. It will translate into intelligent Medicare/Social Security revisions, as well as the needed educational and infrastructure improvements. It's a topic that's a bit high-falutin' for a speech to self-absorbed American adults, but not for a commission. The grade so far really is an Incomplete, but I would have to judge rather harshly the lack of visible effort. I do think Obama's heart is in it, as shown by his frequent references to his children's future, so I realistically think he can improve his grade with a little diligent effort. O.G.: D+
6. Reform the U.N. Charter. I really want Obama to do this; now that Susan Rice isn't going anywhere else, she could focus on this and maybe make some real progress. If not now (the freedom of a second term, an internationalist President with an eye on his legacy), it will never happen. O.G.: C-
5. Get control of armaments. Even back then, my description of this objective included both nuclear non-proliferation and private weapons in Americans' hands. It's taken awhile, but Obama has now stepped up on the latter, and he's doing his best on the former. Of course, the critical near-term outcomes for both ("common-sense" new gun restrictions, successfully keeping Iran from going nuke without war) are still in doubt. O.G.: B+
4. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it. This is a difficult topic, and time is working against us: government's ability to snoop effectively expands, and resistance is beaten down mercilessly. Although I don't really agree with the "data must be free" philosophy, the recent case histories of Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Aaron Swartz are troubling, in that all indicate the trend is for power of the State overpowering those individuals who challenge on the basis of freedom of information. If you think it through, though, those efforts do not help preserve the eroding right to privacy. What I am looking for is some restoration of limits on intrusion into people's privacy--whether they are "normal" or famous--and I'm not seeing any progress. I'm not sure Obama or his Administration are on my side, or if they have any point of view on this. On the other hand, their offenses in this area have not been massive, like the Bushite ones were. O.G.: C-
3. Provide healthcare to our people. Back then, what I was advocating would be recognizable as (optional) Medicare for All. We didn't get anything like that, but we did get the Affordable Care Act, and even that he had to spend huge amounts of political capital to ram it down the throat of the resisting Republicans. I am advocating, rather than raising the Medicare eligibility age, reducing it (to 55), which would a great step forward. I know it has no chance, but my job clearly is to advocate sense in opposition to nonsense. O.G.: B
2. Electoral reform. This is my second-highest priority for the Second Term, after #7 above. We have gone backwards since my original 10-Point Program was presented; consider that it was before the Citizens United decision, the two most expensive elections in history, and renewed efforts to suppress voters (albeit, failed ones). All is yet to be done, and Obama is in a great position to push for it, and his rare comments upon it (he made one on Election Night 2012) have been favorable. On the other hand, the Electoral College worked very well for him, and he might (mistakenly) view it as a friend. O.G.: C-
1. End the "War on Drugs" (or at least give it some focus on the more harmful ones). The latter phrase in parentheses is the operative objective, and President Obama seems to be going that way--though without expending any political capital. The key test in upcoming months will be his Attorney General's directives with regard to the new laws in Washington and Colorado permitting personal, non-medical possession of marijuana. So far, it seems to be a live and let live approach: if the states don't impinge on Federal prerogatives, he will leave them alone. That's OK, as long as it persists, as public opinion is moving the right way on this for the first time in--forever. The Colorado/Washington initiatives are the opposite of the pernicious exercise of states' exercise of their authority to which I have occasionally referred as "States Wrought". O.G.: B
My calculation of his overall grade on this course, which I will call Greatness 101, is a 2.63 average, a C (on a 5-point GPA basis). It is at least an Honors course, if not an Advanced Placement level one (in high school terms). Again, this is a measure of my strict grading against a difficult set of standards, and certainly not grading on the curve.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Sunday, January 13, 2013
January Variety Post
I am constraining myself to cover, in a single, wide-ranging posting, a number of topics which might merit more lengthy discussion. For which I would apologize profusely, but there's no time for that.
Studying Hagelian Philosophy -
President Obama's selection of former Senator Chuck Hagel to head the Pentagon is the most interesting of his second-term appointments: most of them are too inside-Beltway for me to comment upon (Is CIA nominee John Brennan a torturer and murderer by proxy? I couldn't say. Do I care that the next Treasury Secretary's signature, which will be printed on currency, is a bunch of illegible loops? Not at all. ) The most interesting thing about John Kerry's selection for Secretary of State will be the scramble to follow him into his Massachusetts Senate seat, yet another high-cost battle to deny Scott Brown and make Congress ever more free of moderate Republicans.
Hagel bonded with Obama on distaste for the Iraq conflict, and those who would oppose him from the progressive side, because he's Republican or a conservative, should understand that cutting Defense spending and preventing American "stupid wars" (Obama's 2008 campaign term) will be fundamental to his value to Obama's second term. He will also be a useful contrarian voice when Obama goes around the table, as he is said consistently to do on major decisions. In his confirmation hearings, Hagel will need to walk back from immoderate statements that are too hostile to Israel, to gays, to strong economic sanctions against Iran, and I presume he will do those things to ensure his confirmation, which I then presume he will obtain. I think those who have identified Chuck Schumer (D - NY) as the key vote Hagel will need are absolutely correct, and the winning formula will be sufficient assurances to Schumer so that Schumer can pass on to key Israelis that they need not fear that a Hagelian DoD will fail to back Israel sufficiently--on anything except a foolish and dysfunctional unilateral Israeli military strike.
The Inauguration
Scheduling his second-term inauguration for Martin Luther King Day, January 21, is a classic Obama product, the combination of luck, design, and poetic justice. There is a building sense of excitement about this event, though it will be hard to match up to his first inauguration, which was one for the history books. Expect to see yet one more plea for consensus in the interest of our common interest, an appeal to some sort of Christian God to give us some sort of a break, an appeal to end our culture of mass violence (following on VP Biden's report, and which will be the most controversial aspect of his speech), and for racial justice. I don't expect to hear the words "fiscal cliff" or "debt ceiling" mentioned in the speech--they are beneath the occasion, and for that matter almost beneath him. Because the ceremony will be on a national holiday, not on NFL-owned Sunday, January 20 (I presume the statutory expectation for Jan. 20 as Inauguration Day allows for such an exception), ratings should be very good.
NFL: The Divisional Round
Speaking of NFL football owning American society, this weekend is truly the highlight of the sport's TV viewing season, as it features the top eight playoff teams (College football, take note--please!) We are halfway through it as I type, and the two most critical games were played yesterday. Both of them met up to any expectations for drama, if not for the kind of high-quality defense we might expect from the playoffs (despite all the rules designed to defeat it).
Yesterday's first game--probably the game of the year--featured the awesome confrontation of Ray Lewis, the superb linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens, who dramatically announced before their first playoff game that this will be his last season, against the equally-superb resurgent quarterback of the Denver Broncos, Peyton Manning. Manning missed all of last season with neck injuries that required multiple surgeries and could easily have ended his career, but he came back this season, as good as ever, and led his new team to the top record in the AFC. Still, because his signing came late, after national TV games were all scheduled, the Broncos were something of a mystery to viewers like me.
The Ravens have been known for their defensive prowess since their 2000 Super Bowl win; their reputation is something like the Pittsburgh Steelers', and the two teams' matchups are classics of the hard-nosed old school NFL. Their offense is underrated, though, with a strong running game behind Ray Rice and Joe Flacco, a consistent performer who has built a body of postseason experience. Combined with the emotional push that Lewis gave them, the Ravens battled evenly with Denver through a high-scoring, highlight-filled first half, then met the test in the second half to prevent Manning coming up with the big plays. The surprise of the day was repeated Bronco failures in the secondary, allowing the Ravens instead to have the long pass completions. Regulation time ended 35-35; then defense took over in the overtime, eventually giving the Ravens an edge.
