Air Conditioning in the desert

Yeah, I know I haven't been around much. Since I moved locations, the government internet blockage has gotten more strict, so that my blog (as well as many others) is now blocked from my government computer. Funny that I can get to this page to draft a post, but I can't actually go look at the finished product.

Anyway, I saw this article about how much it costs to provide A/C for the troops over there and it brought me back to some thoughts I had during my deployments. My first deployment was to al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar. The walk to my workplace went past a row of generators and I remember smelling gasoline or diesel fuel and wondering about the cost. At the same time, I remember being there about 4 months and I'm quite sure I could count on one hand the number of days when it was overcast or cloudy. Almost always, it was a clear blue sky. Considering the abundance of sun, I asked myself at the time, why aren't we investing in a little solar energy for the base? Of course, I had no idea how much it cost. The article focuses on the cost of getting fuel to Afghanistan, so maybe it's not so bad getting it to Qatar or Iraq. Is it the projected permanence (or lack thereof) that argues against such a course. I can see not doing it in Afghanistan, if it's not sunny enough or we don't expect to be there long term (although with a 10+ year war, maybe we need to redefine "long term"). Maybe even Iraq is a problem, although it's plenty sunny there too I can tell you. But in Qatar, it seems like we're there for the long haul. I noticed huge, costly improvements and additions on that base on my visit there in 2010, especially as compared to my time there in 2007. I say install some solar on the base and cut the oil consumption by 1/3 or more.

Debt Ceiling

I hear that John Boehner has decided that the GOP position on agreeing to raise the debt limit is that first there must be spending cuts of up to $2 trillion. Kevin Drum has a take on that. But when I heard the story this morning on NPR during my drive into work, something slightly different came to mind.

So here's how it came across in the story this morning. Boehner acknowledges that raising the debt limit is an absolute must. It'd be catastrophic if the U.S. defaulted on its debt. So coming from that "it's vital we do something" position, he says he's willing to put everything on the table in the negotiations, as long as everything means all the things that the GOP wants and none of the things that the GOP doesn't want. Because see, Mr. Boehner also made clear that tax increases would be off the table. And that's completely understandable after all. This is another one of those existential problems. Big problems. Huge. We must do something about this (are you listening Wall Street, because I'm not really going to blow up the government just to appease the Tea Party). And U.S. debt comes as a result of spending exceeding revenue (unless I've missed something along the way). So there are actually two ways to lessen or eliminate the debt. Decrease spending or increase revenue. As a general rule, GOPers favor only spending cuts and no tax increases. The Dems, on the other hand, are looking at a combination of both. So how serious are the GOP about this extremely dire situation? So serious that they're willing to consider all of the options that just happen to be in their platform and none of the options that aren't in their platform. This is serious and don't forget courageous stuff.

Reminds me of days gone by. Where the Republicans found another existential threat in the world. They started a war against that threat. Ran up spending like you wouldn't believe (except you would of course 'cause they actually did do this). You know this existential threat called for some shared sacrifice from everybody in the country. Well, except for those with lots of money, because these poor put upon people couldn't be called upon to pay a penny more for this increase in government spending. No, actually they needed to pay a lot, lot less. So the Republicans managed to cut taxes (and, yes, revenues) at the same time as they were ramping up their war spending.

I'm beginning to think that the GOP doesn't really understand what an "existential threat" is.

2012 Presidential Election musings

I'm on the record as believing that President Obama will be reelected in 2012. That's not a tough call, as I'm a partisan Democrat and he's an incumbent. Still, if the economy doesn't improve greatly, it might be a close contest. Another factor in whether it'll be close is his Republican opponent. They all have flaws, but some are in really bad shape. I don't think the other party will be silly enough to nominate Trump or Palin or Paul (either of them). If any of those names end up on the ballot, though, Obama wins in a cakewalk. One of the guys I wouldn't want to see on the Republican ticket because he's from the saner side of the party is Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana. I think he's a little too sane and not well-known enough to get the presidential nomination, but he'd probably be a good (for them) VP candidate. Huntsman's another one I'd put in the "I'll slightly worried about him as a VP candidate" category.

As this article says, Daniels fits the "if we have to have a Republican, this one seems like he'd be better than the others" mold as far as the opinions of Democrats go. Of course, he may not even be able to be the VP candidate on that side since he doesn't stand for continuing the wars on social issues. And he might actually consider not just demolishing Medicare in the name of lower taxes for the rich. (BTW, the line I liked most from this article is the last one - "when it comes to red meat, he seems to be a vegetarian.")

Still, though I can't speak for my fellow liberals, there's no chance I'd opt for Daniels over Obama (or any Dem for that matter). After all, as Matthew Yglesias points out, he did back defunding of Planned Parenthood and voucherizing Indiana's public schools.

A Moment of Unity

In the wake of OBL's death, I don't mind if Obama and the Dems try to take some partisan advantage. In fact, I hope they do. I'm very much of a mind that the Republicans did it 10 years ago, so why shouldn't we. That's very much in the mold of the hardball politics I'd like to see outta my Party. But I'm willing to bet that Obama and the Dems won't use this occasion to cherry-pick some intelligence so that they can send the government into take over a country that has zero to do with OBL or muslim extremism. Just sayin'.

OBL is dead

Great news. Now I'll be waiting for NRO to start posting articles about how it's really Bush's policies that got us here. And really, if it weren't for Obama's policies, we'd have probably gotten him 2 years ago.
UPDATE: OK, maybe not the NRO, but leave it to Mrs. Palin to come through for my prediction.

Income Inequality

Pretty good article from the Economist's DIA blog. I suspect many of the articles I cite with approval from this blog are from this author. Here's the part I like:

I think the rich are getting much, much richer, while regular people (in the developed world, which is what we're talking about here) are at best treading water. I think that wealth brings power, and the fact that the rich are getting much, much richer relative to everyone else means that the rich also exert increasing influence over the economy, government and society. I think income mobility and equality of opportunity have declined in America over the past 40 years, to the point where America is now more segregated by class divisions than many European countries. I think a major reason for these shifts has been the increasing dominance, since the Reagan era, of an ideology that is indifferent to or actively celebrates inequality of income. I think this ideology is bad: bad for the economy, bad for society, bad for art and culture, bad for the moral character of those who subscribe to it.

The Force

Look out South Carolina Republicans - it may be only $50k, but it's the little things that eventually allowed the Emperor to turn Annakin to the Dark Side.

Quote of the Day

From Kevin Drum:

In any kind of serious proposal, you'd expect the author to at least make a few nods in the direction of bipartisanship. They might be fake, but at least they'd be there. But not Ryan. His proposal is a 100% tea party wet dream: Do away with one of the Democratic Party's signature achievements of the 20th century. Slash spending on social programs for the poor. Use the reduced spending to make room for tax cuts on corporations and the rich. Put a hard cap on federal outlays that's almost absurdly low. Give the Pentagon everything it wants. And stitch it all together with supply-side voodoo economics and budget projections so laughable they're almost designed to be insulting.

Paul Ryan's Budget

Always nice to find someone who wants to point out the inconsistencies (or lies) included in Ryan's budget. Here's the Economist's DIA blog using the L word, in a piece titled, Ryan the fibberoo. The article concerns Ryan's statement on page 35 of his budget which discusses various criticisms of Barack Obama’s energy policy.

He has over-regulated, held up permits for drilling and thrown subsidies at renewable energy. I could quibble with the over-regulation part (surely offshore drilling was under-regulated before the Gulf spill, in practice if not in theory), but otherwise, there’s little to disagree with there. It was the next line that threw me: “The results are plain to see: gas prices have more than doubled since the president took office.”

The author of the piece calls Mr. Ryan out on his obvious mendacity. He points out,

The idea that holding up permits or adding to oil firms’ costs through other forms of regulation somehow led to the doubling of gas prices is just ridiculous. Those two things may have had a minuscule effect on the margins, but the main factors behind the oil price’s rise, as Mr Ryan well knows, are the improved performance of the world economy, which has led to increased demand, and growing instability in the Middle East, which has prompted fears about supply.

So, as he says,

In other words, Mr Ryan is lying. The recent rise in gas prices is not, in any meaningful sense, the result of the president’s energy policies. The Republicans are no more capable of lowering the oil price by fiat than the president is. That is one truth it would not have done Mr Ryan any harm to admit.

