Morning Fog

Airline Mergers

There is no shortage of expert opinion supporting the Justice Department's move to block the merger of USAir and American Airlines; no lack of analyses concluding that the merger would lead to higher prices, fewer planes and routes, and higher nuisance fees; and no doubt in the minds of consumers about the end result of fewer and fewer competitors in the air travel industry. 

So, it's surprising to find the Washington Post lead editorial touting the idea that the DoJ should reach an understanding with the airlines instead of opposing the merger.  What's going on here?  Personally, I suggest that it hasn't taken very long for the libertarian hand of Jeff Bezos to make itself felt on the editorial page.  For him, a non-binding understanding would be just what the doctor ordered, greasing the skids to make a free marketplace unfree.  

Housing Full Of Air

All the fancy cell phones, e-readers, tablets, and other gadgets that are so popular nowadays have expensive glass touchscreens.  Many people use clear screen protectors to reduce wear and tear on the actual glass surface.  But if you've ever tried to apply one of those screen protectors, as I watched an "expert" do on my new phone recently, you'll find it's almost impossible to apply one without getting small air bubbles underneath it that are surprisingly hard to smooth out.

So it is also, apparently, with the housing market.  A bubble burst a few years ago, helping to throw the economy into a tailspin, yet neither home buyers nor bankers seem to have learned much.   One sign is that nearly-nil down payments are resurgent on non-VA loans.

Of more concern, I believe, is the trend that appears to be leading us over the cliff to abolishing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Real estate columnist Kenneth Harney predicts that if that occurs, interest rates are "virtually certain" to rise.  Gee, do you think? 

The FNMA and the FHLMC made mistakes that led to losses, cost the taxpayers money, and contributed to the bubble that burst in 2008-09.  Exactly the same can be said of the big banks and other financial institutions.  So the rush of legislators wanting to abolish poor ol' Fannie and Freddie is rather surprising and very disappointing.  Both these institutions have helped significantly to expand families' access to home loans but equally important, they've acted as a relief valve to attenuate the rise of interest rates.  

Abolishing Fannie and Freddie, or replacing them with weak, "market oriented" substitutes, leaves the mortgage interest market unbuffered from the financial institutions that have every incentive to increase rates seems foolish and ultimately damaging.  It may seem counterintuitive to suggest that higher loan interest rates could contribute to a housing market bubble, yet what seems important to me is the apparent willingness to remove controls and calming factors in a market that so clearly needs them.

It's also worth noting, I think, that the move to do away with FNMA and FHLMC also epitomizes the errant view that any government activity that creates net revenue should be turned over to the private sector.  It's the USPS all over again.        

Election Law Wars

For over a year now Republican leaders have been proposing various changes in election laws.  Some of the changes seem totally rational to me (really, why should voters not have to produce an ID?).  But considering that the movement developed mainly in Republican-controlled states at a time when Republicans were pulling out all stops - except the most obvious one - to stop the hemorrhage of voters from their ranks, it's impossible to perceive it as anything but politically motivated.  Thus I join others who decry efforts like the most recent legislation in North Carolina.

Now, we hear that the Democrats are preparing their own counter-campaign, aimed at making it easier for people to vote.  More politics.  The Democrats' ideas focus on making it "easier" for people to vote, yet I must agree with one quoted Republican state leader, that we still need to "protect the integrity of elections."  I believe early voting has already surpassed the limits of reason in some states, and suspect that resort to all-mail ballots opens the door to fraud of the kind that up to now has not existed.

Add to all that the incomprehensible fact that in our country, access to the polls in national elections is determined by a multiplicity of laws created by the states, and a possibility presents itself:   Could this be an area open to a bipartisan agreement at the national level?  After all, here's a case where we all -- politically motivated posturing aside -- fundamentally agree on the basics of a sound, democratic, and anti-fraudulent election law. 

