NOTE: Following today's posting, this blog is taking a holiday break and will return on January 5. Happy Holidays to all!
-0-0-0-
This posting is intended as a political summing up of recent legislative activity in Congress, although a bit of work remains for the special session including Senate action, up or down, on a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. In thinking about the past four weeks of congressional activity during the special session, lines from the poet Robert Herrick came to mind:
Gather ye rosebuds while ye may
Old Times is still a-flying
And this same flower that smiles to-day,
Tomorrow will be dying.
During his 2007-08 presidential campaign, President Obama made much of his goal to bring a new spirit of bipartisanship to Washington to support his larger goal of bringing a new era of change to the country. Throughout the last two years, however, the most often sounded word to describe congressional legislative action was "partisanship" with others, including myself, often prefacing the term with "obstructionist GOP". There was legislation that attracted two-party support but on the biggest issues partisanship was clearly evident. This partisanship was most evident in the early passage of the $800 billion stimulus bill to jump start an economy in deep recession. And despite efforts to get bipartisan support for his health care reform package and greater federal regulation of financial markets, the votes generally split along party lines. Certainly that was the case in the Senate where it took considerable effort to get the support of the two or three GOP Senators needed to cross the 60-vote threshold to prevent a filibuster.
Suddenly in the special session which began in mid-November, bipartisanship seemed to break out and Obama, who said the Democrats had taken a "shellacking" in the mid-term elections, is now looking like the new Comback Kid . For both Obama and the GOP congressional leadership, the special session was a time of opportunity, for gathering rosebuds. For Obama it was get what you can before the Republicans take over the House in January and increase their seats in the Senate. For the GOP leadership, it was a time to horse trade with the President. At the top of Obama's "must" list were preservation of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and extension of unemployment benefits. The GOP "must" list included extension of the upper income cuts which Obama wanted to end, plus getting whatever additional tax benefits they could for the wealthy. For the GOP it also meant a brief window of opportunity to do some things that might be more difficult in January when the newly elected Tea Party legislators come to town (more later).
The load-bearing legislation was the $800+ billion unpaid-for tax package. For Obama it was also an economic stimulus bill hidden inside a tax package; for Republicans it was a tax package for the rich posing as bipartisanship. But for Obama there was a political cost in the form of opposition from liberal lawmakers, particularly in the House, who thought the package was a sell out to the rich. But liberals got some surprising payoff when, with enough GOP Senate support, a bill repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell on gays serving in the military received final congressional approval and went to Obama for signature. But Republican support faded on the DREAM act to deal with younger undocumented residents when the bill went down to defeat in the Senate failing to meet the 60-vote threshold. If the nuclear treaty, Obama's foreign policy "must", gets the 67-votes needed for Senate ratification, it will be because of Republican support. So does the outbreak of bipartisanship in the special session signal a new "era of good feeling" between Obama and congressional Republicans? As a political skeptic, I would say not likely.
Since this blog began in mid-July, it was noted on several occasions that the Tea Party (TP) with its very visible, vocal, and well-funded activism, had pushed traditionally conservative Republicans even farther to the right ideologically. With the TP's notable election successes, the question turned to whether the establishment GOP would co-opt the new TP legislators or whether the latter would act as a cohesive far-right voice that would force the establishment congressional leaders to bend to its policy demands.
Right now the signals are mixed. The bedrock TP policy since it began in early 2009 has been to cut federal spending and reduce the national debt NOW. Despite that position and TP protests, the establishment GOP in Congress, primarily through Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, carried out an agreement that adds $800+ billions to the deficit and debt over the next two years. Although much of that is from continuation of the Bush tax cuts for everyone, there is a combined new cost of about $175 billion for a 2 point reduction in social security payroll taxes for one year and extension of unemployment benefits for 13 months. Such a deficit/debt-loaded fiscal package might not have been possible come January. While the TP as outsiders were very unhappy about the fiscal impact of the tax package, the legislation went to Obama's desk for signature because of establishment GOP support. But Senate Republicans did hold firm against a Democratic bill to provide $1+ trillion to fund many federal agencies through next September 30; that proposal included nearly 7,000 pork barrel projects plus $1 billion to implement the new health care reform law.
With the number one GOP political objective for 2012 being the defeat of Obama, plus adding the Senate to complete a full takeover of Congress, plus the new, far right TP members or fellow travelers in Congress, it can be expected that partisanship will return in full voice. The political stakes are high and congressional Republicans will have no interest in giving Obama any significant legislative victories to help him with re-election. So the coming of the new Congress next month is likely to herald the next chapter of ugly, hard ball partisanship. As Herrick said, "And this same flower (bipartisanship) that smiles to-day, Tomorrow will be dying."
Monday, December 20, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
IRAQ: STEPPING THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS
A very recent posting looking at the evolution of events in the Middle East, focusing on the Israel-Palestinian issue and the formation of a new government in Iraq, concluded that there was no light at the end of the tunnel in these two problem areas--only darkness. A few days later, a column by analyst David Ignatius, for whom I have a high regard, seemed to have a brighter view of the Iraqi situation so it seemed that another look would be in order. Doing so reminded me of the story of Alice who stepped through a mirror and visited an alternative world.
In analyzing any situation, the viewer brings to the task some kind of basic outlook about politics and politicians. The possible outlooks can be light or darkness at the end of the tunnel, optimism or pessimism, or glass half full-half empty. As a skeptic and sometimes cynic, I usually opt to look through a dark lens, but with a willingness to be proven wrong.
Right now I'm prone to draw a parallel between the formation of a new Iraqi government and what's going on in the soon-to-end special session of the U.S. Congress. In Congress there has been a breakout of bipartisanship after two years of obstructionist GOP partisanship. The seeming bipartisanship is the result of President Obama's "must" legislation for retaining middle class tax cuts and extending unemployment benefits joining with a Republican "must" list to extend tax cuts for the upper income while also squeezing the President for other tax advantages for the wealthy, primarily the estate tax. And there is some bipartisanship going on with the Senate's decision to take up consideration of another Obama "must", ratification of the nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia. Come January and the new Congress with GOP control of the House and more seats in the Senate, this current bipartisanship will be hard to find as Republicans turn their attention to their biggest "must", ousting Obama in 2012 and taking complete control of Congress.
In Iraq there is another "must" dynamic in play. For more than nine months since the parliamentary elections, political fighting between those in office and those wanting in, plus the traditional division between the Shiites, Sunni, and Kurds have prevented formation of a government. Now with the recent decision to have the former and interim Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki form the new government, the Iraqi constitutional clock started to tick requiring the new government to be formed by December 25. (Given the nature of Iraqi politics, it puzzles me why they are suddenly so constitutional minded.) So a "must" situation has forced the contenders to settle their differences on forming a multiparty/faction coalition. The major holdout had been Ayid Allawi, leader of a secular Shiite-Sunni party that had narrowly won the parliamentary election but was far short of the majority needed to form a government and was unable to put together a coalition. With the "must" deadline approaching, Allawi had to decide whether to enter the al-Maliki coalition or stay out in the cold. He chose to enter. Here is where Ignatius and this blogger see the situation through different lenses.
Ignatius seems to see the political and security situation in Iraq improving to the point where there is light at the end of the tunnel. But to me a number of crucial issues besides who gets what positions in the new government remain to be decided and these issues deal with actual power. Allawi will head a new council to oversee security and foreign policy issues. But, and it's a very big "but", the powers of this council have not yet been decided and it could become a hollow shell with real power retained by al-Maliki and his allies. Supposedly the council's power will be decided very soon. According to reports, the decisions of the new council will require an 80 percent super majorityfor approval. It must be assumed that al-Maliki and his Shiite and Kurdish backers control 60-70 percent and Allawi wants to be sure that the votes he controls will count. It is not difficult, however, to see obstacles to getting an 80 percent vote. Would that mean the decision is left to al-Maliki? Also undecided, at least so far as media reporting, are the crucial issues such as who gets the cabinet seat that controls the security forces, who will head the important oil ministry, expansion of the Kurdish semi-autonomous region to include oil-rich Kirkuk, and the future of U.S. forces in Iraq after 2011 when all troops are to leave. Thus, the December 25 "must" deadline has brought about an Iraqi multipartisanship akin to the bipartisan Christmas deadline in our Congress. But more importantly, like the GOP's next priority on defeating Obama, will al-Maliki move beyond multipartisanship to the power objective by squeezing out the opposition to gain unchallenged control of power for himself and his hardline religious Shiite followers?
