Clinton says U.S. diplomacy unlikely to end Iran nuclear program, by Paul Richter
In a Mideast meeting, the secretary of State says a rejection by Iran could strengthen the U.S. position.
Los Angeles Times, Mar 03, 2009
Reporting from Sharm El Sheik, Egypt -- The Obama administration has already concluded that a diplomatic overture to Iran, one of the central promises of the president's election campaign, is unlikely to persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates in a private meeting Monday that it is "very doubtful" a U.S. approach will persuade Iran to relent, said a senior State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity under customary diplomatic rules.
But Clinton, in Egypt for a conference to raise money for the war-scarred Gaza Strip, said an Iranian rebuff could strengthen America's diplomatic position.
She told Foreign Minister Sheik Abdullah ibn Zayed al Nuhayyan that the move would quell complaints that the United States has not exhausted diplomatic routes. At the same time, it could help persuade U.S. allies to join it in increasing pressure on the Islamic regime.
Clinton said that Iran's "worst nightmare is an international community that is united and an American government willing to engage Iran," according to the State official. During the election campaign, President Obama made an overture to Iran one of his central foreign policy ideas, saying that engagement would be better than the Bush administration's policy of seeking to isolate adversary regimes. Bush refused to deal with Iran while the country's rulers pursued a nuclear program that they insist is intended for civilian energy but that U.S. officials and allies maintain is for producing the fuel for nuclear weapons.
Many foreign policy experts, including some in Democratic circles, have questioned whether talks alone would persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program.
Clinton's comments suggest that even as U.S. officials weigh a diplomatic overture, they have begun looking ahead to the next stage in dealing with Iran. The remarks also indicate that the administration believes it may need to press ahead with the diplomatic and economic pressures begun by the Bush administration.
The U.S. official said that Nuhayyan expressed concern over a U.S.-Iranian deal, which could leave Persian Gulf states with reduced Western support amid tensions with Tehran.
But he said Clinton assured the minister that the administration is "under no illusions" and would consult with allies in the region.
The new U.S. administration is considering several ways to try to engage Iran. Richard C. Holbrooke, the special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan, has said that he would like to enlist Iranian help to stabilize its neighbor to the east, Afghanistan. And Clinton last month named veteran Mideast negotiator Dennis B. Ross as a special advisor, with Iran as part of his assignment.
U.S. officials elsewhere sought to rekindle progress on international disarmament. In Vienna on Monday, the Obama administration disclosed plans to reduce its nuclear arsenal as a way of persuading other nations, including Iran, to scale back their own ambitions.
U.S. envoy Gregory L. Schulte, speaking in a closed-door meeting of the International Atomic Energy Association's board of governors, noted the new administration's "readiness for direct engagement with Tehran."
Schulte also said the U.S. would resurrect nuclear disarmament efforts that fell by the wayside during the Bush administration, including "dramatic reductions" in U.S. and Russian stockpiles and a ban on production of "new nuclear weapons material," according to a copy of his prepared remarks.
"President Obama supports the goal of working toward a world without nuclear weapons," he said. "His administration intends to renew America's commitment to disarmament."
The statement came a day after U.S. Navy Admiral Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Iran had enough low-enriched uranium for a weapon, a conclusion also drawn by International Atomic Energy Agency officials last month.
An Iranian official Monday denied the claims as "baseless."
Clinton's comments about Iran came on the sidelines of a gathering in this Sinai resort of more than 75 countries for a Gaza Strip donors conference. Clinton told the group, "We are committed to a comprehensive peace between Israel and its neighbors, and we will pursue it on many fronts."
Her reference to a "comprehensive peace" hinted at U.S. interest in a deal between Israel and Syria, as well as between Israel and the Palestinians.
The Egyptian sponsors of the event said it brought pledges of $4.5 billion for humanitarian relief and reconstruction. But officials from Europe, Arab states and international organizations also demanded that Israel ease restrictions on border crossings to speed the delivery of relief supplies and rebuilding materials after a 22-day Israeli offensive aimed at stopping cross-border rocket fire from Gaza.
"The situation at the border crossings is intolerable," said United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
Officials at the conference also called for a settlement between the two rival Palestinian movements, Hamas and Fatah. Europeans warned they would not continue to fund reconstruction work unless Israelis and Palestinians tried to settle their differences.
"Will we once again reconstruct something that we built a few years ago and has now been hammered and flattened?" asked Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere. "Many donors, despite pledges, will wish to see political progress before they commit to infrastructure reconstruction."
Monday, March 2, 2009
TNYT editorial short-sightedness during the Clinton years now reversed
NY Times Reconsiders Filibuster, by Kevin Murphy
Patterico's Pontifications, Mar 02, 2009
On March 29, 2005, the NY Times ran an editorial defending the filibuster, and lamenting its own editorial short-sightedness during the Clinton years:
The Senate, of all places, should be sensitive to the fact that this large and diverse country has never believed in government by an unrestrained majority rule. Its composition is a repudiation of the very idea that the largest number of votes always wins out. The members from places like Rhode Island, Maine or Iowa know that their constituents are given a far larger say than people from New York simply by virtue of the fact that each state has two votes, regardless of population. Indeed, as a recent New Yorker article pointed out, the Democratic senators who have blocked that handful of judicial nominees actually represent substantially more Americans than the Republican majority that wants to see them passed.
While the filibuster has not traditionally been used to stop judicial confirmations, it seems to us this is a matter in which it’s most important that a large minority of senators has a limited right of veto. Once confirmed, judges can serve for life and will remain on the bench long after Mr. Bush leaves the White House. And there are few responsibilities given to the executive and the legislature that are more important than choosing the members of the third co-equal branch of government. The Senate has an obligation to do everything in its power to ensure the integrity of the process.
A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the “nuclear option” in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton’s early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it’s obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide.
How soon they forget. Today, the Times runs two op-ed pieces against the “the segregationist’s tool”, and gives them prime links on the web site. The worm begins its turn.
In Jean Edward Smith’s “Filibusters: The Senate’s Self-Inflicted Wound“, the filibuster is thoroughly demonized, equating its practitioners to Klansmen and worse:
In the entire 19th century, including the struggle against slavery, fewer than two dozen filibusters were mounted. In F.D.R.’s time, the device was employed exclusively by Southerners to block passage of federal anti-lynching legislation. Between 1933 and the coming of the war, it was attempted only twice. Under Eisenhower and J.F.K., the pattern continued. In the eight years of the Eisenhower administration, only two filibusters were mounted. Under Kennedy there were four. The number more than doubled under Lyndon Johnson, but the primary issue continued to be civil rights. Except for exhibitionists, buffoons and white southerners determined to salvage racial segregation, the filibuster was considered off limits.
Pretty hard to have a civil conversation after that. Unsurprisingly, she calls for the Democrats to remove the filibuster from Senate rules.
In David R. RePass’ much calmer “Make My Filibuster“, Mr RePass argues that Reid and the Democrats should not use cloture as the test of a filibuster, but instead make the Republicans actually hold the floor. He asserts that this would quickly end the practice, but offers no real evidence.
It is up to Mr. Reid. He can do away with the supermajority requirement for virtually all significant measures and return majority rule to the Senate. This is not to say that the Democrats should ride roughshod over the Republicans. Republicans should be included at all stages of the legislative process. However, with the daunting prospect of having to mount a real filibuster to demonstrate their opposition, Republicans may become much more willing to compromise.
Expect more of this, especially when the Obama budget dies the death of 1000 cuts in the Senate, amid largescale taxpayer protests. Next up: Dissent and patriotism.
Patterico's Pontifications, Mar 02, 2009
On March 29, 2005, the NY Times ran an editorial defending the filibuster, and lamenting its own editorial short-sightedness during the Clinton years:
The Senate, of all places, should be sensitive to the fact that this large and diverse country has never believed in government by an unrestrained majority rule. Its composition is a repudiation of the very idea that the largest number of votes always wins out. The members from places like Rhode Island, Maine or Iowa know that their constituents are given a far larger say than people from New York simply by virtue of the fact that each state has two votes, regardless of population. Indeed, as a recent New Yorker article pointed out, the Democratic senators who have blocked that handful of judicial nominees actually represent substantially more Americans than the Republican majority that wants to see them passed.
While the filibuster has not traditionally been used to stop judicial confirmations, it seems to us this is a matter in which it’s most important that a large minority of senators has a limited right of veto. Once confirmed, judges can serve for life and will remain on the bench long after Mr. Bush leaves the White House. And there are few responsibilities given to the executive and the legislature that are more important than choosing the members of the third co-equal branch of government. The Senate has an obligation to do everything in its power to ensure the integrity of the process.
A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the “nuclear option” in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton’s early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it’s obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide.
How soon they forget. Today, the Times runs two op-ed pieces against the “the segregationist’s tool”, and gives them prime links on the web site. The worm begins its turn.
In Jean Edward Smith’s “Filibusters: The Senate’s Self-Inflicted Wound“, the filibuster is thoroughly demonized, equating its practitioners to Klansmen and worse:
In the entire 19th century, including the struggle against slavery, fewer than two dozen filibusters were mounted. In F.D.R.’s time, the device was employed exclusively by Southerners to block passage of federal anti-lynching legislation. Between 1933 and the coming of the war, it was attempted only twice. Under Eisenhower and J.F.K., the pattern continued. In the eight years of the Eisenhower administration, only two filibusters were mounted. Under Kennedy there were four. The number more than doubled under Lyndon Johnson, but the primary issue continued to be civil rights. Except for exhibitionists, buffoons and white southerners determined to salvage racial segregation, the filibuster was considered off limits.
Pretty hard to have a civil conversation after that. Unsurprisingly, she calls for the Democrats to remove the filibuster from Senate rules.
In David R. RePass’ much calmer “Make My Filibuster“, Mr RePass argues that Reid and the Democrats should not use cloture as the test of a filibuster, but instead make the Republicans actually hold the floor. He asserts that this would quickly end the practice, but offers no real evidence.
It is up to Mr. Reid. He can do away with the supermajority requirement for virtually all significant measures and return majority rule to the Senate. This is not to say that the Democrats should ride roughshod over the Republicans. Republicans should be included at all stages of the legislative process. However, with the daunting prospect of having to mount a real filibuster to demonstrate their opposition, Republicans may become much more willing to compromise.
Expect more of this, especially when the Obama budget dies the death of 1000 cuts in the Senate, amid largescale taxpayer protests. Next up: Dissent and patriotism.
Release of OLC Memos Regarding GWOT
Release of OLC Memos Regarding GWOT, by Gregory S. McNeal
Monday, March 02, 2009
DOJ announced today the release of Office of Legal Counsel memoranda drafted during the Bush administration regarding counterterrorism efforts. These are significant legal policy documents. Hat tip to Bobby Chesney for the pointer:
Memorandum Regarding Status of Certain OLC Opinions Issued in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (01-15-2009)
Memorandum Regarding Constitutionality of Amending Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to Change the "Purpose" Standard for Searches (09-25-2001)
Memorandum Regarding Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities within the United States (10-23-2001)
Memorandum Regarding Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Provisions of the ABM Treaty (11-15-2001)
Memorandum Regarding the President's Power as Commander in Chief to Transfer Captured Terrorists to the Control and Custody of Foreign Nations (03-13-2002)
Memorandum Regarding Swift Justice Authorization Act (04-08-2002)
Memorandum Regarding Determination of Enemy Belligerency and Military Detention (06-08-2002)
Memorandum Regarding Applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) to Military Detention of United States Citizens (06-27-2002)
Memorandum Regarding October 23, 2001 OLC Opinion Addressing the Domestic Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities (10-06-2008)
Monday, March 02, 2009
DOJ announced today the release of Office of Legal Counsel memoranda drafted during the Bush administration regarding counterterrorism efforts. These are significant legal policy documents. Hat tip to Bobby Chesney for the pointer:
Memorandum Regarding Status of Certain OLC Opinions Issued in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (01-15-2009)
Memorandum Regarding Constitutionality of Amending Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to Change the "Purpose" Standard for Searches (09-25-2001)
Memorandum Regarding Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities within the United States (10-23-2001)
Memorandum Regarding Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Provisions of the ABM Treaty (11-15-2001)
Memorandum Regarding the President's Power as Commander in Chief to Transfer Captured Terrorists to the Control and Custody of Foreign Nations (03-13-2002)
Memorandum Regarding Swift Justice Authorization Act (04-08-2002)
Memorandum Regarding Determination of Enemy Belligerency and Military Detention (06-08-2002)
Memorandum Regarding Applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) to Military Detention of United States Citizens (06-27-2002)
Memorandum Regarding October 23, 2001 OLC Opinion Addressing the Domestic Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities (10-06-2008)
United States Assistance to the Palestinians
United States Assistance to the Palestinians. Office of the Spokesman, US State Dept
Washington, DC, March 2, 2009
At the March 2, 2009 donors conference for Gaza recovery in Sharm el Sheikh, the United States announced its intent to provide support to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Gaza recovery totaling approximately $900 million. The assistance will be available in 2009, and is subject to Congressional approval. The assistance includes continued immediate humanitarian support to the Palestinian people in Gaza, including for the UN Consolidated Appeal; budget support for the PA; and further support for the priorities identified by the PA in the Palestinian Reform and Development Plan.
We will work closely with Congress on our assistance package. It will include the following components:
Up to $300 million to meet urgent humanitarian needs, including those identified under the UN appeal and to support the PA’s plan for Gaza. This is to be provided through USAID in coordination with UN agencies, international organizations and USAID grantees, and through the Department of State for UN agencies, ICRC, and other humanitarian organizations.
$200 million in budget support to address the PA’s anticipated $1.15 billion budget shortfall for 2009.
Up to $400 million in 2009 to support priorities identified in the Palestinian Reform and Development Plan (PRDP) that will help the PA solidify economic and institutional reforms in the West Bank. This includes support for private sector development, essential public infrastructure improvements in the West Bank, and security sector assistance coordinated by the U.S. Security Coordinator (USSC).
In 2008, the U.S. was the single largest national donor to the Palestinian people. The U.S. exceeded its December 2007 Paris Donors’ Conference pledge of $555 million, committing more than $600 million, including $300 million in direct budget support and $184.7 million in assistance for Palestinian refugees. In addition, since the Gaza crisis began in December 2008, the U.S. has provided over $65 million in immediate humanitarian assistance, primarily through UN agencies and NGOs.
PRN: 2009/180
Washington, DC, March 2, 2009
At the March 2, 2009 donors conference for Gaza recovery in Sharm el Sheikh, the United States announced its intent to provide support to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Gaza recovery totaling approximately $900 million. The assistance will be available in 2009, and is subject to Congressional approval. The assistance includes continued immediate humanitarian support to the Palestinian people in Gaza, including for the UN Consolidated Appeal; budget support for the PA; and further support for the priorities identified by the PA in the Palestinian Reform and Development Plan.
We will work closely with Congress on our assistance package. It will include the following components:
Up to $300 million to meet urgent humanitarian needs, including those identified under the UN appeal and to support the PA’s plan for Gaza. This is to be provided through USAID in coordination with UN agencies, international organizations and USAID grantees, and through the Department of State for UN agencies, ICRC, and other humanitarian organizations.
$200 million in budget support to address the PA’s anticipated $1.15 billion budget shortfall for 2009.
Up to $400 million in 2009 to support priorities identified in the Palestinian Reform and Development Plan (PRDP) that will help the PA solidify economic and institutional reforms in the West Bank. This includes support for private sector development, essential public infrastructure improvements in the West Bank, and security sector assistance coordinated by the U.S. Security Coordinator (USSC).
In 2008, the U.S. was the single largest national donor to the Palestinian people. The U.S. exceeded its December 2007 Paris Donors’ Conference pledge of $555 million, committing more than $600 million, including $300 million in direct budget support and $184.7 million in assistance for Palestinian refugees. In addition, since the Gaza crisis began in December 2008, the U.S. has provided over $65 million in immediate humanitarian assistance, primarily through UN agencies and NGOs.
PRN: 2009/180
US State Dept: Assassinations in Guinea-Bissau
Assassinations in Guinea-Bissau, by Robert Wood, Acting Department Spokesman, Office of the Spokesman, US State Dept
Washington, DC, March 2, 2009
The U.S. strongly condemns the violence that occurred in Guinea-Bissau over the weekend that resulted in the assassination of President Joao Bernardo “Nino” Vieira and Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces General Batista Tagmé Na Waï.