I chose to skip the second key game, Packers-49ers, in favor of a movie night, but the game featured a matchup of two hot quarterbacks, Green Bay's Aaron Rodgers and San Francisco's Colin Kaepernick. Kaepernick represents the new wave in offense, pioneered by Michael Vick, of a passer who can run extremely well. Along with Kaepernick, two 2012 rookies, Seattle's Russell Wilson and Washington's Robert Griffin III, are practitioners of the new approach, which presents extreme difficulties for defense preparation and execution. Kaepernick exposed the weakness of Green Bay's defense--it had a bad regular-season performance on yards given up, though better in scoring defense--with game-breaking runs. The weakness of the approach, as shown by the recent history for both Griffin and Vick, is the added danger of injury to the QB.
Today's games do not quite have the dramatic appeal of yesterday's, but they have their own story lines of interest. Each will feature one team who, like the Broncos, had a strong regular-season performance but go into their first playoff game of the season as uncertain propositions. Those teams--the #1 seeded Falcons in the NFC and the AFC #3 seeded Houston Texans--will have as their opponents teams headed by high-profile quarterbacks. Among those there is one old-school QB--Tom Brady of the Patriots--and one run-pass option QB master, Wilson. I would favor both of the big-name QB's over the unproven playoff teams, the Texans and the Falcons. Brady has been particularly hot, and it would be hard to pick against him in any game, even in favor of the Ravens or in the Super Bowl. Seattle over the Falcons, on the road, as a slight underdog and similarly unproven playoff team, is a tougher pick, but the Seahawks have made a strong late-season run. My pick for the Super Bowl: Patriots, over the 49ers.
Tennis: The New Year
The Australian Open's beginning (tonight; tomorrow Aussie time) marks the beginning of the real 2013 season (there are a couple of warm-up tourneys in Australia and the Middle East). There are major story line/quetions for each of the big 4 in men's tennis, though one of them will not be answered in Melbourne:
1) Will Novak Djokovic be unstoppable this year, or just really hard to beat?
2) How much longer can Roger Federer compete at the top level?
3) Can Andy Murray win again in a major?
Number 4 (but not in the standings) is Rafael Nadal, who is returning from knee problems, but not in the Aussie Open; will he return to his standard of excellence? The test for Nadal will really be during the clay court season in late spring, when we would expect him to be ready to challenge Djokovic and the others (if not dominate them).
In the women's game, the story will be whether Serena Williams can return to top ranking. It has been a long road back for her after her health problems (the cut on her foot, which led to a dangerous blood clot), but she has established herself, once again, as the top player when she is healthy, as she appears to be going into the new season. Victoria Azarenka and Maria Sharapova have well-established positions as the top two contenders in her absence. Serena's big sister, Venus, has to answer the question in 2013 whether she too can return to her previous top form; she has been hampered by an immune system syndrome.
Prediction: Djokovic over Murray in the men's final; Serena over Sharapova in the women's.
NHL Players: Locked Back In
I am far from a big hockey fan, and I actually was rooting against an agreement, which came just in time to save the regular season. The issue of the lockout is the usual one in the current era of professional sports: enough owners had made bad, wasteful contract commitments to outvote the ones who hadn't (and profited competitively from their better investments) and drive the players from the field (or rink, in this case). The players' union was willing to take pay cuts in the aggregate but not to allow its guaranteed contracts to be abrogated based on owner incompetency. The union's great pressure tactic is "decertification" of itself, which would allow the players to bring an antitrust suit against the league--which under those circumstances, would probably cause a historic defeat to the monopoly of the owners' "union". That court test will not happen, due to the belated agreement achieved this week. At the end of the day, the players chose living within the cartel rather than fending for themselves in the European professional leagues (or my preference, a new Canadian-centered league to challenge the "National" US-centered NHL).
NHL hockey's regular season is the weakest of the major sports--it's all about finishing in the top 8 of the conference and getting into the Stanley Cup Playoffs. This season will make that clearer than ever.
Obit Dept.
The two deceased from last month whom I would like to commemorate briefly are Ravi Shankar and Daniel Inouye. The former was much more than a fifth-, sixth-, or whatever Beatle, but he was the go-to sitarist when the performance of Indian classic music came out into the world in the late Sixties and beyond. He played with all and brought a dignified but exciting permanent addition into world music. The sitar solo had a clear influence on the guitar solo that deserves more study. He left that legacy, as well as one daughter famed for Indian classical music and one (Norah Jones) for jazzy popular composition.
Daniel Inouye was a unique character of American history. A second-generation Japanese-American who bought a ticket out of the WWII internment camps by fighting, and suffering serious injury, in Italy. He was a significant, but not dominating, figure as a junior Senator on the famous Ervin Watergate Investigation Committee of '73-'74, which led to the eventual collapse of the Nixon Administration. He continued on in the Senate for another thirty-something years, a respected, relatively non-partisan voice for liberal Democratic orthodoxy.
Built Up by Dubious Means
Two sports-related topics that I have avoided more than I might have done are the Lance Armstrong revelations in cycling, and the issue of the possible inclusion of baseball players who used performance-enhancing drugs into the Hall of Fame. Both of them have taken the form of major sporting heroes whose reputations have been degraded by allegations of cheating, allegations that have been generally (though not universally) denied by the heroes in public, but have been variously substantiated in secret investigations and leaked, though the press, to the public, and sometimes into the courts.
The collapse of Armstrong's wall of defense after years of both whispered and full-throated accusations came suddenly in the past two months. A special US cycling Anti-Doping commission investigated and found that Armstrong had not just abused the rules, but had required his teammates to do so. Some of those finally dared to voice those experiences, and Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and more. At last hearing, Armstrong, who had been a symbol of cancer recovery with his "Livestrong" campaign, is beginning an effort to rehabilitate his image, starting with a private TV "tell-all" interview. His fall has been so complete, and so definitive, that I doubt that he can be restored to any kind of commercial favor (and that's probably what matters), let alone be allowed to compete again.
The baseball/HOF controversy is complex and much broader, and it will not end anytime soon. There have been numerous court cases and Senate hearings, which have focused on alleged misdeeds of the players, and sometimes of their personal trainers or purveyors of PED's, but have obscured the silent cooperation in abuse of MLB's rulemakers and management during the period when it was was most pervasive, the late '90's and early '00s. These were the years when Babe Ruth's long-standing single-season homerun record was obliterated, first by Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, then by Barry Bonds, and Hank Aaron's career HR record was then topped by Bonds. All those records remain in the books, but investigations have tainted the reputations of the players: McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, and pitcher Roger Clemens being the most prominent, but not the only ones.
Early indications of how the writers would view this issue came a couple years ago, when McGwire and another slugger who actually failed a drug test late in his career, Rafael Palmeiro, fell way short of the required 75% vote level in their initial eligibility for the Hall. This year came candidates of dubious reputations but with stronger credentials--Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa. For Bonds and Clemens, in particular, there was an argument that they had already compiled baseball achievements worthy of enshrinement prior to the alleged use of PED's, a claim which could not be so easily made of Sosa, Palmeiro, or McGwire. This year there were also others, such as Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza, who never failed any drug tests or had testimony against them, but about whom there were suspicions. Finally, there were candidates, both new candidates and holdover ones, whose statistical qualifications were not quite so outstanding but had no PED accusations against them. It was a crowded ballot with no easy decisions.
The results were all over the place, as some came close to the 75%, a number fell well short, and some got embarrassingly low vote totals, but the net result was that no one was elected. There is plenty of precedent for no one being selected, but the issue is far from settled. There are unambiguous candidates who will be elected in the next two years--Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, and Pedro Martinez--which will reduce the controversy, but the names of Bonds & Co. will remain out there, and there will eventually need to be some reckoning. I would classify the "political" positions in three groups:
Mais ou sont les neiges d'antan?
Translated, that would be "Where are the snows of yesteryear?" A famous line from the 15th-century French poet Francois Villon, riffed upon by Joseph Heller in Catch-22 as "Where are the Snowdons of yesteryear?", Yossarian referring to his lost aviator comrade.