Reader's Digest

If you're like me, you often find you're too busy to focus on all the news and information that is available to you every day.  Usually, I hear a bit of morning television news, and with the morning Washington Post, which for some reason arrives later than it used to, I find I can only scan headlines, perhaps read the one or two items that really draw me in for some reason.

This morning, though, I found  a rare, spare half-hour for a leisurely read of the Post.  That's why for those of you who didn't (or don't get that particular source), I highly recommend two items:

Walter Pincus reflects on the sale of the Washington Post, and what that means for news media and journalism. I suspect he's a little overoptimistic about the future, but along the way he provides an interesting capsule description of how the "newspaper business" changed over the years.

Charles Lane reviews the arcane system by which we "manage" our energy policy, specifically the production and sale of gasoline.  He, too, is tilting at windmills - logic tells us that the tax on gas is the best, most direct, and least intrusive-to-the-market tool we have at hand, but will politicians ever be able to get beyond voters' penny-wise/pound-foolish overwrought concerns about a change of a few pennies in the cost of gas?  

 

 

 

Egypt: Same Ol', Same Ol'

Re: Egypt, it's good to hear that the Obama administration had reportedly worked out a modus vivendi, in conjunction with other countries of the region, that was intended to prevent the violence that's now occurring.  It's what diplomacy is supposed to do -- reach compromise solutions aimed at preventing violence or other undesirable outcomes.  It's too bad it didn't work out in this case, but the reality of diplomacy is that all the parties have to accept any arrangement, and in this case, the Egyptian military government did not. 

The cauldron of Cairo is the most recent example -- but by no means a unique one -- of a place where stated U.S. foreign policy interests work at cross-purposes.   We applaud trends toward democratic government, yet in many places, democratic development is messy and often leads to economic and political instability and even war -- all of which work against other U.S. goals. 

Specifically, in the Egyptian case, at the time of "Arab spring" a couple of years ago, it seemed rather evident that either (a) democratic elections were likely to lead to a new Egyptian government led by the Muslim Brotherhood; or (b) the continuation in office of a military dictatorship would make Egypt increasingly unstable.  Neither outcome was what Washington might have hoped for; so we supported the democratic ideal, evidently in hope that it would produce the impossible: a moderate, unified, competent, collaborative government.  It didn't.

It's often supposed, by those who aren't directly involved in foreign policy and diplomacy, that a major power like the U.S. can influence events enough to determine an outcome we like.  Not so!  Not in most cases, anyway.  Our ability to shape things is often quite marginal -- to reduce violence in small ways, or to mitigate its effects, but not to prevent a war. 

The true reason we provide assistance, is not to buy influence anyway, but to strengthen economies, political systems, or militaries in ways that we believe benefit us.  So, I not-so-respectfully disagree with journalists who opine that aid program is intended to buy us influence.  If it were, it would surely one of the least effective tools in our diplomatic arsenal.   Oh, sure, it might, sometimes, in limited ways, and when things are stable, garner us a bit of pull -- but not when the shit hits the fan and a foreign government sees its survival, or even the integrity of its nation, as threatened.   Without knowing much of anything about the details of the situation in Egypt, I feel comfortable suggesting that in the Egyptian military's internal deliberations about what to do over the past month, the question "what will the Americans think/do/say?" very likely never came up.

That's why cutting off our assistance usually has no result except to make us feel better for having expressed our disapproval.   The possibility of a cut-off will have already been factored into the foreign government's calculations, so it won't change anything on their side.  It's more likely -- if it has any effect at all -- that our longer term interests are damaged.   We can't buy influence in a direct way,  but our assistance program does buy us the right to be heard, to offer advice or opinion.  When it's cut off, we lose even that.

Realistic diplomacy must recognize that there are limits to what we can do, and that there are times (quite a lot of them) when none of the possible outcomes fits with our notion of what's good for Uncle Sam.     

Unwilling Exiles

The Washington Post today features a long-winded article about the plight of a certain group of veterans:  Those who served in the US armed forces without actually being or becoming citizens, who later were convicted of a crime (sometimes a minor one), possibly served some kind of punishment for it, but then were deported back to "home" countries that may not be their homes (since most of them came here as children, grew up here, and know no language but Engish). 