We call for calm and for all parties in Guinea-Bissau to respect the rule of law and follow the established constitutional order regarding succession.
We will continue to monitor events as they unfold.
# # #
PRN: 2009/182
Washington, DC, March 2, 2009
The U.S. strongly condemns the violence that occurred in Guinea-Bissau over the weekend that resulted in the assassination of President Joao Bernardo “Nino” Vieira and Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces General Batista Tagmé Na Waï.
We call for calm and for all parties in Guinea-Bissau to respect the rule of law and follow the established constitutional order regarding succession.
We will continue to monitor events as they unfold.
# # #
PRN: 2009/182
Switzerland Should Stiff-Arm the IRS
Switzerland Should Stiff-Arm the IRS, by Daniel J. Mitchell
Cato at Liberty, Mar 02, 2009
In a classic display of arrogant imperialism, the Internal Revenue Service is running roughshod over existing treaties and demanding that a Swiss bank disgorge confidential client data to American tax collectors. As a former U.S. ambassador to Switzerland warns in the Financial Times, this is a remarkably ill-considered approach to bilateral relations:
When Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, the Swiss federal councillor in charge of police and justice, meets Eric Holder, US attorney-general, the final item for discussion – according to her ministry’s press release – will be US demands for data on American holders of accounts at UBS, the Swiss bank. …intense anger has…been directed at the US government, which – via the justice department and the Internal Revenue Service – rode roughshod over two bilateral agreements to which it is a signatory. That is, the US ignored formal, negotiated understandings with a long-time friend, a constitutional federal republic where rule of law is enshrined… The Swiss Confederation’s first experience with the new administration is of a superpower exerting raw Goliath power, ignoring its own diplomatic undertakings and taking advantage of Switzerland’s size and the stereotypical misunderstanding of Swiss bank secrecy laws. US authorities are seen in this instance as being once again arrogant and bullying. …UBS and Swiss officials were stunned when the IRS, within days, filed a civil complaint that included a demand for information on 52,000 American UBS customers. A Swiss financial oversight court has ordered UBS not to fulfil this demand. Thus the bank is in the awkward position that its officers would have to violate Swiss banking law to fulfil the US demand.
The more fundamental issue, of course, is how to solve the conflict between America’s bad tax system (with its pervasive double taxation of saving and investment, and its taxation of “worldwide” income) and Switzerland’s admirable human rights policy of protecting financial privacy. The obvious answer is that the U.S. should fix its bad tax system. For instance, the conflict between the U.S. and Switzerland would disappear if the Internal Revenue Code was replaced with a simple and fair flat tax (which taxes income only once and taxes only income earned inside U.S. borders).
If the IRS prevails in this battle, it will be terrible news for people in all nations. As I explain here, here, and here, the ability to escape bad tax policy is a critical restraint on the power of politicians to fleece taxpayers.
Cato at Liberty, Mar 02, 2009
In a classic display of arrogant imperialism, the Internal Revenue Service is running roughshod over existing treaties and demanding that a Swiss bank disgorge confidential client data to American tax collectors. As a former U.S. ambassador to Switzerland warns in the Financial Times, this is a remarkably ill-considered approach to bilateral relations:
When Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, the Swiss federal councillor in charge of police and justice, meets Eric Holder, US attorney-general, the final item for discussion – according to her ministry’s press release – will be US demands for data on American holders of accounts at UBS, the Swiss bank. …intense anger has…been directed at the US government, which – via the justice department and the Internal Revenue Service – rode roughshod over two bilateral agreements to which it is a signatory. That is, the US ignored formal, negotiated understandings with a long-time friend, a constitutional federal republic where rule of law is enshrined… The Swiss Confederation’s first experience with the new administration is of a superpower exerting raw Goliath power, ignoring its own diplomatic undertakings and taking advantage of Switzerland’s size and the stereotypical misunderstanding of Swiss bank secrecy laws. US authorities are seen in this instance as being once again arrogant and bullying. …UBS and Swiss officials were stunned when the IRS, within days, filed a civil complaint that included a demand for information on 52,000 American UBS customers. A Swiss financial oversight court has ordered UBS not to fulfil this demand. Thus the bank is in the awkward position that its officers would have to violate Swiss banking law to fulfil the US demand.
The more fundamental issue, of course, is how to solve the conflict between America’s bad tax system (with its pervasive double taxation of saving and investment, and its taxation of “worldwide” income) and Switzerland’s admirable human rights policy of protecting financial privacy. The obvious answer is that the U.S. should fix its bad tax system. For instance, the conflict between the U.S. and Switzerland would disappear if the Internal Revenue Code was replaced with a simple and fair flat tax (which taxes income only once and taxes only income earned inside U.S. borders).
If the IRS prevails in this battle, it will be terrible news for people in all nations. As I explain here, here, and here, the ability to escape bad tax policy is a critical restraint on the power of politicians to fleece taxpayers.
Save Washington's Metro by Privatizing the System
Save Washington's Metro by Privatizing the System, by Randal O'Toole
DC Examiner, February 26, 2009
As Washington’s Metro lurches from crisis to crisis, including derailed trains and a $154 million deficit in next year’s budget, many see its troubles as a prime example of why transit systems across the nation need even more tax subsidies.
In fact, the Washington Metro is a prime example of the failure of our socialized transit model, and why transit systems should be privatized.
In 1964, most of America’s transit systems were private and the industry as a whole was profitable. Then Congress passed the Urban Mass Transit Act, not—as some believe—to help low-income people who couldn’t afford cars, but because railroads threatened to terminate money-losing commuter trains into Manhattan, Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia.
Congress justified federal support for those trains on the grounds that some of them crossed state lines. Politically, however, supporting transit in those urban areas meant supporting transit throughout the country, whether or not that transit crossed state lines.
Washington, Atlanta and San Francisco then spent billions of dollars building new subway and elevated rail transit lines. These systems completely failed to live up to their promises, costing far more and carrying fewer riders than projected, and they did little to relieve congestion.
Yet transit agencies could not admit they had wasted billions of taxpayer dollars, so they proclaimed these lines to be great successes. Certainly, the people who ride them appreciate the heavy subsidies they receive, but the share of commuters and other travelers riding transit in these regions continued to decline.
For example, the 2000 census revealed that the Washington, D.C. urban area had gained more than 100,000 new jobs since 1990 and that virtually all those commuters drove to work.
Moreover, more than 21,000 commuters who took transit to work in 1990 switched to driving by 2000. You won’t hear that from Washington Metro officials.
Nevertheless, Congress opened the floodgates of federal funding for new rail transit lines, and the number of urban areas with expensive rail transit climbed from 10 in 1980 to nearly 40 today.
To cover the high costs of rail transit, many transit agencies ended up cutting bus service, contributing to declines in per-capita transit ridership.
Nor do transit officials ever mention that the cost of reconstructing rail lines every 30 years is almost as great as the original construction cost. Agencies invariably fail to plan for this cost and hope instead for federal bailouts.
The Chicago Transit Authority is "on the verge of collapse" as it needs $16 billion to rehabilitate its tracks and trains. New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority is in serious trouble because it is short $17 billion needed to rehabilitate its rail lines.
Washington’s Metrorail suffers increasing breakdowns because no one has found the $12 billion it needs to keep the system running.
Rail advocates argue that all transportation is subsidized so we should pay no attention to the transit subsidies behind the curtain. Yet transit subsidies are vastly out of proportion to other transportation support and have made transit the most expensive way to travel in the U.S.
Including subsidies, Americans spend 15 cents per passenger mile flying, 24 cents driving, and 80 cents on urban transit. While less than 4 percent of the cost of driving and less than 10 percent of the cost of flying is subsidized, three-fourths of the cost of transit comes from subsidies.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, all transit is not subsidized. Atlantic City, NJ, has a private bus system that runs 24 hours a day without subsidies. San Juan, Puerto Rico residents ride private buses known as públicos that carry more people, without subsidies, than the city’s tax-supported public buses and trains. Yet most American cities and states outlaw private competition to government’s monopoly transit systems.
We won’t fix transit’s woes by throwing money at it, especially not by building new rail transit lines, which will only impose huge obligations on future generations to maintain (or dismantle) those lines.
Instead, we need to return to a private transit model, allowing competing transit companies to provide innovative transit services that people will use at no cost to taxpayers.
Randal O'Toole is a senior fellow and author of The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future.
DC Examiner, February 26, 2009
As Washington’s Metro lurches from crisis to crisis, including derailed trains and a $154 million deficit in next year’s budget, many see its troubles as a prime example of why transit systems across the nation need even more tax subsidies.
In fact, the Washington Metro is a prime example of the failure of our socialized transit model, and why transit systems should be privatized.
In 1964, most of America’s transit systems were private and the industry as a whole was profitable. Then Congress passed the Urban Mass Transit Act, not—as some believe—to help low-income people who couldn’t afford cars, but because railroads threatened to terminate money-losing commuter trains into Manhattan, Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia.
Congress justified federal support for those trains on the grounds that some of them crossed state lines. Politically, however, supporting transit in those urban areas meant supporting transit throughout the country, whether or not that transit crossed state lines.
Washington, Atlanta and San Francisco then spent billions of dollars building new subway and elevated rail transit lines. These systems completely failed to live up to their promises, costing far more and carrying fewer riders than projected, and they did little to relieve congestion.
Yet transit agencies could not admit they had wasted billions of taxpayer dollars, so they proclaimed these lines to be great successes. Certainly, the people who ride them appreciate the heavy subsidies they receive, but the share of commuters and other travelers riding transit in these regions continued to decline.
For example, the 2000 census revealed that the Washington, D.C. urban area had gained more than 100,000 new jobs since 1990 and that virtually all those commuters drove to work.
Moreover, more than 21,000 commuters who took transit to work in 1990 switched to driving by 2000. You won’t hear that from Washington Metro officials.
Nevertheless, Congress opened the floodgates of federal funding for new rail transit lines, and the number of urban areas with expensive rail transit climbed from 10 in 1980 to nearly 40 today.
To cover the high costs of rail transit, many transit agencies ended up cutting bus service, contributing to declines in per-capita transit ridership.
Nor do transit officials ever mention that the cost of reconstructing rail lines every 30 years is almost as great as the original construction cost. Agencies invariably fail to plan for this cost and hope instead for federal bailouts.
The Chicago Transit Authority is "on the verge of collapse" as it needs $16 billion to rehabilitate its tracks and trains. New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority is in serious trouble because it is short $17 billion needed to rehabilitate its rail lines.
Washington’s Metrorail suffers increasing breakdowns because no one has found the $12 billion it needs to keep the system running.
Rail advocates argue that all transportation is subsidized so we should pay no attention to the transit subsidies behind the curtain. Yet transit subsidies are vastly out of proportion to other transportation support and have made transit the most expensive way to travel in the U.S.
Including subsidies, Americans spend 15 cents per passenger mile flying, 24 cents driving, and 80 cents on urban transit. While less than 4 percent of the cost of driving and less than 10 percent of the cost of flying is subsidized, three-fourths of the cost of transit comes from subsidies.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, all transit is not subsidized. Atlantic City, NJ, has a private bus system that runs 24 hours a day without subsidies. San Juan, Puerto Rico residents ride private buses known as públicos that carry more people, without subsidies, than the city’s tax-supported public buses and trains. Yet most American cities and states outlaw private competition to government’s monopoly transit systems.
We won’t fix transit’s woes by throwing money at it, especially not by building new rail transit lines, which will only impose huge obligations on future generations to maintain (or dismantle) those lines.
Instead, we need to return to a private transit model, allowing competing transit companies to provide innovative transit services that people will use at no cost to taxpayers.
Randal O'Toole is a senior fellow and author of The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future.
Libertarian views: The Malthusian Wing of the Party in Power
The Malthusian Wing of the Party in Power: When Will They Speak Up? By Robert Bradley
Master Resource, Mar 01, 2009
“The economic recession/depression is good, not bad. It lowers our carbon footprint in countless ways. It saves resources. It throttles back industrial society to sustainable levels that were exceeded long ago. Let the downturn continue to get us out of the growth mentality. Let rising expectations fall! Less is more!”
When will some prominent Left environmentalist slip and say something like this? No doubt the tongues are tied right now, but as time goes on it will be harder to keep the Malthusians muted.
Consider Paul Ehrlich’s advice for families, which can be extended to the economy as a whole:
Once a cooperative movement had gained momentum, it could also engage in an enormous campaign to re-educate other consumers and to change their buying habits. The pitch might be: ‘Try to live below your means! It will be good for your family’s economic situation, and may also help to save the world.’
- Paul Ehrlich and Richard Harriman, How To Be a Survivor (Rivercity, Mass: Rivercity Press, 1971, 1975), p. 149.
The literature is chock full of anti-growth, anti-industrial sentiment, including statements from John Holdren, Obama’s confirmed top science advisor, who said (with Ehrlich):
Only one rational path is open to us—simultaneous de-development of the [over developed countries or] ODC’s and semi-development of the underdeveloped countries (UDC’s), in order to approach a decent and ecologically sustainable standard of living for all in between. By de-development we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.
- John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, “Introduction,” in Holdren and Ehrlich, eds., Global Ecology (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971), p. 3.
and:
A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. . . . Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries. This effort must be largely political.
- John Holdren, Anne Ehrlich, and Paul Ehrlich, Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions (San Francisco; W.H. Freeman and Company, 1973), p. 279.
Al Gore has blessed a “wrenching transformation of society,” which does not bode well for a future of economic prosperity:
Minor shifts in policy, marginal adjustments in ongoing programs, moderate improvements in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change—these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle, and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.”
- Al Gore, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit (New York: Plume/Penguin, 1992, 1993), p. 274.
Lifestyle changes are required, notes Amory Lovins:
Governments and their constituencies in rich countries should begin to contemplate seriously and to decide upon the changes in lifestyles that energetic and other constraints will soon impose—changes that may well be desirable on other grounds.
- Amory Lovins, World Energy Strategies: Facts, Issues, and Options (New York: Friends of the Earth International, 1975), p. 127.
Adds Christopher Flavin of the Worldwatch Institute:
Global climate change will not be slowed with a simple law or regulation. More than any other environmental problem, climate change is woven into the very structure of today’s societies. . . . Major changes in technology, infrastructure, and even life-style are needed to slow it.
- Christopher Flavin and Odil Tunali, Climate of Hope: New Strategies for Stabilizing the World’s Atmosphere (Washington: Worldwatch Institute, 1996), p. 53.
Laws, laws, more laws
What might some of these lifestyle changes entail. Paul Ehrlich, the mentor of John Holdren, has been explicit:
Laws may well be passed strictly limiting the number of appliances a single family may possess. Learning to survive with only one TV set will, for instance, be simpler than learning to live on a planet made uninhabitable by an unending quest for material possessions.
- Paul Ehrlich and Richard Harriman, How To Be a Survivor (Rivercity, Mass: Rivercity Press, 1971, 1975), p. 69.
Many of the conservation measures temporarily undertaken when the mini-crisis was in its acute stage—lowered speed limits, car-pools, reset thermostats, etc.—should be instituted on a permanent basis. . . . In the long run, energy should be made expensive, especially for large users, as an incentive to conservation.
- Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, The End of Affluence (Riverside, Mass: Rivercity Press, 1974, 1975), p. 48.
The large automobile should disappear entirely, except for some taxis, and these could be designed to run economically.
- Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, The End of Affluence (Riverside, Mass: Rivercity Press, 1974, 1975), p. 223.
Except in special circumstances, all construction of power generating facilities should cease immediately. . . . Power is much too cheap. It should certainly be made more expensive and perhaps rationed, in order to reduce its frivolous use.
- Paul Ehrlich and Richard Harriman, How To Be A Survivor (Rivercity, Mass.: Rivercity Press, 1971, 1975), p. 72.
Unnecessary lighting in offices and factories should . . . be banned.
- Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, The End of Affluence (Riverside, Mass: Rivercity Press, 1974, 1975), p. 226.
It should immediately be made illegal to construct a building with windows which cannot be opened.
- Paul Ehrlich and Richard Harriman, How To Be A Survivor (Rivercity, Mass.: Rivercity Press, 1971, 1975), pp. 73-74.
Completely frivolous uses of power, such as gas yard lamps that are permanently lit, should be outlawed altogether.
- Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, The End of Affluence (Riverside, Mass: Rivercity Press, 1974, 1975), p. 227.
Who, for instance, benefits from the garish use of electric signs that deface the nighttime sky of our cities? Many of then, of course, carry the kind of deceptive advertising that fuels our frenzied economy. . . . Advertising signs on restaurants, motels, and the like could be shut off by law at night when the establishment was not open. If everyone had to do it there would be little, if any, competitive loss.
- Paul Ehrlich and Richard Harriman, How To Be a Survivor (Rivercity, Mass: Rivercity Press, 1971, 1975), p. 73.
Making Fun of Consumption
Somewhere shortly after the Second World War the people of the United States made a colossal blunder. . . . TVs, boats, hi-fi’s, driers, disposals, and a myriad other items appeared on the lists of ‘musts.’ Suddenly we needed two or three of everything, and a new model of each every year.
- Paul Ehrlich and Richard Harriman, How To Be a Survivor (Rivercity, Mass: Rivercity Press, 1971, 1975), pp. 58-59.
Cars are for transportation, and proper use of the media could once again persuade American men to get their sexual kicks out of sex (not reproduction) instead of a series of automotive sexual surrogates. Restriction of families to ownership of single small cars also would put some pressure against over-reproducers. Our stress on the world’s supply of nonrenewable resources would be greatly alleviated by limiting the fuel consumption of the cars and by designing them for recycling.
- Paul Ehrlich and Richard Harriman, How To Be a Survivor (Rivercity, Mass: Rivercity Press, 1971, 1975), p. 67.
First everyone had to have a small black-and-white TV set, then a large screen, then color, then a VCR, then a Dolby stereo sound system, then a VCR with a Dolby stereo sound system. Soon anyone who can’t download any of 514 European, Asian, and cable television channels into his TV’s quadraplexed digital memory over the cellular modem in his moving car, transmit it to his home while moving, and play it back for his kids later than night will probably feel deprived.
- Robert Ornstein and Paul Ehrlich, New World New Mind: Moving Toward Conscious Evolution (New York: Doubleday, 1989), p. 56.
Over the longer term, America’s transportation system could be redesigned to minimize the need for automobiles and trucks and maximize the use of feet and bicycles for local transport and trains and aircraft, i.e. public transport, for long distances.
- Paul Ehrlich and Richard Harriman, How To Be a Survivor (Rivercity, Mass: Rivercity Press, 1971, 1975), p. 68.
It is not a stretch of the imagination to think that the carbon police will be need to enforce all of the carbon laws that would be needed in an Ehrlich-Holdren-Gore-Lovins-Flavin world. Will civil libertarians catch on and turn against the “Limits to Growth” wing of today’s dominant political party?
Master Resource, Mar 01, 2009
“The economic recession/depression is good, not bad. It lowers our carbon footprint in countless ways. It saves resources. It throttles back industrial society to sustainable levels that were exceeded long ago. Let the downturn continue to get us out of the growth mentality. Let rising expectations fall! Less is more!”
When will some prominent Left environmentalist slip and say something like this? No doubt the tongues are tied right now, but as time goes on it will be harder to keep the Malthusians muted.
Consider Paul Ehrlich’s advice for families, which can be extended to the economy as a whole:
Once a cooperative movement had gained momentum, it could also engage in an enormous campaign to re-educate other consumers and to change their buying habits. The pitch might be: ‘Try to live below your means! It will be good for your family’s economic situation, and may also help to save the world.’
- Paul Ehrlich and Richard Harriman, How To Be a Survivor (Rivercity, Mass: Rivercity Press, 1971, 1975), p. 149.
The literature is chock full of anti-growth, anti-industrial sentiment, including statements from John Holdren, Obama’s confirmed top science advisor, who said (with Ehrlich):
Only one rational path is open to us—simultaneous de-development of the [over developed countries or] ODC’s and semi-development of the underdeveloped countries (UDC’s), in order to approach a decent and ecologically sustainable standard of living for all in between. By de-development we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.
- John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, “Introduction,” in Holdren and Ehrlich, eds., Global Ecology (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971), p. 3.
and:
A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. . . . Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries. This effort must be largely political.
- John Holdren, Anne Ehrlich, and Paul Ehrlich, Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions (San Francisco; W.H. Freeman and Company, 1973), p. 279.
Al Gore has blessed a “wrenching transformation of society,” which does not bode well for a future of economic prosperity:
Minor shifts in policy, marginal adjustments in ongoing programs, moderate improvements in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change—these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle, and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.”
- Al Gore, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit (New York: Plume/Penguin, 1992, 1993), p. 274.
Lifestyle changes are required, notes Amory Lovins:
Governments and their constituencies in rich countries should begin to contemplate seriously and to decide upon the changes in lifestyles that energetic and other constraints will soon impose—changes that may well be desirable on other grounds.
- Amory Lovins, World Energy Strategies: Facts, Issues, and Options (New York: Friends of the Earth International, 1975), p. 127.
Adds Christopher Flavin of the Worldwatch Institute:
Global climate change will not be slowed with a simple law or regulation. More than any other environmental problem, climate change is woven into the very structure of today’s societies. . . . Major changes in technology, infrastructure, and even life-style are needed to slow it.
- Christopher Flavin and Odil Tunali, Climate of Hope: New Strategies for Stabilizing the World’s Atmosphere (Washington: Worldwatch Institute, 1996), p. 53.
Laws, laws, more laws
What might some of these lifestyle changes entail. Paul Ehrlich, the mentor of John Holdren, has been explicit:
Laws may well be passed strictly limiting the number of appliances a single family may possess. Learning to survive with only one TV set will, for instance, be simpler than learning to live on a planet made uninhabitable by an unending quest for material possessions.
- Paul Ehrlich and Richard Harriman, How To Be a Survivor (Rivercity, Mass: Rivercity Press, 1971, 1975), p. 69.
Many of the conservation measures temporarily undertaken when the mini-crisis was in its acute stage—lowered speed limits, car-pools, reset thermostats, etc.—should be instituted on a permanent basis. . . . In the long run, energy should be made expensive, especially for large users, as an incentive to conservation.
- Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, The End of Affluence (Riverside, Mass: Rivercity Press, 1974, 1975), p. 48.
The large automobile should disappear entirely, except for some taxis, and these could be designed to run economically.
- Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, The End of Affluence (Riverside, Mass: Rivercity Press, 1974, 1975), p. 223.
Except in special circumstances, all construction of power generating facilities should cease immediately. . . . Power is much too cheap. It should certainly be made more expensive and perhaps rationed, in order to reduce its frivolous use.
- Paul Ehrlich and Richard Harriman, How To Be A Survivor (Rivercity, Mass.: Rivercity Press, 1971, 1975), p. 72.
Unnecessary lighting in offices and factories should . . . be banned.
- Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, The End of Affluence (Riverside, Mass: Rivercity Press, 1974, 1975), p. 226.
It should immediately be made illegal to construct a building with windows which cannot be opened.
- Paul Ehrlich and Richard Harriman, How To Be A Survivor (Rivercity, Mass.: Rivercity Press, 1971, 1975), pp. 73-74.
Completely frivolous uses of power, such as gas yard lamps that are permanently lit, should be outlawed altogether.
- Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, The End of Affluence (Riverside, Mass: Rivercity Press, 1974, 1975), p. 227.
Who, for instance, benefits from the garish use of electric signs that deface the nighttime sky of our cities? Many of then, of course, carry the kind of deceptive advertising that fuels our frenzied economy. . . . Advertising signs on restaurants, motels, and the like could be shut off by law at night when the establishment was not open. If everyone had to do it there would be little, if any, competitive loss.
- Paul Ehrlich and Richard Harriman, How To Be a Survivor (Rivercity, Mass: Rivercity Press, 1971, 1975), p. 73.
Making Fun of Consumption
Somewhere shortly after the Second World War the people of the United States made a colossal blunder. . . . TVs, boats, hi-fi’s, driers, disposals, and a myriad other items appeared on the lists of ‘musts.’ Suddenly we needed two or three of everything, and a new model of each every year.
- Paul Ehrlich and Richard Harriman, How To Be a Survivor (Rivercity, Mass: Rivercity Press, 1971, 1975), pp. 58-59.
Cars are for transportation, and proper use of the media could once again persuade American men to get their sexual kicks out of sex (not reproduction) instead of a series of automotive sexual surrogates. Restriction of families to ownership of single small cars also would put some pressure against over-reproducers. Our stress on the world’s supply of nonrenewable resources would be greatly alleviated by limiting the fuel consumption of the cars and by designing them for recycling.
- Paul Ehrlich and Richard Harriman, How To Be a Survivor (Rivercity, Mass: Rivercity Press, 1971, 1975), p. 67.
First everyone had to have a small black-and-white TV set, then a large screen, then color, then a VCR, then a Dolby stereo sound system, then a VCR with a Dolby stereo sound system. Soon anyone who can’t download any of 514 European, Asian, and cable television channels into his TV’s quadraplexed digital memory over the cellular modem in his moving car, transmit it to his home while moving, and play it back for his kids later than night will probably feel deprived.
- Robert Ornstein and Paul Ehrlich, New World New Mind: Moving Toward Conscious Evolution (New York: Doubleday, 1989), p. 56.
Over the longer term, America’s transportation system could be redesigned to minimize the need for automobiles and trucks and maximize the use of feet and bicycles for local transport and trains and aircraft, i.e. public transport, for long distances.
- Paul Ehrlich and Richard Harriman, How To Be a Survivor (Rivercity, Mass: Rivercity Press, 1971, 1975), p. 68.
It is not a stretch of the imagination to think that the carbon police will be need to enforce all of the carbon laws that would be needed in an Ehrlich-Holdren-Gore-Lovins-Flavin world. Will civil libertarians catch on and turn against the “Limits to Growth” wing of today’s dominant political party?
China’s Naval Force Projection off Somalia
China’s Naval Force Projection off Somalia. By S.Rajasimman
Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses, March 02, 2009
Call it China’s new military diplomacy or emerging naval strategy. A Chinese naval fleet arrived in the Gulf of Aden off the Somalian coast on January 6, 2009 to carry out the first escort mission against pirates. On February 18, 2009, in an efficient display of its growing naval capabilities, the fleet completed its twenty first mission (the largest held so far in the series) of escorting merchant ships in this region. Ten Chinese merchant ships were part of the convoy while three foreign ones, including Hermione from Germany, Viking Crux from Singapore and Princess Nataly from Cyprus requested protection and were escorted by the Chinese fleet. The fleet sailed from a port in Sanya city of China’s southernmost island province of Hainan on December 26, 2008. The fleet comprises two destroyers (Haikou and DDG-169 Wuhan) and a supply ship (Weishanhu) from the South China Sea Fleet. The fleet carried about 800 crew members, including 70 soldiers from the Navy’s special force, and was equipped with ship-borne missiles and light weapons.
It is timely to explore this issue given the Chinese motivation in conducting naval operations far away from the mainland for the first time. There seems to be a general consensus among many Chinese military and non-military experts that circumstances were favourable for projecting force at such a distance. Firstly, China has gained enough experience in long distance naval force deployment due its frequent military exchanges with other countries. The logistics problem of supply and refuelling was no longer seen as a constraint. While on its way to the Somalian coast, the fleet displayed its supply and refuelling capability as it entered the Indian Ocean through the Malacca Straits. The supply ship Weishanhu refuelled the two destroyers with several hundred tons of oil, an operation that an official described as “highly efficient”.
The fact that two Chinese ships, a fishing vessel and a Hong Kong-flag ship with a 25-member crew, were seized by Somalian pirates in October 2008 does not qualify as a potential reason for this long distance naval deployment. These hijacks occurred off the Kenyan coast, and the total number of hijacks of Chinese vessels so far constitutes only 0.7 per cent of the total passages. Therefore, the decision may be due to other factors over and above the one involving immediate Chinese interest. Prior to deployment, China explicitly believed that any action in the Gulf of Aden must be carried out within the “United Nations Framework”. In his address to the United Nations on December 16, 2008 China’s Vice Foreign Minister had said that “China is seriously considering sending naval ships to the Gulf of Aden and waters off the Somali coast for escorting operations in the near future.” The minister also added that China appreciated the efforts made by other Navies to curb the problem of piracy. This needs to be contrasted with the Chinese government’s stand on growing intervention based military strategies. The China Defence White Paper, 2000 stated that the UN role in securing international peace was on the decline because of unilateral actions taken by some countries outside the United Nations Security Council framework (e.g. the Kosovo intervention). In the above mentioned address to the UN by the Vice Foreign Minister, he had said that the UN should also attempt to resolve the root causes of piracy in Somalia. The Chinese believe that piracy is a direct consequence of the domestic politico-military-economic condition within Somalia. The transitional federal government in place in Somalia had worked up the power ladder with American support and displaced the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), which still holds huge mass support especially in Southern Somalia. This is indicative of US efforts in the war against terrorism. Furthermore, in the absence of multilateral operations under the UN, Somalia may in the future become a scene of unilateral intervention by the US and Britain or both. Piracy thus seems to be only the tip of the iceberg. However, Chinese behaviour is inconsistent with its political rhetoric at least at the level of policy. On June 24, 2007 C.N.O.O.P signed a deal with Somali President Abdullah Yusuf to explore the northern Puntland region for oil. This deal was signed in a hurry prior to the Somali government framing the National Oil Rules (NOR). Chinese firms backed by their government seem to be willing to take economic and political risks which western firms would shy away from. Any unilateral military action by western powers would affect Chinese interests in the region. Like the anti-satellite test in early January 2007, China seems to project its capabilities as part of its extending diplomacy without breaking any rules.
China, which became a permanent member of the UN Security Council only in 1971, did not engage in peace keeping operations until 1989. In 1989, it began its first exploratory foray into UN peacekeeping missions, sending non-military observers to join the UN Namibia Transitional Period Aid Group overseeing a general election. In 1990, China dispatched military observers to the Middle East in support of the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO). One reason for this transition was the Tiananmen Square incident, when the People’s Liberation Army was caught on the wrong foot with its own people. This incident stimulated the need for the PLA to conduct more people-oriented activities such as disaster relief, domestic security, and other measures, but also, very importantly, participation in UN peacekeeping operations. This transition has now made China the largest contributor by a permanent member of the UN Security Council (in close competition with France).The second reason is the PRC’s concern over sovereignty and its violation through intervention. China was not supportive of UN mandated Blue Helmet operations due to its national experience. During the Cold War, the United Nations had formally sanctioned the use of force only once and China itself was at the receiving end during the UN-mandated operations in the Korean Peninsula in the early 1950s. With the Cold War world order overthrown in this era of intense economic interdependence, China’s concern seems to be reorienting. The third reason could be that Chinese concerns over Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang, which, if left uncontrolled, could become cases for intervention.
Another important motivation behind the decision to deploy a Chinese naval force off Somalia could be the fact that this involves the African continent where Beijing has substantial economic investments. Chinese leaders have been frequenting Africa since 2000. As a leading importer of crude oil, China depends on Africa for 25 per cent of its oil needs, which is projected to go up to 40 per cent by 2020. It has granted extensive debt packages to Africa on a no strings attached basis and its bilateral trade is expected with the continent is expected to touch US $100 billion by 2010. Suffice it to say that China’s stakes and advantages in Africa are high. The overall expected output of oil by Chinese firms in Africa is 78 million tons (presently the output is 40.3 million tons). China also depends on Saudi Arabia for its crude oil imports and has huge markets in Europe. Chinese merchant ships will have to necessarily frequent the waters off the Somali coast.
Given the country’s limited force projection capability, China’s action is consistent with its overall policy strategy of creating an international order that is different from the Cold War order. Securing international peace and development is currently an objective of China’s foreign policy. The current international environment will only help China achieve its strategic and developmental goals. It will enhance its image as a responsible power in the twenty first century and give it the experience to conduct naval operations far from its shores.
A few decades ago, while articulating new ways to use the National Defence Force (NFD), Deng Xiaoping’s had stated that “When our country is developed and more prosperous, we shall have a bigger role to play in the world.” After almost three decades this seems to be coming true.
S.Rajasimman is Research Assistant at the Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.
Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses, March 02, 2009
Call it China’s new military diplomacy or emerging naval strategy. A Chinese naval fleet arrived in the Gulf of Aden off the Somalian coast on January 6, 2009 to carry out the first escort mission against pirates. On February 18, 2009, in an efficient display of its growing naval capabilities, the fleet completed its twenty first mission (the largest held so far in the series) of escorting merchant ships in this region. Ten Chinese merchant ships were part of the convoy while three foreign ones, including Hermione from Germany, Viking Crux from Singapore and Princess Nataly from Cyprus requested protection and were escorted by the Chinese fleet. The fleet sailed from a port in Sanya city of China’s southernmost island province of Hainan on December 26, 2008. The fleet comprises two destroyers (Haikou and DDG-169 Wuhan) and a supply ship (Weishanhu) from the South China Sea Fleet. The fleet carried about 800 crew members, including 70 soldiers from the Navy’s special force, and was equipped with ship-borne missiles and light weapons.
It is timely to explore this issue given the Chinese motivation in conducting naval operations far away from the mainland for the first time. There seems to be a general consensus among many Chinese military and non-military experts that circumstances were favourable for projecting force at such a distance. Firstly, China has gained enough experience in long distance naval force deployment due its frequent military exchanges with other countries. The logistics problem of supply and refuelling was no longer seen as a constraint. While on its way to the Somalian coast, the fleet displayed its supply and refuelling capability as it entered the Indian Ocean through the Malacca Straits. The supply ship Weishanhu refuelled the two destroyers with several hundred tons of oil, an operation that an official described as “highly efficient”.
The fact that two Chinese ships, a fishing vessel and a Hong Kong-flag ship with a 25-member crew, were seized by Somalian pirates in October 2008 does not qualify as a potential reason for this long distance naval deployment. These hijacks occurred off the Kenyan coast, and the total number of hijacks of Chinese vessels so far constitutes only 0.7 per cent of the total passages. Therefore, the decision may be due to other factors over and above the one involving immediate Chinese interest. Prior to deployment, China explicitly believed that any action in the Gulf of Aden must be carried out within the “United Nations Framework”. In his address to the United Nations on December 16, 2008 China’s Vice Foreign Minister had said that “China is seriously considering sending naval ships to the Gulf of Aden and waters off the Somali coast for escorting operations in the near future.” The minister also added that China appreciated the efforts made by other Navies to curb the problem of piracy. This needs to be contrasted with the Chinese government’s stand on growing intervention based military strategies. The China Defence White Paper, 2000 stated that the UN role in securing international peace was on the decline because of unilateral actions taken by some countries outside the United Nations Security Council framework (e.g. the Kosovo intervention). In the above mentioned address to the UN by the Vice Foreign Minister, he had said that the UN should also attempt to resolve the root causes of piracy in Somalia. The Chinese believe that piracy is a direct consequence of the domestic politico-military-economic condition within Somalia. The transitional federal government in place in Somalia had worked up the power ladder with American support and displaced the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), which still holds huge mass support especially in Southern Somalia. This is indicative of US efforts in the war against terrorism. Furthermore, in the absence of multilateral operations under the UN, Somalia may in the future become a scene of unilateral intervention by the US and Britain or both. Piracy thus seems to be only the tip of the iceberg. However, Chinese behaviour is inconsistent with its political rhetoric at least at the level of policy. On June 24, 2007 C.N.O.O.P signed a deal with Somali President Abdullah Yusuf to explore the northern Puntland region for oil. This deal was signed in a hurry prior to the Somali government framing the National Oil Rules (NOR). Chinese firms backed by their government seem to be willing to take economic and political risks which western firms would shy away from. Any unilateral military action by western powers would affect Chinese interests in the region. Like the anti-satellite test in early January 2007, China seems to project its capabilities as part of its extending diplomacy without breaking any rules.
China, which became a permanent member of the UN Security Council only in 1971, did not engage in peace keeping operations until 1989. In 1989, it began its first exploratory foray into UN peacekeeping missions, sending non-military observers to join the UN Namibia Transitional Period Aid Group overseeing a general election. In 1990, China dispatched military observers to the Middle East in support of the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO). One reason for this transition was the Tiananmen Square incident, when the People’s Liberation Army was caught on the wrong foot with its own people. This incident stimulated the need for the PLA to conduct more people-oriented activities such as disaster relief, domestic security, and other measures, but also, very importantly, participation in UN peacekeeping operations. This transition has now made China the largest contributor by a permanent member of the UN Security Council (in close competition with France).The second reason is the PRC’s concern over sovereignty and its violation through intervention. China was not supportive of UN mandated Blue Helmet operations due to its national experience. During the Cold War, the United Nations had formally sanctioned the use of force only once and China itself was at the receiving end during the UN-mandated operations in the Korean Peninsula in the early 1950s. With the Cold War world order overthrown in this era of intense economic interdependence, China’s concern seems to be reorienting. The third reason could be that Chinese concerns over Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang, which, if left uncontrolled, could become cases for intervention.
Another important motivation behind the decision to deploy a Chinese naval force off Somalia could be the fact that this involves the African continent where Beijing has substantial economic investments. Chinese leaders have been frequenting Africa since 2000. As a leading importer of crude oil, China depends on Africa for 25 per cent of its oil needs, which is projected to go up to 40 per cent by 2020. It has granted extensive debt packages to Africa on a no strings attached basis and its bilateral trade is expected with the continent is expected to touch US $100 billion by 2010. Suffice it to say that China’s stakes and advantages in Africa are high. The overall expected output of oil by Chinese firms in Africa is 78 million tons (presently the output is 40.3 million tons). China also depends on Saudi Arabia for its crude oil imports and has huge markets in Europe. Chinese merchant ships will have to necessarily frequent the waters off the Somali coast.
Given the country’s limited force projection capability, China’s action is consistent with its overall policy strategy of creating an international order that is different from the Cold War order. Securing international peace and development is currently an objective of China’s foreign policy. The current international environment will only help China achieve its strategic and developmental goals. It will enhance its image as a responsible power in the twenty first century and give it the experience to conduct naval operations far from its shores.
A few decades ago, while articulating new ways to use the National Defence Force (NFD), Deng Xiaoping’s had stated that “When our country is developed and more prosperous, we shall have a bigger role to play in the world.” After almost three decades this seems to be coming true.
S.Rajasimman is Research Assistant at the Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.
Soft Toilet Paper: Mankind’s Doom?
Soft Toilet Paper: Mankind’s Doom? By Ryan Young
Open Market/CEI, February 28, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
The kerfuffle over soft toilet paper has hit a new low. The NRDC’s Allen Hershkowitz is now saying that “People just don’t understand that softness equals ecological destruction.”
I had to chuckle after reading that last sentence (it is silly, is it not?). But then I decided to take Hershkowitz seriously. Hardcore environmentalists like the NRDC are sometimes loosey-goosey with the data; science and their religion rarely get along.
Let’s see how big the impact of softer toilet paper really is. Maybe, hyperbole aside, Hershkowitz has a point. Let’s look at the data and find out.
Despite the proliferation of tree-intensive soft toilet paper, forest area in the U.S. has remained almost unchanged over the last century. Right around 33% of total land area.
Over that same time period, U.S. population more than tripled. That’s a lot more bottoms, demanding ever softer toilet paper. And yet — no net deforestation.
That doesn’t sound like ecological destruction. To use one of the New Religion’s buzzwords, that sounds… sustainable.
Deforestation is happening on a worldwide scale, according to a handy table from the Earth Policy Institute (data from the UN). They try to make it sound scary, but it isn’t. I crunched the numbers. The decline amounts to roughly 0.2% per year. Not exactly a crisis. Even that slow rate appears to be in decline.
I’m going to go ahead and say that Hershkowitz and the NRDC are promoting a baseless scare story.
There is still a tremendous upside to all this hemming and hawing. If toilet paper is all that environmental activists have to get worked up over these days, it is a sign that, environmentally speaking, we live in good times.
Open Market/CEI, February 28, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
The kerfuffle over soft toilet paper has hit a new low. The NRDC’s Allen Hershkowitz is now saying that “People just don’t understand that softness equals ecological destruction.”
I had to chuckle after reading that last sentence (it is silly, is it not?). But then I decided to take Hershkowitz seriously. Hardcore environmentalists like the NRDC are sometimes loosey-goosey with the data; science and their religion rarely get along.
Let’s see how big the impact of softer toilet paper really is. Maybe, hyperbole aside, Hershkowitz has a point. Let’s look at the data and find out.
Despite the proliferation of tree-intensive soft toilet paper, forest area in the U.S. has remained almost unchanged over the last century. Right around 33% of total land area.
Over that same time period, U.S. population more than tripled. That’s a lot more bottoms, demanding ever softer toilet paper. And yet — no net deforestation.
That doesn’t sound like ecological destruction. To use one of the New Religion’s buzzwords, that sounds… sustainable.
Deforestation is happening on a worldwide scale, according to a handy table from the Earth Policy Institute (data from the UN). They try to make it sound scary, but it isn’t. I crunched the numbers. The decline amounts to roughly 0.2% per year. Not exactly a crisis. Even that slow rate appears to be in decline.
I’m going to go ahead and say that Hershkowitz and the NRDC are promoting a baseless scare story.
There is still a tremendous upside to all this hemming and hawing. If toilet paper is all that environmental activists have to get worked up over these days, it is a sign that, environmentally speaking, we live in good times.
It’s Time to Consider the Cost of Regulation
It’s Time to Consider the Cost of Regulation. By Clyde Wayne Crews
CEI, February 26, 2009
As President Obama took the podium Tuesday night, all minds were fixed on the economy. As expected, the President addressed the economy first, front and center. “Now is the time to act boldly and wisely,” he said, “to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity.”
However, if by “boldly and wisely” he means increasing government spending to unprecedented levels, the near future will bring not a foundation for lasting growth, but a still-limping economy.
The President praised the passage of the $787-billion stimulus bill "the largest spending bill in history. While a lot of that money will go back into the economy, it will do so according to decisions made by politicians and regulators. In other words, it’s all top down.
A better approach is to empower citizens and businesses "who pay the taxes, anyhow "to stimulate from the bottom up. Unfortunately, removing burdensome regulations on businesses, both large and small, hasn’t figured much into the economic recovery program thus far. But alternatives to “porkulus” and “bailout to nowhere” do exist.Let’s call it “liberate to stimulate.” Such a campaign would include fiscal reforms (both taxing and spending), deregulatory stimulus, infrastructure investment liberalization, financial reforms that shift risk back on the institutions rather than on taxpayers, a regulatory reduction commission, and much more.
Starting from the basics of the free market, we can go a long way toward laying the right foundation for unimpeded economic recovery.
Consider regulation of business in America today. We’ve all heard of the trillions of dollars in new government spending. But the compliance costs generated by thousands of regulations pouring forth from over 50 departments, agencies and commissions impose another trillion-plus more, as CEI’s Ten Thousand Commandments survey shows.
Agency bureaucrats don’t answer to voters. Congress, although responsible for the underlying statutes that propel those agencies, can blame the agencies for regulatory excesses. That’s how we get “regulation without representation.”
Administrative reforms like cost-benefit analysis cannot tame the regulatory state as long as agencies themselves get to evaluate the benefits of their own rules, and as long as legislative constraints on the scope of the regulatory state remain weak.Thus, reducing the scope of government control in the economy is the true end game. But until then, measures like a regulatory budget could promote accountability by limiting the amount of regulatory costs that agencies can impose on the private sector, and holding Congress responsible for those costs.
Of course, regulatory costs can never be precisely measured, so a budget could not achieve absolute precision. And enforcement will never be easy, since agencies will have incentives to overstate benefits and understate compliance costs. Still, regulatory budgeting could help restore congressional primacy in the legislative and rulemaking processes from which regulations spring.
As information "sorely lacking now "accumulates, Congress can begin to divide a “total” budget among agencies roughly in proportion to potential benefits, such as lives saved. Agencies’ incentives would be to rank hazards from most to least severe, and address them within their budget constraint. Unwise regulating could mean transfer of the squandered budgetary allocation to a “rival” agency, while Congress would weigh an agency’s claimed benefits against alternative means of protecting public health and safety.
A well designed regulatory budget should explicitly recognize that agencies’ basic impulse is to overstate the benefits of its activities, and therefore relieve agencies of benefit calculation responsibilities altogether.
Other ways to promote the success of a budget are to: start small, compile a periodic “report card” on the numbers and costs of regulations in each agency, establish a regulatory cost freeze, set up a Regulatory Reduction Commission to assemble a package of regulations to cut, and employ separate budgets for economic regulation and environmental/social regulation.
A regulatory budget will not magically reduce the current $1.3- trillion annual regulatory burden. But better information about the size and scope of the regulatory state will aid future economic stimulus efforts. And as Washington sets out on a massive growth spurt, any enhancement of congressional accountability and limitations on the delegation of regulatory power can only help.
Wayne Crews is Vice President for Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
CEI, February 26, 2009
As President Obama took the podium Tuesday night, all minds were fixed on the economy. As expected, the President addressed the economy first, front and center. “Now is the time to act boldly and wisely,” he said, “to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity.”
However, if by “boldly and wisely” he means increasing government spending to unprecedented levels, the near future will bring not a foundation for lasting growth, but a still-limping economy.
The President praised the passage of the $787-billion stimulus bill "the largest spending bill in history. While a lot of that money will go back into the economy, it will do so according to decisions made by politicians and regulators. In other words, it’s all top down.
A better approach is to empower citizens and businesses "who pay the taxes, anyhow "to stimulate from the bottom up. Unfortunately, removing burdensome regulations on businesses, both large and small, hasn’t figured much into the economic recovery program thus far. But alternatives to “porkulus” and “bailout to nowhere” do exist.Let’s call it “liberate to stimulate.” Such a campaign would include fiscal reforms (both taxing and spending), deregulatory stimulus, infrastructure investment liberalization, financial reforms that shift risk back on the institutions rather than on taxpayers, a regulatory reduction commission, and much more.
Starting from the basics of the free market, we can go a long way toward laying the right foundation for unimpeded economic recovery.
Consider regulation of business in America today. We’ve all heard of the trillions of dollars in new government spending. But the compliance costs generated by thousands of regulations pouring forth from over 50 departments, agencies and commissions impose another trillion-plus more, as CEI’s Ten Thousand Commandments survey shows.
Agency bureaucrats don’t answer to voters. Congress, although responsible for the underlying statutes that propel those agencies, can blame the agencies for regulatory excesses. That’s how we get “regulation without representation.”
Administrative reforms like cost-benefit analysis cannot tame the regulatory state as long as agencies themselves get to evaluate the benefits of their own rules, and as long as legislative constraints on the scope of the regulatory state remain weak.Thus, reducing the scope of government control in the economy is the true end game. But until then, measures like a regulatory budget could promote accountability by limiting the amount of regulatory costs that agencies can impose on the private sector, and holding Congress responsible for those costs.
Of course, regulatory costs can never be precisely measured, so a budget could not achieve absolute precision. And enforcement will never be easy, since agencies will have incentives to overstate benefits and understate compliance costs. Still, regulatory budgeting could help restore congressional primacy in the legislative and rulemaking processes from which regulations spring.
As information "sorely lacking now "accumulates, Congress can begin to divide a “total” budget among agencies roughly in proportion to potential benefits, such as lives saved. Agencies’ incentives would be to rank hazards from most to least severe, and address them within their budget constraint. Unwise regulating could mean transfer of the squandered budgetary allocation to a “rival” agency, while Congress would weigh an agency’s claimed benefits against alternative means of protecting public health and safety.
A well designed regulatory budget should explicitly recognize that agencies’ basic impulse is to overstate the benefits of its activities, and therefore relieve agencies of benefit calculation responsibilities altogether.
Other ways to promote the success of a budget are to: start small, compile a periodic “report card” on the numbers and costs of regulations in each agency, establish a regulatory cost freeze, set up a Regulatory Reduction Commission to assemble a package of regulations to cut, and employ separate budgets for economic regulation and environmental/social regulation.
A regulatory budget will not magically reduce the current $1.3- trillion annual regulatory burden. But better information about the size and scope of the regulatory state will aid future economic stimulus efforts. And as Washington sets out on a massive growth spurt, any enhancement of congressional accountability and limitations on the delegation of regulatory power can only help.
Wayne Crews is Vice President for Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Why Acquisition Reform Fails
Why Acquisition Reform Fails, by Benjamin H. Friedman
Cato at Liberty, Feb 27, 2009
Senators Carl Levin and John McCain this week introduced legislation to improve how the Pentagon buys things — defense acquisition reform. The President is on the same page. So chances are the Pentagon’s acquisition workforce will have a new set of rules to learn some time this year.
