Morning Fog

Obama The Myth-Slayer

The President has apparently ruffled a lot of grouse, hawk, and eagle feathers with his remarks yesterday at a prayer breakfast, by noting that Christians, with the Crusades and the Inquisition in their history, should not be too smug in assessing Muslim radical violence. 

Morning Fog has made these same points in recent years.  I'm glad the President agrees with us.  He might also, in my opinion, have mentioned other historical atrocities, including religious justification used to support racism, as well as any number of wars fought largely for religious reasons.) 

But even what he did say has been sufficient to provoke outraged statements from a variety of quarters.  The reaction of our former Virginia Governor Gilmore seems typical.  He said Obama "has offended every believing Christian in the United States. ....Mr. Obama does not believe in America or the values we all share.”

Gilmore is entitled to his opinion, but I'd like to think there are thinking Christians in the world, in addition to blindly believing ones, who can see that Gilmore isn't really talking about  values at all, but about shared misperceptions more akin to myths.  

I think it benefits us to be honest about ourselves, so I admire Obama's willingness to present truths that are unwelcome and may therefore be politically damaging, but are no less true notwithstanding.   National myths can be useful in bonding us together, but very destructive of understanding if we believe them too literally. 

Can The Sparkless USPS Light A Fire Under Congress?

USPS has announced it is planning to stop Saturday mail delivery by August.  This step has clearly been in the cards as one of the main ways to deal with ongoing losses.

Personally I oppose decreasing service - it creates a self-defeating spiral in which less service leads to even less use, then to more cuts in service.  (This same spiral prevails as cities try to save money by cutting bus routes, or as stores push back their opening hours from 9 to 10 to 11 .)   Further, if we must decide to cut one day's delivery per week, I'd argue for Wednesday or Thursday because the choice of Saturday means frequent occasions (i.e. those always-on-Monday holidays) when we'll encounter three consecutive days of non-delivery.

Well that's my two cents' worth, and we all know what two cents is worth these days.  So, moving on:

Assuming that the end of Saturday delivery is an effective way to help the USPS out of its difficulties, I have to applaud the moxie of Postmaster-General Patrick Donahoe's "Congress-be-damned" decision to try to move ahead with it.  There has been a bit of a kerfuffle over whether the Service actually has authority to take this step, but if it will serve either to implement the change, or to move Congress off the dime so they will order the change, it's worth the effort. 

What Senator Reid doesn't like is that Donahoe's announcement puts the spotlight on our legislators' dilatory attitude.  (Even the best and quickest plan Congress has come up with would delay implementation for two years, and require the USPS to devote countless additional hours during that period to "assessing" its effects on different sectors of the population.)

So, as with so much other unhandled Congressional business, it's really time to try to get something done. 

Greatness Or Pettiness

In an opinion piece last Sunday that merits more attention, David Alpert asked, in considering plans to turn Washington DC's Union Station into a modern, effective transportation hub, "Do We Still Have What It Takes?" [to do great infrastructure projects]. 

It's a good question, one to which I had to answer "no"last year, when I looked at another recent project, in which frightened suburbanites and the Washington Post itself prevented the planned subway station at Dulles International Airport from being constructed conveniently underground IN the terminal, leaving it to be built inconveniently 600 feet AWAY from the airport, on the grounds that "we couldn't afford it." 

On these questions, I tend to ask, as Alpert does, can we afford not to do it?  Most often, the better solution, even if more costly, has long-term benefits in terms of cost-saving improvements, time-saving and step-saving efficiencies.  And often, we discover to our chagrin later, that the cheaper solution eventually has to be fixed, at a much higher cost than doing it correctly in the first place.   I also like the idea expressed here by Deputy Transportation Secretary Porcari that our generation has an obligation to create the big projects to pay things forward for the next generation -- to create and maintain infrastructure.

I often hear people suggesting that in the current lean economy, governments and even corporations and organizations should postpone or cancel capital projects that have been in the works for years because we "can't afford them."  Shortsighted, because to the extent those projects continue, they help pull us out of recession by creating jobs and putting money into the economy.  

Besides, I don't think it's just the economy, it's a reluctance to think in grand terms, or to take on the tremendous job of overcoming inertia.  Do we have leaders and visionaries who can do so?   We haven't seen them much in the U.S. of late.  The Union Station isn't all that immense, but it would be a start.

As The Supremes Consider Health Care

I was puzzled by President Obama's remarks a couple of days ago regarding the Supreme Court's consideration of the health care law. It appeared he went a bit out of his way to challenge the Court's apolitical objectivity, and frankly, it seems both out of place and poor political strategy for the President himself to be fueling the doubts on that score which so evidently already exist.