To conclude, I hope Ignatius' optimism, however guarded, trumps my skepticism. Countless lives and hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested in the outcome. Until then, I'll stay on this side of the looking glass.
In analyzing any situation, the viewer brings to the task some kind of basic outlook about politics and politicians. The possible outlooks can be light or darkness at the end of the tunnel, optimism or pessimism, or glass half full-half empty. As a skeptic and sometimes cynic, I usually opt to look through a dark lens, but with a willingness to be proven wrong.
Right now I'm prone to draw a parallel between the formation of a new Iraqi government and what's going on in the soon-to-end special session of the U.S. Congress. In Congress there has been a breakout of bipartisanship after two years of obstructionist GOP partisanship. The seeming bipartisanship is the result of President Obama's "must" legislation for retaining middle class tax cuts and extending unemployment benefits joining with a Republican "must" list to extend tax cuts for the upper income while also squeezing the President for other tax advantages for the wealthy, primarily the estate tax. And there is some bipartisanship going on with the Senate's decision to take up consideration of another Obama "must", ratification of the nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia. Come January and the new Congress with GOP control of the House and more seats in the Senate, this current bipartisanship will be hard to find as Republicans turn their attention to their biggest "must", ousting Obama in 2012 and taking complete control of Congress.
In Iraq there is another "must" dynamic in play. For more than nine months since the parliamentary elections, political fighting between those in office and those wanting in, plus the traditional division between the Shiites, Sunni, and Kurds have prevented formation of a government. Now with the recent decision to have the former and interim Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki form the new government, the Iraqi constitutional clock started to tick requiring the new government to be formed by December 25. (Given the nature of Iraqi politics, it puzzles me why they are suddenly so constitutional minded.) So a "must" situation has forced the contenders to settle their differences on forming a multiparty/faction coalition. The major holdout had been Ayid Allawi, leader of a secular Shiite-Sunni party that had narrowly won the parliamentary election but was far short of the majority needed to form a government and was unable to put together a coalition. With the "must" deadline approaching, Allawi had to decide whether to enter the al-Maliki coalition or stay out in the cold. He chose to enter. Here is where Ignatius and this blogger see the situation through different lenses.
Ignatius seems to see the political and security situation in Iraq improving to the point where there is light at the end of the tunnel. But to me a number of crucial issues besides who gets what positions in the new government remain to be decided and these issues deal with actual power. Allawi will head a new council to oversee security and foreign policy issues. But, and it's a very big "but", the powers of this council have not yet been decided and it could become a hollow shell with real power retained by al-Maliki and his allies. Supposedly the council's power will be decided very soon. According to reports, the decisions of the new council will require an 80 percent super majorityfor approval. It must be assumed that al-Maliki and his Shiite and Kurdish backers control 60-70 percent and Allawi wants to be sure that the votes he controls will count. It is not difficult, however, to see obstacles to getting an 80 percent vote. Would that mean the decision is left to al-Maliki? Also undecided, at least so far as media reporting, are the crucial issues such as who gets the cabinet seat that controls the security forces, who will head the important oil ministry, expansion of the Kurdish semi-autonomous region to include oil-rich Kirkuk, and the future of U.S. forces in Iraq after 2011 when all troops are to leave. Thus, the December 25 "must" deadline has brought about an Iraqi multipartisanship akin to the bipartisan Christmas deadline in our Congress. But more importantly, like the GOP's next priority on defeating Obama, will al-Maliki move beyond multipartisanship to the power objective by squeezing out the opposition to gain unchallenged control of power for himself and his hardline religious Shiite followers?
To conclude, I hope Ignatius' optimism, however guarded, trumps my skepticism. Countless lives and hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested in the outcome. Until then, I'll stay on this side of the looking glass.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
JUDGES, THE MEDIA, AND HEALTH CARE REFORM
The media are making much of the latest decision by a federal judge in Virginia who has ruled that a key part of the new health care reform law requiring people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. This comes after two previous rulings by other federal judges that the requirement is constitutional. The mandate provision does not go into effect until 2014. But before going further on this heavy subject, a lighter health care story is in order.
Cosmo, a follower of this blog, e-mailed me a story about some House Democrats sending a letter to John Boehner, the presumed next Speaker, and Senate Minority Leader McConnell regarding the hypocrisy of Republicans in opposing health reform legislation. The letter urges the two party leaders to have their fellow congressional Republicans refuse their federal health care benefits on the same grounds they opposed reform legislation. In essence, the letter said that lawmakers, incumbents and incoming, who opposed a public/government option as an alternative to private insurance should give up the government-sponsored plan they have as members of Congress. In short, they accuse Republicans of hypocrisy on the issue of health care reform. The letter must have brought tears to the eyes of the weepy-prone Boehner. But the sad fact is that the Democrats who wrote the letter are correct. Now, the latest judicial ruling.
This is strictly impressionistic and not based on hard data of any kind, but it seemed to me with my biased view on the subject that the ruling on Monday against President Obama got more media attention than the two previous rulings backing him. To repeat the central issue: Can the government mandate that the uninsured buy insurance? The judge on Monday declined to strike down the entire law, just the mandate provision. The judicial score now is "yes" by two federal district judges, "no" by one. My impression of greater media attention to the "no" ruling was partially formed by the appearance of the story in a featured spot on the front page of my local newspaper. I may be wrong, but I don't recall such prominence being given to the previous "yes" rulings. The "no" ruling also got top coverage on network television and in major newspapers.
Aside from the ruling on that part of the law regarding the mandate issue, the media also pointed out that the issue will certainly end up in the U.S. Supreme Court before 2014. But it was some of the political interpretations that were the most interesting. One was that the "no" ruling would "embolden" congressional Republicans in their efforts to repeal all or parts of the new law. To this blogger, it is difficult to see how the ruling will embolden the GOP lawmakers. They were already clearly on record with their views on the unconstitutionality of the mandate, and with so many members of Congress being lawyers, they yield to no one in their presumed knowledge of what the Constitution intends or doesn't intend. The ruling will certainly be cited in GOP repeal arguments, but it will have little effect on the legislative repeal strategy. And with so many legal challenges yet to be decided, the significance of this case escapes me. The reality is that no matter what the final score at the district and appeals court levels, it the final decision of the Supreme Court that matters. Which brings me to judicial ideology, often referred to as philosophy.
The stories I've read are quick to point out which President appointed the judges making the rulings. The two "yes" judges were appointed by President Clinton; the "no" judge was named by President George W. Bush. Thus, no surprises since judges when nominated by a President are presumed to fit within the general ideology and policy preferences of the President. It must be stressed, however, that this is not always true. President Eisenhower said that one of his greatest mistakes was to name Earl Warren as Chief Justice since, as it turned out, Warren came to head a very liberal court which handed down a number of liberal landmark decisions. Despite the exceptions, judicial ideology/philosophy and not a naive belief that judges are neutral interpreters of the Constitution is a major dynamic underpinning judicial rulings. That, of course, is the scarey part of knowing that the Supreme Court will make the final decision. The current court is divided 4 to 4 on the liberal/conservative scale but has tended to lean more often to the right with the swing vote decided by Justice Anthony Kennedy who was appointed by President Reagan in l988. If Kennedy goes with his conservative colleagues on the mandate issue, then a key part of health care reform will be lost.
In sum, there is a long way to go before a final winner can be decided. In the meantime, we can only hope that the media will find a happy medium in reporting and analyzing winners and losers as the process proceeds.