Complicated? Yes.  And sad, as the article details the life of one veteran now living in Hermosillo, Mexico. 

Naturally, there's an advocacy group (more lawyers, please note) demanding that something be done, and laws be changed, to assist such veterans. 

I'm of mixed mind on that demand.  From the standpoint of legality and/or personal responsibility, it's all "anti."  The deportation is current law, and it used to be said that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" (though I admit the trend these days is on the side of "ignorance of the law IS an excuse," and one of the best ones).  In the featured case,  ex-Marine Milton Tepeyac admits he had opportunities to become a citizen (there are special provisions for those in service - he could have done so a year after joining the Marines!) and/or exercised an option to do so as of his 18th birthday.  But he did nothing because he thought he had somehow become a citizen automatically by getting into the service.  That was stupid, as he admits.

On the other hand, I would agree with the Air Force general quoted here... NOT that we do, or should "revere" our veterans - that's a bit strong - but that the situation is fundamentally unfair, and should be fixed. 

No doubt the advocacy groups will press for change in the law regarding deportation, not to mention an amnesty and right of return for those already affected. That may be doable in the long run, but in the meantime I would suggest an interim step:  an administrative requirement that non-citizen servicemen and -women be formally notifed of their rights and choices; and either take on citizenship as soon as they are eligible, or formally record their decision not to do so.   

Luckily for this group of veterans, we do have a tradition of treating our military apolitically (not reverentially), so with the problem clearly identified, a solution should not be all that long in coming.    Not so lucky are the people of the District of Columbia, who have no vote in Congress - in this case, "fair" doesn't matter a bit, politics is the obstacle to doing what's fair.  

Too Many Lawyers

Four years ago the Washington DC subway system suffered a historic accident, in which a derailed train caused the deaths of 9 people and injured many more.  Over time, naturally, there were lawsuits on behalf of the victims, all of which have been settled.  Then, suddenly there materialized another suit,, one aimed at forcing the subway system (the Metro) to divulge the costs of each of its payouts to victims.  A judge has ruled that Metro must make that information public.

I think it's a silly quest, and a damaging decision.

It was the Washington Post that initiated the suit for information.  Their claim is that this information would help clarify Metro's "financial situation."  I suppose it would.  Yet it seems to me that a simple announcement of the total amount paid out would provide the same benefit.  Instead, the publication of the settlements in individual cases would seem to me to:

- Impinge on the privacy of some of the victims or their families, in an undesirable way.

- Engender after-the-fact comparison and competition among litigants about what they were paid.

- Provide information useful mainly to liability lawyers, who would use them to figure how to reach higher settlements the next time around.

None of these, to my mind, are desirable outcomes for the long term.  Some will argue that disclosure is essential because Metro is a government agency (that's what the judge claimed).  But that begs the question of whether a private litigant -- a large corporation, for example -- might be ordered by a court to divulge the terms agreements that were concluded on the basis they would remain private.  It might happen; it would take extreme circumstances.

It's a typical, unnecessarily complicated, legal mess, and one in which the interests of the parties (in this case the people of the region) are largely disregarded (or suborned by re-defining them).

A surplus of lawyers doesn't help us.  As final evidence of the burdens too much legalism can place on our society, I would note that the judge's opinion in this case ran to 23 pages.  Wouldn't a paragraph have done?

Nidal Hassan's Victims

The trial of Nidal Hassan, the Muslim/Psychiatrist U.S. Army Major who unloaded very literally on people at Ft. Hood, Texas two years ago, is now going forward.  It will be interesting to follow, mainly for seeing how Hassan, who is acting as his own attorney, will try to defend himself.   It's difficult to imagine him avoiding being convicted and facing death, but it may be entertaining to see him try.

