These Days, Scandals in Washington Know no Party

Just as the dust settles over the Ted Stevens scandal another surfaces, this time implicating a House Dem.  So much for a clean slate in the Capitol Building

The N.Y Times has just released a story outlining how NY Dem. Chuck Rangel may have used his influence in Congress to preserve off-shore tax loops for donors to his memorial library at C.U.N.Y.  This comes as Rep. Rangel is already being investigated for violating New York State rent control laws and failing to pay various income and property taxes during his time in Washington.  The fact is that if Rangel did specifically exempt the companies donating to his library from new tax laws as a quip pro quo, the lost tax revenue comes to over a billion dollars, that makes Stevens's $250,00 pay off look like chump change.

Read about it here and here.

Recent scandals, or rather the ongoing wave of scandals in Washington raise an interesting question, do the scandals in Washington point to a declining morality in the United States or are they one of the perils of power that have always been a part of life in Washington?  I'm inclined to think the latter, but I'm not entirely sure.

China Sings the Blues, We Might End up Singing Along

This post is the first in a series examining the effects and possible repercussions of the global economic slowdown on developing nations.  A look at the effects of declining oil prices on Latin populist governments is up next.

Despite being an intensely totalitarian country China boasts one of the world’s most dynamic and fastest growing economies.  China’s hybrid communist/capitalist structure has given it some very enviable economic advantages; however in this time of global recession this unique position makes it the country with the most to lose.  A prolonged recession in China will bring to the forefront three major problems with the potential to cause severe internal strife: a huge population of single unemployed men, a crisis of moral leadership in the Communist party, and insufficient cash reserves to provide for a huge unemployed urban population.  These problems individually would pose serious problems for China’s leadership but as a trio the results are catastrophic for China and for the rest of us as well.

Strict enforcement of the one child policy in China has led to the creation of a huge surplus of men hundreds of million strong.  Since there are no women for these men to marry, nor any other meaningful social or economic ties these men have been and will continue to be a destabilizing force in China.  In the past leaders dealt with their population surpluses by conscripting armies and fighting wars.  The modern world no longer allows war as a means of disposing of excess population for both moral and technological reasons.  If China’s leadership cannot find a way to integrate these men into society it may find itself dealing with a revolution fought by young men with nothing to lose; the worst kind of revolutionary.  Rapidly rising unemployment will only exacerbate the problem by swelling the ranks and increasing dissatisfaction.

Frustration felt by the marginalized elements of Chinese society is worsened by the fact that every level of the Communist party leadership in China is corrupt.  In the wake of China’s unbridled pursuit of capitalism corruption in government has become endemic.  The result is a breakdown in government credibility and stability that will only add fuel to the fire of discontent as China’s economic situation crumbles.

The easiest solution for China to economic problems would be an increase in benefits across the board for the unemployed coupled with government ownership of key industries.  This action would soften the blow for consumers and limit popular unrest.  Unfortunately this remedy requires large cash reserves, something China does not currently have; all its cash is tied up in U.S. securities.  By investing in U.S. Treasury Bills China pursued a financial path designed to provide for future security and stability, not the pressing current crisis.  The lack of liquidity and domestic spending power will severely hamper China’s ability to buy its way out of a recession.

The current problems facing China are severe and could lead to increased popular unrest; if the government responds in the typical tank and machine gun fashion it may lose control of the situation.  The time is now for China to make deep changes in the way it functions, namely in the adoption of governmental transparency and accountability (a fundamental shift in governance practices), a change in population control policies, and an investment of resources domestically rather than abroad.  These changes should be both endorsed and aggressively promoted by the U.S. government because if China fails, it could and probably would take the rest of the world down with it.

If it looks like a Clinton administration and quacks like a Clinton administration...

I don't know that a return to the Clinton years is really a change I can believe in.  Early indications are that Obama will be drawing heavily from the former Clinton administration to fill key positions on his staff.  In his defense, Obama recognizes that his lack of experience is a weakness to be addressed, conceivably he is choosing subordinates that will strengthen him; still he won because he promised to be different, not just from Bush, but from everything we'd seen in a long time.  People always say that our friends determine how we turn out, if Barack Obama hasn't learned that lesson he would do well to figure it out now.

Current appointments and possible appointments:

Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff

Ron Klain as Joe Biden's Chief of Staff, read about it here. 

Eric Holder as Attorney General, read about it here.

and of course...

Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, read about it here.

Said one Clinton era staffer of Obama's move away from his criticism of the Clinton years, "It's heartening to see that that was just primary rhetoric."  I wonder if everyone who voted for Obama feels the same way.

