Why state R&D flops, by Peter Foster
Financial Post, Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Whatever one's views of a bi-national bailout of the Big Three, most pundits seem to agree that a significant part of any funding must be devoted to developing "fuel-efficient cars of the future." Apart from its multi-billion dollar share of the bailout, the Conservative government of Stephen Harper has launched a $250-million "Automotive Innovation Fund." Meanwhile a key part of president-elect Barack Obama's plans to "stimulate" the U. S. economy involve funnelling US$150-billion over 10 years to the development of "green" technologies.
Those inclined to give credence to such grandiose plans would be well advised to read a recent book titled -- somewhat misleadingly -- Sex, Science & Profits, by British academic Terence Kealey. The book deals with the nature of science, the history of technology and the role of governments in promoting economic growth. It provides a devastating critique of states' failure to fund economically useful knowledge, and suggests that all spending on "technologies of the future" is likely to wind up down the drain.
Professor Kealey is not promoting some off-the-wall, right-wing economic theory. A comprehensive 2003 study by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development titled "The Sources of Economic Growth in OECD Countries," found that the only useful R&D came from private sources and that public R&D funding tended to have negative consequences.
Professor Kealey provides the history and psychology behind this inconvenient truth, and sets out to explode the pervasive notion -- first propounded by the prototypical 17th-century English policy wonk, Sir Francis Bacon -- that science is a "public good" that needs to be promoted by governments.
In a sweeping analysis, Professor Kealey notes that advances in both science and technology have -- from the steam engine to radio astronomy -- come overwhelmingly from the private sector. "Powerful" states, from Egypt through China to modern Russia, have held up technological advance rather than promoted it. The vast U. S. expenditure on research in the wake of the Sputnik scare in the 1950s managed to put a man on the moon, but has (strategic considerations to one side) done little or nothing for the well-being of the average American.
Professor Kealey supports the wisdom of Adam Smith, the 18th-century Scottish economist, who suggested that technological advance was a natural consequence of market specialization which could not be improved by governments.
The Industrial Revolution in Britain was promoted by the political freedom's emerging from the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688. Its agents were eminently practical private tinkerers who had little or nothing to do with government or the educational institutions of the day. France, by contrast, was dripping with state-funded organizations to promote agriculture and science, but lagged Britain severely.
Professor Kealey explodes the notion of private "underinvestment" in R&D, which is based on flawed economic theory rather than industrial fact. He also highlights the counterproductive-ness of government technological promotion, using two prominent British examples. Before he became Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, in the early 1960s, promoted the "White Heat" of technological revolution, using the Soviet Union as a model. His Labour government greatly increased public R&D spending, which yielded the first commercial nuclear reactor, the first jet passenger aircraft, the first commercial computer and (half of) the first supersonic commercial aircraft. But what all these "achievements" had in common was that they were financial disasters, and accompanied a precipitous decline in the British economy.
Margaret Thatcher, by contrast, was castigated for cutting government R&D, but her cuts were more than compensated for by private spending, suggesting that government R&D merely "crowds out" the private version. Government R&D also tends to be counterproductive because it emphasizes political priorities and corrals companies into failing consortia.
One of Professor Kealey's most fascinating revelations is the astonishing success of promoters of publicly-funded science and technology in bending history to suit their prejudices. The advance of privately-funded British science has for two hundred years gone hand in hand with constant predictions of decline. The experience of post-war Japan was comprehensively falsified. In fact, Japanese government support for R&D has almost everywhere proved counterproductive. State agencies opposed the development of cars, electronics and cameras, while government promotion of "fifth generation" computers, and the space and nuclear industries have been a bust. To the extent that Japan was successful, it was due to private R&D.
Again, Germany's post-war success was not due to government but to the state's abandonment of so-called "Rhenish capitalism," with its cartels, tariffs and subsidies, and the adoption of the "Ordoliberalism" of Ludwig Erhard, who established an independent central bank, reduced government controls and liberalized trade.
Professor Kealey notes that government funding tends to corrupt science, but unfortunately does not go into the currently most dangerous example: that of state-funded "climate science" -- although he does refer to the establishment pogrom against the environmental skepticism of Bjorn Lomborg.
Bold presidential technological commitments such as those of Mr. Obama have-- with the exception of the moonshot, which could not have been less commercial -- a depressing history. If Mr. Obama is channelling any former president right now, it is the hapless Jimmy Carter, who, in the 1970s, invoked the "moral equivalent of war" to promote energy alternatives. Professor Kealey's book explains why he--inevitably --failed.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
John Holdren describes energy as "indispensable," "reliable," "affordable"
John Holdren describes energy as "indispensable," "reliable," "affordable" (Part VI in a series on Obama’s new science advisor). By Robert Bradley
Master Resource, January 14, 2009
From time to time, John Holdren has acknowledged that plentiful, affordable, reliable energy is vital to human well being. Indeed, there is no going back to an energy-poor world. (Remember: caveman energy was 100% renewable.)
When Holdren or Obama advocates policies that risk making energy artificially scarce or less reliable, these words can be used to argue for nonregulatory approaches to energy policy:
“Virtually all of the benefits that now seem necessary to the ‘American way’ have required vast amounts of energy. Energy, in short, has been our ultimate raw material, for our commitment to economic growth has also been a commitment to the use of steadily increasing amounts of energy necessary to the production of goods and services.”
- John Holdren and Philip Herrera, Energy (San Francisco: Sierra Club, 1971), p. 10.
"When energy is scarce or expensive, people can suffer material deprivation and economic hardship.”
- John Holdren, “Population and the Energy Problem,” Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Spring 1991, p. 231.
“Energy is an indispensable ingredient of material prosperity. . . . Where and when energy is in short supply or too expensive, people suffer from lack of direct energy services (such as cooking, heating, lighting, and transport) and from inflation, unemployment, and reduced economic output.”
- John Holdren, Population and the Energy Problem,” Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Spring 1991, p. 232.
“Supplying energy to the economy contributes to the production of a stream of economic goods and services generally supportive of well-being.”
- John Holdren, “Coal in Context: Its Role in the National Energy Future,” University of Houston Law Review, July 1978, p. 1089.
“A reliable and affordable supply of energy is absolutely critical to maintaining and expanding economic prosperity where such prosperity already exists and to creating it where it does not.”
- John Holdren, “Memorandum to the President: The Energy-Climate Challenge,” in Donald Kennedy and John Riggs, eds., U.S. Policy and the Global Environment: Memos to the President (Washington, D.C.: The Aspen Institute, 2000), p. 21.
“Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others.”
- John Holdren, “Meeting the Energy Challenge,” Science, February 9, 2001, p. 945.
[For full text see original link above.]
Master Resource, January 14, 2009
From time to time, John Holdren has acknowledged that plentiful, affordable, reliable energy is vital to human well being. Indeed, there is no going back to an energy-poor world. (Remember: caveman energy was 100% renewable.)
When Holdren or Obama advocates policies that risk making energy artificially scarce or less reliable, these words can be used to argue for nonregulatory approaches to energy policy:
“Virtually all of the benefits that now seem necessary to the ‘American way’ have required vast amounts of energy. Energy, in short, has been our ultimate raw material, for our commitment to economic growth has also been a commitment to the use of steadily increasing amounts of energy necessary to the production of goods and services.”
- John Holdren and Philip Herrera, Energy (San Francisco: Sierra Club, 1971), p. 10.
"When energy is scarce or expensive, people can suffer material deprivation and economic hardship.”
- John Holdren, “Population and the Energy Problem,” Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Spring 1991, p. 231.
“Energy is an indispensable ingredient of material prosperity. . . . Where and when energy is in short supply or too expensive, people suffer from lack of direct energy services (such as cooking, heating, lighting, and transport) and from inflation, unemployment, and reduced economic output.”
- John Holdren, Population and the Energy Problem,” Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Spring 1991, p. 232.
“Supplying energy to the economy contributes to the production of a stream of economic goods and services generally supportive of well-being.”
- John Holdren, “Coal in Context: Its Role in the National Energy Future,” University of Houston Law Review, July 1978, p. 1089.
“A reliable and affordable supply of energy is absolutely critical to maintaining and expanding economic prosperity where such prosperity already exists and to creating it where it does not.”
- John Holdren, “Memorandum to the President: The Energy-Climate Challenge,” in Donald Kennedy and John Riggs, eds., U.S. Policy and the Global Environment: Memos to the President (Washington, D.C.: The Aspen Institute, 2000), p. 21.
“Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others.”
- John Holdren, “Meeting the Energy Challenge,” Science, February 9, 2001, p. 945.
[For full text see original link above.]
Energy Savings Through American Chemistry
americanchemistry.com, Jan 2009
The U.S. business of chemistry is unique. We use energy to save energy. We are the principal supplier of materials that make the U.S. economy more energy efficient. From insulation materials, roof coatings, lightweight vehicle parts and energy-saving tires; to appliances, light bulbs and materials for wind and solar power, our industry is essential to the nation’s efforts to save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As one of America’s most energy-intensive sectors, we’re improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our own operations.
The U.S. business of chemistry is unique. We use energy to save energy. We are the principal supplier of materials that make the U.S. economy more energy efficient. From insulation materials, roof coatings, lightweight vehicle parts and energy-saving tires; to appliances, light bulbs and materials for wind and solar power, our industry is essential to the nation’s efforts to save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As one of America’s most energy-intensive sectors, we’re improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our own operations.
Using Energy to Save Energy
American Chemistry uses large quantities of energy as raw materials or “feedstocks” in the production process. Petroleum and natural gas contain hydrocarbon molecules that are split apart during processing and recombined into chemistry products, including a variety of energy-saving materials. Energy saved by the use of these materials equals lower greenhouse gas emissions throughout the U.S. economy. Here are a few examples of the energy-saving materials contributed by American chemistry:
- Building insulation materials made from chemistry save as much as 40 BTUs of energy for every BTU of energy consumed to make the material. House wraps save 360 BTUs of energy for every BTU used to make the material, and foam insulation can make a home up to 70% more energy efficient.
- Every pound of plastics and composites used to “lightweight” an automobile produces 2-3 pounds of weight savings in that vehicle.
- “Low rolling resistance” tires are made by adding chemistry products—silica and polysulfidosilanes—to tire tread to help increase fuel efficiency.
- Automotive and industrial lubricants rely on chemistry products to help reduce friction and energy usage.
- Solar power relies on silicon-based materials and other chemistry products.Wind power blades contain many chemistry products, including polyester and resin additives.
- Chemistry-intensive roof coatings help reflect solar heat away from the rooftop, promoting cooler indoor spaces.
- Compact fluorescent light bulbs, made with chemistry to “fluoresce” (give off light), use 70% less energy than conventional light bulbs and last 10 to 20 times longer.
- Appliances such as refrigerators and air conditioning equipment contain chemistry, including insulation and coolants, that has helped improve their energy efficiency by 30 to 50% since the 1970s.
- Vinyl windows have excellent thermal performance properties, while vinyl-coated wire and cable have high electrical resistivity, helping to prevent energy losses.
Improving Energy Efficiency
The U.S. business of chemistry has achieved significant energy efficiency gains. Since 1974, the business of chemistry has reduced its fuel and power energy consumed per unit of output by nearly half. Since 1990, it has improved nearly 27%, which is the equivalent of a 1.9% annual gain in efficiency.
One way the business of chemistry is improving its energy efficiency is through the use of combined heat and power (CHP), also known as cogeneration. CHP is the simultaneous generation of electricity and heat from a facility located near the manufacturing facility. Because most CHP facilities use natural gas and create two forms of energy (electric power and steam) with the same amount of fuel, they are often twice as efficient as older, coal-burning electric utilities. CHP is responsible for nearly 25% of our industry’s power requirements.
Through the Responsible Care® program, a global chemical industry performance initiative implemented in the United States through the American Chemistry Council, we require members to report energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions intensity data to ACC. Through its web site, www.americanchemistry.com/responsiblecare, these companies are making available the most performance information of any private sector industry group.
Hybrids Don't Get the Mileage They Say They Do
Hybrids Don't Get the Mileage They Say They Do. By Greg Pollowitz
Planet Gore, January 14, 2009
Honda is being sued because its hybrid isn't performing as advertised:
Planet Gore, January 14, 2009
Honda is being sued because its hybrid isn't performing as advertised:
Green car owners have apparently complained in such large numbers that the Honda Civic Hybrid isn’t living up to high mileage claims that the carmaker has approached U.S. government regulators about revising its mileage guidelines, according to a lawsuit by one Honda hybrid owner.
A California appellate opinion filed on Monday showed that a Honda customer service representative told Gaetano Paduano, the dissatisfied owner of a 2004 Honda hybrid, that the company had received “a high number of complaints” that the sedan achieves significantly less than its promised mileage of 47-plus miles per gallon.
The rep also told Paduano that the company and rival Toyota have approached the U.S. EPA to change the mileage rating on their hybrid cars, the opinion said.
Another Honda rep told Paduano that he probably couldn’t achieve the advertised mileage by driving the vehicle like a conventional car, despite claims to the contrary in a Honda brochure advertising the vehicle, the opinion said.
A Honda spokesman would not comment on the pending litigation.
Iraq's Accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention
Iraq's Accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention
Press Statement
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC, January 14, 2009
The United States welcomes Iraq’s decision to become the newest party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which will become effective on February 12, 2009. Iraq will be the 186th member of the CWC’s Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), leaving only 9 states as non-members. This is an historic decision by the new Iraq government to join the international community in efforts to eliminate all chemical weapons and their production facilities. The United States has supported Iraq in its preparation to join the CWC and will continue to assist Iraq with its implementation. We welcome Iraq into the OPCW and look forward to working with Iraq in moving closer to the complete elimination of chemical weapons programs throughout the world.
2009/049
Press Statement
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC, January 14, 2009
The United States welcomes Iraq’s decision to become the newest party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which will become effective on February 12, 2009. Iraq will be the 186th member of the CWC’s Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), leaving only 9 states as non-members. This is an historic decision by the new Iraq government to join the international community in efforts to eliminate all chemical weapons and their production facilities. The United States has supported Iraq in its preparation to join the CWC and will continue to assist Iraq with its implementation. We welcome Iraq into the OPCW and look forward to working with Iraq in moving closer to the complete elimination of chemical weapons programs throughout the world.
2009/049
Brillon case: A perverse legal incentive goes before the Supreme Court
A Foot-Dragger Walks. Washington Post Editorial
A perverse legal incentive goes before the Supreme Court.
WaPo, Wednesday, January 14, 2009; page A16
FROM 2001 through 2004, Michael Brillon was represented by six different publicly funded attorneys. He fired two, claiming they did little-to-no work on his case; he threatened the life of a third -- forcing his withdrawal -- and had two others leave. As a result, Mr. Brillon, who had three prior felony convictions, spent three years in jail before, with the sixth lawyer representing him, he was convicted by a jury of second-degree aggravated domestic assault and sentenced to 12 to 20 years in prison. He was given credit for the time he served before his trial.
The Vermont Supreme Court threw out Mr. Brillon's conviction and barred prosecutors from retrying him after concluding that Mr. Brillon's right to a speedy trial had been violated -- even though the delays were the fault of Mr. Brillon or his lawyers. The court concluded, in part, that because the public defenders were paid with state money, the state must be held responsible. The Supreme Court, which heard arguments in the case yesterday, should overrule the decision.
