Securing Space, by Eric Sayers & Jeffrey Dressler
Opportunities exist to work with President Obama on space security.
Weekly Standard, Jan 29, 2009
As Washington remains engulfed in discussion over expected foreign policy shifts on hot-button issues like Iran and Afghanistan, one critical policy area that is primed for far-reaching modifications, yet receiving little attention, is the future of U.S. space security.
Critics of the Bush administration charge that his approach was as unproductive as it was controversial. The U.S. National Space Policy of 2006, including its dismissal of any legal regime to limit U.S. action in space; the January 2007 Chinese anti-satellite (ASAT) test targeting a weather satellite; and the February 2008 intercept of a damaged U.S. spy satellite have contributed to, or are the product of, an unnecessarily hostile approach to space security that has only served to make us less safe.
Thus, it's likely that the Obama administration will make a significant departure from the policies the Bush administration pursued. While recognizing the strategic importance of space, President Obama has chosen to offer the solution of an international treaty banning space weapons, or at the very least a discussion of "rules of the road" for space, as the solution for securing the nation's space assets. The feasibility of this policy and its desirability for U.S. interests has been widely questioned, perhaps most succinctly by the work of Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Although Tellis and others contend that this approach would be detrimental for U.S. security, elections have consequences and the direction President Obama chooses on space issues will be his to chart.
Those who may not agree with the approach the administration is likely to take would do well to identify and bolster support for programs that align with Obama's principles and can still play a beneficial role in securing America's access to space. Prominent amongst such initiatives are defensive-minded space systems, including the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program that aims to provide low-cost, miniaturized satellites that can be used to surge U.S. satellite capabilities or reconstitute those that have been damaged or destroyed.
President Obama recognizes that space is "critical to our national security and economy." This is an accurate and widely held view. The strength of America's military is reliant upon a constellation of satellites and corresponding ground installations that provide imagery, navigation, signal intelligence, communications, and early warning for missile launches. America's economy is similarly interconnected with a constellation of civilian satellites. However, as the military has placed a greater emphasis on networking the warfighter with the battlefield environment over the past two decades, this reliance has developed into a vulnerability.
Both the 2008 Annual Report to Congress on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China and the recently-released report of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission cite how the People's Liberation Army (PLA) views America's dependence on space assets as its "soft ribs," a strategic weakness to be exploited in an effort to undermine the foundations of American military strength. The U.S.-China Commission determined that the extent of China's anti-satellite capabilities are "significant," to include not just direct-ascent weapons like that used in China's ASAT test of January 2007, but also the development of co-orbital direct attack weapons, directed energy lasers, and various technologies designed for electronic "denial-of-service" attacks.
Preserving America's military advantages, therefore, requires ensuring unfettered access to space. If China continues to develop asymmetric capabilities to target U.S. space assets, without the United States taking the necessary steps to dissuade and deter these actions, it will only increase China's likelihood of prevailing in a short-duration, high-intensity war. Such an outcome would be disadvantageous for the U.S.-Taiwan security relationship, specifically if the United States develops a sense of hesitancy that jeopardizes the credibility of cross-Straits deterrence. Additionally, a more capable PLA will enhance the confidence of Chinese leadership, increasing the chance of a political-military miscalculation by China in the Straits.
Whether or not President Obama will follow through on his broad promise to seek "a worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites" is an open question. At the very least, he has been forthright in announcing his opposition to the weaponization of space. Complicating this commitment, however, is the broad range of military and civilian space assets that can be qualified as a "space weapon." The most effective direct-ascent ASAT weapon the U.S. has in its arsenal is the Standard-Missile 3 -- demonstrated by the successful February 2008 shoot-down of an American spy satellite. The dual-use of this weapon will also pose a serious dilemma for getting a space treaty off the ground without also requiring America to forgo its missile defense capabilities. Therefore, whatever the outcome of an international space regime, the utility of the SM-3 and other ASAT weapons as a traditional deterrence mechanism vis-à-vis Chinese ASAT weapons is likely to be downplayed by the Obama administration.
While these unfortunate policy prescriptions are a cause for concern, hope may lie in the possible defensive space measures that President Obama seems poised to embrace. His campaign website and new White House website encouragingly discuss "accelerating programs to harden U.S. satellites against attack" and "establishing contingency plans to ensure that U.S. forces can maintain or duplicate access to information from space assets." One of the most promising initiatives for achieving these duel objectives is Operationally Responsive Space (ORS). ORS seeks to rapidly deliver short-term capabilities to the warfighter that serve to augment space-based national security assets through the use of low-cost Tactical Satellites. The ORS Office, stood up in 2007 at the Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, now stands at the forefront of an effort to revolutionize the way the U.S. builds and deploys satellites.
The standard process by which the military continues to construct satellites emphasizes large, time-consuming programs that maintain a slow generational turnover of 15 to 20 years, preventing an important military asset like space to be exploited at the operational level. Alternatively, miniaturized satellites enjoy both nimble and adaptive qualities. Compared to traditional stand-alone satellite, micro satellites can continuously be outfitted with the latest technological upgrades and be sent to replace their outdated counterparts. More importantly, they can be used to help increase capabilities to meet the demands of combatant commanders. Indeed, the ORS Office is working right now on an ambitious 24 month timetable to supply U.S. Central Command with a satellite to meet an identified gap in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets. Should this effort succeed, it will be a telling example of what the future holds for operationalizing the power of space.
Perhaps the greatest advantage of ORS is the capacity it offers to reconstitute satellites quickly and cheaply. If the administration remains reluctant to pursue active mechanisms for ensuring deterrence in space, ORS could be employed as part of an array of defensive systems to help guarantee U.S. access to space by dissuading and deterring the development and use of Chinese ASAT technologies. If the United States retains the ability to replenish satellite constellations on an as-needed basis, the benefits provided by costly ASAT weapons would be greatly diminished for the PLA.
Of course, this may have the unintended consequence of compelling PLA planners to devote resources to denial-of-service weapons or acquire even more direct-attack weapons in an effort to overwhelm America's reconstitution capabilities. Thus, it will be necessary to develop a multifaceted defensive regime to build reserve micro satellites and stockpile cheap launch vehicles like the Minotaur, harden existing and future satellites against electromagnetic pulse and jamming, and further integrate satellite capabilities with allies.
Considering the benefits of ORS, reports that the budget for the ORS Office may be slashed between fiscal year 2011 and 2014, are highly discouraging. More recent reports now have funding being restored in 2012, but with a likely tightening of defense budgets in the years ahead, the outlook for a program already being targeted to pay Department of Defense's bills is bleak.
Although the level of confidence President Obama is prepared to place in diplomatic solutions to preserve space access is a serious concern, there remains ample opportunity to secure his support in other vital areas. As the administration begins to formulate its policies on space security, the utility and broad support for the ORS concept should make it a core element of its strategy. Remedying the ORS budgeting shortfall before the fiscal year 2010 budget is submitted would be a strong statement to China that the administration is invested in securing America's space assets. While only part of the solution, establishing such a precedent will be a step towards ensuring that the advantages the military procures from space can be further refined and enhanced in the coming decades.
Eric Sayers is a national security research assistant at The Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C. Jeffrey Dressler is an intern at The Heritage Foundation.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
NY Soda Tax: All Politics, No Science
NY Soda Tax: All Politics, No Science. By Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.
American Council on Science and Health, Jan 29, 2009
Aiming to combat the obesity epidemic in New York, Gov. David Paterson has recommended an 18% tax on sugar-sweetened soft drinks and a few other sweetened beverages. Unfortunately, the proposed tax is inconsistent with the facts about what causes obesity. It also sets an alarming precedent for taxing foods deemed "bad" by government officials -- further increasing the cost of living in the state -- particularly for the least affluent citizens.
•First, there is no scientific basis for singling out sugar-sweetened soda and certain fruit drinks as a primary underlying cause of obesity. So many Americans these days far exceed their ideal weight because they consume too many calories from all types of foods and beverages -- and do not dedicate sufficient effort to burning calories through exercise. Sugar-sweetened sodas don't make you fatter than eating too much meat, bread, potatoes, or anything else. The old adage "for every complex problem there is a simple solution -- and it never works" comes to mind here. It is always easier to zero in on one alleged villain and assume the problem is solved.
•Second, taxing soda sets up a precedent for taxing myriad foods considered "bad" by popular wisdom. Can we expect taxes next on cake, cookies, candy, and pizza? If food with high sugar or fat content is "bad" and deserving of punitive regulatory action, to be consistent will we tax orange juice (very high in sugar) and avocados (a plentiful source of fat)? Should we tax everything except tofu and spinach?
•Third, when the soda tax is examined closely -- given that it will have zero net effect on reducing obesity -- it must be perceived as another attempt to raise revenue for a financially strapped state. The Governor estimates that the soda tax will bring in $404 million the first year and $539 million annually after that. What's not to like about that if you are trying to balance a budget? But the bad news is that this influx of cash has nothing to do with fighting obesity and enhancing health.
There is, however, some good news about the proposed soda tax: Polls show that New Yorkers oppose this useless and regressive tax by nearly a 2:1 margin. Presumably, citizens recognize that obesity is a very serious health risk -- requiring serious solutions, not quick, ineffective regulatory fixes.
Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is President of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).
American Council on Science and Health, Jan 29, 2009
Aiming to combat the obesity epidemic in New York, Gov. David Paterson has recommended an 18% tax on sugar-sweetened soft drinks and a few other sweetened beverages. Unfortunately, the proposed tax is inconsistent with the facts about what causes obesity. It also sets an alarming precedent for taxing foods deemed "bad" by government officials -- further increasing the cost of living in the state -- particularly for the least affluent citizens.
•First, there is no scientific basis for singling out sugar-sweetened soda and certain fruit drinks as a primary underlying cause of obesity. So many Americans these days far exceed their ideal weight because they consume too many calories from all types of foods and beverages -- and do not dedicate sufficient effort to burning calories through exercise. Sugar-sweetened sodas don't make you fatter than eating too much meat, bread, potatoes, or anything else. The old adage "for every complex problem there is a simple solution -- and it never works" comes to mind here. It is always easier to zero in on one alleged villain and assume the problem is solved.
•Second, taxing soda sets up a precedent for taxing myriad foods considered "bad" by popular wisdom. Can we expect taxes next on cake, cookies, candy, and pizza? If food with high sugar or fat content is "bad" and deserving of punitive regulatory action, to be consistent will we tax orange juice (very high in sugar) and avocados (a plentiful source of fat)? Should we tax everything except tofu and spinach?
•Third, when the soda tax is examined closely -- given that it will have zero net effect on reducing obesity -- it must be perceived as another attempt to raise revenue for a financially strapped state. The Governor estimates that the soda tax will bring in $404 million the first year and $539 million annually after that. What's not to like about that if you are trying to balance a budget? But the bad news is that this influx of cash has nothing to do with fighting obesity and enhancing health.
There is, however, some good news about the proposed soda tax: Polls show that New Yorkers oppose this useless and regressive tax by nearly a 2:1 margin. Presumably, citizens recognize that obesity is a very serious health risk -- requiring serious solutions, not quick, ineffective regulatory fixes.
Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is President of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).
Energy Reduction and Environmental Sustainability in Surface Transportation
Energy Reduction and Environmental Sustainability in Surface Transportation. By Samuel R. Staley, Ph.D.Testimony to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Massachusetts Joint Committee on Transportation
2. Mobility and Economic Competitiveness
First, we must recognize the central purpose of transportation policy is to provide for and improve mobility for citizens and businesses. In other words, transportation policy is focused on finding effective ways to move people, goods, and services from point A to point B faster and cheaper. This central goal should not be minimized despite the more current concerns over the state of the national economy and the vigorous public discussion over the impending stimulus package. At the end of the day, transportation policy will continue to be about providing efficient, safe, and reliable mobility above all other policy goals or objectives, and the focus of reauthorization will inevitably move beyond the short-term politics surrounding the economic recession.
Importantly, mobility is the proper goal of transportation policy. Reason Foundation Vice President Adrian Moore and I explain the critical role mobility plays in ensuring our continued global competitiveness in our book Mobility First: A New Vision for Transportation in a Globally Competitive Economy. We summarize a growing body of research that shows empirically what urban economists have known for decades: Mobility is critical to national and urban economic success.
The reason is straightforward. Economic productivity improves when we lower the costs of production and make it easier for people to interact. Increased mobility gives workers access to an increasingly diverse number of jobs, and employers enjoy greater access to an increasingly large skilled and productive workforce. This is why congestion has such debilitating impacts on economic growth. As congestion increases, and costs of getting from point A to point B grow, production costs increase and the "opportunity circle" that includes access to markets, resources and jobs resources shrinks.
Thus, while transportation investments are critical to economic productivity and growth, job creation is an indirect impact of successful transportation policy and not a primary goal. This, in fact, is the lesson from the Interstate Highway program created in the 1950s. The central objective of this multibillion dollar program was to link the nation's largest urban centers and integrate them into a truly national transportation network. This goal served economic purposes as well as broader national goals of geographically unifying the nation (in much the same way railroads did in the 19th century) and providing for a more efficient national defense.
The economic impacts were enormous and tangible. The Interstate Highway System and upgrades to various state and regional roads boosted economic growth because these new roads reduced transportation costs dramatically, allowing businesses to improve productivity. Some of these effects, such as providing more efficient routes for long-haul freight movement, were intended. Reducing urban traffic congestion was another, less important goal successfully met, although few anticipated the decentralization of metropolitan areas that followed.
As we move forward thinking about transportation and sustainability, we also need to recognize the fundamental link between mobility, economic productivity, and economic growth.
Reason Foundation, January 27, 2009
1. Overview
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan, members of the subcommittee, thank you for giving me this opportunity to discuss environmental sustainability and the future of transportation in the United States. This is a central issue as the federal government works toward its six-year authorization of transportation funding, and understanding the proper context for addressing environmental issues will be critical.
I would like to focus my remarks on two over-arching points:
- Transportation policy that loses sight of mobility as a central goal puts our economic competitiveness at risk; and
- Mobility is compatible with long-term goals of environmental sustainability.
2. Mobility and Economic Competitiveness
First, we must recognize the central purpose of transportation policy is to provide for and improve mobility for citizens and businesses. In other words, transportation policy is focused on finding effective ways to move people, goods, and services from point A to point B faster and cheaper. This central goal should not be minimized despite the more current concerns over the state of the national economy and the vigorous public discussion over the impending stimulus package. At the end of the day, transportation policy will continue to be about providing efficient, safe, and reliable mobility above all other policy goals or objectives, and the focus of reauthorization will inevitably move beyond the short-term politics surrounding the economic recession.
Importantly, mobility is the proper goal of transportation policy. Reason Foundation Vice President Adrian Moore and I explain the critical role mobility plays in ensuring our continued global competitiveness in our book Mobility First: A New Vision for Transportation in a Globally Competitive Economy. We summarize a growing body of research that shows empirically what urban economists have known for decades: Mobility is critical to national and urban economic success.
The reason is straightforward. Economic productivity improves when we lower the costs of production and make it easier for people to interact. Increased mobility gives workers access to an increasingly diverse number of jobs, and employers enjoy greater access to an increasingly large skilled and productive workforce. This is why congestion has such debilitating impacts on economic growth. As congestion increases, and costs of getting from point A to point B grow, production costs increase and the "opportunity circle" that includes access to markets, resources and jobs resources shrinks.
