European austerity has been an utter failure

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/31/187459762/e-u-eases-some-austerity-measures

NPR interviewed an economist from the AEI, and even he couldn't deny that European austerity hurt growth and what they needed instead was Keynesian stimulus.

This is no big news to those who have been following this issue, but it's good to see almost universal agreement that austerity was the main driver of Europe's double-dip and likely deeper current recession. Only head-in-the-sand EU officials are saying that austerity was necessary to "stabilize the financial markets" and give investors confidence to buy PIIGS bonds. But that is insincere, as it was likely the ECB's concurrent quantitative easing measures and "whatever it takes" declaration (after years of indecision and deliberation) that calmed the markets.

What is more tragic is a "lost generation" of productive young people in Europe who can't get work. They are talented and motivated, but austerity and other factors are literally ruining their futures. Honestly I am amazed we haven't seen a flood of European refugees (I guess it shows how much they love their homelands and families, and maybe how unwelcoming foreign immigration policies are). Some have taken menial jobs in Germany or other places within the EU with lower unemployment. But their extended exposure to these economic woes will likely have major health, psychological, and familial consequences. All because some old, rich fuckos in Berlin and Brussels hate debt and inflation. Well no one likes those things, but they are lesser evils than a lost generation.

I really hope that the EU example deters US conservatives from pushing hard for austerity here. But those folks don't exactly have great working relationships with data and reality, so we can't be sure. If they want austerity so bad, start with the defense industry and tax Wall Street more.

Less publicizd but critical reasons why Congress isn't working

M sent this insightful article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-three-reasons-congress-is-broken/2013/05/23/8b282d2c-b667-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story_2.html

I think the author brought up a good point - why should we have fairly ignorant people write our laws? I often hear interviewed Congressmen compliment each other for being very sharp and smart. But I think that org is no different than any other American professional group - you have a bell-curve where about 15% are actually smart (Frank, before he retired), 15% morons (Bachmann), and the rest mediocre (McCain). That might work most of the time at Walmart or the United Way, but the risks are greater in Congress.

Lobbyists and interest groups would say that there is where they come in - to give Washington the info and persuasive arguments it needs to make the best decisions. But then we need to trust legislators to scrutinize info properly and be impervious to COI (especially when these biased sources come bearing gifts vital to them and their parties). And if staffs write most of the bills, then they are even more susceptible to influence because they are less established in their careers, and their dealings are mostly unmonitored by the public. A Congressman has staff to support them, not to do their job. But I guess this situation arose because Congressmen now need to spend so much more time fundraising, traveling, and campaigning, to avoid getting primaried or falling out of favor with their party bosses. Where is the time left over to be a Congressman?

A term exists called "technocracy" where subject matter experts rule. I think that would be a disaster as well (Einstein turned down being the first leader of Israel for a reason), but I would hope there could be some balance between political knowledge and actual knowledge. Maybe the best solution (and one that played out during America's best decades - politically speaking) is for leaders to be humble and conscientious enough to seek out the counsel of the right sources, and then have the good judgment to use that counsel to help the nation. Barney Frank was on the SF Commonwealth Club last night talking about Dodd-Frank and gay issues. He said that in committees, Congressmen love to work on the one or two issues they care deeply about and know about, but of course they have to deliberate and vote on all issues that are raised. And some of them sit on like 3 cmtes. So if they show up to vote, like 90% of their votes are ignorant and apathetic (or they just fear sweeping, divisive issues that could affect their careers). There has to be a better way?

So we know that too much apathy/risk-aversion is bad, too much ignorance is bad, and too much obstructionism is bad. An arbitrary, artificial solution I could come up with is a "points system". I know there are many unofficial Congressional scorekeepers out there, but in this case let's give it teeth:

-Congressmen need to pass a basic knowledge test before being able to vote. If they miss too many votes, they lose points, and that will hinder their seniority and demote the bills they care about down the queue.


-Congressmen have to achieve a minimum level of creative productivity too (# bills co-authored, # bills passed - like performance goals in the private sector). Conversely, very productive/helpful/engaged members will get more perks (raises, fast-track to chairmanship, etc.). Heck there could even be a leader-board and a cut like golf.