Here’s the bill. Highlights: a series of new reporting requirements about systems analysis of new programs, a new official to come up with cost estimates of weapons systems, another official to oversee developmental testing, a requirement for competitive prototyping of new weapons, which can be waived, and an effort to make waiving Nunn-McCurty breaches a little more onerous (the idea was that you cancel weapons systems that experience excessive cost growth, but it never happens), plus some other minor bureaucratic changes. McCain claims that the legislation will cut back on cost plus contracts in favor of the fixed price variety, but the legislation does not address that.
At best this bill will create some marginal improvements in defense acquisition. More likely it will simply add hassle.
Acquisition reform is practically seasonal at the Pentagon, as this PowerPoint slide show comically demonstrates. And things have only gotten worse — more programs over budget and behind schedule over time. (Read this recent testimony from a Congressional Research Service expert for details.) According to another expert, former Pentagon weapons testing chief Tom Christie, the trouble is not the existing acquisition rules but the failure to use them to control costs. He says so in a chapter for the book America’s Defense Meltdown, which we will be discussing here at a forum on March 13.
The reasons for the failure of acquisition reform are complicated, but one surely is that these are technocratic solutions to political problems. The trouble is what we want, which is several technological miracles in each new platform, not how we buy it, as my professor and sometimes co-author Harvey Sapolsky explains in a recent Defense News op-ed:
The truth is you can’t fix the acquisition system. All the insiders know this…We can’t fix it because we want crazy things. We want a system that can fire missiles from a submarine hiding beneath the surface of the sea and hit a target thousands of miles away. Or we want a tank that can survive a shaped charge round, pack its own lethal punch and is airlifted by a C-130.
Systems have to perform reliably in the snow, in the mud, in the sand. They have to communicate with every friend and not reveal themselves to any foe. And we want them soon, not later.
Worse, we already have a lot of first-class ships, aircraft, missiles and tanks; proposed new weapon systems have to be a lot better than them or any obvious modification we can make. To be worthy of our approval, the advocates of the new system have to dazzle us with expectations of what will soon be in our arsenal, something no enemy can match. It will likely cost billions, but it will be great.
With that gleam in their eye, the services seek bids for the weapons that will define their futures. Only a few contractors can qualify to make offers. After all, only a few firms know the acquisition regulations well enough and have sufficient engineering talent to manage complex projects.
Moreover, government-encouraged mergers have further thinned the ranks of eligible firms. Given that new starts in most weapon lines are once-in-a-decade-or-more events, project awards are survival tests. Not surprisingly, false optimism abounds.
For more, read his recently co-authored book.
What about using more fixed price contracts and less cost-plus contracts, as McCain suggests? Isn’t it obvious that unless you pay someone a set price rather than whatever he says it costs, he will rip you off? Actually, no, not in defense contracting. Chris Preble and I addressed this in an oped last October:
In a cost-plus contract, the contractor gets paid whatever it costs to make a good, plus a profit. McCain claims that these agreements encourage contractors to spend as much possible and send the government the bill. This argument is confused. Defense contractors have essentially one customer: the Pentagon. Repeatedly gouging your only customer, one with a small army of auditors, is likely to lead to bankruptcy.
New technology is hard to price. If we used fixed price contracts— as McCain proposes—for new complex projects, like the next-generation bomber the air force will soon build, the contractors would simply ask for more money up front to limit their risks. If we force a low price on them, they will likely blow through what is allocated and ask for a new contract. Because military services badly want the weapons they contract for—and starting over would take years—Pentagon officials would then be forced to rewrite the deal.
What acquisition reform would work? It might help to increase the number of civilian acquisition overseers and pay them more, given that their workload has expanded, and to allow them more flexibility in their work, not less, as this legislation would. But these are still minor fixes. You can’t fix acquisition until you change the incentive structure that produces its outcomes. Until the services and their Congressional backers start to accept platforms that push the technological envelop less, the problems will persist.
Cato at Liberty, Feb 27, 2009
Senators Carl Levin and John McCain this week introduced legislation to improve how the Pentagon buys things — defense acquisition reform. The President is on the same page. So chances are the Pentagon’s acquisition workforce will have a new set of rules to learn some time this year.
Here’s the bill. Highlights: a series of new reporting requirements about systems analysis of new programs, a new official to come up with cost estimates of weapons systems, another official to oversee developmental testing, a requirement for competitive prototyping of new weapons, which can be waived, and an effort to make waiving Nunn-McCurty breaches a little more onerous (the idea was that you cancel weapons systems that experience excessive cost growth, but it never happens), plus some other minor bureaucratic changes. McCain claims that the legislation will cut back on cost plus contracts in favor of the fixed price variety, but the legislation does not address that.
At best this bill will create some marginal improvements in defense acquisition. More likely it will simply add hassle.
Acquisition reform is practically seasonal at the Pentagon, as this PowerPoint slide show comically demonstrates. And things have only gotten worse — more programs over budget and behind schedule over time. (Read this recent testimony from a Congressional Research Service expert for details.) According to another expert, former Pentagon weapons testing chief Tom Christie, the trouble is not the existing acquisition rules but the failure to use them to control costs. He says so in a chapter for the book America’s Defense Meltdown, which we will be discussing here at a forum on March 13.
The reasons for the failure of acquisition reform are complicated, but one surely is that these are technocratic solutions to political problems. The trouble is what we want, which is several technological miracles in each new platform, not how we buy it, as my professor and sometimes co-author Harvey Sapolsky explains in a recent Defense News op-ed:
The truth is you can’t fix the acquisition system. All the insiders know this…We can’t fix it because we want crazy things. We want a system that can fire missiles from a submarine hiding beneath the surface of the sea and hit a target thousands of miles away. Or we want a tank that can survive a shaped charge round, pack its own lethal punch and is airlifted by a C-130.
Systems have to perform reliably in the snow, in the mud, in the sand. They have to communicate with every friend and not reveal themselves to any foe. And we want them soon, not later.
Worse, we already have a lot of first-class ships, aircraft, missiles and tanks; proposed new weapon systems have to be a lot better than them or any obvious modification we can make. To be worthy of our approval, the advocates of the new system have to dazzle us with expectations of what will soon be in our arsenal, something no enemy can match. It will likely cost billions, but it will be great.
With that gleam in their eye, the services seek bids for the weapons that will define their futures. Only a few contractors can qualify to make offers. After all, only a few firms know the acquisition regulations well enough and have sufficient engineering talent to manage complex projects.
Moreover, government-encouraged mergers have further thinned the ranks of eligible firms. Given that new starts in most weapon lines are once-in-a-decade-or-more events, project awards are survival tests. Not surprisingly, false optimism abounds.
For more, read his recently co-authored book.
What about using more fixed price contracts and less cost-plus contracts, as McCain suggests? Isn’t it obvious that unless you pay someone a set price rather than whatever he says it costs, he will rip you off? Actually, no, not in defense contracting. Chris Preble and I addressed this in an oped last October:
In a cost-plus contract, the contractor gets paid whatever it costs to make a good, plus a profit. McCain claims that these agreements encourage contractors to spend as much possible and send the government the bill. This argument is confused. Defense contractors have essentially one customer: the Pentagon. Repeatedly gouging your only customer, one with a small army of auditors, is likely to lead to bankruptcy.
New technology is hard to price. If we used fixed price contracts— as McCain proposes—for new complex projects, like the next-generation bomber the air force will soon build, the contractors would simply ask for more money up front to limit their risks. If we force a low price on them, they will likely blow through what is allocated and ask for a new contract. Because military services badly want the weapons they contract for—and starting over would take years—Pentagon officials would then be forced to rewrite the deal.
What acquisition reform would work? It might help to increase the number of civilian acquisition overseers and pay them more, given that their workload has expanded, and to allow them more flexibility in their work, not less, as this legislation would. But these are still minor fixes. You can’t fix acquisition until you change the incentive structure that produces its outcomes. Until the services and their Congressional backers start to accept platforms that push the technological envelop less, the problems will persist.
The Obama–Brown White House Talks: The U.S.–U.K. Special Relationship Must Be Maintained
The Obama–Brown White House Talks: The U.S.–U.K. Special Relationship Must Be Maintained. By Nile Gardiner, Ph.D.
Heritage, March 1, 2009
WebMemo #2317
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will be the first European leader to meet with President Barack Obama when he visits the White House on March 3. The two world leaders are expected to discuss a range of issues, including the war in Afghanistan, the Iranian nuclear threat, and the global financial crisis, as well as the upcoming G-20 talks in London and the NATO 60th anniversary summit in Strasbourg/Kehl.
In addition to meeting with the President, Brown will address a joint session of Congress on March 4, making him only the fifth British prime minister to be given the honor.
A Shift Away from Britain?
The Brown–Obama meeting will be overshadowed by growing concerns about a possible weakening of the U.S.–U.K. Special Relationship, tensions over strategy in the war in Afghanistan, and the threat of a renewed American protectionism.
The Anglo-American alliance is being eroded on several fronts, from falling levels of U.K. defense spending and the gutting of Britain's armed forces by the Labour government to the gradual erosion of British sovereignty in Europe and the rise of a European Union defense identity now being backed by Washington. It is also threatened by the new U.S. Administration's apathy and indifference toward the U.K.
President Obama's surprise decision to remove a bust of Sir Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and return it to the British government sent an early signal to London that the new Administration will adopt a far less robust approach toward the historic Anglo-American alliance. The White House is already recalibrating the alliance as a "special partnership," —not a "special relationship"—a subtle play on words indicating a potential shift away from a decades-long policy of according Britain a unique status as America's most important ally.
U.S. Overtures to Europe
The Obama White House is keen to significantly strengthen America's relationship with both France and Germany, continental Europe's biggest powers, as well as with Brussels, the institutional heart of the European Union. This approach is partly the product of a distinctly pro-European outlook on the part of the new Administration following transatlantic tensions during the Bush Administration. It is also based on a naive belief that major European allies will actually increase defense spending and reduce the burden on America and that the EU will play a more supportive role in world affairs alongside the United States.
Washington is already making major concessions to France in the NATO alliance, with French officers reportedly in line to take two senior NATO command positions: Allied Command Transformation (one of NATO's two supreme commands, based in Norfolk, Virginia) and Joint Command Lisbon (one of NATO's three main operations headquarters, which also commands the NATO Rapid Reaction Force).
The White House is also sending clear signals that it supports a greater military and defense role for the European Union. In his speech at the Munich Security Conference in early February, Vice President Joe Biden made it clear that the United States will "support the further strengthening of European defense, an increased role for the European Union in preserving peace and security, [and] a fundamentally stronger NATO–EU partnership."
Anglo-American Leadership Is Needed
Since the Second World War, there has scarcely been a more important period for joint U.S.–British leadership. The Anglo-American Special Relationship would be imperiled if the new U.S. Administration looks to Brussels instead of London for its most important strategic partnership. Jeopardizing this relationship would be a huge mistake. The EU is obsessed with challenging American global leadership rather than working with it, and the European Project is ultimately all about building a counterweight to American power.
The Obama–Brown White House meeting will be an important opportunity for the President and the Prime Minister to establish a stronger framework for Anglo-American cooperation on the world stage, particularly in regard to key issues such as Afghanistan, the future of NATO, and the Iranian nuclear crisis.The War in Afghanistan
Despite all the fashionable rhetoric in European capitals about Iraq being a distraction from the war against the Taliban, on the battlefields of Afghanistan almost two-thirds of the 47,000 troops currently serving as part of the 40-nation NATO-led International Security Assistance Force are from the English-speaking countries of the U.S., the U.K., Canada, and Australia. These nations have also taken roughly 85 percent of the casualties. Britain has nearly as many troops in the country as all the other major European Union powers combined, some of whom, like Germany, cower under dozens of "caveats" aimed at keeping their troops out of harm's way. The United States has pledged to send an additional 17,000 troops, and the U.K. is also considering the deployment of further forces to boost the nearly 9,000 British soldiers already serving in Helmand province.
President Obama and Prime Minister Brown should directly challenge European complacency and indifference over Afghanistan and issue a strong statement calling on European allies to pull their weight in the conflict by sending more combat troops to the south of the country. NATO is a war-fighting alliance, not a peacekeeping organization. The stakes are extremely high, and there is a danger that the brutal Taliban, backed by al-Qaeda, will reassert control over vast swathes of the country.
Europe's NATO members must make a no-strings attached commitment to step up to the plate and bear a bigger part of the burden. If this does not happen, the consequences for the future of the alliance will be dire. European apathy over Afghanistan threatens to tear NATO apart, and an institution that has for decades succeeded as the most effective international organization of its time could become irrelevant. It is time for French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and other European leaders to roll up their sleeves and commit their troops and resources to winning the war against the Taliban.
The Future of NATO
In the lead-up to the NATO 60th anniversary summit, both the United States and Great Britain must take a step back and launch a fundamental, wide-ranging review of the long-term implications of French demands for the future of the alliance.
It would be a huge strategic error of judgment by the new U.S. Administration and the British government to support French ambitions for restructuring Europe's security architecture. This would ultimately weaken the Anglo-American Special Relationship as the engine of the transatlantic alliance and pave the way for the development of a separate European Union defense identity, which will ultimately undermine NATO.
Washington and London must also commit to advancing the expansion of the NATO alliance—specifically the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in the Membership Action Plan. The new U.S. Administration, together with Britain, should send a clear signal to Moscow that NATO expansion is an internal matter for the alliance and not open to Russian veto. A firm commitment must also be made by the Obama Administration to establish a third site missile defense system in Eastern and Central Europe, a vital part of a global defense shield that is needed to protect the West from rogue regimes such as Iran.
The Iranian Nuclear Threat
President Obama and Prime Minister Brown should issue a strong statement calling for the strengthening of both U.N. Security Council and European sanctions against Tehran. The U.S. and British leaders must push for European countries to support a complete investment freeze—including a ban on investment in Iranian liquefied natural gas operations—and the possible use of military force as a last resort against Iran's nuclear facilities. They should reject the idea of direct negotiations with a tyranny that has threatened to wipe a key ally, Israel, off the face of the earth. This is a time for tough resolve in the face of an extremely dangerous foe—a rogue state close to nuclear capability ruled by fanatical Islamists that will have no qualms about using their power to dominate the Middle East or to arm a wide array of proxy international terrorist groups.
The EU has tried to negotiate with Tehran for several years under the guise of "constructive engagement," an approach that has resulted in an emboldened Iran that grows closer by the day to building a nuclear weapon. The EU's policy toward Iran has been all carrot and no stick—a futile exercise that has achieved nothing but failure.
Great Britain Is America's Most Reliable Friend
The Special Relationship is vital to American and British interests on many levels, from military, diplomatic, and intelligence cooperation to transatlantic trading ties. If President Obama does not invest in its preservation, the end result will be a weaker United States that is less able to stand up to terrorism and tyranny, and project power and influence on the world stage.
Whether waging war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, standing up to the Russian bear, or halting Iran's nuclear ambitions, President Obama should maintain the Anglo-American Special Relationship as the centerpiece of the transatlantic alliance. As nearly every post-war President has found, when it comes to securing the free world, there is simply no alternative to U.S.–British leadership
Nile Gardiner is the Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation. Erica Munkwitz assisted with research for this paper.
Heritage, March 1, 2009
WebMemo #2317
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will be the first European leader to meet with President Barack Obama when he visits the White House on March 3. The two world leaders are expected to discuss a range of issues, including the war in Afghanistan, the Iranian nuclear threat, and the global financial crisis, as well as the upcoming G-20 talks in London and the NATO 60th anniversary summit in Strasbourg/Kehl.
In addition to meeting with the President, Brown will address a joint session of Congress on March 4, making him only the fifth British prime minister to be given the honor.
A Shift Away from Britain?
The Brown–Obama meeting will be overshadowed by growing concerns about a possible weakening of the U.S.–U.K. Special Relationship, tensions over strategy in the war in Afghanistan, and the threat of a renewed American protectionism.
The Anglo-American alliance is being eroded on several fronts, from falling levels of U.K. defense spending and the gutting of Britain's armed forces by the Labour government to the gradual erosion of British sovereignty in Europe and the rise of a European Union defense identity now being backed by Washington. It is also threatened by the new U.S. Administration's apathy and indifference toward the U.K.