Fading into an Iraqi Sunset: What we did and why we did it

The Iraq war is finally (maybe) winding down; looking back over the last five years, wondering what we accomplished, and if it was worth the effort

It seems as though the Iraq War is finally drawing to a close; American troops will be off the streets by next summer and they’ll be gone all together by 2011.  The agreement signed yesterday by U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and his Iraqi counterpart marks the end of an American era and signals that in many ways the presidency of George W. Bush has come full circle.  It’s been a long time since President Bush stepped on board the U.S.S. Lincoln and gave his “mission accomplished” speech.  The question now is that since the mission seems to really have been accomplished, so what?  Have the American troops in Iraq actually accomplished anything meaningful or has our entire mission been in vain?  The answer to these questions is unfortunately, yet to be seen.  If the United States has been able to create a friendly democracy in the desert then the sacrifice was worthwhile.

The Iraq war was supposedly started in an attempt to get Saddam Hussein to turn over his weapons of mass destruction and submit to the various U.N mandates he had flagrantly violate.  No one really expected to find WMD’s, not because they didn’t exist, but because since the end of the Gulf War Saddam had plenty of time to sell, hide, or actually (not likely) destroy the weapons.  Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were not fools, they knew the chances for finding WMD’s were slim, what they really wanted to do was create an Arab Muslim state that was both friendly to the United States and democratic.  They wanted a state that would serve as an effective counterweight to the anti-American pole led by Iran, and as an economic alternative to the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.  Iraq presented an ideal opportunity for state building: the world’s fourth largest known oil reserves, a relatively well educated population, and a corrupt dictator at the head of government just waiting to be toppled.  American troops went to Iraq not find WMD’s, or to bring Saddam Hussein to justice, but to build a new state; only the success of that state will justify the great sacrifice untaken over the last five years and a half years.

Despite all of the challenges facing Iraq it probably is a better place than it was five and a half years ago, it appears that democracy may actually succeed in Iraq.  The real unknown in the future is whether or not Iraq will indeed be a leader in the Middle East and a champion for American values.  As a matter of history the states occupied by the United States have generally stayed friendly once the troops went home, but the challenges facing an Iraqi/American partnership are unique and it remains to be seen if they can be overcome going forward.  Iran and other anti-American forces will attempt to pull Iraq away from American influence, Iraq will remain a target for terrorist groups, and the fabulous oil wealth in Iraq will in many ways be a hindrance to an emerging market economy.  The future belongs to the people of Iraq, ultimately they will decide whether or not to take the opportunities available to them going forward.

 

Republicans in Congress and The Bush Administration Resist Bailout for Automakers

It looks like an handout for the automakers will probably not be forthcoming: resistance in both the Senate and the White House will probably keep anything from being voted on, at least for now.  Read about it here. 

GM: We Don't Have to Save it

There is increasingly insistent talk on Capitol Hill to give Federal money to GM and potentially Ford and Chrysler, this is a terrible idea and should be discarded

G.M. and perhaps the other American automakers have headed into a seemingly irreversible tailspin and are calling on the Federal government to rescue them from an almost certain demise.  The prospect of a Federal bailout of the Big Three raises two important questions: first, why on Earth would anyone spend money to allow the GM et al to continue running a bad business; and second, why should the government intervene to save any company, big or small, that can’t survive on its own?  The answer lies I think in what Americans tend to want from their economic system: they want a system that provides the benefits of both a capitalist and socialist system, which simply isn’t possible.            

Put bluntly the American automobile industry is a mess; inefficient production models, inflexible vehicle development programs, and years of increasingly generous UAW contracts has stripped the auto companies of the ability to perform their core function: producing a car that people want to buy for a profit.  Stiff competition from foreign manufacturers, increasing gas prices, and decreased consumer spending has exacerbated these woes to the point that GM, Ford, and Chrysler are reported to be on the point of bankruptcy.  Capitalism dictates that the companies be allowed to fail; if people don’t want what they’re selling at the market price let them go out of business.  This cruel process leads to the demise of thousands of small business every year and occasionally to the failure of a big company too.  Why let the companies fail, both big and small?  Efficiency.  Capitalism allows resources to be used in the most efficient manner possible and allows people to consume products according to their tastes.  This is the great benefit of our economic system and it has created the most vibrant and powerful economy in the history of the world.  The downside to a capitalistic system is of course its cyclical nature as well as the painful transition as goods and production are reallocated throughout the system. 

 Which brings me back to GM.  If the Federal government gives more emergency loans (yes more, a first round of loans was already approved a month ago) to the company it is in essence saying that the value of the jobs and resources tied up in the company are worth enough to the economy to allow it to use an inefficient system to keep making cars that no one wants.  This valuation is inherently flawed and should be discarded.  When the typewriter industry started dying in the late 80’s and early 90’s no one wanted to save it because there was a clearly better alternative; such is the case now.  No company or industry is so vital that it should be exempt from the trying fire of the market; while there will be pains associated with the end of American auto making as we know it, the pains of maintaining the automakers on life support will be even greater in the long run. 

