Climate Change Conference Thus Far

This week's UN conference in Denmark has thus far proven to be more grueling than anticipated, demonstrating a distinct distrust of the United States by the international community and its lack of commitment to previous efforts at reigning in global warming; with President Obama arriving in Copenhagen tomorrow, those concerns should be put to rest. However, the divide between developed and developing countries, between the rich and the poor, has also defined the summit and its lack of progress up to now.

Regardless of the good intentions of any nation, funding is the variable necessary to make meaningful pledges. Without economic means, countries are unable to fund research into new technologies that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to implement the changes any research already suggests. Furthermore, those countries that are developing are focusing more attention on their industrialization, becoming a part of the global trade community, and increasing internal wealth and development (as one official put it, it's difficult to choose between schools and hospitals and climate change pledges when money is scare in the developing world).

And pledges that have already been made, as a leaked document suggests, may not be enough to slow global warming within the 2C degree aimed for; in fact, projections that incorporate current pledges for reducing greenhouse gas emissions indicate a rise in the global temperature of 3C/5.4F.

However, Hillary Clinton has promised that the United States is willing to extend up to $100B to developing nations in order to aid in efforts at controlling and reducing emissions. The Senate demands transparency from those that would receive US dollars, and thus far it is China that is most resistant to this stipulation (surprise!).

And there is reason to be optimistic, as developing countries maintain high expectations for developed countries because they are in the best position to lead the way toward meaningful pledges and following through on them. However, the offer by the United States to aid other nations in developing climate change initiatives makes me wonder about the potential for a future international welfare system. Crazy liberal alert! Perhaps a future post on that.

GOLD!!!

December 3rd Gold hit an all time high of over $1215 per ounce. Such a high price clearly suggests that the world is going to end tomorrow so no point getting up in the morning. Well, maybe it isn't really that bad, but it is important to understand why the prices are going where they are. Gold is used in 2 primary ways. First it is used as a commodity to make jewelry and other physical things like super conductive wires in microchips. So the price of gold as a commodity goes up during times when companies are making more circuit boards or during Indian Wedding Season (One of the Largest Seasonal changes in Gold Demand). Gold is also used as global store of value in order to hedge against changes in the value of fiat currencies like the US Dollar. The dollar can change in value for any number of reasons but at the heart of the change in value is a change of what people are willing to pay on a micro basis. Once people think the price of anything will go up they are willing to pay more and visa-versa. So attitudes and the conventional wisdom do effect prices in the short and medium run.

So the change in the price of gold does not have a base in a change in the supply or demand of the commodity but in the fact that the US Dollar is weakening and the worry surrounding these changes make Gold more valuable as a store of value. So the real problem is that people are not sure about the direction America is heading. With the uncertainty in the financial and health sectors along with increased regulation in the manufacturing sector and an over all lack of a vision for the country there is little wonder why the dollar may no longer be the worlds sole reserve currency.

So what can be done? In order to get the deficit under control the best solution is to cut entitlement spending and increase taxes. I believe that Americans expect way to much from our government and you may disagree, but giving more and expecting less entitlements would certainly make the country better off. But this is an interesting gap between micro and macro economics because without some aspect of altruism the country will not be able to take out some of the risk associated with dollar moves. The Kennedy Line Rings true to me, ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.

Intelligent Design...... Not so intelligent

In the course of American history the teaching of the theory of evolution has been a forum for heated discussion. In the historic Supreme Court case Epperson v Arkansas the court ruled that it is unconstitutional to forbid the teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution in public schools. This ruling nullified laws in several states which forbade the teachings. Creationists, determined to enhance their religious agenda, have created a new “theory.” This theory is called intelligent design and once again the issue has penetrated the scientific world. The theory of intelligent design recognizes an “intelligent agent” who designed all things on earth. This premise has no scientific fact, and the arguments created by its advocates are logically unsound.
Science, as defined by Webster Dictionary, is the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding. Given that definition, teaching intelligent design in a science class is inherently against the basic principles of science. Scientific theories can be tested. The theory of evolution is a theory that can be tested. In tests in the 1990s scientists found that changes in DNA Sequences lead to a species to evolve. For example, when a group of white moths was placed in an environment not conducive to its survival the white moths DNA changed so that the moth would turn black. In a study in 2003, scientists reversed evolution in yeasts. By being able to control the evolutionary process scientists have proven, in at least some way, that the theory of evolution has merit.
On the contrary, the theory of intelligent design is not testable. One major component of a scientific theory is that it must be able to go through the scientific method. The scientific method is defined by Webster’s dictionary as principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Intelligent design is not able to go through this process. What would the control group be? How could one test a theory that cannot provide evidence that a “higher being” exists? There are seven steps in the scientific method. The fourth step is: test your hypothesis by doing an experiment. How would one do this when testing intelligent design? Pray?
Yet another problem with intelligent design is that its arguments are loaded with logical fallacies. The principles of intelligent design is in itself question begging. When one states that there is an “intelligent agent” it does not answer the question of who is that agent, where is that agent? The inductive reasoning used to come to the conclusion of intelligent design is fallacious. Intelligent design advocates also use other fallacies such as: appeals to belief, appeals to common practice, bandwagon fallacies, and poisoning the well fallacies. For example, when arguing in support of intelligent design many will say most people believe in a higher power. This is an example of an appeal to common practice, an appeal to belief, and a bandwagon fallacy. Advocates also “poison the well” when they attack scientists who do not believe in a higher power and try to damage their character. The arguments in favor of intelligent design are illogical.
Should Intelligent design be taught in a science classroom with Darwin’s theory of evolution. ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Intelligent design should be offered as an elective in schools. This is an attractive way to add skepticism to theories of science. If intelligent design were to be taught as an optional elective rather than a requirement in a science class; it would be perfectly reasonable to teach this in any school. It is inherently wrong to force into science classes the agendas of neo-conservative Christian fundamentalists.

Cory's Note

One of our readers (Cory) asked if he could post an article. Being an inclusive group we of course were happy to include other comments! Here is Cory's note.

I'll preface this post with an quick explanation. This is my informal call to arms. I am curious what other feel about this idea in principle and execution and would love to talk further on the subject at both levels.

We are on a precipice of government. As the two sides of traditional government become more factionalized and polarized a growing gap begins to form. So we have entered a stage where both sides continue to pluck elections from this gap without a strong grasp on it. In a chicken or the egg type scenario, politics have also become simplified nowadays for the majority of America.. You have a position, they have an opposing position. The political landscape has been carved up with buzzwords and controversial issues. With this as our base, we have two options. Continue to struggle within this framework to make the best of what we have or decide that the status quo will just not do anymore. Option one, we can try to refocus the current parties with invigorated youth and some change can and has happened. You cannot doubt that the Obama election was on the backs of motivated youth and the idea of hope. However, his election seems more like a blip on the screen than a trend especially if this year’s election results carry over to the mid-terms as many predict. Furthermore, the ideals that Obama ran on have not become the platform of the Democrats and don’t look like they will. So we are left with the other option, move outside the status quo. Estimates have the 2008 population of around 63 million people between the ages of 15 and 30. Obama won with 66 million votes. Now obviously everyone of those 63 million won’t vote and if they did, the white house isn’t won on direct votes, but the sentiment of this is still there. The over 60 voting block, highly sought after and highly influencial is at 54 million estimate in 2008. Now obviously these are not registered voting numbers, but that is because I am talking about more than elections. I am also talking about public opinion, public sway, and control of the public dialogue. We are quickly inheriting the country. The good, the bad and everything in between. We can use the same tactics to solve new problems or we can come up with something new. Justin brings up a great point about a return to civic duty and virtue. We need not so much a return, but a 21st century interpretation of civic virtue and duty. How this happens and what it looks like we can soon to decide or let slip away. We exist in a world where everything is instant, everyone is connected, and everything can be known with one click, yet we are still fumbling to implement this to a full scale on the political front. How is it that the world seems more connected and informed about the happenings on TMZ than that off CNN? I see more about Tiger Wood’s 9 affairs, than the Nobel Prize winners and their speeches(Obama aside). So let’s take this ability of connectivity and flip it on its head. Connectivity is our solution to the 21st centuries problems. Sharing information, knowledge, ideas, and so much more, our generation can tackle what lies ahead. We just need to focus our connectivity towards the right things. Let’s for a moment, escape the labels of right wing, left wing, democrat, republican, independent and apply the label Invested in America’s Future. Let’s take politics away from the issues and bring it back to doing what is right and best for the country. My idea is just that, a group of ideas. A place that promotes dialogue, connectivity, sharing, debate, and consensus. We were given a system of checks and balances not so one side could dominate for a while and then another, but so that only the truly good ideas would rise to the top, while all others fell to the way side. We are smart, well-educated, well-informed, and connected. This should be our charge and that is where we can succeed.