-Senators get X filibusters per session, and each time used, the Senate scores the quality of the argument. If the score is too low, then that Senator gets reduced filibuster privileges for the rest of his/her term. Same thing for floor speeches.

Various scores and evaluations like that could be aggregated, and if the Congressman's total score is outside of "acceptable" limits, then they can't run for re-election or some other punishment. This will never come to be, but they need some sort of punishment for not "doing their jobs" and some rewards for doing it right. Right now the GOP's biggest fear is getting primaried or their party losing seats, and that should not be the case.

In order to encourage real debate, maybe there could be some private, closed-door deliberations. I know I am contradicting myself because I just said that staffers writing bills is risky because they have less oversight. But the situation is different in the actual Congress. With the cameras on during floor debates, as the author said, legislators feel pressured to just posture and rehash talking points that poll well in focus groups. But in confidential proceedings, they can actually talk like respectful adults with each other and negotiate without getting crucified by their own parties/media. Secrecy is usually not good for a free society, but in some cases it's a part of the process. State said the worst thing about Wikileaks was now diplomats are paranoid of being exposed, and can't be as frank in their communications. Maybe it will make them more conscientious in what they say, or maybe it will make them too reserved. I guess there has to be a balance in order to come to the best political solutions.

BTW have you seen "The Campaign"? Horribly hilarious and scarily realistic stuff.

The voters are the problem

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/07/mark-sanford-colbert-busch-congress-election-south-carolina/2140591/

South Carolinians re-elected Mark Sanford, the devout evangelical who lied about his tryst to South America to see his mistress (he may have used public funds during his affair too, like John Edwards). So Sanford is an inspiration redemption story, but Clinton is still the antichrist (and I bet Sanford went past 3rd base).

Of all the eligible people for this office, is Sanford truly the best choice for the people and the country? Just as we often don't make the best choices when it comes to commerce, relationship, and jobs, I guess you can't expect people to make the optimal voting decisions either.

--------

And look at the other fools we've elected to write our laws and budgets and declare wars: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcZugKTR8jQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqkUbTLqz7E

The Broun vs. Bachmann matchup from May 10 is pretty funny too (not on YT yet).

Great idea to appoint a guy to the House Science Cmte. who believes there is evidence proving the Earth is 9,000 years old. I can't believe they gave this guy a medical license too (well he comes from rural GA, where the holy water is considered a pharmaceutical).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/06/paul-broun-evolution-big-bang_n_1944808.html (did they really have to kill all those bucks behind him LOL?)

Bill Maher on The Great Gatsby and the modern wealth gap

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DKD0O-owNM

America's bizarre fetish for romanticizing the leisure-class, mega-rich, Guilded Age types like the Buchanans depicted in Gatsby is especially peculiar today considering what we have (or haven't) learned from the Great Recession, as well as recent the populist backlash against US plutocrats.

The sad irony is the rich would be better off with less income disparity and a more flourishing middle class. Clearly when basic needs are more securely met, people feel more comfortable to consume, which benefits most of the economy and trickles up to the wealthy. Well, the rich got around that issue by expanding credit (pay day loans, adjustable rates, even tax refund loans).

The rich complain that they already pay the lion's share of the nation's taxes. While that is numerically true, maybe we can reframe the issue. When employers and other the powers that be give people quality wages and benefits, they will be healthier and less of a burden on health services. When education is more democratic and affordable, people will make better economic choices and become more productive, which will increase GDP, lower demand for public services, and reduce the "tax burden" on the rich. When we don't fight wars or adopt bad taxation and trade practices just to give special interests more profits, then that also reduces the need for taxes. So if the rich are tired of paying so much tax (even though marginal rates are much lower today than the 1960's), then reduce the wealth gap and make the market more free and democratic.