So, where are they? That's what we want to know here in the Chicago area; the talk here being (along--not coincidentally?--with the flu, fictionally represented for us in extreme and unforgettable form by Soderbergh's movie Contagion a couple of years ago) the record length of time since the last snowfall of an inch or more--we are now over 320 days and counting. The last snow of an inch or more was, of course, last winter, and the winter ended early. There's an element of luck involved--there was a measurable snow on Dec. 20, just not an inch's worth, and other areas around here have had something like a normal share--but between this winter and last, we don't need convincing that there is a trend toward milder winters.
It could be good for Chicago--mild winters would do a lot to make it one of the most habitable cities in the country--but I can only imagine what the climate would then become for places like Houston, Atlanta, and St. Louis. Well, there's always air conditioning for them, isn't there?
Studying Hagelian Philosophy -
President Obama's selection of former Senator Chuck Hagel to head the Pentagon is the most interesting of his second-term appointments: most of them are too inside-Beltway for me to comment upon (Is CIA nominee John Brennan a torturer and murderer by proxy? I couldn't say. Do I care that the next Treasury Secretary's signature, which will be printed on currency, is a bunch of illegible loops? Not at all. ) The most interesting thing about John Kerry's selection for Secretary of State will be the scramble to follow him into his Massachusetts Senate seat, yet another high-cost battle to deny Scott Brown and make Congress ever more free of moderate Republicans.
Hagel bonded with Obama on distaste for the Iraq conflict, and those who would oppose him from the progressive side, because he's Republican or a conservative, should understand that cutting Defense spending and preventing American "stupid wars" (Obama's 2008 campaign term) will be fundamental to his value to Obama's second term. He will also be a useful contrarian voice when Obama goes around the table, as he is said consistently to do on major decisions. In his confirmation hearings, Hagel will need to walk back from immoderate statements that are too hostile to Israel, to gays, to strong economic sanctions against Iran, and I presume he will do those things to ensure his confirmation, which I then presume he will obtain. I think those who have identified Chuck Schumer (D - NY) as the key vote Hagel will need are absolutely correct, and the winning formula will be sufficient assurances to Schumer so that Schumer can pass on to key Israelis that they need not fear that a Hagelian DoD will fail to back Israel sufficiently--on anything except a foolish and dysfunctional unilateral Israeli military strike.
The Inauguration
Scheduling his second-term inauguration for Martin Luther King Day, January 21, is a classic Obama product, the combination of luck, design, and poetic justice. There is a building sense of excitement about this event, though it will be hard to match up to his first inauguration, which was one for the history books. Expect to see yet one more plea for consensus in the interest of our common interest, an appeal to some sort of Christian God to give us some sort of a break, an appeal to end our culture of mass violence (following on VP Biden's report, and which will be the most controversial aspect of his speech), and for racial justice. I don't expect to hear the words "fiscal cliff" or "debt ceiling" mentioned in the speech--they are beneath the occasion, and for that matter almost beneath him. Because the ceremony will be on a national holiday, not on NFL-owned Sunday, January 20 (I presume the statutory expectation for Jan. 20 as Inauguration Day allows for such an exception), ratings should be very good.
NFL: The Divisional Round
Speaking of NFL football owning American society, this weekend is truly the highlight of the sport's TV viewing season, as it features the top eight playoff teams (College football, take note--please!) We are halfway through it as I type, and the two most critical games were played yesterday. Both of them met up to any expectations for drama, if not for the kind of high-quality defense we might expect from the playoffs (despite all the rules designed to defeat it).
Yesterday's first game--probably the game of the year--featured the awesome confrontation of Ray Lewis, the superb linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens, who dramatically announced before their first playoff game that this will be his last season, against the equally-superb resurgent quarterback of the Denver Broncos, Peyton Manning. Manning missed all of last season with neck injuries that required multiple surgeries and could easily have ended his career, but he came back this season, as good as ever, and led his new team to the top record in the AFC. Still, because his signing came late, after national TV games were all scheduled, the Broncos were something of a mystery to viewers like me.
The Ravens have been known for their defensive prowess since their 2000 Super Bowl win; their reputation is something like the Pittsburgh Steelers', and the two teams' matchups are classics of the hard-nosed old school NFL. Their offense is underrated, though, with a strong running game behind Ray Rice and Joe Flacco, a consistent performer who has built a body of postseason experience. Combined with the emotional push that Lewis gave them, the Ravens battled evenly with Denver through a high-scoring, highlight-filled first half, then met the test in the second half to prevent Manning coming up with the big plays. The surprise of the day was repeated Bronco failures in the secondary, allowing the Ravens instead to have the long pass completions. Regulation time ended 35-35; then defense took over in the overtime, eventually giving the Ravens an edge.
I chose to skip the second key game, Packers-49ers, in favor of a movie night, but the game featured a matchup of two hot quarterbacks, Green Bay's Aaron Rodgers and San Francisco's Colin Kaepernick. Kaepernick represents the new wave in offense, pioneered by Michael Vick, of a passer who can run extremely well. Along with Kaepernick, two 2012 rookies, Seattle's Russell Wilson and Washington's Robert Griffin III, are practitioners of the new approach, which presents extreme difficulties for defense preparation and execution. Kaepernick exposed the weakness of Green Bay's defense--it had a bad regular-season performance on yards given up, though better in scoring defense--with game-breaking runs. The weakness of the approach, as shown by the recent history for both Griffin and Vick, is the added danger of injury to the QB.
Today's games do not quite have the dramatic appeal of yesterday's, but they have their own story lines of interest. Each will feature one team who, like the Broncos, had a strong regular-season performance but go into their first playoff game of the season as uncertain propositions. Those teams--the #1 seeded Falcons in the NFC and the AFC #3 seeded Houston Texans--will have as their opponents teams headed by high-profile quarterbacks. Among those there is one old-school QB--Tom Brady of the Patriots--and one run-pass option QB master, Wilson. I would favor both of the big-name QB's over the unproven playoff teams, the Texans and the Falcons. Brady has been particularly hot, and it would be hard to pick against him in any game, even in favor of the Ravens or in the Super Bowl. Seattle over the Falcons, on the road, as a slight underdog and similarly unproven playoff team, is a tougher pick, but the Seahawks have made a strong late-season run. My pick for the Super Bowl: Patriots, over the 49ers.
Tennis: The New Year
The Australian Open's beginning (tonight; tomorrow Aussie time) marks the beginning of the real 2013 season (there are a couple of warm-up tourneys in Australia and the Middle East). There are major story line/quetions for each of the big 4 in men's tennis, though one of them will not be answered in Melbourne:
1) Will Novak Djokovic be unstoppable this year, or just really hard to beat?
2) How much longer can Roger Federer compete at the top level?
3) Can Andy Murray win again in a major?
Number 4 (but not in the standings) is Rafael Nadal, who is returning from knee problems, but not in the Aussie Open; will he return to his standard of excellence? The test for Nadal will really be during the clay court season in late spring, when we would expect him to be ready to challenge Djokovic and the others (if not dominate them).
In the women's game, the story will be whether Serena Williams can return to top ranking. It has been a long road back for her after her health problems (the cut on her foot, which led to a dangerous blood clot), but she has established herself, once again, as the top player when she is healthy, as she appears to be going into the new season. Victoria Azarenka and Maria Sharapova have well-established positions as the top two contenders in her absence. Serena's big sister, Venus, has to answer the question in 2013 whether she too can return to her previous top form; she has been hampered by an immune system syndrome.
Prediction: Djokovic over Murray in the men's final; Serena over Sharapova in the women's.
NHL Players: Locked Back In
I am far from a big hockey fan, and I actually was rooting against an agreement, which came just in time to save the regular season. The issue of the lockout is the usual one in the current era of professional sports: enough owners had made bad, wasteful contract commitments to outvote the ones who hadn't (and profited competitively from their better investments) and drive the players from the field (or rink, in this case). The players' union was willing to take pay cuts in the aggregate but not to allow its guaranteed contracts to be abrogated based on owner incompetency. The union's great pressure tactic is "decertification" of itself, which would allow the players to bring an antitrust suit against the league--which under those circumstances, would probably cause a historic defeat to the monopoly of the owners' "union". That court test will not happen, due to the belated agreement achieved this week. At the end of the day, the players chose living within the cartel rather than fending for themselves in the European professional leagues (or my preference, a new Canadian-centered league to challenge the "National" US-centered NHL).