Public defenders provide an indispensable service. They have been overworked and underfunded for far too long, and it is little wonder that some may not be able to competently manage all of their cases. This neglect risks travesties of all kinds, including the incarceration of innocent people. But letting defendants and their lawyers benefit from delays of their own making would create a perverse incentive for them to drag their feet. Some may question the likelihood of a defendant's choosing to remain behind bars without being convicted, but it is not far-fetched to imagine such a calculus from those who, as Mr. Brillon did, face long sentences.
Linking dismissal to time factors alone is a bad idea, but a defendant must have an opportunity for relief if a public defender's neglect is significant or serious delays are caused because of lawyers' being cycled through a case. Defendants who can prove that such delays and neglect substantially harmed their cases would be entitled to new trials. These kinds of motions are rarely granted, but they provide a safety valve in extraordinary circumstances.
A perverse legal incentive goes before the Supreme Court.
WaPo, Wednesday, January 14, 2009; page A16
FROM 2001 through 2004, Michael Brillon was represented by six different publicly funded attorneys. He fired two, claiming they did little-to-no work on his case; he threatened the life of a third -- forcing his withdrawal -- and had two others leave. As a result, Mr. Brillon, who had three prior felony convictions, spent three years in jail before, with the sixth lawyer representing him, he was convicted by a jury of second-degree aggravated domestic assault and sentenced to 12 to 20 years in prison. He was given credit for the time he served before his trial.
The Vermont Supreme Court threw out Mr. Brillon's conviction and barred prosecutors from retrying him after concluding that Mr. Brillon's right to a speedy trial had been violated -- even though the delays were the fault of Mr. Brillon or his lawyers. The court concluded, in part, that because the public defenders were paid with state money, the state must be held responsible. The Supreme Court, which heard arguments in the case yesterday, should overrule the decision.
Public defenders provide an indispensable service. They have been overworked and underfunded for far too long, and it is little wonder that some may not be able to competently manage all of their cases. This neglect risks travesties of all kinds, including the incarceration of innocent people. But letting defendants and their lawyers benefit from delays of their own making would create a perverse incentive for them to drag their feet. Some may question the likelihood of a defendant's choosing to remain behind bars without being convicted, but it is not far-fetched to imagine such a calculus from those who, as Mr. Brillon did, face long sentences.
Linking dismissal to time factors alone is a bad idea, but a defendant must have an opportunity for relief if a public defender's neglect is significant or serious delays are caused because of lawyers' being cycled through a case. Defendants who can prove that such delays and neglect substantially harmed their cases would be entitled to new trials. These kinds of motions are rarely granted, but they provide a safety valve in extraordinary circumstances.
George Miller on Secret Ballot In Union Recognition Elections: 2001
Miller Time in Mexico… by Ivan Osorio
OpenMarket, CEI blog, September 11, 2008
…looks very different than it does in the United States. And by Miller, I mean Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.).
In 2001, Rep. Miller and several of his colleagues wrote to a labor adjudication body in the Mexican state of Puebla urging that body to uphod the secret ballot as “absolutely necessary to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.”
Yesterday, the Mexican Supreme Court agreed, ruling that workers’ secret ballots in union organizing elections must be protected, reports Laborpains.org.
What does this have to do with the U.S.? Legally, nothing, but politically, plenty. The same protection that Miller so strongly defended for Mexican workers is the same one he is now trying to take away from American ones, through his sponsorship of the mandatory card-check organizing bill known as the Employee Free Choice Act.
Miller’s double-talk notwithstanding, he does deserve credit for one thing: He was right once. Now if only he could apply such wisdom inside his own country’s borders.
For more on card check, see here and here.
OpenMarket, CEI blog, September 11, 2008
…looks very different than it does in the United States. And by Miller, I mean Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.).
In 2001, Rep. Miller and several of his colleagues wrote to a labor adjudication body in the Mexican state of Puebla urging that body to uphod the secret ballot as “absolutely necessary to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.”
Yesterday, the Mexican Supreme Court agreed, ruling that workers’ secret ballots in union organizing elections must be protected, reports Laborpains.org.
What does this have to do with the U.S.? Legally, nothing, but politically, plenty. The same protection that Miller so strongly defended for Mexican workers is the same one he is now trying to take away from American ones, through his sponsorship of the mandatory card-check organizing bill known as the Employee Free Choice Act.
Miller’s double-talk notwithstanding, he does deserve credit for one thing: He was right once. Now if only he could apply such wisdom inside his own country’s borders.
For more on card check, see here and here.
Conservative views: The Myth of the (Bush) Imperial Presidency
The Myth of the (Bush) Imperial Presidency. By Gary J. Schmitt
AEI, Tuesday, January 13, 2009
How will President Barack Obama view his powers once in office? Certainly, the majority of his supporters have argued that President George W. Bush abused the office's powers and expect Obama to take a more modest view of his authority. Yet, in times of war, when U.S. security is threatened, presidents typically push their executive powers forward. This is something the Founders surely understood. While Bush could have been more skillful in making the case for his policies and in his dealings with Congress, he did not exceed his authority.
Turn to most any political science book on American government or legal casebook in constitutional law, and the impression one gets is that the U.S. Constitution has largely been a dead letter for some time now. It is dead, scholars argue, either because the document was written so broadly to begin with that it can be interpreted in any way a politician or justice feels is necessary, or because the principles that originally informed the Constitution are so passé that they rightly need to be ignored if the country is to be effectively and democratically governed.
But against this current of thought runs the actual practice of American politics. In particular, one finds that when presidents make decisions in the area of national security that are unpopular or become unpopular, the opposition will turn to the Constitution to decry the president's supposed misuse of his intended powers. Most often, the charge is that the president has become "imperial."[1] Instead of being an agent of the law and confined within the strictures of the Constitution, a president will stand accused of standing above the law and bypassing our system of checks and balances in the mode echoing past royal rule. Most famously, this was the charge leveled at President Richard Nixon (and to a more limited degree his predecessor, Lyndon Johnson) during the Vietnam War years; it has been resurrected to apply to the Bush administration and its handling of the Iraq war and, more generally, the war on terror.[2]
Hence, it turns out that the Constitution is not so dead--at least when it comes to challenging presidents in time of an unpopular war. Although the instinct to challenge the government's use of power by looking to the Constitution is a healthy one, it remains to be seen whether the actual reading of the Constitution is accurate when applied to presidential powers.
Generally speaking, those who see the president as acting in an imperial manner view the presidency as having limited powers and requiring the assent of Congress in some fashion or another before taking action in critical national security matters. The president is a small "e" executive, occupying an office largely designed to carry out the decisions of the other branches of government.
Against this view, however, stands the commentary of perhaps the greatest analyst of the American political system, France's Alexis de Tocqueville. After describing in volume one of Democracy in America the weakness of the presidency at the time he visited the United States in 1830, he commented:
If the executive power is less strong in America than in France, one must attribute the cause of it perhaps more to circumstances than laws. It is principally in relations with foreigners that the executive power of a nation finds occasion to deploy its skill and force. If the life of the Union were constantly threatened, if its great interests were mixed every day with those of other powerful peoples, one would see the executive power grow larger in opinion, through what one would expect from it and what it would execute.[3]
Tocqueville concluded by noting that "the president of the United States possesses almost royal prerogatives, which he has no occasion to make use of, and the rights which, up to now, he can use are very circumscribed: the laws permit him to be strong, circumstances have made him weak."[4]
For Tocqueville, then, the "whiggish" or weak view of the presidency is misleading. In fact, the president's authorities are inherently substantial--needing only the right state of affairs to be drawn out and exercised. In the 1830s, the country was focused on domestic affairs, and, as a result, presidents of the time were in practice less important than Congress. Issues such as tariffs and internal improvements were bound to be fodder for the House and Senate to exercise their unique talents in debating, horse-swapping, and mustering up legislation to codify the consensus they had reached. But looking more deeply than even his American contemporaries, Tocqueville saw in the presidency an office that would become increasingly commanding once the United States rose to the great-power status he believed it would eventually achieve.
What the Framers Had in Mind
At first reading, Tocqueville's understanding of the presidency appears to be at odds with that of the founding generation, who, after all, revolted against what they saw as the British monarchy's despotic use of its powers. And, indeed, concerns about the potential executive abuse of power did lead them to establish a federal government (Articles of Confederation) that had but a single congressional body to handle all its affairs and create a slew of new state governments in which the vast majority made the governor decidedly subordinate to the legislature.
But a decade's worth (1776-87) of unstable governments and ineffective governance led many in that same generation to rethink the utility of a unitary, independent chief executive. Under the Articles, for example, Congress exercised a variety of powers, some clearly legislative in nature and others concerned with directing the new republic's foreign and defense affairs. It was these latter concerns--which they consistently and explicitly described as being "executive" in nature--that in fact took a considerable bulk of the members' time. Here, time and again, they found the lack of an independent, single executive to be debilitating. Negotiations with foreign powers were needlessly prolonged and muddled, there was poor execution of the decisions that they did make, the war effort was complicated by the constant meddling of Congress, and it proved difficult to keep secrets.[5] As a result, by the time the Constitutional Convention met in the spring of 1787, a priority for key members of that founding generation was to establish an executive that could, in the words of Federalist 70, act with "decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch." Unlike the Articles, which had collapsed legislative and executive powers into a single body (Congress), the new constitutional system, based on the separation of powers principle, was intended primarily not to check executive power but actually to free it up.
As noted above, it is a misperception that the founding generation thought that executive power was limited to the administration of a government's laws. Although still working through how exactly to best institutionalize executive power in a republican government, it consistently kept clear the distinction between legislative, executive, and judicial kinds of powers. These powers might overlap in some cases, but, on the whole, when the Founders talked about executive power, they did so in the manner of Locke and Montesquieu, meaning that the holder of that power was concerned not only with the execution of the laws, but also with foreign and defense affairs.[6]
For example, in 1785, when James Madison was asked for his advice about what Kentucky's constitution should look like once the territory became a state, he admitted that he was perplexed when it came to describing the post of governor. The reason he gave is that, other than the responsibility of executing the laws, "all the great powers which are properly executive" had already been "transferred to the federal Government," referring to the contemporary Congress's control of foreign and defense affairs.[7] Similarly, when the delegates to the Constitutional Convention first met, they were presented with an initial outline for the new constitution by the Virginia delegation, the so-called Virginia Plan. Under this plan, the new federal executive was both to "administer" the laws and to exercise the "Executive Rights vested in the Congress" of the Confederation.[8]
Indeed, the real problem facing the Convention was not what constituted executive power, per se, but how to create an executive office that could properly carry out what Madison had called "the great powers" and yet not create a monarch in practice. This is the reason why, when today's constitutional scholars and jurists look to the Convention for guidance on what a particular presidential power might mean, they find little with which to work. The delegates' real focus, on which they spent the vast majority of their time when it came to the presidency, was devising an office that could wield those authorities effectively and responsibly, not defining what those powers were.
For the Founders, the president's list of authorities mattered, but so did the character of office that would exercise them. There was no better example of this "lesson learned" from the period following 1776 than the contrast between the leadership exhibited by the governor of New York and the lack of leadership from Pennsylvania's executive. Although the two executives had a similar list of authorities, the New York governor was considered to be the strongest of the state executives, while Pennsylvania's was judged to be quite weak, if not the weakest. The key difference was that the former was a single executive, elected for a three-year term, with no limits on reelection and limited veto power; meanwhile, the latter was a body of twelve, with rotating membership, no prospects for immediate reelection, and no veto power. New York's governor was the state's unquestionable leader politically, and it was this institutional model that served largely as the basis for the presidency that emerged from the Convention.
The importance of the institutional aspects of the presidency is highlighted by the most authoritative analysis of the Constitution, the Federalist. In the seventieth essay, Publius argues that "energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government" and that "the ingredients which constitute energy in the executive are, first, unity; secondly, duration; thirdly, an adequate provision for its support; fourthly, competent powers." Note that "powers" is only one of four elements that go into making a capable chief executive; the other three features are aspects of the office.
When attempting to understand presidential behavior, commentators will typically overlook this aspect of the Founders' work.[9] As the Federalist makes clear, the goal was to create an institution that would have not only powers, but also the independence and interest in using those powers in a forceful and purposeful way. The Constitution's drafters were not interested in an executive who would sit on his hands; they wanted a president who could check the legislature if need be, give direction to the policymaking process as required, and, most critically, meet unforeseen contingencies and threats to the country's security. While the Constitution does not guarantee that a president will always take the initiative in these areas, it does virtually everything it can to allow, even encourage, a president to do so.
Hence, however much one may agree or disagree with the particular decisions made by Bush in the wake of the attacks of 9/11, his overall behavior is consonant with what the Constitution's framers would have expected from a president facing such a threat. And while Bush began his term with the expectation that America was in a period of "strategic pause" and his own policies would be of a more "humble" sort, as Tocqueville noted, the pull of circumstances necessitated a much different agenda and correspondingly different vision of the powers he needed to exercise.
An Imperial President?
Critics of the Bush presidency tell a different story, of course. They see an administration that has ignored standing law; violated treaty obligations; undermined the most basic of civil liberties; and, on the whole, used its powers to avoid congressional, judicial, and public oversight. And perhaps worst of all, it used its administrative sway over the intelligence community to foster a case for going to war in Iraq that was built on a tissue of lies.
Although the last charge may be the most serious, it is also the one easiest to rebut. The fact is, the Bush administration's case against Saddam--be it the failure to abide by standing United Nations resolutions, continuing to work on banned weapons of mass destruction (WMD), or consorting with known terrorists and terrorist organizations--is virtually identical to the case President Bill Clinton's national security team was publicly and aggressively making in 1998 when it believed it might have to go to war with Iraq. Moreover, whatever the debates within the intelligence community over this or that aspect of Iraq's WMD program, the overwhelming consensus within the community (as well as the intelligence agencies of our major allies) was that he was still engaged in trying to develop those capabilities. And although it turned out to be an inaccurate picture, the main reason for the flawed estimates was Saddam's own efforts to hide the fact that he no longer had such capabilities, believing the deception would serve to deter either Iran or the West from taking military action against him.[10]
As for ignoring the law, the most commonly cited example is the White House's decision to engage in warrantless electronic surveillance, ignoring in the process the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to get a court order before targeting any U.S. citizen for surveillance. Indeed, the White House did ignore that law, believing both in intent and design FISA had "grown dramatically out of date."[11] As more than one commentator has correctly noted, FISA was a law intended to help convict known spies, not prevent terrorist acts.[12]
But the president's case for ignoring the specific law was not built on expediency alone. First, it was by no means a stretch for the administration to argue that when Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution in the aftermath of 9/11, it was providing the president with general war-making authority against al Qaeda and its supporters and that, as such, it also carried with it adjunct powers necessary to fulfill the president's obligation "to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States" as stated in the resolution's preamble. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), for example, the Supreme Court read the AUMF as authorizing not only the use of force, but also powers traditionally thought to be incidental to that broader mandate, of which the collection of intelligence has traditionally been one.
Moreover, as the FISA court itself recognized in a 2002 review, all previous federal appellate courts have "held that the President did have an inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."[13] The Court's view was once Congress's view as well. When Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act in 1968, which detailed among other things the procedures federal law-enforcement authorities had to go through to get a wiretap, the law explicitly stated that nothing in this act "shall limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack."