Quote of the Day

From Kevin Drum:

So explain to me: what's courageous about a Republican congressman proposing spending cuts for the poor, entitlement cuts only in the far future, tax cuts for the rich today, and hands off the Pentagon forever? Nothing I can think of.

Dishonest

From Paul Krugman:

Except briefly during the Korean War, the United States has never achieved unemployment as low as Ryan and co. are claiming. The Fed believes that the lowest unemployment rate compatible with price stability is between 5 and 6 percent — that is, twice what Ryan is claiming he will achieve.

The Deficit's such a BIG problem,...

That we need to increase it over the next 10 years before we can start bringing it down by eliminating Medicare. And this is called a Serious and Courageous plan? UPDATE: From Matthew Yglesias: "All the various cuts that take place before the Great Medicare Phaseout don’t compensate for the tax cuts that Ryan proposes, so relative to current law debt goes up. Then further out in the future if we implement the Medicare elimination plan, debt starts to decline."

Folx - it's not Medicare reform, it's eliminating Medicare entirely

(If you don't believe me, just look how plainly it's stated in the first line of this piece from the Economist's DIA blog: "PAUL RYAN'S plan to replace Medicare with a system of vouchers for seniors to buy health care on the private market." Hey, if that's what you're for, then this is the program for you. But, as usual, the conservatives are trying to pretty up (and hide) what they're really after. Josh Marshall sets it out pretty clearly (while also getting on the Dems for falling for the trick)

What the Republicans are proposing are not cuts. Some level of cuts and/or cost containment in Medicare are necessary because medical inflation is growing so quickly. But these aren't cuts. They're using a temporary budget crisis and the need to slow the rate of Medicare costs over long run simply to abolish the program. That's a bait and switch. It's the medical side equivalent of the "private accounts" bamboozle that President Bush used in 2005 to try to phase out Social Security.

Money in Politics

Kevin Drum highlights the McComish case which was argued before the Supreme Court today. He cites Paul Waldman, highlighting the main issue for me:

What is the "right" at issue here? It's not the right to free speech, since the self-financed candidate still can speak as much as he likes. It's the "right" to have the loudest voice if you have the most money, to drown out every other voice.

Which isn't a right at all. It's a privilege: the privilege of those with money to bend the political system to their will, to have the biggest megaphone, to make sure that their money gives them the ability to put a thumb on the electoral scale.

Conservatives favor those with money, so expect this one to be a 5-4 decision one way or the other with the 4 conservatives on the Court voting as a bloc.

That about sums up Newt

From The Economist's DIA blog:

"Now Mr Gingrich has added to this string of embarrassments with an acrobatic flip-flop on America’s involvement in Libya. Barely three weeks ago he told Fox News that Mr Obama should suppress the Libyan air force and establish a no-fly zone over the country right away. Yesterday he announced that a military intervention was a terrible idea to which he would never have resorted as president. Then he issued a convoluted explanation claiming these two stances were consistent, before criticising the president for his confusion and lack of resolve."

Who to believe?

The guy who's future political career depends on bringing President Obama down a couple of notches...

"This is about as badly run as any foreign operation in our lifetime... This is as badly executed, I think, as any policy we've seen since WWII, and it will become a case study for how not to engage in this type of activity."

Or a random commenter at Tom Ricks' blog...?

"The air campaign has been about as perfect as can be..."

I'm going with the random commenter.

Question of the Day

From Matthew Yglesias. His point is that the deficit can only be tackled with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. But, as he points out - "Republicans simply refuse to acknowledge that revenue as a share of GDP needs to go higher than it was at the end of the Bush years." He says that if Republicans won't agree to any revenue increases, "that’s their prerogative, but willingness to compromise on revenue is the sine qua non of a bipartisan deal. Absent that willingness, there neither can nor will be a bipartisan deal."

So on to the question. "When will the Republicans produce a budget proposal? We’ve seen the White House proposal. Do Republicans have an alternative proposal that makes the deficit lower consistent with their position on taxes? If they do, I’d like to see them write it down on paper so we can talk about it."

Guiding Principles of the Day

Although I'm a few days late on this one. From Kevin Drum:

Modern conservatives have a few simple guiding principles. Keep taxes on rich people low. Let corporations do whatever they want. Toe the Christian right line on social issues and the NRA line on gun issues. Support military action overseas if a Republican president proposes it. Oppose spending on poor people.

Maybe we should have a Republican President

'Cause then the Republicans wouldn't be pretending they're worried about spending in general when what they really care about is spending on issues Democrats care about. Then maybe they'd actually see that cutting spending right now will lead to continued problems with the economy and higher unemployment.

Nah, a Republican President would still be terrible.

Support for the President

I'm probably one of the biggest supporters of the President that you'll run across, especially considering the fact that I'm in the military surrounded by a lot of pretty conservative types.
Still, I note with interest this piece from the Economist's Lexington columnist. He asks, "Wheres the courage?" with regard to President Obama and then cites:

"It's much easier to think of examples where he appears not to have had the courage of his convictions.

Guantánamo is still open, despite his promise to close it. He reinforced the troops in Afghanistan, but set a date to start withdrawing, a careful bit of bet-hedging. He pushed for peace in Palestine, but seems to have retreated at the first sign of gun smoke from Capitol Hill. He established a bipartisan commission on the deficit, but failed to pick up and run with its recommendations. He said he would let the Bush-era tax cuts expire for the rich, but backed down after the mid-term elections. His support for gay rights has been a study in caution, as has his position on gun control."

Let me say where I agree and disagree with his points. I've long advocated that the Democrats should play hardball politics just like (or even harder) than the Republicans. Instead of shying away from conflict, they should seek it out. Take the battle onto the Republicans turf. Fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here...(oops, one too many military metaphors). So, as much as I agree with the sentiment when it comes to Democrats in general, I generally disagree with regard to the President. Would I want the President to be a little more combative? Yes. But which do I want more - more combativeness or a Democratic president from 2012-2016? I think the answer's obvious. Now maybe that's a false choice. Why can't we have a more combative President and also get him reelected in 2012? It's certainly possible, but I think the President's a pretty good politician. In the current political climate, I think big gestures = big risks. A more cautious President is more likely to get reelected in 2012. He's going slowly, but he's also going in the direction that I prefer. I'd rather have 4 more years of slow in my direction, rather than having the country go in reverse after next year.

Bradley Manning

I've been seeing a lot from folks up in arms over the treatment of Bradley Manning. Here's a piece by Kevin Drum and here's one from the Economist's DIA blog. These commentators tend to be center left to center on the ideological spectrum. There are some others even farther left who have been even more strident in their criticism of what's going on with Manning. And if the situation is actually as it is described by these critics, I would probably join them in their condemnation. But let me offer some context from what I know about situations like this (although I have no personal or first hand knowledge of the Manning case).

First, we bureaucrats in the military (and that's what I am after all) are very diligent in following the rules. In a situation like this, I can see how that puts the government at a disadvantage over a civilian defense counsel. Where the defense counsel in this case can be generally speaking the truth, but also maybe leaving some information out in hopes of swaying public opinion toward their client, due to the Privacy Act, the government is limited in what it can say in response. For instance, if there were a legitimate reason to restrict Manning or leave him without items of clothing for periods of time due to health or safety or suicide reasons, the government could probably feel like they couldn't say the actual "why" for what they're doing because to do so without a waiver from Manning would be a violation of the Privacy Act. So the government representatives in this case could be fighting this fight with one hand tied behind their backs. In this case, I suspect there is more to the story and the government representatives are just not able to tell us everything that's going on.

Another thing to consider is that, in the court-martial system, the allegations that the defense are making can be remedied at trial by a military judge. If the prison officials are doing what they're being accused of without good justification, then the defense is going to have a field day in motion practice at trial. If there is some indication that Manning is being treated this way in order to get him to talk, the statements are going to get thrown out, just as they would in Federal court. Similarly, there is a significant amount of case law in military law that will allow the defense to ask for additional credit against the final sentence based on violations of the rules on pretrial confinement. It's a moot point for a sentence of LWOP, but say Manning is sentenced to 10 years. All of the time he has spent in pretrial confinement counts against that time. Say Manning ends up spending 1 year in pretrial confinement before the case is completed. If the defense accusations are true, it wouldn't be unheard of to ask for and receive 2 for 1 or 3 for 1 credit. That means Manning would actually receive 2 or 3 years credit for his pretrial confinement against his 10 year sentence - a significant amount considering the first chance at parole comes at about the 1/3 of the sentence in the military system.