Thus, while transportation investments are critical to economic productivity and growth, job creation is an indirect impact of successful transportation policy and not a primary goal. This, in fact, is the lesson from the Interstate Highway program created in the 1950s. The central objective of this multibillion dollar program was to link the nation's largest urban centers and integrate them into a truly national transportation network. This goal served economic purposes as well as broader national goals of geographically unifying the nation (in much the same way railroads did in the 19th century) and providing for a more efficient national defense.
The economic impacts were enormous and tangible. The Interstate Highway System and upgrades to various state and regional roads boosted economic growth because these new roads reduced transportation costs dramatically, allowing businesses to improve productivity. Some of these effects, such as providing more efficient routes for long-haul freight movement, were intended. Reducing urban traffic congestion was another, less important goal successfully met, although few anticipated the decentralization of metropolitan areas that followed.
As we move forward thinking about transportation and sustainability, we also need to recognize the fundamental link between mobility, economic productivity, and economic growth.
3. Transportation and the Environment
The critical role transportation plays in economic growth and productivity does not obviate the need to consider the environmental consequences of our transportation investments, the environmental impact of different modes, or the way we use transportation facilities. On the contrary, as we become more aware of the environmental impacts of human activity, we have a responsibility to mitigate the negative effects. We have, for example, made tremendous strides toward improving our air quality even as our use of automobiles has increased dramatically. Air quality, by all metrics, has improved steadily in most U.S. urban areas since the early 1970s as a result of new technologies that lowered emissions while preserving the mobility implicit in automobile use. Indeed, rising economic productivity, and the increased wealth that comes with it, allows us to be even more creative and innovative in improving mobility in an environmentally responsible manner.
Thus, mobility and environmental protection can be complimentary goals. The key is to understand the right contexts in which these goals are pursued and choose strategies that allow for both to be achieved simultaneously. Environmental policy that explicitly or implicitly reduces mobility undermines the long term viability of our cities and national economy and, as a consequence, our ability to meet our long-term environmental policy goals.
A case in point is the role technology will play in meeting greenhouse gas targets. Preliminary findings of research being conducted by The Hartgen Group for Reason Foundation indicates that newly legislated fuel mileage standards will outstrip most other commonly proposed strategies for mitigating carbon dioxide by large margins (see Table 1). In an analysis of greenhouse gas trends in 48 urbanized areas, current trends suggest that without mitigating strategies, CO2 will increase 52 percent by 2030. The new CAFÉ mandates recently enacted by Congress will reduce CO2 by 31.2 percent by 2030. In contrast, increasing the price of fuel to $5 per gallon would only reduce emissions by about 4 percent. The combined effect of increasing the transit share of work trips by 50 percent, increasing the walk to work share by 50 percent, and increasing telecommuting would reduce CO2 emissions by just 2.5 percent.
Notably, the new fuel mileage mandates are also more cost-effective, averaging about $52 per ton removed, and meet the McKinsey & Company benchmark reported in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost? In contrast, most other strategies are significantly more costly. Physical capacity improvements, increasing transit's mode share, and reducing overall travel by raising the gas tax are expected to cost close to (or more than) $4,000 per ton removed.
4. Environmental Mitigation Strategies and Mobility
Each of these greenhouse gas mitigation strategies has different impacts on mobility and, as a result, on our nation's productivity. Increased fuel mileage mandates do not impact our nation's mobility although they have somewhat smaller impacts on the costs of using specific types of cars and trucks. If the mandates are modest and provide enough of a lead time, they can allow consumers and private suppliers to make choices about what technologies and modes of transport are most efficient for achieving transportation goals. This, combined with the independent decisions of millions of Americans to purchase more fuel efficient automobiles, can increase productivity and mitigate greenhouse gases.
In contrast, policies that attempt to directly reduce travel have an adverse impact on mobility and impinge on our economic productivity by reducing the opportunity circles accessible by employers, workers, and households.
A few quick illustrations make this point. Portland, Oregon's Tri-Met operates perhaps the most successful rail transit system in place among mid-size (and smaller) U.S. cities. Sixty-four light rail transit stations are part of a regional transit network that covers an urban area of 474 square miles and serves 1.2 million people according to the National Transit Database. Yet, these transit stations account for just 22 square miles, or about 5 percent of the regional service area. Even with the more compact urban form created in part by a mandated regional growth boundary, Tri-Met's ability to influence regional urban form and travel patterns is limited to the immediate area around the transit stations.
Arlington, Virginia provides another example. Arlington hosts some of the nation's most robust transit-oriented developments, using a large volume heavy rail system to support development at Metro stations around Ballston and Courthouse Square on the Orange Line and Pentagon City and Crystal City on the Blue Line. The eleven Metro stations represent about 8 percent of the county's land area. About 20 percent of the county's population lives within walking distance (1/4 mile) of one of these Metro stops. Among those within walking distance, however, the private automobile still captures more than half, and often two-thirds or more, of total trips. Thus, in Arlington, rail transit is used by just 5-10 percent of the county's population. Notably, transit's share of total travel in the Washington, DC urban area remains around 7 percent.
The point, however, is not to criticize transit. On the contrary, transit plays a vital role along key corridors in many urban areas and enhances mobility for many. Rather, transit's role in meeting environmental policy goals needs to be kept in context.
Despite recent gains in ridership, public transit remains a relatively small part of the overall travel equation in most major urbanized areas in the U.S. Notably, higher gas prices contributed to a reduction in road travel by 100 billion vehicle miles traveled in 2008, according to the Federal Highway Administration, a fall of about 4 percent. Public transit experienced an increase of about 5 percent. Yet, because transit carries a very small portion of travel, transit was able to capture just 3 percent of the overall decline in road travel.
In addition, the kinds of policies that will be necessary to fundamentally change land use to boost transit ridership significantly would require a dramatic and largely involuntary relocation of people and families into housing they do not want. The single-family, detached house would be an option only for the wealthier income brackets in our major urban areas, effectively inverting the existing distribution of home options and choices.
A policy that focuses largely on shifting travelers out of cars and into transit will reduce mobility. An examination of work trip travel times in 276 metropolitan areas found that the length of public transit trips exceeded those for private automobiles in 272 of those areas. On average, public transit riders spend about 36 minutes traveling to work while private automobile travelers commute about 21 minutes. This does not have to be the case. The innovative use of HOT Lanes, such as the networks being built in Northern Virginia and discussed in Atlanta, Houston, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Miami can finance critically needed road capacity while also providing viable bus rapid transit alternatives.
5. Sustainable Transportation Policy
Sustainable development policies call for a balancing of three goals: economic growth, the equitable use of resources, and environmental preservation. Transportation policy that undermines mobility compromises the productivity necessary to support better environmental stewardship.
What federal policy initiatives, then, can preserve the overarching goals of transportation policy to improve mobility while also recognizing the importance of meeting environmental goals?
First, achieving environmental goals will depend primarily on technological solutions, not broad-based changes in human behavior. The dramatic improvements in air quality in major urban areas is directly attributed to technological solutions, and the same will be true for addressing national greenhouse gas goals. Federal policymakers should resist attempts to directly use transportation policy to address broader environmental goals because it tends to be a very blunt and inefficient instrument.
Second, maintain mobility as the central goal of transportation policy. Policies that directly reduce mobility, including those designed explicitly to reduce vehicle miles traveled or direct commuters to alternatives that will lengthen commute times, should be avoided. While environmental concerns should play a role, federal objectives should include searching for and implementing win-win solutions.
Third, continue to put congestion reduction as a key priority for transportation policy and investments. Widespread traffic congestion places substantial burdens on businesses and individuals. Mitigating these effects should be a primary goal of transportation policy makers to ensure our cities and national economy remain competitive. Many congestion-mitigation strategies-HOT lanes, tolled facilities, capacity expansion-will also have environmental benefits, but their central purpose is to reduce transportation costs and improve economic productivity.
Fourth, aggressively move toward a transportation funding approach based on distance-based financing such as comprehensive road pricing. This approach would establish a more direct, transparent and accountable user-based funding system.
Fourth, aggressively move toward a transportation funding approach based on distance-based financing such as comprehensive road pricing. This approach would establish a more direct, transparent and accountable user-based funding system.
Thank you for your attention. I welcome any comments or questions members of the subcommittee may have.
Sam Staley is director of urban policy at Reason Foundation. He is co-author of Mobility First: A New Vision for Transportation in a Globally Competitive 21st Century (Rowman & Littlefield, 2008). An archive of Staley's work is here, and Reason's transportation research and commentary is here.
How to explain female absence from the sciences?
The Times’s Weak-Willed Women, by Heather Mac Donald
How else to explain female absence from the sciences?
City Journal, January 28, 2009
Women, feminists proclaim again and again, are strong, indomitable, and equal in every way to men. Except, that is, when they run up against an obstacle, thrown malevolently in their path, that is too formidable even for them, such as . . . a sitcom.
New York Times science reporter Natalie Angier recently called for renewed attention to the lack of proportional representation of women in science. (In the past, Angier has made something of a specialty of discovering proper gender role models in nature, along the lines of dominatrix polyps and sexually submissive male arachnids.) The imbalance in the sciences, Angier reported, is especially bad in physics, where just 6 percent of full professors are women. After canvassing some current theories explaining the imbalance, Angier offered her own scapegoats: “Bubble-headed television shows like ‘The Big Bang Theory,’ with its four nerdy male physics prodigies and the fetching blond girl next door.”
Imagine the devastation that such a show might wreak. A 15-year-old math whiz is happily immersed in the Lorentz transformations, the basis for the theory of special relativity. She looks up at the tube and sees a fictional group of male physics students bashfully speaking to a feisty blonde. Her confidence and enthusiasm shattered, she drops out of her AP physics course and starts hanging out at the mall with the cheerleading squad.
Gender-insensitive TV shows are just the start of the barriers blocking girls’ entry to the empyrean of pure science. There’s also the father of modern physics himself. What self-respecting girl wants to look like Albert Einstein? “As long as we’re making geek [culture] chic” under our new, science-friendly president, Angier suggests, “let’s lose the Einstein ’do and moustache.” We’re in whiplash territory here. For years, we have been told that the patriarchy brainwashes women into excessive concern with appearance. Now, however, it turns out that girls with an innate knack for science could be turned away from their calling just because the Über Role Model is frumpy. If Einstein had looked like Tom Cruise or Angelina Jolie, apparently, girls would be clamoring to participate in the Math Olympiad and earning their proportionate share of physics Ph.D.s.
Which is it? Are women “strong”? Or can they be crushed by fears of a permanent bad hair day and inspired by something as superficial as Hollywood fashion? Given the amount of time and money that most women spend on applying makeup, blow-drying their hair, shopping for clothes, and gullibly attending to preposterous wrinkle-cream ads in women’s magazines, Angier’s claim that girls could be thwarted by a TV comedy is not wholly unreasonable. It just happens to contradict the usual feminist claim that women are just as tough as men.
The evidence to date suggests that the highest-level math skills—those required for research physics—aren’t evenly distributed among men and women. Men greatly outnumber women at the very highest and lowest ends of the mathematics aptitude curve. As Christina Hoff Sommers has documented, men also show greater interest in abstract, non-empathetic careers than women. Of course, the conflicting demands of raising a family and pursuing pure science undoubtedly influence women’s career paths as well. If scientific pursuit can be made more family-friendly without in any way damaging its essential strengths, such changes should be contemplated. But the fertility clock and women’s greater involvement with their babies are not chauvinist plots; they are biological realities.
Unfortunately, Angier’s conviction that sexism lurks behind women’s rarity in the most abstract sciences isn’t confined to the New York Times or even to academia. A congressional bill, the Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Act of 2008, would apply Title IX gender quotas to academic science. Barack Obama endorsed the bill during the presidential campaign; women’s groups are clamoring for action.
Obama has indeed presented himself as a science president. Rejecting feminist propaganda, however belatedly, regarding sexism in science would be a strong start in justifying that title. In the meantime, stay tuned for the latest twist in feminists’ contradictory—dare one say, irrational?—apologetics.
Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor of City Journal and the John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
How else to explain female absence from the sciences?
City Journal, January 28, 2009
Women, feminists proclaim again and again, are strong, indomitable, and equal in every way to men. Except, that is, when they run up against an obstacle, thrown malevolently in their path, that is too formidable even for them, such as . . . a sitcom.
New York Times science reporter Natalie Angier recently called for renewed attention to the lack of proportional representation of women in science. (In the past, Angier has made something of a specialty of discovering proper gender role models in nature, along the lines of dominatrix polyps and sexually submissive male arachnids.) The imbalance in the sciences, Angier reported, is especially bad in physics, where just 6 percent of full professors are women. After canvassing some current theories explaining the imbalance, Angier offered her own scapegoats: “Bubble-headed television shows like ‘The Big Bang Theory,’ with its four nerdy male physics prodigies and the fetching blond girl next door.”
Imagine the devastation that such a show might wreak. A 15-year-old math whiz is happily immersed in the Lorentz transformations, the basis for the theory of special relativity. She looks up at the tube and sees a fictional group of male physics students bashfully speaking to a feisty blonde. Her confidence and enthusiasm shattered, she drops out of her AP physics course and starts hanging out at the mall with the cheerleading squad.
Gender-insensitive TV shows are just the start of the barriers blocking girls’ entry to the empyrean of pure science. There’s also the father of modern physics himself. What self-respecting girl wants to look like Albert Einstein? “As long as we’re making geek [culture] chic” under our new, science-friendly president, Angier suggests, “let’s lose the Einstein ’do and moustache.” We’re in whiplash territory here. For years, we have been told that the patriarchy brainwashes women into excessive concern with appearance. Now, however, it turns out that girls with an innate knack for science could be turned away from their calling just because the Über Role Model is frumpy. If Einstein had looked like Tom Cruise or Angelina Jolie, apparently, girls would be clamoring to participate in the Math Olympiad and earning their proportionate share of physics Ph.D.s.
Which is it? Are women “strong”? Or can they be crushed by fears of a permanent bad hair day and inspired by something as superficial as Hollywood fashion? Given the amount of time and money that most women spend on applying makeup, blow-drying their hair, shopping for clothes, and gullibly attending to preposterous wrinkle-cream ads in women’s magazines, Angier’s claim that girls could be thwarted by a TV comedy is not wholly unreasonable. It just happens to contradict the usual feminist claim that women are just as tough as men.
The evidence to date suggests that the highest-level math skills—those required for research physics—aren’t evenly distributed among men and women. Men greatly outnumber women at the very highest and lowest ends of the mathematics aptitude curve. As Christina Hoff Sommers has documented, men also show greater interest in abstract, non-empathetic careers than women. Of course, the conflicting demands of raising a family and pursuing pure science undoubtedly influence women’s career paths as well. If scientific pursuit can be made more family-friendly without in any way damaging its essential strengths, such changes should be contemplated. But the fertility clock and women’s greater involvement with their babies are not chauvinist plots; they are biological realities.
Unfortunately, Angier’s conviction that sexism lurks behind women’s rarity in the most abstract sciences isn’t confined to the New York Times or even to academia. A congressional bill, the Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Act of 2008, would apply Title IX gender quotas to academic science. Barack Obama endorsed the bill during the presidential campaign; women’s groups are clamoring for action.
Obama has indeed presented himself as a science president. Rejecting feminist propaganda, however belatedly, regarding sexism in science would be a strong start in justifying that title. In the meantime, stay tuned for the latest twist in feminists’ contradictory—dare one say, irrational?—apologetics.
Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor of City Journal and the John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Volunteer to Save the Economy
Volunteer to Save the Economy, by Bruce Reed and John Bridgeland
TNYT, January 22, 2009
Washington
THIS week, President Obama called upon all Americans to volunteer, to pitch in and give back. We hope that the president is serious about this challenge, because providing more opportunities for national and community service won’t just lift the nation’s spirit, it could help save the economy.
In fact, an investment in service as part of the economic recovery plan could add hundreds of thousands of jobs to the four million the Obama administration has proposed. And because jobs at nonprofit groups pay so little, they would cost the government less than many other stimulus measures.
The economic crisis has hit hospitals, nursing homes, nursery schools, centers for the elderly and soup kitchens with a triple whammy. The evaporation of wealth has depressed charitable donations; the state and local budget crunch has deprived nonprofit groups of their most dependable revenue stream; and, even as resources shrink, more Americans need assistance. In Michigan, for example, more than 70 percent of nonprofit groups have seen increased demand for their services, while half report that their financial support has dropped.
It’s important that charities remain able to help those in need. But the nonprofit plunge also seriously endangers the nation’s job market. Nonprofit enterprises have 9.4 million employees and 4.7 million volunteers nationwide — together, that’s 10 percent of the American work force, more than the auto and financial industries combined. Yet nonprofit groups have been almost completely overlooked during the economic debate. That’s a mistake.
There is, however, a bipartisan solution ready to go: during the campaign, both Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, endorsed the Serve America Act, which would greatly expand national and community service.
By including key provisions of that bill in the economic recovery package, Congress and the administration would enable 250,000 Americans to do full-time service over the next two years. We can invest in a new generation of volunteers as well: if federal work-study programs were doubled, over half a million part-time opportunities a year would be created for college students. All this could be done through existing nonprofit groups, charities and faith-based organizations, not a new government bureaucracy.
The total two-year cost? Less than $8 billion — adding not even 1 percent to a $825 billion recovery package.
As Americans have proven in times of crisis, what we ask of ourselves matters a great deal. If we want to create the most jobs for the lowest cost with the least bureaucracy and foster the spirit of sacrifice that the president envisions, the economic recovery plan should find a place for more Americans to do good works in hard times.
Bruce Reed, the president of the Democratic Leadership Council, was President Bill Clinton’s domestic policy adviser. John Bridgeland, who held the same position under President George W. Bush, is the chief executive of a public policy firm.
TNYT, January 22, 2009
Washington
THIS week, President Obama called upon all Americans to volunteer, to pitch in and give back. We hope that the president is serious about this challenge, because providing more opportunities for national and community service won’t just lift the nation’s spirit, it could help save the economy.
In fact, an investment in service as part of the economic recovery plan could add hundreds of thousands of jobs to the four million the Obama administration has proposed. And because jobs at nonprofit groups pay so little, they would cost the government less than many other stimulus measures.
The economic crisis has hit hospitals, nursing homes, nursery schools, centers for the elderly and soup kitchens with a triple whammy. The evaporation of wealth has depressed charitable donations; the state and local budget crunch has deprived nonprofit groups of their most dependable revenue stream; and, even as resources shrink, more Americans need assistance. In Michigan, for example, more than 70 percent of nonprofit groups have seen increased demand for their services, while half report that their financial support has dropped.
It’s important that charities remain able to help those in need. But the nonprofit plunge also seriously endangers the nation’s job market. Nonprofit enterprises have 9.4 million employees and 4.7 million volunteers nationwide — together, that’s 10 percent of the American work force, more than the auto and financial industries combined. Yet nonprofit groups have been almost completely overlooked during the economic debate. That’s a mistake.
There is, however, a bipartisan solution ready to go: during the campaign, both Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, endorsed the Serve America Act, which would greatly expand national and community service.
By including key provisions of that bill in the economic recovery package, Congress and the administration would enable 250,000 Americans to do full-time service over the next two years. We can invest in a new generation of volunteers as well: if federal work-study programs were doubled, over half a million part-time opportunities a year would be created for college students. All this could be done through existing nonprofit groups, charities and faith-based organizations, not a new government bureaucracy.
The total two-year cost? Less than $8 billion — adding not even 1 percent to a $825 billion recovery package.
As Americans have proven in times of crisis, what we ask of ourselves matters a great deal. If we want to create the most jobs for the lowest cost with the least bureaucracy and foster the spirit of sacrifice that the president envisions, the economic recovery plan should find a place for more Americans to do good works in hard times.
Bruce Reed, the president of the Democratic Leadership Council, was President Bill Clinton’s domestic policy adviser. John Bridgeland, who held the same position under President George W. Bush, is the chief executive of a public policy firm.
Yoo: Obama Made a Rash Decision on Gitmo
Obama Made a Rash Decision on Gitmo, by John Yoo
The president will soon realize that governing involves hard choices.
WSJ, Jan 29, 2009
During his first week as commander in chief, President Barack Obama ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay and terminated the CIA's special authority to interrogate terrorists.
While these actions will certainly please his base -- gone are the cries of an "imperial presidency" -- they will also seriously handicap our intelligence agencies from preventing future terrorist attacks. In issuing these executive orders, Mr. Obama is returning America to the failed law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism that prevailed before Sept. 11, 2001. He's also drying up the most valuable sources of intelligence on al Qaeda, which, according to CIA Director Michael Hayden, has come largely out of the tough interrogation of high-level operatives during the early years of the war.
The question Mr. Obama should have asked right after the inaugural parade was: What will happen after we capture the next Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Abu Zubaydah? Instead, he took action without a meeting of his full national security staff, and without a legal review of all the policy options available to meet the threats facing our country.
What such a review would have made clear is that the civilian law-enforcement system cannot prevent terrorist attacks. What is needed are the tools to gain vital intelligence, which is why, under President George W. Bush, the CIA could hold and interrogate high-value al Qaeda leaders. On the advice of his intelligence advisers, the president could have authorized coercive interrogation methods like those used by Israel and Great Britain in their antiterrorism campaigns. (He could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11.)
Mr. Obama has also ordered that all military commission trials be stayed and that the case of Ali Saleh al-Marri, the only al Qaeda operative now held on U.S. soil, be reviewed. This seems a prelude to closing the military commissions down entirely and transferring the detainees' cases to U.S. civilian courts for prosecution under ordinary criminal law. Military commission trials have been used in most American wars, and their rules and procedures are designed around the need to protect intelligence sources and methods from revelation in open court.
It's also likely Mr. Obama will declare terrorists to be prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. The Bush administration classified terrorists -- well supported by legal and historical precedent -- like pirates, illegal combatants who do not fight on behalf of a nation and refuse to obey the laws of war.
The CIA must now conduct interrogations according to the rules of the Army Field Manual, which prohibits coercive techniques, threats and promises, and the good-cop bad-cop routines used in police stations throughout America. Mr. Obama has also ordered that al Qaeda leaders are to be protected from "outrages on personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment" in accord with the Geneva Conventions. His new order amounts to requiring -- on penalty of prosecution -- that CIA interrogators be polite. Coercive measures are unwisely banned with no exceptions, regardless of the danger confronting the country.
Eliminating the Bush system will mean that we will get no more information from captured al Qaeda terrorists. Every prisoner will have the right to a lawyer (which they will surely demand), the right to remain silent, and the right to a speedy trial.
The first thing any lawyer will do is tell his clients to shut up. The KSMs or Abu Zubaydahs of the future will respond to no verbal questioning or trickery -- which is precisely why the Bush administration felt compelled to use more coercive measures in the first place. Our soldiers and agents in the field will have to run more risks as they must secure physical evidence at the point of capture and maintain a chain of custody that will stand up to the standards of a civilian court.
Relying on the civilian justice system not only robs us of the most effective intelligence tool to avert future attacks, it provides an opportunity for our enemies to obtain intelligence on us. If terrorists are now to be treated as ordinary criminals, their defense lawyers will insist that the government produce in open court all U.S. intelligence on their client along with the methods used by the CIA and NSA to get it. A defendant's constitutional right to demand the government's files often forces prosecutors to offer plea bargains to spies rather than risk disclosure of intelligence secrets.
Zacarias Moussaoui, the only member of the 9/11 cell arrested before the attack, turned his trial into a circus by making such demands. He was convicted after four years of pretrial wrangling only because he chose to plead guilty. Expect more of this, but with far more valuable intelligence at stake.
It is naïve to say, as Mr. Obama did in his inaugural speech, that we can "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." That high-flying rhetoric means that we must give al Qaeda -- a hardened enemy committed to our destruction -- the same rights as garden-variety criminals at the cost of losing critical intelligence about real, future threats.
Government policy choices are all about trade-offs, which cannot simply be wished away by rhetoric. Mr. Obama seems to have respected these realities in his hesitation to end the NSA's electronic surveillance programs, or to stop the use of predator drones to target individual al Qaeda leaders.
But in his decisions taken so precipitously just two days after the inauguration, Mr. Obama may have opened the door to further terrorist acts on U.S. soil by shattering some of the nation's most critical defenses.
Mr. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley and a visiting professor at Chapman Law School. He was an official in the Justice Department from 2001-03 and is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
The president will soon realize that governing involves hard choices.
WSJ, Jan 29, 2009
During his first week as commander in chief, President Barack Obama ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay and terminated the CIA's special authority to interrogate terrorists.
While these actions will certainly please his base -- gone are the cries of an "imperial presidency" -- they will also seriously handicap our intelligence agencies from preventing future terrorist attacks. In issuing these executive orders, Mr. Obama is returning America to the failed law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism that prevailed before Sept. 11, 2001. He's also drying up the most valuable sources of intelligence on al Qaeda, which, according to CIA Director Michael Hayden, has come largely out of the tough interrogation of high-level operatives during the early years of the war.
The question Mr. Obama should have asked right after the inaugural parade was: What will happen after we capture the next Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Abu Zubaydah? Instead, he took action without a meeting of his full national security staff, and without a legal review of all the policy options available to meet the threats facing our country.
What such a review would have made clear is that the civilian law-enforcement system cannot prevent terrorist attacks. What is needed are the tools to gain vital intelligence, which is why, under President George W. Bush, the CIA could hold and interrogate high-value al Qaeda leaders. On the advice of his intelligence advisers, the president could have authorized coercive interrogation methods like those used by Israel and Great Britain in their antiterrorism campaigns. (He could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11.)
Mr. Obama has also ordered that all military commission trials be stayed and that the case of Ali Saleh al-Marri, the only al Qaeda operative now held on U.S. soil, be reviewed. This seems a prelude to closing the military commissions down entirely and transferring the detainees' cases to U.S. civilian courts for prosecution under ordinary criminal law. Military commission trials have been used in most American wars, and their rules and procedures are designed around the need to protect intelligence sources and methods from revelation in open court.
It's also likely Mr. Obama will declare terrorists to be prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. The Bush administration classified terrorists -- well supported by legal and historical precedent -- like pirates, illegal combatants who do not fight on behalf of a nation and refuse to obey the laws of war.
The CIA must now conduct interrogations according to the rules of the Army Field Manual, which prohibits coercive techniques, threats and promises, and the good-cop bad-cop routines used in police stations throughout America. Mr. Obama has also ordered that al Qaeda leaders are to be protected from "outrages on personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment" in accord with the Geneva Conventions. His new order amounts to requiring -- on penalty of prosecution -- that CIA interrogators be polite. Coercive measures are unwisely banned with no exceptions, regardless of the danger confronting the country.
Eliminating the Bush system will mean that we will get no more information from captured al Qaeda terrorists. Every prisoner will have the right to a lawyer (which they will surely demand), the right to remain silent, and the right to a speedy trial.
The first thing any lawyer will do is tell his clients to shut up. The KSMs or Abu Zubaydahs of the future will respond to no verbal questioning or trickery -- which is precisely why the Bush administration felt compelled to use more coercive measures in the first place. Our soldiers and agents in the field will have to run more risks as they must secure physical evidence at the point of capture and maintain a chain of custody that will stand up to the standards of a civilian court.
Relying on the civilian justice system not only robs us of the most effective intelligence tool to avert future attacks, it provides an opportunity for our enemies to obtain intelligence on us. If terrorists are now to be treated as ordinary criminals, their defense lawyers will insist that the government produce in open court all U.S. intelligence on their client along with the methods used by the CIA and NSA to get it. A defendant's constitutional right to demand the government's files often forces prosecutors to offer plea bargains to spies rather than risk disclosure of intelligence secrets.
Zacarias Moussaoui, the only member of the 9/11 cell arrested before the attack, turned his trial into a circus by making such demands. He was convicted after four years of pretrial wrangling only because he chose to plead guilty. Expect more of this, but with far more valuable intelligence at stake.
It is naïve to say, as Mr. Obama did in his inaugural speech, that we can "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." That high-flying rhetoric means that we must give al Qaeda -- a hardened enemy committed to our destruction -- the same rights as garden-variety criminals at the cost of losing critical intelligence about real, future threats.
Government policy choices are all about trade-offs, which cannot simply be wished away by rhetoric. Mr. Obama seems to have respected these realities in his hesitation to end the NSA's electronic surveillance programs, or to stop the use of predator drones to target individual al Qaeda leaders.
But in his decisions taken so precipitously just two days after the inauguration, Mr. Obama may have opened the door to further terrorist acts on U.S. soil by shattering some of the nation's most critical defenses.
Mr. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley and a visiting professor at Chapman Law School. He was an official in the Justice Department from 2001-03 and is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
US on Madagascar Crisis
Madagascar Crisis
Press Statement by Robert Wood, Acting Spokesman, US State Dept
Washington, DC, January 29, 2009
The United States is deeply concerned by the recent political violence in Madagascar. We call on Malagasy leaders and people to exercise restraint and avoid all further violence. We urge for an immediate resumption of dialogue among principal political actors and the government. The United States reaffirms its commitment to Madagascar’s democratic development, emphasizing that calm and dialogue must be restored in order to effectively pursue development. We expect all parties in this conflict to respect the constitution of Madagascar as they resolve their political differences.
2009/086
Press Statement by Robert Wood, Acting Spokesman, US State Dept
Washington, DC, January 29, 2009
The United States is deeply concerned by the recent political violence in Madagascar. We call on Malagasy leaders and people to exercise restraint and avoid all further violence. We urge for an immediate resumption of dialogue among principal political actors and the government. The United States reaffirms its commitment to Madagascar’s democratic development, emphasizing that calm and dialogue must be restored in order to effectively pursue development. We expect all parties in this conflict to respect the constitution of Madagascar as they resolve their political differences.
2009/086
Remarks by the President on the economy after meeting with business leaders
Remarks by the President on the economy after meeting with business leaders
White House East Room, January 28, 2009
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. I want to thank Sam and David for their outstanding words. I want to thank all of you for being here today.
A few moments ago, I met with some of the leading business executives in the country. And it was a sober meeting, because these companies and the workers they employ are going through times more trying than any that we've seen in a long, long while. Just the other day, seven of our largest corporations announced they were making major job cuts. Some of the business leaders in this room have had to do the same. And yet, even as we discussed the seriousness of this challenge, we left our meeting confident that we can turn our economy around.
But each of us, as Dave indicated, are going to have to do our share. Part of what led our economy to this perilous moment was a sense of irresponsibility that prevailed in Wall Street and in Washington. And that's why I called for a new era of responsibility in my inaugural address last week, an era where each of us chips in so that we can climb our way out of this crisis -- executives and factory floor workers, educators and engineers, health care professionals and elected officials.