Cosmo, a follower of this blog, e-mailed me a story about some House Democrats sending a letter to John Boehner, the presumed next Speaker, and Senate Minority Leader McConnell regarding the hypocrisy of Republicans in opposing health reform legislation. The letter urges the two party leaders to have their fellow congressional Republicans refuse their federal health care benefits on the same grounds they opposed reform legislation. In essence, the letter said that lawmakers, incumbents and incoming, who opposed a public/government option as an alternative to private insurance should give up the government-sponsored plan they have as members of Congress. In short, they accuse Republicans of hypocrisy on the issue of health care reform. The letter must have brought tears to the eyes of the weepy-prone Boehner. But the sad fact is that the Democrats who wrote the letter are correct. Now, the latest judicial ruling.
This is strictly impressionistic and not based on hard data of any kind, but it seemed to me with my biased view on the subject that the ruling on Monday against President Obama got more media attention than the two previous rulings backing him. To repeat the central issue: Can the government mandate that the uninsured buy insurance? The judge on Monday declined to strike down the entire law, just the mandate provision. The judicial score now is "yes" by two federal district judges, "no" by one. My impression of greater media attention to the "no" ruling was partially formed by the appearance of the story in a featured spot on the front page of my local newspaper. I may be wrong, but I don't recall such prominence being given to the previous "yes" rulings. The "no" ruling also got top coverage on network television and in major newspapers.
Aside from the ruling on that part of the law regarding the mandate issue, the media also pointed out that the issue will certainly end up in the U.S. Supreme Court before 2014. But it was some of the political interpretations that were the most interesting. One was that the "no" ruling would "embolden" congressional Republicans in their efforts to repeal all or parts of the new law. To this blogger, it is difficult to see how the ruling will embolden the GOP lawmakers. They were already clearly on record with their views on the unconstitutionality of the mandate, and with so many members of Congress being lawyers, they yield to no one in their presumed knowledge of what the Constitution intends or doesn't intend. The ruling will certainly be cited in GOP repeal arguments, but it will have little effect on the legislative repeal strategy. And with so many legal challenges yet to be decided, the significance of this case escapes me. The reality is that no matter what the final score at the district and appeals court levels, it the final decision of the Supreme Court that matters. Which brings me to judicial ideology, often referred to as philosophy.
The stories I've read are quick to point out which President appointed the judges making the rulings. The two "yes" judges were appointed by President Clinton; the "no" judge was named by President George W. Bush. Thus, no surprises since judges when nominated by a President are presumed to fit within the general ideology and policy preferences of the President. It must be stressed, however, that this is not always true. President Eisenhower said that one of his greatest mistakes was to name Earl Warren as Chief Justice since, as it turned out, Warren came to head a very liberal court which handed down a number of liberal landmark decisions. Despite the exceptions, judicial ideology/philosophy and not a naive belief that judges are neutral interpreters of the Constitution is a major dynamic underpinning judicial rulings. That, of course, is the scarey part of knowing that the Supreme Court will make the final decision. The current court is divided 4 to 4 on the liberal/conservative scale but has tended to lean more often to the right with the swing vote decided by Justice Anthony Kennedy who was appointed by President Reagan in l988. If Kennedy goes with his conservative colleagues on the mandate issue, then a key part of health care reform will be lost.
In sum, there is a long way to go before a final winner can be decided. In the meantime, we can only hope that the media will find a happy medium in reporting and analyzing winners and losers as the process proceeds.
Monday, December 13, 2010
A FEW NOTES ON THE TAX BILL
When Opportunity Knocks
Nothing could be more designed to aid special interests than a tax bill that "must" be enacted in the last days of a dying Congress. Thus it is for the Obama-GOP agreement to extend the Bush tax cuts for an additional two years. But what President Obama and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell quickly discovered was that the extension of the cuts for the wealthy, plus an additional big win for the wealthy on the estate tax immediately faced opposition from many congressional liberals. House Democrats voted in caucus not to support the agreement. Solution: the time honored approach of adding more ornaments to the tax Christmas tree in hopes of attracting the support needed for passage.
Okay, no surprises there. But, to this blogger, one ornament added that has a particularly unpleasant smell is the extension of the ethanol tax credits and the tariff that protect the U.S. corn-based ethanol against the far more efficient use of sugar as the basic crop for producing ethanol. The ethanol support program has been around for some time--subsidies, protection against foreign competition, and required use of ethanol to be mixed with gasoline. The extension now added to the tax bill is simply an effort to get more congressional votes out of the corn belt, just as extensions of a multitude of other tax credits are directed toward other votes.
There are two things about Washington's ethanol policy -- past, present, and likely the future -- that have been and continue to be objectionable. One, reliance on corn as the primary renewable crop source for ethanol has driven up significantly the price of corn. That in turn has had a rippling effect on the price of feed grains for the cattle, hog, and chicken producers which, of course, ends up as higher prices for the consumer. And as corn prices became more attractive, farmers expanded their corn acreage at the expense of other crops which in turn drove up those prices. A counter argument is that ethanol subsidies and mandated usage has cut down on oil imports. Presumably that would be felt at the gas pump but as gas prices along with food prices are going up again, it is difficult for the consumer to see the value of the supposed tradeoff.
Two, corn-based ethanol is grossly inefficient to produce compared with sugar-based ethanol. According to the research, for ethanol made from corn, one unit of energy used for the processing produces 1.3 units of energy in the fuel. For sugar-based ethanol, the ratio is 1 to 8. The greatest source for the sugar-based stuff is Brazil where sugar cane is abundant. So to keep the more efficient and cheaper ethanol out of the country, we both put a protective tariff on imports and also set a limit on the amount that can come in.
Strange Bedfellows -- Seemingly
When Republican Senator Jim DeMint, the self-annointed leader of the Tea Party (TP), and liberal, independent Senator Bernie Sanders are both opposed to the Obama-GOP tax agreement, it is something of a wonderment. But when you look at their reasons for opposition, you think, "aha, of course".
DeMint's primary opposition seems to be that the agreement doesn't do enough for the wealthy. For him it wasn't enough to just extend for two years the tax cuts for the high income earners. He wanted the cuts made permanent. President Obama, backed by liberal congressional Democrats, had originally wanted the reductions for those households earning more than $250,000 a year to expire on December 31, as the law currently calls for. And, although the wealthy are treated generously under the Obama-GOP agreement on the estate tax, DeMint wanted that tax eliminated altogether.
Sanders in an 8+ hour solo performance before a nearly empty Senate chamber said he opposed the agreement because it gave away too much to the wealthy. Contrary to DeMint, he argued that the tax reduction for those earning above $250,000 should be ended altogether and the estate tax provisions are excessively generous to those with the most money.
What should also be noted is the silence from TP activists outside of Congress. Since the TP started in early 2009, its bedrock issue has been to reduce spending and cut the debt NOW. The Obama-GOP agreement as it now stands would add over $800 billion to the deficit over the next two years and who knows that will happen after that. As evident from the so-called "temporary" Bush tax cuts which have been running for seven years, getting rid of reductions and tax credits is not easy. Where is the TP outrage? Has the so-called grass roots TP now been co-opted by the establishment GOP as the defenders of the wealthy?
There is no "in sum" or "to conclude" to end this posting. The purpose is just to air a few random thoughts that have occurred to me as the tax debate goes on.
Nothing could be more designed to aid special interests than a tax bill that "must" be enacted in the last days of a dying Congress. Thus it is for the Obama-GOP agreement to extend the Bush tax cuts for an additional two years. But what President Obama and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell quickly discovered was that the extension of the cuts for the wealthy, plus an additional big win for the wealthy on the estate tax immediately faced opposition from many congressional liberals. House Democrats voted in caucus not to support the agreement. Solution: the time honored approach of adding more ornaments to the tax Christmas tree in hopes of attracting the support needed for passage.