According to the president's critics, however, Bush upped the imperial ante not only by bypassing standing statutes, but also by violating treaty obligations and in so doing suspending perhaps the most fundamental of constitutional rights, that of the writ of habeas corpus.[14]
In the first instance, the administration is accused of failing to abide by the Third Geneva Convention in its handling of captured al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. That accord, signed by the United States in 1949 and subsequently ratified by the U.S. Senate, sets out in fairly extensive detail how prisoners of war are to be treated. Along with the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs the treatment of civilians during war, and an addendum to the Third Convention, known as Protocol I, which extends prisoner-of-war status to captured guerrilla fighters, the Geneva Accords seem to leave little room for denying fighters and terrorists captured on the battlefield of Afghanistan or inside Pakistan the rights set out under the conventions.
President Ronald Reagan in 1987, however, explicitly rejected submitting Protocol I to the Senate for ratification. In doing so, the administration maintained an older view that there was still a useful distinction to be maintained between soldiers who fought in uniform under a legitimate sovereign authority and those combatants, such as terrorists, who did not. Here the Reagan administration was in step with a prior Supreme Court decision that "unlawful combatants" were "deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war" and as "offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."[15]
Nor was the Bush administration flying against precedent and case law when it set up the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay and created a virtual state of limbo for the detainees. Over the years, in both Republican and Democratic administrations, the base at Guantanamo had been used to house for indefinite periods Haitian and Cuban refugees whom the government intended neither to put on trial nor to allow into the United States. Both the Clinton administration and the earlier Bush administration had used Guantanamo precisely because they believed doing so put the detainees outside the reach of the U.S. courts and, hence, precluded challenges to those detentions by writs of habeas corpus.
Here again, the Bush administration had court precedent on its side. In 1950, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected a habeas appeal by foreign combatants held by American forces outside U.S. sovereign territory. In the majority opinion, Justice Robert Jackson dismissed the appeal (made by German prisoners convicted of war crimes by an American military commission operating abroad) by pointedly noting that there was "no instance where a Court, in this or any other country where the writ is known, has issued [a habeas corpus writ] on behalf of an alien enemy who, at no relevant time and in no stage of his captivity, has been within its territorial jurisdiction. Nothing in the text of the Constitution extends such a right, nor does anything in our statutes."[16]
Even Bush's use of "signing statements"--written pronouncements issued by a president upon signing a bill into law--to announce his intention not to be bound by some feature of the law on constitutional grounds is not an administration invention. Signing statements have been around since the time of James Monroe, although they have come into much wider use during the past four presidencies. It was the Clinton Justice Department that wrote: "If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing."[17]
And while civil libertarians decry (sometimes justifiably) how the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies are employing the new investigative powers granted them by the Patriot Act and other laws, those measures were duly enacted by Congress, and they remain on the books. For all the worries about abuse of power, nothing this administration has done compares with previous executive branch responses to perceived threats on the home front--be it Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, Franklin Roosevelt's mass internment of Japanese immigrants and U.S.-Japanese citizens at the start of World War II, or the so-called Palmer Raids in which Woodrow Wilson's administration rounded up thousands of suspected anarchists and leftists after World War I.
As these last examples suggest, the assertion of presidential power may not always be wise and may well be constitutionally debatable. But it is a virtual certainty that, in times of war or when American security is perceived to be directly threatened, presidents will ignore laws they see as violating their larger constitutional duties to wage war successfully and to protect the homeland. And, in turn, they will use gray or uncharted areas in the law to push their executive powers forward. Given how little prepared the United States was in its laws, institutions, and tools to deal with the global jihadist threat following 9/11, it should come as no surprise that Bush moved as aggressively as he did. Undoubtedly, neither the Constitution's framers nor Tocqueville would have been surprised.
Principle and Prudence: Lessons from the Past
Bush's presidency has not been the imperial presidency its critics claim. Indeed, on the most important issue--going to war, both in Afghanistan and Iraq--he has sought and received congressional approval. Lest we forget, there have been any number of presidents (Harry Truman in Korea and Clinton in Kosovo, to take but two obvious examples) who have gone to war without the sanction of Congress or the traditional justification of using the military to protect American lives or property. And, again, while the president's harshest opponents do not accept the legal and constitutional grounds the administration has put forward to justify his decisions, any objective assessment would conclude that Bush has acted within the general bounds of what the laws and precedents permit.
If there is any kernel of truth to the charge that Bush's presidency has been imperial, it rests with the fact that the Constitution invites presidents, through its broad delegation of "the executive power" and the office's unique institutional features, to be assertive in times of crisis. But if so, then what does it mean to call something "imperial" when it is fueled by the fundamental law of the land itself?
Take, for example, how George Washington handled the first major foreign policy crisis that arose under the new constitution. Fearing that a general war in Europe in 1793 between revolutionary France and the surrounding monarchic powers would inadvertently drag the young (and unprepared) United States into the conflict, Washington issued on his own authority the Neutrality Proclamation. He then followed up the proclamation with decisions and a set of administratively instituted rules intended to enforce it. In doing so, Washington was asserting a prerogative to interpret treaty obligations that involved matters of war and peace and to constrict the behavior and commercial activities of private citizens, all done without the color of any guiding law or consultations with Congress.[18]
Then, of course, there is the example of Lincoln during the country's greatest crisis, the American Civil War. Lincoln, on his own authority and guided by his presidential oath "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution," spent monies never appropriated by Congress, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, created military commissions to try civilians, issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and openly defied the Supreme Court by refusing to abide by Chief Justice Roger Taney's order to uphold the writ in the case of Marylander and Southern sympathizer John Merryman.[19]
It is also useful to note, however, that in time both Washington and Lincoln turned to Congress for its stamp of approval for the actions they had taken in the immediate stages of the crisis each faced. In Washington's case, he waited until Congress was scheduled to come back into session (December 1793)--more than six months after the proclamation's issuance and time enough for his decisions to take hold and allow for the American public's desire to come to France's assistance to cool down. In contrast, Lincoln called Congress back into special session for July 4, 1861, five months before the regularly scheduled session. Yet he did so in mid-April, allowing more than two and a half months for the members to make their way to Washington. "At a time when telegraphs and railroads were common, Congress surely could have been convened sooner. Implicitly obliged to convene Congress to deal with the national crisis, Lincoln used both the independence of his office and the discretion built into the convening authority to give himself a bit more leeway--and thus a bit more power to control the national government's response to the crisis--than would have been the case if Congress had been convened at the earliest possible moment."[20]
With these two examples, we see presidents exercising their authorities to the fullest but in a manner that also seems prudent constitutionally. Yes, the Founders had created a presidency designed to take the lead in such instances and empowered the president with both the authorities and autonomy to do so, but they also set in place a potential check on the president's decisions by creating a system in which Congress or the Supreme Court would play "Monday morning quarterback"--exposing malfeasance when called for; adding or cutting off funds when necessary; passing laws to regularize the exercise of executive discretion without undermining it; and, in the face of truly egregious behavior, being ready to impeach a president. It is a wise president who understands that reality as well.
At some point, it is inevitable that Congress or the Supreme Court will want its say in these critical matters. Reading the Constitution as though it is simply a legal document in which the powers of each branch are distributed in a 100 percent coherent, black-and-white manner, as many a presidential lawyer is wont to argue, is a recipe for problems down the road. The fact is, the broad discretion a president wields in many of these instances will bleed into the rights and authorities of the other branches and, hence, will be seen by them as something to be contested. Moreover, as history shows, having Congress confirm what a president does in times of an emergency is not particularly difficult; nor is it a zero-sum game in which one is simply conceding to Congress the right to define a presidential prerogative. What we remember and cite in the cases of Washington and Lincoln is, after all, not what measures Congress eventually passed, but what actions the two presidents took.
Since the 1970s there has been a good deal of confusion about the appropriate division of powers under the Constitution when it comes to foreign and defense affairs.[21] The Bush White House has been right in principle to push back against the idea that Congress is either its equal in this policy area or that it has the power to define exactly how a president may exercise his authorities. But could it have been more adroit in how it went about making that case? Almost certainly.[22] The cost has been new laws and new Supreme Court decisions that, instead of upholding precedents and authorities friendly to the exercise of presidential power, have begun to curtail them. Whether the issue is one of electronic surveillance, military commissions, due process rights for detainees, or even interrogation techniques, what the president once might have gotten without much compromise has become a partisan issue in which the president is given less discretion. Again, it is understandable why the administration took the positions it did. What is less certain is whether it was prudent to do so.
Gary J. Schmitt is a resident scholar and the director of the Program on Advanced Strategic Studies at AEI.
Full article w/references: http://aei.org/publications/pubID.29190,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
AEI, Tuesday, January 13, 2009
How will President Barack Obama view his powers once in office? Certainly, the majority of his supporters have argued that President George W. Bush abused the office's powers and expect Obama to take a more modest view of his authority. Yet, in times of war, when U.S. security is threatened, presidents typically push their executive powers forward. This is something the Founders surely understood. While Bush could have been more skillful in making the case for his policies and in his dealings with Congress, he did not exceed his authority.
Turn to most any political science book on American government or legal casebook in constitutional law, and the impression one gets is that the U.S. Constitution has largely been a dead letter for some time now. It is dead, scholars argue, either because the document was written so broadly to begin with that it can be interpreted in any way a politician or justice feels is necessary, or because the principles that originally informed the Constitution are so passé that they rightly need to be ignored if the country is to be effectively and democratically governed.
But against this current of thought runs the actual practice of American politics. In particular, one finds that when presidents make decisions in the area of national security that are unpopular or become unpopular, the opposition will turn to the Constitution to decry the president's supposed misuse of his intended powers. Most often, the charge is that the president has become "imperial."[1] Instead of being an agent of the law and confined within the strictures of the Constitution, a president will stand accused of standing above the law and bypassing our system of checks and balances in the mode echoing past royal rule. Most famously, this was the charge leveled at President Richard Nixon (and to a more limited degree his predecessor, Lyndon Johnson) during the Vietnam War years; it has been resurrected to apply to the Bush administration and its handling of the Iraq war and, more generally, the war on terror.[2]
Hence, it turns out that the Constitution is not so dead--at least when it comes to challenging presidents in time of an unpopular war. Although the instinct to challenge the government's use of power by looking to the Constitution is a healthy one, it remains to be seen whether the actual reading of the Constitution is accurate when applied to presidential powers.
Generally speaking, those who see the president as acting in an imperial manner view the presidency as having limited powers and requiring the assent of Congress in some fashion or another before taking action in critical national security matters. The president is a small "e" executive, occupying an office largely designed to carry out the decisions of the other branches of government.
Against this view, however, stands the commentary of perhaps the greatest analyst of the American political system, France's Alexis de Tocqueville. After describing in volume one of Democracy in America the weakness of the presidency at the time he visited the United States in 1830, he commented:
If the executive power is less strong in America than in France, one must attribute the cause of it perhaps more to circumstances than laws. It is principally in relations with foreigners that the executive power of a nation finds occasion to deploy its skill and force. If the life of the Union were constantly threatened, if its great interests were mixed every day with those of other powerful peoples, one would see the executive power grow larger in opinion, through what one would expect from it and what it would execute.[3]
Tocqueville concluded by noting that "the president of the United States possesses almost royal prerogatives, which he has no occasion to make use of, and the rights which, up to now, he can use are very circumscribed: the laws permit him to be strong, circumstances have made him weak."[4]
For Tocqueville, then, the "whiggish" or weak view of the presidency is misleading. In fact, the president's authorities are inherently substantial--needing only the right state of affairs to be drawn out and exercised. In the 1830s, the country was focused on domestic affairs, and, as a result, presidents of the time were in practice less important than Congress. Issues such as tariffs and internal improvements were bound to be fodder for the House and Senate to exercise their unique talents in debating, horse-swapping, and mustering up legislation to codify the consensus they had reached. But looking more deeply than even his American contemporaries, Tocqueville saw in the presidency an office that would become increasingly commanding once the United States rose to the great-power status he believed it would eventually achieve.
What the Framers Had in Mind
At first reading, Tocqueville's understanding of the presidency appears to be at odds with that of the founding generation, who, after all, revolted against what they saw as the British monarchy's despotic use of its powers. And, indeed, concerns about the potential executive abuse of power did lead them to establish a federal government (Articles of Confederation) that had but a single congressional body to handle all its affairs and create a slew of new state governments in which the vast majority made the governor decidedly subordinate to the legislature.
But a decade's worth (1776-87) of unstable governments and ineffective governance led many in that same generation to rethink the utility of a unitary, independent chief executive. Under the Articles, for example, Congress exercised a variety of powers, some clearly legislative in nature and others concerned with directing the new republic's foreign and defense affairs. It was these latter concerns--which they consistently and explicitly described as being "executive" in nature--that in fact took a considerable bulk of the members' time. Here, time and again, they found the lack of an independent, single executive to be debilitating. Negotiations with foreign powers were needlessly prolonged and muddled, there was poor execution of the decisions that they did make, the war effort was complicated by the constant meddling of Congress, and it proved difficult to keep secrets.[5] As a result, by the time the Constitutional Convention met in the spring of 1787, a priority for key members of that founding generation was to establish an executive that could, in the words of Federalist 70, act with "decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch." Unlike the Articles, which had collapsed legislative and executive powers into a single body (Congress), the new constitutional system, based on the separation of powers principle, was intended primarily not to check executive power but actually to free it up.
As noted above, it is a misperception that the founding generation thought that executive power was limited to the administration of a government's laws. Although still working through how exactly to best institutionalize executive power in a republican government, it consistently kept clear the distinction between legislative, executive, and judicial kinds of powers. These powers might overlap in some cases, but, on the whole, when the Founders talked about executive power, they did so in the manner of Locke and Montesquieu, meaning that the holder of that power was concerned not only with the execution of the laws, but also with foreign and defense affairs.[6]
For example, in 1785, when James Madison was asked for his advice about what Kentucky's constitution should look like once the territory became a state, he admitted that he was perplexed when it came to describing the post of governor. The reason he gave is that, other than the responsibility of executing the laws, "all the great powers which are properly executive" had already been "transferred to the federal Government," referring to the contemporary Congress's control of foreign and defense affairs.[7] Similarly, when the delegates to the Constitutional Convention first met, they were presented with an initial outline for the new constitution by the Virginia delegation, the so-called Virginia Plan. Under this plan, the new federal executive was both to "administer" the laws and to exercise the "Executive Rights vested in the Congress" of the Confederation.[8]
Indeed, the real problem facing the Convention was not what constituted executive power, per se, but how to create an executive office that could properly carry out what Madison had called "the great powers" and yet not create a monarch in practice. This is the reason why, when today's constitutional scholars and jurists look to the Convention for guidance on what a particular presidential power might mean, they find little with which to work. The delegates' real focus, on which they spent the vast majority of their time when it came to the presidency, was devising an office that could wield those authorities effectively and responsibly, not defining what those powers were.
For the Founders, the president's list of authorities mattered, but so did the character of office that would exercise them. There was no better example of this "lesson learned" from the period following 1776 than the contrast between the leadership exhibited by the governor of New York and the lack of leadership from Pennsylvania's executive. Although the two executives had a similar list of authorities, the New York governor was considered to be the strongest of the state executives, while Pennsylvania's was judged to be quite weak, if not the weakest. The key difference was that the former was a single executive, elected for a three-year term, with no limits on reelection and limited veto power; meanwhile, the latter was a body of twelve, with rotating membership, no prospects for immediate reelection, and no veto power. New York's governor was the state's unquestionable leader politically, and it was this institutional model that served largely as the basis for the presidency that emerged from the Convention.