As we discussed in our meeting a few minutes ago, corporate America will have to accept its own responsibilities to its workers and the American public. But these executives also understand that without wise leadership in Washington, even the best-run businesses can't do as well as they might. They understand that what makes an idea sound is not whether it's Democrat or Republican, but whether it makes good economic sense for their workers and companies. And they understand that when it comes to rebuilding our economy, we don't have a moment to spare.
The businesses that are shedding jobs to stay afloat -- they can't afford inaction or delay. The workers who are returning home to tell their husbands and wives and children that they no longer have a job, and all those who live in fear that their job will be next on the cutting blocks -- they need help now. They are looking to Washington for action, bold and swift. And that is why I hope to sign an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan into law in the next few weeks.
And most of the money that we're investing as part of this plan will get out the door immediately and go directly to job creation, generating or saving 3 to 4 million new jobs. And the vast majority of these jobs will be created in the private sector, because, as these CEOs well know, business, not government, is the engine of growth in this country.
But even as this plan puts Americans back to work it will also make the critical investments in alternative energy, in safer roads, better health care and modern schools that will lay the foundation for long-term growth and prosperity. And it will invest in broadband and emerging technologies, like the ones imagined and introduced to the world by people like Sam and so many of the CEOs here today, because that's how America will retain and regain its competitive edge in the 21st century.
I know that there are some who are skeptical of the size and scale of this recovery plan. And I understand that skepticism, given some of the things that have happened in this town in the past. That's why this recovery plan will include unprecedented measures that will allow the American people to hold my administration accountable. Instead of just throwing money at our problems, we'll try something new in Washington -- we will invest in what works. Instead of politicians doling out money behind a veil of secrecy, decisions about where we invest will be made public on the Internet, and will be informed by independent experts whenever possible.
We will launch a sweeping effort to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government, and every American will be able to see how and where we spend taxpayer dollars by going to a new website called recovery.gov -- because I firmly believe what Justice Louis Brandeis once said, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and I know that restoring transparency is not only the surest way to achieve results, but also to earn back the trust in government without which we cannot deliver the changes the American people sent us here to make.
In the end, the answer to our economic troubles rests less in my hands, or in the hands of our legislators, than it does with America's workers and the businesses that employ them. They are the ones whose efforts and ideas will determine our economic destiny, just as they always have. For in the end, it's businesses -- large and small -- that generate the jobs, provide the salaries, and serve as the foundation on which the American people's lives and dreams depend. All we can do, those of us here in Washington, is help create a favorable climate in which workers can prosper, businesses can thrive, and our economy can grow. And that is exactly what the recovery plan I've proposed is intended to do. And that's exactly what I intend to achieve soon.
Thank you very much for being here.
White House East Room, January 28, 2009
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. I want to thank Sam and David for their outstanding words. I want to thank all of you for being here today.
A few moments ago, I met with some of the leading business executives in the country. And it was a sober meeting, because these companies and the workers they employ are going through times more trying than any that we've seen in a long, long while. Just the other day, seven of our largest corporations announced they were making major job cuts. Some of the business leaders in this room have had to do the same. And yet, even as we discussed the seriousness of this challenge, we left our meeting confident that we can turn our economy around.
But each of us, as Dave indicated, are going to have to do our share. Part of what led our economy to this perilous moment was a sense of irresponsibility that prevailed in Wall Street and in Washington. And that's why I called for a new era of responsibility in my inaugural address last week, an era where each of us chips in so that we can climb our way out of this crisis -- executives and factory floor workers, educators and engineers, health care professionals and elected officials.
As we discussed in our meeting a few minutes ago, corporate America will have to accept its own responsibilities to its workers and the American public. But these executives also understand that without wise leadership in Washington, even the best-run businesses can't do as well as they might. They understand that what makes an idea sound is not whether it's Democrat or Republican, but whether it makes good economic sense for their workers and companies. And they understand that when it comes to rebuilding our economy, we don't have a moment to spare.
The businesses that are shedding jobs to stay afloat -- they can't afford inaction or delay. The workers who are returning home to tell their husbands and wives and children that they no longer have a job, and all those who live in fear that their job will be next on the cutting blocks -- they need help now. They are looking to Washington for action, bold and swift. And that is why I hope to sign an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan into law in the next few weeks.
And most of the money that we're investing as part of this plan will get out the door immediately and go directly to job creation, generating or saving 3 to 4 million new jobs. And the vast majority of these jobs will be created in the private sector, because, as these CEOs well know, business, not government, is the engine of growth in this country.
But even as this plan puts Americans back to work it will also make the critical investments in alternative energy, in safer roads, better health care and modern schools that will lay the foundation for long-term growth and prosperity. And it will invest in broadband and emerging technologies, like the ones imagined and introduced to the world by people like Sam and so many of the CEOs here today, because that's how America will retain and regain its competitive edge in the 21st century.
I know that there are some who are skeptical of the size and scale of this recovery plan. And I understand that skepticism, given some of the things that have happened in this town in the past. That's why this recovery plan will include unprecedented measures that will allow the American people to hold my administration accountable. Instead of just throwing money at our problems, we'll try something new in Washington -- we will invest in what works. Instead of politicians doling out money behind a veil of secrecy, decisions about where we invest will be made public on the Internet, and will be informed by independent experts whenever possible.
We will launch a sweeping effort to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government, and every American will be able to see how and where we spend taxpayer dollars by going to a new website called recovery.gov -- because I firmly believe what Justice Louis Brandeis once said, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and I know that restoring transparency is not only the surest way to achieve results, but also to earn back the trust in government without which we cannot deliver the changes the American people sent us here to make.
In the end, the answer to our economic troubles rests less in my hands, or in the hands of our legislators, than it does with America's workers and the businesses that employ them. They are the ones whose efforts and ideas will determine our economic destiny, just as they always have. For in the end, it's businesses -- large and small -- that generate the jobs, provide the salaries, and serve as the foundation on which the American people's lives and dreams depend. All we can do, those of us here in Washington, is help create a favorable climate in which workers can prosper, businesses can thrive, and our economy can grow. And that is exactly what the recovery plan I've proposed is intended to do. And that's exactly what I intend to achieve soon.
Thank you very much for being here.
WaPo on Afghanistan: Democrats have long called it 'the central front.' Will they retreat from it?
The Afghan Challenge. WaPo Editorial
Democrats have long called it 'the central front.' Will they retreat from it?
Washington Post, Thursday, January 29, 2009; page A18
FOR YEARS, Democrats excoriated the Bush administration for not devoting sufficient resources to Afghanistan. But now that Barack Obama has taken office, some seem to be having second thoughts. "Our original goal was to go in there and take on al-Qaeda. . . . It was not to adopt the 51st state of the United States," said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. Kerry pioneered the Democratic argument to send more troops during his own presidential campaign in 2004. Now he says "the parallels" to Vietnam "just really keep leaping out in so many different ways."
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates seconded that skepticism at a congressional hearing on Tuesday. "If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose," he said, "because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience and money, to be honest."
We're happy to agree that Afghanistan should not become the 51st state, or Valhalla -- but we're not sure who or what Mr. Kerry and Mr. Gates have in mind. So far as we know, the American objective in Afghanistan since 2002 has been pretty much what Mr. Gates says it should be: "an Afghan people who do not provide a safe haven for al-Qaeda, who reject the rule of the Taliban and support the legitimate government they have elected and in which they have a stake."
The problem, as Mr. Gates acknowledged, is that meeting that aim necessitates such tasks as stabilizing western Pakistan, rooting out the opium trade, vastly expanding the Afghan army and constructing a workable legal system. That, in turn, will require more money, more troops, many more years of commitment -- and higher American casualties.
"Bottom line is, it's going to be tough, it's going to be difficult, in many ways harder than Iraq," Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) put it to Mr. Gates. "Do you agree with that?" "Yes," the secretary responded.
So why make it sound as if the Obama administration is scaling back U.S. ambitions? Part of this may be pure politics, to assure the antiwar left -- not to mention other Americans -- that the United States is not about to follow Russia and Britain into an Afghan quagmire. Yet the new administration, and supporters such as Mr. Kerry, ought to recognize a greater political need, which is to make clear to the country that the war against terrorism -- whatever it is now called -- did not end on Jan. 20 and that Afghanistan in particular will require years more patience and sacrifice to get right.
The way to avoid a quagmire is not to hold back on U.S. military reinforcements or development aid but to assemble a national civil-military plan that integrates war-fighting with reconstruction and political reconciliation. As Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) points out, such a plan was the foundation of the U.S. recovery in Iraq, but the model has never been applied in Afghanistan. That's largely because the United States must share authority with some 40 allies, many of which place strict limits on what their troops may do, insist on managing their own development programs, or both. The Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai, mired in corruption and increasingly at odds with U.S. commanders, is also not on board.
Afghanistan doesn't need to become the 51st state, but it does need a single, coherent, integrated plan to become a state strong enough to resist the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Creating one will require some aggressive diplomacy and maybe a little political china-breaking. That's something for which the State Department's new envoy to the region, Richard C. Holbrooke, is known. But low-balling the scale of the challenge, or the costs it may incur, won't help.
Democrats have long called it 'the central front.' Will they retreat from it?
Washington Post, Thursday, January 29, 2009; page A18
FOR YEARS, Democrats excoriated the Bush administration for not devoting sufficient resources to Afghanistan. But now that Barack Obama has taken office, some seem to be having second thoughts. "Our original goal was to go in there and take on al-Qaeda. . . . It was not to adopt the 51st state of the United States," said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. Kerry pioneered the Democratic argument to send more troops during his own presidential campaign in 2004. Now he says "the parallels" to Vietnam "just really keep leaping out in so many different ways."
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates seconded that skepticism at a congressional hearing on Tuesday. "If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose," he said, "because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience and money, to be honest."
We're happy to agree that Afghanistan should not become the 51st state, or Valhalla -- but we're not sure who or what Mr. Kerry and Mr. Gates have in mind. So far as we know, the American objective in Afghanistan since 2002 has been pretty much what Mr. Gates says it should be: "an Afghan people who do not provide a safe haven for al-Qaeda, who reject the rule of the Taliban and support the legitimate government they have elected and in which they have a stake."
The problem, as Mr. Gates acknowledged, is that meeting that aim necessitates such tasks as stabilizing western Pakistan, rooting out the opium trade, vastly expanding the Afghan army and constructing a workable legal system. That, in turn, will require more money, more troops, many more years of commitment -- and higher American casualties.
"Bottom line is, it's going to be tough, it's going to be difficult, in many ways harder than Iraq," Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) put it to Mr. Gates. "Do you agree with that?" "Yes," the secretary responded.
So why make it sound as if the Obama administration is scaling back U.S. ambitions? Part of this may be pure politics, to assure the antiwar left -- not to mention other Americans -- that the United States is not about to follow Russia and Britain into an Afghan quagmire. Yet the new administration, and supporters such as Mr. Kerry, ought to recognize a greater political need, which is to make clear to the country that the war against terrorism -- whatever it is now called -- did not end on Jan. 20 and that Afghanistan in particular will require years more patience and sacrifice to get right.
The way to avoid a quagmire is not to hold back on U.S. military reinforcements or development aid but to assemble a national civil-military plan that integrates war-fighting with reconstruction and political reconciliation. As Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) points out, such a plan was the foundation of the U.S. recovery in Iraq, but the model has never been applied in Afghanistan. That's largely because the United States must share authority with some 40 allies, many of which place strict limits on what their troops may do, insist on managing their own development programs, or both. The Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai, mired in corruption and increasingly at odds with U.S. commanders, is also not on board.
Afghanistan doesn't need to become the 51st state, but it does need a single, coherent, integrated plan to become a state strong enough to resist the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Creating one will require some aggressive diplomacy and maybe a little political china-breaking. That's something for which the State Department's new envoy to the region, Richard C. Holbrooke, is known. But low-balling the scale of the challenge, or the costs it may incur, won't help.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
US Protectionism in the Stimulus Bill
U.S. Protectionism in the Stimulus Bill. By Philip I. Levy
AEI, Jan 28, 2009
Lurking inside the proposed stimulus bill is a provision that threatens to stoke global protectionism and weaken U.S. leadership. The "Buy American" clause requires the new infrastructure projects in the bill to use American steel exclusively in a misguided attempt to create jobs. Its proponents fail to consider the worldwide repercussions.
The federal government of the US is currently consumed with an effort to craft a fiscal stimulus that will save the economy. Even before assuming the Presidency this month, Barack Obama called for a major stimulus package and warned that without quick action "we could lose a generation of potential and promise . . . our nation could lose the competitive edge that has served as a foundation for our strength and standing in the world." In the process, however, the US is poised to lose some of its standing through its flirtation with protectionism.
Flirtation with protectionism
The $825 billion stimulus bill introduced in the US House of Representatives includes the following provision:
"None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron and steel used in the project is produced in the US." (Sec. 1110(a)) The bill allows for exceptions if the clause would boost project costs by more than 25% or "would be inconsistent with the public interest." It would take an unusually brave Obama Administration official, however, to seek a waiver on public interest grounds.
Fiscal stimulus as protectionism Trojan Horse
The inclusion of this "Buy American" clause is a deliberate attempt to translate stimulus dollars into American jobs. One group advocating the measure, the Alliance for American Manufacturing, cites a report it commissioned as finding that:
"[M]anufacturing employment gains from such an infrastructure program could be improved significantly if the percentage of US-made material inputs were increased. Simply put, a higher share of domestically produced supplies would have a significant impact in terms of generating new manufacturing jobs. Utilizing 100% domestically produced inputs for infrastructure projects would yield a total of 77,000 additional jobs nationally."
They argue that the provision would disproportionately help manufacturing, raising the number of stimulated manufacturing jobs by 33% (AAM 2009).
Protection and the open economy multiplier
The underlying report argues that:
"the most important source of leakages for the kinds of investment we consider in this report is the use of imported goods and services in the production of infrastructure. Spending on imports does not raise the demand for domestic output and therefore does not create additional jobs."
The report never mentions the word 'export.' (Heintz, Pollin, and Garrett-Peltier 2009, p. 23)
US traditional policy: level playing field on procurement and the GPA
With some exceptions, the US has generally taken a different stance in the past. The website of the US Trade Representative, as yet unchanged from the Bush Administration, lauds the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) and states that a "longstanding objective of US trade policy has been to open opportunities for US suppliers to compete on a level playing field for foreign government contracts." It cites WTO estimates that the parties to the GPA receive annual access to more than $300 billion in government tendering procedures.
What comes around goes around
Were there careful consideration of the implications, the US would seem to have little incentive to start a procurement fight. According to OECD figures (OECD 2008, pp. 56-57) the US in 2007 trailed only Switzerland, Mexico, Turkey, and Luxembourg in the race among members for lowest government consumption expenditure as a fraction of GDP.
Opposition from US business and trade groups
The "Buy American" stimulus provision has sparked opposition from US business and trade groups. They argue that it could prompt retaliation, undermine US leadership, and violate the pledge at the November 2008 G20 Summit in Washington not to adopt protectionist measures (Drajem, 2009).
It is unclear whether this lobbying will block the measure, though. There is extraordinary pressure to deliver the stimulus package to President Obama before the end of February. That allows little time for deliberation and debate. The rationale for the rush is the urgent need for the spending, though the Congressional Budget Office estimates that almost 60% of the new spending projects would take place after September of 2010 (CBO, 2009, p. 3).