And when workers are not stressed out and distraught over neighborhood crime and horrible commutes (caused by defunding public services/infrastructure to support tax breaks), rising health care, real estate, and education costs (driven by the irrationally high willingness to pay by those who can afford it), uncertain retirement (brought on by the cutting of pensions, the Fed's low rates pushing people to equities, and market volatility due to risky speculation, manipulation, and fraud), and the omnipresent threat of layoffs/outsourcing/downsizing, then they are actually able to concentrate on their jobs and become more creative, productive, and valuable to the company and its stakeholders. When employers treat their staffs well, they are less likely to be a workplace cancer, a slacker, a defector to the competition, or new competition (launching their own venture). It's strange that the rich, who love to congratulate themselves for being so clever and superior, can't grasp this simple concept.

But here is the circular problem: political corruption allows some companies to enjoy economic advantages. They out-compete all the mom & pop shops without the Washington connections (yes I know companies succeed on their own merit too, but far too many cheated to get to the top and secure their standing). Other firms witness this "recipe for success" and follow suit, because now it's too risky to try to win the old-fashioned way. This Darwinism leads to the "survivors" of the dog-eat-dog market often being the biggest jerks. So now we have fewer and nastier employment choices, and the % of Americans working for public companies is at an all-time high. Employers know they have the leverage, so they cut benefits and make the workers more dependent on investment income (for the minority who can even afford to invest). More and more, our survival is tied to the stock price of our employer and our chosen securities. So for the few shareholders who actually vote, they want boards and execs who are the shrewdest SOBs around - to make the stock appreciate. And for passive shareholders, they are just happy when the price goes up, and they don't want to know how. So public companies are making our lives hell, yet they are also our only potential salvation from hell, so we make a Faustian bargain with them. It is paradoxically in our economic best interests to support those who harm us. 

When people are not desperate, they are less likely to steal or kill or revolt (yes, it has come to that). As Maher said, you can only squeeze people so far before they push back (especially when the squeezers are a tiny minority). It's not as bad as the starving peasants in monarchic France or Russia, but there will be a point when the masses won't take it anymore (see the Arab Spring, which started as an economic uprising). Or look at the angry youth and public workers in much of Europe now. When that stuff happens, it's no good for the rich either (unless you are like the Shah and can loot Iran before you flee to posh exile - not trying to give Lloyd Blankfein any ideas). So wouldn't they rather share a little more of the pie in order to preserve the good thing they have going? They say that love knows no bounds, but really selfishness and greed (even to the point of self-destruction) is America's most abundant resource. Well, one could argue that greed is a twisted form of love - just loving the wrong things.

We've already lost the war on terror

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/4/23/jeremy_scahill_the_secret_story_behind
http://dirtywars.org/
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/10/176778712/the-way-of-the-knife-soldiers-spies-and-shadow-wars

Let's be honest, even Al Qaeda + Saddam + Kim at the apexes of their power did not really constitute an existential threat to the US and our interests. They are vile and inconvenient and sometime lethal and would be better behind bars, but they can't end our way of life. The Soviets could have ended us at a moment's notice, and we lived under that cloud for over 30 years. We bulked up our military and engaged in plenty of proxy dirty wars to gain some leverage, but we didn't reinvent our entire security apparatus and turn our backs on what made us great to try to destroy communism everywhere it bred.

But that is exactly what we have done post-9/11. The CIA changed from an intelligence gathering outfit (that was Congressionally prohibited from assassinating or torturing anyone, although they probably did it from time to time) into a shadow parallel military. Both they and the Pentagon now have Presidential authority to kill anyone, anywhere. Obama's admin. claims that B.O. wants to be the last word on the decisions so he can personally make sure that we are only killing people that we really must kill. And he is the Chosen One, so we can trust that he is making the right call every time - even though the info that he is basing the decision on is pre-filtered and doctored by military handlers whose career progression is based on body counts. Hey Mr. ConLaw prof - that is why we have courts, juries, and trials to reduce the risk of bias and error (and our courts still get plenty of cases wrong too, even capital punishments, so how will you and your boys do better?). Now there is no due process, no evidence sharing, just a drone strike or a wetwork team kicking down a door in the middle of the night.