NHL hockey's regular season is the weakest of the major sports--it's all about finishing in the top 8 of the conference and getting into the Stanley Cup Playoffs. This season will make that clearer than ever.
Obit Dept.
The two deceased from last month whom I would like to commemorate briefly are Ravi Shankar and Daniel Inouye. The former was much more than a fifth-, sixth-, or whatever Beatle, but he was the go-to sitarist when the performance of Indian classic music came out into the world in the late Sixties and beyond. He played with all and brought a dignified but exciting permanent addition into world music. The sitar solo had a clear influence on the guitar solo that deserves more study. He left that legacy, as well as one daughter famed for Indian classical music and one (Norah Jones) for jazzy popular composition.
Daniel Inouye was a unique character of American history. A second-generation Japanese-American who bought a ticket out of the WWII internment camps by fighting, and suffering serious injury, in Italy. He was a significant, but not dominating, figure as a junior Senator on the famous Ervin Watergate Investigation Committee of '73-'74, which led to the eventual collapse of the Nixon Administration. He continued on in the Senate for another thirty-something years, a respected, relatively non-partisan voice for liberal Democratic orthodoxy.
Built Up by Dubious Means
Two sports-related topics that I have avoided more than I might have done are the Lance Armstrong revelations in cycling, and the issue of the possible inclusion of baseball players who used performance-enhancing drugs into the Hall of Fame. Both of them have taken the form of major sporting heroes whose reputations have been degraded by allegations of cheating, allegations that have been generally (though not universally) denied by the heroes in public, but have been variously substantiated in secret investigations and leaked, though the press, to the public, and sometimes into the courts.
The collapse of Armstrong's wall of defense after years of both whispered and full-throated accusations came suddenly in the past two months. A special US cycling Anti-Doping commission investigated and found that Armstrong had not just abused the rules, but had required his teammates to do so. Some of those finally dared to voice those experiences, and Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and more. At last hearing, Armstrong, who had been a symbol of cancer recovery with his "Livestrong" campaign, is beginning an effort to rehabilitate his image, starting with a private TV "tell-all" interview. His fall has been so complete, and so definitive, that I doubt that he can be restored to any kind of commercial favor (and that's probably what matters), let alone be allowed to compete again.
The baseball/HOF controversy is complex and much broader, and it will not end anytime soon. There have been numerous court cases and Senate hearings, which have focused on alleged misdeeds of the players, and sometimes of their personal trainers or purveyors of PED's, but have obscured the silent cooperation in abuse of MLB's rulemakers and management during the period when it was was most pervasive, the late '90's and early '00s. These were the years when Babe Ruth's long-standing single-season homerun record was obliterated, first by Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, then by Barry Bonds, and Hank Aaron's career HR record was then topped by Bonds. All those records remain in the books, but investigations have tainted the reputations of the players: McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, and pitcher Roger Clemens being the most prominent, but not the only ones.
Early indications of how the writers would view this issue came a couple years ago, when McGwire and another slugger who actually failed a drug test late in his career, Rafael Palmeiro, fell way short of the required 75% vote level in their initial eligibility for the Hall. This year came candidates of dubious reputations but with stronger credentials--Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa. For Bonds and Clemens, in particular, there was an argument that they had already compiled baseball achievements worthy of enshrinement prior to the alleged use of PED's, a claim which could not be so easily made of Sosa, Palmeiro, or McGwire. This year there were also others, such as Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza, who never failed any drug tests or had testimony against them, but about whom there were suspicions. Finally, there were candidates, both new candidates and holdover ones, whose statistical qualifications were not quite so outstanding but had no PED accusations against them. It was a crowded ballot with no easy decisions.
The results were all over the place, as some came close to the 75%, a number fell well short, and some got embarrassingly low vote totals, but the net result was that no one was elected. There is plenty of precedent for no one being selected, but the issue is far from settled. There are unambiguous candidates who will be elected in the next two years--Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, and Pedro Martinez--which will reduce the controversy, but the names of Bonds & Co. will remain out there, and there will eventually need to be some reckoning. I would classify the "political" positions in three groups:
- no one with any suspicion should ever get in the Hall (and those already in, if there are any, should be cast out);
- "untainted" peformance by the accused should somehow be measured and discounted by the tainted performance; and
- there will be some recognition of the widespread nature of PED use, and those with damaged reputations would be admitted with some qualifications.
Mais ou sont les neiges d'antan?
Translated, that would be "Where are the snows of yesteryear?" A famous line from the 15th-century French poet Francois Villon, riffed upon by Joseph Heller in Catch-22 as "Where are the Snowdons of yesteryear?", Yossarian referring to his lost aviator comrade.
So, where are they? That's what we want to know here in the Chicago area; the talk here being (along--not coincidentally?--with the flu, fictionally represented for us in extreme and unforgettable form by Soderbergh's movie Contagion a couple of years ago) the record length of time since the last snowfall of an inch or more--we are now over 320 days and counting. The last snow of an inch or more was, of course, last winter, and the winter ended early. There's an element of luck involved--there was a measurable snow on Dec. 20, just not an inch's worth, and other areas around here have had something like a normal share--but between this winter and last, we don't need convincing that there is a trend toward milder winters.
It could be good for Chicago--mild winters would do a lot to make it one of the most habitable cities in the country--but I can only imagine what the climate would then become for places like Houston, Atlanta, and St. Louis. Well, there's always air conditioning for them, isn't there?
Monday, January 07, 2013
The BCS Championship Thing
I will be adding more notes, but wanted to get a couple of comments and my prediction on record before the BCS championship game.
Before:
The 2013 BCS game is the dream game the BCS planners must have had in mind when they started this travesty 20 years or so ago--there might have been one or two before that were clear-cut matchups of the undisputed #1 and #2 regular season teams (Notre Dame and Alabama, this year) in the past, but not many.
The game tonight brings back memories of the classic 1973 Sugar Bowl game between the same two teams, which Notre Dame won, 24-23, with the key play being a third-down pass conversion by the Irish from deep in Notre Dame's own territory late in the fourth quarter, preserving their lead. That kind of matchup was so hard to arrange, pre-BCS, that it no doubt was in their minds to assure such a game every year--except it hasn't usually worked out that way.
In terms of the game tonight, Alabama has its usual strong team and they overcame a challenging schedule--except for the one upset loss to Texas A&M. They will defend the honor and the championship winning streak of the SEC. Notre Dame had an overachieving team this year (they were supposed to be building for the future), did accomplish several wins against major teams, and pulled out several cliff-hanging wins. Their tenacity and red-zone defense are not in doubt, but over most of the other 90 yards of the field, Alabama, which has a suprisingly impressive passing offense and a big, quick defense, will have the advantage. Prediction: Alabama 16, Notre Dame 10.
From a betting point of view, that would mean a fairly strong bet for the underdog (N.D. is getting +9.5 points) and a very strong bet for under on the over/under (line is 40.5 points).
Midway Through the 3rd Period (35-0, Alabama):
Wow, was I ever wrong! The theme of the night is "Of Monsters and Men": What I didn't quite realize was that Notre Dame's lines, both offensive and defensive, could not match up with Alabama's. I am used to that disparity when the SEC plays a team from somewhere else, but I thought that Notre Dame, with their national recruiting, could match up better.
Alabama showed the nature of the game within three minutes, driving the length of the field without missing a beat. Two bad calls in the next series of downs--one denying Notre Dame a first down on a third-down pass, the next denying them a fumble recovery on the punt--prevented an early momentum switch. Then Alabama marched down the field again and, basically, it was over.