Keynesian multiplier and the fallacy of composition
As significant as government procurement may be, the flawed mercantilist logic of the "Buy American" provision is even more dangerous because of its broader applicability. Dani Rodrik (2008) argues that one way to enhance the Keynesian multiplier effects of any fiscal stimulus would be to raise import tariffs. He writes: "Yes, yes, import protection is inefficient and not a very neighborly thing to do--but should we really care if the alternative is significantly lower growth and higher unemployment?"
Such analysis is flawed at several levels. Among them, there are the failings of Keynesian analysis more generally (see, e.g., Barro 2009), and the globally integrated nature of production, which would be exceedingly difficult and costly to unwind and which is uncaptured by simplistic macro models. But the idea is clearly seductive.
Obama's first test on protectionism
The protectionist urges in the stimulus debate pose a major challenge for President Obama at a difficult time.
He has not seemed to emphasize the importance of international economic relations in his appointments to date. His nomination for US Trade Representative, Ron Kirk, was one of his last, remains unconfirmed, and is inexperienced in global trade matters. President Obama has yet to name a new Secretary of Commerce after his first choice withdrew. His new Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, will likely be consumed with domestic aspects of stimulus and with averting financial collapse.
Campaign promises: Multilateral approach to foreign policy
In his campaign last year, President Obama called for a multilateral approach to foreign policy and a restoration of America's image in the world. It may fall to other world leaders to remind him of the role that global trade plays in US international relations.
AEI, Jan 28, 2009
Lurking inside the proposed stimulus bill is a provision that threatens to stoke global protectionism and weaken U.S. leadership. The "Buy American" clause requires the new infrastructure projects in the bill to use American steel exclusively in a misguided attempt to create jobs. Its proponents fail to consider the worldwide repercussions.
The federal government of the US is currently consumed with an effort to craft a fiscal stimulus that will save the economy. Even before assuming the Presidency this month, Barack Obama called for a major stimulus package and warned that without quick action "we could lose a generation of potential and promise . . . our nation could lose the competitive edge that has served as a foundation for our strength and standing in the world." In the process, however, the US is poised to lose some of its standing through its flirtation with protectionism.
Flirtation with protectionism
The $825 billion stimulus bill introduced in the US House of Representatives includes the following provision:
"None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron and steel used in the project is produced in the US." (Sec. 1110(a)) The bill allows for exceptions if the clause would boost project costs by more than 25% or "would be inconsistent with the public interest." It would take an unusually brave Obama Administration official, however, to seek a waiver on public interest grounds.
Fiscal stimulus as protectionism Trojan Horse
The inclusion of this "Buy American" clause is a deliberate attempt to translate stimulus dollars into American jobs. One group advocating the measure, the Alliance for American Manufacturing, cites a report it commissioned as finding that:
"[M]anufacturing employment gains from such an infrastructure program could be improved significantly if the percentage of US-made material inputs were increased. Simply put, a higher share of domestically produced supplies would have a significant impact in terms of generating new manufacturing jobs. Utilizing 100% domestically produced inputs for infrastructure projects would yield a total of 77,000 additional jobs nationally."
They argue that the provision would disproportionately help manufacturing, raising the number of stimulated manufacturing jobs by 33% (AAM 2009).
Protection and the open economy multiplier
The underlying report argues that:
"the most important source of leakages for the kinds of investment we consider in this report is the use of imported goods and services in the production of infrastructure. Spending on imports does not raise the demand for domestic output and therefore does not create additional jobs."
The report never mentions the word 'export.' (Heintz, Pollin, and Garrett-Peltier 2009, p. 23)
US traditional policy: level playing field on procurement and the GPA
With some exceptions, the US has generally taken a different stance in the past. The website of the US Trade Representative, as yet unchanged from the Bush Administration, lauds the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) and states that a "longstanding objective of US trade policy has been to open opportunities for US suppliers to compete on a level playing field for foreign government contracts." It cites WTO estimates that the parties to the GPA receive annual access to more than $300 billion in government tendering procedures.
What comes around goes around
Were there careful consideration of the implications, the US would seem to have little incentive to start a procurement fight. According to OECD figures (OECD 2008, pp. 56-57) the US in 2007 trailed only Switzerland, Mexico, Turkey, and Luxembourg in the race among members for lowest government consumption expenditure as a fraction of GDP.
Opposition from US business and trade groups
The "Buy American" stimulus provision has sparked opposition from US business and trade groups. They argue that it could prompt retaliation, undermine US leadership, and violate the pledge at the November 2008 G20 Summit in Washington not to adopt protectionist measures (Drajem, 2009).
It is unclear whether this lobbying will block the measure, though. There is extraordinary pressure to deliver the stimulus package to President Obama before the end of February. That allows little time for deliberation and debate. The rationale for the rush is the urgent need for the spending, though the Congressional Budget Office estimates that almost 60% of the new spending projects would take place after September of 2010 (CBO, 2009, p. 3).
Keynesian multiplier and the fallacy of composition
As significant as government procurement may be, the flawed mercantilist logic of the "Buy American" provision is even more dangerous because of its broader applicability. Dani Rodrik (2008) argues that one way to enhance the Keynesian multiplier effects of any fiscal stimulus would be to raise import tariffs. He writes: "Yes, yes, import protection is inefficient and not a very neighborly thing to do--but should we really care if the alternative is significantly lower growth and higher unemployment?"
Such analysis is flawed at several levels. Among them, there are the failings of Keynesian analysis more generally (see, e.g., Barro 2009), and the globally integrated nature of production, which would be exceedingly difficult and costly to unwind and which is uncaptured by simplistic macro models. But the idea is clearly seductive.
Obama's first test on protectionism
The protectionist urges in the stimulus debate pose a major challenge for President Obama at a difficult time.
He has not seemed to emphasize the importance of international economic relations in his appointments to date. His nomination for US Trade Representative, Ron Kirk, was one of his last, remains unconfirmed, and is inexperienced in global trade matters. President Obama has yet to name a new Secretary of Commerce after his first choice withdrew. His new Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, will likely be consumed with domestic aspects of stimulus and with averting financial collapse.
Campaign promises: Multilateral approach to foreign policy
In his campaign last year, President Obama called for a multilateral approach to foreign policy and a restoration of America's image in the world. It may fall to other world leaders to remind him of the role that global trade plays in US international relations.
Legislating the Lilly Ledbetter lie
Legislating the Lilly Ledbetter lie, by Paul Mirengoff
Powerline Blog, January 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM
President Obama is set to sign into law, as the first legislation of his tenure, the so-called Lilly Ledbetter Act. It changes the rules for bringing lawsuits for alleged pay discrimination, enabling plaintiffs to bring stale claims, as Ledbetter herself attempted to do.
It is fitting that this law will be the first legislative product of the Obama presidency, for it is based on a lie. I demonstrated this last year in a post called "Lilly Ledbetter, Living a Lie."
The Lilly Ledbetter lie is today peddled in this Washington Post story, which suggests that she had no idea she was the victim of pay discrimination until she supposedly received an anonymous note tippling her off. So is the White House. (Hat tip, Openmarket.org.)
In honor of the occasion, I have re-posted my piece on Lilly's lie:
Lilly Ledbetter, the unsuccessful plaintiff in an equal pay case that went to the Supreme Court, has become ubiquitous this political season. She spoke at the Democratic National Convention, has testified in congressional hearings, and appears in an ad for Barack Obama. Congress is considering legislation that bears her name. The Washington Post, in a piece by Matthew Mosk, reverentially described her as "the Alabama woman whose fight for equal pay led her to the United States Supreme Court and inspired. . .fair pay legislation."
Not since the equally alliterative and industrial-sounding Rosie the Riveter, has a working woman become such a folk hero. But like Rosie, the Lilly Ledbetter being presented for public consumption is largely mythical.
The real Lilly Ledbetter worked for Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company from 1979 until she retired in 1998. After she retired, she sued Goodyear under Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 for alleged pay discrimination.
Ledbetter's pay discrimination claim went to a jury which found in her favor. However, the court of appeals reversed this verdict on the grounds that she did not file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within the required statute of limitations period.
In her appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Ledbetter raised the following issue: "Whether and under what circumstances a plaintiff may bring an action under Title VII. . .alleging illegal pay discrimination when the disparate pay is received during the statutory limitations period, but is the result of intentionally discriminatory pay decisions that occurred outside the limitations period."
Ledbetter framed the issue this way because she did not claim that the relevant Goodyear decisionmakers acted with discriminatory intent during the limitations period. Instead, she asserted that the paychecks she received during this period were unlawful because they would have been larger if she had been treated in a nondiscriminatory manner prior to the limitations period.
In other words, the alleged intentional discrimination had occurred years earlier, outside of the limitations period. But Ledbetter felt its ongoing consequences every time she received a paycheck, until the end of her career, because her pay never caught up to where she believes it would have been absent the early discrimination. An employee's pay at any given point in time is typically a function of years of pay decisions.
The Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeals that Ledbetter's challenge to pay decisions that pre-dated the limitations period was time-barred. In doing so, the Court correctly applied three decades of its own precedent in cases where Title VII plaintiffs have attempted to rely on the current effects of past discrimination to defeat a statute of limitations defense.
The Court also emphasized the common sense proposition that stands behind these decisions: in discrimination cases "the employer's intent is almost always disputed and evidence relating to intent may fade quickly with time." Thus, an employee who waits until years after the underlyng alleged intentional act of discrimination to sue, as Ledbetter did, undermines the ability of the justice system to conduct a fair trial. For example, by the time Ledbetter brought her case to trial, the supervisor whose decisions formed the main basis for her pay discrimination claim was dead.
There is, of course, nothing novel in the Supreme Court's reasoning. Statute of limitations period exist precisely to prevent the injustice inherent in situations where a plaintiff "sleeps" on his or her rights for years.
Ledbetter and her Democratic fan club argue, however, that the result in her case permits hidden discrimination. They would have the public believe that the Ledbetter decision leaves plaintiffs who don't discover concealed discrimination for many years unable to overcome the statute of limitations defense, and thus unable to remedy wrongdoing.
This is nonsense. For decades the Supreme Court has recognized that the limitations period in a Title VII case can be extended or tolled in such circumstances. Tolling is available where, among other situations, the plaintiff has no reason to suspect discrimination at the time of the disputed event.
But Ledbetter did not argue that the limitations period should be tolled in her case, and for good reason. Ledbetter testified that she knew by 1992 that her pay was out of line with her peers. In 1995, she spoke to her supervisor about the problem, telling him that "I knew definitely that they were all making a thousand at least more per month than I was and that I would like to get in line." Yet Ledbetter waited until 1998 to file her EEOC complaint.
This delay is particularly difficult to understand given the fact that, in 1982, she had filed a sexual harassment complaint with the EEOC. That dispute was settled without litigation shortly thereafter. Had Ledbetter followed the same course with her pay claim, she would have had her day in court, and Goodyear would have had a fair chance to defend itself. That this did not occur is Ledbetter's fault.
Prevented by the facts from arguing in a real court that she didn't have enough knowledge about her pay situation to bring a timely EEOC charge, Ledbetter (and those who seek political advantage through her) now raise this false claim in the court of public opinion. For example, Ledbetter claims that "the only way that I really knew [about the pay discrimination] was that someone left an anonymous note in my mailbox showing my pay and the pay for the three males who were doing the same job, just on different shifts." According to Ledbetter, "when I saw that note, it just floored me. I was so shocked at the amount of difference in our pay for doing the same exact job. And I went immediately to EEOC."
This claim, of course, cannot be reconciled with her sworn testimony that three years before allegedly receiving the "anonymous note," she told her supervisor that she definitely knew that she was making thousands less than her male counterparts for the same work.
Lilly Ledbetter is living a lie, one that Barack Obama hopes will help propel him into the White House.
Powerline Blog, January 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM
President Obama is set to sign into law, as the first legislation of his tenure, the so-called Lilly Ledbetter Act. It changes the rules for bringing lawsuits for alleged pay discrimination, enabling plaintiffs to bring stale claims, as Ledbetter herself attempted to do.
It is fitting that this law will be the first legislative product of the Obama presidency, for it is based on a lie. I demonstrated this last year in a post called "Lilly Ledbetter, Living a Lie."
The Lilly Ledbetter lie is today peddled in this Washington Post story, which suggests that she had no idea she was the victim of pay discrimination until she supposedly received an anonymous note tippling her off. So is the White House. (Hat tip, Openmarket.org.)
In honor of the occasion, I have re-posted my piece on Lilly's lie:
Lilly Ledbetter, the unsuccessful plaintiff in an equal pay case that went to the Supreme Court, has become ubiquitous this political season. She spoke at the Democratic National Convention, has testified in congressional hearings, and appears in an ad for Barack Obama. Congress is considering legislation that bears her name. The Washington Post, in a piece by Matthew Mosk, reverentially described her as "the Alabama woman whose fight for equal pay led her to the United States Supreme Court and inspired. . .fair pay legislation."
Not since the equally alliterative and industrial-sounding Rosie the Riveter, has a working woman become such a folk hero. But like Rosie, the Lilly Ledbetter being presented for public consumption is largely mythical.
The real Lilly Ledbetter worked for Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company from 1979 until she retired in 1998. After she retired, she sued Goodyear under Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 for alleged pay discrimination.
Ledbetter's pay discrimination claim went to a jury which found in her favor. However, the court of appeals reversed this verdict on the grounds that she did not file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within the required statute of limitations period.
In her appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Ledbetter raised the following issue: "Whether and under what circumstances a plaintiff may bring an action under Title VII. . .alleging illegal pay discrimination when the disparate pay is received during the statutory limitations period, but is the result of intentionally discriminatory pay decisions that occurred outside the limitations period."
Ledbetter framed the issue this way because she did not claim that the relevant Goodyear decisionmakers acted with discriminatory intent during the limitations period. Instead, she asserted that the paychecks she received during this period were unlawful because they would have been larger if she had been treated in a nondiscriminatory manner prior to the limitations period.
In other words, the alleged intentional discrimination had occurred years earlier, outside of the limitations period. But Ledbetter felt its ongoing consequences every time she received a paycheck, until the end of her career, because her pay never caught up to where she believes it would have been absent the early discrimination. An employee's pay at any given point in time is typically a function of years of pay decisions.
The Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeals that Ledbetter's challenge to pay decisions that pre-dated the limitations period was time-barred. In doing so, the Court correctly applied three decades of its own precedent in cases where Title VII plaintiffs have attempted to rely on the current effects of past discrimination to defeat a statute of limitations defense.
The Court also emphasized the common sense proposition that stands behind these decisions: in discrimination cases "the employer's intent is almost always disputed and evidence relating to intent may fade quickly with time." Thus, an employee who waits until years after the underlyng alleged intentional act of discrimination to sue, as Ledbetter did, undermines the ability of the justice system to conduct a fair trial. For example, by the time Ledbetter brought her case to trial, the supervisor whose decisions formed the main basis for her pay discrimination claim was dead.
There is, of course, nothing novel in the Supreme Court's reasoning. Statute of limitations period exist precisely to prevent the injustice inherent in situations where a plaintiff "sleeps" on his or her rights for years.
Ledbetter and her Democratic fan club argue, however, that the result in her case permits hidden discrimination. They would have the public believe that the Ledbetter decision leaves plaintiffs who don't discover concealed discrimination for many years unable to overcome the statute of limitations defense, and thus unable to remedy wrongdoing.