So if he is now walking back the tone of his remarks a bit, that seems a sensible thing to do. Win or lose, the Court's decision will have to be dealt with, but it's probably still best to let the Court do its own thing without public pressure. Should they decide in favor of the existing law, which I suspect after all is said and done that they will, does it make sense to undermine the authority of that decision by having allowed the law's opponents to cry "pressure?"

And if they decide against it, it's only a temporary setback. The mendicant Republican opposition to ideas they themselves introduced a decade or more ago is purely politics-driven. The President and the press alike misstate the opposition as "radical"-minded. In fact, the opponents of health care are regressive. In the long run, as they themselves recognize (that's why they're so scared), history is on the side of universal health care. They may succeed in playing politics with the well-being of the people and temporarily delay its coming, but I doubt Americans will buy into our remaining in third-world status, alone among developed nations, in this regard.

Shorting the Short Term

Anyone who's been reading Morning Fog for a while has probably heard me complain more than once about the national (U.S.) tendency to take the short view.  Whether it's ending a war, looking to improvements in the economy, or just buying blinds for our home's windows, everybody seems to look for the immediate results, long term consequences be damned.

Thus, I commend Sheila Bair's well-argued piece from today's Washington Post regarding the effects this approach has had in our financial markets.  As I've said myself, we're not even out of the woods from having lost our way last time, yet many of those high-salaried financial wizards and certain of our political leaders are tossing away the map and eager to lead us down the wrong path again.

Gates's Frank Talk On NATO Allies

In being brutally frank regarding our NATO allies' wimpiness in participating in commonly agreed defense projects, outgoing Defense Secretary Gates has called attention to a couple of problems in the U.S.-Europe relationship.  Both relate to the very imbalanced see-saw between the U.S., on the one end, and our NATO allies on the other.  One problem has to do with participation in, and funding of, defense efforts but the other, not much addressed in recent reportage of Gates's speech, has to do with an imbalance in how the two ends of the see-saw define the tasks the Alliance undertakes (or should undertake). 

Gates noted that our allies have generally been cutting their defense budgets, leaving the U.S. to pick up more costs, and that their forces have been less involved in recent NATO efforts, while attaching conditions to their involvement when they are engaged.  He almost makes it sound like a new problem, but it isn't.  

In fact, serious differences between what allied countries including Canada spend on defense, and what the U.S. spends, have existed for decades.   It's true that the U.S. GDP, even in these economically slow times, is greater than the NATO allies'.  So shouldn't we spend more?  That makes sense, but a more prudent and fair measure of expenditures would contrast defense expenditures of NATO members as a percentage of GDP.  Conveniently, NATO itself provides this information in an annual report, "Defense Expenditures of NATO Countries, 1990-2010."    (You'll need to scroll down to Table 3 in this report.)  To cut to the chase, you'll see that in 2009 (the last year for which complete figures are available) the U.S. spent fully 5.0% of GDP on defense, while our most engaged allies (France, Germany, the U.K) spent respectively 2.1, 1.4, and 2.7%.  Other allied countries, with a couple of anomalies, have consistently spent well less than 2%.  Previous years, going back two decades, on average show the same pattern.

The other side of the coin is that the U.S. has generally been content to outspend its allies in this manner because it enabled us to steer the ship.  Despite some occasional turbulence with prickly allies, Washington has been able to call the shots more often than not; to guide NATO decisions and policies in the directions the U.S. wanted; to retain command (or a very senior voice in command) of military forces in operations.  

This is the part that may now be under greatest stress.  Since the Cold War ended, the common bonds that originally brought this collection of allies together in NATO has faded away - not perhaps for the new members from the former Soviet sphere of influence, who  look to their freshly minted membership in NATO to protect them from an overweening Russia, but certainly for many of the members of longer standing.   Europe does not share our perception of the threat posed by terrorists in faraway Afghanistan, and sees less justification for military operations so far from home.  Within the Alliance, only the U.S. maintains a firm global outlook (the U.K. and France shared it once but seem to be fading), or the ability to project military force halfway around the globe.  For the rest, to be "Candide," it's back to Voltaire:  "Il faut cultiver nôtre jardin."

Ultimately, U.S. foreign policy has long been based on the assumption that the interests, traditions, and outlook that we share with Europe are one of the pillars of our foreign and defense policy.  Is that linkage falling apart, or is it just under stress?  That's something Presidents will need to decide, but I suspect we'll stick with what we know for quite a while to come, and seek to preserve our ties and cooperation with Europe.

