US politics – Page 5 – Politics at Suffolk University

Is the US Returning to Cold War Standards?

I had just graduated from college when I saw my government invade the Dominican Republic to support a military dictator who had just overturned the democratically elected President, Juan Bosch. As my awareness grew, I realized that we were supporting brutal dictators in Vietnam, much of Latin America, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and in many other countries. We had overthrown democratic governments in Guatemala and Iran, as well as the Dominican Republic, and a few years later were to collaborate in the overthrow and murder of the democratically elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende, and his replacement by the brutal military dictator Pinochet.

At the same time, we supported the continuation of colonial rule, often very brutally, in Angola, Mozambique, what was then Rhodesia, and many smaller countries; and, most shamefully at all, we supported the atrocious system of apartheid in South Africa.

All of this was “justified” in the name of stopping Communism, which supposedly would take over all those countries if we let them become democratic.

Then came the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War, and the outbreak of the “third wave” of democratization – in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Asia, and to some extent in Africa. With no more fear of Communism, there seemed to be no more need for the US to support dictatorships in other countries.

But what is happening today? The US government is turning a blind eye to brutal depression by the absolute monarch of Bahrain. It supported the coup against President Zelaya in Honduras, even while claiming to oppose it. It is maneuvering to keep the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt from becoming “too” democratic. More broadly, it seems like the Cold War all over again!

This trend is appalling. Many people had hoped that President Obama would turn us in a different direction, but instead he seems to be opting for more of the same. The explanation given, when any is given at all, tends to be that terrorism is just like Communism – if we allow too much democracy, it is said, the terrorists will take over. This isn’t very credible, though – it’s just hard to envision massive electoral support for terrorists! (I mean, if they had that kind of support they wouldn’t need to resort to terrorism!)

Far more likely, in my opinion, is that support for dictatorship abroad is linked to the attack on democracy at home. The increase in economic inequality basically means that a relatively small number of people control more and more of the world’s resources. They benefit immensely from doing so, but they can only keep it up if they keep people from voting on it. Here in the US, they do so by a variety of disenfranchising devices (massive imprisonment, intimidation campaigns, cumbersome registration processes, gerrymandering, etc.) In countries like Bahrain, they don’t have to be so subtle. They just work through the monarchies of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the like to arrest, torture, and shoot those who demand democracy.

It’s time we got more democracy at home, and used it to support democracy in other countries.

What’s Behind the Bin Laden Assassination?

The big question about Bin Laden – and I’m surprised more people are not asking it – is, why kill him? It’s pretty clear by now that those were the orders (I heard it from a guy being interviewed on NPR with CIA ties, and there’s further documentation in The Atlantic. But why?

Let’s leave aside the morality and look at the practical issues. Wouldn’t you think that Osama Bin Laden was what they call a “high-value target” – i.e., someone with valuable information? Isn’t it possible that he actually knew something about what’s left of al-Qa’eda? If this was really about fighting terrorism, wouldn’t they want to question him?

Someone else on that NPR show (I was listening in the car, and didn’t get further specifics to cite the broadcast) said that one of Osama’s bodyguards who’d been captured had orders to kill Osama rather than let him be taken alive. So why have the Seals do the work for him? It doesn’t make sense to me.

Second, why wouldn’t we want to put him on trial? Surely there would be no better way to destroy any last trace of sympathy for the man and his network than be exposing their repugnant deeds in open court. The Israelis knew that when they captured Eichmann, and brought him back to be tried, at considerable difficulty to themselves. All we would have had to do would have been to bring him along in the helicopter, which we did with his body anyway.

Moreover, a trial would have shown the world that we are a country of laws and individual rights, rather than a country that kills without trial. Here I’m verging back to the moral argument, but this one does have a practical side: it would make people respect the US more.

Legally, bringing Bin Laden out alive would have been kidnapping, and Pakistan didn’t like it. But they liked the assassination even less.

So I’m just asking, why were the orders to kill him no matter what? Anybody have an explanation?