This is nonsense. For decades the Supreme Court has recognized that the limitations period in a Title VII case can be extended or tolled in such circumstances. Tolling is available where, among other situations, the plaintiff has no reason to suspect discrimination at the time of the disputed event.
But Ledbetter did not argue that the limitations period should be tolled in her case, and for good reason. Ledbetter testified that she knew by 1992 that her pay was out of line with her peers. In 1995, she spoke to her supervisor about the problem, telling him that "I knew definitely that they were all making a thousand at least more per month than I was and that I would like to get in line." Yet Ledbetter waited until 1998 to file her EEOC complaint.
This delay is particularly difficult to understand given the fact that, in 1982, she had filed a sexual harassment complaint with the EEOC. That dispute was settled without litigation shortly thereafter. Had Ledbetter followed the same course with her pay claim, she would have had her day in court, and Goodyear would have had a fair chance to defend itself. That this did not occur is Ledbetter's fault.
Prevented by the facts from arguing in a real court that she didn't have enough knowledge about her pay situation to bring a timely EEOC charge, Ledbetter (and those who seek political advantage through her) now raise this false claim in the court of public opinion. For example, Ledbetter claims that "the only way that I really knew [about the pay discrimination] was that someone left an anonymous note in my mailbox showing my pay and the pay for the three males who were doing the same job, just on different shifts." According to Ledbetter, "when I saw that note, it just floored me. I was so shocked at the amount of difference in our pay for doing the same exact job. And I went immediately to EEOC."
This claim, of course, cannot be reconciled with her sworn testimony that three years before allegedly receiving the "anonymous note," she told her supervisor that she definitely knew that she was making thousands less than her male counterparts for the same work.
Lilly Ledbetter is living a lie, one that Barack Obama hopes will help propel him into the White House.
On WaPo's position on giving DC a regular seat in the House of Representatives
Pass the Bill and Pass the Buck, by Matthew J. Franck
Bench Memos/NRO, Jan 28, 2009
The editors of the Washington Post are at it again today, impatient to pass a bill to give the District of Columbia a regular seat in the House of Representatives—without senators and without statehood. Continuing its practice of misleadingly calling this a "voting rights" bill, when D.C. residents currently have all the voting rights to which the Constitution entitles them, the Post thinks all debate on this matter should come to an end. Referring to a hearing yesterday before a House Judiciary subcommittee, the editors write:
Much of yesterday's discussion came down to the now familiar back-and-forth over whether the measure is constitutional. There are valid legal arguments for and against, with noted scholars on both sides, but the question is best left to the courts to decide. The use of such concerns to block the bill is a ruse by those who lack the political will to enfranchise D.C. residents.
It's nice for the Post to concede there are "valid" constitutional arguments on both sides. But I think they mean "plausible," since in a world where the Constitution means what it says, only one side can have the "valid" argument—i.e., the correct one. Having examined this matter as closely as anyone I know, I can say that in 30 years of studying the Constitution I've never come across a real (non-hypothetical) constitutional question that is easier than this one. The arguments on the other side, with all due respect to those who make them, are not only invalid but hardly even rise to the level of "plausible," requiring the tortuous misinterpretation of one clause in the text of the Constitution and the suppression of several others. For the short course, go to this recent post of mine, and follow the links for more elucidation.
But the Post, in its anxiety to remedy what it calls an "intolerable injustice," commits an injustice of its own in calling opposition on constitutional grounds a "ruse" by people who are somehow hostile or indifferent to "enfranchis[ing] D.C. residents." The constitutional grounds for a "no" vote on this bill are so compelling that the Post has long since ceased attempting to respond to them, and resorts only to name-calling and temper tantrums. Those grounds are so compelling that members of Congress who vote "no," as they should, can sleep the sleep of the just, knowing they have kept their oath to the Constitution. They don't need to be slandered by the capital's dominant newspaper as heartless bigots where D.C. is concerned.
The Post's editors, by contrast, have enough doubt about their position to recommend that the constitutional issue be "left to the courts to decide"—as if it were a) difficult, b) easy to hand off to the courts in a fashion that shapes it into a question courts can address, and c) appropriate for judicial rather than legislative resolution even if that were done. It is none of the above.
The Post writes also that "[n]o one at yesterday's hearing—even those who vehemently oppose the bill—could argue it's okay for the hundreds of thousands of Americans living in the nation's capital to be taxed, sent to war and governed without any real say in what their government does." I confess I don't get that exercised about the alleged injustice. But if that really concerned the editors, don't you think they'd want D.C. residents to have full representation in Congress—with senators too? Maybe those Americans could, you know, live in a state, which would automatically take care of the problem?
D.C. doesn't need or deserve statehood on its own. The best solution for D.C. residents to get "voting rights" in Congress is for the residential parts of the District to be "retroceded" to Maryland. This is how residents of Alexandria and Arlington, Virginia got to vote for congressmen again.
Majority leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland was a witness at yesterday's hearing and was in high dudgeon about the poor "disenfranchised" residents of D.C. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion that he just doesn't want them back as fellow citizens of Maryland.
Bench Memos/NRO, Jan 28, 2009
The editors of the Washington Post are at it again today, impatient to pass a bill to give the District of Columbia a regular seat in the House of Representatives—without senators and without statehood. Continuing its practice of misleadingly calling this a "voting rights" bill, when D.C. residents currently have all the voting rights to which the Constitution entitles them, the Post thinks all debate on this matter should come to an end. Referring to a hearing yesterday before a House Judiciary subcommittee, the editors write:
Much of yesterday's discussion came down to the now familiar back-and-forth over whether the measure is constitutional. There are valid legal arguments for and against, with noted scholars on both sides, but the question is best left to the courts to decide. The use of such concerns to block the bill is a ruse by those who lack the political will to enfranchise D.C. residents.
It's nice for the Post to concede there are "valid" constitutional arguments on both sides. But I think they mean "plausible," since in a world where the Constitution means what it says, only one side can have the "valid" argument—i.e., the correct one. Having examined this matter as closely as anyone I know, I can say that in 30 years of studying the Constitution I've never come across a real (non-hypothetical) constitutional question that is easier than this one. The arguments on the other side, with all due respect to those who make them, are not only invalid but hardly even rise to the level of "plausible," requiring the tortuous misinterpretation of one clause in the text of the Constitution and the suppression of several others. For the short course, go to this recent post of mine, and follow the links for more elucidation.
But the Post, in its anxiety to remedy what it calls an "intolerable injustice," commits an injustice of its own in calling opposition on constitutional grounds a "ruse" by people who are somehow hostile or indifferent to "enfranchis[ing] D.C. residents." The constitutional grounds for a "no" vote on this bill are so compelling that the Post has long since ceased attempting to respond to them, and resorts only to name-calling and temper tantrums. Those grounds are so compelling that members of Congress who vote "no," as they should, can sleep the sleep of the just, knowing they have kept their oath to the Constitution. They don't need to be slandered by the capital's dominant newspaper as heartless bigots where D.C. is concerned.
The Post's editors, by contrast, have enough doubt about their position to recommend that the constitutional issue be "left to the courts to decide"—as if it were a) difficult, b) easy to hand off to the courts in a fashion that shapes it into a question courts can address, and c) appropriate for judicial rather than legislative resolution even if that were done. It is none of the above.
The Post writes also that "[n]o one at yesterday's hearing—even those who vehemently oppose the bill—could argue it's okay for the hundreds of thousands of Americans living in the nation's capital to be taxed, sent to war and governed without any real say in what their government does." I confess I don't get that exercised about the alleged injustice. But if that really concerned the editors, don't you think they'd want D.C. residents to have full representation in Congress—with senators too? Maybe those Americans could, you know, live in a state, which would automatically take care of the problem?
D.C. doesn't need or deserve statehood on its own. The best solution for D.C. residents to get "voting rights" in Congress is for the residential parts of the District to be "retroceded" to Maryland. This is how residents of Alexandria and Arlington, Virginia got to vote for congressmen again.
Majority leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland was a witness at yesterday's hearing and was in high dudgeon about the poor "disenfranchised" residents of D.C. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion that he just doesn't want them back as fellow citizens of Maryland.
US Sends Additional Assistance for Zimbabwe Cholera Outbreak
USAID Sends Additional Assistance for Zimbabwe Cholera Outbreak
January 28, 2009
WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) continues to provide assistance to the people of Zimbabwe in the aftermath of a widespread cholera outbreak that began in August 2008. USAID is consigning nearly 440,000 bars of soap-valued at nearly $365,000-to the U.N. Children's Fund, which will provide it to humanitarian organizations to distribute as part of hygiene education programs in areas most affected by the cholera outbreak.
According to the World Health Organization, the cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe has now affected all provinces and 57 out of 62 districts. As of January 22, 2009, more than 48,000 cases of cholera and 2,755 deaths have been reported.
Cholera is usually transmitted through contaminated water or food. Outbreaks can occur sporadically in any part of the world where water supply, sanitation, food safety, and hygiene are inadequate and spread rapidly in areas with inadequate treatment of sewage and drinking water. Although cholera is contagious, it can be prevented. USAID and the international community are diligently working in Zimbabwe to help prevent the spread of the disease.
To date, USAID has pledged $6.8 million in emergency assistance for Zimbabwe's cholera outbreak. USAID's assistance is supporting the provision of emergency relief supplies for affected populations, humanitarian coordination and information management, and water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) and health interventions.
This assistance is in addition to the more than $4 million that USAID has provided for emergency WASH programs in Zimbabwe since October 2007. The U.S. Government has provided more than $264 million in humanitarian assistance for Zimbabwe's ongoing health and food crisis since October 2007.
For more information about USAID's emergency humanitarian assistance programs, please visit: www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/disaster_assistance/.
January 28, 2009
WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) continues to provide assistance to the people of Zimbabwe in the aftermath of a widespread cholera outbreak that began in August 2008. USAID is consigning nearly 440,000 bars of soap-valued at nearly $365,000-to the U.N. Children's Fund, which will provide it to humanitarian organizations to distribute as part of hygiene education programs in areas most affected by the cholera outbreak.
According to the World Health Organization, the cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe has now affected all provinces and 57 out of 62 districts. As of January 22, 2009, more than 48,000 cases of cholera and 2,755 deaths have been reported.
Cholera is usually transmitted through contaminated water or food. Outbreaks can occur sporadically in any part of the world where water supply, sanitation, food safety, and hygiene are inadequate and spread rapidly in areas with inadequate treatment of sewage and drinking water. Although cholera is contagious, it can be prevented. USAID and the international community are diligently working in Zimbabwe to help prevent the spread of the disease.
To date, USAID has pledged $6.8 million in emergency assistance for Zimbabwe's cholera outbreak. USAID's assistance is supporting the provision of emergency relief supplies for affected populations, humanitarian coordination and information management, and water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) and health interventions.
This assistance is in addition to the more than $4 million that USAID has provided for emergency WASH programs in Zimbabwe since October 2007. The U.S. Government has provided more than $264 million in humanitarian assistance for Zimbabwe's ongoing health and food crisis since October 2007.
For more information about USAID's emergency humanitarian assistance programs, please visit: www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/disaster_assistance/.
The End of Poverty: Not a Dream
The End of Poverty: Not a Dream
Progressive Policy Institute, January 28, 2009
Excerpts:
[...]
From last Tuesday's inaugural address, the first inaugural pledge to fight poverty abroad since Kennedy's in 1961:
"To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders."
Cynics ask whether such promises are ever realistic. Worried idealists wonder whether we can keep them now, with life at home suddenly so difficult and the financial crisis already pushing people into poverty overseas. Brief answers: A promise to ease poverty is entirely realistic; and though the poor abroad will not escape the crisis, better trade policy this year can ease the blow. Background first, then more information.
Background: In dollar terms, America's ties with poor nations span aid, charity, trade, and remittances. Government aid and private charity flows, at $22 billion and $9 billion, account for the least money but are essential in emergencies and can bolster public health, primary education, and other public services. Remittances are larger -- immigrants send at least $45 billion home from the United States each year, with Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, and the Philippines especially large beneficiaries -- and complement aid by raising family incomes in rural districts and urban slums. Imports from low-income countries, excluding energy and goods from China, totaled $405 billion (or $35 billion per month) in 2007, spread across clothes, toys, Christmas decorations, coffee, mangoes, sports and fishing gear, TV sets, shrimp, flowers, and other goods. This is a much larger figure than those for aid, charity and remittances, but complements rather than replaces them by supporting tens of millions of middle-class and lower-middle class urban jobs and raising farm incomes, in poor countries.
Now the answers:
Question (1): Can we ever reduce poverty? Judged by facts, yes: the idealist's case is strong and the cynic's weak. The World Bank defines "absolute poverty" as life on $1.25 a day or less (in constant 1993 dollars) and has estimated poverty rates on this basis back to 1981. In that year, 52 percent of the world's people were very poor. By 1990, the figure was 42 percent. In 2005, the most recent year available, only 25 percent of the world's people were very poor. East Asia recorded the most progress, with the absolute-poverty rate falling from 78 percent in 1981, to 55 percent in 1990, and 16 percent in 2005. In one generation, then, Asian poverty fell from the near-universal experience of life to the sad exception. Drops elsewhere in the world have been slower but real: Since 1981, Latin America has cut absolute poverty from 13 percent to 8 percent; India and its neighbors from 60 percent to 40 percent; the Middle East from 8 percent to 4 percent; Africa from 54 percent to 51 percent. In eight low-to-middle-income countries without oil -- Chile, Jamaica, Mexico, Uruguay, Egypt, Jordan, Thailand, and Malaysia -- the absolute-poverty rate has fallen below two percent. Conclusion: if poor countries have good education, financial, infrastructure, anti-corruption, and other policies; if they are free of wars and coups; and if rich countries help through aid, trade and easy remittance, poverty often falls quickly and permanently.
Cambodia offers a human-scale and recent example. In 1996, after 25 years of first bombing, then genocide and famine, then endemic warfare, the country's gross national income was $14 billion, its per capita income was $1,240, and its infant mortality rate ran at 102 deaths per thousand live births annually. Cambodia has since received significant aid -- about $500 million annually, with Japan the largest donor -- and succeeded in trade, putting 350,000 young women to work through garment exports to American retailers. Earning three times the average national income as they sew shirts and pajamas, these garment-workers send a third of their pay money home, raising their rural relatives' "food security" from two months to a year. By last November's Rain Festival regatta on the Mekong, Cambodia's gross national income had in 12 years doubled to $29 billion, per capita income had risen by 60 percent to $2100, infant mortality had dropped by nearly half, and absolute poverty was down 20 percent.
Question (2): And in the midst of the current crisis? If cynics are wrong, are worried idealists right to fear that the achievement may slip away? Yes; and American policy can make matters worse or better.
Aid commitments have so far held up. With falling demand and unemployment in the United States, though, remittances are beginning to fall and trade is falling fast. Here again, Cambodia illustrates a general trend. Between October and November, as the crisis set in, America's imports from poor countries fell by $7 billion -- a 20 percent drop in a month. And as tourists and visitors from the rural districts watched the Rain Festival regatta, the garment factories that power Cambodia's growth were beginning to close down. According to The Phnom Penh Post, orders dropped by a third, 30 factories closed, and 20,000 young women lost work. The same things were happening in southern Africa, Central America, Pakistan, Mexico, the Philippines, Thailand, and many other countries. The effect in each is to suddenly increase poverty rates, raise the risk of rural hunger and urban sex-industry recruitment, and sometimes cause political instability.