Meantime, the cost issue is not insignificant.  I've always thought it's the unmentioned and unmentionable root of what I see as a key U.S. domestic problem, what I call the "Third World Superpower."  We are loath in the U.S. to acknowledge what statistics make clear:  by many measures, in education, health, infant mortality, crime, poverty, infrastructure, and hunger to name a few, we now lag behind many of the European countries.   What could that extra three percent of GDP, the difference between what our Allies generally spend and what we generally spend, do for us if it were redirected toward some of our pressing domestic needs? 

Our current level of "defense" spending impoverishes us.  Many don't think so (yet); others would deny that there's a link; some would argue that we can still have guns and butter.  I think it's inevitable, long term if not short, that we will need to face this music, define our international interests more precisely, reemphasize inexpensive diplomacy over expensive military hardware, and scale back our ambitions to fit. 

The Blame Game, And U.S. Government Shutdown

Whatever the outcome of today's last-minute negotiations between Republicans and Democrats over budget cuts and the funding of government operations -- and the outlook at this point, only 9 hours before the deadline, is not good -- we can reach several conclusions about the process itself, and what it means.

First, of course, just as in previous such crises during the Clinton Administration, it's all about blame.  If the government closes down, and people can't obtain services they've come to rely on, which party stands to gain politically in the public eye?  In my view, both will lose in the sense that each will lose credibility in the eyes of opposition voters,  but the Republicans are likely to bear the onus for shutting things down. 

And that's justifiable  They've done it before, and lost traction because of it, and the situation isn't arguably different this time.  Also, anybody should be able to figure out that the party that generally champions a greater role for government really has no interest in shutting it down.  By contrast, Republicans may actually relish bringing about a shutdown, because they want to reduce it anyway, and because they see no value in government except possibly as a source of largesse to corporations.  Further, the GOP has continued to be the Party of No, not having moved to compromise a whit of its position, while Democrats have (cleverly, yes) increased the amount of cuts they are prepared to accept. 

A second clear conclusion:  It's a tempest in a teapot.   As already suggested, the fight isn't really over budget cuts, but even if it were, these cuts are pitiably tiny and can't be taken as serious efforts to deal with our deficit.  At best, even at the Republicans' preferred figure, cuts of this magnitude are nothing more than token efforts, especially as they ignore the gorilla of military spending.

Third:  The whole battle is symptomatic of what I call the "third-world superpower."  (That's the U.S., if you find it hard to guess.)  Real countries, developed countries, countries run by serious leaders with the nation's best interests at heart, don't purposely and needlessly drive their government into default or make it impossible for it to pay its debts.  Not over partisan political posturing.  This kind of thing, occurring every decade or so, will go a long way to destroy U.S. political and economic capital in the world, not to mention the nation's stability.  It will also likely deepen and broaden our economic slump and slow the recovery.

Finally, a few comments on some of the "issues" that have been raised:
(a) Is it "fair" that government employees be furloughed and not paid?  Yes, in the sense that lots of private sector workers also have been furloughed, or worse, through no fault of their own.  But that's a false analogy, when in fact the shutdown won't occur for economic reasons, but for completely avoidable political ones.  Those who play this game of chicken at the political level are simply taking advantage of the fact that unlike a private corporation, the government can't legally continue to operate when it may be operating "in the red."  They're also flouting the basic premise of the civil service system, that government workers performing their ordinary functions shouldn't be subject to political manipulation.
(b) Does it make sense for Democrats to fall on their swords over funding for a couple of favored causes, like NPR or Planned Parenthood?  Ultimately, no.  These programs (and many favored by Republicans as well, like farm subsidies) should stand on their own merits.  Both, I suspect, could survive having their government funding cut.  However, the real sticking point is that each party only wants to cut the programs favored by the other, and that's a road we should not go down.  

Safe Food - Can We Afford NOT To Have It?

Food safety has been a big issue lately, as some of the Bush Administration's chickens (i.e. the gutting of regulatory agencies and an endemic lack of concern about effective oversight in the most basic processes of food production) came home to roost in the form of illnesses and death in a number of food categories -- eggs, spinach, jalapeno peppers, lettuce, peanuts.

This is an area where Republican legislators make no bones about their interest in undercutting recently passed legislation by denying or cutting funding for effective regulation.  (The same process led to many of the problems we've experienced in food safety.) 

Currently, the new Republican chair of the appropriations subcommittee that has to authorize the FDA's funding (Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia) is justifying his concerns about "possible overreach" on the basis of competing demands for limited funds.  That's an easy course when the economy is still widely viewed as weak.