The terrorists know they could never end the USA, even if their dreams came true and they got a hold of fissile material and diplomat access to our homeland. The USA is a lot more than just our land, buildings, people, and money. The USA is an idea, and a set of values worth practicing and propagating (and in some cases fighting for). The American ideas of justice, human rights, and egalitarianism are almost unprecedented in history - and that is what we've lost. The terrorists didn't take it from us, we jettisoned it of our own accord. Ostensibly to make us safer, but it was ultimately our call. And a liberal president did a lot of the damage. As Jeremy Scahill said, Obama's sad legacy is selling undemocratic, un-American behaviors to the liberal base. Sure the economy is top on our minds, and no one cares of some nameless ragheads get whacked, so we are guilty too because we didn't protest when Obama betrayed America's values (at the very least, he rolled over when the military-intelligence community wanted to surpass the Bush years and cross the line). Scahill is legit and trustworthy - he is the guy who exposed Blackwater's BS in Iraq, and has taken on warlords for years (fighting the sword with the pen).

We crossed that line so far we can't even see it in the dust behind us. Some might say it's no big deal, and it's not like we set up death camps. But is the bar that low? Over a hundred human beings are being held indefinitely at Gitmo without charge and without disclosing evidence against them. If they are so dangerous, then put them on trial and prove it. We kidnapped and exported hundreds of terror "suspects" to repressive nations to be tortured (ironically Syria helped us with that during the Bush years, and the money we paid them for services rendered probably bought weapons that are now being used against the rebels). Our most elite soldiers have the authority to raid any private home in Afghanistan just because some shady informants claimed that a baddie lives there (when in fact they are just using the US to settle a blood feud). And with the Al-Awlaki case, our government has sanctioned the killing of a US citizen overseas in total violation of their civil rights and international law. And what was his crime? Hate speech. Similar speech that the KKK, redneck militias, and even some radio hosts routinely get away with. But they're not Muslims. What's worse is I just learned the US also drone killed Al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son and also US citizen (see Democracy Now link). What was his crime? As far as I know, he had the wrong father. He "may" become a threat some day. What the hell are we thinking? What happened to innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? You can't be guilty of something you haven't done yet. It's pathetic that we even need to be having this discussion.

What kind of nation does those things? Red China - guilty on some counts but not all. Iran - ditto. Cuba - they're the Red Cross compared to us. Maybe the USSR and Nazi Germany are the only modern regimes that come close. If we have resorted to such tactics to "defend ourselves against radical Islam", then we have lost the war on terror. And now our jingoism and vengeance are coming down on Tsarnaev. He is going to get mob justice at best, and it's scary to hear the things that even some prominent politicians and media personalities are saying about what we should do to him.

Yes, I know that some of those outrageous tactics have "done some good" for us, killed "bad people", and maybe averted attacks (or maybe they didn't). But what about all the side effects? As I said, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and drones are some of the top reasons why Muslims hate us, and are powerful Jihadi recruiting tools. A US hit squad accidentally took out an Afghan police commander and his family (including 2 pregnant women), who was accused of being a Taliban from bad intel. When the soldiers realized it, they tried to sanitize the crime scene and told the town that the Taliban actually killed the family, but the truth got out. He and his family risked their lives for years to help the US fight the Taliban, but now after this tragedy and outrage, they are so mad they want to blow up Americans. We are losing the war on terror when we turn devoted friends into enraged enemies.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LG08Df01.html (another indication that we have lost: this story is totally absent in mainstream Western media, assuming it's true)

Maybe some are giving Osama too much credit, but accounts suggest that he knew Al Qaeda could never defeat America and establish a global Caliphate. But he wanted to execute some sufficiently shocking attacks to whip America into a panicked frenzy. We would bankrupt ourselves foolishly trying to defend every square inch of our land (remember how we even stationed troops at the Mall of America after 9/11?). And our hubris would lead us to invade Muslim lands like the Crusaders and imperialists who came before us. We would have to fight on their terms, and they knew they could outlast us as we sacrifice our brave young men to an unwinnable situation. Terrorism (and even guerrilla war to some extent) is not about destroying one's enemy. It's about generating enough shock and fear to get your enemy to make bad decisions and engage in detrimental behavior. Then you just sit back and let your enemy do the work for you. And we're doing a heckuva job with that. Muslim extremists have suffered heavy losses in this war, and Al Qaeda is barely what it was in 2001, but the America idea is the bigger loser.