Notre Dame's offensive execution and play-calling was poor in most of the rest of the half, and clearly their vaunted defense was not up to the task.
So, the BCS Championship once again falls short of the mark. Unlike some, I can't second-guess the choice of the teams in the game, given the circumstances. The amazing thing was that Alabama would not have even been in the game if it had not been for that dramatic set of games on Nov. 17, when the teams at the top of the standings, Oregon and Kansas State, both lost.
I will say that if these teams were playing in the four-team format that will debut next year, there might have been a better championship game. Maybe. This season has proved, once again, that the SEC is a conference at a different level--something like five of the top 10 teams were from the SEC. This makes seven in a row for the SEC, and 9 out of the 15 years. The one time the SEC has lost in the BCS thing, it was to another SEC team. Yecch.
Before:
The 2013 BCS game is the dream game the BCS planners must have had in mind when they started this travesty 20 years or so ago--there might have been one or two before that were clear-cut matchups of the undisputed #1 and #2 regular season teams (Notre Dame and Alabama, this year) in the past, but not many.
The game tonight brings back memories of the classic 1973 Sugar Bowl game between the same two teams, which Notre Dame won, 24-23, with the key play being a third-down pass conversion by the Irish from deep in Notre Dame's own territory late in the fourth quarter, preserving their lead. That kind of matchup was so hard to arrange, pre-BCS, that it no doubt was in their minds to assure such a game every year--except it hasn't usually worked out that way.
In terms of the game tonight, Alabama has its usual strong team and they overcame a challenging schedule--except for the one upset loss to Texas A&M. They will defend the honor and the championship winning streak of the SEC. Notre Dame had an overachieving team this year (they were supposed to be building for the future), did accomplish several wins against major teams, and pulled out several cliff-hanging wins. Their tenacity and red-zone defense are not in doubt, but over most of the other 90 yards of the field, Alabama, which has a suprisingly impressive passing offense and a big, quick defense, will have the advantage. Prediction: Alabama 16, Notre Dame 10.
From a betting point of view, that would mean a fairly strong bet for the underdog (N.D. is getting +9.5 points) and a very strong bet for under on the over/under (line is 40.5 points).
Midway Through the 3rd Period (35-0, Alabama):
Wow, was I ever wrong! The theme of the night is "Of Monsters and Men": What I didn't quite realize was that Notre Dame's lines, both offensive and defensive, could not match up with Alabama's. I am used to that disparity when the SEC plays a team from somewhere else, but I thought that Notre Dame, with their national recruiting, could match up better.
Alabama showed the nature of the game within three minutes, driving the length of the field without missing a beat. Two bad calls in the next series of downs--one denying Notre Dame a first down on a third-down pass, the next denying them a fumble recovery on the punt--prevented an early momentum switch. Then Alabama marched down the field again and, basically, it was over.
Notre Dame's offensive execution and play-calling was poor in most of the rest of the half, and clearly their vaunted defense was not up to the task.
So, the BCS Championship once again falls short of the mark. Unlike some, I can't second-guess the choice of the teams in the game, given the circumstances. The amazing thing was that Alabama would not have even been in the game if it had not been for that dramatic set of games on Nov. 17, when the teams at the top of the standings, Oregon and Kansas State, both lost.
I will say that if these teams were playing in the four-team format that will debut next year, there might have been a better championship game. Maybe. This season has proved, once again, that the SEC is a conference at a different level--something like five of the top 10 teams were from the SEC. This makes seven in a row for the SEC, and 9 out of the 15 years. The one time the SEC has lost in the BCS thing, it was to another SEC team. Yecch.
Saturday, January 05, 2013
Slow Train Running, No Tracks?
Round 1A
In loyalty to their kind,
They cannot tolerate our mind.
In loyalty to our kind,
We cannot tolerate their obstruction!
"Crown of Creation" - Jefferson Airplane (Kantner)
Sen. Harry Reid has decided to delay the convening of the new Senate's session by a couple of weeks. I believe this is the equivalent of a "cooling-off" period, to allow the Senate to figure out how it will deal with the first issue it must solve. It is incumbent on the Senate to decide, at the very outset of the session, under what rules it will operate, so this is the opportune moment to address the possibility of some reform of the filibuster. The stage is set for an immediate partisan confrontation, but the stage lights are not yet turned on.
The current rules require a two-thirds majority to change the rules, but older rules also indicate that the rules may be set, by a simple majority, at the beginning of a Congress. Which of those requirements would prevail is but one of many uncertainties about how this very significant issue will play out.
Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who recently served as the key Congressional negotiator in the compromise producing the tax deal (see below), has laid down a line in the sand: if there are to be any hopes of future cooperation between the parties in the Senate, the 55 Democrats must not seek to set new filibuster-limiting rules by a straight party-line vote (i.e., the simple majority, rather than the two-thirds vote). The simple majority approach to changing the rules has revived discussion of a "nuclear option".
There are two sets of filibuster-reform proposals circulating, one with partisan sponsorship that is more far-reaching, and a watered-down bipartisan version designed to achieve the two-thirds majority. Neither would elminate the ability to filibuster a given bill or nomination indefinitely, but the first, through the common-sense requirement that the debate continue by actually continuing the debate, would make it impractical to do so repeatedly for all undesired legislation, as currently occurs. The second one would apparently preserve the ability to use procedural votes to block bills and nominations from proceeding to the floor.
I would prefer a negotiated solution to declaration of open war so early in the Congress, when so much still needs to be done. There is probably a compromise that can be arranged, and this delay, although not publicly acknowledged, seems designed to seek to find it. The minimum standards are agreement that individual Senators can no longer block consideration of a nominee (as is currently done), and that a single cloture petition/vote with 60 Senators can move a bill to a vote with a limited additional debate. This would preserve the "unlimited debate" concept which even some Democratic Senators would recognize, but would reduce or end abuse of Senatorial privileges and maneuvering to prevent the exercise of the will of a super-majority of 60 Senators.
The Tax Deal
In accordance with my usual practice of auditing the accuracy of the forecasts and predictions I make here, we will start by assessing the deal's key components and whether I had them right. Then, we will proceed to puncture some of the prevailing talking-head myths that have emerged since the deal was done.
The biggest surprise, the one I missed entirely, was that the deal would not include any substantial spending cuts (just enough to cover the sequestration cuts postponed for two months, so that there is no active decision that increases deficits in the deal). I did suggest, in my first effort to "talk them down from the cliff", that the decision to extend the tax cuts would be the easiest upon which to find agreement.
As the dread date drew nearer, I got more specific in my second post on the tax cut provisions I expected. (I will withhold comment on the spending cut aspects until those are actually addressed.) Here is the relevant quote, with my hindsight comments italicized:
Now, for some myths:
1) That this was not a substantial agreement--Apart from fixing the AMT and the annual Medicare adjustment, the bill set down permanent tax rates at sustainable levels. Tax code reform debates remain (they could not quickly be settled), but an issue that has been kicked around for 10 years was settled with some finality.
2) That this was a surrender by a) President Obama or b) the Republicans. The argument in each case is that Obama, or the Republicans, gave some ground on things they said publicly that they would not (Obama on the $250K increase; the Republicans that they would only agree to revenue increases if there were significant spending cuts.) Both needed to give ground to have any possible agreement on this, the most overtly partisan division in the general discussion.
3) That all the negotiating leverage now goes to a) the Republicans, or b) President Obama. The argument for a) is that, now that the threat of tax increases for the middle class is removed, the Republicans can more easily stonewall and get what they want. For b), it runs along the line that the Democrats proved that they can split the House Republicans and roll the Senate Republicans, that Speaker Boehner is weak, and that therefore the Democrats have the advantage. The Republicans have both a strategic advantage in the upcoming negotiations in their advocacy of spending cuts, which are popular with the public, and a tactical advantage in their potential ability to use the debt ceiling as a hostage forcing concessions. The Democrats have the countervailing advantage that the specific cuts the Republicans would want are generally all unpopular, and potential gamebreaker strategies that would allow them to defy the statutory debt limit through a constitutional challenge (14th amendment) or a Treasury gimmick (coining the trillion dollar coins and putting them in a vault). As for Boehner, the House of Orange continued its infamous reign, and after the various embarrassments, the Republicans have recognized that they must pull together or lose what leverage they have.