NY Times also wonders about Obama and his Democratic Congress

An Op/Ed Contributor for the NY Times has reached basically the same conclusions as I did in terms of Obama being successful in Congress (see my post on November 5th), it will definitely be intersting to see how things go on January 21, 2009.  Check it out: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/opinion/10ehrenhalt.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Calling it Quits to the War on Terror

The Pundits are already calling it quits to the War on Terror under Obama, can they really be serious?

An Opinion article in Friday’s New York Times mentioned favorably the possibility of Obama “turning the corner” on the war on terror.  Although the tone of the article was jesting there was probably more than a grain of truth to this jest; Americans are tired of the war on terror, they’re tired of hearing about their sons dying in far-off places they’ve never heard of and couldn’t find on a map without help, and they’re tired of seeing their national wealth siphoned away into the desert sand.  I understand all of these frustrations and agree with many of them, yet for all that I am surprised and a little disconcerted by this idea that a new president can come into office and simply “turn the corner” on the war on terror. 

Perhaps one reason the article’s author (and maybe most Americans) thinks about ending the war on terror is a conflation of the war on terror and the war in Iraq.  Although President Bush presented the war in Iraq as an important element of the war on terror no one who thought too hard was ever misled, the two are and always have been separate conflicts.  While the war on terror was precipitated in response to the most deadly attack on civilians in the history of the United States, the Iraq war was started for reasons no one (including President Bush or Dick Cheney) could ever honestly or clearly explain.  American forces never should have been sent to Iraq and they should be brought home as soon as can be reasonably arranged.

Does the end of the war in Iraq mean the end of the war on terror?  Hopefully not.  National security is important, not as a Republican or Democratic question, but as an issue for all Americans.  To the extent that the war on terror means maintaining vigilance at home and abroad, it should be continued.  The horrors of September 11^th were not a figment of George W. Bush’s imagination, neither is the possibility that they could happen again.  Even though Barack Obama may reframe the issues and rephrase the rhetoric surrounding the war on terror, there is nothing he can do to erase the necessity of high levels of security in the world today.  To think otherwise is either foolish or a joke in very bad taste.

The Most Pressing Question: Can Barack Obama Lead His Party?

If Barack Obama wants to become the transformative President his
supports hope he will be, he'll first have to learn to govern the
forces within his party.

In many ways Barack Obama’s election to the presidency is historic. Perhaps more important than Obama’s impressive list of election day accomplishments is the mood that swept him into office; people from across America have placed their hopes and dreams in Obama in a way that has not been seen in American politics in a generation. The good news for Obama is that he will be able to use his clout with the American people to pursue an aggressive political agenda. The bad news for Obama is that there is a strong possibility of his becoming yet another Democratic president who failed to live up to his potential.

For the second half of the twentieth century and into the twenty First Democrats have been reactionary, sluggish, and unable to define the political issues that drive American politics. Presidents like Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and even Bill Clinton are perfect examples of the chronic Democratic woes in leadership. Each of these presidents allowed their failings, whether personal or political, to keep them from reforming a party in need of repair. The lesson for Obama to take from his predecessors is that redefining and building an enduring mission for his party must be a central aim of his presidency. The obstacles he faces in doing this are significant.

The first challenge Obama faces is the simple fact that his personal beliefs about the proper direction and course for American social and political life are not reflective of the American mainstream. Obama isn’t a socialist, but his views are definitely are few steps left of what most Americans see as the proper course for American politics and culture. President Obama will have to resist the temptation to build a party in his own image, which cannot survive long, and instead craft his party as a picture of the great American political middle. If Obama can accomplish this then his next job, getting the Democratic Congress on his side will be much easier.

Taming Congress and bringing it onboard will be a significant challenge for Obama even though his party has commanding leads in both houses. Jimmy Carter, despite Democratic control of Congress, was stymied by legislative battles in almost all of his efforts. If Obama pursues too left leaning of an agenda or if he takes his Democratic colleagues in Congress for granted he will suffer a fate similar to Carter’s. On the other hand, Democrats in both the House and Senate will welcome a leader who can finally articulate a mission and cause that reaches out to the American people at large and again makes the Democratic party a household brand across America.

There is a great deal riding on President-elect Obama; if he succeeds at building his party up correctly he can assure Democratic dominance in national politics for years to come. If Obama fails, either because he cannot resist his own leftist urges or because of his own personal arrogance he will join the long list of democratic have-beens. This failure will be sad, because more than ever, America needs a president and a party who can address and solve the problems of our day.

The Inaugural Post

Welcome to thesoundbite.org.  The purpose of this blog is to allow for an interjection of rational thought into the mix of everyday vitriol that surrounds the internet discourse on political and social issues.  While the political leaning of the posts is probably a little to the right and the social inclination is conservative, logic and rational thought more than personal inclination will come to the forefront of our discussions.  We hope you enjoy.