No American policy can fully protect poor countries. But at minimum, Americans can avoid the trade protectionism and aid cuts that would worsen the blow to the poor; and with some energy, Congress and the new administration can ease it by making the U.S. trade regime more open and friendly to the poor.
In general, American trade policy is tougher on poor countries than rich ones, because tariffs and other barriers are relatively high on the cheap and simple manufactures and farm products poor countries provide, but low on services and high-tech products Americans buy from rich countries. On average, tariffs on poor-country imports are about twice as tariffs on rich-country goods. A series of "trade preference" programs partially ease the inequity by waiving some tariffs for poor countries. But the preferences are antiquated and in some ways ineffective, as they offer little help to low-income countries in Asia and the Muslim world, because it bars duty-free treatment for the clothes, shoes, and other light-industry products that account for most of their trade. In 2007, for example, Cambodia faced a $415 million tariff penalty on its $2.5 billion in clothes -- more than the $405 million penalty on Britain's $100 billion in medicines, aircraft parts, TV shows, insurance policies, and North Sea crude. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Laos, and others get similar exorbitant penalties.
Ending them through a better preference system would be easy and essentially cost free. The principal competitive effect would not be to raise total imports, but to give poor countries some help in dealing with much larger competitors; the main domestic consequence would be slightly lower clothing prices. A modest step, preference reform would give the people of poor nations some help as they manage a crisis they did not cause -- and over time, can help Americans keep a promise that, with some luck and good policy, we can fulfill in this generation.
[...]
Further Reading:
[...]
The World Bank charts the decline of poverty, 1981-2005: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/WDI08povertysupplement.pdf
And has a shorter note on the falling rate of malnutrition:http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPRH/Resources/childrenunderfive.pdf
PPI Trade & Global Markets Director Ed Gresser testifies last year at the Senate Finance Committee on preference policy:http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/hearing061208.htm
The Center for Global Development's Kim Elliott has preference advice for the new administration:http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/967263
And the U.S. Trade Representative Office explains today's preference programs:http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Development/Preference_Programs/Section_Index.html
Three views of Cambodia:
The Royal Ministry of Tourism tells the story of the water festival:http://www.mot.gov.kh/Hot_News/water_festival.html
The International Labor Organization's Cambodia factory-monitoring project reports on work conditions, pay and the social implications of the garment business:http://www.betterfactories.org/
The Phnom Penh Post reports on slipping sales, job loss and prospects for 2009:http://www.phnompenhpost.com/index.php/2009011923690/Business/Garment-factories-hunker-down-for-a-miserable-2009.html
The Kennedy legacy:
The 1961 inaugural: "To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required -- not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."
The promise led to creation of the Agency for International Development, a 50 percent increase in foreign aid, the launch of the Peace Corps, and one of the most ambitious and successful efforts to reduce U.S. and world trade barriers since the Second World War. The Bank has not calculated $1.25-a-day figures for years before 1981, so evaluations aren't easy. But social indicators suggest that posterity should judge him well on results, as well as inspiration. Since 1960, global infant mortality has fallen by nearly two-thirds (from 126 to 50 infant deaths per thousand live births) and life expectancy has jumped from 50 years to 68 years.
The Peace Corps:http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=learn.whatispc.history
The Agency for International Development:http://www.usaid.gov/
Aid and remittances:
The OECD has foreign-aid data by donor country and recipient:http://www.oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_34447_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
The World Bank predicts remittance growth to slow next year, with payments to Africa and the Middle East likely to fall:http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTDECPROSPECTS/0,,contentMDK:21121930~menuPK:3145470~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSitePK:476883,00.html
[...]
Progressive Policy Institute, January 28, 2009
Excerpts:
[...]
From last Tuesday's inaugural address, the first inaugural pledge to fight poverty abroad since Kennedy's in 1961:
"To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders."
Cynics ask whether such promises are ever realistic. Worried idealists wonder whether we can keep them now, with life at home suddenly so difficult and the financial crisis already pushing people into poverty overseas. Brief answers: A promise to ease poverty is entirely realistic; and though the poor abroad will not escape the crisis, better trade policy this year can ease the blow. Background first, then more information.
Background: In dollar terms, America's ties with poor nations span aid, charity, trade, and remittances. Government aid and private charity flows, at $22 billion and $9 billion, account for the least money but are essential in emergencies and can bolster public health, primary education, and other public services. Remittances are larger -- immigrants send at least $45 billion home from the United States each year, with Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, and the Philippines especially large beneficiaries -- and complement aid by raising family incomes in rural districts and urban slums. Imports from low-income countries, excluding energy and goods from China, totaled $405 billion (or $35 billion per month) in 2007, spread across clothes, toys, Christmas decorations, coffee, mangoes, sports and fishing gear, TV sets, shrimp, flowers, and other goods. This is a much larger figure than those for aid, charity and remittances, but complements rather than replaces them by supporting tens of millions of middle-class and lower-middle class urban jobs and raising farm incomes, in poor countries.
Now the answers:
Question (1): Can we ever reduce poverty? Judged by facts, yes: the idealist's case is strong and the cynic's weak. The World Bank defines "absolute poverty" as life on $1.25 a day or less (in constant 1993 dollars) and has estimated poverty rates on this basis back to 1981. In that year, 52 percent of the world's people were very poor. By 1990, the figure was 42 percent. In 2005, the most recent year available, only 25 percent of the world's people were very poor. East Asia recorded the most progress, with the absolute-poverty rate falling from 78 percent in 1981, to 55 percent in 1990, and 16 percent in 2005. In one generation, then, Asian poverty fell from the near-universal experience of life to the sad exception. Drops elsewhere in the world have been slower but real: Since 1981, Latin America has cut absolute poverty from 13 percent to 8 percent; India and its neighbors from 60 percent to 40 percent; the Middle East from 8 percent to 4 percent; Africa from 54 percent to 51 percent. In eight low-to-middle-income countries without oil -- Chile, Jamaica, Mexico, Uruguay, Egypt, Jordan, Thailand, and Malaysia -- the absolute-poverty rate has fallen below two percent. Conclusion: if poor countries have good education, financial, infrastructure, anti-corruption, and other policies; if they are free of wars and coups; and if rich countries help through aid, trade and easy remittance, poverty often falls quickly and permanently.
Cambodia offers a human-scale and recent example. In 1996, after 25 years of first bombing, then genocide and famine, then endemic warfare, the country's gross national income was $14 billion, its per capita income was $1,240, and its infant mortality rate ran at 102 deaths per thousand live births annually. Cambodia has since received significant aid -- about $500 million annually, with Japan the largest donor -- and succeeded in trade, putting 350,000 young women to work through garment exports to American retailers. Earning three times the average national income as they sew shirts and pajamas, these garment-workers send a third of their pay money home, raising their rural relatives' "food security" from two months to a year. By last November's Rain Festival regatta on the Mekong, Cambodia's gross national income had in 12 years doubled to $29 billion, per capita income had risen by 60 percent to $2100, infant mortality had dropped by nearly half, and absolute poverty was down 20 percent.
Question (2): And in the midst of the current crisis? If cynics are wrong, are worried idealists right to fear that the achievement may slip away? Yes; and American policy can make matters worse or better.
Aid commitments have so far held up. With falling demand and unemployment in the United States, though, remittances are beginning to fall and trade is falling fast. Here again, Cambodia illustrates a general trend. Between October and November, as the crisis set in, America's imports from poor countries fell by $7 billion -- a 20 percent drop in a month. And as tourists and visitors from the rural districts watched the Rain Festival regatta, the garment factories that power Cambodia's growth were beginning to close down. According to The Phnom Penh Post, orders dropped by a third, 30 factories closed, and 20,000 young women lost work. The same things were happening in southern Africa, Central America, Pakistan, Mexico, the Philippines, Thailand, and many other countries. The effect in each is to suddenly increase poverty rates, raise the risk of rural hunger and urban sex-industry recruitment, and sometimes cause political instability.
No American policy can fully protect poor countries. But at minimum, Americans can avoid the trade protectionism and aid cuts that would worsen the blow to the poor; and with some energy, Congress and the new administration can ease it by making the U.S. trade regime more open and friendly to the poor.
In general, American trade policy is tougher on poor countries than rich ones, because tariffs and other barriers are relatively high on the cheap and simple manufactures and farm products poor countries provide, but low on services and high-tech products Americans buy from rich countries. On average, tariffs on poor-country imports are about twice as tariffs on rich-country goods. A series of "trade preference" programs partially ease the inequity by waiving some tariffs for poor countries. But the preferences are antiquated and in some ways ineffective, as they offer little help to low-income countries in Asia and the Muslim world, because it bars duty-free treatment for the clothes, shoes, and other light-industry products that account for most of their trade. In 2007, for example, Cambodia faced a $415 million tariff penalty on its $2.5 billion in clothes -- more than the $405 million penalty on Britain's $100 billion in medicines, aircraft parts, TV shows, insurance policies, and North Sea crude. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Laos, and others get similar exorbitant penalties.
Ending them through a better preference system would be easy and essentially cost free. The principal competitive effect would not be to raise total imports, but to give poor countries some help in dealing with much larger competitors; the main domestic consequence would be slightly lower clothing prices. A modest step, preference reform would give the people of poor nations some help as they manage a crisis they did not cause -- and over time, can help Americans keep a promise that, with some luck and good policy, we can fulfill in this generation.
[...]
Further Reading:
[...]
The World Bank charts the decline of poverty, 1981-2005: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/WDI08povertysupplement.pdf
And has a shorter note on the falling rate of malnutrition:http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPRH/Resources/childrenunderfive.pdf
PPI Trade & Global Markets Director Ed Gresser testifies last year at the Senate Finance Committee on preference policy:http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/hearing061208.htm
The Center for Global Development's Kim Elliott has preference advice for the new administration:http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/967263
And the U.S. Trade Representative Office explains today's preference programs:http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Development/Preference_Programs/Section_Index.html
Three views of Cambodia:
The Royal Ministry of Tourism tells the story of the water festival:http://www.mot.gov.kh/Hot_News/water_festival.html
The International Labor Organization's Cambodia factory-monitoring project reports on work conditions, pay and the social implications of the garment business:http://www.betterfactories.org/
The Phnom Penh Post reports on slipping sales, job loss and prospects for 2009:http://www.phnompenhpost.com/index.php/2009011923690/Business/Garment-factories-hunker-down-for-a-miserable-2009.html
The Kennedy legacy:
The 1961 inaugural: "To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required -- not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."
The promise led to creation of the Agency for International Development, a 50 percent increase in foreign aid, the launch of the Peace Corps, and one of the most ambitious and successful efforts to reduce U.S. and world trade barriers since the Second World War. The Bank has not calculated $1.25-a-day figures for years before 1981, so evaluations aren't easy. But social indicators suggest that posterity should judge him well on results, as well as inspiration. Since 1960, global infant mortality has fallen by nearly two-thirds (from 126 to 50 infant deaths per thousand live births) and life expectancy has jumped from 50 years to 68 years.
The Peace Corps:http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=learn.whatispc.history
The Agency for International Development:http://www.usaid.gov/
Aid and remittances:
The OECD has foreign-aid data by donor country and recipient:http://www.oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_34447_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
The World Bank predicts remittance growth to slow next year, with payments to Africa and the Middle East likely to fall:http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTDECPROSPECTS/0,,contentMDK:21121930~menuPK:3145470~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSitePK:476883,00.html
[...]
State Sec Hillary Clinton Meets Afghan Women Lawyers
Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton Meets Afghan Women Lawyers
Media Note (Revised), Office of the Spokesman, US State Dept
Washington, DC, Jan 28, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton met today at the State Department with fourteen prominent Afghan women judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. These jurists were in Washington to participate in a training program arranged by the Department’s Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan. Secretary Clinton told them: "Your American friends greatly admire your bravery and courage. It is your work in the tough environment of Afghanistan for women lawyers that will bring real reform and the rule of law to the Afghan people. As President Obama made clear yesterday in his first foreign policy announcement, we are committed to supporting your efforts to bring security and stability to your country."
Under the leadership of the former Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, Dr. Kerry Healey, and United States District Judge Stephen G. Larson of the Central District of California, the women participated in two weeks of intensive legal seminars, roundtable events, and consultations with senior officials from the State of California and the U.S. government, including former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. The women explored current topics in the Afghan and American legal systems, legal decision-making and mediation, domestic violence, family and mental health, and narcotics law, while gaining hands-on exposure to the American judicial system.
The Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan is a joint effort between the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs and the American legal community to strengthen the rule of law in Afghanistan. The goal of the Partnership is to help the Afghan people establish a fair and transparent justice system that protects the rights of women, children, and minorities and that is equally accessible to all citizens.
Electronic Access via InternetMore information about the Public-Private Partnership is available for download from the State Department website at http://www.state.gov/p/inl/narc/partnership/index.htm.
Media Note (Revised), Office of the Spokesman, US State Dept
Washington, DC, Jan 28, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton met today at the State Department with fourteen prominent Afghan women judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. These jurists were in Washington to participate in a training program arranged by the Department’s Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan. Secretary Clinton told them: "Your American friends greatly admire your bravery and courage. It is your work in the tough environment of Afghanistan for women lawyers that will bring real reform and the rule of law to the Afghan people. As President Obama made clear yesterday in his first foreign policy announcement, we are committed to supporting your efforts to bring security and stability to your country."
Under the leadership of the former Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, Dr. Kerry Healey, and United States District Judge Stephen G. Larson of the Central District of California, the women participated in two weeks of intensive legal seminars, roundtable events, and consultations with senior officials from the State of California and the U.S. government, including former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. The women explored current topics in the Afghan and American legal systems, legal decision-making and mediation, domestic violence, family and mental health, and narcotics law, while gaining hands-on exposure to the American judicial system.
The Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan is a joint effort between the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs and the American legal community to strengthen the rule of law in Afghanistan. The goal of the Partnership is to help the Afghan people establish a fair and transparent justice system that protects the rights of women, children, and minorities and that is equally accessible to all citizens.
Electronic Access via InternetMore information about the Public-Private Partnership is available for download from the State Department website at http://www.state.gov/p/inl/narc/partnership/index.htm.
Comments On Mooney On Marburger & Science Policy
Mooney Talks Past Marburger II: Science Policy Boogaloo. By David Bruggeman
Prometheus, January 27th, 2009
Today I’ll get into some issues in Mooney’s hatchet job where he and Marburger talk past each other. All quotations not otherwise attributed are from Mooney.
I’d like to indulge in one final Bush-era diatribe against the longest-ever serving White House science adviser: John Marburger, who has been a poor advocate indeed for the science world.
Since when is the president’s science adviser a science advocate? Let’s look at the underlying law dictating how the Office of Science and Technology Policy should operate (Public Law 94-282). Some relevant text:
The Act authorizes OSTP to:
Advise the President and others within the Executive Office of the President on the impacts of science and technology on domestic and international affairs;
Lead an interagency effort to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and budgets;
Work with the private sector to ensure Federal investments in science and technology contribute to economic prosperity, environmental quality, and national security;
Build strong partnerships among Federal, State, and local governments, other countries, and the scientific community;
Evaluate the scale, quality, and effectiveness of the Federal effort in science and technology.