President Obama's surprise decision to remove a bust of Sir Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and return it to the British government sent an early signal to London that the new Administration will adopt a far less robust approach toward the historic Anglo-American alliance. The White House is already recalibrating the alliance as a "special partnership," —not a "special relationship"—a subtle play on words indicating a potential shift away from a decades-long policy of according Britain a unique status as America's most important ally.
U.S. Overtures to Europe
The Obama White House is keen to significantly strengthen America's relationship with both France and Germany, continental Europe's biggest powers, as well as with Brussels, the institutional heart of the European Union. This approach is partly the product of a distinctly pro-European outlook on the part of the new Administration following transatlantic tensions during the Bush Administration. It is also based on a naive belief that major European allies will actually increase defense spending and reduce the burden on America and that the EU will play a more supportive role in world affairs alongside the United States.
Washington is already making major concessions to France in the NATO alliance, with French officers reportedly in line to take two senior NATO command positions: Allied Command Transformation (one of NATO's two supreme commands, based in Norfolk, Virginia) and Joint Command Lisbon (one of NATO's three main operations headquarters, which also commands the NATO Rapid Reaction Force).
The White House is also sending clear signals that it supports a greater military and defense role for the European Union. In his speech at the Munich Security Conference in early February, Vice President Joe Biden made it clear that the United States will "support the further strengthening of European defense, an increased role for the European Union in preserving peace and security, [and] a fundamentally stronger NATO–EU partnership."
Anglo-American Leadership Is Needed
Since the Second World War, there has scarcely been a more important period for joint U.S.–British leadership. The Anglo-American Special Relationship would be imperiled if the new U.S. Administration looks to Brussels instead of London for its most important strategic partnership. Jeopardizing this relationship would be a huge mistake. The EU is obsessed with challenging American global leadership rather than working with it, and the European Project is ultimately all about building a counterweight to American power.
The Obama–Brown White House meeting will be an important opportunity for the President and the Prime Minister to establish a stronger framework for Anglo-American cooperation on the world stage, particularly in regard to key issues such as Afghanistan, the future of NATO, and the Iranian nuclear crisis.The War in Afghanistan
Despite all the fashionable rhetoric in European capitals about Iraq being a distraction from the war against the Taliban, on the battlefields of Afghanistan almost two-thirds of the 47,000 troops currently serving as part of the 40-nation NATO-led International Security Assistance Force are from the English-speaking countries of the U.S., the U.K., Canada, and Australia. These nations have also taken roughly 85 percent of the casualties. Britain has nearly as many troops in the country as all the other major European Union powers combined, some of whom, like Germany, cower under dozens of "caveats" aimed at keeping their troops out of harm's way. The United States has pledged to send an additional 17,000 troops, and the U.K. is also considering the deployment of further forces to boost the nearly 9,000 British soldiers already serving in Helmand province.
President Obama and Prime Minister Brown should directly challenge European complacency and indifference over Afghanistan and issue a strong statement calling on European allies to pull their weight in the conflict by sending more combat troops to the south of the country. NATO is a war-fighting alliance, not a peacekeeping organization. The stakes are extremely high, and there is a danger that the brutal Taliban, backed by al-Qaeda, will reassert control over vast swathes of the country.
Europe's NATO members must make a no-strings attached commitment to step up to the plate and bear a bigger part of the burden. If this does not happen, the consequences for the future of the alliance will be dire. European apathy over Afghanistan threatens to tear NATO apart, and an institution that has for decades succeeded as the most effective international organization of its time could become irrelevant. It is time for French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and other European leaders to roll up their sleeves and commit their troops and resources to winning the war against the Taliban.
The Future of NATO
In the lead-up to the NATO 60th anniversary summit, both the United States and Great Britain must take a step back and launch a fundamental, wide-ranging review of the long-term implications of French demands for the future of the alliance.
It would be a huge strategic error of judgment by the new U.S. Administration and the British government to support French ambitions for restructuring Europe's security architecture. This would ultimately weaken the Anglo-American Special Relationship as the engine of the transatlantic alliance and pave the way for the development of a separate European Union defense identity, which will ultimately undermine NATO.
Washington and London must also commit to advancing the expansion of the NATO alliance—specifically the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in the Membership Action Plan. The new U.S. Administration, together with Britain, should send a clear signal to Moscow that NATO expansion is an internal matter for the alliance and not open to Russian veto. A firm commitment must also be made by the Obama Administration to establish a third site missile defense system in Eastern and Central Europe, a vital part of a global defense shield that is needed to protect the West from rogue regimes such as Iran.
The Iranian Nuclear Threat
President Obama and Prime Minister Brown should issue a strong statement calling for the strengthening of both U.N. Security Council and European sanctions against Tehran. The U.S. and British leaders must push for European countries to support a complete investment freeze—including a ban on investment in Iranian liquefied natural gas operations—and the possible use of military force as a last resort against Iran's nuclear facilities. They should reject the idea of direct negotiations with a tyranny that has threatened to wipe a key ally, Israel, off the face of the earth. This is a time for tough resolve in the face of an extremely dangerous foe—a rogue state close to nuclear capability ruled by fanatical Islamists that will have no qualms about using their power to dominate the Middle East or to arm a wide array of proxy international terrorist groups.
The EU has tried to negotiate with Tehran for several years under the guise of "constructive engagement," an approach that has resulted in an emboldened Iran that grows closer by the day to building a nuclear weapon. The EU's policy toward Iran has been all carrot and no stick—a futile exercise that has achieved nothing but failure.
Great Britain Is America's Most Reliable Friend
The Special Relationship is vital to American and British interests on many levels, from military, diplomatic, and intelligence cooperation to transatlantic trading ties. If President Obama does not invest in its preservation, the end result will be a weaker United States that is less able to stand up to terrorism and tyranny, and project power and influence on the world stage.
Whether waging war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, standing up to the Russian bear, or halting Iran's nuclear ambitions, President Obama should maintain the Anglo-American Special Relationship as the centerpiece of the transatlantic alliance. As nearly every post-war President has found, when it comes to securing the free world, there is simply no alternative to U.S.–British leadership
Nile Gardiner is the Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation. Erica Munkwitz assisted with research for this paper.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
WaPo: Ending D.C. school vouchers would dash the best hopes of hundreds of children
'Potential' Disruption? WaPo Editorial
Ending D.C. school vouchers would dash the best hopes of hundreds of children.
WaPo, Monday, March 2, 2009; Page A16
REP. DAVID R. Obey (Wis.) and other congressional Democrats should spare us their phony concern about the children participating in the District's school voucher program. If they cared for the future of these students, they wouldn't be so quick as to try to kill the program that affords low-income, minority children a chance at a better education. Their refusal to even give the program a fair hearing makes it critical that D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) seek help from voucher supporters in the Senate and, if need be, President Obama.
Last week, the Democrat-controlled House passed a spending bill that spells the end, after the 2009-10 school year, of the federally funded program that enables poor students to attend private schools with scholarships of up to $7,500. A statement signed by Mr. Obey as Appropriations Committee chairman that accompanied the $410 billion spending package directs D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee to "promptly take steps to minimize potential disruption and ensure smooth transition" for students forced back into the public schools.
We would like Mr. Obey and his colleagues to talk about possible "disruption" with Deborah Parker, mother of two children who attend Sidwell Friends School because of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. "The mere thought of returning to public school frightens me," Ms. Parker told us as she related the opportunities -- such as a trip to China for her son -- made possible by the program. Tell her, as critics claim, that vouchers don't work, and she'll list her children's improved test scores, feeling of safety and improved motivation.
But the debate unfolding on Capitol Hill isn't about facts. It's about politics and the stranglehold the teachers unions have on the Democratic Party. Why else has so much time and effort gone into trying to kill off what, in the grand scheme of government spending, is a tiny program? Why wouldn't Congress want to get the results of a carefully calibrated scientific study before pulling the plug on a program that has proved to be enormously popular? Could the real fear be that school vouchers might actually be shown to be effective in leveling the academic playing field?
This week, the Senate takes up the omnibus spending bill, and we hope that, with the help of supporters such as Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), the program gets the reprieve it deserves. If it doesn't, someone needs to tell Ms. Parker why a bunch of elected officials who can send their children to any school they choose are taking that option from her.
Ending D.C. school vouchers would dash the best hopes of hundreds of children.
WaPo, Monday, March 2, 2009; Page A16
REP. DAVID R. Obey (Wis.) and other congressional Democrats should spare us their phony concern about the children participating in the District's school voucher program. If they cared for the future of these students, they wouldn't be so quick as to try to kill the program that affords low-income, minority children a chance at a better education. Their refusal to even give the program a fair hearing makes it critical that D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) seek help from voucher supporters in the Senate and, if need be, President Obama.
Last week, the Democrat-controlled House passed a spending bill that spells the end, after the 2009-10 school year, of the federally funded program that enables poor students to attend private schools with scholarships of up to $7,500. A statement signed by Mr. Obey as Appropriations Committee chairman that accompanied the $410 billion spending package directs D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee to "promptly take steps to minimize potential disruption and ensure smooth transition" for students forced back into the public schools.
We would like Mr. Obey and his colleagues to talk about possible "disruption" with Deborah Parker, mother of two children who attend Sidwell Friends School because of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. "The mere thought of returning to public school frightens me," Ms. Parker told us as she related the opportunities -- such as a trip to China for her son -- made possible by the program. Tell her, as critics claim, that vouchers don't work, and she'll list her children's improved test scores, feeling of safety and improved motivation.
But the debate unfolding on Capitol Hill isn't about facts. It's about politics and the stranglehold the teachers unions have on the Democratic Party. Why else has so much time and effort gone into trying to kill off what, in the grand scheme of government spending, is a tiny program? Why wouldn't Congress want to get the results of a carefully calibrated scientific study before pulling the plug on a program that has proved to be enormously popular? Could the real fear be that school vouchers might actually be shown to be effective in leveling the academic playing field?
This week, the Senate takes up the omnibus spending bill, and we hope that, with the help of supporters such as Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), the program gets the reprieve it deserves. If it doesn't, someone needs to tell Ms. Parker why a bunch of elected officials who can send their children to any school they choose are taking that option from her.
Conservative views: The Dangerous Allure of Arms Control
The Dangerous Allure of Arms Control. By John R. Bolton
Washington Times, February 27, 2009
The Ringwraiths of arms control are again with us, returned from well-deserved obscurity, and back in the saddle in Washington. Through public statements and private preparations the Obama administration is signaling clearly that its approach to Russia will center on Cold War-era arms control precepts and objectives.
Although the Washington-Moscow relationship has, at Moscow's behest, become increasingly contentious and unpleasant, arms control is an odd and backward-looking way to try to improve relations and ameliorate Russia's objectionable international conduct. A long Cold War history demonstrates that arms control tends to make the relationship even more adversarial than it needs to be, concentrates attention on peripheral issues, and fails to deliver the security that supposedly is its central objective.
The Obama arms control agenda reflects the longstanding, attractive and woefully simplistic notion that ever-lower numbers of Russian and American nuclear weapons will create a more stable strategic relationship, diminishing the threat of nuclear war. Arms controllers, relying on this superficial analysis for decades, argued that reducing weapons levels would not harm U.S. security because nuclear war was so destructive it was simply unthinkable, a concept known as "automatic deterrence." Later, they adopted a slightly more nuanced position, acknowledging the need for a small nuclear force that could survive a first strike, thus providing a "second strike" capability. These flawed theories are back from the dead.
Accordingly, we now see suggestions for U.S. weapons levels that have more to do with numerology than national security. Moreover, the Obama approach appears to ignore the 2002 Treaty of Moscow, which represented a substantial change in managing strategic relations between America and Russia, a change also reflected in U.S. development of strategic missile defense capabilities. Ironically, the treaty actually reflected the reduced role of nuclear weapons in American strategy and enhanced roles for long-range, precision-guided conventional weapons that the Obama administration now risks reversing by returning to the arms-control approach of the SALT (strategic arms limitations) and START (strategic arms reduction) models.
What should we do instead, and on what should Congress insist before the negotiations proceed beyond the point of no return?
First, we must understand that agreed-upon levels of nuclear weapons address only the most visible areas of military competition, not others that actually may be more important. This has been a central fallacy of arms control since the post-World War I naval arms negotiations, ignoring as it does wide and important variances between the United States and Russia, such as weapons production capabilities, levels of tactical nuclear weapons, intelligence assets, and total national economic strength.
Moreover, U.S. nuclear capabilities provide a deterrence umbrella for its allied countries, whereas Russia plays no such positive role.
Thus, the two countries are simply not "symmetrical," but treaties with specific warhead limits gave the illusion they are.
Second, the United States should decide what levels of nuclear forces we actually need, and make that our objective, not pursuing an arbitrary number and then trying to find national security justification for it. The latter approach is not only dangerous but opens us to manipulation by our negotiating adversaries, since under this approach one number has no greater intrinsic security value than another.
This is especially true when we understand that no current or prior arms control treaty has ever actually required destruction of existing warheads, nor do we have any known verification methodology that could actually demonstrate compliance even if we could reach agreement on warhead destruction as an objective.
Third, how we "count" nuclear capabilities is important. This is not a merely technical issue, but carries profound implications for both our nuclear and conventional capabilities. Under START counting rules, weapons levels were imputed based on the capabilities of delivery systems, rather than actual warhead levels. Thus, for example, each Soviet SS-18, capable of carrying 10 nuclear warheads was imputed to do so no matter how many were actually under the nosecones.
Counting actual numbers is far more accurate. In the Treaty of Moscow, we did so by counting only operationally deployed strategic warheads rather than using imputed levels derived from artificial counting rules. Not only was this more accurate, it freed up large numbers of delivery systems for conventional warheads, making them more useful against the non-nuclear threats we increasingly face.
Abandoning Treaty of Moscow concepts and retreating to the START approach would severely impede U.S. conventional capabilities well into the future without in any way improving the U.S. strategic nuclear posture.
Arms control is one area where there will be substantial "change" between the Bush and Obama administrations, one fraught with considerable risks, especially if future negotiations embrace, as Russia wants, missile defense and space-based capabilities.
The real arms control debate is not between those relaxed about nuclear war and those seeking to avoid it, but between those who approach the problem realistically and empirically, and those who approach it as a matter of dogma. Unfortunately, the Ringwraiths now have the upper hand.
John R. Bolton is a senior fellow at AEI.
Washington Times, February 27, 2009
The Ringwraiths of arms control are again with us, returned from well-deserved obscurity, and back in the saddle in Washington. Through public statements and private preparations the Obama administration is signaling clearly that its approach to Russia will center on Cold War-era arms control precepts and objectives.
Although the Washington-Moscow relationship has, at Moscow's behest, become increasingly contentious and unpleasant, arms control is an odd and backward-looking way to try to improve relations and ameliorate Russia's objectionable international conduct. A long Cold War history demonstrates that arms control tends to make the relationship even more adversarial than it needs to be, concentrates attention on peripheral issues, and fails to deliver the security that supposedly is its central objective.
The Obama arms control agenda reflects the longstanding, attractive and woefully simplistic notion that ever-lower numbers of Russian and American nuclear weapons will create a more stable strategic relationship, diminishing the threat of nuclear war. Arms controllers, relying on this superficial analysis for decades, argued that reducing weapons levels would not harm U.S. security because nuclear war was so destructive it was simply unthinkable, a concept known as "automatic deterrence." Later, they adopted a slightly more nuanced position, acknowledging the need for a small nuclear force that could survive a first strike, thus providing a "second strike" capability. These flawed theories are back from the dead.
Accordingly, we now see suggestions for U.S. weapons levels that have more to do with numerology than national security. Moreover, the Obama approach appears to ignore the 2002 Treaty of Moscow, which represented a substantial change in managing strategic relations between America and Russia, a change also reflected in U.S. development of strategic missile defense capabilities. Ironically, the treaty actually reflected the reduced role of nuclear weapons in American strategy and enhanced roles for long-range, precision-guided conventional weapons that the Obama administration now risks reversing by returning to the arms-control approach of the SALT (strategic arms limitations) and START (strategic arms reduction) models.
What should we do instead, and on what should Congress insist before the negotiations proceed beyond the point of no return?