All that being said, I suspect I'm closer to the position of the defenders of Manning than the position of those who thinks he committed treason. Still, there's a lot we don't know yet. I'm curious to see what comes next.

Good Point

Matthew Yglesias makes a good point. Conservative ideology includes the bedrock principle that "public sector undertaking is necessarily going to end up as poorly run as the worst DMV line in America." Except, of course, where conservative ideology likes something even more than government bashing. Yglesias cites (in light of the tragedy in Japan) conservatives' very certainty that government regulation can do the trick in keeping nuclear power plants safe. He also cites management of nuclear weapons and invasions of medium-sized foreign countries.

Tax Subsidies for Oil Companies

In the context of the world that Republicans live, I get why they might be against eliminating tax subsidies for oil companies. Eliminate them and oil companies will pay more taxes. More taxes = bad in the GOP world. But really the way to look at this is when you compare oil companies to all other companies. There's a corporate tax rate and it ought to apply to all companies (with the same amount of revenue) equally. Except oil companies get tax breaks to make their taxes less for some reason, than say Walmart. So why is it that Republicans allow such disparate treatment? Oh yeah, they've got to protect their political donations.

Budget-mania

We're getting close to the deadline for shutting down the government, so I better make this fast. Wait a minute, no need to hurry. I'm in the military, so I'm going to work even if there is a shutdown.

I wanted to highlight some good pieces from the Economist's DIA blog on the budget wrangling going on. I nominate the following for Quotes of the Day (ok, maybe they're not quotes, but I sure like them):

Regarding hypocritical Republicans - "I find it hard to watch the same people who ten years ago were desperate to avoid the supposed dangers of government budget surpluses now trying to zero out Teach for America and the United States Institute for Peace, in order to scratch together a few pennies for interest payments on the debt they helped create by cutting taxes. But the most disturbing part is that, then as now, they try to present themselves as "responsible"."

Regarding the triviality of the cuts Republicans are trying to pretend are going to fix the budget deficit - "Once again, and for the umpteenth time: the United States faces a serious debt problem on the order of trillions of dollars over a 20- to 30-year time frame. This debt problem is overwhelmingly driven by rising Medicare and Medicaid spending due to rapid cost inflation in the medical sector. Other significant budget problems include a substantial but demographically limited increase in Social Security expenditures, and immense and spectacularly wasteful defence spending. The final serious budget issue is that American taxes are set at a level that remains several per cent of GDP lower than expenditures throughout the business cycle, a problem either created or severely exacerbated by the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Every other federal spending category apart from the ones I have mentioned is, from the point of view of our debt problem, trivial, and cutting any other category has a negligible effect on the debt (emphasis mine)."

Quote of the Day

From Paul Krugman.

Democrats aren’t fiscal saints. But we have one party that has been generally responsible, and tries to pay for what it wants, and another party that consistently, deliberately, takes actions to increase deficits in the long term. Saying this may be shrill; but not saying it is being deceptive.

Random Good News for the Weekend

From TPM - Gov. Scott Walker's job disapproval rating up to 57 percent.

What the People Want

The title is from a post by Kevin Drum. He points out,

"Out in real America, people want to tax the rich, cut stupid weaponsprograms, and stop subsidizing prosperous oil companies. They don't want to cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or education."

Which is great and all. But I want to focus on another line from the post -

"Democrats, if they could manage to agree on a halfway coherent message, most likely hold all the cards in a budget showdown"

Yeah. So it works in theory, but if it's dependent on the Democrats doing the politics right, then you can certainly expect it not to work out.

Air Force Reduction in Force

Interesting goings-on in the Air Force of late. Since the economy has been so bad the last couple of years, the natural attrition of Airmen (officers and enlisted) has slowed to a crawl. So the higher-ups have recently been looking for additional ways to get the numbers down. It looks like they've exhausted all of the voluntary ways for people to go (with the idea being that they're not replaced and this brings our overall numbers down). Next up - Reduction in Force (RIF) boards. Everybody's records meet a group of senior officers and those who don't make the cut have to separate. Looks like the NLT separation date is February 1, 2012. And for those of you who are pretty sure you're not going to make the cut? Opt for voluntary separation during the month of March and you get a little bump to your separation pay.

I just learned that my year group is going to be one of those meeting one of these boards. I'm exempt because I have over 15 years total military service and because I'm within 2 years of retirement. These are anxious times for some of my peers, though.

Republican Budget Cutting will Hurt the Economy

There have been some recent reports (Goldman Sachs, Moody's) which says the budget cuts will hurt the economy (lesser GDP) and cost jobs. John Boehner says, "So be it." I agree with Kevin Drum:

In any case, it hardly matters. Maybe it's a million jobs, maybe it's half a million jobs. Maybe it will cost a point of GDP, maybe it will cost half a point of GDP. But considering that the economy is still sluggish and unemployment is extremely high, why are we considering budget cuts that will have any negative effect on jobs and growth? Especially cuts in the only part of the budget that isn't a long-term problem?

That's the big news from Bernanke's testimony: not that he thinks other estimates of job losses are too high, but the fact that he agrees the Republican budget plan will cost jobs and slow growth. That's coming from a Republican Fed chair! How much more evidence do we need that our current budget cutting mania is insane?

Neo-Con Controversy

I didn't realize this was an issue, but it looks like the dreaded neo-conservatives are bemoaning the outcome in Egypt as a loss for U.S. foreign policy. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, considering the debacle they led us into in Iraq and Afghanistan.

All in all, I agree with this guy.

"I think I can suggest one thing that's more pathetic than the usual round of "who lost [fill in the blank]", and that would be a round of "who lost [fill in the blank]" when we won. Nobody lost Egypt! Egypt just ousted its dictator in a non-violent popular revolution! It's going to have democratic elections in six months! In what perverse universe does this count as a defeat for American foreign policy, for the West, for enlightenment civilisation, for lovers of human rights? Sweet Douglas Feith, what do these people want?"

Line of the Day

From Kevin Drum on the Speaker's reaction to Goldman Sachs' (notorious liberals they) report that the House spending cuts could reduce U.S. GDP by up to 2%.

"Boehner sure seems to have the traditional GOP mindset down pat: if inconvenient evidence is at hand, pretend it doesn't exist."

Social Security Is Not In Crisis

Just ask the White House Budget Director, Jack Lew. He points out in his USA Today Op-Ed,

"Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries.

When more taxes are collected than are needed to pay benefits, funds are converted to Treasury bonds — backed with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government — and are held in reserve for when revenue collected is not enough to pay the benefits due. We have just as much obligation to pay back those bonds with interest as we do to any other bondholders. The trust fund is the backbone of an important compact: that a lifetime of work will ensure dignity in retirement.

According to the most recent report of the independent Social Security Trustees, the trust fund is currently in surplus and growing. Even though Social Security began collecting less in taxes than it paid in benefits in 2010, the trust fund will continue to accrue interest and grow until 2025, and will have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years."

FWIW, I tried to make this point in a discussion in the comments of a post at the Professor's blog, but didn't do it nearly as well (or with as much authority) as Mr. Lew. Of course, since Mr. Lew is a member of the Obama administration, my opponent in that discussion may not buy it coming from Mr. Lew either.
h/t TPM

Excerpt of the Day

Courtesy of Kevin Drum.

"Republicans, it turns out, actually spend a bit more money on social programs than Democrats, as the green bars in the chart below show (click for a larger image). The main difference? Democrats spend it on direct programs that largely serve "the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed, and the poor...ethnic minorities, racial minorities, and single mothers." Republicans spend it indirectly on programs that "are biased towards workers who are White, full-time, in large companies, and high-wage earners." But spend it they do."

Paul Krugman

On the same topic as the last post:

This brings me to the seventh word of my summary of the real fiscal issues: if you’re serious about the deficit, you should be willing to consider closing at least part of this gap with higher taxes. True, higher taxes aren’t popular, but neither are cuts in government programs. So we should add to the roster of fundamentally unserious people anyone who talks about the deficit — as most of our prominent deficit scolds do — as if it were purely a spending issue.