Okay, no surprises there. But, to this blogger, one ornament added that has a particularly unpleasant smell is the extension of the ethanol tax credits and the tariff that protect the U.S. corn-based ethanol against the far more efficient use of sugar as the basic crop for producing ethanol. The ethanol support program has been around for some time--subsidies, protection against foreign competition, and required use of ethanol to be mixed with gasoline. The extension now added to the tax bill is simply an effort to get more congressional votes out of the corn belt, just as extensions of a multitude of other tax credits are directed toward other votes.
There are two things about Washington's ethanol policy -- past, present, and likely the future -- that have been and continue to be objectionable. One, reliance on corn as the primary renewable crop source for ethanol has driven up significantly the price of corn. That in turn has had a rippling effect on the price of feed grains for the cattle, hog, and chicken producers which, of course, ends up as higher prices for the consumer. And as corn prices became more attractive, farmers expanded their corn acreage at the expense of other crops which in turn drove up those prices. A counter argument is that ethanol subsidies and mandated usage has cut down on oil imports. Presumably that would be felt at the gas pump but as gas prices along with food prices are going up again, it is difficult for the consumer to see the value of the supposed tradeoff.
Two, corn-based ethanol is grossly inefficient to produce compared with sugar-based ethanol. According to the research, for ethanol made from corn, one unit of energy used for the processing produces 1.3 units of energy in the fuel. For sugar-based ethanol, the ratio is 1 to 8. The greatest source for the sugar-based stuff is Brazil where sugar cane is abundant. So to keep the more efficient and cheaper ethanol out of the country, we both put a protective tariff on imports and also set a limit on the amount that can come in.
Strange Bedfellows -- Seemingly
When Republican Senator Jim DeMint, the self-annointed leader of the Tea Party (TP), and liberal, independent Senator Bernie Sanders are both opposed to the Obama-GOP tax agreement, it is something of a wonderment. But when you look at their reasons for opposition, you think, "aha, of course".
DeMint's primary opposition seems to be that the agreement doesn't do enough for the wealthy. For him it wasn't enough to just extend for two years the tax cuts for the high income earners. He wanted the cuts made permanent. President Obama, backed by liberal congressional Democrats, had originally wanted the reductions for those households earning more than $250,000 a year to expire on December 31, as the law currently calls for. And, although the wealthy are treated generously under the Obama-GOP agreement on the estate tax, DeMint wanted that tax eliminated altogether.
Sanders in an 8+ hour solo performance before a nearly empty Senate chamber said he opposed the agreement because it gave away too much to the wealthy. Contrary to DeMint, he argued that the tax reduction for those earning above $250,000 should be ended altogether and the estate tax provisions are excessively generous to those with the most money.
What should also be noted is the silence from TP activists outside of Congress. Since the TP started in early 2009, its bedrock issue has been to reduce spending and cut the debt NOW. The Obama-GOP agreement as it now stands would add over $800 billion to the deficit over the next two years and who knows that will happen after that. As evident from the so-called "temporary" Bush tax cuts which have been running for seven years, getting rid of reductions and tax credits is not easy. Where is the TP outrage? Has the so-called grass roots TP now been co-opted by the establishment GOP as the defenders of the wealthy?
There is no "in sum" or "to conclude" to end this posting. The purpose is just to air a few random thoughts that have occurred to me as the tax debate goes on.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
THE MIDDLE EAST: DARKNESS AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL
At one point during the Vietnam war then U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara said he saw "light at the end of the tunnel," his upbeat assessment of American military progress there. It didn't turn out that way. If we apply the same imagery to the situation in the Middle East today, it would be difficult to conclude anything other than that for U.S. policy in the region--there is darkness at the end of the tunnel. This posting takes a look at where things stand on the Israeli-Palestinian so-called peace process and Iraq and its political future. (See an earlier posting on this issue--The Peace Process That Isn't and Maybe Never Was.) A third big regional problem is Iran's political interference in Iraq and Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, but that subject is too big to squeeze into this posting, suffice it to say there is also no sign of light there.
First, the Israel-Palestinian peace process and its goal of creating an independent Palestinian state through the return of territory captured by Israel in the l967 war. There was much fanfare in early September when President Obama hosted a meeting in Washington intended to restart the moribund peace process. At the end of the meeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas agreed to keep the process going. One more meeting was quickly held but things broke down soon after that. The stumbling block was the same issue that had plagued the process before the Washington meeting, Israeli housing settlements on land the Palestinians want returned. The scenario went something like this.
The Washington meeting was made possible when Israel agreed to a moratorium on settlement building but that freeze ended in late September. Abbas said he would not return to the talks unless the freeze was extended. To get Israel to agree to another 90-day moratorium, the U.S. offered Netanyahu an arms sale, a U.S. veto of any Palestinian effort to take the issue directly to the United Nations Security Council, plus a later security agreement with Israel. All of this was just to get Israel to extend the freeze an additional 90 days during which it was optimistically and perhaps naively believed there could be some general outline on lands to be exchanged. Right wing opposition within his government forced Netanyahu to say no to a further freeze and Abbas repeated his position--no freeze, no talks. After further efforts to get the talks restarted, the U.S. has now abandoned that effort with no alternative approach on the horizon. Thus, the often interrupted peace process has once more broken down, even before it really got restarted. Now to another regional headache, Iraq.
As often stated by analysts and on this blog, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the overthrow of dictator Saddam Hussein, Iran's chief antagonist, opened the door to greater Iranian influence in Iraq. That increased influence has been made easier by the ties that have been established and are getting stronger between the Shia-dominated government of Iraq and its co-religionists in Iran. In his efforts to retain power after the close elections last March, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has allied himself with the U.S. arch enemy in Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr, an influential Shia leader who took up residence in Iran after he was forced out of Baghdad by U.S. forces. He still resides in Iran. (See previous post -- Iran: The 800 Pound Gorilla Is Getting Bigger)
Meanwhile, al-Maliki made direct overtures to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the latter's support against al-Maliki's primary opposition, a secular Shia-Sunni coalition. It has been nine months since the parliamentary election and al-Maliki is in the process of forming a government but no final arrangement has been confirmed. It appears evident, however, that U.S. efforts to curb Iranian influence in any new government are failing. Add to this the continued violence between Shia and Sunni and, more recently, attacks on Iraqi Christians and the picture is one of a significant lack of security. The U.S. government, with doubtful backing of the American public, would like to retain a military presence in Iraq, but an agreement between al-Maliki and former President Bush calls for the withdrawal of all American forces by the end of next year. The latest on this is that al-Maliki is not backing away from that deadline and sticking with that arrangement may be part of the deal between him and al-Sadr who has been adamantly opposed to what he regards as continued U.S. military occupation.
And if all of this isn't enough, there is increasing activity by Syria in shipping arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon to increase its military threat on Israel's northern border. Syria is also seeking to reassert its overall influence in Lebanese affairs, an influence that was seemingly ended when Syria, under United Nations pressure, withdraw its last troops from Lebanon in 2005. Syria first sent troops into Lebanon in l976 to help quell the violence of Lebanon's civil war. Syria also appears to be a source for the growing infiltration of terrorists into bordering Iraq. The Obama administration through direct talks with Syria had hoped to steer that country away from its destabilizing activities in the region and from its strengthening ties to Iran. At this point, the U.S. effort does not appear to have succeeded and Obama, because of Republican opposition, cannot even get Senate approval to send a new ambassador to Damascus to carry on its policy of engagement.
In sum, the U.S. policy/policies in two big problem areas of the Middle East are not doing well. In the case of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and Iranian interference in Iraqi politics, there doesn't seem to be any sign of light at the end of the tunnel. The policy now is --lengthen the tunnel.
First, the Israel-Palestinian peace process and its goal of creating an independent Palestinian state through the return of territory captured by Israel in the l967 war. There was much fanfare in early September when President Obama hosted a meeting in Washington intended to restart the moribund peace process. At the end of the meeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas agreed to keep the process going. One more meeting was quickly held but things broke down soon after that. The stumbling block was the same issue that had plagued the process before the Washington meeting, Israeli housing settlements on land the Palestinians want returned. The scenario went something like this.
