Politics Plus

Several times in the last few weeks, I have said that I would rather suffer the spending cuts in the sequester than a ‘grand bargain’ that reduces benefits, that present and future Social Security and/or Medicare recipients have earned with their life-long payroll deductions.  On that, I have not changed.  However, I have also strongly opposed kicking the can down the road, and on that issue, Paul Krugman has made some arguments that are leading me to defer to his wisdom on that point.

John Boehner, the speaker of the House, claims to be exasperated. “At some point, Washington has to deal with its spending problem,” he said Wednesday. “I’ve watched them kick this can down the road for 22 years since I’ve been here. I’ve had enough of it. It’s time to act.”

Actually, Mr. Boehner needs to refresh his memory. During the first decade of his time in Congress, the U.S. government was doing just fine on the fiscal front. In particular, the ratio of federal debt to G.D.P. was a third lower when Bill Clinton left office than it was when he came in. It was only when George W. Bush arrived and squandered the Clinton surplus on tax cuts and unfunded wars that the budget outlook began deteriorating again.

But that’s a secondary issue. The key point is this: While it’s true that we will eventually need some combination of revenue increases and spending cuts to rein in the growth of U.S. government debt, now is very much not the time to act. Given the state we’re in, it would be irresponsible and destructive not to kick that can down the road.

Start with a basic point: Slashing government spending destroys jobs and causes the economy to shrink.

This really isn’t a debatable proposition at this point. The contractionary effects of fiscal austerity have been demonstrated by study after study and overwhelmingly confirmed by recent experience — for example, by the severe and continuing slump in Ireland, which was for a while touted as a shining example of responsible policy, or by the way the Cameron government’s turn to austerity derailed recovery in Britain… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

Photo credit: Washington Post

I think he is right.  I’m all for increasing revenue, because, as a percentage of the GDP, it is at a record low, but if we can’t come to a deal that leaves the big three alone, I’d rather put off the decision until another time.  I know that is a change, but when I have been wrong, I say so.

Here in the US, ethnocentrism is rampant.  That is the notion that we are better than everyone else.  This applies particularly to Republicans.  They use it to justify the wars they started in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the wars they want to start in Iran, Syria, and anywhere a progressive government is blocking exploitation by US companies.  The truth is, we are number one in GDP, but that’s all.

"The Global Competitiveness Report 2012-2013,” by the World Economic Forum, is the latest annual ranking of 144 countries, on a wide range of factors related to global economic competitiveness.

On each of their many rankings, #1 represents the best nation, and #144 represents the worst nation.

Gross Domestic Product is the only factor where the U.S. ranks as #1, which we do both on "GDP” and on “GDP as a Share of World GDP.”

Health Care has the U.S. ranking #34 on “Life Expectancy,” and #41 on “Infant Mortality.”

Education in the U.S. is also mediocre. On “Quality of Primary Education,” we are #38. On “Primary Education Enrollment Rate,” we are #58. On “Quality of the Educational System,” we are #28. On “Quality of Math and Science Education,” we are #47. On “Quality of Scientific Research Institutions,” we are #6. On “PCT [Patent Cooperation Treaty] Patent Applications [per-capita],” we are #12. On “Firm-Level Technology Absorption” (which is an indicator of business-acceptance of inventions), we are #14… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Alternet>

A solution here requires no rocket science.  Instead of blowing our own horn, we simply need to look at what the leaders are doing in areas where we lag behind, and do what they are doing.

The has been much ado about the white paper in which the Obama administration has claimed the authority to kill US citizens abroad, without oversight or transparency.  Regardless of my overall support for Obama, I must oppose this policy, based more on what I do not know about it than on what I do know.

On one level, there were not too many surprises in the newly disclosed “white paper” offering a legal reasoning behind the claim that President Obama has the power to order the killing of American citizens who are believed to be part of Al Qaeda. We knew Mr. Obama and his lawyers believed he has that power under the Constitution and federal law. We also knew that he utterly rejects the idea that Congress or the courts have any right to review such a decision in advance, or even after the fact.

Still, it was disturbing to see the twisted logic of the administration’s lawyers laid out in black and white. It had the air of a legal justification written after the fact for a policy decision that had already been made, and it brought back unwelcome memories of memos written for President George W. Bush to justify illegal wiretapping, indefinite detention, kidnapping, abuse and torture.

The document, obtained and made public by NBC News, was written by the Justice Department and coyly describes another, classified document (which has been described in The Times) that actually provided the legal justification for ordering the killing of American citizens…

Inserted from <NY Times>

I have to grant that America’s current enemies are not state based, do not wear uniforms, and do not fight using conventional means.  Therefore I recognize that there are people who threaten our national security, who are at war with us, and who need to be stopped.  I even recognize that some of those people could be US citizens, who have joined forces with our enemies.

If it can be indisputably proved that a US citizen is a clear and present danger to the US, because that individual is actively involved in unconventional warfare against the US, and if it can be demonstrated that capture is not a viable option, I do not object to taking that person out, as long as there is 100% transparency after the fact in which the American people are informed of the evidence on which the action was based.  The problem is, I can’t see where the present policy has any of these features.

We don’t know who can make the decision to issue a kill order.  We don’t know under what conditions a kill order may be issued.  We have no guarantee of transparency at any point in the process.

Rachel Maddow provided some excellent coverage of this issue.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rachel summed it up perfectly, when she asked how we will determine who is a bad guy. Wyden’s questions were also excellent.

Frankly, it would surprise me to see Obama use this policy abusively, but Obama will not be President forever.  I feel terrified at the notion that another Dick Cheney may someday sit in an undisclosed location, secretly picking off everyone he considers his enemy.