Another Example...

...of how so-called "deficit hawks" are really just "cut taxes for the rich hawks." From E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post -

"How do we know our difficulties stem primarily from a shortage of revenue? Consider what would happen if we allowed all the tax cuts scheduled to expire in 2012, including the ones enacted under Bush, to go away. That would produce nearly as much deficit reduction over the next decade - roughly $4 trillion - as all the maneuvers of the Bowles-Simpson commission put together. If you want to be serious about closing the deficit, ending the Bush tax cuts is a good place to start."

It's a good piece showing the hypocrisy of "deficit hawks" and also how the Democrats regularly get outflanked politically on issues such as this.

Is the Deficit a Crisis?

Kevin Drum gives the spot on answer for the Republicans.

Answer for Republicans: They don't think the deficit is a problem. If they did, they'd favor tax increases, Pentagon cuts, and Medicare cuts, since even the most dimwitted among them knows that cutting domestic discretionary spending won't make a dent in the deficit. But they favor none of these things.

Rather, they think federal spending on liberal social programs is a problem, and yammering about the deficit is a good way to force cuts to these programs. And there's nothing wrong with this. It's good politics. Why waste a crisis, after all? But anyone reporting on this issue really needs to be honest about what's going on. Republicans want to cut social spending. The deficit is just a handy cudgel to make this happen.

Another take on the Myth of the "Social Security Crisis"

According to Matthew Yglesias, it's got to do with how the Republicans favor policies that the rich like.

"For “you’re going to have to raise the retirement age for Social Security” to count as an “ugly truth” assumes that it’s true. And yet it’s not true. Closing the projected actuarial gap in Social Security requires some combination of more immigration, higher taxes, and lower benefits. Relative to higher taxes, lower benefits tend to be preferred by richer people. And of all the different ways to reduce benefits, raising the retirement age is the one that does the most to punish the poor and demands the least sacrifice from the rich. Christie, it’s true, isn’t saying “whatever the voters want to hear” but he’s not telling the truth either. What he’s doing is saying what rich people want middle class people to believe."

Social Security Solution of the Day

From Kevin Drum at Mother Jones.

"Social Security costs about 4.5% of GDP. That's going to increase as the baby boomer generation retires, and then in 2030 it steadies out forever at around 6% of GDP.

That's it. That's the story. Our choices are equally simple. If, about ten years from now, we slowly increase payroll taxes by 1.5% of GDP, Social Security will be able to pay out its current promised benefits for the rest of the century. Conversely, if we keep payroll taxes where they are today, benefits will have to be cut to 75% of their promised level by around 2040 or so. And if we do something in the middle, then taxes will go up, say, 1% of GDP and benefits will drop to about 92% of their promised level. But one way or another, at some level between 75% and 100% of what we've promised, Social Security benefits will always be there.

This is not a Ponzi scheme. It's not unsustainable. The percentage of old people in America isn't projected to grow forever. Lifespans will not increase to infinity."

Claims from those on the Right of a crisis in Social Security are not based in fact, but instead on ideological preference. They don't like the program and want rid of it. They use budget deficit hysteria as a convenient excuse to say we need radical cuts to Social Security.

Fixing the Budget Deficit

Kevin Drum has been beating this, uh, bongo for a while now. Here's the shorter version, which makes a lot of sense to me:

1. The budget deficit is big because the economy went in the tank.

2. The budget deficit will get smaller as the economy improves.

3. Medium term budgetary problems can be solved by letting the Bush tax cuts expire (all rates go back where they were under Clinton - hardly onerous levels).

4. Long term problems can only be fixed by addressing health care/Medicare.

5. I'd add - Social Security does not need major overhaul the way Medicare does. Claims to the contrary by conservatives actually indicate their ideological preference, rather than truth about the state of Social Security.

Government Shutdown

This article calls to mind my view of how Republicans both negotiate and play politics in one little scenario:

Republicans: "Compromise? No, either you take our version of the budget or you, the Democrat Party, are responsible for the government shutdown."

An Observation

From the Economist's DIA Blog - "But guess what? By far the strongest of the ideas currently on offer—and the one for which most Egyptians seemed to be clamouring these past few weeks—is none of the above. It is liberal democracy (emphasis mine)."

Notice the term is not "conservative democracy."

Getting Rid of the Penny/Paper Dollar

I concur with what Matthew Yglesias says about revamping the physical representation of our currency. On the one hand, this would save money. On the other hand, it moves everybody's cheese around. Which side to conservatives come down on? I'm genuinely curious.

Definition of the Day - Republicanomics

From the Economist's DIA blog.
Republicanomics - a vulgar, acontextual cartoon of Reagonomics.

They explain:
"Reagan met the specific challenges of the American economy in the early 1980s through tax cuts and tight money, among other things. Republicanomics transformed the policies of the Reagan administrations and the Volcker/Greenspan Fed into hardened ideology. "Reagan's embrace of a tight monetary policy in a high-inflation environment had hardened into a dogmatic insistence on tight money and anti-inflationary policies all the time," Mr Rauch writes. And thus:

At a time when most economists saw deflation and long-term, Japanese-style stagnation as a far greater danger than inflation, and when high unemployment and below-target inflation indicated that monetary policy was too tight, Republicans were hyperventilating about "currency debasement" and denouncing the Fed's efforts to expand the money supply."

Thank You. Thank You.

I listen to NPR Morning Edition on my way to work and All Things Considered on my way home from work. My home NPR station is WAMU, which means if I'm in the car during the middle of the day, I might hear the Diane Rehm Show or even Kojo Nnamdi. So I hear a lot of interviews with people - celebrities, politicians and regular people through the course of a week of radio listening. Here's something that's struck me and has begun to get on my nerves. At the end of the interview, the interviewer will say something like, "John Doe, from Raleigh, North Carolina. Thanks for your time, John." And then the interviewee will almost invariably say something like, "Thank you Mark." Whatever happened to saying "you're welcome," or even "my pleasure?" Why does a thank you have to elicit a thank you in response? I suspect this happens in interviews not on NPR or even in real life, but I think I only notice it when I'm captive in my car listening to NPR.

I say, if you have to thank the interviewer, your response to his or her thanks for the interview is to say, "It's my pleasure Mark. Thanks for having me on." Thank you is not a response to thank you. Quit taking the short cut people!

Federal Judicial Vacancies Reaching Crisis Point

The above is the title of a piece from the Washington Post detailing the state of the Federal judiciary. Of course the blame lies mostly with Republican obstructionism, but you have to give some blame to Democrats who consistently don't play this particular political game very well. The President needs to start pushing this as an issue instead of trying to be a centrist.

Sarah Palin...

...is a former half-term governor.

Ronald Reagan...

...isn't as bad as the Left says. I mean, c'mon, he raised taxes after all.

Line of the Day

In an article from the Economist's DIA blog:

The idea that sustainable-resource use and renewable energy is some kind of socialist hippy hobby is incredibly naive and frivolous, and extremely damaging to the American economy.

What he said.

EPA Decides to Limit Rocket Fuel in Drinking Water--Guess Who Objects?

The above is the title of an article at the Atlantic. Definitely an example of the government doing too darn much. The invisible hand would eventually make sure that the perchlorate didn't end up in your drinking water.

Monday Thought

If businesses can be considered people or citizens for purposes of allowing them to donate money in politics, shouldn't they also have the same civic responsibilities that people or citizens have in other areas? They shouldn't get to fall back selectively on the impersonal nature of "we're just a corporation so no one is individually responsible" or "we're a corporation so we have to do whatever (profits and plenty of them, please) our shareholders want."

Those Who Don't Study History...

...are doomed to repeat it. Or maybe the right idiom is the one about things coming full circle. My current band is currently working on adding a song I did in a band a looooong time ago. That's not a first for me, but it's interesting that the song in question is one of my old nemeses. Never fear though children, I'm leaving certain other banes of my singing existence in the dustbin of history.

As an aside, Neal Peart's a pretty good drummer. But I don't have to tell my reader that.

A Sad Story

You may have seen the blog Wade's World, written by the widow of a young Marine killed in Afghanistan. If you haven't seen it, check it out. It's a sad story and one that is all too common in the aftermath of the wars over there.