The Washington meeting was made possible when Israel agreed to a moratorium on settlement building but that freeze ended in late September. Abbas said he would not return to the talks unless the freeze was extended. To get Israel to agree to another 90-day moratorium, the U.S. offered Netanyahu an arms sale, a U.S. veto of any Palestinian effort to take the issue directly to the United Nations Security Council, plus a later security agreement with Israel. All of this was just to get Israel to extend the freeze an additional 90 days during which it was optimistically and perhaps naively believed there could be some general outline on lands to be exchanged. Right wing opposition within his government forced Netanyahu to say no to a further freeze and Abbas repeated his position--no freeze, no talks. After further efforts to get the talks restarted, the U.S. has now abandoned that effort with no alternative approach on the horizon. Thus, the often interrupted peace process has once more broken down, even before it really got restarted. Now to another regional headache, Iraq.
As often stated by analysts and on this blog, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the overthrow of dictator Saddam Hussein, Iran's chief antagonist, opened the door to greater Iranian influence in Iraq. That increased influence has been made easier by the ties that have been established and are getting stronger between the Shia-dominated government of Iraq and its co-religionists in Iran. In his efforts to retain power after the close elections last March, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has allied himself with the U.S. arch enemy in Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr, an influential Shia leader who took up residence in Iran after he was forced out of Baghdad by U.S. forces. He still resides in Iran. (See previous post -- Iran: The 800 Pound Gorilla Is Getting Bigger)
Meanwhile, al-Maliki made direct overtures to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the latter's support against al-Maliki's primary opposition, a secular Shia-Sunni coalition. It has been nine months since the parliamentary election and al-Maliki is in the process of forming a government but no final arrangement has been confirmed. It appears evident, however, that U.S. efforts to curb Iranian influence in any new government are failing. Add to this the continued violence between Shia and Sunni and, more recently, attacks on Iraqi Christians and the picture is one of a significant lack of security. The U.S. government, with doubtful backing of the American public, would like to retain a military presence in Iraq, but an agreement between al-Maliki and former President Bush calls for the withdrawal of all American forces by the end of next year. The latest on this is that al-Maliki is not backing away from that deadline and sticking with that arrangement may be part of the deal between him and al-Sadr who has been adamantly opposed to what he regards as continued U.S. military occupation.
And if all of this isn't enough, there is increasing activity by Syria in shipping arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon to increase its military threat on Israel's northern border. Syria is also seeking to reassert its overall influence in Lebanese affairs, an influence that was seemingly ended when Syria, under United Nations pressure, withdraw its last troops from Lebanon in 2005. Syria first sent troops into Lebanon in l976 to help quell the violence of Lebanon's civil war. Syria also appears to be a source for the growing infiltration of terrorists into bordering Iraq. The Obama administration through direct talks with Syria had hoped to steer that country away from its destabilizing activities in the region and from its strengthening ties to Iran. At this point, the U.S. effort does not appear to have succeeded and Obama, because of Republican opposition, cannot even get Senate approval to send a new ambassador to Damascus to carry on its policy of engagement.
In sum, the U.S. policy/policies in two big problem areas of the Middle East are not doing well. In the case of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and Iranian interference in Iraqi politics, there doesn't seem to be any sign of light at the end of the tunnel. The policy now is --lengthen the tunnel.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
WHEN FRIENDS FALL OUT: HAGGLING BECOMES LOUDER IN THE WASHINGTON BAZAAR
Two posts ago, the imagery of back and forth haggling over price in a Mideast bazaar was used to characterize the fight between Democrats and Republicans over issues to be resolved in this special session of Congress. Two levels of haggling were noted: 1) what issues would get resolved before final adjournment which is coming soon; and 2) what would be the specifics of the various pieces of legislation that are finalized.
Just when it seemed that the basic structure of the biggest issue of all, taxes, had been resolved, another round of haggling has appeared, although it now sounds more like shouting than haggling. And this time the escalated haggling, or shouting, is not between Democrats and Republicans, but among Democrats themselves. More specifically, between President Obama and his liberal Democratic supporters in Congress who believe the President, in coming to terms with the Republicans, has given away too much to the wealthy.
For months the featured part of the tax issue was what to do about the temporary (now running seven years) Bush tax cuts for higher income earners. Initially Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership supported extending the cuts for the middle class but were opposed to doing the same for couples reporting income of more than $250,000 a year. As the election campaigning went on and as it was becoming increasingly apparent that it was going to be a good year for the GOP which wanted all tax cuts extended, there was less Democratic insistence on ending the reductions for the higher income. Finally, after the election, with all Bush tax cuts scheduled to end on December 31, and with the GOP scheduled to take over the House next year, the issue seemed to be reduced to how long to extend the temporary reductions for all tax brackets.
A few days ago the "how long" seemed to be resolved--extend the cuts for everyone for another two years. In exchange the GOP agreed to a Democrat-backed 13 month extension of unemployment benefits affecting an estimated 7 million jobless workers over that period. But as stated in the previous posting, "It's difficult to imagine that a tax bill can make its way through Congress without efforts to turn it into a Christmas tree ('tis the season) for other pet tax-related ideas." It is the added ornamentation, along with the upper income tax extension, that has liberal congressional Democrats angry about the Obama-GOP deal which liberals see as a sell out to the wealthy.
The earlier post said that the issue of the estate tax may be too big to deal with in the short time remaining. But not only did the GOP get it put on the Christmas tree, but the specifics also got them a much better deal than could be expected. And that is a part of what troubles liberal Democrats. Prior to this year the federal estate tax exempted the first $3.5 million of an estate with anything above that taxed at 45 percent. For 2010 there was no federal estate tax at all, but beginning on January 1, the exemption is to drop to $1 million with the rate going up to 55 percent. What the GOP succeeded in selling to Obama was to get the exemption set at $5 million with the rate dropping to 35 percent. In short, the new provisions, if finally approved, would give another big tax break to the wealthy. Another ornament that aids the wealthier taxpayer is that the Obama-GOP agreement leaves the capital gains tax, a significant source of upper income wealth, at 15 percent rather than having the gains taxed at the same rate as ordinary income as long sought by many congressional Democrats.
The tree does include some tax credits that help middle income families but another ornament that seems to add to the take-home pay for middle and lower income earners also tilts to the advantage of the wealthier taxpayer. That is the ornament providing that for one year the social security tax of workers would drop 2 percentage points from 6.2 to 4.2 percent. A look at the structure of the social security tax shows again the the better off make out better. Social security is a flat rate tax and thus is regressive. A wage earner only pays on the first $106,800 of income. So a person making that limit or more will save $2,136; a person earning $50,000 saves less than half of that, $1,000. The object of the one year reduction is to provide an economic stimulus by giving people more money to spend and thus, hopefully, boosting the economy. If, however, the added income is used to pay down credit card balances or is saved, the stimulus would be lost.
Finally, does resolution (maybe) of the tax issue, help clear the way for other things Obama wants, primarily Senate ratification of the nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia? First of all, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that nothing else will be considered until the tax bill and a resolution providing for continued funding of the government are finally passed. That could take some time and time is running short. Obama can forget about getting repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell on military recruitment. There is likely to be some political maneuvering on an immigration bill, the DREAM proposal to help eligible children of undocumented parents gain citizenship, but final congressional approval is unlikely. Again, stay tuned. The bazaar is still open a bit longer.
Just when it seemed that the basic structure of the biggest issue of all, taxes, had been resolved, another round of haggling has appeared, although it now sounds more like shouting than haggling. And this time the escalated haggling, or shouting, is not between Democrats and Republicans, but among Democrats themselves. More specifically, between President Obama and his liberal Democratic supporters in Congress who believe the President, in coming to terms with the Republicans, has given away too much to the wealthy.
