Morning Fog

Food Prices Up

Yesterday, I read an interesting report about the future of food prices.  Because of weird weather, increasing costs of transportation and processing, and other factors, predictions are that food prices are very likely to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. 

The article focuses on concerns about feeding the world's burgeoning population (according to last month's feature story in National Geographic Magazine, we'll be reaching 7 billion soon), and on the fact that production and demand are currently in a very delicate global balance that could be upset by unexpected crop failures (floods, freezes, or even civil unrest).

Closer to home, it seems to me seniors will be most heavily affected by increases.  Food is something that older folks can't really put off buying, yet in many cases their income is fixed, static, and -- as the increase in food prices that we've already experienced suggests -- also steadily decreasing in buying power. 

I've been retired for ten, going on eleven years now and have seen the the cost of heating the house double in just three years (2000-2003); my monthly water/sewer bill likewise; local taxes have also nearly doubled in the same period; and food prices are up (though I don't know by how much) and going higher.  Such increases are tolerable, if unwelcome, for me, at least so far; but I wonder about those who are making do on less, or who have been retired much longer than I have.

The fact is that the real universe today's retiree lives in is diametrically different from the model universe on which most pension plans, including social security, are based.   In the old model, prices of utilities and food were low, slow to change, and (except for food) largely regulated.  For decades, we were told that food constituted a lower part of the average U.S. family budget (as I recall, about 22%) than in any other country.  Social Security and many other defined benefit plans, as well as the cost of living adjustments for which some plans provide, were all constructed on the assumptions of this older model.

The grand incongruity is that the shifting ground of cost expectations for basic commodities and goods comes at a juncture when we are also under pressure to cut government spending and get our deficit under control. 

To me, there is absolutely no question that for the country's economic health, the costs of entitlements -- social security, Medicare, and (not to be forgotten) military expenditures -- must be reduced or paid for in different ways.  As we're doing that, it will be essential, albeit difficult, to consider carefully the countertrend (rising prices and decreasing buying power) that will affect seniors. 

Obama's State Of The Union

My first thought after listening to Obama's state-of-the-union address Tuesday night, and Ryan's rebuttal, was that Obama had laid out a pretty smart course for America (investing in our future), and for himself - challenging the Republican leadership to focus on the future, or at least the reality of the present, something they've been hell bent on ignoring.

What better way, I thought, to describe our national predicament in terms that businessmen use, so that the Party of Big Business could grasp them.  A wise CEO plows a good proportion of his profits back into the business to ensure its future, whether he choose to train employees, conduct more product research, or buy a new, more efficient production line.  Any businessman knows the importance of investing in the future, right? 

Wrong.  As leaks of what was in the speech started to leak during the day Monday and Tuesday, Republicans like Majority Leader McConnell forgot all about good business practices and started mouthing doubts about investment in the future because "it sounds like spending."  Paul Ryan, in his response to the President's SOTU, went the same way, talking incessantly about cutting all spending and asserting that government spending has never had a beneficial effect on the economy, a historical falsehood that may surprise historians of the Roosevelt (FDR) era.

Anyway, well before I managed to write anything on the subject, Steven Pearlstein, I found, had already said everything I might say, and more.  So I recommend his column today, and agree fully with his opinion that the Republican Party isn't in the least prepared to govern or to work effectively on solving the country's problems. 

Obama has offered the GOP an opportunity to take off its blindfold and deal with reality.  It's early yet, but I'd estimate they've got about a year to seize this chance to modernize.   I see little evidence they can do it.  Words like "innovation," "change," don't set well with this group; they'd prefer to do what the President said we can't afford to do: "stand pat." 

Can Rahm Run?

Per latest news, an Illinois appeals court has ruled that former White House Chief of Staff and former Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel cannot run for Mayor of Chicago because (having lived in Washington DC the past two years) he does not meet the residency requirements.

Since the election board earlier ruled that he could run, the question seems to remain open, but it's a hurdle for Emanuel because he'll have to convince the Illinois Supreme Court to hear an appeal.  If he can do that, pundits seem to believe he'll have at least an even chance to put his candidacy back on track.

At best, the appeals court's decision will appear to many as politically motivated, whether it is or not.  If Rahm ran, he'd be the man to beat.