President Obama on Situation in Bahrain

I recently wrote to President Barack Obama to ask him to speak up against the death sentences for some of those protesting for democracy in Bahrain. (This was before the Bahrain monarchist government threatened to prosecute some doctors and nurses for the deaths of patients they treated, or I would have written about that, as well). I just got a response and wanted to share it with you, so here it is. I have to say, it’s pitiful:

May 4, 2011

Dear Friend:

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. I value your comments and inquiries.

I greatly appreciate the outpouring of messages from Americans across the country and around the world. Some comments are supportive, others are critical, but all reflect the desire of Americans to participate in a dialogue about our common concerns and challenges.

To learn more about my Administration or to contact me in the future, please visit: www.WhiteHouse.gov. Thank you, again, for writing.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

Medicare, the Deficit, and Political Playacting

No doubt you know by now that the Chair of the House Budget Committee, Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), has proposed to reduce the federal budget deficit by eliminating Medicare for everyone younger than 55. Here is a link to the proposal. The House of Representatives has actually passed this proposal with every Democrat and 4 Republicans voting No. It is going nowhere. The Senate will not pass it, and President Obama singled it out for criticism in his speech on the budget last week. Medicare is extremely popular, and Republicans who voted for it drew criticism in their town meetings during their recent town meetings.

Nevertheless, the Republicans have accomplished one of their goals. They now have everyone thinking that Medicare has something to do with the deficit. It does not! The basic parts of Medicare, covering physicians services and hospitalization, are paid for out of the trust fund with money from the Medicare tax we all pay. That money cannot be used for anything else, only for Medicare. Right now that fund is in surplus.

Now there is a sense in which you can add up all federal expenditures and federal revenues, including both Medicare and Social Security, and call the result a deficit or a surplus. However, that is just an accounting trick. If those part of the budget that are not either Medicare or Social Security (or a few other, much smaller trust funds, like the one you contribute to if you buy a duck stamp) are in deficit, the government will still have to borrow to pay for them.

So if we want to reduce the deficit, we have to look elsewhere. And there are really only two places to look: stopping all these wars, and ending the Bush tax cuts. Other cuts can be made, but there is not enough money there to have an impact on the deficit.

As I’ve said in other posts, I think a deficit that creates jobs would actually be good right now, but that means the money has to be spent productively. Giving it to the super-rich doesn’t provide any stimulus at all, since they do not increase their consumption, they just invest it to make even more money. So ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich today would not hurt the economy.

There is a problem with Medicare. The trust fund is in surplus now, but it is declining; present estimates are that it will run out in 2029. That gives us some time to find solutions, but there is no need to end the program. Obama’s health care plan, which goes into full effect in less than 3 years, saves some money already. In addition, we can get big savings by allowing the government to negotiate prescription prices. (Everyone knows that prescriptions are cheaper in Canada, but sometimes we forget why: it’s because Canada makes the big drug companies sell at the lowest price that lets them make money, while Congress requires Medicare and Medicaid to pay them their asking price. Go figure!) We also need to reduce health-care profiteering radically. There’s a good reason why more and more non-profit hospitals are being taken over by profit-making corporations: there is a lot of money to be made.

There are many other ideas out there, and they are all worth considering. My point is not that I have the answer, just that we can solve the Medicare cost problem without ending the program. And let’s be clear about that. Ryan’s proposal does end Medicare. He claims he is trying to save it, but he’s not. He wants to end it and replace with something completely different – instead of paying your medical bills, with the usual deductibles and copayments, the new “Medicare” would give you a coupon for a fixed amount, good for the purchase of health insurance. If health insurance costs more than your coupon, you have to pay the rest yourself.

Moreover, the value of each year’s coupon increases at a set rate that is less than the annual increase in the cost of the insurance – so every year either you have to pay more yourself, or you have to switch to a plan with poorer coverage. That’s noe Medicare.

Even though people are rejecting Ryan’s plan, if we end up believing that Medicare is a big part of the deficit, we will think it has to be cut. That’s the sneaky victory that Ryan is putting across on the public.