There’s a lot of wiggle room here. But what isn’t here is some dictum that scientific outcomes advanced by OSTP dictate policy outcomes. This path is a small reach from the encouragement of open inquiry and publication without censorship. Many people can’t resist the urge to reach.
Marburger was responsible to the President, first and foremost. He provided scientific and technical information to the White House when needed, in the way that they wanted it. It’s within their rights to dictate how they want the information and how they use it - if they do at all. The same is true for President Obama and his future OSTP director. Would Dr. Holdren resign if President Obama opts for different climate change policies than what he recommends? I doubt it.
This is the problem some are concerned about with respect to Holdren - advocacy over advice. If Energy Secretary Chu’s confirmation hearings are any indication, expect some walkback of Holdren’s strong climate policy statements in the future.
Mooney writes as though Marburger is the only person focused on science policy as budget policy. ASTRA, Research!America, and many scientific societies are very interested in science budgets, often to the exclusion of most anything else. The whole post-war debate over how the federal government would support scientific research revolved around how federal research dollars would be treated.
Mooney discusses specific budget numbers, and their recent decline (in terms of real dollars, accounting for inflation). The implication is that blame for this can be squarely placed at the feet of Bush and Marburger. However, there has been little in the way of leadership from the Democratic Congress to make sure that authorized levels of funding from the America COMPETES Act were appropriated. These dollars are a perennial loser in budget battles. A Democratically-controlled Congress found it either impossible or undesirable to fight for that money. Where’s your disappointment in them, Chris?
“let’s note that on the question of ethics, the Bush administration was also wrong, and the 2001 policy in fact unethical, because it designated several cell lines as eligible for research that did not meet basic ethics guidelines for informed consent”
While there is a problem here, where many of the stem cell lines were obtained in ways that did not follow accepted informed consent procedures, Mooney ignores what is - at least politically - a much bigger ethical issue. There is a legitimate ethical consideration related to definitions of life. Science can inform that decision, but not dictate it. To ignore it, something a president would be more likely to pay attention to, is to continue attacking a strawman that isn’t there.
“This [Marburger's claim that the visibility of the science community was a political strategy of the Democratic party], too, is false. I’m happy to say that I watched the entire politics and science issue evolve over the course of the Bush administration. It wasn’t that the Democrats stirred up the scientists; rather, the scientists stirred up the Democrats and other progressive advocates.”
These chicken-or-the-egg arguments miss a relevant political use of the “War on Science.” I have noted then-Senator Clinton’s use of the term to include decreased aerospace research, muddling what was focused on concerns over misrepresenting data into traditional budget squabbles. This mission creep aside, it was more common to see Democrats simply lumping in allegations of scientific tampering or misuse in their laundry lists of Bush Administration malfeasance. What little direct mention science received in the recent inaugural address is consistent with this framing - “we will restore science to its rightful place.” Democrats took advantage of a potential new voting block and added to their rhetorical weapons. Those are, so far, the only explicit outcomes of listening to the science advocates.
Science and technology can thrive while being ignored in certain policy decisions. It is completely possible for resources to flow toward research and development, and for policies to encourage the use of science and technology, while scientific information that would undercut desired policies is shunted aside. So it is possible for both Mooney and Marburger to be right.
A war suggests a total effort that simply isn’t there in the case of the “War on Science.” There were certain instances of science-related conduct that were problematic and/or skirted the intent of the law (and may be again), but there was no systematic subversion, nor any particular master plan, which is what I expect when I see a war. Mooney and others don’t do science advocacy any favors if they continue to cling to this unrealistic notion of a “War on Science” long past the point of political effectiveness.
Prometheus, January 27th, 2009
Today I’ll get into some issues in Mooney’s hatchet job where he and Marburger talk past each other. All quotations not otherwise attributed are from Mooney.
I’d like to indulge in one final Bush-era diatribe against the longest-ever serving White House science adviser: John Marburger, who has been a poor advocate indeed for the science world.
Since when is the president’s science adviser a science advocate? Let’s look at the underlying law dictating how the Office of Science and Technology Policy should operate (Public Law 94-282). Some relevant text:
The Act authorizes OSTP to:
Advise the President and others within the Executive Office of the President on the impacts of science and technology on domestic and international affairs;
Lead an interagency effort to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and budgets;
Work with the private sector to ensure Federal investments in science and technology contribute to economic prosperity, environmental quality, and national security;
Build strong partnerships among Federal, State, and local governments, other countries, and the scientific community;
Evaluate the scale, quality, and effectiveness of the Federal effort in science and technology.
There’s a lot of wiggle room here. But what isn’t here is some dictum that scientific outcomes advanced by OSTP dictate policy outcomes. This path is a small reach from the encouragement of open inquiry and publication without censorship. Many people can’t resist the urge to reach.
Marburger was responsible to the President, first and foremost. He provided scientific and technical information to the White House when needed, in the way that they wanted it. It’s within their rights to dictate how they want the information and how they use it - if they do at all. The same is true for President Obama and his future OSTP director. Would Dr. Holdren resign if President Obama opts for different climate change policies than what he recommends? I doubt it.
This is the problem some are concerned about with respect to Holdren - advocacy over advice. If Energy Secretary Chu’s confirmation hearings are any indication, expect some walkback of Holdren’s strong climate policy statements in the future.
Mooney writes as though Marburger is the only person focused on science policy as budget policy. ASTRA, Research!America, and many scientific societies are very interested in science budgets, often to the exclusion of most anything else. The whole post-war debate over how the federal government would support scientific research revolved around how federal research dollars would be treated.
Mooney discusses specific budget numbers, and their recent decline (in terms of real dollars, accounting for inflation). The implication is that blame for this can be squarely placed at the feet of Bush and Marburger. However, there has been little in the way of leadership from the Democratic Congress to make sure that authorized levels of funding from the America COMPETES Act were appropriated. These dollars are a perennial loser in budget battles. A Democratically-controlled Congress found it either impossible or undesirable to fight for that money. Where’s your disappointment in them, Chris?
“let’s note that on the question of ethics, the Bush administration was also wrong, and the 2001 policy in fact unethical, because it designated several cell lines as eligible for research that did not meet basic ethics guidelines for informed consent”
While there is a problem here, where many of the stem cell lines were obtained in ways that did not follow accepted informed consent procedures, Mooney ignores what is - at least politically - a much bigger ethical issue. There is a legitimate ethical consideration related to definitions of life. Science can inform that decision, but not dictate it. To ignore it, something a president would be more likely to pay attention to, is to continue attacking a strawman that isn’t there.
“This [Marburger's claim that the visibility of the science community was a political strategy of the Democratic party], too, is false. I’m happy to say that I watched the entire politics and science issue evolve over the course of the Bush administration. It wasn’t that the Democrats stirred up the scientists; rather, the scientists stirred up the Democrats and other progressive advocates.”
These chicken-or-the-egg arguments miss a relevant political use of the “War on Science.” I have noted then-Senator Clinton’s use of the term to include decreased aerospace research, muddling what was focused on concerns over misrepresenting data into traditional budget squabbles. This mission creep aside, it was more common to see Democrats simply lumping in allegations of scientific tampering or misuse in their laundry lists of Bush Administration malfeasance. What little direct mention science received in the recent inaugural address is consistent with this framing - “we will restore science to its rightful place.” Democrats took advantage of a potential new voting block and added to their rhetorical weapons. Those are, so far, the only explicit outcomes of listening to the science advocates.
Science and technology can thrive while being ignored in certain policy decisions. It is completely possible for resources to flow toward research and development, and for policies to encourage the use of science and technology, while scientific information that would undercut desired policies is shunted aside. So it is possible for both Mooney and Marburger to be right.
A war suggests a total effort that simply isn’t there in the case of the “War on Science.” There were certain instances of science-related conduct that were problematic and/or skirted the intent of the law (and may be again), but there was no systematic subversion, nor any particular master plan, which is what I expect when I see a war. Mooney and others don’t do science advocacy any favors if they continue to cling to this unrealistic notion of a “War on Science” long past the point of political effectiveness.
Energy industry stimulus plan
IER’s Bold Stimulus Plan: A Roadmap to Improving the Economy and Creating Jobs, All at No Cost to the Taxpayer
Energy is the lifeblood of our economy. As our competitors around the globe have shown us in recent years, job creation and economic growth begin with access to abundant, affordable energy supplies.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s stimulus proposals are founded on the fundamentally flawed notion that we will achieve prosperity if we make coal, oil, and natural gas, which make up 85 percent [1] of the energy that fuels our economy, more expensive and less available. Meanwhile, President Obama wishes to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on the most expensive and least efficient energy sources and force American consumers to pay more to purchase them.
Energy is, literally, “the capacity to do work.” More energy means more work, more jobs, and more economic growth. Less affordable energy means less work performed here at home. Affordable energy creates jobs and stimulates investment in America.
IER supports government policies that encourage private investment, foster job creation, and provide American consumers access to the vast, proven, affordable energy supplies they own beneath the 2.3 billion acres of government lands not leased for responsible energy production. These enormous taxpayer-owned resources, and the American jobs they would create, have been held hostage by a decades-long government policy of saying, “No, we can’t”.
Today, IER is offering a bold economic stimulus plan that will create jobs, strengthen our economy, enhance our national energy security, and make the U.S. more competitive in the world. Best of all, it won’t cost taxpayers a dime. In fact, it could generate hundreds of billions of dollars, along with jobs and new energy supplies for the future.
IER’s plan represents the most significant change in government energy policy in more than three decades. We urge the Obama Administration to say, “Yes, we can” to our two-part plan, which begins by embracing the fundamental medical precept: First, Do No Harm:
Energy is the lifeblood of our economy. As our competitors around the globe have shown us in recent years, job creation and economic growth begin with access to abundant, affordable energy supplies.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s stimulus proposals are founded on the fundamentally flawed notion that we will achieve prosperity if we make coal, oil, and natural gas, which make up 85 percent [1] of the energy that fuels our economy, more expensive and less available. Meanwhile, President Obama wishes to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on the most expensive and least efficient energy sources and force American consumers to pay more to purchase them.
Energy is, literally, “the capacity to do work.” More energy means more work, more jobs, and more economic growth. Less affordable energy means less work performed here at home. Affordable energy creates jobs and stimulates investment in America.
IER supports government policies that encourage private investment, foster job creation, and provide American consumers access to the vast, proven, affordable energy supplies they own beneath the 2.3 billion acres of government lands not leased for responsible energy production. These enormous taxpayer-owned resources, and the American jobs they would create, have been held hostage by a decades-long government policy of saying, “No, we can’t”.
Today, IER is offering a bold economic stimulus plan that will create jobs, strengthen our economy, enhance our national energy security, and make the U.S. more competitive in the world. Best of all, it won’t cost taxpayers a dime. In fact, it could generate hundreds of billions of dollars, along with jobs and new energy supplies for the future.
IER’s plan represents the most significant change in government energy policy in more than three decades. We urge the Obama Administration to say, “Yes, we can” to our two-part plan, which begins by embracing the fundamental medical precept: First, Do No Harm:
- Vow to defend jobs and investments against expensive, job-killing climate regulations. German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently stated that she would not allow EU climate regulations that “take decisions that would endanger jobs or investments in Germany.” President Obama should follow suit and vow to defend American jobs against costly climate regulations.
- Halt EPA’s attempt to regulate carbon dioxide using the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act was designed to regulate regional air pollutants, not global concentrations of carbon dioxide. President Obama needs to apply a cost-benefit analysis to EPA’s proposal to make 85 percent of the energy that fuels our economy more expensive and less available, cost Americans $7 trillion over the next 20 years, and accomplish little, if any, real reductions in global temperature.
- Renounce plans to bankrupt coal companies. As a presidential candidate, Obama said he would bankrupt coal-fired power plants with climate regulations. America currently gets 48 percent of our electricity from coal. Unlike wind and solar, coal is reliable, affordable, and proven. Wind and solar cannot power modern society’s always-on electricity needs.
- Join other policymakers in denouncing billions for “project[s] that depend on significant taxpayer subsidies while potentially doubling power costs” for American consumers and abandon all efforts to implement Federal Renewable Fuels Standards, Federal Renewable Portfolio Standards and Low Carbon Fuel Standards.
And second, say “Yes, we can” and pursue the following landmark changes in federal energy policy:
- End subsidies for all forms of energy and return the money to American taxpayers. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in energy production. Furthermore, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), direct payments to individuals and cutting taxes have the fastest and most significant impacts on the economy.
- Continue our progress on the most significant change in energy policy in decades: Streamline regulations to produce energy from American resources on American lands and coastal waters. ICF International recently released a study that shows developing America’s abundant but currently off-limits domestic energy supply would create 160,000 new jobs alone and generate $1.7 trillion for local, state, and federal tax revenue.
- Provide coastal states with 50 percent of revenue from offshore and onshore energy leasing. Last year alone, the U.S. raised over $23 billion from energy leasing on federal lands.
- Support exploration and energy production in ANWR. According to the Energy Information Administration, ANWR “is the largest unexplored, potentially productive geological onshore basin in the United States.” It contains a mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of oil. Opening ANWR would create hundreds of thousands of American jobs, generate billions of dollars in state and federal revenue, and enhance our energy security.
- Expedite job creation by waiving all regulations on federal lands for the expedited construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline. Congress did this in 1973 for the 800 mile-long Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline, which was built in just three years and has since delivered 16 billion barrels of oil to American consumers. Russia, Iran, and Qatar control 60 percent of the world’s natural gas supplies. We should use our abundant supplies of natural gas, and not allow another OPEC-style cartel to limit our energy sources.
- Allow the exploration and experimentation necessary to produce affordable energy from America’s oil shale resources. The western United States is home to an estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil equivalent in oil shale. This is about three times the amount of proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. This resource is untapped and needs research to develop economically.
- Permit the exploration and experimentation necessary to produce affordable energy from methane hydrates. A 2007 study found that the U.S. has about 5,700 trillion cubic feet of methane hydrates—about 900 times the current annual gas consumption in the U.S. Like oil shale, this resource is untapped, and companies need to research ways to bring it to market.
- Limit frivolous lawsuits designed to thwart responsible development of American energy and the American jobs it creates. The following quote sums up this problem best. In an interview with Dow Jones Newswires in January 2003, The Wilderness Society’s Peter Morton threatened: “If you bid on a lease on public land, you can expect (environmental litigation).“
- Remove regulatory impediments to building and expanding refineries. We have not built a new refinery in the United States since 1976 because of environmental regulations and bureaucratic red tape. While existing refineries have gone to great lengths to expand their capacity to meet domestic demand, refinery expansions are becoming even more difficult due to regulatory impediments.
- Resolve issues involving the Yucca Mountain Repository for spent nuclear fuel. The Federal government has been studying Yucca Mountain as a fuel repository for the last 30 years. Ratepayers have paid billions to the Nuclear Waste Fund—it’s time for the Federal government to move forward and provide a return on that investment.
- Remove regulatory barriers to building the next generation of nuclear power plants. The Federal government should not stand in the way of developing nuclear fuel reprocessing, pebble-bed reactors, or whatever forms of nuclear energy are economical.
[1] According to EIA, in 2007 39 percent of our energy came from petroleum, 22 percent from coal, 23 percent from natural gas, 8 percent from nuclear, 2.4 percent from hydroelectric, 2.1 percent from wood derived fuels, 1.0 percent from biofuel, 0.3 percent from geothermal, 0.3 percent from wind, and 0.1 percent from solar. The latest data from EIA is available here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