What happens next should factor in that it's unusual for the courts to get involved once the election board has ruled.  Also, countrywide, it's not unusual for candidates to run with far more tenuous links to their districts than Emanuel's.  (Hilary Clinton, for example.) Finally, barring him from running because he served his country at the national level just smells unfair; it's as if our servicemen and women in Iraq or Afghanistan were forbidden to vote because they'd been out of the country.

For those reasons, and because Illinois doesn't need any more political black eyes, the state's Supreme Court should at least agree to hear the appeal. 

A Perfect Storm For Business Political Influence

Businesses are wasting no time in pressing for advantage now that the Republican Party is "back."

Some, such as Verizon, seem to be hoping to use the current anti-government bent of the Republican tea-drinkers to restore their right to unfettered, regulation-free pursuit of profit.  Verizon is now challenging the FCC's recently released "net neutrality" rules, which had made a valiant effort to deal with all the parties' conflicting demands and views.  Now, evidently, Verizon thinks it can get a better deal than the arrangement they had earlier proposed themselves.  

George Will recently complained of hubris in government, but this is corporate hubris in spades.  I was particularly impressed by Verizon's lawyers' argument that the rules proposed would "create uncertainty."  Gosh, and here I thought that one of the reasons we want to rely on big business to run everything for us was that they are so effective at managing risk!  But there's more:  Fans of corporate overreach will surely admire this telephone company's demand that it should be allowed to select the court (and therefore the judges) for its lawsuit! 

As Rob Pegoraro points out in his "Fast Forward" technology column (link above), Verizon's attitude can hardly be reassuring to its wireless customers.  But I feel certain Verizon will find a way to present its efforts as a benefit to consumers.

The infamous "people of the oil and gas industry" (actually the American Petroleum Institute) have resumed their ads extolling its own virtues, no doubt believing that the storm over last spring's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has been well weathered (and won't be arising again in the new political environment). 

The cell phone industry group is busily pushing itself as a bastion of "freedom" in frequently aired television ads, with the slogan "Innovation, Not Regulation."  When these first appeared a month or so ago, it seemed the CTIA was celebrating the FCC rules; now it appears they may be running interference for Verizon and other carriers.  In any event, the slogan (typically) presents a false choice -- innovation is not the opposite of, nor the alternative to, regulation.  

Such fine points will likely be lost on the latest batch of eager freshmen Representatives to wash up on Capitol Hill  because "elsewhere in the news," as they say, but curiously synchronic, are the predictable reports that corporations and industry groups are outdoing themselves to donate to the campaign coffers of these very same Republican representatives.   

I don't mean to suggest that business shouldn't (may I mix metaphors here?) feather its own nest by knowing which side its bread is buttered on.  That's the system we have.  On the other hand, notwithstanding the opinions of the group known as "Citizens United," business shouldn't have special influence in Congress or the Supreme Court just because it has money to spend. 

Most of us know that intuitively.  Do today's politicians understand it?   It's not clear that they do.  Maybe they should look back to the words of one of their less celebrated forebears, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, who like Washington, was a military man before he was a politician.   By coincidence, exactly 50 years ago this month, he warned of the  dangers of the military-industrial complex.  We have mostly ignored him for the past five decades.  In doing so, we imperil our democracy. 

Will Innuendo Shove Health Care Out The Door?

Since yesterday's post somewhat backhandedly got into the matter of health care "repeal," maybe it's worth having a bit of a look at the current state of play on that.

Republicans held a vote in the House of Representatives and voted to repeal last year's health care law.  That's a simple bit of political theater that endangers neither health care (because, we are told, repeal cannot pass the Senate) nor Republican politicians (because they can get credit with their base support for having tried, without running any danger of actually repealing a law that by and large is popular).

Phase II of the Republican plan is to cancel the provisions of the law of which they disapprove.  Unfortunately, this leads to some questionable tactics that will trade short-term political gain for long-term damage to the body politic.

First among these tactics is to protect the popular elements of the law while somehow getting rid of the parts that are philosophically repugnant to Republicans.  Thus, we hear that provisions for including children in parents' insurance to a later age will remain, as will prescription benefits to seniors.  Meanwhile, we're told that the "universal mandate" will have to go.  But that provision is the one that makes it possible to pay for the parts that people like!   Thus the new Republican Congress appears to be headed down the same path as the last one, dishing out new benefits in a fairy-tale world where things don't need to be paid for and the Bush deficit isn't their responsibility.