Why the US Should Care about Democracy in Bahrain

If you follow me on Twitter (@jcberg) or read my Facebook page, you probably have noticed that I have been posting a lot of news stories about Bahrain, and maybe you wondered why. I want to explain my reasons for doing this.

When the massive pro-democracy protests in Bahrain broke out February 14, I knew very little about that country – just that it was small and located somewhere on the Arabian Peninsula. I didn’t even know that it was an island, or that it was the home to the US Fifth Fleet.

However, as I learned more, I came to think that we Americans have a special responsibility for what happens in Bahrain, for several reasons:

Because, as mentioned, it is the headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet. That means that the overwhelming military presence on the island is the US; anything they do, they do with the tacit approval of our government.
Because both the king of Bahrain and his patron, the king of Saudi Arabia, are completely dependent on the US for survival. We sell them almost all their weapons; without those, as absolutist rulers of small states, they would be swept away in an instant.
Because successive US governments, including the current one, have endorsed brutal despotism in Bahrain (and in Saudi Arabia) so that the profits of the oil companies will not be threatened.

Most Americans are like me – knowing nothing about Bahrain – so I felt obligated to try to spread the information around. In particular, I try to reenforce a few points:

Bahrain is not a “moderate” country; when people say that, they just mean that it is friendly to Israel (and Israel is not moderate at all!) It is an absolute monarchy (there is a parliament, but the king appoints most members and can dismiss it at any time), and rules by violence and brutality. The king hires foreign mercenaries from Pakistan and other countries, so the troops will have less compunction about shooting down Bahrainis.
This is not a sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shia. The royal family and the elite are Sunni, while a big majority of the people are Shia, and Shia do face a lot of discrimination – but a persistent sign and chant in the protests has been “No Sunni, No Shia, Only Bahrainis.” Some Sunni have been taking part, as well. However, the press in Bahrain is very tightl controlled by the king, and they have convinced many Sunni that the protesters are Shia Islamist fanatics controlled from the outside (see next point).
Iran and Hezbollah have nothing to do with it. The government of Iran has been making statements about Bahrain, but these statements are condemned by the protesters whenever they make them.
The goal of the protesters is democracy, not a religious state. Most want a constitutional monarchy, though a few have been so angered by the king’s brutality that they now want a republic.
The King and other monarchists are out of touch with reality. They like to play that they are real royalty (the king proclaimed himself a king about 30 years ago). Right now their main concern is to bring a Grand Prix auto race, canceled because of the protests, back to Bahrain. The king likes to socialize with the royalty of Europe, and is making big plans for the royal wedding in England, to which he has been invited. (British activists are demanding that the invitation to this butcher be revoked).

There has been a near-blackout of the repression in Bahrain, which is very severe right now. Bloggers and twitter-users are being arrested and tortured; doctors and nurses are arrested if they try to treat people wounded in protests; and everyone is living in fear. This may be starting to change. There was a front-page story in the New York Times today, and a strong op-ed by Amy Goodman in the Guardian. We need to keep this up! Obama’s policy on Bahrain has been pretty cynical; there’s even a rumor that he told the king of Saudi Arabia that he would accept their invasion of Bahrain (they now have over 1,000 troops there) in return for Saudi acceptance of the intervention in Libya.

But Americans do believe in democracy, and if the current situation in Bahrain gets enough public attention, Obama will have to change his position. He could probably end the repression with a phone call; let’s make him lift the phone.

5 Things to Understand about the Budget Debate

This will be a quickie – I’m trying to get a book chapter written before leaving for spring break, but you faithful readers need something to tide you over. This will be it until mid-March.

As you follow the debate about the budget – federal, but the states are involved, too – just remember these five things:

1. It’s not about the deficit! Obama’s budget proposal has a deficit of over one trillion dollars. Let’s write it out, $1,000,000,000,000 – wow! Huge! No wonder the House Republicans are upset! So they are fighting hard for $60 billion in cuts, which would leave a deficit of only about one trillion dollars. Hmm . . .