A Vote for Less Transparent Government

I know this is going to sound crazy but I long for the days when major decisions came out of smoke filled back rooms. Many of America's best decisions have come out of these smoke filled rooms like the selection of Lincoln to be the republican nominee for president. The reason smoke filled back rooms are so important is that they let our legislatures compromise. Without compromise we see complete deadlock like we are experiencing now.

The issue comes down to a more philosophical debate about the role our legislatures play once they are elected. Should our legislatures be delegates of the people or their trustees? Delegates respond directly to the will of their constituents. So what ever a majority of the people want a member to do they will do since they want to get their votes in the next election. If this were completely true it would be easy to determine how members would act. Simply take an opinion poll and you would know how they would act. However when a member of congress acts as a trustee they act as they themselves would without taking the peoples will on an issue directly into account. So by being elected the people chose the ideas he ran on so he should make his own best judgement on an issue.

The conventional wisdom is that as people have more oversight the members will take on more of a delegate roll which is good because the will of the people will be exercised. The problem is that members are so scared of alienating potential voters that they do not act. If we had more trust in our legislatures and did not exercise as much oversight members would be able to act more like trustees and get more done. If members couldn't be blamed for compromise to the same extent, they may be more apt to compromise.

While i do understand wanting our government to be accountable to its people like the founders wanted. I also think the founders would acknowledge that while they did not want to count solely on the altruism of members to make good decisions there must be some level of trust by the people in their government or the government wont survive.

What's at Stake in Copenhagen

While President Obama attends U.N. summit of on climate change in Copenhagen, it is becoming more and more apparent that the divided interests of Americans- between keeping their job or finding one, determining whom to trust with their money, and whether or not they can or should get a swine flu vaccination- are steering them away from concern for the long-term effects of greenhouse gases and global warming. Not only that, but certain global warming-deniers are creating a circus atmosphere in Washington, DC in what is being called "climategate."

After illegally obtaining emails and documents from a British research institute (UEACRU), deniers are not only ignoring the fact that they've broken the law, but are targeting climate scientists around the world who support global warming initiatives. As if this weren't enough of a faux scandal, they're even demanding thatAl Gore lose his Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth.

The reason the email leak has received so much attention is because the language of the emails, privately sent between scientists, suggests the fabrication of statistics--though it is being argued that the tone is being misconstrued and misinterpreted by individuals looking for an anti-environmental smear campaign platform.

However, the agency was responsible for the data that was included in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment that has served as the basis for most of the regulatory legislative proposals since its publication. Obviously, if there was legitimate concern that this body invented statistics, it would be a big problem. But this isn't the case. "Climategate" is just another red herring to distract and detract the global community from the real dangers of reckless pollution and greenhouse gases.

And it appears to be working, in conjunction with the overwhelming concern most Americans have for the economy. In an interview on NPR, Ed Maibach, Director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, had this to say:

I think there's two big things going on. Number one is the economy. It's been in shambles for quite some time now and psychologists tell us that there's such a thing as a limited pool of worry, finite pool of worry -we can only worry about so many things at any one time. And most people that I know are fairly worried about the economy, so it tends to have the effect of forcing their concern about other issues further from top of mind.

The second thing that's absolutely going on right now is this is a highly contested issue. There's a battle raging in Congress right now about passing climate legislation, and lots of people, lots of organizations are vying for the hearts and minds of the public to influence them in one direction or the other.

Out of Copenhagen, though, several options may emerge, similar to and different from the Kyoto summit in 1997. The world's most highly developed countries, United States included, didn't have to do much more than tacitly agree to pay attention to global warming after the Kyoto summit; the US Senate never even ratified the pact.

But President Obama is taking a more proactive approach using what is now being referred to as a "Pledge and Review" method. Obama may promise to lower greenhouse gas emissions by 17% (according to 2005 levels) by 2020, and other countries would make similar promises with individual timetables and goals. However, developing countries are resisting pressure to make their goals legally binding, and the US will not agree to a treaty that is not binding internationally.

It remains to be seen what will emerge from Copenhagen, but here's to hoping that "going green" isn't a passing fad, and that the global community will reassert responsibility for the long-term consequences of pollution and curb global warming.

South Dakota and Abortion

For the past few years the right wing in South Dakota has been attempting to outlaw abortion. While the attempts have mainly failed, the state continues to attempt to force a Supreme Court showdown on abortion.
There is no question that South Dakota’s law is unconstitutional. It disregards a constitutional right upheld by the Supreme Court seven times. In 1973 the constitutional right of privacy protecting a woman’s right to choose an abortion. South Dakota’s law strikes down a constitutional right and puts into jeopardy the system of which we live under.
There is a right to personal privacy in the Constitution. South Dakota’s law ignores constitutional precedent created and upheld by the Supreme Court, including the three key cases: Griswold V Connecticut in 1965, Roe V Wade in 1972, and Planned Parenthood V Casey in 1992. Griswold V Connecticut in 1965 was the first Supreme Court case to outline the right to privacy embodied in the Constitution. In it the Supreme Court decided that the guarantees in the Bill of rights embodied a right to privacy. The Supreme Court’s opinion asserts that the existence of a "right of privacy" is bolstered by the Ninth Amendment's protection of rights not detailed in the Constitution, and that the fourteenth amendment’s due process clause embodied those same rights. Furthermore, The Supreme Court held that the first, third, and fourth amendments also guarantee that right. The precedent set by Griswold alone is enough to declare South Dakota’s law unconstitutional.
In addition, the South Dakota legislature ignored Supreme Court precedent in Roe V Wade as well; a landmark Supreme Court decision that upheld a constitutional right to the same privacy rights as Griswold V Connecticut. In Roe, the Supreme Court held that the fourteenth amendment protected a right to privacy, and that the state had no vested interest in outlawing the termination of a pregnancy during the first trimester.
South Dakota ignored judicial precedent a third time when they disregarded the decision in Planned Parenthood V Casey in 1992; which once again upheld Roe, and ignored precedent another four times when the court upheld Roe in Akron V Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Bellotti V Baird, Hodgson V Minnesota, and Lambert V Wickland..
South Dakota’s reckless policy of ignoring Supreme Court decisions undermines judicial authority outlined in the constitution. The Supreme Court has the authority to review laws and declare them unconstitutional. South Dakota’s legislature dismisses judicial authority substantiated in article three sections one and two of the Constitution, which vests all judicial power in the Supreme Court. It also discounts the landmark case Marbury V Madison which holds that “the Constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and that an act of legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” Marbury V Madison grants to the Supreme Court the power to review any act of legislature and determine if it is constitutional. By determining that the Constitution embodies a right to privacy including the right to reproductive freedom is not an example of the Supreme Court overstepping its power, that power is granted to it by the Constitution and the precedent of judicial review outlined in Marbury V Madison. South Dakota’s legislature is overstepping its power when it ignores Supreme Court Precedent; South Dakota’s law attacks a constitutional right upheld seven times by the Supreme Court and clearly violates the constitutional right to privacy.

The Administration's Season of Woe

Though perhaps not experiencing the worst week of publicity this holiday season, the Obama Administration is presently hitting more than a few bumps in the road since the House's passage of the Healthcare Omnibus Bill. Between the bill's stalling in the Senate, the kerfluffle over the security breach at the White House last week, the whispering in the press of ineffective governance, Afghanistan, and the ill-timed Climate Change summit in Copenhagen, and of course the economy, the luster of early 2009 for President Obama has appeared to wear off. Perhaps with expectations set so high, it would be impossible for any presidential administration to live up to them-- regardless, benefiting from Great Expectations, the reality is falling far short, even to much of the President's base. Gallup's tracking of his approval rating in office and on specific issues is beginning to approach what Rasmussen Reports' polls (using likely voters rather than registered) began to note late this summer, what I like to call the X of Woe: Initially high "strongly favorable" polling being replaced with a higher "strongly unfavorable" polling-- meaning more respondents strongly disapprove of the President's performance than strongly approve. Gallup, though not quite at the X, has the President hovering around 50%, implying his political capital is not quite what it once was.