I originally went to the blog after a piece at Tom Ricks' blog The Best Defense. A good blog with occasionally excellent pieces. Today Mr. Ricks posted a follow-up to his original piece in order to highlight the back and forth in the comments section. The comments include appearances by both Mrs. Wade, the wife and Mrs. Wade(?), the fallen Marine's mother. A very good back and forth indeed.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Health Care Law

Even though I'm a lawyer, I probably look at the opinion from Florida federal district court judge Roger Vinson more in political terms than in legal terms. I haven't gone trolling over on the blogs of the Right to see whether there is exaltation over this decision. I'm interested, though, in the idea of whether anyone on the Right has commented on the idea of how this decision is an example of judicial activism. It's my impression that commenters on the Right become apoplectic when there is a decision by a judge which goes in the general direction of something the Left likes (Roe v. Wade, for instance). However, when the decision comes down on the side of the Right (different from the side of all that is right), then it's just the judge doing his duty. And no this is not something that both sides do - the rallying cry of "judicial activism" belongs solely to conservatives, except to point out their hypocrisy.

Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, it is interesting to note what lawyers and legal experts are saying about the opinion, rather than the politics of the opinion. One idea that's been roundly criticized is the fact that the judge did not sever the mandate (which he found unconstitutional) from the other provisions of the law. This apparently goes against standard practice:

In addition to declaring the mandate unconstitutional, Vinson declined to "sever" it from the rest of the law, and instead held that the entire law out should be thrown out. That goes far beyond standard practice, under which courts tend to defer to Congress and sever only the provisions of law that they find unconstitutional -- even if Congress didn't include a "severability clause" in the legislation.

"The lack of deference to Congress here is just breathtaking," said Washington and Lee University professor Timothy Jost.

So if you want to talk about judicial activism, it's pretty easy to get there when the opinion is criticized for not defering to the legislative body that created the law.
...
When I want to get in touch with what conservative legal commentators have to say about a legal issue or case, I usually go to Orin Kerr. He writes at The Volokh Conspiracy which is a good legal blog that also happens to be conservative. So Professor Kerr starts by saying that he likes the fact that Judge Vinson does a better job than the previous judge (Judge Henry Hudson of Virginia) of justifying his decision. He still ultimately comes down against Judge Vinson, saying "I think Judge Vinson’s argument on the Necessary and Proper Clause is not persuasive." He adds:

Now let’s return to Judge Vinson’s analysis of the Necessary & Proper Clause. The words of the relevant Supreme Court cases point to an extremely broad power, and Judge Vinson is supposed to be bound by those words. But Judge Vinson concludes that these words can’t be taken at face value because “to uphold [the mandate] via application of the Necessary and Proper Clause would [be to] . . . effectively remove all limits on federal power.”

This might work as a Supreme Court opinion that can disagree with precedent. But Judge Vinson is just a District Court judge....

Judge Vinson is reasoning that existing law must be a particular way because he thinks it should be that way as a matter of first principles, not because the relevant Supreme Court doctrine actually points that way....

Rand Paul's Budget-cutting plan

The Economist's DIA Blog has a fun takedown of Senator Paul's plan. They're not complimentary:

Mr Paul's bill is a juvenile, irresponsible stunt. For most of his proposed cuts, he hasn't put in the minimal work necessary to make any rational decisions about what programmes should be cut, and what shouldn't; he hand-waves towards "pro rata cuts" without thinking through what that means. Those of his cuts which are specific betray a callow, politically-minded populist anti-intellectualism. Rabble-rousing calls to eliminate "international commissions" may play well to Glen Beck's audience, but senators are expected to have some grasp of what it is that the government they are running actually does. Mr Paul has been elected to the United States Senate; it's time for him to grow up.

My friend the Professor has blogged a bit on this subject. While he doesn't endorse the speed of the plan, the Professor says he's "be OK with making a vision like Paul’s an eventual target." All I can say to that is - Yikes!

Everyday greeting

Every morning when I drive on to base, I am greeted by a military member who checks my ID. Here's what he or she is required to say to the occupant of every vehicle checked: "Welcome to Joint Base Anacostia/Bolling, America's premier Joint Base." Seems like a mouthful to have to say to thousands of cars a morning.

In Praise of Paul Krugman

Here's the Economist's DIA Blog noting how Paul Krugman got it right in his criticism of Paul Ryan's response to the SOTU. Krugman's take is to point out how Paul Ryan just got his facts wrong. The Economist goes farther and says:

But the "poor decisions made in Washingon and Wall Street" were decisions to cut income taxes irresponsibly during a recovery, to deregulate the financial sector, to shift the resulting risks onto American taxpayers, and to make financial institutions and investors whole rather than forcing them to accept haircuts and cramdowns. We, our children and grandchildren will have to pay off heavy debts because government abdicated its responsibility to regulate and restrain the financial sector. Mr Ryan and his party, who have vowed to roll back last year's financial-regulation bill, seem intent on compounding that error. The last thing we need is to "unshackle" the financial industry again.

Rule of Law

The Professor sent me an article for my perusal from one of his favorite blogs. The article's titled The Rule of Law. It's not an informational article as much as it's a rant by the author. Since it's a conservative website, you can assume my overall comment is something along the lines of *bleh*, but there are a couple of specific points I think I need to make.

First, I should start by noting that the United States is generally considered to be a common law country. By definition, common law is considered to be law made by judges. Now I'd argue that the U.S. is more like a composite of common and civil law systems. Common law originated as a law made almost entirely by judges in England. That's how it came to the U.S. The continental European countries, OTOH, have a civil law system where every law is written down in a code, with the idea being there is no need for a judge to interpret anything - it's all right there. The current set of U.S. laws has most of the laws written down in Federal or State codes. But our common law system is designed for judges to interpret areas that are not specified in the code (consistent with constitutional principles). This means they make law. So when the author says (in his rant of a 3rd paragraph) that judges are "more interested in making law than applying it" he shows that he really doesn't understand what he's talking about. All appellate judges in the United States, right- or left-leaning make law.

Second, I want to quibble a little with the author's use of the term "rule of law." Now, maybe he intended to use the term in some sort of contrary way, because he's being clever. But I suspect not. I think he's got the idea of the rule of law wrong. He says, "The Rule of Law protects against man's tendency to bask in the light of his own shining intellect..." And some stuff about individuals having decision making powers greater than the voters. All as a nice lead in to his rant about judges making law (see above). But "rule of law" is an idea that protects individuals against the system, against big government or despots. That's why rule of law in the U.S. and other western or civilized countries is a big part of what sets us apart from countries in like Iran, China, North Korea or other despotic regimes. The Rule of Law says that a person facing the might of the criminal justice system in the U.S. is much more likely to get a fair shake from the judge and jury than is a similarly situated person in Uganda. The Rule of Law is not the gobbledygook spouted by this guy. Believing in the idea and ideal of fairness and equality before the law is as close as I come to having a religion, so maybe that makes this guy the equivalent in my world to a blasphemer?

Finally, this post reads very similar to rhetoric in other areas where I find I have discussions with conservatives. It follows a similar pattern. The area being discussed is, say, health care reform. The Liberals don't mind more government involvement and would like to see Universal health care. Conservatives want to keep the government out of everything possible, so prefer a market driven system with as little social safety net as possible. Yet the rhetoric from conservatives in this area quickly devolves to something more like, Obama is trying to implement his Obamacare because he wants the country to fail. He is intentionally trying to undermine the country with his policies (then maybe throw in a comment about 2nd Amendment remedies). The discussion seemingly can't stay on the policy issues, but just goes right down to the intent of those on the Left. Many on the Right have a hard time differentiating between "I really disagree with your policies. If those policies are implemented, it will ruin our country" and "I really disagree with you policies. Since I think your policies will ruin the country, you must be trying on purpose to ruin the country. You can't possibly believe that your policies will make the country a better place."

So that brings me to the author's use of this rhetorical device. Rather than acknowledge that there are two schools of thought that say either interpret the Constitution strictly or the Constitution is a living document which is interpreted over time, the author acknowledges only the former of the schools and says of those who believe the latter that they are taking their time on the bench "as their big opportunity to do as they please, to reshape the world the way they see fit." Functionally equivalent to the "you're trying to ruin the country" frame in the health care debate.