For months the featured part of the tax issue was what to do about the temporary (now running seven years) Bush tax cuts for higher income earners. Initially Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership supported extending the cuts for the middle class but were opposed to doing the same for couples reporting income of more than $250,000 a year. As the election campaigning went on and as it was becoming increasingly apparent that it was going to be a good year for the GOP which wanted all tax cuts extended, there was less Democratic insistence on ending the reductions for the higher income. Finally, after the election, with all Bush tax cuts scheduled to end on December 31, and with the GOP scheduled to take over the House next year, the issue seemed to be reduced to how long to extend the temporary reductions for all tax brackets.
A few days ago the "how long" seemed to be resolved--extend the cuts for everyone for another two years. In exchange the GOP agreed to a Democrat-backed 13 month extension of unemployment benefits affecting an estimated 7 million jobless workers over that period. But as stated in the previous posting, "It's difficult to imagine that a tax bill can make its way through Congress without efforts to turn it into a Christmas tree ('tis the season) for other pet tax-related ideas." It is the added ornamentation, along with the upper income tax extension, that has liberal congressional Democrats angry about the Obama-GOP deal which liberals see as a sell out to the wealthy.
The earlier post said that the issue of the estate tax may be too big to deal with in the short time remaining. But not only did the GOP get it put on the Christmas tree, but the specifics also got them a much better deal than could be expected. And that is a part of what troubles liberal Democrats. Prior to this year the federal estate tax exempted the first $3.5 million of an estate with anything above that taxed at 45 percent. For 2010 there was no federal estate tax at all, but beginning on January 1, the exemption is to drop to $1 million with the rate going up to 55 percent. What the GOP succeeded in selling to Obama was to get the exemption set at $5 million with the rate dropping to 35 percent. In short, the new provisions, if finally approved, would give another big tax break to the wealthy. Another ornament that aids the wealthier taxpayer is that the Obama-GOP agreement leaves the capital gains tax, a significant source of upper income wealth, at 15 percent rather than having the gains taxed at the same rate as ordinary income as long sought by many congressional Democrats.
The tree does include some tax credits that help middle income families but another ornament that seems to add to the take-home pay for middle and lower income earners also tilts to the advantage of the wealthier taxpayer. That is the ornament providing that for one year the social security tax of workers would drop 2 percentage points from 6.2 to 4.2 percent. A look at the structure of the social security tax shows again the the better off make out better. Social security is a flat rate tax and thus is regressive. A wage earner only pays on the first $106,800 of income. So a person making that limit or more will save $2,136; a person earning $50,000 saves less than half of that, $1,000. The object of the one year reduction is to provide an economic stimulus by giving people more money to spend and thus, hopefully, boosting the economy. If, however, the added income is used to pay down credit card balances or is saved, the stimulus would be lost.
Finally, does resolution (maybe) of the tax issue, help clear the way for other things Obama wants, primarily Senate ratification of the nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia? First of all, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that nothing else will be considered until the tax bill and a resolution providing for continued funding of the government are finally passed. That could take some time and time is running short. Obama can forget about getting repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell on military recruitment. There is likely to be some political maneuvering on an immigration bill, the DREAM proposal to help eligible children of undocumented parents gain citizenship, but final congressional approval is unlikely. Again, stay tuned. The bazaar is still open a bit longer.
Monday, December 6, 2010
REMEMBERING PEARL HARBOR AND FRANK HEWLETT
As a World War II buff I could not let tomorrow's 69th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in l941 go by without using today's posting to make a personal note, so forgive the frequent use of "I", "me", and "my".
I remember hearing of the attack on the radio soon after it occurred. At the time I was in grade school but clearly remember the occasion. As the family and I were hearing about the attack via radio, my future wife was watching the smoke and flame from the heights of Wilhemina Rise in Honolulu where she lived. This is a lead in to talking about Frank Hewlett who made it possible for me to go to Honolulu where I met my future wife; he was himself a World War II story. Before telling a bit about Frank, let me briefly relate how he came to be my life-changer.
Frank and I met in l959 when I was a fresh-out-of-college reporter for United Press International in Washington, D.C. At the time Frank. who had retired from United Press (it became UPI after UP merged with the International News Service in 1958), was a stringer for several newspapers, including the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Since part of my assignment was to cover Hawaii news, we had frequent occasions to get together. On one occasion we were having lunch at the National Press Club when I casually remarked that the next time he talked with his Honolulu boss, to ask if they might have an opening for a new reporter. Three days later I got a call from the managing editor asking if I was serious about coming to Hawaii. I was, and two weeks later I was on a Matson cruise ship heading for the Islands. Soon after I met my wife-to-be. Now back to Frank's story.
Just before the fall of Manila in December l941, Frank and his wife, Virginia, were evacuated to Corregidor island from where he traveled back and forth to Bataan to report on that historic but tragic battle; his wife served as a nurse on Corregidor. As the Japanese got close to capturing Bataan and threatening Corregidor, Frank was evacuated to India. He was told to wait there and his wife would soon follow. It didn't turn out that way. Virginia was captured by the Japanese and spent the war as a prisoner for the next 2-1/2 years. My wife and I met Virginia when we later moved to Washington. As told to us by Frank at a party at his home in nearby Virginia, his wife was not the same after her wartime ordeal. She would plan and prepare parties and dinners but would not join the guests. She preferred to stay in the kitchen while the guests socialized. And because of her diet while in captivity, rice became an essential part of her meals.
In talking about his war experiences, Frank made it clear he was no fan of General Douglas MacArthur, the Philippines commander. He noted that MacArthur was called by some "dugout Doug" when MacArthur and his family left the islands during the battle of Bataan to take his command to Australia at the order of President Roosevelt. It was some years later in reading the book, "The Rising Sun" by John Toland, I found out that Frank, in covering the Bataan battle was the author of a well known verse of the time, about the men fighting there.
We're the battling bastards of Bataan:
No mama, no papa, no Uncle Sam,
No aunts, no uncles, no cousins, no nieces,
No pills, no planes or artillery pieces,
And nobody gives a damn.
One story he told was about his writing the first news report on the rescue of the survivors a PT boat crew whose boat had been rammed by a Japanese destroyer in the Solomon Islands in l943 -- the captain of the boat was Lieutenant Junior Grade John F. Kennedy. On the night Kennedy was elected President in l960, I was on the desk at UPI when Frank's original story about the rescue was recovered from the files and sent out over the wire. Frank was one of the people who was given a PT 109 gold tie clip by Kennedy.
A final story about Frank and his close connection with the Pacific War occurred at a summer outdoor party we attended at Frank's home. He introduced us to one of his friends, Colonel Rufus Bratton, the army's intelligence liason officer in Washington at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. Bratton was responsible for delivering decoded messages from the broken Japanese diplomatic code to President Roosevelt and other top civilian and military leaders privy to the secret information. Bratton was one of the featured persons in the 1970 move, "Tora, Tora, Tora" about events in the U.S. and Japan leading up to and including the December 7 attack. Bratton's role was played by E. G. Marshall.
So when another December 7 to Remember Pearl Harbor rolls around, it's a time for me to also remember Frank Hewlett, a kind and gentle man who was both a life changer and a personification of my remembrances of World War II.
I remember hearing of the attack on the radio soon after it occurred. At the time I was in grade school but clearly remember the occasion. As the family and I were hearing about the attack via radio, my future wife was watching the smoke and flame from the heights of Wilhemina Rise in Honolulu where she lived. This is a lead in to talking about Frank Hewlett who made it possible for me to go to Honolulu where I met my future wife; he was himself a World War II story. Before telling a bit about Frank, let me briefly relate how he came to be my life-changer.
Frank and I met in l959 when I was a fresh-out-of-college reporter for United Press International in Washington, D.C. At the time Frank. who had retired from United Press (it became UPI after UP merged with the International News Service in 1958), was a stringer for several newspapers, including the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Since part of my assignment was to cover Hawaii news, we had frequent occasions to get together. On one occasion we were having lunch at the National Press Club when I casually remarked that the next time he talked with his Honolulu boss, to ask if they might have an opening for a new reporter. Three days later I got a call from the managing editor asking if I was serious about coming to Hawaii. I was, and two weeks later I was on a Matson cruise ship heading for the Islands. Soon after I met my wife-to-be. Now back to Frank's story.