The importance of the institutional aspects of the presidency is highlighted by the most authoritative analysis of the Constitution, the Federalist. In the seventieth essay, Publius argues that "energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government" and that "the ingredients which constitute energy in the executive are, first, unity; secondly, duration; thirdly, an adequate provision for its support; fourthly, competent powers." Note that "powers" is only one of four elements that go into making a capable chief executive; the other three features are aspects of the office.
When attempting to understand presidential behavior, commentators will typically overlook this aspect of the Founders' work.[9] As the Federalist makes clear, the goal was to create an institution that would have not only powers, but also the independence and interest in using those powers in a forceful and purposeful way. The Constitution's drafters were not interested in an executive who would sit on his hands; they wanted a president who could check the legislature if need be, give direction to the policymaking process as required, and, most critically, meet unforeseen contingencies and threats to the country's security. While the Constitution does not guarantee that a president will always take the initiative in these areas, it does virtually everything it can to allow, even encourage, a president to do so.
Hence, however much one may agree or disagree with the particular decisions made by Bush in the wake of the attacks of 9/11, his overall behavior is consonant with what the Constitution's framers would have expected from a president facing such a threat. And while Bush began his term with the expectation that America was in a period of "strategic pause" and his own policies would be of a more "humble" sort, as Tocqueville noted, the pull of circumstances necessitated a much different agenda and correspondingly different vision of the powers he needed to exercise.
An Imperial President?
Critics of the Bush presidency tell a different story, of course. They see an administration that has ignored standing law; violated treaty obligations; undermined the most basic of civil liberties; and, on the whole, used its powers to avoid congressional, judicial, and public oversight. And perhaps worst of all, it used its administrative sway over the intelligence community to foster a case for going to war in Iraq that was built on a tissue of lies.
Although the last charge may be the most serious, it is also the one easiest to rebut. The fact is, the Bush administration's case against Saddam--be it the failure to abide by standing United Nations resolutions, continuing to work on banned weapons of mass destruction (WMD), or consorting with known terrorists and terrorist organizations--is virtually identical to the case President Bill Clinton's national security team was publicly and aggressively making in 1998 when it believed it might have to go to war with Iraq. Moreover, whatever the debates within the intelligence community over this or that aspect of Iraq's WMD program, the overwhelming consensus within the community (as well as the intelligence agencies of our major allies) was that he was still engaged in trying to develop those capabilities. And although it turned out to be an inaccurate picture, the main reason for the flawed estimates was Saddam's own efforts to hide the fact that he no longer had such capabilities, believing the deception would serve to deter either Iran or the West from taking military action against him.[10]
As for ignoring the law, the most commonly cited example is the White House's decision to engage in warrantless electronic surveillance, ignoring in the process the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to get a court order before targeting any U.S. citizen for surveillance. Indeed, the White House did ignore that law, believing both in intent and design FISA had "grown dramatically out of date."[11] As more than one commentator has correctly noted, FISA was a law intended to help convict known spies, not prevent terrorist acts.[12]
But the president's case for ignoring the specific law was not built on expediency alone. First, it was by no means a stretch for the administration to argue that when Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution in the aftermath of 9/11, it was providing the president with general war-making authority against al Qaeda and its supporters and that, as such, it also carried with it adjunct powers necessary to fulfill the president's obligation "to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States" as stated in the resolution's preamble. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), for example, the Supreme Court read the AUMF as authorizing not only the use of force, but also powers traditionally thought to be incidental to that broader mandate, of which the collection of intelligence has traditionally been one.
Moreover, as the FISA court itself recognized in a 2002 review, all previous federal appellate courts have "held that the President did have an inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."[13] The Court's view was once Congress's view as well. When Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act in 1968, which detailed among other things the procedures federal law-enforcement authorities had to go through to get a wiretap, the law explicitly stated that nothing in this act "shall limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack."
According to the president's critics, however, Bush upped the imperial ante not only by bypassing standing statutes, but also by violating treaty obligations and in so doing suspending perhaps the most fundamental of constitutional rights, that of the writ of habeas corpus.[14]
In the first instance, the administration is accused of failing to abide by the Third Geneva Convention in its handling of captured al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. That accord, signed by the United States in 1949 and subsequently ratified by the U.S. Senate, sets out in fairly extensive detail how prisoners of war are to be treated. Along with the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs the treatment of civilians during war, and an addendum to the Third Convention, known as Protocol I, which extends prisoner-of-war status to captured guerrilla fighters, the Geneva Accords seem to leave little room for denying fighters and terrorists captured on the battlefield of Afghanistan or inside Pakistan the rights set out under the conventions.
President Ronald Reagan in 1987, however, explicitly rejected submitting Protocol I to the Senate for ratification. In doing so, the administration maintained an older view that there was still a useful distinction to be maintained between soldiers who fought in uniform under a legitimate sovereign authority and those combatants, such as terrorists, who did not. Here the Reagan administration was in step with a prior Supreme Court decision that "unlawful combatants" were "deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war" and as "offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."[15]
Nor was the Bush administration flying against precedent and case law when it set up the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay and created a virtual state of limbo for the detainees. Over the years, in both Republican and Democratic administrations, the base at Guantanamo had been used to house for indefinite periods Haitian and Cuban refugees whom the government intended neither to put on trial nor to allow into the United States. Both the Clinton administration and the earlier Bush administration had used Guantanamo precisely because they believed doing so put the detainees outside the reach of the U.S. courts and, hence, precluded challenges to those detentions by writs of habeas corpus.
Here again, the Bush administration had court precedent on its side. In 1950, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected a habeas appeal by foreign combatants held by American forces outside U.S. sovereign territory. In the majority opinion, Justice Robert Jackson dismissed the appeal (made by German prisoners convicted of war crimes by an American military commission operating abroad) by pointedly noting that there was "no instance where a Court, in this or any other country where the writ is known, has issued [a habeas corpus writ] on behalf of an alien enemy who, at no relevant time and in no stage of his captivity, has been within its territorial jurisdiction. Nothing in the text of the Constitution extends such a right, nor does anything in our statutes."[16]
Even Bush's use of "signing statements"--written pronouncements issued by a president upon signing a bill into law--to announce his intention not to be bound by some feature of the law on constitutional grounds is not an administration invention. Signing statements have been around since the time of James Monroe, although they have come into much wider use during the past four presidencies. It was the Clinton Justice Department that wrote: "If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing."[17]
And while civil libertarians decry (sometimes justifiably) how the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies are employing the new investigative powers granted them by the Patriot Act and other laws, those measures were duly enacted by Congress, and they remain on the books. For all the worries about abuse of power, nothing this administration has done compares with previous executive branch responses to perceived threats on the home front--be it Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, Franklin Roosevelt's mass internment of Japanese immigrants and U.S.-Japanese citizens at the start of World War II, or the so-called Palmer Raids in which Woodrow Wilson's administration rounded up thousands of suspected anarchists and leftists after World War I.
As these last examples suggest, the assertion of presidential power may not always be wise and may well be constitutionally debatable. But it is a virtual certainty that, in times of war or when American security is perceived to be directly threatened, presidents will ignore laws they see as violating their larger constitutional duties to wage war successfully and to protect the homeland. And, in turn, they will use gray or uncharted areas in the law to push their executive powers forward. Given how little prepared the United States was in its laws, institutions, and tools to deal with the global jihadist threat following 9/11, it should come as no surprise that Bush moved as aggressively as he did. Undoubtedly, neither the Constitution's framers nor Tocqueville would have been surprised.
Principle and Prudence: Lessons from the Past
Bush's presidency has not been the imperial presidency its critics claim. Indeed, on the most important issue--going to war, both in Afghanistan and Iraq--he has sought and received congressional approval. Lest we forget, there have been any number of presidents (Harry Truman in Korea and Clinton in Kosovo, to take but two obvious examples) who have gone to war without the sanction of Congress or the traditional justification of using the military to protect American lives or property. And, again, while the president's harshest opponents do not accept the legal and constitutional grounds the administration has put forward to justify his decisions, any objective assessment would conclude that Bush has acted within the general bounds of what the laws and precedents permit.
If there is any kernel of truth to the charge that Bush's presidency has been imperial, it rests with the fact that the Constitution invites presidents, through its broad delegation of "the executive power" and the office's unique institutional features, to be assertive in times of crisis. But if so, then what does it mean to call something "imperial" when it is fueled by the fundamental law of the land itself?
Take, for example, how George Washington handled the first major foreign policy crisis that arose under the new constitution. Fearing that a general war in Europe in 1793 between revolutionary France and the surrounding monarchic powers would inadvertently drag the young (and unprepared) United States into the conflict, Washington issued on his own authority the Neutrality Proclamation. He then followed up the proclamation with decisions and a set of administratively instituted rules intended to enforce it. In doing so, Washington was asserting a prerogative to interpret treaty obligations that involved matters of war and peace and to constrict the behavior and commercial activities of private citizens, all done without the color of any guiding law or consultations with Congress.[18]
Then, of course, there is the example of Lincoln during the country's greatest crisis, the American Civil War. Lincoln, on his own authority and guided by his presidential oath "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution," spent monies never appropriated by Congress, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, created military commissions to try civilians, issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and openly defied the Supreme Court by refusing to abide by Chief Justice Roger Taney's order to uphold the writ in the case of Marylander and Southern sympathizer John Merryman.[19]
It is also useful to note, however, that in time both Washington and Lincoln turned to Congress for its stamp of approval for the actions they had taken in the immediate stages of the crisis each faced. In Washington's case, he waited until Congress was scheduled to come back into session (December 1793)--more than six months after the proclamation's issuance and time enough for his decisions to take hold and allow for the American public's desire to come to France's assistance to cool down. In contrast, Lincoln called Congress back into special session for July 4, 1861, five months before the regularly scheduled session. Yet he did so in mid-April, allowing more than two and a half months for the members to make their way to Washington. "At a time when telegraphs and railroads were common, Congress surely could have been convened sooner. Implicitly obliged to convene Congress to deal with the national crisis, Lincoln used both the independence of his office and the discretion built into the convening authority to give himself a bit more leeway--and thus a bit more power to control the national government's response to the crisis--than would have been the case if Congress had been convened at the earliest possible moment."[20]
With these two examples, we see presidents exercising their authorities to the fullest but in a manner that also seems prudent constitutionally. Yes, the Founders had created a presidency designed to take the lead in such instances and empowered the president with both the authorities and autonomy to do so, but they also set in place a potential check on the president's decisions by creating a system in which Congress or the Supreme Court would play "Monday morning quarterback"--exposing malfeasance when called for; adding or cutting off funds when necessary; passing laws to regularize the exercise of executive discretion without undermining it; and, in the face of truly egregious behavior, being ready to impeach a president. It is a wise president who understands that reality as well.
At some point, it is inevitable that Congress or the Supreme Court will want its say in these critical matters. Reading the Constitution as though it is simply a legal document in which the powers of each branch are distributed in a 100 percent coherent, black-and-white manner, as many a presidential lawyer is wont to argue, is a recipe for problems down the road. The fact is, the broad discretion a president wields in many of these instances will bleed into the rights and authorities of the other branches and, hence, will be seen by them as something to be contested. Moreover, as history shows, having Congress confirm what a president does in times of an emergency is not particularly difficult; nor is it a zero-sum game in which one is simply conceding to Congress the right to define a presidential prerogative. What we remember and cite in the cases of Washington and Lincoln is, after all, not what measures Congress eventually passed, but what actions the two presidents took.
Since the 1970s there has been a good deal of confusion about the appropriate division of powers under the Constitution when it comes to foreign and defense affairs.[21] The Bush White House has been right in principle to push back against the idea that Congress is either its equal in this policy area or that it has the power to define exactly how a president may exercise his authorities. But could it have been more adroit in how it went about making that case? Almost certainly.[22] The cost has been new laws and new Supreme Court decisions that, instead of upholding precedents and authorities friendly to the exercise of presidential power, have begun to curtail them. Whether the issue is one of electronic surveillance, military commissions, due process rights for detainees, or even interrogation techniques, what the president once might have gotten without much compromise has become a partisan issue in which the president is given less discretion. Again, it is understandable why the administration took the positions it did. What is less certain is whether it was prudent to do so.
Gary J. Schmitt is a resident scholar and the director of the Program on Advanced Strategic Studies at AEI.
Full article w/references: http://aei.org/publications/pubID.29190,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
Conservative Views On Reducing Poverty by Revitalizing Marriage in Low-Income Communities
Reducing Poverty by Revitalizing Marriage in Low-Income Communities: A Memo to President-elect Obama. By Robert E. Rector
Heritage, January 13, 2009
Special Report #45
[C]hildren living with single mothers are five times more likely to be poor than children in two-parent households. Children in single-parent homes are also more likely to drop out of school and become teen parents, even when income is factored out. And the evidence suggests that on average, children who live with their biological mother and father do better than those who live in stepfamilies or with cohabiting partners.... In light of these facts, policies that strengthen marriage for those who choose it and that discourage unintended births outside of marriage are sensible goals to pursue.
President-elect Obama, the collapse of marriage is the most important social problem facing the nation. When the War on Poverty began in the 1960s, 7 percent of U.S. children were born outside of marriage. Today, the number is 38 percent. Among blacks, it is 69 percent. You are in a unique position to reverse this alarming trend.
The decline of marriage is a major cause of child poverty. Roughly two-thirds of poor children live in single-parent homes. Marital collapse is also a major contributor to welfare dependence: Each year, government spends over $250 billion for means-tested welfare benefits for single parents.
When compared to similar children raised by two married biological parents, children raised in single-parent homes are more likely to fail in school, abuse drugs or alcohol, commit crimes, become pregnant as teens, and suffer from emotional and behavioral problems. Such children are also more likely to end up on welfare or in jails when they become adults.
Revitalized marriage can have a powerful impact in reducing poverty in low-income communities. For example, if poor women who have children out of wedlock were married to the actual fathers of their children, nearly two-thirds would be lifted out of poverty immediately.[2] Because the decline in marriage is linked to many other social problems, an increase in healthy marriage would to lead to a long-term drop in those problems as well.
Given these facts, policies that strengthen marriage for those who are interested and discourage births outside of marriage are indeed sensible. But the first step in developing such policies must be to look beyond the many misperceptions that cloud the issue. Effective policy must be based on facts.
Fact: Out-of-wedlock childbearing is not the same problem as teen pregnancy. Although 38 percent of children are born outside of marriage, only about one in seven of these non-marital births occurs to a girl under age 18. Most out-of-wedlock births occur to men and women in their early twenties. Half of the women who have children out of wedlock are cohabiting with the father at the time of birth; 75 percent are in a romantic relationship with the father.[3] Policymakers seeking to reduce out-of-wedlock births must look far beyond teen pregnancy.
Fact: Few out-of-wedlock births are accidental. The overwhelming majority of young adult women who have a non-marital birth strongly want to have children. Although they are ambivalent about the best timing, they want and expect to have children at a fairly young age. Most are also interested in marriage, but they do not see marriage or a stable relationship as an important precondition to having a baby. To a significant degree, the decision to have a child outside of marriage is a deliberate choice for these women.
Fact: Lack of access to birth control is not a significant factor contributing to "unintended pregnancy" or non-marital births. A recent survey of low-income women who had had a non-marital pregnancy found that only 1 percent reported that lack of access to birth control played a role in the pregnancy.[4]
Fact: Out-of-wedlock childbearing is concentrated among low-income, less educated men and women. In general, the women most likely to have a child without being married are those who have the least ability to support a family by themselves.