Meanwhile, the retirement of 2 moderate Democrats in KS-3 and TN-8 districts, both GOP leaning in voting trends, have some analysts concerned that these may be the spearpoint of a cycle of Democratic retirements -- both these incumbents were fairly safe despite their conservative districts (Tenn 8 went for McCain by double digits and Kansas 3 is...well, in Kansas) and offer Republicans strong pick-up opportunities, if more blue dog Democrats begin to peel away after this session and as primaries approach, this could very much complicate legislative matters for the remainder of this Congressional term for other Democrats in moderate to conservative districts reading the tea-leaves-- well, beyond the Alan Grayson's of the world, anyway.

The Copenhagen Climate summit has been complicated by the growing scandal stemming from "Climategate E-mails" from East Anglia University, implying academic dishonesty, blackballing of skeptics, and generally very greaseball mechanizations by leading Climate Change advocates-- red meat for the Global warming skeptics, and generally ignored by the Big 3 networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) but oddly enough, not by Jon Stewart. The blowback over this growing issue will likely reflect on any global-warming related summits in the short term, and any agreements signed on to will be tainted...

Which getting to tainted, I come to my next mishap of this past week or so for the Administration, what must have been inevitable finally took place -- a Big Speech fell kind of flat. The final (after extended deliberation and declining poll numbers-- The President's approval rating on Afghanistan was down to 35%) decision and speech on the next aspect of the Afghan War took place at West Point on Tuesday. It did not go particularly well, judging by the fact that even Democratic strategists were expressing their discomfort with it. The plan itself, the 30,000 additional troops (not popular with the anti-war left) and the time-table (not popular with the hawks) was still received lukewarm by the middle. How the war will turn out, or even the President's confidence in its prosecution (he did not use the term Victory, once in reference to either it or Iraq-- preferring milestones for Iraq-- a war largely considered won. Even though his "audience" was one of West Point cadets and members of the Armed Service) is uncertain, and I will go over my view of Afghanistan in a subsequent post-- but regardless, it did not instill confidence in these policies.

So overall, it's been a rough week for the President and his agenda-- following a perceived fruitless trip to Asia. With new unemployment figures coming out tomorrow, the economy could provide further problems-- not aided by today's job summit that did not particularly focus on creating jobs. The initial optimism that greated Obama's assumption to the office appears to have waned, and if solid accomplishments and popular policies do not begin to appear shortly, the present powers in Washington will be in serious jeopardy. The Republicans will likely not need to continually harken back to Ronald Reagan to get back into the swing of things.

Riding the Economic Roller Coaster

This graph shows Monthly Mortgage reset rates for different types of adjustable rate mortgages. This graph is the reason why Banks have not been lending. This graph is the reason why the federal reserve activated the printing press in order to monetize the debt. Many people have heard about the sub prime mortgage crisis but another crisis of equal proportion could be near. Option adjustable mortgages are similar to sub prime mortgages in the fact that the borrower is paying low monthly payments because they are only paying for the interest on the mortgage without immediately paying for any of the principal. The resets are when the banks finally include payments of principal into the monthly loan payment. With higher payments and no down payment for something that is worth less, do we really believe that people are going to stay in their homes. In some cases people would have to be crazy to stay in their homes especially if they lived in Florida, Nevada, or California which have seen the largest decreases in house values. With up to 40 Billion dollars every month being lost in resets, and not all of the resets will file for foreclosure, but the option arms have a high foreclosure rate. So if you ask me if I think the stock market is going to be higher or lower in a year, this graph has my answer.

Illegal Immigration

We must first consider one question. Why is there illegal immigration in the United States? I posit that the reason we have an illegal immigration problem is because of a demand for sub-minimum wage unskilled labor in the United States. Given this, we can also posit that as long as there remains a demand for this labor there will also always be some form of supply of this labor. Thus, efforts to enforce current immigration laws will prove to be futile. Factually, it is literally impossible to effectively enforce a legal requirement for undocumented immigrants to return to their countries of origin.

This impossibility is created by the fact that the sheer number of undocumented immigrants in the United States makes it impossible to move them to their countries of origin. At the current time, according to the department of homeland security states that by best estimate there are 11,550,000 undocumented immigrants residing in the United States. This estimate is on the low end of the spectrum with numbers as high as 15 or 20 million being a distinct possibility. Of the 11.5 million undocumented immigrants 20% of these come from Mexico. Regardless, when discussing numbers of people in this quantity, moving them all becomes impossible in terms of cost and effectiveness, especially since the other 80% are from countries which do not border ours.

Something else worth considering is that every law the United States Congress passes has both intended and unintended consequences. I would also argue that enforcing the current immigration laws and forcing all the illegal immigrants to leave the country will have the unintended effect of devastating local economies, particularly as it pertains to the agriculture industry.

Now, why would this happen? Some local economies thrive off of illegal labor. The agriculture industry is one industry which thrives off of illegal labor. Once illegal immigration laws are enforced employers of illegal immigrants will be forced to pay more for Americans to take these jobs. The increase in the cost of labor also increases the price of the good the industry is trying to sell. Thus, the industry will sell the good, in this case produce, at a higher price. Currently the agriculture industry, due to its low labor costs, is actually able to export goods to other countries. However, once illegal immigration laws are enforced the goods will become more expensive which will hamper the agriculture industries ability to export because the price is too high. Thus, in terms of GDP enforcing illegal immigration laws will decrease our net exports and thus decrease our overall Gross Domestic Product.
Another way enforcing illegal immigration will negatively effect the United States Economic Growth is that the money the illegal immigrants spend in order to live in the United States will be gone. According to the United States Cencus bureau the national household income for undocumented immigrants is $45,748. Multiplied by 11.5 million that equals $517,500,000,000 annually, that money if removed from the economy would decrease overall consumption spending by even more than 517 billion dollars.
Furthermore, forcing undocumented immigrants to leave will hamper the ability of businesses to expand. For instance, the availability of foreign workers at low wages in the Nebraska poultry industry made companies realize that they had the personnel to expand. So they invested in new equipment, generating jobs that would not otherwise be there. In California's strawberry patches, illegal immigrants are not competing against native workers; they are competing against pickers in Michoacán, Mexico. If the immigrant pickers did not come north across the border, the strawberries would.

Who is Basel and Why Should I Care

The Basel Committee was created in late 1974 by the international community after the collapse of a large German bank due to liquidity problems. The Basel Committee operates as an arm of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS). The BIS is an organization made up of central banks from around the world and was created in 1930 as part of The Hague Accords. It took until 1988 to get the first Basel accords passed by the G-10 countries. Basel I established international capital suggestions in order to better calculate risk. Basel I was very similar to the net capital rule that was already in place in United States.

Basel II was established in 2004 in order to correct for changes to the financial system that had taken place since the original accords were accepted. Basel II established a series of recommendations that would theoretically reduce risk through oversight by government regulators. Basel II argued, much like the alternative to the net capital rule, which large international banks could take on what are historically riskier assets and more leverage as long as government regulators could judge the broker dealers investments. The current financial crisis has shown that banking regulators have not been able to adequately exercise oversight on these large financial institutions. The use of Value at Risk models (VAR) did not create realistic risk models because they did not take into account the possibility of a catastrophic collapse. Basel II was also similar to the original net capital rule using the concept of haircuts. However Basel II created a tier structure for assets based on quality of risk. Tier 1 being the highest quality and tier 3 and 4 being nearly completely worthless. Even though the Basel accords tried to cap tier 3 and 4 assets they were not able to do so effectively.

Now there is talk about creating a third Basel accord. I have no idea why we think it will work this time. Let each country regulate their own banks. Because if we had followed the Basel accords our banks would be in as bad a shape as England's.

Pakistan's Terrorism Woes

This New York Times article outlines the new pressure being placed on Pakistan to step up their efforts in the war on terror in their own country. I am obliged to agree with the President and the Secretary of State: Pakistan is simply failing in its efforts to mitigate terrorist activity. The graph below illustrates the rise in the casualty rate of Pakistani’s from terror attacks and the general public opinion of the Pakistani people regarding the direction of their country.



