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.