2. It’s not about the deficit! Those most rabid about budget cutting now voted enthusiastically in December for a tax cut package of over $900 billion. (Well, not quite — the most rabid are GOP freshmen, who didn’t get to vote in December because they were not in office yet. Still, the Republican leadership was there, and voted for the tax cuts.) That $900 billion is spread over several years, so defeating the tax cut would not have wiped out the trillion-dollar deficit, but it would have mad a nice dent in it.

3. It’s not about the deficit! We’re fighting wars in Afghanistan (where helicopters just killed 9 boys gathering firewood) and (though our government pretends it’s over) in Iraq. As recent protests in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Oman, Iran, Morocco, Algeria, Iraq (yes, now that we’ve installed “democracy” there, pro-democracy protests have sprung up, and our “democratic” government is killing them!), and elsewhere have shown, foreign invasion is not the way to democratize a country. I hope they don’t do it in Libya. In any case, really ending these wars is absolutely necessary if we want to get rid of the deficit – yet very few of the deficit hawks are proposing that.

4. It’s not about the deficit! Social security does not contribute to the deficit, yet the majority of the deficit commission wants to cut it, and the Republicans are taking up the cry. (However, keep in mind that the deficit commission never agreed on a report, since there were not enough votes to approve one – so Boehner’s criticism that Obama didn’t follow his own deficit commission is bogus.) Social security does need some adjustment to keep it strong past the middle of the century (how about making the rich pay the tax on their whole income?), but it’s a separate fund. Unless the government diverts social security taxes to pay for other things, cutting social security benefits won’t do anything for the deficit.

5. It’s not about the deficit! Health care costs do contribute to the deficit, yet the deficit-conscious House of Representatives just voted to repeal the national health care law. The law has many flaws, and does not do nearly enough to control health care costs – but it does make a step, and repealing it would increase the deficit.

Conclusion: It’s not about the deficit! The budget cuts the Republicans in Congress are proposing are all based on undermining the ability of government to increase the quality of life for everybody. They will make it harder for anyone but the rich to get an education, eliminate jobs for working people, and make it almost impossible for regulatory agencies to enforce protective laws that are on the books. This is not deficit reduction, it’s class war, another attempt by the upper class to assure that the their profits, dividends, and bonuses are paid for by the rest of us. In Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker, backed by Republican majorities in the state legislature, is holding the state hostage until his budget bill passes, even though the unions he is trying to destroy have already agreed to all the economic concessions he proposed. The only issue at stake there is the destruction of the unions, part of the destruction of the power of the working class to defend itself. That’s what’s the federal budget battle is about, as well. We should forget about the deficit and pass a budget that creates jobs, lowers the cost of education, protects the environment, and moves us toward a better health care system.

Obama Fails To Lead on the Environment

My computer has been broken for two weeks now, so I’m a little late with this, writing on borrowed equipment. I hope to be back on schedule by next week.

——————-

President Obama’s record on environmental issues is mixed. He has done some good things: enforced fishing limits, committed money to building a national high-speed rail network, and moved to get arsenic out of our drinking water, for example.

On the other hand, he has sabotaged the UN climate change negotiations (see Bill McKibben’s article for the details). He promoted a carbon-trading scheme that lets polluters continue to pollute as long as they finance phony development schemes in the less developed countries (see Annie Leonard’s “The Story of Cap and Trade” for more on this). And he pretends that the phrase “clean coal” has something to do with limiting greenhouse gas emissions. (“Clean coal” meant coal with very low sulfur, so that its use would reduce acid rain. But carbon dioxide comes from burning carbon – and that’s what coal is! What Obama really means is carbon sequestration – burning the coal, getting the same carbon dioxide, but then somehow bottling it up and storing it away.)