Fact: Although the decline in marriage is most prominent among blacks, it is also a serious problem among Hispanics and lower-income whites: 44 percent of Hispanic children and 25 percent of white children are born outside of marriage.
Fact: Low male wages and employment are not the principal cause of out-of-wedlock childbearing. The overwhelming majority of non-married fathers were employed at the time of the child's birth. Over half earn enough to support a family above the poverty level without the mother working at all.[5] Before the child's birth, the fathers-to-be, on average, earned more than the mothers-to-be. If, as some argue, the fathers were not economically prepared to support a family, the mothers were even less prepared. Other factors such as social norms concerning marriage, life-planning skills, and relationship skills play a far greater role than male wages in promoting out-of-wedlock childbearing.
Fact: Out-of-wedlock childbearing is not the result of a shortage of marriageable males. Nearly 40 percent of all American children, and 69 percent of black children, are born outside of marriage. The sheer magnitude of the problem undercuts the argument that it is caused by a shortage of marriageable men. The decline in marriage in low-income communities stems from changing social norms and from a welfare system that for decades has penalized marriage, not from a lack of millions of marriageable men.
Government should help low-income couples to move toward more prosperous lives by providing such men and women with education that increases their understanding of the strong link between marriage and better life outcomes and that equips them to make critical life decisions concerning childbearing and family formation more wisely.
Paradoxically, most low-income men and women who are likely to have children out of wedlock have favorable attitudes toward marriage: If anything, they tend to over-idealize it. However, many low-income couples do not believe that it is important to form a stable marital relationship before conceiving children and bringing them into the world. They also tend to believe that haphazard cohabiting relationships are likely to endure and flourish when, in reality, this seldom occurs.
Many low-income individuals choose to have children first and then work on finding suitable partners and building strong relationships. They fail to understand that this pattern is not likely to be successful. Most low-income young women, in particular, strongly want children and hope those children will grow up to enter the middle class, but they fail to appreciate the vitally important role a healthy marriage can play in boosting a child's success.
In The Audacity of Hope, you wrote:
You were exactly right. By and large, young low-income men and women aspire to have strong, healthy marriages. They also seek upward social and economic mobility. Marriage education can help at-risk individuals appreciate the role that healthy marriage can have in meeting long-term life goals and can enable them to make decisions about childbearing that best match their life aspirations. These programs can also provide training in life partner selection and in skills that help to build healthy enduring relationships. Such programs should not be regarded as imposing alien middle-class values on the poor, but rather as providing vital tools to help individuals fulfill their real life goals.
You have also written, "most people agree that neither federal welfare programs nor the tax code should penalize married couples."[7] Again, you are right. Given the private and social benefits of marriage, it is absurd for the welfare industry to penalize marriage. Yet that is exactly what welfare does.
Specifically, welfare programs create disincentives to marriage because benefits are reduced as a family's income rises. A mother will receive far more from welfare if she is single than if she has an employed husband in the home. For many low-income couples, marriage means a reduction in government assistance and an overall decline in the couple's joint income. Marriage penalties occur in many means-tested programs such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, day care, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. The welfare system should be overhauled to reduce such counterproductive incentives.
Now is the time for action. You and your Administration, by launching the following specific initiatives, can help to revitalize marriage in America.
Reduce the anti-marriage penalties in welfare. The simplest way to accomplish this would be to increase the value of the earned income tax credit (EITC) for married couples with children; this could offset the anti-marriage penalties existing in other programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid.
Conclusion
More than 40 years ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then a member of the White House staff under President Lyndon Johnson, warned of the impending collapse of the black married family. He predicted the social calamities that this collapse would bring. Moynihan was right, but in subsequent decades, as the problem mushroomed, the nation largely hid its head in the sand and ignored the devastation. In the four decades since Moynihan's warning, the government has done almost nothing to protect or restore marriage.
Today, the collapse of marriage about which Moynihan warned so long ago is escalating rapidly across other racial groups. Forty years of neglect and silence is enough. You now have a unique opportunity and ability to halt this destructive trend and to take the first decisive steps to restore marriage in our society.
Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in the Domestic Policy Studies Department at The Heritage Foundation.
Full article w/references at the original link.
Heritage, January 13, 2009
Special Report #45
[C]hildren living with single mothers are five times more likely to be poor than children in two-parent households. Children in single-parent homes are also more likely to drop out of school and become teen parents, even when income is factored out. And the evidence suggests that on average, children who live with their biological mother and father do better than those who live in stepfamilies or with cohabiting partners.... In light of these facts, policies that strengthen marriage for those who choose it and that discourage unintended births outside of marriage are sensible goals to pursue.
--Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope[1]
President-elect Obama, the collapse of marriage is the most important social problem facing the nation. When the War on Poverty began in the 1960s, 7 percent of U.S. children were born outside of marriage. Today, the number is 38 percent. Among blacks, it is 69 percent. You are in a unique position to reverse this alarming trend.
The decline of marriage is a major cause of child poverty. Roughly two-thirds of poor children live in single-parent homes. Marital collapse is also a major contributor to welfare dependence: Each year, government spends over $250 billion for means-tested welfare benefits for single parents.
When compared to similar children raised by two married biological parents, children raised in single-parent homes are more likely to fail in school, abuse drugs or alcohol, commit crimes, become pregnant as teens, and suffer from emotional and behavioral problems. Such children are also more likely to end up on welfare or in jails when they become adults.
Revitalized marriage can have a powerful impact in reducing poverty in low-income communities. For example, if poor women who have children out of wedlock were married to the actual fathers of their children, nearly two-thirds would be lifted out of poverty immediately.[2] Because the decline in marriage is linked to many other social problems, an increase in healthy marriage would to lead to a long-term drop in those problems as well.
Given these facts, policies that strengthen marriage for those who are interested and discourage births outside of marriage are indeed sensible. But the first step in developing such policies must be to look beyond the many misperceptions that cloud the issue. Effective policy must be based on facts.
Fact: Out-of-wedlock childbearing is not the same problem as teen pregnancy. Although 38 percent of children are born outside of marriage, only about one in seven of these non-marital births occurs to a girl under age 18. Most out-of-wedlock births occur to men and women in their early twenties. Half of the women who have children out of wedlock are cohabiting with the father at the time of birth; 75 percent are in a romantic relationship with the father.[3] Policymakers seeking to reduce out-of-wedlock births must look far beyond teen pregnancy.
Fact: Few out-of-wedlock births are accidental. The overwhelming majority of young adult women who have a non-marital birth strongly want to have children. Although they are ambivalent about the best timing, they want and expect to have children at a fairly young age. Most are also interested in marriage, but they do not see marriage or a stable relationship as an important precondition to having a baby. To a significant degree, the decision to have a child outside of marriage is a deliberate choice for these women.
Fact: Lack of access to birth control is not a significant factor contributing to "unintended pregnancy" or non-marital births. A recent survey of low-income women who had had a non-marital pregnancy found that only 1 percent reported that lack of access to birth control played a role in the pregnancy.[4]
Fact: Out-of-wedlock childbearing is concentrated among low-income, less educated men and women. In general, the women most likely to have a child without being married are those who have the least ability to support a family by themselves.
Fact: Although the decline in marriage is most prominent among blacks, it is also a serious problem among Hispanics and lower-income whites: 44 percent of Hispanic children and 25 percent of white children are born outside of marriage.
Fact: Low male wages and employment are not the principal cause of out-of-wedlock childbearing. The overwhelming majority of non-married fathers were employed at the time of the child's birth. Over half earn enough to support a family above the poverty level without the mother working at all.[5] Before the child's birth, the fathers-to-be, on average, earned more than the mothers-to-be. If, as some argue, the fathers were not economically prepared to support a family, the mothers were even less prepared. Other factors such as social norms concerning marriage, life-planning skills, and relationship skills play a far greater role than male wages in promoting out-of-wedlock childbearing.
Fact: Out-of-wedlock childbearing is not the result of a shortage of marriageable males. Nearly 40 percent of all American children, and 69 percent of black children, are born outside of marriage. The sheer magnitude of the problem undercuts the argument that it is caused by a shortage of marriageable men. The decline in marriage in low-income communities stems from changing social norms and from a welfare system that for decades has penalized marriage, not from a lack of millions of marriageable men.
Government should help low-income couples to move toward more prosperous lives by providing such men and women with education that increases their understanding of the strong link between marriage and better life outcomes and that equips them to make critical life decisions concerning childbearing and family formation more wisely.
Paradoxically, most low-income men and women who are likely to have children out of wedlock have favorable attitudes toward marriage: If anything, they tend to over-idealize it. However, many low-income couples do not believe that it is important to form a stable marital relationship before conceiving children and bringing them into the world. They also tend to believe that haphazard cohabiting relationships are likely to endure and flourish when, in reality, this seldom occurs.
Many low-income individuals choose to have children first and then work on finding suitable partners and building strong relationships. They fail to understand that this pattern is not likely to be successful. Most low-income young women, in particular, strongly want children and hope those children will grow up to enter the middle class, but they fail to appreciate the vitally important role a healthy marriage can play in boosting a child's success.
In The Audacity of Hope, you wrote:
[R]esearch shows that marriage education workshops can make a real difference in helping married couples stay together and in encouraging unmarried couples who are living together to form a more lasting bond. Expanding access to such services to low-income couples, perhaps in concert with job training and placement, medical coverage, and other services already available, should be something everybody can agree on.[6]
You were exactly right. By and large, young low-income men and women aspire to have strong, healthy marriages. They also seek upward social and economic mobility. Marriage education can help at-risk individuals appreciate the role that healthy marriage can have in meeting long-term life goals and can enable them to make decisions about childbearing that best match their life aspirations. These programs can also provide training in life partner selection and in skills that help to build healthy enduring relationships. Such programs should not be regarded as imposing alien middle-class values on the poor, but rather as providing vital tools to help individuals fulfill their real life goals.
You have also written, "most people agree that neither federal welfare programs nor the tax code should penalize married couples."[7] Again, you are right. Given the private and social benefits of marriage, it is absurd for the welfare industry to penalize marriage. Yet that is exactly what welfare does.
Specifically, welfare programs create disincentives to marriage because benefits are reduced as a family's income rises. A mother will receive far more from welfare if she is single than if she has an employed husband in the home. For many low-income couples, marriage means a reduction in government assistance and an overall decline in the couple's joint income. Marriage penalties occur in many means-tested programs such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, day care, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. The welfare system should be overhauled to reduce such counterproductive incentives.
Now is the time for action. You and your Administration, by launching the following specific initiatives, can help to revitalize marriage in America.
- Recognize that the key to arresting the decline of marriage in the U.S. is moral leadership. Use the White House bully pulpit to reaffirm the value and importance of marriage. You are uniquely suited to this task. Your strong personal affirmation of values will prove critical in transforming anti-marriage norms and in promoting a long-overdue renewal of marriage in low-income communities.
- Use the bully pulpit to emphasize the historical importance of marriage within the black community. Remind the nation that even at the height of Jim Crow segregation prior to World War II, nine out of ten black children were born to married couples. Warn the nation that the same decline in marriage that afflicted black communities a generation ago is now battering low- and moderate-income white communities.
- Encourage public advertising campaigns on the importance of marriage that are targeted to low-income communities.
- Provide marriage education programs in high schools with a high proportion of at-risk youth. Most low-income girls strongly desire to have children. They also wish and intend to be good mothers. These young women will be very receptive to information that shows the positive effects of marriage on long-term child outcomes. Such education could be funded under the current "healthy marriage initiative" program at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
- Make voluntary marriage education widely available to interested couples in low-income communities. This could be done by expanding the small "healthy marriage initiative" currently operating in HHS. These programs may also provide job training to participants, but that should not be their primary emphasis.
- Provide marriage education referrals in Title X birth control clinics. Government- funded Title X clinics operate in nearly every county in the U.S., providing free or subsidized birth control to over 4 million low-income adult women each year. Many clients of these clinics go on to have children out of wedlock within a short period. With 38 percent of children born outside of marriage, it is obvious that a policy of merely promoting birth control is highly ineffective in stemming the rise of non-marital births. In addition to providing birth control, Title X clinics should be required to offer referrals to education in relationships, marriage, and life-planning skills to clients who are interested.
Reduce the anti-marriage penalties in welfare. The simplest way to accomplish this would be to increase the value of the earned income tax credit (EITC) for married couples with children; this could offset the anti-marriage penalties existing in other programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid.
Conclusion
More than 40 years ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then a member of the White House staff under President Lyndon Johnson, warned of the impending collapse of the black married family. He predicted the social calamities that this collapse would bring. Moynihan was right, but in subsequent decades, as the problem mushroomed, the nation largely hid its head in the sand and ignored the devastation. In the four decades since Moynihan's warning, the government has done almost nothing to protect or restore marriage.
Today, the collapse of marriage about which Moynihan warned so long ago is escalating rapidly across other racial groups. Forty years of neglect and silence is enough. You now have a unique opportunity and ability to halt this destructive trend and to take the first decisive steps to restore marriage in our society.
Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in the Domestic Policy Studies Department at The Heritage Foundation.
Full article w/references at the original link.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Rent-a-friend in Japan
Rent-a-friend in Japan. By Duncan Bartlett
BBC, Monday, January 12, 2009, at 08:46 GMT
Excerpts:
[...]
Lola - or Rora - to give her a slightly more Japanese pronunciation - is a beauty and she knows it.
Customers pay by the hour for her company. Usually they just want to stroke her, but as a special treat for favoured clients, she will lie back in a chair, close her eyes and pose for photographs.
Lola is a Persian cat who works at the Ja La La Cafe in Tokyo's bustling Akihabara district. It is one of a growing number of Cat Cafes in the city which provide visitors with short but intimate encounters with professional pets.
When I called, there were 12 felines and seven customers, mostly single men.
One man, in his early 30s, was attempting to bond with an Oriental Longhair by means of a rubber mouse.
Yutsuke, who speaks with a lisp, is normally rather shy with people. He longs for a cat of his own but frequent business trips make that difficult. Besides, he lives alone, so the Ja La La is his solution to the problem.
The right pet
It costs about £8 ($10) an hour to spend time in a Cat Cafe.
If felines do not appeal, other establishments will rent you a rabbit, a ferret or even a beetle.
There are more than 150 companies in Tokyo which are licensed to hire out animals of various kinds and although beetles may be cheap, dogs are much more popular.
First you pay a deposit and a hire fee. Then you are issued with a leash, some tissues and a plastic bag and given some advice on how to handle your new friend.
Kaori is a pretty waitress who regularly spends her Sunday afternoons with a Labrador. They go for a walk in the park if the weather is fine, or if it is wet they just snuggle up in front of the TV in her apartment.
"When I look into his eyes, I think he's my dog," Kaori told me. "But when I take him back to the shop, he runs away from me and starts wagging his tail when he sees the next customer. That's when I know he's only a rental dog."
Every need considered
Of course, it is not only animals whose loyalties can be decided by money, as people who work in Japan's vast entertainment business will testify.
The industry offers an enormous variety of opportunities to exchange money for company.
Very popular at the moment is the Campus Cafe, where men go to socialise with female university students. It is cheaper than the upscale hostess clubs in which businessmen and politicians drink whisky with women in kimonos, although that is a business which is in crisis because of the recession.
[...]
One specialist agency is known as Hagemashi Tai, which translates as I Want To Cheer Up Limited. It rents relatives.
Actors are despatched to play the part of distant relations at weddings and funerals. For an extra fee, they will even give a speech.