Just before the fall of Manila in December l941, Frank and his wife, Virginia, were evacuated to Corregidor island from where he traveled back and forth to Bataan to report on that historic but tragic battle; his wife served as a nurse on Corregidor. As the Japanese got close to capturing Bataan and threatening Corregidor, Frank was evacuated to India. He was told to wait there and his wife would soon follow. It didn't turn out that way. Virginia was captured by the Japanese and spent the war as a prisoner for the next 2-1/2 years. My wife and I met Virginia when we later moved to Washington. As told to us by Frank at a party at his home in nearby Virginia, his wife was not the same after her wartime ordeal. She would plan and prepare parties and dinners but would not join the guests. She preferred to stay in the kitchen while the guests socialized. And because of her diet while in captivity, rice became an essential part of her meals.
In talking about his war experiences, Frank made it clear he was no fan of General Douglas MacArthur, the Philippines commander. He noted that MacArthur was called by some "dugout Doug" when MacArthur and his family left the islands during the battle of Bataan to take his command to Australia at the order of President Roosevelt. It was some years later in reading the book, "The Rising Sun" by John Toland, I found out that Frank, in covering the Bataan battle was the author of a well known verse of the time, about the men fighting there.
We're the battling bastards of Bataan:
No mama, no papa, no Uncle Sam,
No aunts, no uncles, no cousins, no nieces,
No pills, no planes or artillery pieces,
And nobody gives a damn.
One story he told was about his writing the first news report on the rescue of the survivors a PT boat crew whose boat had been rammed by a Japanese destroyer in the Solomon Islands in l943 -- the captain of the boat was Lieutenant Junior Grade John F. Kennedy. On the night Kennedy was elected President in l960, I was on the desk at UPI when Frank's original story about the rescue was recovered from the files and sent out over the wire. Frank was one of the people who was given a PT 109 gold tie clip by Kennedy.
A final story about Frank and his close connection with the Pacific War occurred at a summer outdoor party we attended at Frank's home. He introduced us to one of his friends, Colonel Rufus Bratton, the army's intelligence liason officer in Washington at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. Bratton was responsible for delivering decoded messages from the broken Japanese diplomatic code to President Roosevelt and other top civilian and military leaders privy to the secret information. Bratton was one of the featured persons in the 1970 move, "Tora, Tora, Tora" about events in the U.S. and Japan leading up to and including the December 7 attack. Bratton's role was played by E. G. Marshall.
So when another December 7 to Remember Pearl Harbor rolls around, it's a time for me to also remember Frank Hewlett, a kind and gentle man who was both a life changer and a personification of my remembrances of World War II.
Friday, December 3, 2010
HAGGLING IN THE WASHINGTON BAZAAR
When one uses the term "bazaar", it brings forth the image of a Mideast market place where the buyer and seller haggle back and forth over the price of a whatever. That's what is going on these days in Washington as President Obama and congressional Democrats haggle with the GOP leadership over what can be accomplished during the remaining days of this special session of Congress. From the vantage point of this blogger, it certainly appears that the Republicans are driving a hard bargain and are likely to get close to the price they want.
The GOP edge came with the election victories a month ago with the new Congress starting in January shifting to Republican control of the House and a diminished Democratic majority in the Senate. The Republicans were further aided on Tuesday when Obama did something of a mea culpa (to the chagrin of this blogger) when he said that maybe in the past he hadn't reached out to the GOP legislators as much as he should have. All of this means the Democrats have to salvage what they can from their agenda within boundaries set by the Republicans.
Returning to the bazaar analogy, there are actually two levels of haggling. One is which specific pieces of legislation can be considered in the short time remaining in the special session. And, two, haggling over the specifics for each of the pieces that may be passed. The GOP leadership has already taken level one haggling one step further in saying that nothing else will be considered until there is final agreement about the Bush tax cuts and, in the absence of any appropriations, continued funding of the government. So whatever legislation the Democrats want is being held hostage until the Republicans get what they want. The Republicans have so completely taken over agenda setting that it's hard to believe Democrats control the Congress.
Other big issues for Obama and the Democrats are: 1) extension of benefits for about 2 million unemployed workers whose checks stopped on November 30 or will stop on December 31; and 2) Senate ratification of the nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. Obama and many of his congressional supporters would also like to repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) policy on military recruiting and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid keeps making utterances about passing immigration reform legislation this year. The reality is that neither repeal of DADT nor immigration reform will go anywhere. Now for a look at the partisan haggling at level two, the specifics of items that have better prospects.
Political posturing over the tax issues has been going on for months. The very costly income tax cuts enacted under George W. Bush are due to expire on December 31. Obama and a majority of congressional Democrats had originally taken a strong position on retaining middle income cuts but against continuing tax cuts for households earning above $250,000 a year. The end game, being played on Republican terms, now seems to have gotten down to simply how long to extend the cuts for all income brackets--1, 2, or 3 years. While the upper income cuts have been the featured aspect of the tax issue, there are some other tax matters still unresolved and it remains to be seen if these might become a part of any tax package. It's difficult to imagine that a tax bill can make its way through Congress without efforts to turn it into a Christmas tree ('tis the season) for other pet tax-related ideas.
Although it may be too big to deal with in the short time remaining, one involves another tax treatment of the wealthy -- the estate tax. Prior to this year the federal estate tax exempted $3.5 million of an estate with anything above that taxed at 45 percent. For 2010 there has been no federal estate tax at all but beginning on January 1, the exemption drops to $1 million and the rate goes up to 55 percent. It is difficult to believe that the GOP will leave it at that. Either they will try to squeeze a better deal for the wealthy into the current income tax negotiations, or it will certainly be a priority in the new Congress. Perhaps the estate tax will be part of the haggling, something to be bargained over in exchange for extension of unemployment benefits where a big issue is how to pay for it -- add the $12+ billion to the deficit (Democrats) or cut spending by an equal amount (Republicans).
That leaves the arms reduction agreement, on Obama's "must" list, which appeared to be dead about two weeks ago when GOP Senator John Kyl, a key player on the issue, said the treaty should be held over until next year. In the past few days, however, prospects have improved for action this year as more Republicans seem to be shifting toward ratification during the special session as the Obama administration moved to allay their stated concerns over nuclear weapon modernization and development of an anti-missile system.
In sum, the haggling is still going on but the bazaar will soon be closing and buyer and seller are being forced to come to a final price. And that price seems to clearly favor the Republicans because when the bazaar reopens in January, the political balance between the hagglers will have changed significantly.
The GOP edge came with the election victories a month ago with the new Congress starting in January shifting to Republican control of the House and a diminished Democratic majority in the Senate. The Republicans were further aided on Tuesday when Obama did something of a mea culpa (to the chagrin of this blogger) when he said that maybe in the past he hadn't reached out to the GOP legislators as much as he should have. All of this means the Democrats have to salvage what they can from their agenda within boundaries set by the Republicans.
Returning to the bazaar analogy, there are actually two levels of haggling. One is which specific pieces of legislation can be considered in the short time remaining in the special session. And, two, haggling over the specifics for each of the pieces that may be passed. The GOP leadership has already taken level one haggling one step further in saying that nothing else will be considered until there is final agreement about the Bush tax cuts and, in the absence of any appropriations, continued funding of the government. So whatever legislation the Democrats want is being held hostage until the Republicans get what they want. The Republicans have so completely taken over agenda setting that it's hard to believe Democrats control the Congress.
Other big issues for Obama and the Democrats are: 1) extension of benefits for about 2 million unemployed workers whose checks stopped on November 30 or will stop on December 31; and 2) Senate ratification of the nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. Obama and many of his congressional supporters would also like to repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) policy on military recruiting and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid keeps making utterances about passing immigration reform legislation this year. The reality is that neither repeal of DADT nor immigration reform will go anywhere. Now for a look at the partisan haggling at level two, the specifics of items that have better prospects.