Thanks for the link Professor, but for all of the above reasons, I can't take this guy as a serious commenter on Rule of Law.

Global Warming Stuff

Seeing the "Liberal" in the blog's title, it won't be a surprise to hear that I'm on the side of the political divide that worries about global warming (or global climate change if you prefer). I bought myself a hybrid vehicle when I got back from Iraq and do my personal best to compost, conserve and recycle when I can. I occasionally get into arguments with my friends on the Right about the issue. Seems like those arguments have become less frequent in the last year and I'd suggest that's because folx have been focused on the terrible state of the Economy. The Right's got it's hammer to bludgeon us with in unemployment and the deficit, issues which are more red meat and potatoes than trying to make something out of "hey those scientists fudged some data, so that means all the other non-fudged data on global warming is invalid."

Still, the issue hasn't gone away. The places I go on the internet and things I read, I think, reflect a shift toward a greener, more environmentally friendly world. It's just that this shift is an undercurrent, rather top headline stuff. You know, like the Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf, talk of "green jobs," the huge increase in energy projects that focus on solar, wind and other, or even the New Cold War-ish idea of how China is beating us in production of green technologies.

This brings me to a piece from The Economist's Democracy in America blog. It's a good piece and I recommend the whole thing, but this line kind of sums it up for me - "Give them another two decades, and they'll probably come around. Unfortunately, by that time an enormous amount of damage will already have been done." In the end, I'm not going to get any satisfaction from being able to tell my friends in 20 years, "I told you so." I'm just going to be sad that I couldn't show them how wrong they are now, so that we can avoid the worst of what's to come.

Even though it's pointless in my struggle with the Professor and others on the Right, here are a couple of points from the DIA piece that back up my side...
- "Every one of the twelve hottest years on record has come since 1997."
- "2010 was also the wettest year ever, corresponding to the expectation that higher heat means more water vapour."
- "More countries set national high-temperature records in 2010 than ever before, including the biggest one, Russia."
- "Arctic sea ice in December was at its lowest level ever,
- "Temperatures across a broad swathe of northern Canada have been 20° C higher than normal for the past month. The record temperatures are coming despite the lowest levels of solar activity in a century and a La Nina effect that should be making Canada colder rather than warmer."

Sad News

For the second year in a row, the U.S. military has lost more troops to suicide than it has to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sad that we're losing troops to either.

Bradley Manning

Reports are that military authorities are keeping Manning in "solitary confinement." There are further indications that these same authorities are taking some extraordinary steps to interfere with what little visitation Manning might be entitled to.

I don't have any first hand knowledge of what's going on with Manning's confinement, but I can give an informed guess as to why it might seem like he's in solitary confinement. Just as in the civilian system, once a person is suspected of committing a crime, they can be kept in jail pending trial. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), that would be called "pretrial confinement." A military member can be kept in pretrial confinement for the same reasons that someone would be denied bail in the civilian system - fear of flight or the fact that the individual might continue to commit crimes. In order to put a military member into pretrial confinement, you also have to show that less severe forms of restraint are inadequate. This is sometimes a key point in the military system since military commanders have the ability to restrict their Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines in ways that don't extend to full confinement in a jail cell.

So, based on these guidelines, sounds to me like PFC Manning is in ordinary pretrial confinement. What might lead others to think he's been put into solitary confinement? Well, when you're in pretrial confinement, there are rules about how much, if at all, you can be commingled with post-trial confinees. If Manning is being held in a confinement facility without other pretrial confinees, he might be separated from all other confinees due to the rules about commingling. Also, considering the charges against Manning, military authorities might also be legitimately worried about Manning's safety if he were allowed to be together with other confined military members (even military members facing charges could be inclined not to be happy with what PFC Manning is accused of having done). To me, sounds like "so far, so good" in his pretrial confinement and likely not the ominous sounding "solitary confinement" that is being claimed.

As to the tweets sent out by Ms. Hamsher, if those are accurate, it appears the authorities may be going beyond the permissible bounds of pretrial confinement. Remember, whatever time PFC Manning spends in pretrial confinement will be credited against his eventual sentence if he's found guilty. Antics like those described could lead to a successful motion by the defense for extra credit due to "illegal pretrial confinement." If they're denying Manning his alloted visitation or visits with his attorneys, that could add up at the end of the day. Now, if he gets LWOP, maybe it doesn't matter. But what if he doesn't? Do the military authorities want to be responsible for a tripling of his pretrial confinement credit (not rare at all) because they play these games? No, I didn't think so.

Police Officer Perjury?

Color me as skeptical as the Appellate Court in this case. I never had as suspicious a case in my short defense counsel days, but I definitely dealt with a lot of law enforcement officers who would "spin" their story in the most positive light possible, as well as the judges who would give cops a pass in their testimony 99 times out of a 100. h/t Volokh.

Another Voice in Support of my Theory

I'm catching up on some older posts in my RSS feed. Here's Kevin Drum chiming in on George Packer's bit in the New Yorker.

Drum says it better than I:

The big difference between right and left, as I and others have noted repeatedly, isn't just in the amount of violent rhetoric, but its source. On the liberal side, it only occasionally comes from movement leaders. On the right, it regularly does. It comes from opinion leaders, political leaders, and media leaders, and the more heated they get, the more popular they get.

Other NPR Story

Here's the other NPR story I heard this morning. Interesting audio piece about the joking that goes on in oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The author of the piece is Ryan Malphurs and his piece is here. Dr. Malphurs suggests "that laughter plays an important communicative function in oral argument which enables lawyers and justices to negotiate the complex barriers that constrain their interactions."

Foreclosures

Listening to NPR this morning and heard a good story about how the sloppy paperwork in many mortgages across the country is slowing down foreclosure actions. Certainly this issue can cut both ways. On one hand, the longer it takes for the backlog of defaults to go through the system, the longer that mess is a drag on the country's economy. On the other hand, allowing foreclosures to be pushed through where the paperwork is not in order is a significant bit of unfairness to the mortgagors (the people in the houses, not the banks). I find stories like this to be nice examples of "shoe's on the other foot" for big business/banks. Such entities are certainly known for sticking to the exact terms of the agreements they enter in to, especially when it is big company v. consumer. So the cases like Ibanez, which was highlighted in the NPR piece, are a good brake on big business' common practices. It seems pretty clear to me that the mortgage securitization boom which played a part in the current real estate crisis we're experiencing led big companies and banks to play fast and loose with the strict requirements of assignment of interests in the mortgages. In the opinion, the Court went into some detail to show the long line of supposed assignments of the mortgages as they made their way from the original transaction and the holder that was doing the securitizing and, eventual, foreclosing. But as the Court said,

For the plaintiffs to obtain the judicial declaration of clear title that they seek, they had to prove their authority to foreclose under the power of sale and show their compliance with the requirements on which this authority rests. Here, the plaintiffs were not the original mortgagees to whom the power of sale was granted; rather, they claimed the authority to foreclose as the eventual assignees of the original mortgagees. Under the plain language of G.L. c. 183, § 21, and G.L. c. 244, § 14, the plaintiffs had the authority to exercise the power of sale contained in the Ibanez and LaRace mortgages only if they were the assignees of the mortgages at the time of the notice of sale and the subsequent foreclosure sale.

And as the Court ruled, the companies/banks trying to foreclose on the properties in question simply didn't have proof of the assignments. I come down on the side of helping the individual, so I applaud the Court's ruling. I also really liked this passage from the concurring opinion:

I concur fully in the opinion of the court, and write separately only to underscore that what is surprising about these cases is not the statement of principles articulated by the court regarding title law and the law of foreclosure in Massachusetts, but rather the utter carelessness with which the plaintiff banks documented the titles to their assets. There is no dispute that the mortgagors of the properties in question had defaulted on their obligations, and that the mortgaged properties were subject to foreclosure. Before commencing such an action, however, the holder of an assigned mortgage needs to take care to ensure that his legal paperwork is in order. Although there was no apparent actual unfairness here to the mortgagors, that is not the point. Foreclosure is a powerful act with significant consequences, and Massachusetts law has always required that it proceed strictly in accord with the statutes that govern it.