A Look Ahead
The final myth I would like to demolish is the argument that things can only get more partisan and confrontational from here. As I noted in myth 2) above, though it was easy for both sides ultimately to accept tax cuts in the guise of tax increases (or the other way around), drawing the line between the winners (with the exception of the payroll tax, the lower income taxpayers) and the losers (those over $1 million income or substantial unearned income, really) was the politically difficult compromise.
Unlike the question of tax rates for the wealthy, the decisions that remain to be made are complex, and will be difficult to conclude, but none of them divide neatly along partisan lines, really. The debt ceiling, everyone would agree, must be raised in the end. A long-term path toward reduced deficits must be achieved, and there isn't really a partisan split on pacing (momentum must increase over the 10-year planning period everyone agree upon) or the total targeted amount of deficit reduction (something like $4 trillion). There probably isn't that much disagreement along partisan lines on which tax loopholes and deductions should be closed off, though there will be specific "revenue enhancements" that specific Congresspeople will seek to preserve for favored clients: it will be important for the final outcome whether those pet perks will be preserved for any, all, or just the most powerful (my betting would be the latter).
Apart from the big ones--defense and entitlements--there will be partisan disagreements on which governmental programs should be cut, and by how much. It was in this area that the sequestration across-the-board cuts would be tempting. Simpson-Bowles identified some on a fairly non-partisan basis, and there may be general recourse to these as a means to avoid getting bogged down. Another, likely, outcome is an agreement on the quantity and timing of these cuts, and some sort of agreement on how to resolve them (in committees, perhaps?)--kickin the can, again, but over a defined field of play.
Defense will be an interesting area; the Democrats will be somewhat at war with themselves (Obama Administration militarists vs. peaceniks) and the Republicans will be of two minds (knowing that defnese cuts must be made, but, like the Democrats on social programs, uncomfortable with any specific cut). The key question--more or less cuts?--will be divisive within both parties, and I would bet on less cuts somehow winning out.
The question of investments--in infrastructure, education, energy--will be a divisive one. Republicans' talk is all about reducing spending, and they won't want to consider these, but the jobs issue and competitiveness issues remain of prime importance, and Democrats will insist that some investments, mostly in the short term, go into the mix of any broad spending program. Because this is going against the trend so strongly, I would expect that the final agreement will include no more than $100 billion of these new investments, and there will be some strings attached to them.
Finally, the question of entitlements, once again, and again I refer you to "Talking Them Down Off the Cliff--Part 2", in which I suggest the logical outcome for each of the three principal areas--Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security (a fourth would be veterans' benefits, but I would suggest they will be inviolate throughout the debate, as they probably hsould be). Here, I would say, the pressure will be most squarely on the Democrats, who will have a difficult time sustaining a position that no cuts need be made. I'm not certain they will do so, nor that it is fully in their political interest to do so: certainly it is a position that is, in the long run, indefensible.
I give some credit to David Lauter, writing in the L.A. Times (and the Chicago Tribune, where I saw it), for identifying the key divide (on Medicare and Social Security) as being the young vs. the old, and for pointing out the contradictions within the parties. The Democrats rely increasingly on the support of the young, while the position against cuts associated with their party is viewed as favoritism to the old (really, the Baby Boomers, as the seniors will not be touched, both parties seem to agree). The Republicans, the opposite. It will be in both parties' interest to contort their positions so that those perceptions are modified, and to me, that means a compromise. And, as I've said before, that means increasing the retirement age slightly on Social Security (and not on Medicare; rather the opposite), and backing away from Obama's alleged willingness to reduce the cost of living multiplier on it. On Medicare, the solution needs to be both increase in payments (means-tested) and, listening to the consensus of medical professionals, shifting from fees based on quantity of service toward fees based on the value of those services to individual patients.
In loyalty to their kind,
They cannot tolerate our mind.
In loyalty to our kind,
We cannot tolerate their obstruction!
"Crown of Creation" - Jefferson Airplane (Kantner)
Sen. Harry Reid has decided to delay the convening of the new Senate's session by a couple of weeks. I believe this is the equivalent of a "cooling-off" period, to allow the Senate to figure out how it will deal with the first issue it must solve. It is incumbent on the Senate to decide, at the very outset of the session, under what rules it will operate, so this is the opportune moment to address the possibility of some reform of the filibuster. The stage is set for an immediate partisan confrontation, but the stage lights are not yet turned on.
The current rules require a two-thirds majority to change the rules, but older rules also indicate that the rules may be set, by a simple majority, at the beginning of a Congress. Which of those requirements would prevail is but one of many uncertainties about how this very significant issue will play out.
Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who recently served as the key Congressional negotiator in the compromise producing the tax deal (see below), has laid down a line in the sand: if there are to be any hopes of future cooperation between the parties in the Senate, the 55 Democrats must not seek to set new filibuster-limiting rules by a straight party-line vote (i.e., the simple majority, rather than the two-thirds vote). The simple majority approach to changing the rules has revived discussion of a "nuclear option".
There are two sets of filibuster-reform proposals circulating, one with partisan sponsorship that is more far-reaching, and a watered-down bipartisan version designed to achieve the two-thirds majority. Neither would elminate the ability to filibuster a given bill or nomination indefinitely, but the first, through the common-sense requirement that the debate continue by actually continuing the debate, would make it impractical to do so repeatedly for all undesired legislation, as currently occurs. The second one would apparently preserve the ability to use procedural votes to block bills and nominations from proceeding to the floor.
I would prefer a negotiated solution to declaration of open war so early in the Congress, when so much still needs to be done. There is probably a compromise that can be arranged, and this delay, although not publicly acknowledged, seems designed to seek to find it. The minimum standards are agreement that individual Senators can no longer block consideration of a nominee (as is currently done), and that a single cloture petition/vote with 60 Senators can move a bill to a vote with a limited additional debate. This would preserve the "unlimited debate" concept which even some Democratic Senators would recognize, but would reduce or end abuse of Senatorial privileges and maneuvering to prevent the exercise of the will of a super-majority of 60 Senators.
The Tax Deal
In accordance with my usual practice of auditing the accuracy of the forecasts and predictions I make here, we will start by assessing the deal's key components and whether I had them right. Then, we will proceed to puncture some of the prevailing talking-head myths that have emerged since the deal was done.
The biggest surprise, the one I missed entirely, was that the deal would not include any substantial spending cuts (just enough to cover the sequestration cuts postponed for two months, so that there is no active decision that increases deficits in the deal). I did suggest, in my first effort to "talk them down from the cliff", that the decision to extend the tax cuts would be the easiest upon which to find agreement.
As the dread date drew nearer, I got more specific in my second post on the tax cut provisions I expected. (I will withhold comment on the spending cut aspects until those are actually addressed.) Here is the relevant quote, with my hindsight comments italicized:
I'm looking for two gradations in the higher income rates, one for those with income over $1 million and one for $250K - $1 million; (wrong! there's only one, though the $400K cut was a compromise along the lines I anticipated) I'm looking for the proposed deduction cuts to be smoothed out to reduce the impact on moderate taxpayers, for a substantial shift in the income level when the infamous Alternative Minimum Tax begins to apply, and for tax rates on capital gains and dividends to be increased but to have a top rate lower than the marginal rate for the highest income ranges. (all correct) The surprising thing is that both sides seem ready to throw the payroll tax reduction "holiday" of the past couple of years under the bus; this is surprising because the economy's recovery is still relatively weak, but the payroll tax cut is one that, by general agreement, can not be extended indefinitely (the money is needed to support the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare, which are shrinking); I thought it would be phased out over the next two years, but both sides seem to need to tote that money up for the promised savings they want to tout. (Yes, that really happened, probably the most disappointing aspect of the deal for me, but something that I would blame on the Democrats in Congress rather than the Administration. )Two other auditing points from the latter post: I did anticipate that the tax agreement would get passed just after year-end, so that it would be a "tax reduction" for most people. I predicted $1 trillion in total revenue increases, but there were only $600 billion in the agreement. President Obama is well aware of the fact that revenue reform is only half-completed, and has made a point of saying that he is expecting further revenue increases in the future to go with anticipated spending cuts--I will stick to my estimate, with $400 billion more coming through closing of loopholes and reduction of the range of deductions.