In 2001 the Bush Administration rightly increased military aid to Pakistan to fight terrorism. This was a good move by the Bush administration (one of very few) and should be applauded. However, the question is clearly begged; where did the money and resources go? Clearly the money did not go to fight terrorism. Recently, the United States has also provided the Pakistani’s with drones so that they can broaden their fight from the cities into the tribal and mountainous regions of the country. However, we are still seeing an increase in violence. We MUST keep a better eye on where the money we provide Pakistan is going we simply cannot afford the waste that corrupt governments produce at our expense. If the money is not going to the proper place then lets provide them with actual goods. Of course we cannot control every penny and there will be losses but the investment we have placed in Pakistan in not generating a return!
Quite frankly, the Pakistani government is not doing enough to expand their fight, and as the New York Times article points out, the Obama administration is pushing the Pakistani’s to broaden their fight against terror and push it into the mountainous regions even more.
This is a good move on the part of the Obama administration. As violence is increasing in Pakistan the citizens of the country feel less secure and thus the goal of the terrorists is met. We must remember that terrorism is not so much about control of territory so much as it is control of people by instilling fear into the public. This control plunders economies and sets the stage for governmental change, which is exactly what the Taliban and Al Qaeda want.
What the Obama administration needs to do is continue to use our diplomatic prowess to ramp up the pressure on Pakistan. The Pakistani government must succeed in defeating the terrorists in their country just as we must continue to defeat the terrorist threat in Afghanistan. More to come on foreign policy in the days to come! I look forward to your thoughts on the Pakistani situation.

Thoughts on Last Night's Elections

Well the off-year elections have come to pass for this year, and across the media and political spectrum the pundits analyze the first major elections since last year's Presidential Race and try to divine some meaning for the future. Though obviously a year is an eternity in politics, if present trends hold there is some insight for the 2010 Mid-terms that will kick into high gear shortly (the first primaries for 2010 are in about 90 days in Illinois). So how about a discussion of last night's results:

Virginia: I said the Democrats would be lucky to avoid a true-blue hell-stomping McDonnell victory, and well, they were unlucky. The polls I'd seen averaged a 13 point McDonnell victory, his 18 point landslide clearly indicates that turnout intensity was (unsuprisingly) on the side of his Republican and Independent supporters (Independents went towards him by 2-to 1) This in and of itself, though impressive, is not particularly suprising given the historic voting trends in Virginia and the fact that Bob McDonnell is one hell of an effective campaigner. What was noteworthy was voting turnout factors and the fact that the Republican ticket swept the other two state officers by similar margins, as well as picking up about 6 or 7 (at last count) state legislative seats, particularly in Northern Virginia. After years of trending towards the Democrats, the gains they have made in Northern Virginia seem to have evaporated for the purpose of this election. Undoubtedly helped by a lack of turnout among under-30s and a reduction in African American turnout to 15 % from 20 % in the 2008 race, Virginia went quite red last night. The sheer scale of the GOP win in VA was notable to me (he even won Fairfax County). I was expecting McDonnell to win, and win heavily, but that the ticket did this well (the 2005 election saw a comparativley narrow Tim Kaine (D) win with a Republican Lieut Gov. and McDonnell narrowly as Attorney General over Deeds) indicates that Obama's Virginia coalition is not holding together for races when he is not on the ballot. If in 2010, one or more Democratic Congressional seats in the state go under-- which now looks very possible- then it will be clear that the Old Dominion is trending back to the Republican column (Obama won VA by 6 points in '08, if it is clearly back in play then likely so is Colorado and Nevada). As for the "what about the make-up of the electorate?" question-- my response is that if your base doesn't get out to vote unless you make them giddy with excitement, then your coalition will not sustain itself. The joke about the elderly always voting and their influence is no joke, of course they always vote, that's how you get people to listen to you!

New Jersey - In what may be a very big shot in the arm to the GOP, unseating an (admittedly unpopular) incumbent in a very blue state is a tonic that hasn't happened since 2004. In fact, this is probably the most unlikely GOP gain since seizing the top offices in Maryland for one term in 2002 (the eccentric election patterns in New England don't count-- the citizens of Vermont elect a Republican to Governor, throw up their hats whenever Bernie Sanders runs for anything, and require no permit whatsoever to tote concealed firearms throughout the state). Chris Christie defeated Governor and ex-Senator Jon Corzine 49% to 44 % with Chris Daggett fading back to about 7 percent of the vote. Christie was outspent by Corzine and his fortune about 3 to 1 and also managed to outperform the polls by a point or two. This race largely revolved around the local issues of New Jersey and a general statewide resentment of Corzine. Still, I think a GOP win in a state the President won by about 16 points and in which he personally appeared alongside the incumbent at campaign rallies is somewhat embarrassing to the White House-- to say nothing of how embarrassing it must be for Corzine, who's political career is likely over. This is a wider margin of victory than Christie Todd Whitman had in the 1990s, if not exactly in play for future Presidential Elections, this at least implied Republicans could win state-wide races again in New Jersey, perhaps at the Senate level at some point. GOP gains in the state legislature appear to be only one or two seats, but it still may be a worrying sign for 2010 among moderate democrats in marginal seats-- if the assumed moribund-outside-the-South Republican party can reach up into New Jersey-- they could easily be unseated if the voters turn against them.

New York Mayor - So Michael Bloomberg appears to have achieved a rarity in major electoral politics, a very large number of the people approving of his job performance voted against him, I presume on reasons of third-term principle. He held a near 70 percent approval rating and was re-elected to his third term by only about 51% of the vote, or about a 5 point margin. He appears to have spent a tremendous amount of money on this election and it seems the message is that no matter how much they may like you, to New Yorkers, changing the term limit law has its political price.

NY-23- I have no idea what message to draw from this race other than perhaps the unsuprising idea of - unless you have a very strong party structure, have primaries in disputed areas. The mishaps between the liberal-leaning Republican who was ousted by a Conservative and then in turn endorsed the conservative-leaning Democrat who edged a 49 to 45 percent victory (about 4,000 votes, smaller than the number picked up by the Republican that dropped out beforehand) over his grass-roots opponent. All this in a district-most of which has been represented by Republicans since the Civil War Era (even FDR never got ahold of this one) that went for Clinton and Chuckie Schumer in their Senate runs and Elliot "I'm a motherfucking steamroller!" Spitzer in his gubernatorial run and that will apparently be redistricted out of existence when New York loses a CD seat after the next census. All that and a bag of chips. If this district exists in 2010, it will likely be in play. The "split" between Conservatives and Moderates in the Republican Party in this area I think is overplayed, but clearly this likely cost them another Congressional Seat when they should be looking at pick-ups. It also adds one more likely blue-Dog to the disfunctional Democratic majority. Still, this race prevented a Democratic Golden Sombrero in competitive "newsworthy races" (if they'd lost California's CD 10 - the margin was about 10 points in a suburban San Francisco area- Southern and Midwestern democrats would've hit the nearest liquor cabinets so hard that Tip O'Neil would have sprang from the grave and expressed his approval. It also implied that the New York State Republican party is still not through in its time in the woodshed, which is truly remarkable considering the unpopularity of Governor David Patterson. If they are going to have any chance competing against the Democrat that likely unseats him in a primary or Senator Kirsten Gilibrand (Chuckie Schumer's polling suggests that if he calls for an A-Rod or Matsui 3-run homer, an Eli Manning pass completion, or a new Rodgers and Hammerstein Broadway Revival-then yea, verily, it shall be so) then NY GOP hopes are some combination of George Pataki and Rudy Guiliani, and not much else.

So where does that leave us for 2010--? Ideas, discussions, commentary?

Too Big To Fail

As I have been watching the debates about financial regulatory reform I find myself wondering how so many people can be missing the whole point. Both Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Federal Open Market Committee Chairman Ben Bernanke are trying to determine how to handle an orderly bankruptcy of any firm that is determined to be too big to fail. The reasoning behind to big to fail does make sense. If a Broker Dealer or Bank is bankrupt should the government let that bank go out of business if it means that other financial institutions will also fail triggering a domino effect eventually destroying our financial system. In 2008 and 2009 I think that the government made the right choice to stop a complete financial collapse. The government has backstopped far more then the AIG Balance sheet for 180 Billion or TARP for 700 Billion or even the stimulus for 787 Billion. Our Government has backstopped the commercial paper market for short term government loans which is a FIVE TRILLION DOLLAR MARKET. MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan has added up the figures and claims that in the past 2 years the government has backstopped TWENTY TRILLION DOLLARS. I mean the Citigroup portfolio alone was THREE TRILLION DOLLARS.