Long Weekend

It was a nice long weekend full of basketball (Kentucky Wildcats won, but the LJ Wildcats got stomped). Woke up on Tuesday to a coating of ice throughout the area. End result? 2 hour delay for federal workers, school closed for the young one and no traffic for the wife's commute (her school never closes). A couple of interesting pieces on NPR on my way in that I'm going to comment on later. Hope your weather's nicer than mine.

More Support of my Theory

From the article by Andrew Sullivan cited in the previous post:

I am horrified because it is horrifying, because for years now, this kind of thing has become commonplace at the very top of the conservative political apparatus, and because the invocation of violence in a political context is inherently corrosive of democratic values. When you add to this a party committed to the use of military force as almost a first option, and to torture as a legal method of interrogation, it is irresponsible not to worry about where this is headed.

In Support of my Theory

Here's a good piece from the Economist which is generally in support of my theory. They say:

What's scary about extreme right-wing rhetoric, to a great extent, is the way it's bound up with a legitimation of private violence as a defence of freedom. This has not always been the exclusive domain of the right. In the late 1960s and 1970s, it was extreme leftist groups such as the Black Panthers and the Weathermen whose rhetoric legitimated armed violence as a defence of "the people". It was appropriate for cooler heads then to denounce such rhetoric as scary on its own terms, and crippling to democratic politics. That lesson was effective: even the most inaccurate and excessive rhetoric on the left these days doesn't invoke violence. For the same reasons, today's right should drop its habit of couching political points in violent terms.

I also note they cite to Andrew Sullivan and say:

Andrew Sullivan has been running rhetorical-excess prizes for both the right and left for years now, and he says "the simple fact of the matter is that there's far more on the right than left." More important, he thinks excessive rhetoric on the right routinely involves dehumanising one's enemies and invokes the spectre of violence in a way leftist rhetoric rarely does.

In Support of my Theory

I love this post from the Liberal Curmudgeon. A good arument in support of my theory.

You have to go back to the 1960s to find any even remotely comparable legitimization of anti-government violence on the left as we have today from Republican elected officials and party candidates, not to mention the chorus of right-wing talk-radio demagogues. It is simply nonsense to assert, as many right-wing commentators and Republican politicians have in the last 48 hours, that "there are extremists on both sides," and to speak as if political violence is a random natural phenomenon, a meteorite falling from the blue sky. I defy you to point to a single Democratic member of Congress or comparable official or candidate who has used the kind of rhetoric we have been bombarded with for the last two years from the right — Sharron Angle explicitly suggesting that if conservatives did not prevail at the polls they would be justified in "Second Amendment solutions" to "protect themselves against a tyrannical government"; Michele Bachman telling her supporters she wants them to be "armed and dangerous" on the issue of a federal energy tax and describing Washington as a city "behind enemy lines"; the barrage of conspiracy theories about the President's supposed foreign birth and his being the agent of a socialist plot to destroy America; the waves of talk-radio-driven death threats against judges and Democratic congressmen over immigration, health care, taxes, abortion, and other reliably demagogic issues of the right.

Another great point here:

For as long as I can remember, I have heard conservatives blaming everything that is wrong in the universe, from violent crime to declining test scores to teen pregnancy to rude children to declining patriotism to probably athlete's foot . . . upon Dr. Spock, Hollywood liberals, the abolition of prayer in school, Bill Clinton, the "liberal 1960s," the teaching of evolution — in other words, upon symbols, rhetoric, cultural norms, and the values expressed by political and media leaders. Yet from the moment when someone gets a gun in their hands, apparently, society ceases to have any influence whatsoever on the outcome and individual responsibility takes hold 100%.

Statutory v. Effective Tax Rates

Here's an interesting article touching on the subject of corporate tax reform. While it correctly notes that this is an area where Left and Right might find common ground, it also talks about the main hang up in getting a deal done.

...Democrats, Republicans and corporations are interested in pushing one half of reform, the part about lowering the nominal corporate tax rate to European levels. [There is, though,] reason to doubt that Republicans or corporations are interested in the other half of reform, the part about eliminating the loopholes and gimmicks that currently ensure American companies actually pay less in taxes than their European counterparts.

I like the last line in that quote, along with the chart in the article, to rebut those conservatives who harumph that American corporations have the highest tax rates in the universe. The comeback is that they end up paying the third lowest amount. So the issue in reform is really the loopholes, isn't it? In the end, it seems, a deal is only going to be possible, as the article points out, "so long as it cuts taxes and increases the deficit."

Newt Gingrich: Soft on Crime?

No, smart on crime. Or as they say, Right on Crime. I'm going to take some time to delve into this, but liberals might be able to make common cause with Mr. Gingrich and other conservatives on prison reform. A step in the right direction. h/t Sentencing and Law Policy

Civility

I had a long back and forth with a conservative friend on FB yesterday. For once this was not with the Professor. On a related note, I think I need to find some liberal friends some time - seems like everyone I know is conservative. Anyway, the discussion came up because the friend was going off on the Liberals and the Left about how they're blaming the Right for the shooting in Tucson. He especially defended Sarah Palin and her cross-hair map. So I chimed in to support the idea that there may be something to the accusation that inflammatory rhetoric and the current political climate have something to do with attacks like the one in Tucson. When my friend shot back (as some conservatives do) with the "both sides do it" rejoinder, I went off on my theory about how the, let's call it lack of civility for this post (since that's the title I used), stems more from the Right than the Left. My friend, of course, came back with the usual "hey, look at all this stuff people said about Bush." And I said, "dude, you miss the point - the Right has made these kind of unfriendly (and worse) words and acts much more mainstream." And by mainstream, I mean look at the elected officials, political party representatives and media mouthpieces and then tell me that what was said about Bush during his terrible, awful, no good, very bad reign, is anywhere near what conservatives and Republicans have said and done. It's easy to try and make the false equivalence when you're just comparing liberal and conservative blog commenters and people in the grassroots. But show me how it's anywhere near to equivalent among the big names on the Left. One Ward Churchill (not that I think he meets my criteria of elected officials, political party representatives and media mouthpieces) or Keith Olbermann just doesn't compare to the roster of such offenders on the Right (Beck, Hannity, Palin, Angle, Joe Wilson, et al).

So, I'm going to test out my theory of civility in the coming days and weeks (or until I find something else to focus on...squirrel?)

Masters but not Commanders?

Interesting note from Tom Ricks about how "so many eligible Air Force colonels were declining to be considered for command that the Air Force chief, Norton Schwartz, issued a letter in 2009 saying that henceforth everyone would be considered." Being a commander is a tough job, to be sure, but it's also a prerequisite to getting a star. I have no special insight into the reason behind the problem, but it may be because by the time you've made O-6, you probably know whether you still have a chance to be a General. If you don't, why put yourself through the heartache of being a commander?

Two Hour Delay

The weather really wasn't that bad here in the DC area, but my son's school ended up on a two hour delay this morning. Since the wife couldn't afford to miss school (she's a month from completing her program), it was left to me to stay home with the boy until school time. Tough job, I know, especially when it allowed me to watch the DVR'd game between UK and Auburn that I had missed last night due to band practice. Another bonus was that I had no traffic coming into work.

That's nice, you say, but why do you write? Well, since I was delayed two hours coming into school, I listened to the Diane Rehm Show, rather than my usual Morning Edition. Her show this morning was on gun control. I have some thoughts on the subject, but I'll share those another time maybe. Reason I'm writing is a comment from one of the guests. Not sure which one, but it was one of the pro-gun guys. He said something to the effect of President Obama is not in favor of 2nd Amendment rights. Now it was just a throw away line he used as he teed up some other pro-gun point, but it struck me as odd and kind of an example of the political spin that the folks on the Right use (effectively) and that my pals on the Left don't quite have the hang of.

Let me give you another example to show what I mean. There are those out there on the Right who have been known to say something along the lines of, "Obama is intentionally ruining the country." Now, you may believe that Obama and his policies are ruining the country. But do you really believe that Obama is advocating specific policies with the express intention of ruining the country? Or could it be, perhaps, that Obama actually believes that the policies he pursues will make the country better and you just don't happen to agree with those policies? There's a big difference. And I think, the same idea goes for the line I heard on the radio this morning. Does the guy think that Obama believes there are no 2nd amendment rights or is it just a matter of maybe Obama and this guy have a different view of how expansive or restrictive the rights of the 2nd amendment actually are?