To draw attention away from this small problem, there's a campaign on to kill health care by innuendo.  That was the tack that the party used to oppose passage of health care in the first place, so it isn't new.

Today, we have the constant references to the "job-killing" health care law, a charge that's demonstrably false.  It may garner votes and public favor; it does not advance the dialogue.  GOP politicos also denounce the law with terms like "unpopular," "a disaster," "socialist," and any other sobriquet that might tar it without requiring them to identify specific problem points (or to propose alternatives that they don't have).  

More recently, Republican leaders are seeking to discredit the Congressional Budget Office, claiming that its estimates of cost savings from the new law are falsified. On this subject, Ezra Klein has written a cogent analysis that I recommend everyone read. 

The fundamental point, however, is that the CBO has long been the recognized impartial, nonpartisan, and therefore most authoritative source for analysis of the costs of government programs.  To challenge it now, for purely political reasons, amounts to an attempt to destroy an institution that serves an important role in our system.  And like humpty-dumpty, not to mention the Supreme Court, it can't be easily restored once it's been smashed. 

To complete the circle, let's look at what Charles Krauthammer, a gent who, unlike Will, has never been known to complete a full sentence uncolored by dogma, wrote today.  First, CK joins the fray in attempting to discredit the CBO.  He doggedly insists, despite political reality, that last year's law must be repeal so a fresh start can be made -- and that the GOP doesn't need to offer any new ideas before then.  (This is effectively the same ploy Republicans used in 2010 to oppose doing anything about health care, i.e., to refuse to discuss anything except entirely on their terms.)  Finally, Krauthammer wraps up the package with an amazing exhibition of chutzpah of his own, accusing the Democrats of tossing around "clearly misleading bumper-sticker" numbers and slogans.  Who is the pot, who the kettle?   

George Will On Government Services And Costs

In his column today ("Hubris Heading for a Fall"), George Will took a stab at explaining why growth of government is a bad thing.  His premise (following that of former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan) is that the least productive sectors of an economy tend to migrate toward being performed by government, while the more productive ones tend to be performed by the private sector. 

It even sounds halfway convincing, until you realize that - wait a mo' - our valiant columnist "will"fully misinterprets Moynihan - and vitiates the crux of his argument -- by claiming that:

The public sector's involuntary tendency to become, regarding productivity, a concentration of stagnation is a reason for government to become more circumspect than it has been about the voluntary acquisition of vast new responsibilities, such as micromanagement of health care's 17% of the economy.

It's pretty clear from what Moynihan actually said (which Will also provides) that the late Senator was talking about the political consequences of the Democratic Party's being identified with "government" as opposed to "private sector."  He was quite right about that, as Morning Fog has pointed out numerous times.  People tend to think of government as inefficient; it's at least a marginally negative factor (and not so marginal at our current political juncture) to be associated with that concept.

But Will puts the cart before the horse:  It's not that government "tends to become" inefficient; it's that Will's private-sector heroes will always cherry-pick the things that can be done efficiently, and which therefore produce a profit, while government is left to cover the services and sectors that - absolutely essential though they may be - just aren't subject to that kind of approach.  Government does the inherently inefficient jobs because no one else will.

This sloppy thinking is disappointing.  Will is a right-winger who normally can be counted on to concede a point to the other side when empirical evidence dictates.  His standing reason on its head in this case is beneath him.  It demonstrates all the intellectual acuity of that other "George W."

Now, on the issue that Will specifically raises - health care - we have to decide if it's one of those inherently inefficient areas of human endeavor or not.  Will clearly thinks it's not.  But he doesn't produce any explanations for why, if that's so, the private sector has failed so miserably to master it by introducing efficiencies, improving quality, and bringing costs down.  He fails, too, to address the humanitarian question:  Good basic health care is not the same as buying your kid's next video game.  There are human consequences when it doesn't function right, and there are democratic consequences when it delivers only for the well-heeled and fully employed while leaving the less fortunate to fend for themselves.

So when Will complains that "Politicians achieve eminence simply by securing office - by winning elections, a skill often related loosely, if at all, to their performance in office," we might want to recall that CEOs also achieve eminence largely by reaching their positions;  yet they are able to retain their positions of influence and inordinate wealth, in industry after industry (finance, automobiles, video rentals, health care, and many more) regardless of their performance. 

In short:  Will is dead wrong here.