The question that regulators should be asking is what can we do to unravel these hugely complicated financial systems now to make sure that no financial institution contains systemic risk. If there are financial institutions that threaten the United States economy they should be broken up. Nothing within the United States should challenge the supremacy of the federal government. In some ways these systematically important financial institutions pose more risk to Americans safety then foreign powers. A complete collapse of the financial system which would lead to a collapse of the US Dollar (which we are beginning to see now as evidenced by the rise in Gold prices as a potential alternative to the Dollars reserve status) would destabilize the world which could easily lead to more violence. But I digress. So how can we make these institutions smaller? Easy, Bring back Glass Stegal which separated Broker Dealers from banks and reduced some moral hazard. By ensuring that Banks could not invest their depositors money which meant the size of the asset bubble that could be created by broker dealers was much smaller. Without the banks deposits the Broker Dealer/ Bank hybrids like Citigroup could not have lost as much money and created a systematic risk for the economy. We could also use anti trust laws. I know, people will say "were is the monopoly" there are multiple companies. The problem is that these financial institutions were acting together which created ologopolistic behavior. There was no efficient market functioning. Republicans who are PRO MARKET should be against this perverse ologopolistic behavior and failure of markets. I hope republicans get there soon.

awesome link

hey check out this awesome link I found. It shows by percentage how different major countries spend their money on health care, military, and education. Id love to see what discussion could develop from this!

http://www.visualeconomics.com/how-countries-spend-their-money/

Vote Against Orie-Melvin and for Jack Pannella

Interestingly enough, if one checks out judgepedia (yes it does exist haha) and looks up Pennsylvania State Supreme Court Justice and incumbent contender Jane Orie-Melvin; it notes that she is a self-described strict constructionist. Interestingly enough, and as is the case with most strict constructionists, she is a total hypocrite.
A few years ago a web site based out of Pittsburgh PA (Orie-Melvin’s hometown) had posted anonymous derogatory comments about the judge apparently in an attempt degrade her political name.
Upon finding out about the site Orie-Melvin sued in the State of Virginia to find out who the author was. When the state of Virginia threw out her claim, she then sued in Allegheny County who also threw out her claim. She protested that the author of the site was defaming her. However, in order to prove defamation Orie-Melvin would have to prove financial loss (something she could not do) and so thus the speech was considered political and thus protected by the U.S. Constitution.
The tactic Orie-Melvin was using was political bullying from the bench and is a terrible quality that we Pennsylvanians surely do not want on our Supreme Court.
If Orie-Melvin’s bullying tactics aren’t bad enough her blatant hypocrisy concerning her own description of her judicial style is. A strict constructionist who claims to want to limit government and practice judicial restraint is doing just the opposite while trying to bully her way and infringe upon my free speech.
Finally, Melvin’s bully tactics and unrelenting desire for political power have blossomed during this years campaign in her dirt tactics and negative ads. A few weeks ago if one went to a prominent conservative blog they would see the ad at the beggining of this post for Orie-Melvin.
I certainly understand that not everyone agrees with our President but how low does the GOP have to stoop to get votes these days. Also, if you’re a PA resident like myself then you also know that Orie-Melvin has been airing negative ads against candidate Jack Pannella which describe him as “not protecting our children.” However, I do admit that candidate Pannella is not innocent as he is airing negative ads as well.
Either way, tomorrow is election day and I urge all Pennsylvanians to vote against Orie-Melvin’s retention as I will be. Now that this has been posted I need to call my lawyer in case she decides to sue me as well for having a negative political opinion of her judgeship.

Re-gu-late Good Times, Come On!

I would like you to think about the past. Think back in time to the Election of Barack Obama. What was the largest problem facing him at the time? I think most people would say the economy. James Carvells "its the economy stupid" were surely words to live by this election cycle. We have experienced such a large decrease in wealth and increase in unemployment that its amazing we have not done more by using the tools in the fiscal tool belt to fix the problem. So why haven't we done anything? And this is when you say, Hey Stephen, they have done a lot. The Dems led by Barack Obama passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. A huge 787 Billion dollar stimulus which has meant the difference between potential growth in the third quarter and a loss. So Problem solved right. Ummmmm, No. While I understand that as the economy contracts and more people loose work, people pull back on their spending thereby decreasing corporate profits which further decreases employment. While avoiding the beginning of the economic black hole was certaily a good move, it wasn't actually the problem. The stimulus was a band aide that some would argue should have been a full body cast. So what was the actual problem. It was regulation. Bad Regulation.

There are currently problems with under regulation and over regulation. As you can guess, most democrats think that the economy and more specifically the financial sector needs MORE regulation and they are right to a certain degree. In 2004, Bush and the republicans changed a very important part of the securities exchange act of 1940 that established a maximum leverage ratio for all financial institutions. The congress and Bush changed the leverage ratio on the five largest broker dealers from a maximum of 15 times their assets to an infinite leverage ration. Can you guess the five institutions that qualified for the exemption? Bear Sterns, Merryl Lynch, J P Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers, All of which ceased to function as broker dealers less then five years later. Guess what Bear Sterns leverage ration was, 40:1 and Lehman? 33:1. That's why the economy got so bad. These companies could make money no matter how bad the risks they were taking were. All this extra "money" flowed into assets " ie pieces of paper which have value." So although people felt richer there was just a lot more paper. The republicans on the other hand argue that over regulation is the problem. Get the government out of the way and people will be better off. Over regulation will hurt America if we continue to bail out companies and promote the idea of too big to fail and tell people what they should be paid. The government should not own businesses. The government just doesn't do a good enough job running them and even if they did a good job in one case its because it has the full faith and credit of us, the American tax payer, backing them up. We take the risk and they get the reward. That doesnt seem fair. There are so many bad regulations and we got rid of some good ones. Cant we just agree to put regulations in place that help America as a whole. Milton Friedman argues that the government should act as a umpire for the private sector and let them compete. In this case I think we have a blind, def, bo legged one armed ump that doesn't even like baseball. Making the calls that really matter.

New Evidence of the superiority of Democracy

ha-ha When I read this article in the New York Times about local Chinese politicians requiring children in their province to salute cars as they passed I knew I had found new evidence proving that Republican Democracy is a f superior method of governing than single party communist rule in China.
The law in China requires that all children salute cars as they pass by. The reason for passing the law is to reduce traffic accidents. Are you kidding!? I would think that having hoards of children saluting my car while I drove past would distract me from the task of driving and perhaps...... oh I duno... Cause an accident!?
Apparently this is not an uncommon occurrence in China as the local party leaders are many times incompetent and unable to..... Think.... Though apparently sometimes they do things that one might think would help local province. For example,

"Often, the skewering gets results. In April, one county in Hubei Province in northern China drew nationwide ridicule after officials ordered civil servants and employees of state-owned companies to buy a total of 23,000 packs of the province’s brand of cigarettes every year. Departments whose employees failed to buy enough cigarettes or bought other Chinese brands would be fined, the media reported."

Of course once the people refused to purchase the cigarettes and the national media bloodied the idiots noses a bit they repealed the edict.

Of Course in the United States we have plenty of laws that don't make sense as well but many of these laws simply exist because they had historical relevance and haven't been repealed since their passage a long time ago. Either way, go Democracy!!!!

Major Off Year Elections- 2009

With the off-year election day of this year about 11 days away, I figure it's time to look over some of the more media-covered races that may serve as tea-leaves to be read for next year's midterm elections. The biggest news-getters are the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, the Special Election in New York's 23rd Congressional District, and the Mayoral Election in New York City. Here is my quick overview of these races a little less than two weeks out.

Virginia-- A few posts ago I went over the status of Virginia, a traditionally Republican-leaning state that Democrats had made major gains in recent years in, culminating in 2008's sweep of an open Senate seat, two Congressional district pick-ups, and Obama's carrying the State by six points. This year, it appears that the traditional habit of Virginians electing a governor not of the sitting President's party is holding true. I'd said I thought the Democrats should consider themselves lucky to lose by less than 5 percentage points in this election. Judging by the most recent polls, it appears that Creigh Deeds should consider himself fortunate to avoid a true hell-stomping blowout. Republican Bob McDonnell's campaign, with its focus on quality of life issues and administrative competence has been referenced by some as a clear example for how conservative candidates should market themselves. Even the issues over his graduate school thesis were deftly handled in an open press conference, after a September narrowing of the polls McDonnell has again widened his lead to somewhere between 7 and 19 points (RealClearPolitics average is roughly a ten-percent margin). If the lead holds and the Republicans sweep the down ballot elections-- for Attorney General for example-- as they appear to be heading for, then this could give the GOP a shot in the arm to reclaim some major lost territory in swing state America come 2010. To have any realistic chance of unseating Obama in 2012, Virginia is a state the Republicans NEED to win back.