But the firm's services do not stop there. It can also provide temporary husbands to single mothers who want them.
The website says the "dad" will help the children with their homework. He will sort out problems with the neighbours.
He will take the kids to a barbeque or to a park. He could also appear at the daunting interview with a nursery school head teacher which parents are required to endure in order to persuade the principal to give their child a good start in life.
Cry for help
There is a service for women who are about to wed too. Apparently, they can practise for married life with a hired husband, although whether this involves seduction or sock washing is not exactly clear.
And if things are not working out with a real husband, a woman considering a divorce may choose to hire a "mother" in order to discuss her marital anxieties.
Mr M O from Shizuoka near Mount Fuji called upon the services of I Want To Cheer Up Ltd because he needed a father.
Mr M O has been blind since birth and had a number of concerns that he felt he could not speak to others about.
"I kept it all inside and couldn't deal with the criticisms that had been directed at me by my parents and teachers," he testified.
After some discussion, the company sent an older man to have dinner with him. "Usually I can't open up when I meet someone for the first time but on that occasion, I felt I was really talking with a normal father. I'll use the service again," he said.
Loneliness is a problem faced by many people on these crowded islands. But the Japanese are prone to believe that, in the right circumstances, money can turn a stranger into a friend... at least for a couple of hours.
Check the article at BBC's site.
h/t: Tyler Cowen, Marginal Revolution
BBC, Monday, January 12, 2009, at 08:46 GMT
Excerpts:
[...]
Lola - or Rora - to give her a slightly more Japanese pronunciation - is a beauty and she knows it.
Customers pay by the hour for her company. Usually they just want to stroke her, but as a special treat for favoured clients, she will lie back in a chair, close her eyes and pose for photographs.
Lola is a Persian cat who works at the Ja La La Cafe in Tokyo's bustling Akihabara district. It is one of a growing number of Cat Cafes in the city which provide visitors with short but intimate encounters with professional pets.
When I called, there were 12 felines and seven customers, mostly single men.
One man, in his early 30s, was attempting to bond with an Oriental Longhair by means of a rubber mouse.
Yutsuke, who speaks with a lisp, is normally rather shy with people. He longs for a cat of his own but frequent business trips make that difficult. Besides, he lives alone, so the Ja La La is his solution to the problem.
The right pet
It costs about £8 ($10) an hour to spend time in a Cat Cafe.
If felines do not appeal, other establishments will rent you a rabbit, a ferret or even a beetle.
There are more than 150 companies in Tokyo which are licensed to hire out animals of various kinds and although beetles may be cheap, dogs are much more popular.
First you pay a deposit and a hire fee. Then you are issued with a leash, some tissues and a plastic bag and given some advice on how to handle your new friend.
Kaori is a pretty waitress who regularly spends her Sunday afternoons with a Labrador. They go for a walk in the park if the weather is fine, or if it is wet they just snuggle up in front of the TV in her apartment.
"When I look into his eyes, I think he's my dog," Kaori told me. "But when I take him back to the shop, he runs away from me and starts wagging his tail when he sees the next customer. That's when I know he's only a rental dog."
Every need considered
Of course, it is not only animals whose loyalties can be decided by money, as people who work in Japan's vast entertainment business will testify.
The industry offers an enormous variety of opportunities to exchange money for company.
Very popular at the moment is the Campus Cafe, where men go to socialise with female university students. It is cheaper than the upscale hostess clubs in which businessmen and politicians drink whisky with women in kimonos, although that is a business which is in crisis because of the recession.
[...]
One specialist agency is known as Hagemashi Tai, which translates as I Want To Cheer Up Limited. It rents relatives.
Actors are despatched to play the part of distant relations at weddings and funerals. For an extra fee, they will even give a speech.
But the firm's services do not stop there. It can also provide temporary husbands to single mothers who want them.
The website says the "dad" will help the children with their homework. He will sort out problems with the neighbours.
He will take the kids to a barbeque or to a park. He could also appear at the daunting interview with a nursery school head teacher which parents are required to endure in order to persuade the principal to give their child a good start in life.
Cry for help
There is a service for women who are about to wed too. Apparently, they can practise for married life with a hired husband, although whether this involves seduction or sock washing is not exactly clear.
And if things are not working out with a real husband, a woman considering a divorce may choose to hire a "mother" in order to discuss her marital anxieties.
Mr M O from Shizuoka near Mount Fuji called upon the services of I Want To Cheer Up Ltd because he needed a father.
Mr M O has been blind since birth and had a number of concerns that he felt he could not speak to others about.
"I kept it all inside and couldn't deal with the criticisms that had been directed at me by my parents and teachers," he testified.
After some discussion, the company sent an older man to have dinner with him. "Usually I can't open up when I meet someone for the first time but on that occasion, I felt I was really talking with a normal father. I'll use the service again," he said.
Loneliness is a problem faced by many people on these crowded islands. But the Japanese are prone to believe that, in the right circumstances, money can turn a stranger into a friend... at least for a couple of hours.
Check the article at BBC's site.
h/t: Tyler Cowen, Marginal Revolution
Potential Harm to Economy and Job Losses of Green Jobs Plan
Green Lantern: New Study Shines Bright Light on Potential Harm to Economy and Job Losses of Obama’s Green Jobs Plan
IER experts Michaels and Murphy find “green jobs” plan would cost our country jobs, increase price Americans pay for their energy
Washington, DC – One week away from inaugurating a new president, a comprehensive new study authored by the Institute for Energy Research (IER) confronts, explains, and methodically refutes the increasingly popular notion that government-directed efforts to create millions of “green jobs” can cure our nation of its economic ills.
In Green Jobs: Fact or Fiction?, IER senior fellow Robert Michaels and economist Robert Murphy consider the conclusions of four recent analyses on the subject – all of which project a clear, unconditional economic windfall from diverting billions in taxpayer resources to commissioning jobs that, by their very definition, cannot withstand the rigors of the marketplace.
Drs. Michaels and Murphy dissect the assumptions at the center of those findings, and eventually conclude that a massive government program aimed at creating “green jobs” – at the exclusion of all others – would result in a net loss in U.S. employment opportunities, a sizeable increase in the price Americans pay for their energy, and a deepening and continuation of our current economic condition.
IER president Thomas J. Pyle issued the following statement:
Among the key findings of Green Jobs: Fact or Fiction?:
IER experts Michaels and Murphy find “green jobs” plan would cost our country jobs, increase price Americans pay for their energy
Washington, DC – One week away from inaugurating a new president, a comprehensive new study authored by the Institute for Energy Research (IER) confronts, explains, and methodically refutes the increasingly popular notion that government-directed efforts to create millions of “green jobs” can cure our nation of its economic ills.
In Green Jobs: Fact or Fiction?, IER senior fellow Robert Michaels and economist Robert Murphy consider the conclusions of four recent analyses on the subject – all of which project a clear, unconditional economic windfall from diverting billions in taxpayer resources to commissioning jobs that, by their very definition, cannot withstand the rigors of the marketplace.
Drs. Michaels and Murphy dissect the assumptions at the center of those findings, and eventually conclude that a massive government program aimed at creating “green jobs” – at the exclusion of all others – would result in a net loss in U.S. employment opportunities, a sizeable increase in the price Americans pay for their energy, and a deepening and continuation of our current economic condition.
IER president Thomas J. Pyle issued the following statement:
“With the release of this study, it’s our sincere hope that a rational discussion on the merits of the president-elect’s ‘green jobs’ plan can finally begin in earnest. Such a plan, according to this analysis, would result in a net loss in U.S. jobs, a net increase in the price consumers pay for energy, and a further protraction and deepening of our current economic downturn.
“With an economy in peril and millions of Americans out of work, it stands to reason that any plan that promises to create millions of new jobs would be welcome news to the American people. But before we fundamentally restructure our economy, and turn over to the federal government unprecedented authority over its day-to-day operations, we ought to decide whether the supposed cure to what ails our economy is worse than the actual disease itself. This study takes the first meaningful step toward answering that question. We hope others follow.”
Among the key findings of Green Jobs: Fact or Fiction?:
- “[Obama’s green jobs plan] would likely increase consumer energy costs and the costs of a wide array of energy-intensive goods, slow GDP growth and ironically may yield no net job gains. More likely, [it] would result in net job losses.”
- “Although each report [in defense of ‘green jobs’] is unique, a common characteristic is that they all rest on incomplete economic analysis, and consequently greatly overstate the net benefits of their policy recommendations.”
- “[The Center for American Progress] estimates that this “fiscal stimulus” will result in the creation of two million jobs. Yet the CAP methodology treats the $100 billion as manna from heaven; it does not consider the direct and indirect adverse effects (including job destruction) of imposing higher costs on a wide array of energy-intensive industries and thereby raising prices for consumers.”
- “The government doesn’t create wealth simply by taking $100 billion from one group of firms and handing it over to a different group …”
- “After broadly defining the renewable industry, the Council of Mayors study goes on to paint a picture of expanding markets that can only grow further. In reality, with the single exception of wind, U.S. power production from renewables has stagnated for the past fifteen years.”
Why Democrats Ignore Pro-Palestinian Activists
Why Congress Ignores Pro-Palestinian Activists, by Eric Trager
Contentions/Commentary Blog, Jan 13, 2009 - 7:45 AM
Juan Cole has a typically conspiratorial theory for explaining why congressmen have ignored the pro-Palestinian marches that occurred in a handful of American cities this past weekend:
Indeed, maybe congressmen ignore pro-Palestinian rallies because the ANSWER Coalition - an offshoot of the communist World Workers Party (WWP) - organizes them. Maybe congressmen know that the WWP - a longtime supporter of Fidel Castro and Kim Jong-Il - actively protested Slobodan Milosevic’s war crimes tribunal, and therefore feel uncomfortable associating with it.
Or, maybe congressmen stay away because these rallies are just as anti-American as they are pro-Palestinian, with banners declaring the U.S. “racist” and “terrorist.” Or maybe it’s because congressmen don’t want to march with protesters who cover their faces, which is something that only truly nefarious groups do in this country. Or maybe it’s because congressmen don’t want to be around people who burn flags; haul mock coffins; splatter clotheslines of baby t-shirts with fake blood; and never - never - advocate for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Of course, these issues are just the tip of the iceberg. But, if pro-Palestinian activists really want to know why their cries fall on deaf ears in Washington, they should start by looking in the mirror. Politicians are, after all, deeply image-conscious: they are unlikely to march alongside people who appear immoderate, and certainly won’t give much weight to rallies that communist-affiliated groups organize. It’s strange that Juan Cole - who claims political expertise with his regular treatises on the remarkable influence of “Likudniks” - doesn’t recognize this most basic political reality.
(By the way, the images of pro-Palestinian activists that I linked to in this post were from the recent demonstration in San Francisco.)
Contentions/Commentary Blog, Jan 13, 2009 - 7:45 AM
Juan Cole has a typically conspiratorial theory for explaining why congressmen have ignored the pro-Palestinian marches that occurred in a handful of American cities this past weekend:
The US Senate and the US House of Representatives are not afraid of street protests in San Francisco. And why should they be? What sort of threat is it to them, that we say if they don’t change their legislation we will . . . walk in the street? Their response would be, ‘Make sure you have comfortable shoes; now, I have to see this nice lobbyist in my office in a thousand dollar suit and alligator shoes who has an enormous check for my current political campaign.’Well, I have an alternative to Cole’s thesis: maybe it’s not the slimy pro-Israel lobbyists - who are so rich that they practically wear money - that pro-Palestinian activists should blame for not being heard. Rather, maybe the problem is the pro-Palestinian activists themselves.
Indeed, maybe congressmen ignore pro-Palestinian rallies because the ANSWER Coalition - an offshoot of the communist World Workers Party (WWP) - organizes them. Maybe congressmen know that the WWP - a longtime supporter of Fidel Castro and Kim Jong-Il - actively protested Slobodan Milosevic’s war crimes tribunal, and therefore feel uncomfortable associating with it.
Or, maybe congressmen stay away because these rallies are just as anti-American as they are pro-Palestinian, with banners declaring the U.S. “racist” and “terrorist.” Or maybe it’s because congressmen don’t want to march with protesters who cover their faces, which is something that only truly nefarious groups do in this country. Or maybe it’s because congressmen don’t want to be around people who burn flags; haul mock coffins; splatter clotheslines of baby t-shirts with fake blood; and never - never - advocate for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Of course, these issues are just the tip of the iceberg. But, if pro-Palestinian activists really want to know why their cries fall on deaf ears in Washington, they should start by looking in the mirror. Politicians are, after all, deeply image-conscious: they are unlikely to march alongside people who appear immoderate, and certainly won’t give much weight to rallies that communist-affiliated groups organize. It’s strange that Juan Cole - who claims political expertise with his regular treatises on the remarkable influence of “Likudniks” - doesn’t recognize this most basic political reality.
(By the way, the images of pro-Palestinian activists that I linked to in this post were from the recent demonstration in San Francisco.)
Towards a Biden-Putin Commission
Towards a Biden-Putin Commission, by Boris Mamlyuk
Huffington Post, January 13, 2009 06:18 AM (EST)
Excerpts:
[...]
The importance of improving U.S./Russia relations cannot be understated. While there are reasons to be mistrustful of political developments in Russia, most commentators agree that Russia and the U.S. have vested interests in avoiding further antagonism. For this reason, the U.S. has maintained public dialogue with Russia open even in moments of crisis. For instance, on the heels of Russia's Georgia war, top U.S. brass met with Russian generals to discuss security and related issues. Even in an election cycle which saw the Georgia war politicized, and under an administration which had little to lose by further alienating Russia, pragmatism trumped politics.
What form should U.S./Russia cooperation take in the Obama administration? And what is in it for Russia? I agree with several other commentators (and here, Lord Boyce speaking before the Select Committee on the EU at the House of Lords) that America can boost its lagging relations with Russia by reestablishing the famous Gore-Chernomyrdin talks in the form of a Biden-Putin Commission. A Biden-Putin Commission has several advantages over the current form of dialogue.
First, a Biden-Putin Commission would serve as a perfect opening chapter for Obama's campaign blueprint of engaging adversaries while aggressively defending American interests. America has always had vibrant diplomatic relations with Russia--from the 1930s with American Ambassador Joseph Davies, to the height of the Cold War, and throughout the transition period. High-level talks are old hat for U.S. and Russia; they carry none of the political baggage Obama faced when discussing diplomatic talks with adversaries such as Iran without preconditions on the campaign trail. If successful, Biden-Putin talks can thus serve as a roadmap for future dialogue with other nations. Second, the commission has the potential to actually change substantive policy. Russia's influence in the aforementioned areas of cooperation is significant; America does need Russian help, especially with Iran and arms sales. Russia on the other hand needs America to recognize it as a rational partner and to reincorporate it into the global community (read: to reverse the capital flight after the Georgia war and to resume the WTO accession process). More fundamentally, Russia (hard hit by the financial crisis, despite denying the damage) needs America to acknowledge it as an equal partner. This alone gives the new administration much leverage.
The commission would also arguably deflate Putin and Medvedev's recent wave of anti-American rhetoric. From Putin's point of view, this may militate against the commission. As noted by Russian historian Boris Kagarlitsky here and elsewhere, Bush's ambivalence towards Russia has played into Putin's hand domestically. How will Putin view Biden, and will he agree to the talks? Russians know Biden as a staunch but reasonable Russia critic. Biden's rhetoric on Russia gives Putin a sufficient measure of protection at home. With Bush gone and a new negotiator across the table, Putin loses no face in participating in the talks and revisiting anew many of the thorny issues of the past eight years. Still, is there sufficient pressure on Russia to participate?