GOP Gets A New Chairman

Not unexpectedly, the U.S. Republican Party has tossed aside its once-trusted, now-rusted Steele figurehead in favor of more orthodoxy and a lower profile.

The new guy sports a novel moniker, Reince Priebus.   One waggish commenter on the Washington Post website said, "Let's see his birth certificate;"  another noticed that removing the vowels from his name gives us "RNC PR BS."   Ah well, sticks and stones... 

Otherwise, though, he seems almost a perfect avatar of Republican ordinariness:

... for the most part, he strikes Republicans as refreshingly bland. A father of two, Priebus's Facebook page features a photo of him and his wife, Sally, posing in formal evening wear. He told the crowd Friday that their first date was with Wisconsin Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R). "That should tell you something about me," he said.

In a recent interview for a list of notable Wisconsin lawyers younger than 40, he called his home town of Kenosha a "hot spot." His Twitter posts include such barn-burners as Dec. 24th's "Jesus is the light of the world - Merry Christmas!" and Dec. 27th's "Just leaving Fairbanks, Alaska - had moose steak for dinner. Great stuff!" 

More important, perhaps, for the party, he also has virtually promised to keep a low profile (as both Republican and Democratic national chairmen have traditionally done) and will be less controversial. 

If You're Going To Talk The Talk, Be Ready To Live With It

Sarah Palin has been heard from now on the subject of the killings in Tucson, after four days of silence.  Her public statement isn't pretty.  It's defensive, it's a mistake, and I'd say she might have been better off to leave well enough alone and say nothing at all.

In the final analysis, I think we all realize - and our history demonstrates - that changing our political rhetoric, or changing our gun control laws, cannot provide any assurances that killings like those that occurred last Saturday wouldn't happen again.  (Though we might succeed in reducing their frequency somewhat.)

Yesterday, a couple of different commentators - George Will on the right and Dana Milbank on the left - raised the interesting case of the assassination of President William McKinley more than a century ago.  That, too, was a period of political speech that had got out of hand; a similar furor arose afterward over whether the highly charged atmosphere had contributed to the assassination.  Whether it did or not, though, the most interesting point of that incident was that one of the worst of the inflammatory speakers, the apotheosis of yellow journalism William Randolph Hearst,

"who was angling for a presidential run in 1904 - published a pair of columns fantasizing about violence against President William McKinley.  Columnist Ambrose Bierce wrote that a bullet "is speeding here to stretch McKinley on his bier." Next, an unsigned column widely attributed to Hearst editor Arthur Brisbane declared: "If bad institutions and bad men can be got rid of only by killing, then the killing must be done." Six months later, a deranged man named Leon Czolgosz assassinated McKinley."

Justly or not, Hearst was tarred, in the public eye, by what he had allowed to be printed in his paper, and his political career ended before it started.

In a more recent case, we have today's comments by Al Sharpton, a former firebrand and a person who is more or less comparable to Palin.  Concerning some of his more extremely "inciteful" statements, Sharpton recalls from the 1990's that:

I said that we need to deal with a "white interloper" who was trying to alter the landscape of Harlem. My clear intent was to lead a peaceful protest. I did so that day, but I was wrong to refer to this man's race, and I was not careful in making distinctly clear that we were solely calling for nonviolent opposition.  Two and half months later, a disturbed and troubled man went to a neighboring store and set a fire. He killed several of the store's employees and then himself. My words were immediately raised in the media. My initial response was to defend the fact that I had never condoned such violence, and never would. But the fact is, if I in any way contributed to the climate - which was clearly more volatile than I had thought - I had to be more careful and deliberate in my public language rather than sharpen my defenses.

Well, because of his history, I don't think anyone considers Sharpton as "presidential timber" these days, either.  But what a positive difference between the lesson he took away from his experience, and the one Palin is offering now!

Amidst all the recriminations, charges, and countercharges surrounding Tucson, maybe the best we can hope for is that those who choose to exercise their "right" to use inflammatory language be prepared to accept with grace and maturity the consequences if things go wrong --  that is, to accept that their words may come back to haunt or even destroy them, whether it's fair, or logical, or not.   That would be one positive outcome from all of this.  