Political posturing over the tax issues has been going on for months. The very costly income tax cuts enacted under George W. Bush are due to expire on December 31. Obama and a majority of congressional Democrats had originally taken a strong position on retaining middle income cuts but against continuing tax cuts for households earning above $250,000 a year. The end game, being played on Republican terms, now seems to have gotten down to simply how long to extend the cuts for all income brackets--1, 2, or 3 years. While the upper income cuts have been the featured aspect of the tax issue, there are some other tax matters still unresolved and it remains to be seen if these might become a part of any tax package. It's difficult to imagine that a tax bill can make its way through Congress without efforts to turn it into a Christmas tree ('tis the season) for other pet tax-related ideas.
Although it may be too big to deal with in the short time remaining, one involves another tax treatment of the wealthy -- the estate tax. Prior to this year the federal estate tax exempted $3.5 million of an estate with anything above that taxed at 45 percent. For 2010 there has been no federal estate tax at all but beginning on January 1, the exemption drops to $1 million and the rate goes up to 55 percent. It is difficult to believe that the GOP will leave it at that. Either they will try to squeeze a better deal for the wealthy into the current income tax negotiations, or it will certainly be a priority in the new Congress. Perhaps the estate tax will be part of the haggling, something to be bargained over in exchange for extension of unemployment benefits where a big issue is how to pay for it -- add the $12+ billion to the deficit (Democrats) or cut spending by an equal amount (Republicans).
That leaves the arms reduction agreement, on Obama's "must" list, which appeared to be dead about two weeks ago when GOP Senator John Kyl, a key player on the issue, said the treaty should be held over until next year. In the past few days, however, prospects have improved for action this year as more Republicans seem to be shifting toward ratification during the special session as the Obama administration moved to allay their stated concerns over nuclear weapon modernization and development of an anti-missile system.
In sum, the haggling is still going on but the bazaar will soon be closing and buyer and seller are being forced to come to a final price. And that price seems to clearly favor the Republicans because when the bazaar reopens in January, the political balance between the hagglers will have changed significantly.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
CHINA REINVENTS CO-PROSPERITY SPHERE
One of Monday's posts, Asian Artifacts of World War II, backgrounded the World War II and Cold War antecedents of the current Korean crisis, along with the continuing strain between Japan and Russia over possession of the Kuril Islands.
One more artifact of World War II concerns a concept rather than an actual issue or event. About l940, Japan, dependent upon imports of raw materials for its economic and military survival, developed the concept of a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, to include Japan, China, Manchuria, and parts of southeast Asia. It envisioned an anti-colonialism, "Asia for the Asians" empire under Japanese control. It sought to establish such an economic/military empire primarily through force -- invasion and conquest. At the time the concept was developed, Japan already occupied Manchuria and the key coastal areas of China. To that it added southeast Asia, including the Dutch East Indies and the Philippines. But Co-Prosperity was one-way trade; take everything and ship it back to homeland Japan.
Of course that Co-Prosperity Sphere collapsed with the defeat of Japan in l945. But today we can see the resurrection of the concept, if not the name, although radically different in design and implementation.
The neo-Co-Prosperity Sphere is based on China's very aggressive economic investment strategy in significant areas of the same part of the world. The obvious difference from the Japanese use-of-force model is China's use-of-money strategy. China has and continues to invest heavily in development of the natural resources in the region, such as bauxite for aluminum in Cambodia, to guarantee its own economic development. Investments in extracting raw materials puts money into a country but does not contribute much to that country's own industrial development. But, while focusing on its own resource needs, China is also investing billions in infrastructure and job-creating activities in the region (as well as in other parts of the world). These latter forms of investments, such as manufacturing facilities in Vietnam, may increase further since China is discovering that labor costs in some parts of southeast Asia are even lower than its own cheap labor costs; that is, China is now exporting jobs.
Thus, China's investment strategy has two tracks. One is exploitive in the same way as the Japanese and the old colonialism approaches; take out the raw materials but leave little development behind. Second, invest in infrastructure and manufacturing facilities that aid China's own emerging economy as well as the less developed economies and thus contain a "Co-Prosperity" feature.
It must also be noted and stressed that this neo-Co-Prosperity Sphere has an important political component in that the economic relationships that have developed also provide a buffer zone to combat the U.S. strategic presence in the region through its military forces as well as alliances with countries such as Japan and South Korea. In a previous post, it was pointed out how during the Cold War the U.S. sought to contain Soviet Union expansion by encircling it with a series of military alliances stretching from Europe through southeast Asia. While these alliances, except for NATO, were ineffective as military deterrents, the idea of a new U.S. containment policy has not been lost on China. Some of China's investments in the region have created some problems between Beijing and host countries. But the growth of such investments continues, creating an economic interdependency that is difficult for the U.S. to match, and thus blunts any possible containment objective. As also noted in that previous post, the U.S. is making it clear to China and the periphery nations that the U.S. plans to maintain its strategic position in the Asia-Pacific area. This will be done through economic investments (public and private), although not equal to China's resources, and the continued presence of strong military forces in the region.
In sum, where the Japanese failed to realize their ambitions for a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, China today appears to have adopted the concept, implicitly if not explicitly, with better success.
One more artifact of World War II concerns a concept rather than an actual issue or event. About l940, Japan, dependent upon imports of raw materials for its economic and military survival, developed the concept of a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, to include Japan, China, Manchuria, and parts of southeast Asia. It envisioned an anti-colonialism, "Asia for the Asians" empire under Japanese control. It sought to establish such an economic/military empire primarily through force -- invasion and conquest. At the time the concept was developed, Japan already occupied Manchuria and the key coastal areas of China. To that it added southeast Asia, including the Dutch East Indies and the Philippines. But Co-Prosperity was one-way trade; take everything and ship it back to homeland Japan.
Of course that Co-Prosperity Sphere collapsed with the defeat of Japan in l945. But today we can see the resurrection of the concept, if not the name, although radically different in design and implementation.
The neo-Co-Prosperity Sphere is based on China's very aggressive economic investment strategy in significant areas of the same part of the world. The obvious difference from the Japanese use-of-force model is China's use-of-money strategy. China has and continues to invest heavily in development of the natural resources in the region, such as bauxite for aluminum in Cambodia, to guarantee its own economic development. Investments in extracting raw materials puts money into a country but does not contribute much to that country's own industrial development. But, while focusing on its own resource needs, China is also investing billions in infrastructure and job-creating activities in the region (as well as in other parts of the world). These latter forms of investments, such as manufacturing facilities in Vietnam, may increase further since China is discovering that labor costs in some parts of southeast Asia are even lower than its own cheap labor costs; that is, China is now exporting jobs.
Thus, China's investment strategy has two tracks. One is exploitive in the same way as the Japanese and the old colonialism approaches; take out the raw materials but leave little development behind. Second, invest in infrastructure and manufacturing facilities that aid China's own emerging economy as well as the less developed economies and thus contain a "Co-Prosperity" feature.
It must also be noted and stressed that this neo-Co-Prosperity Sphere has an important political component in that the economic relationships that have developed also provide a buffer zone to combat the U.S. strategic presence in the region through its military forces as well as alliances with countries such as Japan and South Korea. In a previous post, it was pointed out how during the Cold War the U.S. sought to contain Soviet Union expansion by encircling it with a series of military alliances stretching from Europe through southeast Asia. While these alliances, except for NATO, were ineffective as military deterrents, the idea of a new U.S. containment policy has not been lost on China. Some of China's investments in the region have created some problems between Beijing and host countries. But the growth of such investments continues, creating an economic interdependency that is difficult for the U.S. to match, and thus blunts any possible containment objective. As also noted in that previous post, the U.S. is making it clear to China and the periphery nations that the U.S. plans to maintain its strategic position in the Asia-Pacific area. This will be done through economic investments (public and private), although not equal to China's resources, and the continued presence of strong military forces in the region.
In sum, where the Japanese failed to realize their ambitions for a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, China today appears to have adopted the concept, implicitly if not explicitly, with better success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)