That was all in his first two years, when he was supposedly exercising visionary leadership! Now, beginning with the lame-duck session of Congress in late 2010, and continuing through the State of the Union address in 2011, we are seeing the new, more moderate Obama. Aside from a dumb joke about how salmon protection is irrational, environmental issues were presented only in the guise of programs to create jobs, and as investments in competitiveness. Steven Cohen of the Earth Institute at Columbia University has argued in Huffington Post that this is a sound climate change policy, just not presented as such – steath environmentalism, you might say.

There are two fatal weaknesses with this approach. First, it is not enough to meet the need. Most climate experts think we need to get greenhouse gas to 350 parts per billion in the atmosphere to avoid catastrophic effects. It is now 392 parts per billion, and climbing. Second, the reason we don’t get more effective policies is that most people do not understand the problem. That’s why the industry can talk about “clean coal,” it’s why Obama can talk about developing oil shale as an environmental policy, it’s why biofuels (simply carbon from another source) are presented as “green,” and why the climate change deniers have not gone the way of the smoking and cancer deniers. Only straight talk and clear explanations by the President and other political leaders will get us where we need to be. Steath environmentalism won’t do it.

Where Adam Smith Was Wrong

Government is under attack these days, especially here in the USA. It seems clear to me that we need strong government action to create jobs, but the Tea Party proclaims that government is too big now, and that what we need to do is leave everything to the efficiency of the market.

I have argued earlier that this anti-government view is just bad policy, so I won’t repeat that here. Today I want to reflect on the philosophy of the matter, which brings me to Adam Smith and his two great books, The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations. Smith pointed that in an ideal market transaction, both sides are made better off by the result. That’s a tautology – without coercion, you wouldn’t enter into a transaction unless it would make you better off in some way. Thus, in a society where everything is done by ideal market transactions, everyone should become better off continually, day by day, with the sole (but important) exception of market failure. The latter occurs when you want to make an exchange, but can’t find anyone willing to make that exchange with you.

So if the market makes everyone better off, it follows that government intervention makes someone worse off, right? This, too, is a tautology. The essence of government is force, and you wouldn’t need force (except for basic security functions, i.e. preventing theft) unless someone did not want to do what is required.

That’s the argument, in a nutshell. Milton Friedman went on at much greater length, but really made only one additional point – that the market is more intelligent than any planners could be – which is demonstrably and obviously wrong (think: bubbles).

The problem is, Smith’s argument (like any argument) is derived from some assumptions, several of which are incorrect: the assumption of uncoerced exchange, the assumption of basic morality, and the assumption of the commensurability of values. Each of these is fundamentally wrong; let me explain!

Coerced exchanges. The essence of capitalism is not the market, but the wage relationship. The capitalist is different from the feudal lord or the slaveowner because he or she (or more likely it, since the capitalist is likely to be a corporation) buys labor for a wage rather than exchanging it for the right to use land or compelling it by brute force. But why would anyone be willing to sell his or her labor to a capitalist? That may seem like a silly question today, when the need for jobs is a given. However, you only need a job because you cannot support yourself by your own independent efforts – and you probably can’t, for the simple reason that you do not have access to the things you need: tools, materials, machines, a distribution network for the things you make – unless you become the employee of a capitalist. Capitalism was only able to get going because a lot of people who had lived on the land were driven off it by the enclosure movement. Once they had no other way to support themselves, they became available as full-time wage laborers.

You can probably see where this is going. If you have no other way to live you have to get a job, whether you think the wages are enough or not. Workers can try to force up the wage level through collective bargaining – but if they are in the job market as individuals, it is not a free exchange; one side, the employer, can dictate the terms.

Failure of moral limits. Adam Smith thought that abuses of the market would be prevented by the basic humanity of morality. Of course he was right to think that people are moral beings, and the vast majority of us try to do what is right, at least as we see it. Unfortunately, however, “the vast majority” is not enough. Immorality gives a competitive advantage, so the people whose behavior is not limited by moral principles – in other words, those willing to lie, cheat, and steal – tend to rise to the top. One very important reason we need government is to keep immorality from prevailing.