The fact is, though, that a shortage of funds is not the real problem.  When the economy was booming, Republicans still failed to enact rules to enforce penalties for gross health code violations.  And when the economy is regaining momentum (as it is doing now), they'll still be engaged in foot-dragging and obstructionism on anything involving possible limitations on businesses' "right" to do as they see fit, regardless of the consequences for public health.  Since they tend to be staunch friends of business, these party dogmatists might want to consider that the U.S. is a major exporter of agricultural products, and that as our produce gets an ever more degraded reputation abroad, our markets shrink. 

As with health care, education, feeding the hungry, and other issues, it's just plain ridiculous to say that we "can't afford" to do far better in all these areas, because most other developed countries with per capita GDP and incomes DO afford them, surpassing us in providing basic essential government services to their citizens.  Even one food-health scare, of the kind we've had several of recently, would be nearly unthinkable in most of Europe or in Japan. 

Politicians who deny reality with the "we can't afford it" mantra are pushing us down the road toward developing-nation status.  Some may be too ignorant to see it; others may act out of venality (wasn't that rat-infested peanut factory in Georgia?), but it's a shame that such out of touch, head-in-the-sand types still exist, let alone get elected to Congress.   

The GOP needs to foster more original thinking on such issues, and to break out of thrall to business interests.  That would help the party to regain long-term political competitiveness, and help the nation to maintain its international competitiveness too.  Otherwise, countries more successful in controlling their food supply and agricultural production are going to eat our lunch (though in a literal sense they wouldn't, because they'd be concerned about whether it was safe for consumption). 

Outmoded Infrastructure - Those Overhead Power Lines

Sunday afternoon my little neighborhood experienced a heavy thunderstorm - unusually heavy winds and a violent torrent of rain, but still a thunderstorm - that passed through the area in less than 30 minutes but put out the electrical grid to hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses for 10 hours (in my case) or even longer.   This was only the longest of three recent power outages, all of three hours or more, over the past two weeks.  Two were weather-related, the third was somebody driving into a utility pole.  

In addition, we've experienced at least two blips in the same period, of the sort that punch out the power just long enough to shut down computers and cause the waste of 15-20 minutes rebooting, logging in again, and the like.  I wish this performance were rare, but power outages occur where I live on the average of one or two a month.  The electric company's reporting number should be on speed dial, but by now, I have it memorized anyway.

The constant interruption of power supplies, even by fairly normal weather or routine traffic accidents, has several causes, but primary among them is simply our failure as a society to protect power lines by burying them.   Here as in other endeavors, a business's short-term cost considerations are allowed to overrule sensible public policy.  No one has found a way yet to deliver electric power wirelessly; until we do, it only makes sense to update our infrastructure to minimize the potential for disruption.

National Debt

"The National Debt and Washington's Deficit of Will" by Joel Achenbach is a pretty good look at issues surrounding our perennial national debt problem - how it develops, and the factors that make it so difficult to solve.  It's well worth reading.

As this article correctly points out, the real problem is more a political than economic one (politicians shy away from raising taxes); the long-term moral dilemma is burdening future generations; but the greatest danger of our failure to trim our profligate spending is that foreign governments and individuals may lose confidence in the solidity of our economy and stop investing in it.  All true, and worrisome.

To Achenbach's summary I would add three considerations he seems to have omitted.

First, although the problem clearly involves politicians who lack political will, there is good reason for their reticence.  That would be the voters, who by and large appear to believe that more and more government services can be had by paying less and less for them.  How can that fairy-tale mindset be altered?  Possibly through political leadership, as Achenbach hints, including better information efforts about what's at stake.  

Second, our political system for years has been dysfunctional when it comes to dealing with tough issues.  This has led us toward a lower standard of living and decreasing real incomes for a lot (let's say, a majority) of our citizens.  But the reality is that we won't deal with a problem until it gets into crisis mode.  That's why, for example, I have supported the changes President Obama has sought in health care reform, even while recognizing that much more needs to be done on the cost-control side.  Only a shock to the system is likely to jar it into action.

Last, Achenbach notes fears that foreign investors may quail at our failure to make difficult decisions.  That's possible, though wiser ones may rely, per my preceding paragraph, on our dealing with the problem just in the nick of time.  More to the point, the article ignores that for many investors, the political stability of the U.S. makes it an attractive place to invest even when there's noticeable turbulence on the economic waters.  This may give us a bit more margin than doomsayers predict.

The Commission headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, which has been charged with making recommendations on the debt by December 1, has its work cut out for it, but it's not at all certain even its best suggestions will have any impact.  Those weak-willed politicians who created it adamantly refused to accept any binding commitment to implement its ideas.