Now, for some myths:
1) That this was not a substantial agreement--Apart from fixing the AMT and the annual Medicare adjustment, the bill set down permanent tax rates at sustainable levels. Tax code reform debates remain (they could not quickly be settled), but an issue that has been kicked around for 10 years was settled with some finality.
2) That this was a surrender by a) President Obama or b) the Republicans. The argument in each case is that Obama, or the Republicans, gave some ground on things they said publicly that they would not (Obama on the $250K increase; the Republicans that they would only agree to revenue increases if there were significant spending cuts.) Both needed to give ground to have any possible agreement on this, the most overtly partisan division in the general discussion.
3) That all the negotiating leverage now goes to a) the Republicans, or b) President Obama. The argument for a) is that, now that the threat of tax increases for the middle class is removed, the Republicans can more easily stonewall and get what they want. For b), it runs along the line that the Democrats proved that they can split the House Republicans and roll the Senate Republicans, that Speaker Boehner is weak, and that therefore the Democrats have the advantage. The Republicans have both a strategic advantage in the upcoming negotiations in their advocacy of spending cuts, which are popular with the public, and a tactical advantage in their potential ability to use the debt ceiling as a hostage forcing concessions. The Democrats have the countervailing advantage that the specific cuts the Republicans would want are generally all unpopular, and potential gamebreaker strategies that would allow them to defy the statutory debt limit through a constitutional challenge (14th amendment) or a Treasury gimmick (coining the trillion dollar coins and putting them in a vault). As for Boehner, the House of Orange continued its infamous reign, and after the various embarrassments, the Republicans have recognized that they must pull together or lose what leverage they have.
A Look Ahead
The final myth I would like to demolish is the argument that things can only get more partisan and confrontational from here. As I noted in myth 2) above, though it was easy for both sides ultimately to accept tax cuts in the guise of tax increases (or the other way around), drawing the line between the winners (with the exception of the payroll tax, the lower income taxpayers) and the losers (those over $1 million income or substantial unearned income, really) was the politically difficult compromise.
Unlike the question of tax rates for the wealthy, the decisions that remain to be made are complex, and will be difficult to conclude, but none of them divide neatly along partisan lines, really. The debt ceiling, everyone would agree, must be raised in the end. A long-term path toward reduced deficits must be achieved, and there isn't really a partisan split on pacing (momentum must increase over the 10-year planning period everyone agree upon) or the total targeted amount of deficit reduction (something like $4 trillion). There probably isn't that much disagreement along partisan lines on which tax loopholes and deductions should be closed off, though there will be specific "revenue enhancements" that specific Congresspeople will seek to preserve for favored clients: it will be important for the final outcome whether those pet perks will be preserved for any, all, or just the most powerful (my betting would be the latter).
Apart from the big ones--defense and entitlements--there will be partisan disagreements on which governmental programs should be cut, and by how much. It was in this area that the sequestration across-the-board cuts would be tempting. Simpson-Bowles identified some on a fairly non-partisan basis, and there may be general recourse to these as a means to avoid getting bogged down. Another, likely, outcome is an agreement on the quantity and timing of these cuts, and some sort of agreement on how to resolve them (in committees, perhaps?)--kickin the can, again, but over a defined field of play.
Defense will be an interesting area; the Democrats will be somewhat at war with themselves (Obama Administration militarists vs. peaceniks) and the Republicans will be of two minds (knowing that defnese cuts must be made, but, like the Democrats on social programs, uncomfortable with any specific cut). The key question--more or less cuts?--will be divisive within both parties, and I would bet on less cuts somehow winning out.
The question of investments--in infrastructure, education, energy--will be a divisive one. Republicans' talk is all about reducing spending, and they won't want to consider these, but the jobs issue and competitiveness issues remain of prime importance, and Democrats will insist that some investments, mostly in the short term, go into the mix of any broad spending program. Because this is going against the trend so strongly, I would expect that the final agreement will include no more than $100 billion of these new investments, and there will be some strings attached to them.
Finally, the question of entitlements, once again, and again I refer you to "Talking Them Down Off the Cliff--Part 2", in which I suggest the logical outcome for each of the three principal areas--Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security (a fourth would be veterans' benefits, but I would suggest they will be inviolate throughout the debate, as they probably hsould be). Here, I would say, the pressure will be most squarely on the Democrats, who will have a difficult time sustaining a position that no cuts need be made. I'm not certain they will do so, nor that it is fully in their political interest to do so: certainly it is a position that is, in the long run, indefensible.
I give some credit to David Lauter, writing in the L.A. Times (and the Chicago Tribune, where I saw it), for identifying the key divide (on Medicare and Social Security) as being the young vs. the old, and for pointing out the contradictions within the parties. The Democrats rely increasingly on the support of the young, while the position against cuts associated with their party is viewed as favoritism to the old (really, the Baby Boomers, as the seniors will not be touched, both parties seem to agree). The Republicans, the opposite. It will be in both parties' interest to contort their positions so that those perceptions are modified, and to me, that means a compromise. And, as I've said before, that means increasing the retirement age slightly on Social Security (and not on Medicare; rather the opposite), and backing away from Obama's alleged willingness to reduce the cost of living multiplier on it. On Medicare, the solution needs to be both increase in payments (means-tested) and, listening to the consensus of medical professionals, shifting from fees based on quantity of service toward fees based on the value of those services to individual patients.
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
My Movie Picks for 2012
First, the limitations:
Movies I haven't seen but might like to see (even if they have no chance to crack my top 10)--italicized numbers are to indicate the ranking in the top 25 by 2012 box office, according to imdb.com:
5 Skyfall; 10 Lorax; 11 Men in Black 3; 14 Snow White & the Huntsman; 21 Magic Mike (O.K., I'm not really interested); Anna Karenina; Life of Pi; Looper (now in DVD); Hyde Park on the Hudson; Perks of Being a Wallflower; and Not Fade Away.
Major movies not eligible for consideration, as they have not been released generally in 2012 ("Exclusive Engagements" to allow Oscar consideration definitely do not qualify in my book):
Zero Dark Thirty, The Impossible, Promised Land.
Honorable Mention:
These are movies that I consider to be flawed in major ways, but I respect them as decent efforts, worthy of viewing:
The Master, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, The Dark Knight Rises Again, Hope Springs, and The Ides of March.
And Now...
#10 - Brave (#7 box office) - Gets my vote for best animated feature. Fun, and with some socially redeeming value, as well.
#9 - Silver Linings Playbook - In a weaker year, I would seriously consider it as a Best Picture candidate (say, if it had been released in 2011, it would be comparable in quality to "The Descendants", a movie with which it has some similarity. Descendants was my choice in the final run-up to Oscar last year.)
#8 - Moonrise Kingdom - See comments for "Silver Linings Playbook" above. It has the additional handicap of being released in the middle of the year, from an Oscars perspective. Kind of a silly movie, fundamentally (is it advocating teenagers make life-changing romantic engagement?); very strong ensemble acting.
#7 - Avengers (#1) - Had all the elements for success--big stars, big effects, a complex story, and most crucially, built up some of the relatively minor characters (e.g., Captain America, Iron Man) with successful movies featuring them. Scarlett Johanson, The Hulk, didn't need much build-up. A good, wild ride.