First, we must understand that agreed-upon levels of nuclear weapons address only the most visible areas of military competition, not others that actually may be more important. This has been a central fallacy of arms control since the post-World War I naval arms negotiations, ignoring as it does wide and important variances between the United States and Russia, such as weapons production capabilities, levels of tactical nuclear weapons, intelligence assets, and total national economic strength.
Moreover, U.S. nuclear capabilities provide a deterrence umbrella for its allied countries, whereas Russia plays no such positive role.
Thus, the two countries are simply not "symmetrical," but treaties with specific warhead limits gave the illusion they are.
Second, the United States should decide what levels of nuclear forces we actually need, and make that our objective, not pursuing an arbitrary number and then trying to find national security justification for it. The latter approach is not only dangerous but opens us to manipulation by our negotiating adversaries, since under this approach one number has no greater intrinsic security value than another.
This is especially true when we understand that no current or prior arms control treaty has ever actually required destruction of existing warheads, nor do we have any known verification methodology that could actually demonstrate compliance even if we could reach agreement on warhead destruction as an objective.
Third, how we "count" nuclear capabilities is important. This is not a merely technical issue, but carries profound implications for both our nuclear and conventional capabilities. Under START counting rules, weapons levels were imputed based on the capabilities of delivery systems, rather than actual warhead levels. Thus, for example, each Soviet SS-18, capable of carrying 10 nuclear warheads was imputed to do so no matter how many were actually under the nosecones.
Counting actual numbers is far more accurate. In the Treaty of Moscow, we did so by counting only operationally deployed strategic warheads rather than using imputed levels derived from artificial counting rules. Not only was this more accurate, it freed up large numbers of delivery systems for conventional warheads, making them more useful against the non-nuclear threats we increasingly face.
Abandoning Treaty of Moscow concepts and retreating to the START approach would severely impede U.S. conventional capabilities well into the future without in any way improving the U.S. strategic nuclear posture.
Arms control is one area where there will be substantial "change" between the Bush and Obama administrations, one fraught with considerable risks, especially if future negotiations embrace, as Russia wants, missile defense and space-based capabilities.
The real arms control debate is not between those relaxed about nuclear war and those seeking to avoid it, but between those who approach the problem realistically and empirically, and those who approach it as a matter of dogma. Unfortunately, the Ringwraiths now have the upper hand.
John R. Bolton is a senior fellow at AEI.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
WaPo: President Obama's strategy aims at success. Is that a goal congressional Democrats can support?
Time for Iraq. WaPo Editorial
President Obama's strategy aims at success. Is that a goal congressional Democrats can support?
The WaPo, Saturday, February 28, 2009; Page A12
THE IRAQ strategy that President Obama announced yesterday was broadly faithful to his campaign promises, but it contained some important and praiseworthy adjustments. The president lengthened his 16-month timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops to 19 months, thus adopting the middle of the three options the Pentagon studied. He set a ceiling of 50,000 troops for the "residual" force he has always said would remain -- a figure that quickly prompted sniping from his party's left wing. He gave up his formula of withdrawing forces at the rate of a brigade a month, which will allow U.S. commanders to maintain a large force in the country through Iraq's crucial parliamentary elections at the end of this year.
Most important, Mr. Obama spoke of Iraq not as a fiasco to be abandoned but as a "great nation" whose "future . . . is inseparable from the future of the broader Middle East." He said his administration aimed for "a new era of American leadership and engagement" in the region and "will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe haven to terrorists." That is almost exactly how the Bush administration defined "victory" in Iraq. Thanks to the military and political successes of Mr. Bush's last two years, there is reason for hope that Mr. Obama's strategy can achieve that aim.
The president's speech was not without hedges and contradictions. He said there would be limits to what the United States would do to stabilize Iraq, and he put Iraqis on notice that they must "seize" the opportunity they have been offered. Perhaps with his antiwar base in mind, he pronounced "as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end." In the next breath, he promised to "proceed carefully" and "consult closely" with military commanders and the Iraqi government, and he said "there will surely be difficult periods and tactical adjustments." Does that mean Mr. Obama is open to altering his plan if al-Qaeda or Iranian-backed militias rebound as U.S. troop levels decline? Some of the congressional leaders he briefed, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) seemed to think so; Mr. McCain called Mr. Obama's plan "reasonable."
Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, the initial response of some congressional Democrats was anything but reasonable. A number objected to the size of the residual force: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) declared that 15,000 or 20,000 would be more appropriate. Neither she nor other objectors explained why fewer troops were needed or expressed any interest in nurturing what Mr. Obama described as the "renewed cause for hope in Iraq." That is a measure of Mr. Obama's statesmanship: Though he opposed the war, his strategy recognizes what has been achieved in Iraq, even at a terrible cost, and aims at preserving it. His party would do well to follow his lead.
President Obama's strategy aims at success. Is that a goal congressional Democrats can support?
The WaPo, Saturday, February 28, 2009; Page A12
THE IRAQ strategy that President Obama announced yesterday was broadly faithful to his campaign promises, but it contained some important and praiseworthy adjustments. The president lengthened his 16-month timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops to 19 months, thus adopting the middle of the three options the Pentagon studied. He set a ceiling of 50,000 troops for the "residual" force he has always said would remain -- a figure that quickly prompted sniping from his party's left wing. He gave up his formula of withdrawing forces at the rate of a brigade a month, which will allow U.S. commanders to maintain a large force in the country through Iraq's crucial parliamentary elections at the end of this year.
Most important, Mr. Obama spoke of Iraq not as a fiasco to be abandoned but as a "great nation" whose "future . . . is inseparable from the future of the broader Middle East." He said his administration aimed for "a new era of American leadership and engagement" in the region and "will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe haven to terrorists." That is almost exactly how the Bush administration defined "victory" in Iraq. Thanks to the military and political successes of Mr. Bush's last two years, there is reason for hope that Mr. Obama's strategy can achieve that aim.
The president's speech was not without hedges and contradictions. He said there would be limits to what the United States would do to stabilize Iraq, and he put Iraqis on notice that they must "seize" the opportunity they have been offered. Perhaps with his antiwar base in mind, he pronounced "as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end." In the next breath, he promised to "proceed carefully" and "consult closely" with military commanders and the Iraqi government, and he said "there will surely be difficult periods and tactical adjustments." Does that mean Mr. Obama is open to altering his plan if al-Qaeda or Iranian-backed militias rebound as U.S. troop levels decline? Some of the congressional leaders he briefed, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) seemed to think so; Mr. McCain called Mr. Obama's plan "reasonable."
Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, the initial response of some congressional Democrats was anything but reasonable. A number objected to the size of the residual force: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) declared that 15,000 or 20,000 would be more appropriate. Neither she nor other objectors explained why fewer troops were needed or expressed any interest in nurturing what Mr. Obama described as the "renewed cause for hope in Iraq." That is a measure of Mr. Obama's statesmanship: Though he opposed the war, his strategy recognizes what has been achieved in Iraq, even at a terrible cost, and aims at preserving it. His party would do well to follow his lead.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Energy Dept Partner Begins Injecting 50,000 Tons of Carbon Dioxide in Michigan Basin
DOE Partner Begins Injecting 50,000 Tons of Carbon Dioxide in Michigan Basin
Project Expected to Advance National Carbon Sequestration Program, Create Jobs
February 27, 2009
Washington, D.C. — Building on an initial injection project of 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) into a Michigan geologic formation, a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) team of regional partners has begun injecting 50,000 additional tons into the formation, which is believed capable of storing hundreds of years worth of CO2, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change.
DOE’s Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP), led by Battelle of Columbus, Ohio, began injecting the CO2 this week in the Michigan Basin near Gaylord, Mich., in a deep saline formation, the Silurian-age Bass Island dolomite. The MRCSP is one of seven partnerships in DOE’s Carbon Sequestration Partnership Program, which was created to assess optimal CO2 storage approaches in each region of the country. The program is managed for DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL).
"This injection test, one of three performed by our Midwest partner, will significantly increase our understanding of CO2 storage technologies and practices in a real-world setting," said Victor Der, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. "This project will not only provide important information about promising sequestration techniques but it will also go a long way toward creating jobs in the energy sector."
When the current project is completed, the total 60,000 metric ton injection at the Michigan site will mark the largest deep saline reservoir injection in the United States to date and will allow scientists to more fully evaluate how CO2 moves through the basin’s geologic formation. Injections are expected to take place at an average rate of 250 tons per day up to a maximum rate of 600 tons. The 6-month project and related activities of the MRCSP are expected to create more than 230 jobs and 2,900 total project job years. The latter figure represents the number of full-time jobs per year times the number of years that the jobs are supported.
During the Michigan basin injection process, the Midwest team will provide additional insight to the knowledge gained from the initial test in 2008. The team will record geochemical changes to the system, as well as the distribution of the CO2 along the wellbore. A larger volume of CO2 injected over a longer period of time will also provide scientists with additional insight into temperature and pressure responses in the geologic formation, as well as any seasonal changes to the system.
Since the test is taking place within an existing oil and gas field, continuing enhanced oil recovery operations — which are being conducted by well owner, Core Energy LLC — makes this area ideal for the injection test. The area already contains much of the needed infrastructure, such as CO2 compressors, injection systems, existing wells, and pipelines, including an 8-mile-long transport pipeline.
The CO2 being injected comes from a natural gas processing plant owned by DTE Energy, located near Gaylord, where the CO2 will be transported via the 8-mile pipeline to the well. The depth of the injection (3,500 feet) is significantly below the 1,000-foot level of drinking water sources and does not pose any danger to them.
DOE launched the Carbon Sequestration Partnership Program in 2003 to develop and validate technologies to store and monitor CO2 in various geologic formations around the country as part of a national strategy to combat global climate change.
The MRCSP team includes more than 30 partners from state and federal organizations, leading universities, state geological surveys, nongovernmental organizations, and private companies in the eight-state region of Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. In addition to Battelle, Core Energy, and DTE, other participants include the Michigan Geological Repository for Research and Education at Western Michigan University, Stanford University Geophysics Department, Schlumberger, and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s Office of Geological Survey.
Project Expected to Advance National Carbon Sequestration Program, Create Jobs
February 27, 2009
Washington, D.C. — Building on an initial injection project of 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) into a Michigan geologic formation, a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) team of regional partners has begun injecting 50,000 additional tons into the formation, which is believed capable of storing hundreds of years worth of CO2, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change.
DOE’s Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP), led by Battelle of Columbus, Ohio, began injecting the CO2 this week in the Michigan Basin near Gaylord, Mich., in a deep saline formation, the Silurian-age Bass Island dolomite. The MRCSP is one of seven partnerships in DOE’s Carbon Sequestration Partnership Program, which was created to assess optimal CO2 storage approaches in each region of the country. The program is managed for DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL).
"This injection test, one of three performed by our Midwest partner, will significantly increase our understanding of CO2 storage technologies and practices in a real-world setting," said Victor Der, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. "This project will not only provide important information about promising sequestration techniques but it will also go a long way toward creating jobs in the energy sector."
When the current project is completed, the total 60,000 metric ton injection at the Michigan site will mark the largest deep saline reservoir injection in the United States to date and will allow scientists to more fully evaluate how CO2 moves through the basin’s geologic formation. Injections are expected to take place at an average rate of 250 tons per day up to a maximum rate of 600 tons. The 6-month project and related activities of the MRCSP are expected to create more than 230 jobs and 2,900 total project job years. The latter figure represents the number of full-time jobs per year times the number of years that the jobs are supported.
During the Michigan basin injection process, the Midwest team will provide additional insight to the knowledge gained from the initial test in 2008. The team will record geochemical changes to the system, as well as the distribution of the CO2 along the wellbore. A larger volume of CO2 injected over a longer period of time will also provide scientists with additional insight into temperature and pressure responses in the geologic formation, as well as any seasonal changes to the system.
Since the test is taking place within an existing oil and gas field, continuing enhanced oil recovery operations — which are being conducted by well owner, Core Energy LLC — makes this area ideal for the injection test. The area already contains much of the needed infrastructure, such as CO2 compressors, injection systems, existing wells, and pipelines, including an 8-mile-long transport pipeline.
The CO2 being injected comes from a natural gas processing plant owned by DTE Energy, located near Gaylord, where the CO2 will be transported via the 8-mile pipeline to the well. The depth of the injection (3,500 feet) is significantly below the 1,000-foot level of drinking water sources and does not pose any danger to them.
DOE launched the Carbon Sequestration Partnership Program in 2003 to develop and validate technologies to store and monitor CO2 in various geologic formations around the country as part of a national strategy to combat global climate change.
The MRCSP team includes more than 30 partners from state and federal organizations, leading universities, state geological surveys, nongovernmental organizations, and private companies in the eight-state region of Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. In addition to Battelle, Core Energy, and DTE, other participants include the Michigan Geological Repository for Research and Education at Western Michigan University, Stanford University Geophysics Department, Schlumberger, and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s Office of Geological Survey.
Libertarian: The Two Faces of Barack Obama - A president contradicts himself all night long
The Two Faces of Barack Obama. By Matt Welch
A president contradicts himself all night long
Reason, February 25, 2009
"But I also know," President Barack Obama said last night, in his typically self-referential fashion, "that in a time of crisis, we cannot afford to govern out of anger, or yield to the politics of the moment. My job—our job—is to solve the problem. Our job is to govern with a sense of responsibility."
It was a pleasingly presidential sentiment for a subdued, not-quite-a-State-of-the-Union speech. Unfortunately for Obama—and us—it was also contradicted, and blatantly so, not four paragraphs prior, by a guy named Barack Obama. "This time," the president warned us the minute before, while giving that stern schoolmaster look of his, "CEOs won't be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over!" Democrats leaped to their feet.
Obama aims to be the president of all Americans, a position that appears to be sincere. But I wonder whether in the process he might also want to consider appointing himself chief executive of his own head. All night long, with equally sonorous vigor, he served up confident assertions, only to state moments later, with equal conviction, their near opposite.
"We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before," Obama crowd-pleased near the beginning, in the slot normally reserved for lines like "the state of our union is strong." Not long after, though, Americans learned that our very "survival depends on finding new sources of energy." Also, "there will be no real recovery unless we clean up the credit crisis...our recovery will be choked off before it even begins," and if we don't do whatever Obama wants us to do about the banking system, "it could result in an economy that sputters along for not months or years, but perhaps a decade." Better! Stronger! Crippled for a decade!
After detailing some clean-energy advancements in China, Germany, Japan, and Korea, the president averred, "Well, I do not accept"—there's that self-referencing again—"a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders." A few paragraphs later, however, zero-sum gave way to kumbaya: "The world depends on us to have a strong economy, just as our economy depends on the strength of the world's." Just don't you get strong by producing clean energy, Koreans!
It was like this all night. The president's stimulus package "will save or create 3.5 million jobs." One of those, anyway! His administration has "created a new website called recovery.gov so that every American can find out how and where their money is being spent," unless they try to use it to find out how and where their money is being spent. Importantly, Obama vowed to "act with the full force of the federal government to ensure that the major banks that Americans depend on have enough confidence and enough money to lend even in more difficult times," a pledge he took so seriously that later on he stressed, twice, that "it's not about helping banks—it's about helping people."
The contradictions came flying even in his read-my-lips moment: "If your family earns less than $250,000 a year," he said, "you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime." But as recently as the previous paragraph the president vowed to "restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas." And a few paragraphs before that, he called for a "market-based cap on carbon pollution." So: You will not see your federal taxes increased a single dime...unless you own a company that emits carbon or hires some of those dastardly Koreans.
The two faces of Obama reveal more than just a man hard-wired to work both sides of a room. There is an essential contradiction at the heart of his populist economics. He wants to jump-start the "flow of credit"—it's "the lifeblood of our economy," after all—but somehow surgically remove the "speculators" from the process. "I will not spend a single penny," he promised, undeliverably, last night, "for the purpose of rewarding a single Wall Street executive, but I will do whatever it takes to help the small business that can't pay its workers or the family that has saved and still can't get a mortgage." His press secretary, Robert Gibbs, declared last week that, "I think we left [behind] a few months ago the adage that if it was good for a derivatives trader, that it's good for Main Street. I think the verdict is in on that."