But even beyond that, when I look at the line from the guy on the radio, I think he's not even thinking about what he's saying. It's so ingrained in the talking points and right-speak of guys like this to make assertions not just about the policy positions of the person they're referring to, but to actually personalize it and make it about his core beliefs. And since you're doing that, why not assert that your opponent has the most radical position possible? It's something the Right does well and that the Left should learn to adopt.

Thomas and Scalia Dissent from Cert Denial

Why am I talking about a denial of certiorari for a case to the Supreme Court? Because of two things. First, the denial yesterday of Alderman v. U.S. included a somewhat rare written dissent by Justice Thomas (who was joined by Justice Scalia). Justice Thomas "objected to the court’s refusal to hear a commerce clause challenge to a federal law that barred convicted felons from owning a bullet-proof vest. Scalia joined all but one footnote of Thomas' dissent."

Why is this important? As noted in the article,

"SCOTUSblog calls the opinion “an important dissent on the scope of Congress’ power under the Constitution’s commerce clause—an issue that is newly energized in the national debate over the new health reform law.”

This is the issue that is probably going to decide the number of cases that are making their way through the courts (to the Supremes) on the issue of the 2010 health care reform legislation. Just something to keep an eye on.

Addition to the Blog Roll

I've recently come across a pretty cool blog. It's called Law and the Multiverse. These guys take a look at legal issues in the context of superheroes, supervillains and other fictional SF characters and worlds. It's more than just a pop culture blog, because these guys do their homework and address the questions in a format that is more similar to an ABA article than a blog post. For a lawyer who digs comic books, it doesn't get much better than this. Good stuff.

Westboro Baptist Church

Westboro is evidently going to try and picket the funeral of the little girl killed in Tuscon. And the State of Arizona looks like it's going to try and pass a law to prevent the picketing. My take is they're a despicable bunch, but if they follow the local regulations for getting a permit, then they should be allowed to picket. I mean, after all, they're not attending a Republican President's rally where the intent is to handpick the audience and the "free speech" that emanates therefrom.

Law School Debts

My best friend and only reader tipped me off to an article in the NYT about the sad state of law students who have a ton of debt and how they got into that situation. Stories of lawyers carrying huge debts are nothing new to lawyers, even those, like me, who are in the JAG world where alumni from the super expensive schools are few and far between. It always induces a little "there, but for" cringe when I hear the stories about how much some young lawyers owe in student loans (wait, I said young lawyers...does that mean I'm an old lawyer?). I have my own law school debts too, but nothing on the scale with those described in the story. And this is a good thing, I guess, because based on this story and the fact that I'll be looking for a lawyerly job in about a year, I probably should worry about the fact that I went to one of the second (or lower) tier "sewer pits" referenced in the article. I think I'll be OK, though. I've got an interesting and varied background and I'm probably looking to go into a federal government position, where my military service gives me a leg up. Still, stories like this do cause me to worry just a bit about leaving the safe cocoon of military employment.

New Year, Old Job

As you may know, I've recently returned from a deployment to Iraq. Before I left for my deployment, I was informed that I would be reassigned to a different job and base here in the Capital Region. Even upon my return from Iraq, I immediately started the process to change jobs and move to my new base. But during my reconstitution time over the holidays, big Air Force decided that I would be a much better fit at my old job - at my old base. So I sit here in the same office, at the same desk I left in May. 2011 has already thrown me a curveball and we're just 11 days into the new year. This curveball, however, is not that bad. As I ponder and prepare for my upcoming retirement from the military (as early as November 2011), I think this old desk and job are not a bad place to be. Now if they'd just get the heat on in the building, my first day back at work in a month would be not bad at all.

Gates Cuts General/Flag Officer Positions

As he says,

I have approved the elimination of more than a hundred general-officer and flag-officer positions out of the roughly 900 currently on the books. Of those, 28 are billets that were created after 9/11, primarily for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They will be reduced as appropriate, as major troop deployments wind down.

It's the right move as we (finally) start moving away from our war-time posture. There's still more that can be done though.

Hardball Politics

I get on the Democrats for not playing the same hardball as the Republicans do. So I was glad to see this. More please.

The Beginning of the End

Yeah, DADT has been repealed legislatively. And even signed by the President. But, as today's Washington Post points out, there's a lot left to do.

Pentagon officials are working quickly on a three-part plan: overhauling applicable military personnel policy and benefits; providing training for top brass and military chaplains; and then formally instructing the nation's 2.2 million troops on the ban's repeal.

Troop training will be done "as expeditiously as we can," the secretary said, but it will prove challenging, because "there's just a certain element of physics associated with the number of people involved in this process."

Each of these changes takes a lot of coordination at many levels. In the Air Force at least, there has been annual training for all Airmen on the military's policy on homosexual conduct. That training is more extensive for certain personnel (JAGs, commanders). It's a good thing that this policy was repealed (IMHO), but the process of actually getting it implemented is not going to be very simple or quick. Stay tuned on this one and especially look out for the issue of how UCMJ Article 125 (sodomy) is handled. This has been a touchy issue in the past.

Deficit Hawks

One of the hypocritical stances I like to point out among politicians (mostly Republicans, but a few Democrats as well) is the claim of being a deficit hawk. There are some out there who jump up and down and scream bloody murder when it comes to any government spending. They claim they can't possibly vote for a given piece of legislation because it will add to the deficit. They proclaim loudly that the deficit is the single most important issue we face as a country. But then we encounter an issue like the expiration of the Bush tax cuts (which will end up adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit over the next 10 years) or the issue of the day,

A Congressional Budget Office estimate suggests that the Republican plan to repeal the new health care law would increase the deficit by $230 billion by 2021.

Suddenly an issue that the deficit hawks care more about becomes more important than their deficit hawkishness. So here's my rule of thumb. If you rule out tax increases in all cases, you're not really a deficit hawk. Does that make you a bad person? Not necessarily. But if you go off about how the deficits are terrible and need to be fixed immediately (if not sooner), but then you vote in a budget busting way on a regular basis, you're not a deficit hawk, you're just a politician.

Speaking of New Year's Resolutions...

Maybe I can get my Mom and wife to come over here and give a read if I put some personal stuff down. So here's one. My main new year's resolution has to do with losing weight. That's typical for most people right? And certainly I don't mind being thinner and in better shape as a general proposition. But the reason for this resolution is more health related. Due to a less than healthy diet and more weight than I should have, my cholesterol has been borderline the last few times I've had it checked. Since I'm in my mid-40's and both sides of my family have some heart problems, it's not just my vanity that leads me to want to lose the weight. Last year around this time, also spurred by the cholesterol levels, I stopped eating meat. This was part ideological, but more based on the desire to see my cholesterol numbers improve. I survived all of 2010, including a stint in Iraq, without meat and am currently waiting for the results of my most recent blood test. Since I stopped eating meat, but not cheese and eggs (vegetarian, not vegan), I suspect my cholesterol is not going to be hugely improved. So, before a doctor tries to prescribe me Lipitor or something similar, I've decided to try to lose some weight (I'm at least 25 pounds over what is considered a healthy weight for my height). That's pretty much the last thing I can do behavior-wise to affect my cholesterol at this point.

I'm currently 4 days into the program I've started (I'll do another post later to describe the plan I'm on). It's not fun, but I consider it necessary. Despite my wife's urging, I'm not going to turn this into a fat blog. But I will check back in occasionally to give some updates.

Happy New Year

Among the usual new year's resolutions about losing weight and doing other virtuous things, I've added a goal of trying to write on this blog a little more. As we start out 2011, I'm looking at some changes in my professional and, perhaps, personal life. There's a good chance that I'll be retiring from the Air Force in 2011. The next thing I do with my life (since I'm a military lawyer and I'm leaving the military to become a civilian lawyer is it a job or career change? I'll leave that question for another post) may lead to a move from my present location and may also lead to a house purchase as well. So hopefully there will be plenty to write about. My primary focus here will probably be politics and current events as it has been in the past. But I'll probably also sprinkle in some personal stuff as well. That's probably OK, since I only have one reader to speak of. And speaking of that one reader, thanx to Professor Mondo for the nudge to get me going over here again.