New Jersey-- What can be said? Democrat John Corzine (D) is not well liked in his position as Governor. His approval ratings are anemic, his policies generally frowned upon, and he consistently as been unable to do better than say 40-43% in the polls. So in theory this should be a slam-dunk for a Republican takeover. Were this Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, or for God's sake even New Mexico, this might be true. But New Jersey, is a deep blue state whose previous elected Governor, Democrat Jim McGreevy resigned in probably one of the more public "emergence from the closet" moments in American history. Corzine, then serving as a freshman US Senator then proceeded to spend forty-million of his immense personal fortune to achieve election. Normally this might be seen as a handicap to the voting public, but with New Jersey's history of "interesting" local government in terms of corruption and vice, that his immense fortune is not ill-gotten is probably enough to cancel out any general resentment. This campaign season, his strategy has been similar, airing about the 3 times the ads as his Republican opponent US Attorney Chris Christie. Earlier this summer, Christie's lead was as much as 15 points, when an unpredictable factor entered the race, an unsually competent (and as most third-party candidates go) unusually sane Independent Chris Daggett, who has tapped into much of the anti-incumbency, anti-status quo vote. Polling as high as 20% in one poll, Daggett has probably peeled away voters from both major parties, but particularly seems to be hurting Christie, whose campaign is based on anti-corruption, anti-incumbency, and as an outsider. Therefore, a number of voters that otherwise would prefer Christie to Corzine are going for the even bigger outsider, the Independent. With Corzine's growing momentum, or at least a fair possibility that he'll eke out a narrow victory, President Obama has entered the fray to campaign for him, hoping to spur turnout, wheras before Beltway Democrats seemed prepared to write Corzine off, as they now appear to be doing to Deeds in Virginia. Recent polls generally have the race as either a Corzine or Christie advantage of 43 to 41 or so, with Daggett picking up the remainder. How will this race go? God knows, it depends on turnout I suppose and how many Daggett-leaning voterspull the lever (or is it push the button?) for him, or will they be disaffected enough to just stay home, or will they vote for Christie in the hope of at least getting Corzine out of office?

New York CD-23- This is a Republican held open seat in upstate New York up in Hudson river and mountain territory. Vacated by Rep. John McHugh when he was nominated as Secretary of the Army, this seat is about even in party registration. It has long elected Republican representatives (the GOP has dominated this seat since there's been a Republican Party), yet also went for Obama by a couple percentage points in 2008. The present special election is interesting however in that it is a legitimate 3-way race. A Democrat, a Republican, and a Conservative Party candidate are all within 5-10 points of one and other, the Democrat Bill Owens with a slight advantage. This seems to have resulted from the NY GOP nominating a moderate Republican, a very moderate Republican, a moderate Republican that's more liberal than most Democrats in Pennsylvania West of Philadelphia, or Ohio outside Dennis Kucinich's district. The GOP nominee Dede Scozzafaza would fit the GOP voters of New York State (what's left of them anyhow) in probably any area of New York outside the traditionally Republican Hudson Valley. However, it appears that here, the Republicans that have been elected McHugh are largely disatisfied, and hence the Conservative Party (which normally endorses the same candidate as the official NY GOP) has nominated a businessman name Doug Hoffman, a more conventional Republican candidate. As a result, the GOP and Independent vote has split between Hoffman and Scozzafaza, leaving open a strong possibiliy of an Owen's victory. This can certainly be argued to the GOP losing a seat they should have no trouble holding over an inter-party squabble. However, I also note that in a district Barack Obama carried, his party's man is carrying only about a third of the vote in an open election against a GOP assembley -woman and a self-proclaimed Conservative. If the surging (particularly in fundraising) Hoffman or the fading Scozzafaza wins, this seat is probably safe for the GOP for 2010. If Owens wins, its one more likely vote in the Democrat majority, but is probably unlikely to be held a year from now in 2010-- incumbency may have its perks, but a 34% or so vote total and a year of targeting will probably end poorly for Owens, I can easily see Hoffman proclaiming his immediate candidacy as a Republican for the 2010 rematch.

New York City Mayor--- Mayor Michael Bloomberg is running for a third term as an Independent with GOP support-- he generally swings between a true Independent and a Republican to the left of Arnold Schwarzenegger-- but is leading by over 10 points against the Democrat opposition. Bloomberg also happens to possess money, a tremendous amount of money, more money than Corzine, in fact more money than pretty much anyone in politics, but appears to not really need to spend much of his own-- he raises funds as well as the best of them-- he appears safe for a third term as New York's Mayor.

Local Politics Race-- Pittsburgh, PA Mayor-- Luke Ravenstahl, young Mayor Luke, the under-30 chief executive of a major city, has achieved the usual electoral status of reasonably-well liked Pittsburgh Mayors. A Democrat whose general election prospects are so safe that he can have the position as long as isn't indicted, elected for enough terms that the city tires of him and he is unseated in a primary or is aware that he will lose the primary. Generally as long as he continues to respirate and doesn't commit any obvious major crimes (murder, rape, arson, beastiality) he's safe as can be.

Why A Democrat

Last night I had the distinct pleasure of joining the Allegheny County Democratic Party Leaders for an awards dinner. Joe Biden was the keynote speaker and delivered a powerful speech about what it means to be a democrat. His speech struck an awesome cord.
In Pittsburgh much of the democratic party's demographic is blue collar workers who go to work everyday simply looking to make an honest days living so that they can support their family and provide opportunities for their children that didn't exist when they were growing up.
There are a few reasons I am a Democrat and first and foremost it is because my father is a worker who has gone to work everyday only to provide me and my brother with opportunities that he never had. When the economy slumps someone needs to be there to stick up for the little guy and that is what the Democratic Party does. Increased regulation in the banking industry doesn't mean that the banks are going to be burdened with extra work it means that the small investor looking to grow their money so that they can provide a college education for their children is protected from the evils of excess greed. This did not happen during the Republican Administration. During the last ten years the productivity of the American worker has increased by 20% but yet the average worker actually saw a decrease in wages. Democrats are not socialists; we simply believe that if a worker is being 20% more productive then they should be able to share in the growth of the economy which their productivity created!
Last night Biden said that being a Democrat means that when things become difficult and a father has to make that long walk up to their child’s room to tell them they can't be on the baseball team or they have to change schools because they lost their job that when they tell that child everything is going to be ok they actually know that things are going to be ok. That is why I am a Democrat as well, because when things get difficult we don’t give up we fix it. We are there for the little guy, for the guy looking to make an honest days wage for an honest days work. Democrats believe in working hard and there being a reward for that hard work. And when the economy is booming again our hard workers of this country should share in the wealth that is created by THEIR work, because when they are able to share in that wealth even more wealth is created, fewer jobs are lost. Instead of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer the Rich get Richer, the middle class gets richer and the poor get richer. Everyone wins when we look out for the people who are the backbone and labor in our economy and that is the way it should be.

The Next Big Thing

The war on poverty was declared in 1964 by President Johnson; how much progress have we made in the 45 years since? In his Op-Ed, Nicholas Kristof suggests that the best road by which to achieve gains in eliminating poverty today is through education reform. Organizations such as Teach For America have supported this approach for decades, arguing that by improving education on a personal level, disadvantaged students are better prepared to strive further overall. However, Kristof highlights the ways in which teacher unions prevent the dismissal of teachers deemed ineffective. In his article, "The Rubber Room," for The New Yorker, Joel Klein describes "fifteen teachers, along with about six hundred others, in six larger Rubber Rooms in the city’s five boroughs, [who] have been accused of misconduct, such as hitting or molesting a student, or, in some cases, of incompetence, in a system that rarely calls anyone incompetent." Unions, by creating as many roadblocks to removal as possible, are draining money from state and federal budgets that could be used to reward good teachers and provide incentives for educators in low-income area school districts. Which is the priority: preserving jobs and income for bad teachers, or benefitting the next generation of Americans?