Money can’t buy happiness. Finally, it’s simply not true that values are commensurable (i.e., that they can be measured by a common unit, which we call “money.”) In practice, there is very solid evidence that more money does not lead to more happiness – after a certain point (basically, enough money to maintain a modicum of comfort) there is simply no relationship between wealth and happiness. (See Gross National Happiness by Arthur C. Brooks.) Contemporary society, driven by the imperative of increasing wealth, is producing higher levels of stress, despair, and depression. It seems safe to assume that no one chooses despair or depression (and few choose stress), we must conclude that people are not achieving Pareto optimality. Instead, they are entering into transacions that make them worse off.

None of this is an argument that any particular government intervention in the market would be a good idea. But it does mean that we should never simply assume that markets are good, and government is bad. After that, we need to look at the details.

The Filibuster Struggle Is Getting too Cute

OK, they’re finally taking my advice. The Democrats seem to be willing to declare that the Senate is not a “continuing body” and therefore can adopt or change its rules by majority vote at the beginning of a new Congress. In other words, until they adopt rules, there are no rules, so a simple majority can do anything.

That’s great, I hope they stick to it – only the reform they are talking about is really silly. A lot of people I respect –Daily KOS, MassVOTE, among others – are calling for a rule that says you can’t filibuster unless you actually stay on the floor and keep talking. If you stop talking, the Senate can then more immediately to a vote.

I say this is silly for two reasons:

I actually proposed doing this in an earlier post. However, they don’t need a new rule! It’s the rule now, but senators evade it by asking unanimous consent to set the matter on the floor aside and move on to something else. All it takes is for one senator to object, and they have to keep talking about the bill being filibustered. Senators don’t make such objections, because then they would have to stay on the floor themselves, and they don’t want to be bothered. Would this change with a new rule? I don’t think so.
We could do much better. The only really important reform is to rule that the Senate can close debate on anything by majority vote. Obstructionist senators will be happy to speak for hours, days, or weeks – it will only get them points with the Tea Party! If the reformers have the votes for reform, let’s make the reform meaningful!

Of course, it may be that they don’t have the votes to change the number, only for the silly rule we are hearing about. But if that’s so, people should be signing petitions for changing the number, not for a meaningless rule that filibusters have to keep talking.

Don’t make them keep talking, make them shut up and vote!

New START Is a False Start

The New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) is going to be ratified today, unless something very surprising happens at the last minute. This is certainly a victory for President Obama. But is it a victory for those of us who want to eliminate nuclear weapons? I think not.

The treaty does do one good thing. It requires both Russia and the US to reduce their number of strategic nuclear missiles (“strategic” means that they can go a long way, so that one of the two countries can hit the other one with a missile; “tactical” weapons are those that won’t go as far) and launchers to 1,500 missiles and 700 launchers. That’s fewer than were permitted under the previous, never-ratified START treaty, so it’s a good thing.

That sounds great. Unfortunately, President Obama got the votes he needed to ratify the treaty by promising to expand the nuclear arms race in other ways. He commited himself to an $85 billion program of “modernization” (i.e., developing new, more powerful and active missiles to replace the ones the US has now), and he promised to proceed with a version of President Reagan’s “Star Wars” (aka “missile defense”) proposal.

As Alice Slater of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation put it, “. . . if the U.S. persists in developing its nuclear infrastructure with new bomb factories while threatening Russia with proliferating missiles, it’s unlikely that this modest New START will help us down the path to peace.”

From President Obama’s point of view, the important thing was to win the vote, even if winning required making commitments that actually hurt the cause of nuclear disarmament. What’s missing from this approach is a strategy that can really lead to the elimination of nuclear weapons. Instead, the emphasis of the US has been on nuclear nonproliferation, limiting the possession of nuclear weapons to states that have them already. This approach has failed. The number of nuclear states continues to grow. As I’ve said before, we cannot reasonably expect Iran, North Korea, or any other state to refrain from developing nuclear weapons unless the US is getting rid of its own.

For further reading on abolishing nuclear weapons, see The Challenge of Abolishing Nuclear Weapons, edited by David Krieger.