More interesting still, to me, is a news report I saw online somewhere yesterday.  The story line was that military victims who survived but were injured by Hassan's depredations are upset and (according to some stories) complaining bitterly that they aren't being nominated for Purple Hearts. 

Well, those of us who have served, I believe, understand immediately that these victims aren't Purple Heart material.  A Purple Heart comes from combat. Facing the enemy and getting wounded.  Period.   No one faced an enemy; they weren't in combat mode.   This wasn't combat. And if some suggest it was, because it was part of the "war on terrorism," I'd beg to differ - that phrase is sloppy because it's not really a war, but all indications are that this was not terrorism either.  Hassan's victims are exactly like the victims of any other domestic violence (say, to take the latest example, the guy who mowed people down with his car on Venice beach).  The only difference is that this particular incident occurred on an Army base.

Worse than the hopeless longing for a Purple Heart was the additional report that [some?] victims were most concerned about receiving a Purple Heart because it brings with it additional pay and benefits, especially in retirement. 

Wow.  I just hope these reports are nothing more than journalistic excess, the fruit of some reporter's imagination.   If American soldiers actually made such a suggestion, the suggestion it makes to me is that professionalization has turned an army into a bureaucracy.  Of course structurally it always was, but the people in it, the men and women in uniform, used to take pride in putting duty first - and second.  It's hard to imagine the issue of pension benefits arising in such a discussion 30-40 years ago.

Chalk up another sad effect of abandoning the draft. 

Will Extortion Benefit The GOP?

I was amazed to see the reports that the GOP's party chairman Reince Priebus is threatening to keep CNN and NBC from covering Republican debates if those networks run planned shows featuring Hillary Clinton.

Can it possibly be true?  If it is, it seems a dumb move.

First, can they be certain that the treatment of Hillary Clinton is as biased and one-sided as they claim?  Likely, it appears so only to them.

Second, the whole attitude (we ban what we don't like) is anti-democratic and many will see in it an echo of other GOP tactics to win elections by gaming the system, rather than cultivating voters:  tactics such as the sudden interest in preventing non-existent voter fraud, or reducing voting hours, or even the Supreme Court's decision that racism in the South is dead.  This is not a reputation that the Republican Party really needs to have reinforced.

Third, the threat seems foolishly empty.  It assumes that not being able to broadcast the debates among the undoubted dozens of Republican candidates who throw their hats in the ring would be a negative for NBC and CNN.   But it seems equally likely that if they don't cover the debates, and run normal programming instead, people would flock to them rather than listen to the new crop of Rick Perrys and Herman Cains -- a ratings bonanza could be the result (and more advertising revenue).  No one would watch or understand what the Republican candidates stand for ...

WAIT! That could explain the unexplainable.  Possibly Priebus realizes that the less people really learn about the candidates the party will field, the better off the GOP will be?

Krauthammer The Bellwether

Nearly every  political analyst and commentator is declaiming the idiocy of tea-party recalcitrants who continue (for example) to try to destroy the Affordable Care Act, or threaten to force a government shutdown over the silly sequestration deal that they themselves signed onto. 

Most point out that this hasn't worked in the past, that such tilting at windmills serves only to besmirch the broader Republican Party's image; and that such efforts usually backfire as people cast their votes elsewhere.  Still, the arch-conservatives have persisted.

Now, however, comes Charles Krauthammer to pronounce in his column that the tea-party Congressmen's political stonewalling is bad tactics.  It's not that CK doesn't agree with their fundamental attitude; just that he feels certain the tactic is counterproductive and doomed to failure. 

What's amazing to me in this is that Krauthammer is the conservative's conservative, the guy who's never had a positive word to say about anything any Democrat ever did (nor does he now), the one columnist you really don't need to read because you can predict where he'll stand.   So this column is a lot like Warren Buffett telling people not to invest in stocks.

It will be interesting to see whether any of the frantic pot-stirrers return from the summer recess -- and by the way, isn't "recess" an appropriate word for them? -- ready to heed this bellwether spokesman and prepared to moderate their stand.