Justice

One of the most popular classes at Harvard in the past 20 years has been Michael Sandels Justice Course. He started teaching the course with the intention of challenging students to figure out what they believe and why they believe it. The course mixes basic ethics, political theory and social conceptions into an inspiring class that questions what is just and what is fair. I think that this class should not just be taught at Harvard but in High Schools. This is what we all need to know. Before we can compromise on issues we should at least know what we want. Check it out.

http://athome.harvard.edu/programs/jmr/

After a Brief Hiatus...

I've spent the past two weeks studying for the Literature subject GRE (which will be over on Saturday, thank goodness), so staying up-to-date on the news and posting hasn't exactly been my priority. Sorry, guys!

Regardless, a week ago the Obama Administration announced that it would be encouraging environmental advocacy not only through the passage of a bill being proposed by John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) but also by instituting new regulations for industry through the E.P.A. This tactic appeals to me; I feel the future of planetary health and prosperity (yes, prosperity being dependent on how well we use our limited resources in the present) should be more than a game of cap-and-trade, Hungry Hungry Hippos among big business. Congress, in a shark tank of oil, auto, and other industry lobbyists, would be forced to include loopholes and make concessions to the very companies that are hastening global warming.

That's not to suggest that it would be beneficial, or even possible, to abruptly put a stop to all excessive emissions. Lisa Jackson, EPA administrator, was clear in her interview with the New York Times that only the greatest producers of green house gases will fall under the proposed regulations, and only when building new facilities or renovating old ones. In these instances, the companies would have to employ the latest technology in reducing emissions, or face fines. Yes, this may be costly; but whose shoulders should the burden of progress fall on? This is necessary action, or companies would have no incentive to push for lower emissions.

The "green" movement is not a fad. We simply cannot afford to lose interest in environmental health. I, for one, look forward (to 2011) when the regulations may be ready to go into place.

Dealing with the Russians and snubbing the Poles

When looking over the UN summit and the great G20 conference swamping Pittsburgh at the moment, I'll turn my focus to the foreign policy issues being discussed. Despite the more entertaining elements of the climate change debate and the ever "interesting" stump speaking of Libyan dictator Mommar Khaddafy and the Iranian Prime Minister *unspellable* Ahmini-*unpronouncable*, the present issue on my mind is the Administration's questionable (in my mind) response to any foreign quibble with American policy being to apologize for whatever perceived past wrong we've inflicted and to remedy it through some unilateral concession. The issue this week that caused some stir of course was the decision to remove the missile shield programs placed in the Czech Republic and Poland, seemingly as a way to appease the Russian disagreements with our placing a missile shield against Iran or other possible threats, in their former vassal states. To me this argument by the Russians would be more valid if it were any of the former subject states of the Russian Empire proper (Poland having been continually partitioned during that period) such as the Ukraine or the Baltic States. However, the Poles have good reason for seeking our protection based on that country's unfortunate history and it seems wrong, considering their and the Czechs' support of our policies in recent years, to throw them under the bus against their governments' wishes, in a public manner.



Though the Administration stated that the removal of the missile defense system is one meant to save costs and will be more efficiently pursued from Naval-based platforms, particularly (in a case with Iran's nuclear arm, in the Persian Gulf) The public nature of the program seems keyed more towards appeasing the Russians in a manner to make their foreign policy more friendly towards our aims. That their President Dmitry Medvedev implied Russian "might" be more favorably disposed towards sanctions toward Iran in certain circumstances. I'm skeptical of any Russian policy statement that does not clearly include Vladimir Putin, presently the Prime Minister. If the conduct of Russia's "short victorious war abroad" in the Republic of Georgia in 2008 is any indication, Putin is still largely in charge of foreign affairs from a functional standpoint. It was Putin meeting with and dispatching Russian generals to the front at the time, and it seems unlikely that he would take any unilateral concession from the United States as sign to put more pressure on Iran than he was already willing to. This is the Russian government that seems to endorse the murder of opposition journalists by para-military thugs and maintain foreign policy as a zero-sum game.

Part of my justification for this is that the Russians ALWAYS have seen foreign policy as a zero sum game, dating back centuries. When diplomat and Russian history expert George Kennan wrote his famous "Long Telegram" from Moscow in 1946, he stated essentially that the foreign policy of the Soviet Union was essentially that of the Russian Empire writ-large--- expand into Eastern Europe and maintain a buffer of states as guard against any future aggression or perceived threat. In Russia's subsequent history I see no reason to change that assumption, that Russia's policy is that of the Soviet Union from a weakened standpoint-- as Russia's situation improves somewhat under the admittedly very competent government of Putin and his allies, they will continue to try and exercise a level of control over their former subject states-- the Baltic states, Ukraine, and possibly farther West. I fear all this removal of the missile shield in such a public manner has accomplished is to discourage Eastern Europe from siding with the West in disputes that risk the disfavor of the Russians. It may also embolden the Russians to feel they've a free hand in their former sphere of influence.

Pharmaceutical Problems

We should be making profits on the great medical technology we export around the world. The United States is home to the most cutting edge medical and pharmaceutical research facilities some of which are not too far away from my old home town in Central New Jersey. Johnson and Johnson, Sheering-Plough, Merk, and Glaxo Smith Kline all have research facilities off Route One in the much maligned state of New Jersey. The reason we are not able to export our great new technologies at a profit is due to the socialized nations of Canada and Europe. Since they offer caps on prices for drugs and negotiate as entire nations they can get better prices. Since the price is pushed down by foreign governments the price of drugs in the US goes up. This is therefore a subsidy to develop drugs in the united states that are exported at a net loss to the American citizen. Americans want to see more drugs developed that will help to make people better off. The problem is that other nations love letting us pay for the drugs development and getting the drugs at artificially low prices.
I think there are a few options here. I for one would like to see drugs continue to be developed in the United States however I think it is wrong that Canada and other countries refuse to pay a fair price as dictated by market forces. I say we make it illegal for drug companies to sell drugs at vastly different prices to different countries. Maybe if other countries cannot access our prescription drugs they will finally realize that we have been doing them a favor all along. I realize that profits would decrease briefly thereby temporarily slowing R&D but I think it is important for Europeans to realize that the drugs the average American is paying for is saving their lives or increasing the quality there of. We pay for drug advancements and you shouldn’t be able to get the care and drugs without paying a fair price. Here’s a good site that gives some facts and other suggestions about how to fix this problem. http://www.supplementquality.com/news/skyrocketing_drug_costs.html

NRA, say whaaat?

In 2006, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Tom Menino formed the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, whose mission statement reads that "support for Second Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping illegal guns out of the hands of criminals." At first glance, this seems like a natural relationship among politicians that have a vested interest in lowering crime and instances of illegal gun usage; the NRA, on the other hand, begs to differ.

Despite what conservative second-amendment fanatics may suggest, MAIG is not a liberal machine in the slightest. It strives to preserve states' rights regarding weapons, having helped defeat the Thune amendment, and tracks the use of illegal guns by terrorists in order to demonstrate the need for legislation tailored against people seeking to obtain weapons illegally (not registered guns or their owners at large). Hell, even Walmart is in on the fun, participating as part of the Responsibe Firearms Retailer Partnership. No joke.

But, somehow without surprise, the NRA is on the attack. Mayors that have joined MAIG are now being targeted by phone and mailer campaigns that smear them as members of an extremist anti-gun movement. Regardless of how the mayors actually feel about the Second Amendment (and many of them are advocates for the right bear arms), the NRA is dragging their reputations down among communities for whom this issue can decide a vote one way or another. The only machine in this situation is the NRA, which won't bother to look into MAIG activities but instead self-induces the stereotype of the "bitter gun owner" that Obama received so much flack for mentioning. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that stereotype is alive and well within the NRA; all guns, all the time. Should we just be handing them out to everyone on the street? How's that for a pro-gun campaign.