Here is one of the many problems with that line of thinking: Wall Street isn't just some abstract pit of snakes that can be drowned in poison oil or otherwise given a wide berth—it's the heart (if tattered) of the country's financial industry. Which, among other things, does more to unleash the lifebloody "flow of credit" than any other power center in America. Not only does Obama get it wrong when he thinks you can best "help the small business" without involving the best single source of small-business funding, he also wildly misses the political and financial ethos of the abstraction he can't stop campaigning against. "I understand that on any given day, Wall Street may be more comforted by an approach that gives banks bailouts with no strings attached, and that holds nobody accountable for their reckless decisions," he said with a smirk. "But such an approach won't solve the problem." Nor will erecting a giant straw man in Lower Manhattan.
But there's more: Not only is Wall Street going to be key to any recovery, the reviled "derivatives trader" is right at the clenched heart of the financial blockage. As Washington Post economics columnist Robert J. Samuelson pointed out earlier this month, "Contrary to popular wisdom, banks—institutions that take deposits—aren't the main problem. In December, total U.S. bank credit stood at $9.95 trillion, up 8 percent from a year earlier, reports the Federal Reserve. Business, consumer and real estate loans all increased....The real collapse has occurred in securities markets."
Securitized lending instruments, and the various insurance and pricing bets placed on them, sloshed hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy, but have now locked up. The point is not that the derivatives trader needs a bailout—he most certainly does not—it's that inaccurately demonizing him is not the shortest route to economic wisdom.
There were some promising notes in Obama's speech last night, particularly his vow to "end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them," and discontinue the dishonest and irresponsible way that Congress has funded wars for the past seven years. But the biggest promise was the one that his contradictions—or maybe just his ideology—did not let him fulfill. "It is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment," he said near the beginning, "that we'll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament." Too true. Moments later, however, despite piles of evidence to the contrary, he said: "Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market."
If understanding root causes is the key to good economic policy, we may have longer to go than even the pessimistic half of Obama thinks.
Matt Welch is the Editor in Chief of Reason magazine.
A president contradicts himself all night long
Reason, February 25, 2009
"But I also know," President Barack Obama said last night, in his typically self-referential fashion, "that in a time of crisis, we cannot afford to govern out of anger, or yield to the politics of the moment. My job—our job—is to solve the problem. Our job is to govern with a sense of responsibility."
It was a pleasingly presidential sentiment for a subdued, not-quite-a-State-of-the-Union speech. Unfortunately for Obama—and us—it was also contradicted, and blatantly so, not four paragraphs prior, by a guy named Barack Obama. "This time," the president warned us the minute before, while giving that stern schoolmaster look of his, "CEOs won't be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over!" Democrats leaped to their feet.
Obama aims to be the president of all Americans, a position that appears to be sincere. But I wonder whether in the process he might also want to consider appointing himself chief executive of his own head. All night long, with equally sonorous vigor, he served up confident assertions, only to state moments later, with equal conviction, their near opposite.
"We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before," Obama crowd-pleased near the beginning, in the slot normally reserved for lines like "the state of our union is strong." Not long after, though, Americans learned that our very "survival depends on finding new sources of energy." Also, "there will be no real recovery unless we clean up the credit crisis...our recovery will be choked off before it even begins," and if we don't do whatever Obama wants us to do about the banking system, "it could result in an economy that sputters along for not months or years, but perhaps a decade." Better! Stronger! Crippled for a decade!
After detailing some clean-energy advancements in China, Germany, Japan, and Korea, the president averred, "Well, I do not accept"—there's that self-referencing again—"a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders." A few paragraphs later, however, zero-sum gave way to kumbaya: "The world depends on us to have a strong economy, just as our economy depends on the strength of the world's." Just don't you get strong by producing clean energy, Koreans!
It was like this all night. The president's stimulus package "will save or create 3.5 million jobs." One of those, anyway! His administration has "created a new website called recovery.gov so that every American can find out how and where their money is being spent," unless they try to use it to find out how and where their money is being spent. Importantly, Obama vowed to "act with the full force of the federal government to ensure that the major banks that Americans depend on have enough confidence and enough money to lend even in more difficult times," a pledge he took so seriously that later on he stressed, twice, that "it's not about helping banks—it's about helping people."
The contradictions came flying even in his read-my-lips moment: "If your family earns less than $250,000 a year," he said, "you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime." But as recently as the previous paragraph the president vowed to "restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas." And a few paragraphs before that, he called for a "market-based cap on carbon pollution." So: You will not see your federal taxes increased a single dime...unless you own a company that emits carbon or hires some of those dastardly Koreans.
The two faces of Obama reveal more than just a man hard-wired to work both sides of a room. There is an essential contradiction at the heart of his populist economics. He wants to jump-start the "flow of credit"—it's "the lifeblood of our economy," after all—but somehow surgically remove the "speculators" from the process. "I will not spend a single penny," he promised, undeliverably, last night, "for the purpose of rewarding a single Wall Street executive, but I will do whatever it takes to help the small business that can't pay its workers or the family that has saved and still can't get a mortgage." His press secretary, Robert Gibbs, declared last week that, "I think we left [behind] a few months ago the adage that if it was good for a derivatives trader, that it's good for Main Street. I think the verdict is in on that."
Here is one of the many problems with that line of thinking: Wall Street isn't just some abstract pit of snakes that can be drowned in poison oil or otherwise given a wide berth—it's the heart (if tattered) of the country's financial industry. Which, among other things, does more to unleash the lifebloody "flow of credit" than any other power center in America. Not only does Obama get it wrong when he thinks you can best "help the small business" without involving the best single source of small-business funding, he also wildly misses the political and financial ethos of the abstraction he can't stop campaigning against. "I understand that on any given day, Wall Street may be more comforted by an approach that gives banks bailouts with no strings attached, and that holds nobody accountable for their reckless decisions," he said with a smirk. "But such an approach won't solve the problem." Nor will erecting a giant straw man in Lower Manhattan.
But there's more: Not only is Wall Street going to be key to any recovery, the reviled "derivatives trader" is right at the clenched heart of the financial blockage. As Washington Post economics columnist Robert J. Samuelson pointed out earlier this month, "Contrary to popular wisdom, banks—institutions that take deposits—aren't the main problem. In December, total U.S. bank credit stood at $9.95 trillion, up 8 percent from a year earlier, reports the Federal Reserve. Business, consumer and real estate loans all increased....The real collapse has occurred in securities markets."
Securitized lending instruments, and the various insurance and pricing bets placed on them, sloshed hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy, but have now locked up. The point is not that the derivatives trader needs a bailout—he most certainly does not—it's that inaccurately demonizing him is not the shortest route to economic wisdom.
There were some promising notes in Obama's speech last night, particularly his vow to "end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them," and discontinue the dishonest and irresponsible way that Congress has funded wars for the past seven years. But the biggest promise was the one that his contradictions—or maybe just his ideology—did not let him fulfill. "It is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment," he said near the beginning, "that we'll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament." Too true. Moments later, however, despite piles of evidence to the contrary, he said: "Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market."
If understanding root causes is the key to good economic policy, we may have longer to go than even the pessimistic half of Obama thinks.
Matt Welch is the Editor in Chief of Reason magazine.
Can Newspapers Survive? Only if they work harder to earn and maintain respect
Can Newspapers Survive? By Cathy Young
Only if they work harder to earn and maintain respect
Reason, February 27, 2009
As media giants totter, battered by the Internet and the economic crisis, saving the newspapers has become a hot topic. It is richly ironic that the Net, which has both greatly facilitated the work of journalists and expanded their readership, has also left many unemployed. There are concerns that the death of journalism as we know it will leave our culture ill-informed—blogs are good for opinion and fact-checking, but they are no substitute for original reporting—and endanger democracy by removing a vital part of its checks and balances.
The debate revolves around two key questions. One, does society truly need the professional media? Two, how can professional journalism survive in a new media environment?
On the first question, my answer is a resounding, though possibly self-serving "yes." While I am a fan of blogs, I believe they work best when the "mainstream media" and the blogs complement each other. Otherwise, the blogosphere is all too liable to disintegrate into shrill partisan screaming and irresponsible rumor-mongering.
The responsible media do have a vital role to play in a democracy. However, the mainstream media's defenders would do well to acknowledge some of their failings. A recent editorial in The New Republic laments that "press-bashing"—whether from right-wing media critics such as former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg, or leftists on the Huffington Post site who accuse the media of conformism—has created a "poisonous atmosphere," undermining the authority of the press.
But what if the critiques have merit? Goldberg's anti-media broadsides may be over the top, but his basic argument—that the liberal politics of most journalists influence media coverage, not because journalists don't strive to be objective but because their cultural milieu influences their perceptions of objectivity—has a great deal of truth to it. Few people doubt that Barack Obama got breaks from the press. And there are well-documented instances of media bias leading to sloppy reporting, with journalists all but recycling the press releases of advocacy groups on such issues as domestic violence, homelessness, or the perils of gun ownership. The press has been the target of unfair criticism, but it cannot be absolved of blame for the damage to its reputation.
That said, the media's present financial woes have little to do with its real or perceived lack of balance, and everything to do with the economics of publishing. News corporations have always subsidized serious reporting and commentary with revenues from other functions of the newspapers, such as classified advertising or sports news. Today, most of those functions have been diverted to other media, including the Internet.
Promising solutions include non-profit programs to support investigative reporting and news analysis. Just because we need professional journalism does not mean that it has to come only in the traditional package of the newspaper. Independent journalists, working as individuals or as teams, may thrive if they can have access to resources outside the conventional structure of a media organization.
Far more controversial is the quest to get readers to pay for online content. In fact, there is no good reason that online content should be free, other than "people are used to it." Is it impossible to persuade people to pay for something they are used to getting for free? Not at all. Online music downloads are a good example; so is television. While TV had been free since its inception, large numbers of people proved willing to pay for cable and digital television.
A subscriber-only model for individual websites has repeatedly proven unworkable. (The Wall Street Journal—a notable exception—gets people to pay for financial information while providing most editorial content free of charge.) The main reason it cannot work is that people who read news and commentary on the Internet usually get their content from many different sites. That is the great advantage of the Internet: you can go from The Washington Post to The London Times at the click of a mouse, and follow a link within one story to read another. If every news site started hiding its content behind a pay wall, reader would face either huge bills or greatly restricted choices, and many would seek to circumvent the subscription requirements.
Walter Isaacson, former managing editor of Time, recently got into the fray with a proposal to make web media content available for micropayments similar to iTunes, "a one-click system with a really simple interface." If you see a link to an interesting article on, say, the San Jose Mercury News website, you don't have to buy a $20 subscription to the publication—you can pay a nickel or a dime to read the individual item.
While this is a promising idea, it has substantial drawbacks. Those nickels and dimes can add up, and if your monthly bill is high enough, you may think twice the next time you feel like clicking on a link.
A better approach may be to make news and analysis content available only through media portals or carriers, similar to cable television providers. A subscription to a carrier would give access to any news site (newspaper, magazine, blog) that is a part of its package. The subscription price could be set by level of consumption—$20 a month for 40 hours of media access, $40 for 100 hours, and so on. Or it could vary depending on which publications are included, while content outside the customer's standard package could be available for one-time micropayments. Different media portals could experiment with different fee scales. This would allow people to surf the Web without having to ponder each click of a link. Revenues could be distributed to individual websites depending on their readership.
This strategy would still require a drastic departure from Internet business as usual. The migration of participating sites behind media-portal walls would have to be coordinated. Some policing would be needed to ensure that premium content is not reposted on free-access sites. This could make the carriers look like bad guys, at least in the eyes of those for whom free online content has become an entitlement if not an article of faith.
Yet, if there is a will to adopt the media-portal subscription model, there will be a way. Even in the age of celebrity gossip sites and reality shows, millions of Americans still respect real journalism enough to be willing to pay to help keep it alive.
Provided, of course, that the media work harder to deserve and retain that respect.
Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. This article originally appeared at Real Clear Politics.
Only if they work harder to earn and maintain respect
Reason, February 27, 2009
As media giants totter, battered by the Internet and the economic crisis, saving the newspapers has become a hot topic. It is richly ironic that the Net, which has both greatly facilitated the work of journalists and expanded their readership, has also left many unemployed. There are concerns that the death of journalism as we know it will leave our culture ill-informed—blogs are good for opinion and fact-checking, but they are no substitute for original reporting—and endanger democracy by removing a vital part of its checks and balances.
The debate revolves around two key questions. One, does society truly need the professional media? Two, how can professional journalism survive in a new media environment?
On the first question, my answer is a resounding, though possibly self-serving "yes." While I am a fan of blogs, I believe they work best when the "mainstream media" and the blogs complement each other. Otherwise, the blogosphere is all too liable to disintegrate into shrill partisan screaming and irresponsible rumor-mongering.
The responsible media do have a vital role to play in a democracy. However, the mainstream media's defenders would do well to acknowledge some of their failings. A recent editorial in The New Republic laments that "press-bashing"—whether from right-wing media critics such as former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg, or leftists on the Huffington Post site who accuse the media of conformism—has created a "poisonous atmosphere," undermining the authority of the press.
But what if the critiques have merit? Goldberg's anti-media broadsides may be over the top, but his basic argument—that the liberal politics of most journalists influence media coverage, not because journalists don't strive to be objective but because their cultural milieu influences their perceptions of objectivity—has a great deal of truth to it. Few people doubt that Barack Obama got breaks from the press. And there are well-documented instances of media bias leading to sloppy reporting, with journalists all but recycling the press releases of advocacy groups on such issues as domestic violence, homelessness, or the perils of gun ownership. The press has been the target of unfair criticism, but it cannot be absolved of blame for the damage to its reputation.
That said, the media's present financial woes have little to do with its real or perceived lack of balance, and everything to do with the economics of publishing. News corporations have always subsidized serious reporting and commentary with revenues from other functions of the newspapers, such as classified advertising or sports news. Today, most of those functions have been diverted to other media, including the Internet.
Promising solutions include non-profit programs to support investigative reporting and news analysis. Just because we need professional journalism does not mean that it has to come only in the traditional package of the newspaper. Independent journalists, working as individuals or as teams, may thrive if they can have access to resources outside the conventional structure of a media organization.
Far more controversial is the quest to get readers to pay for online content. In fact, there is no good reason that online content should be free, other than "people are used to it." Is it impossible to persuade people to pay for something they are used to getting for free? Not at all. Online music downloads are a good example; so is television. While TV had been free since its inception, large numbers of people proved willing to pay for cable and digital television.
A subscriber-only model for individual websites has repeatedly proven unworkable. (The Wall Street Journal—a notable exception—gets people to pay for financial information while providing most editorial content free of charge.) The main reason it cannot work is that people who read news and commentary on the Internet usually get their content from many different sites. That is the great advantage of the Internet: you can go from The Washington Post to The London Times at the click of a mouse, and follow a link within one story to read another. If every news site started hiding its content behind a pay wall, reader would face either huge bills or greatly restricted choices, and many would seek to circumvent the subscription requirements.
Walter Isaacson, former managing editor of Time, recently got into the fray with a proposal to make web media content available for micropayments similar to iTunes, "a one-click system with a really simple interface." If you see a link to an interesting article on, say, the San Jose Mercury News website, you don't have to buy a $20 subscription to the publication—you can pay a nickel or a dime to read the individual item.
While this is a promising idea, it has substantial drawbacks. Those nickels and dimes can add up, and if your monthly bill is high enough, you may think twice the next time you feel like clicking on a link.
A better approach may be to make news and analysis content available only through media portals or carriers, similar to cable television providers. A subscription to a carrier would give access to any news site (newspaper, magazine, blog) that is a part of its package. The subscription price could be set by level of consumption—$20 a month for 40 hours of media access, $40 for 100 hours, and so on. Or it could vary depending on which publications are included, while content outside the customer's standard package could be available for one-time micropayments. Different media portals could experiment with different fee scales. This would allow people to surf the Web without having to ponder each click of a link. Revenues could be distributed to individual websites depending on their readership.
This strategy would still require a drastic departure from Internet business as usual. The migration of participating sites behind media-portal walls would have to be coordinated. Some policing would be needed to ensure that premium content is not reposted on free-access sites. This could make the carriers look like bad guys, at least in the eyes of those for whom free online content has become an entitlement if not an article of faith.
Yet, if there is a will to adopt the media-portal subscription model, there will be a way. Even in the age of celebrity gossip sites and reality shows, millions of Americans still respect real journalism enough to be willing to pay to help keep it alive.
Provided, of course, that the media work harder to deserve and retain that respect.
Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. This article originally appeared at Real Clear Politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