 

Tucson

One thing I notice about the sad events of this past weekend in Tucson, Arizona - beyond of course the human tragedy of several innocent people being killed, or the civic tragedy of yet another political assassination attempt -- is how quickly commentators and politicians have rushed to protect their favorite right-wing cause (be it Sarah Palin, the tea party gang, or Republicans) from being blamed.  Typical of the genre are Mark Thiessen's "Stop Blaming the Tea Party for the Arizona Tragedy," and Jennifer Rubin's blog defending Sarah Palin.  

Such defenses aren't altogether incorrect.  When political violence occurs, the perpetrator is often a nut job who has lurked in the shadows for years unnoticed, until something set him off.  It's an easy call:  None of us should, and few have tried to, blame specific individuals for such unpredictable and unpreventable crimes, heinous though they may be.

That said, however, I also cannot escape the conclusion that Rubin and Thiessen (and others) are both missing something.   Politicians can't avoid stating their positions, just on the off chance they might upset some wacko.  We do need civil discourse.

But let's keep it civil.  In a culture where we know we have plenty of those off-the-rails types running around with loaded weapons, we should do what we can to dampen, rather than provoke, their less reasoned thoughts and actions. Public figures should avoid incendiary language that has no purpose other than to incite people; they should avoid deliberately concocted lies and misstatements merely to stir controversy. 

And in that connection, I do blame the likes of Sarah Palin, for purposely trying to create anger and hostility with her irresponsible talk about "targeting" and "reloading," her scare claims about "death panels," and even her attempts to politicize a basic, nonpartisan issue like obesity.   While others defend her, Palin herself seems to have been rather silent these past few days, not publicly "refudiating" her more extreme statements.  This suggests to me that maybe she herself accepts a bit of blame -- or more cynically, she just hopes to rescue her political aspirations by lying low. [My guess on that last part? She's too late.]

Palin isn't the only one, of course.  It's not just the tea-party rank and file.  Nor just the birthers.  I would charge the political right in general, over the past couple of years, with consciously seeking to create an atmosphere of hate, rage, and fear that served to hide their lack of serious policy proposals and which they hoped to - did, in fact - exploit politically.  While succeeding at the polls, they also succeeded in poisoning the political air, creating the sort of atmosphere in which the slightly imbalanced are encouraged to leave their shadows, grab a gun, and venture out into the open.

Some will say the left has been guilty too.  There have been cases of overreach among Democrats, but I'd argue they have been isolated, rather than a blanket campaign.  Besides, it's not Democrats who depend for support on NRA members, or who are helped along by the many voices of hate radio.  

Is Sarah Palin, or Ron Paul, or Mitch McConnell to blame for the shootings in Tucson?  By no means.  Are they and their cohort largely responsible for the vitriolic tone of public discourse that enabled the assassin?  And have they helped perpetuate the absolutely ridiculous free market in weaponry that's also an enabling factor for violence?  I'd say yes.

Help For Pakistan

The Administration has decided to increase military, intelligence, and economic assistance to Pakistan in an effort to counter anti-American feeling in that country and obtain more government cooperation in combating terrorism. 

Pakistan was never a part of my brief back when I was a stripedy-pantsed diplomat, so I don't claim expertise.

On the other hand, as a general principle I think assistance seldom works as a way of gaining cooperation, and even less as a means of winning hearts and minds, UNLESS the aid recipient's goals and our own already mesh to a considerable degree.  The problem in Pakistan, as I understand it, is that different elements of officialdom (the government, the military, perhaps the intel apparatus) have different views on how, or even whether, to fight terrorism (or radical Islamic influence) in their country. 

Until that settles out, our increase in assistance seems unlikely to change the views of those who disagree with our approach and could even encourage them to harden their positions in hopes of still more.  On the hearts-and-minds front, I suspect the average voters would view an uptick in our assistance -- if they notice it at all -- as what it is, i.e., an attempt to buy influence.  If people's opinions can be influenced by aid, it's most likely to be as a result of aid that doesn't appear to benefit us:  food, medicine, clinics, and the like.

At this time, I'd say doubling down on Pakistan is probably a mistake. 

Do we have other options?  Perhaps not.  Destabilization in Pakistan, and the accompanying turbulence in our relationship there, were the inescapable fallout of the war in Afghanistan.  They could have been avoided only if we had succeeded in preventing Al Qaeda from infiltrating the border ten years ago.  Yet, even if we had planned for and executed a strategy to that end, the terrain and other factors would probably have foiled us.