Dream Big

It has been one year since the financial collapse of Lehman Brothers and the onset of the largest financial crisis in the modern era. Over the past couple of months the problems on Wall Street lead to problems on Main Street. People are out of work and trying to figure how to pick up the pieces. As people find themselves out of work I find myself wondering if this financial collapse will lead to a new era in American history. I wonder what areas of the economy will prosperous and which will go the way of Lehman.
The Financial and Insurance sectors have grown from 2.7% of GDP in 1950 to its 8.1% peak in 2006. If you include real estate in with financials the combined percentage of the economy was 20.4% which is far larger than any other part of the American Economy. The only other sector that has grown by a comparable amount has been the Professional and Business services sector which includes lawyers and scientists. The professional and business sectors grew from 3.7% in 1950 to 12.7%. The increases in these sectors have come primarily from the decrease in manufacturing which has decreased from 27% in 1950 down to 11.5% in 2009. There is no way to completely predict the way the United States economy will look in 15 or 20 years but we need to talk as a country about what we want the country to look like. If we don’t have a big vision for the country I worry about our future prosperity.
Any vision is some vision: One vision for the country is that of the environmentalists that favor huge expenditures on developing green technology in order to make the country a prettier place. This vision is one of wind turbines in every field and solar panels on every household. Eventually we would become so good at developing this technology that we will export it all over the world thereby decreasing our trade deficit and increasing prosperity. This vision at least sets up the country to export products around the world like we did with financial products over the past decade. I would argue that this vision doesn’t go far enough to power the future of innovation. These means of alternative energy are hard to transport across the country.
I say the most important thing to our country in the future is developing large labs that engage in primary research. So many of all the great technological developments of the past century have come because of the government or through government sanctioned monopoly i.e. the phone company. If we really wanted to invest in the country we should double or triple our research and do it in an effective way. I think the first thing that we need to do is develop a fusion process that generates net energy. There has to be a way and we can do it. We have a couple of facilities working on it now. If the president set big goals like powering 20% of the country by fusion by 2020, that would be huge. And the power source could pay off in, as of now, unimagined ways. We can do it and people shouldn’t doubt the human ability to invent and innovate. This power could fuel innovation in more primary research that isn’t feasible right now. And this is a technology that we could export around the world.
Some believe that the financial crisis will decrease the influence of finance in the near future thereby dcreasing one of our major exports around the world. I say lets invest in the long term and in projects that wont yeild results for 10 or 20 years. The investments we have made in the past as a country and government have been good ones. I say lets become a fusion powered country and travel the solar system. That’s my idea of dreaming big.

Innovation and Taxation

I read a NY Times article in the Sunday paper that really got me psyched about the economic policies our President is putting forth as they pertain to innovating our economy for long term sustainable growth. The article outlines the story of a hard working woman whose life spiraled out of financial control because of the failing economy. She went from making $52,000 a year to being homeless practically begging for a job while trying to piece her life back together in a homeless shelter. The end of the article suggests that the portion of the economic stimulus package that puts money into the alternative energy and energy sectors of our economy will help us move towards sustainable growth. While the article makes purely qualitative assertions I believe that in terms of money we will reap the benefits of these investments for many years to come.
The conventional wisdom when discussing fixing the economy is two sided. The right believes that we should lower taxes thus putting money into people’s pockets to spend in the economy while the left side argues that increasing government spending will create jobs and put money into people’s pockets. This wisdom is correct but misleading. Simply putting money into people’s pockets is the equivalent to placing a band-aid on a bullet wound. What our economy desperately needed and continues to need is new places to turn to create new money.
Clearly we are at a pivotal time in our economic history and the last thing we need is more of the same policies (band-aids) to help our economy grow. In the short run putting money into consumer’s pockets will help but in the long run our government needs to invest into innovation so that we can have long term growth. Along with that, cutting taxes will also help our economy. However, I believe that many of these tax reforms needs not be done at the federal level but rather at the state level. Our federal government has a relatively standardized taxation method. While some might disagree, it is simple for me to pay my taxes to the federal government and I can predict with a reasonable degree of certainty how much I will be giving to the IRS each year. What needs to end is the state and local governments (and to some extent the federal government) nickel and diming us into submission every time we make a purchase.
For example, the federal government’s recent decision to raise taxes on cigarettes is a regressive tax and one that, as a democrat, I cannot support. I believe that tax hikes should be placed on those that can afford tax hikes, not on those that are living paycheck to paycheck and sin taxes disproportionately affect the poor. Property tax reform is desperately needed as well especially in Pennsylvania where property taxes are unpredictable and housing is reappraised constantly to assure that the government is getting its fair share.
Thus, we need to make our taxation system more standardized so that people know what their going to pay each year, rather than increasing our sales taxes and EIT’s at the local level.

Fall 2009 Governor's Race- Part 1- - Because polling data for Adams County Sheriff was not available.

Steering away from healthcare for a moment (as I'm sure this debate is far from over and I can contribute my comments at some point) I'm going to dedicate a few posts to the upcoming elections in both 2009 and 2010. The 2009 gubernatiorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey can, and the 2010 midterms will, be seen as the first public referendums on any large scale during the Obama Administration. Tonight's post will focus on the elections in Virginia and New Jersey coming up in early November. The next post will get into elements of the much larger topic of the midterms.

I figure it best the break the two elections down into a few categories:

The States:
Virginia- 2008- Obama - 53 McCain 46- 2004 - Bush- 54- Kerry- 45-
In recent years, Virginia - Republican in every Presidential election since 1964 until 2008 has trended to a swing state with increasing Democratic strength at the Congressional level- In the very democratic year of 2006 - Senator George Allen was knocked of fby Marine Veteran and Reagan Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb (fairly tailor made for Virginia- a Vietnam veteran, gun-toting, folksy, technocrat) by a few thousand votes. In 2008, former Governor Mark Warner (possibly the most electable man I've heard of this side of Dwight Eisenhower) overwhelmingly walked into an open Senate seate previously held by Republican John Warner. Obama picked up the state -- but since his election it appears that Virginia turned blue out of a tendency toward moderation and disatisfaction with the Bush administration rather than an embracing of Progressive political causes. Also of interesting note, the one-term limited governor's seat has since the late 1970s, always opted for the opposite party of the recent Presidential winner-- Republican in the late 70s, Democratic in the 80s, Republican 1993 and 1997 and back to the Democrats in 2001 and 2005. Recent electoral history favors the Democrats, the historic trend and the stagnating polls of the President (Republicans have recently been picking off city council seats and local elections in the Northern Virginia suburbs) have given momentum back to the GOP in the state.

The Candidates: Robert McDonnell (R) vs R. Creigh Deeds (D) - Republicans in the state quickly rallied around former Attorney General Robert "Bob" McDonnell, who recently resigned the position he won (over Deeds ironically enough) in 2005, to run . McDonnell is a northern-Virginia based conservative with an economy and job creation based campaign and a fairly strong record (20 years in the Army certainly doesn't hurt either). State Senator Creigh Deeds is from the rural Southern area of the state and won a contested Democratic primary against more liberal opponents (including former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe). Though able to attract support from rural areas more effectively than most Democrats, Deeds may be handicapped by the Obama Administration's difficulties, the conservative leaning independents and nominal Democrats he may be trying to court might like him, but dislike Obama even more and vote as a protest against his policies. It does not take a very large stretch of the imagination to view Virginia's contrarian electoral habits as in part being a reaction to Washington sitting just over the Potomac. McDonnell's focus on the Northern Virginia suburbs might well be more effective to his cause as well. McDonnell recently has been underfire via the Washington Post over elements of his master's thesis at Regents University, where he makes some questionable statements over working women and working mothers. However, he seems to have not suffered particulary in the polls, and has partially touched on this, albeit in treacly fashion in this campaign ad-- mentioning his working mother and his Iraq vet daughter.

The Polls: The race, particulary since July have favored McDonnell by a statistically significant margin: the most recent Rasmussen poll favors McDonnell 49 to 39, while the most recent survey USA poll has him over the 50% mark at 54- 43, while the Democratic pollster Public Policy Polling recently rated the race (the earliest of these polls was taken the last day of August) McDonnel 49 to 42 as well. The average margin of error is 4%

My view: Barring some unpredictable events-- The Democrats would consider themselves very lucky to lose this one narrowly (under 4 points perhaps). If McDonnell wins by over 5, and particularly if he approaches an over 10 point margin victory- the Republicans could find themselves with a nice shot in the arm for the 2010 elections. If Virginia is starting to trend back towards the Republicans (taking back a couple marginal House seats in 2010 would be the real confirmation) it could signal some serious issues with Obama's ability to hold together his coalition.

As it is getting late-- tomorrow I will do my best to post my overview on the New Jersey Governor's Election in 2009.