As Stephen Sestanovich of the Council on Foreign Relations notes, Russia will emerge from the current financial crisis weaker and more inclined to work with the West:
For instance, by June 1995, the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission also encompassed America's efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring weapons from Russia; despite agreements with the U.S., Russia continued selling weapons and nuclear technology to Iran. Critics also argued that the high-profile commission detracted from established low-level diplomatic efforts, stifling conventional channels of negotiation. When the commission was effectively dissolved in 1998 with Chernomyrdin's dismissal by Yeltsin, few could point to actual policy achievements. The Biden-Putin Commission can be successful and avoid these pitfalls of its predecessor.
To begin with, Putin is no Chernomyrdin. Next, even among the critics of the prior commission, few doubted the efficacy of regular face-to-face meetings in establishing goodwill and garnering popular support for U.S./Russia cooperation. If nothing else, the goodwill manifested itself in greater business ties between the two former foes. The U.S. led the world in foreign direct investment in Russia and the CIS states in the 1990s. If nothing else, the Biden-Putin Commission can discharge the pent-up anger and distrust on both sides, galvanize popular opinion towards cooperation, and renew investment in Russia.
Huffington Post, January 13, 2009 06:18 AM (EST)
Excerpts:
[...]
The importance of improving U.S./Russia relations cannot be understated. While there are reasons to be mistrustful of political developments in Russia, most commentators agree that Russia and the U.S. have vested interests in avoiding further antagonism. For this reason, the U.S. has maintained public dialogue with Russia open even in moments of crisis. For instance, on the heels of Russia's Georgia war, top U.S. brass met with Russian generals to discuss security and related issues. Even in an election cycle which saw the Georgia war politicized, and under an administration which had little to lose by further alienating Russia, pragmatism trumped politics.
What form should U.S./Russia cooperation take in the Obama administration? And what is in it for Russia? I agree with several other commentators (and here, Lord Boyce speaking before the Select Committee on the EU at the House of Lords) that America can boost its lagging relations with Russia by reestablishing the famous Gore-Chernomyrdin talks in the form of a Biden-Putin Commission. A Biden-Putin Commission has several advantages over the current form of dialogue.
First, a Biden-Putin Commission would serve as a perfect opening chapter for Obama's campaign blueprint of engaging adversaries while aggressively defending American interests. America has always had vibrant diplomatic relations with Russia--from the 1930s with American Ambassador Joseph Davies, to the height of the Cold War, and throughout the transition period. High-level talks are old hat for U.S. and Russia; they carry none of the political baggage Obama faced when discussing diplomatic talks with adversaries such as Iran without preconditions on the campaign trail. If successful, Biden-Putin talks can thus serve as a roadmap for future dialogue with other nations. Second, the commission has the potential to actually change substantive policy. Russia's influence in the aforementioned areas of cooperation is significant; America does need Russian help, especially with Iran and arms sales. Russia on the other hand needs America to recognize it as a rational partner and to reincorporate it into the global community (read: to reverse the capital flight after the Georgia war and to resume the WTO accession process). More fundamentally, Russia (hard hit by the financial crisis, despite denying the damage) needs America to acknowledge it as an equal partner. This alone gives the new administration much leverage.
The commission would also arguably deflate Putin and Medvedev's recent wave of anti-American rhetoric. From Putin's point of view, this may militate against the commission. As noted by Russian historian Boris Kagarlitsky here and elsewhere, Bush's ambivalence towards Russia has played into Putin's hand domestically. How will Putin view Biden, and will he agree to the talks? Russians know Biden as a staunch but reasonable Russia critic. Biden's rhetoric on Russia gives Putin a sufficient measure of protection at home. With Bush gone and a new negotiator across the table, Putin loses no face in participating in the talks and revisiting anew many of the thorny issues of the past eight years. Still, is there sufficient pressure on Russia to participate?
As Stephen Sestanovich of the Council on Foreign Relations notes, Russia will emerge from the current financial crisis weaker and more inclined to work with the West:
Many Russian commentators have said that if the goal is to keep a hard-hit Russian economy in the international mainstream, adjustments in Russian foreign policy are likely to follow as well. They do not predict a complete change of direction, but a less confrontational, less ideological, more prudent, more resource-constrained approach to relations with the West. The need for such adjustments is particularly obvious where resources are concerned.Russia's desire to be treated as an equal in the global economy, to gain a seat at Obama's proverbial table, presents an opportunity not seen since the collapse of the USSR. The prospect for a new Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission to support cooperation in the areas of space, energy, high-tech, business development, defense, the environment and the like dwarfs any other prospective development between the U.S. and Russia. Yet it is not without critics.
For instance, by June 1995, the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission also encompassed America's efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring weapons from Russia; despite agreements with the U.S., Russia continued selling weapons and nuclear technology to Iran. Critics also argued that the high-profile commission detracted from established low-level diplomatic efforts, stifling conventional channels of negotiation. When the commission was effectively dissolved in 1998 with Chernomyrdin's dismissal by Yeltsin, few could point to actual policy achievements. The Biden-Putin Commission can be successful and avoid these pitfalls of its predecessor.
To begin with, Putin is no Chernomyrdin. Next, even among the critics of the prior commission, few doubted the efficacy of regular face-to-face meetings in establishing goodwill and garnering popular support for U.S./Russia cooperation. If nothing else, the goodwill manifested itself in greater business ties between the two former foes. The U.S. led the world in foreign direct investment in Russia and the CIS states in the 1990s. If nothing else, the Biden-Putin Commission can discharge the pent-up anger and distrust on both sides, galvanize popular opinion towards cooperation, and renew investment in Russia.
The Chinese Navy sets sail for Somalia
Red Tide, by Michael Auslin
The Chinese Navy sets sail for Somalia
Jan 13, 2009 @12:00:00 AM
Just after Christmas, two Chinese destroyers and a supply ship left their base in southern China to make the long voyage to Somalia, there to protect Chinese-flagged vessels from pirate attacks. Headed by a Rear Admiral, the PLA Navy flotilla marks the first overseas maritime deployment by China since the 1500s. It also marks a new era in Chinese security activity outside its borders. The Obama administration and America's allies must now take into account China's ability to protect its overseas interests. This may fundamentally change U.S. maritime strategy in the coming years.
The Chinese decided to act after several of their ships were attacked and held for ransom, a fate shared by more than 40 vessels last year that entered the pirate infested waters around Somalia and the Gulf of Aden. Since last week, the Chinese have escorted at least seven ships from Hong Kong and the mainland, and have received requests to aid over a dozen more.
The real reason the PLA Navy's flag now flies off the Arabian peninsula is the continuing failure of the international community to engage and effectively respond to the pirate attacks in that region. After a year of attacks, only in the past few weeks have European navies actually begun to confront the threat there to shipping, it was only in December that the United Nations passed a Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against pirates operating at sea and on land, if necessary. Yet it has all been too little too late, and now the Chinese navy is taking its place beside the American, Indian, and Russian navies as a major regional player.
Beijing has promised that its mission will abide by U.N. guidelines, but also said that its vessels will stay as long as necessary to protect Chinese ships. The mission therefore provides the Chinese with an unparalleled opportunity to gain experience in long-term, overseas deployments, as well as numerous chances to learn from more tested, better equipped navies already operating in the Gulf.
On the face of it, that should be nothing to worry about. However, the naval deployment must also be seen in light of China's steady expansion of maritime interests in Asia, including the so-called "string of pearls": a network of bases, ports, and other facilities stretching from the East China Sea all the way to the Arabian Sea.
Whether it be the Gwadar naval base in Pakistan or the Woody Island Airfield in the South China Sea's Paracels Islands, the Chinese are gaining access to strategically important facilities that sit astride the world's major trade routes.
In addition to this forward presence, the PLA Navy has committed itself to developing its naval capabilities as a vital component of China's "comprehensive national power." This includes the intention to build at least one, but maybe as many as five, aircraft carrier groups. Already, China's fleet of 55 submarines is larger than that of any other nation in the region, and has the capability of transiting key transport corridors.
All this means that the United States must now actively incorporate Chinese capabilities into its strategic planning. The preferred approach would be to work with Beijing on issues of common interest, such as the piracy problem. But so far the Chinese seem unwilling to provide the types of public goods, in this case protection of non-Chinese vessels, which the U.S. Navy has routinely provided for decades. China's overseas activities are limited to its own interests, and that could lead to political tension between China and other maritime powers.
In addition, Washington has to consider the effect of China's new capabilities on its allies and friends in maritime Asia. The Taiwanese, Japanese, South Koreans, Singaporeans, and Australians all watch China's maritime growth warily. Tokyo hopes to send its own naval vessels to the Horn of Africa, and is feeling greater pressure to do so because of the Chinese expedition. An intensified naval race could be extremely destabilizing to Asia, but the only way to avoid one is to figure out a way to have China scale back its activities, which is unlikely, or formalize China's participation in maritime multilateral initiatives.
That is going to require innovative thinking on the part of the Obama administration, which must above all assure America's friends that the U.S. Navy will retain its maritime superiority across the region. As China just proved, any vacuum will be filled, and not always in ways that lead to long-term stability.
Michael Auslin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
The Chinese Navy sets sail for Somalia
Jan 13, 2009 @12:00:00 AM
Just after Christmas, two Chinese destroyers and a supply ship left their base in southern China to make the long voyage to Somalia, there to protect Chinese-flagged vessels from pirate attacks. Headed by a Rear Admiral, the PLA Navy flotilla marks the first overseas maritime deployment by China since the 1500s. It also marks a new era in Chinese security activity outside its borders. The Obama administration and America's allies must now take into account China's ability to protect its overseas interests. This may fundamentally change U.S. maritime strategy in the coming years.
The Chinese decided to act after several of their ships were attacked and held for ransom, a fate shared by more than 40 vessels last year that entered the pirate infested waters around Somalia and the Gulf of Aden. Since last week, the Chinese have escorted at least seven ships from Hong Kong and the mainland, and have received requests to aid over a dozen more.
The real reason the PLA Navy's flag now flies off the Arabian peninsula is the continuing failure of the international community to engage and effectively respond to the pirate attacks in that region. After a year of attacks, only in the past few weeks have European navies actually begun to confront the threat there to shipping, it was only in December that the United Nations passed a Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against pirates operating at sea and on land, if necessary. Yet it has all been too little too late, and now the Chinese navy is taking its place beside the American, Indian, and Russian navies as a major regional player.
Beijing has promised that its mission will abide by U.N. guidelines, but also said that its vessels will stay as long as necessary to protect Chinese ships. The mission therefore provides the Chinese with an unparalleled opportunity to gain experience in long-term, overseas deployments, as well as numerous chances to learn from more tested, better equipped navies already operating in the Gulf.
On the face of it, that should be nothing to worry about. However, the naval deployment must also be seen in light of China's steady expansion of maritime interests in Asia, including the so-called "string of pearls": a network of bases, ports, and other facilities stretching from the East China Sea all the way to the Arabian Sea.
Whether it be the Gwadar naval base in Pakistan or the Woody Island Airfield in the South China Sea's Paracels Islands, the Chinese are gaining access to strategically important facilities that sit astride the world's major trade routes.
In addition to this forward presence, the PLA Navy has committed itself to developing its naval capabilities as a vital component of China's "comprehensive national power." This includes the intention to build at least one, but maybe as many as five, aircraft carrier groups. Already, China's fleet of 55 submarines is larger than that of any other nation in the region, and has the capability of transiting key transport corridors.
All this means that the United States must now actively incorporate Chinese capabilities into its strategic planning. The preferred approach would be to work with Beijing on issues of common interest, such as the piracy problem. But so far the Chinese seem unwilling to provide the types of public goods, in this case protection of non-Chinese vessels, which the U.S. Navy has routinely provided for decades. China's overseas activities are limited to its own interests, and that could lead to political tension between China and other maritime powers.
In addition, Washington has to consider the effect of China's new capabilities on its allies and friends in maritime Asia. The Taiwanese, Japanese, South Koreans, Singaporeans, and Australians all watch China's maritime growth warily. Tokyo hopes to send its own naval vessels to the Horn of Africa, and is feeling greater pressure to do so because of the Chinese expedition. An intensified naval race could be extremely destabilizing to Asia, but the only way to avoid one is to figure out a way to have China scale back its activities, which is unlikely, or formalize China's participation in maritime multilateral initiatives.
That is going to require innovative thinking on the part of the Obama administration, which must above all assure America's friends that the U.S. Navy will retain its maritime superiority across the region. As China just proved, any vacuum will be filled, and not always in ways that lead to long-term stability.
Michael Auslin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
U.S. Welcomes ECOWAS Suspension of Guinea
Press Statement
US State Dept, Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC, January 12, 2009
U.S. Welcomes ECOWAS Suspension of Guinea
The United States welcomes the decision by the heads of government of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to suspend Guinea's membership until elections are held. We support the efforts of ECOWAS and the African Union to speed Guinea's transition to civilian rule. We reiterate our call for a return to civilian rule and the holding of free, fair and transparent elections as soon as possible. We note that at the time of President Conte's death, Guinea was preparing for legislative elections in early 2009.
The United States has suspended assistance to Guinea, with the exception of humanitarian aid and programs supporting the democratic process.
2009/038
US State Dept, Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC, January 12, 2009
U.S. Welcomes ECOWAS Suspension of Guinea
The United States welcomes the decision by the heads of government of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to suspend Guinea's membership until elections are held. We support the efforts of ECOWAS and the African Union to speed Guinea's transition to civilian rule. We reiterate our call for a return to civilian rule and the holding of free, fair and transparent elections as soon as possible. We note that at the time of President Conte's death, Guinea was preparing for legislative elections in early 2009.
The United States has suspended assistance to Guinea, with the exception of humanitarian aid and programs supporting the democratic process.
2009/038
Monday, January 12, 2009
Offshore Drilling
Offshore Drilling, by Michael Lynch
Master Resource, January 12, 2009
Apparently, an increase in offshore drilling is still on the policy table, which suggests Obama is taking a more rational approach to energy policy than many of his colleagues. Without question, offshore drilling cannot provide ‘energy independence’ (a ludicrous concept, but that’s for another day), but there are numerous benefits and only a trivial downside.
Drilling in the areas now restricted (offshore Florida, the East Coast, and especially California) would provide a number of new jobs, additional oil and gas production, and taxpayer revenues. None would be earth shattering, but magic bullets are few and far between.
More notably, the downsides are few. Some environmentalists express fear of oil spills, but this worry is misplaced. Only one major oil spill has occurred due to offshore drilling: Santa Barbara in the late 1960s. The industry has advanced since then, and massive operations offshore have seen no further major spills. (I am not suggesting the industry should not be regulated or monitored.)
In fact, the worst spills are those from oil tankers, and producing less oil domestically means more tankers in the waters, thus the danger of a catastrophic spill is actually enhanced by not drilling offshore. Although only about half of the world’s oil is transported by tanker, the National Academy of Science estimates that four times as much is spilled from tankers as from exploration.
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/ocs/
Master Resource, January 12, 2009
Apparently, an increase in offshore drilling is still on the policy table, which suggests Obama is taking a more rational approach to energy policy than many of his colleagues. Without question, offshore drilling cannot provide ‘energy independence’ (a ludicrous concept, but that’s for another day), but there are numerous benefits and only a trivial downside.