#6 - Hunger Games - (#3) - Speaking as a non-reader of the trilogy, I thought it stood up well on its own as entertainment. I also observed that it satisfied the reading devotees, so in that regard it outdid the likes of The Hobbit and Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (the latter of which, I'm pleased to say, I did not see).
#5 - 21 Jump Street (#16) - Again, I was no fan of the TV show, maybe saw it once or twice. I thought the movie was pretty hilarious, and to me, it was surprising it didn't do better box office.
#4 - Les Miserables - The dark horse for Oscar awards, in my humble opinion: unlike Zero Dark 30, which I expect to get many nominations and few awards, I think this one will come up the aisle with 3-4 statuettes (cleverly, they added an original song; could easily win sound editing (if not a technological achievement award, as well), best supporting actress, makeup, costumes, set design, and will be in the running for best actor, direction--though Tom Hooper did win in 2011). The best movie musical I've seen in several years.
#3 - Argo (#24) - In a lesser year, would be a top contender for Oscars; it may still win one or two (Alan Arkin would be the best bet but has won Best Supporting Actor before). Credit to Ben Affleck for recognizing and executing upon a naturally great story.
#2 - Cloud Atlas - It's being overlooked for everything except its visual effects. It has the defects of not being topical or having classical focus. Its making is a milestone achievement, in my view; I'm hoping its lack of success won't prevent the making of other David Mitchell novels--my suggestion for the next would be The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet.
#1 - Lincoln (#23) - Entertainment value is only "Good", but educational value is superior, technical achievement superior, redeeming social value off the charts. The only movie I can compare it to is "Gandhi", and I would say it had a better script, equal star performance, similar quality of indelible images.
My Oscar Picks (Limited, as Above)
These are what I would advocate today; I reserve the right to change my view, and certainly about what I think will win.
Best Picture - Lincoln
Best Actor - Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln)
Best Actress - Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook)
Best Supporting Actor - Robert DeNiro (S.L.P.)
Best Supporting Actress - Ann Hathaway (Les Miz)
Best Director - Ben Affleck (Argo)-- that may be a long shot. This is the toughest call , with an extremely strong field, but of the major contenders, Spielberg, Ang Lee, Hooper, and Kathryn Bigelow have all won it, so that leaves the two Andersons, David O. Russell, and Affleck.
Best Original Screenplay - Paul Thomas Anderson (The Master) - though I think Mark Boal may end up as the favorite for 0D30.
Best Adapted Screenplay - Tony Kushner (Lincoln). It had better be!
Best Foreign Language - Amour or The Intouchables, whichever gets the nomination from France.
Best Song - Suddenly (Les Miz) --I'd bet on Adele for Skyfall, though.
Best Score - John Williams (Lincoln) - Always a good bet.
Costumes - Lincoln
Makeup - Les Miz
Cinematography - Lincoln (Zero Dark 30?)
Best Editing - Lincoln (Life of Pi?)
Best Art Direction - Lincoln
Sound Editing - Les Miz
Visual Effects - Avengers (I think that's more realistic than Cloud Atlas, which everyone has already forgotten. Alas!)
Movies I haven't seen but might like to see (even if they have no chance to crack my top 10)--italicized numbers are to indicate the ranking in the top 25 by 2012 box office, according to imdb.com:
5 Skyfall; 10 Lorax; 11 Men in Black 3; 14 Snow White & the Huntsman; 21 Magic Mike (O.K., I'm not really interested); Anna Karenina; Life of Pi; Looper (now in DVD); Hyde Park on the Hudson; Perks of Being a Wallflower; and Not Fade Away.
Major movies not eligible for consideration, as they have not been released generally in 2012 ("Exclusive Engagements" to allow Oscar consideration definitely do not qualify in my book):
Zero Dark Thirty, The Impossible, Promised Land.
Honorable Mention:
These are movies that I consider to be flawed in major ways, but I respect them as decent efforts, worthy of viewing:
The Master, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, The Dark Knight Rises Again, Hope Springs, and The Ides of March.
And Now...
#10 - Brave (#7 box office) - Gets my vote for best animated feature. Fun, and with some socially redeeming value, as well.
#9 - Silver Linings Playbook - In a weaker year, I would seriously consider it as a Best Picture candidate (say, if it had been released in 2011, it would be comparable in quality to "The Descendants", a movie with which it has some similarity. Descendants was my choice in the final run-up to Oscar last year.)
#8 - Moonrise Kingdom - See comments for "Silver Linings Playbook" above. It has the additional handicap of being released in the middle of the year, from an Oscars perspective. Kind of a silly movie, fundamentally (is it advocating teenagers make life-changing romantic engagement?); very strong ensemble acting.
#7 - Avengers (#1) - Had all the elements for success--big stars, big effects, a complex story, and most crucially, built up some of the relatively minor characters (e.g., Captain America, Iron Man) with successful movies featuring them. Scarlett Johanson, The Hulk, didn't need much build-up. A good, wild ride.
#6 - Hunger Games - (#3) - Speaking as a non-reader of the trilogy, I thought it stood up well on its own as entertainment. I also observed that it satisfied the reading devotees, so in that regard it outdid the likes of The Hobbit and Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (the latter of which, I'm pleased to say, I did not see).
#5 - 21 Jump Street (#16) - Again, I was no fan of the TV show, maybe saw it once or twice. I thought the movie was pretty hilarious, and to me, it was surprising it didn't do better box office.
#4 - Les Miserables - The dark horse for Oscar awards, in my humble opinion: unlike Zero Dark 30, which I expect to get many nominations and few awards, I think this one will come up the aisle with 3-4 statuettes (cleverly, they added an original song; could easily win sound editing (if not a technological achievement award, as well), best supporting actress, makeup, costumes, set design, and will be in the running for best actor, direction--though Tom Hooper did win in 2011). The best movie musical I've seen in several years.
#3 - Argo (#24) - In a lesser year, would be a top contender for Oscars; it may still win one or two (Alan Arkin would be the best bet but has won Best Supporting Actor before). Credit to Ben Affleck for recognizing and executing upon a naturally great story.
#2 - Cloud Atlas - It's being overlooked for everything except its visual effects. It has the defects of not being topical or having classical focus. Its making is a milestone achievement, in my view; I'm hoping its lack of success won't prevent the making of other David Mitchell novels--my suggestion for the next would be The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet.
#1 - Lincoln (#23) - Entertainment value is only "Good", but educational value is superior, technical achievement superior, redeeming social value off the charts. The only movie I can compare it to is "Gandhi", and I would say it had a better script, equal star performance, similar quality of indelible images.
My Oscar Picks (Limited, as Above)
These are what I would advocate today; I reserve the right to change my view, and certainly about what I think will win.
Best Picture - Lincoln
Best Actor - Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln)
Best Actress - Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook)
Best Supporting Actor - Robert DeNiro (S.L.P.)
Best Supporting Actress - Ann Hathaway (Les Miz)
Best Director - Ben Affleck (Argo)-- that may be a long shot. This is the toughest call , with an extremely strong field, but of the major contenders, Spielberg, Ang Lee, Hooper, and Kathryn Bigelow have all won it, so that leaves the two Andersons, David O. Russell, and Affleck.
Best Original Screenplay - Paul Thomas Anderson (The Master) - though I think Mark Boal may end up as the favorite for 0D30.
Best Adapted Screenplay - Tony Kushner (Lincoln). It had better be!
Best Foreign Language - Amour or The Intouchables, whichever gets the nomination from France.
Best Song - Suddenly (Les Miz) --I'd bet on Adele for Skyfall, though.
Best Score - John Williams (Lincoln) - Always a good bet.
Costumes - Lincoln
Makeup - Les Miz
Cinematography - Lincoln (Zero Dark 30?)
Best Editing - Lincoln (Life of Pi?)
Best Art Direction - Lincoln
Sound Editing - Les Miz
Visual Effects - Avengers (I think that's more realistic than Cloud Atlas, which everyone has already forgotten. Alas!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