Drilling in the areas now restricted (offshore Florida, the East Coast, and especially California) would provide a number of new jobs, additional oil and gas production, and taxpayer revenues. None would be earth shattering, but magic bullets are few and far between.
More notably, the downsides are few. Some environmentalists express fear of oil spills, but this worry is misplaced. Only one major oil spill has occurred due to offshore drilling: Santa Barbara in the late 1960s. The industry has advanced since then, and massive operations offshore have seen no further major spills. (I am not suggesting the industry should not be regulated or monitored.)
In fact, the worst spills are those from oil tankers, and producing less oil domestically means more tankers in the waters, thus the danger of a catastrophic spill is actually enhanced by not drilling offshore. Although only about half of the world’s oil is transported by tanker, the National Academy of Science estimates that four times as much is spilled from tankers as from exploration.
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/ocs/
WaPo: The Senate's confirmation hearings get off to a less-than-edifying start
WaPo Editorial: More Advice, Less Consent
The Senate's confirmation hearings get off to a less-than-edifying start.
The Washington Post, Tuesday, January 13, 2009; Page A14
THE SENATE confirmation process is often viewed in terms of gladiatorial combat: Is the nomination "in trouble"? Will the nominee be roughed up? Will the opposing party get a scalp? A rousing confirmation battle can be fun to watch -- as, no doubt, some found the proceedings in the Colosseum -- but that really shouldn't be the point. Confirmation hearings offer an opportunity for nominees to lay out, to the extent possible, their views about the policy and managerial challenges they will confront, and for lawmakers to lay down markers on issues that matter to them. This is true even -- maybe even especially -- when the Senate is controlled by the same party as the White House. After all, the Constitution contemplates the advice of the Senate as well as its consent.
The process did not start well last week. The hearing on former senator Thomas A. Daschle's nomination as secretary of health and human services was more lovefest than serious discussion of complex policy issues. Nonetheless, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), the committee's ranking Republican, secured Mr. Daschle's pledge to try to use the regular legislative process to accomplish health-care reform rather than short-circuiting normal Senate rules by folding the measure into what's known as "reconciliation." The hearings for the nominee for labor secretary, Rep. Hilda L. Solis (D-Calif.), were even more disappointing. On numerous issues -- so-called "card check" legislation for union organizing, a Bush-era regulation on overtime pay, an executive order allowing nonunionized companies to obtain federal contracts, state right-to-work laws -- Ms. Solis offered variations on: "That's something that I think I'm not prepared to give you a complete answer on at this time."
This week's confirmation calendar is crowded with a dozen hearings, including for Secretary of State-designate Hillary Rodham Clinton, Attorney General-designate Eric H. Holder Jr. and Education Secretary-designate Arne Duncan. There will be understandable limits to what Ms. Clinton can say, for example, about the situation in Gaza. But it would be helpful for the committee to probe, among other areas, how Ms. Clinton plans to navigate any conflicts between her role as secretary of state and her husband's global foundation; in particular, the committee should study whether the promised disclosure and review of Mr. Clinton's activities could be strengthened.
Mr. Duncan has been hailed as a consensus candidate because his selection pleased people who hold starkly different ideas about how to improve schools. So what does he intend for the landmark No Child Left Behind law? Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has raised legitimate, significant questions about Mr. Holder's nomination: Does his role in the pardon of financier Marc Rich or other matters give cause for concern about his ability to "maintain his independence from the president," as Mr. Specter put it. Likewise, the concerns expressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) about CIA Director-designate Leon Panetta's lack of experience in the intelligence field are eminently reasonable. Mr. Panetta is a knowledgeable and skilled public servant, but it is fair to ask how he proposes to compensate for the fact that this is not his area of expertise.
Except in extraordinary cases, a president is entitled to the Cabinet secretaries of his choice. But the Senate is entitled -- in fact, it is obligated -- to ask probing questions, and to expect, to the maximum possible extent, answers that go beyond, "I'll get back to you on that."
The Senate's confirmation hearings get off to a less-than-edifying start.
The Washington Post, Tuesday, January 13, 2009; Page A14
THE SENATE confirmation process is often viewed in terms of gladiatorial combat: Is the nomination "in trouble"? Will the nominee be roughed up? Will the opposing party get a scalp? A rousing confirmation battle can be fun to watch -- as, no doubt, some found the proceedings in the Colosseum -- but that really shouldn't be the point. Confirmation hearings offer an opportunity for nominees to lay out, to the extent possible, their views about the policy and managerial challenges they will confront, and for lawmakers to lay down markers on issues that matter to them. This is true even -- maybe even especially -- when the Senate is controlled by the same party as the White House. After all, the Constitution contemplates the advice of the Senate as well as its consent.
The process did not start well last week. The hearing on former senator Thomas A. Daschle's nomination as secretary of health and human services was more lovefest than serious discussion of complex policy issues. Nonetheless, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), the committee's ranking Republican, secured Mr. Daschle's pledge to try to use the regular legislative process to accomplish health-care reform rather than short-circuiting normal Senate rules by folding the measure into what's known as "reconciliation." The hearings for the nominee for labor secretary, Rep. Hilda L. Solis (D-Calif.), were even more disappointing. On numerous issues -- so-called "card check" legislation for union organizing, a Bush-era regulation on overtime pay, an executive order allowing nonunionized companies to obtain federal contracts, state right-to-work laws -- Ms. Solis offered variations on: "That's something that I think I'm not prepared to give you a complete answer on at this time."
This week's confirmation calendar is crowded with a dozen hearings, including for Secretary of State-designate Hillary Rodham Clinton, Attorney General-designate Eric H. Holder Jr. and Education Secretary-designate Arne Duncan. There will be understandable limits to what Ms. Clinton can say, for example, about the situation in Gaza. But it would be helpful for the committee to probe, among other areas, how Ms. Clinton plans to navigate any conflicts between her role as secretary of state and her husband's global foundation; in particular, the committee should study whether the promised disclosure and review of Mr. Clinton's activities could be strengthened.
Mr. Duncan has been hailed as a consensus candidate because his selection pleased people who hold starkly different ideas about how to improve schools. So what does he intend for the landmark No Child Left Behind law? Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has raised legitimate, significant questions about Mr. Holder's nomination: Does his role in the pardon of financier Marc Rich or other matters give cause for concern about his ability to "maintain his independence from the president," as Mr. Specter put it. Likewise, the concerns expressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) about CIA Director-designate Leon Panetta's lack of experience in the intelligence field are eminently reasonable. Mr. Panetta is a knowledgeable and skilled public servant, but it is fair to ask how he proposes to compensate for the fact that this is not his area of expertise.
Except in extraordinary cases, a president is entitled to the Cabinet secretaries of his choice. But the Senate is entitled -- in fact, it is obligated -- to ask probing questions, and to expect, to the maximum possible extent, answers that go beyond, "I'll get back to you on that."
Strengthening Our Japanese Alliance
Strengthening Our Japanese Alliance, by Dan Blumenthal
Why the United States should sell the F-22 to its most important Asian ally.
The Weekly Standard, Jan 08, 2009 @12:00:00 AM
Of the many items on President-elect Obama's foreign policy to-do list, one of the most important long-term tasks is repairing America's relationship with its key Asian ally, Japan. Though often taken for granted by American policymakers, Japan is the linchpin of America's strategic position in Asia. Since the end of World War II, the U.S.-Japan alliance has underwritten the relative peace in Asia that has allowed the region to prosper.
While the relationship was attended to with renewed vigor during the early years of the Bush administration, the outgoing president's North Korea policy and lean toward Beijing has alarmed policymakers in Tokyo, and set the relationship on a downward spiral.
Now the president-elect has a chance to revitalize the Japanese alliance while at the same time creating high paying American jobs during a recession, reducing the costs of recapitalizing its U.S. air fleet, and improving America's strategic position in Asia. How? He can sell the F-22 fifth generation fighter aircraft to Japan.
Tokyo is in the market for a new air-superiority aircraft. The Japan Air Self- Defense Force currently has three fighter jet models in its fleet: an F-15 variant, a Vietnam era F-4, and the F-2 (a longer-range variant of the F-16C). But Japan will begin retiring the F-4 platform entirely early next decade.
To retain its ability to maintain dominance over Japan's airspace, Tokyo needs a fighter that can outperform China's growing fleet of Su-30s. The F-22 is unmatched in range, stealth, speed and reconnaissance capability.
Moreover, since 2001, the United States and Japan have made great strides in their ability to defend against common threats. The two countries have set up a combined air operations center to help meet the growing regional air and missile threat Tokyo's possession of the F-22 would further Washington's longstanding goal of increasing the two countries' interoperability.
Washington's sale of the F-22 to Japan would also help reduce unit costs of the plane for the U.S. Air Force. The USAF originally wanted to purchase 700 to 800 F-22 fighters, but was told they needed to cut their buy to 442, then 381, and finally 180. These cuts have substantially increased the cost per aircraft, and now F-22 production may end by 2010. The U.S. military is concerned about its long-term ability to maintain air dominance in the Asia-Pacific, with China's vast airpower advances. Exporting the F-22 to Japan would keep the production line open and allow the air force to purchase more aircraft at a lower price. An added benefit for the Obama administration is that many good manufacturing jobs would be saved, and created, by producing more F-22s. Approximately 95,000 American (mostly union) workers help produce or are suppliers for the aircraft.
So what are the downsides? Some argue that the F-22's technology is too advanced to sell to anyone and that Japan has already leaked information about its Aegis- class destroyer. But if Washington's defense policy of building strong partnerships is to have any real meaning, it must be ready to sell advanced technology to key allies. Washington's technology transfer policies remained mired in Cold War-thinking, designed to keep U.S. technology out of the hands of the Soviets. Today, there is broad consensus in the defense policy-making community that U.S. arms sales policy should be to build up the strength and capacity of allies to defend themselves. It is time to change a policy that does the reverse. Moreover, Japan has no record of proliferating advanced technology.
Others say that the sale of F-22s to Japan will enrage South Korea and "create an arms race" with China. Is it true that South Korea, America's other key ally in Northeast Asia is, for historical reasons, still suspicious of Tokyo. Washington can mitigate these concerns by pushing for closer three way ties among Seoul, Tokyo, and Washington, while quietly urging Japan to be more forthcoming about its past with South Korea. Tokyo has no aggressive intent, and regards South Korea as an ally. And, there is no reason why South Korea should be prohibited from buying the F-22 if they indicate an interest.
The China question is somewhat more complex. There may be an emerging "arms race" in Asia, but so far only one country is off to the races: China. Over the past decade it has deployed more that 1,000 ballistic and cruise missiles and 300 advanced fighter aircraft to its Southern coast. Japan, for obvious reasons, is concerned. The task for the U.S.-Japan alliance is to maintain a regional political system that China does not dominate. At this stage, this means a greater military presence in the region to check China's destabilizing military advances.
The time has come to stop talking about the need for a favorable balance of power in Asia, and to begin to act. Exporting the F-22 to Japan makes sound strategic and military sense. President-elect Obama could improve alliance relations, further America's Asia-Pacific defense policy, and create good jobs at home. Once alliance relations are righted, the United States and its allies can continue to engage China on issues of common interest from a position of strength.
Dan Blumenthal is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Why the United States should sell the F-22 to its most important Asian ally.
The Weekly Standard, Jan 08, 2009 @12:00:00 AM
Of the many items on President-elect Obama's foreign policy to-do list, one of the most important long-term tasks is repairing America's relationship with its key Asian ally, Japan. Though often taken for granted by American policymakers, Japan is the linchpin of America's strategic position in Asia. Since the end of World War II, the U.S.-Japan alliance has underwritten the relative peace in Asia that has allowed the region to prosper.
While the relationship was attended to with renewed vigor during the early years of the Bush administration, the outgoing president's North Korea policy and lean toward Beijing has alarmed policymakers in Tokyo, and set the relationship on a downward spiral.
Now the president-elect has a chance to revitalize the Japanese alliance while at the same time creating high paying American jobs during a recession, reducing the costs of recapitalizing its U.S. air fleet, and improving America's strategic position in Asia. How? He can sell the F-22 fifth generation fighter aircraft to Japan.
Tokyo is in the market for a new air-superiority aircraft. The Japan Air Self- Defense Force currently has three fighter jet models in its fleet: an F-15 variant, a Vietnam era F-4, and the F-2 (a longer-range variant of the F-16C). But Japan will begin retiring the F-4 platform entirely early next decade.
To retain its ability to maintain dominance over Japan's airspace, Tokyo needs a fighter that can outperform China's growing fleet of Su-30s. The F-22 is unmatched in range, stealth, speed and reconnaissance capability.
Moreover, since 2001, the United States and Japan have made great strides in their ability to defend against common threats. The two countries have set up a combined air operations center to help meet the growing regional air and missile threat Tokyo's possession of the F-22 would further Washington's longstanding goal of increasing the two countries' interoperability.
Washington's sale of the F-22 to Japan would also help reduce unit costs of the plane for the U.S. Air Force. The USAF originally wanted to purchase 700 to 800 F-22 fighters, but was told they needed to cut their buy to 442, then 381, and finally 180. These cuts have substantially increased the cost per aircraft, and now F-22 production may end by 2010. The U.S. military is concerned about its long-term ability to maintain air dominance in the Asia-Pacific, with China's vast airpower advances. Exporting the F-22 to Japan would keep the production line open and allow the air force to purchase more aircraft at a lower price. An added benefit for the Obama administration is that many good manufacturing jobs would be saved, and created, by producing more F-22s. Approximately 95,000 American (mostly union) workers help produce or are suppliers for the aircraft.
So what are the downsides? Some argue that the F-22's technology is too advanced to sell to anyone and that Japan has already leaked information about its Aegis- class destroyer. But if Washington's defense policy of building strong partnerships is to have any real meaning, it must be ready to sell advanced technology to key allies. Washington's technology transfer policies remained mired in Cold War-thinking, designed to keep U.S. technology out of the hands of the Soviets. Today, there is broad consensus in the defense policy-making community that U.S. arms sales policy should be to build up the strength and capacity of allies to defend themselves. It is time to change a policy that does the reverse. Moreover, Japan has no record of proliferating advanced technology.
Others say that the sale of F-22s to Japan will enrage South Korea and "create an arms race" with China. Is it true that South Korea, America's other key ally in Northeast Asia is, for historical reasons, still suspicious of Tokyo. Washington can mitigate these concerns by pushing for closer three way ties among Seoul, Tokyo, and Washington, while quietly urging Japan to be more forthcoming about its past with South Korea. Tokyo has no aggressive intent, and regards South Korea as an ally. And, there is no reason why South Korea should be prohibited from buying the F-22 if they indicate an interest.
The China question is somewhat more complex. There may be an emerging "arms race" in Asia, but so far only one country is off to the races: China. Over the past decade it has deployed more that 1,000 ballistic and cruise missiles and 300 advanced fighter aircraft to its Southern coast. Japan, for obvious reasons, is concerned. The task for the U.S.-Japan alliance is to maintain a regional political system that China does not dominate. At this stage, this means a greater military presence in the region to check China's destabilizing military advances.
The time has come to stop talking about the need for a favorable balance of power in Asia, and to begin to act. Exporting the F-22 to Japan makes sound strategic and military sense. President-elect Obama could improve alliance relations, further America's Asia-Pacific defense policy, and create good jobs at home. Once alliance relations are righted, the United States and its allies can continue to engage China on issues of common interest from a position of strength.
Dan Blumenthal is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
