Congress has generally been performing quite poorly and ineffectively for a number of years and this needs to change. Evidence of this is widespread and both Democrats and Republicans can be fairly blamed. Part of the evidence is found in their inability to come up with long needed, supportable comprehensive legislation on reform of Social Security, Medicare, health care, energy independence, global warming and immigration. Part of it is the manner in which a majority of members supported President Bush's Administration to go to war in Iraq, not really questioning expected duration, nation rebuilding issues, costs and casualties. Another part is Congress' approval in May of a new wasteful Farm Bill continuing to provide billions of dollars in commodity price subsidies to farmers at a time of record crop prices and a large federal budget deficit. Still another part of the evidence is found in public opinion polls.
According to a recent Rasmussen Reports poll, a national survey indicated that as many as 47% of voters think Congress is doing a poor job, and another 34% that Congress is doing just a fair job, while only 13% think Congress is doing an excellent or a good job. Only 13% of voters think Congress has passed legislation to improve life in America within the past year. Even worse, 71% of voters think members of Congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers than helping people! That's very little confidence in our members of Congress!
Both major political party presumptive nominees, Senator McCain and Senator Obama, have made it clear in their respective presidential campaigns that they want to see substantive changes in the way our federal government is functioning, though they have major differences of opinion on many key political issues, including on the Iraq War, international dialogue and diplomacy, taxes, energy policy, global warming, health care, and social issues such as abortion, sex education, gay rights, and gun rights.
Like most voters and taxpayers, they both want to see better relations between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch, and more "reaching across the aisle" and bipartisanship between Republicans and Democrats in Congress. I think that's very desirable and important. For too long too many of our representatives in Congress have worked primarily to support party platforms, legislation sponsored or favored by their party leaders, and what will help keep their jobs in Congress, as opposed to working for what's in the best interests of the country and our citizens.
However, to my disappointment, I have seen little clear evidence so far of either candidate making any kind of a strong comprehensive statement about needed reforms in the Congress, reforms which I believe the majority of Americans would support and that would likely lead to better performance. The likely reason for this is that they don't perceive this as a priority in the minds of most voters, and they would be concerned about their colleagues' adverse reactions, including support from the Congress when one of them becomes President. The right candidate won't be deterred by that.
Briefly stated, here are some of the reforms I think are needed to have a more effective and efficient, better performing Congress:
1. Spending limits on election and reelection campaigns to restrict influence of lobbyists and special interests who are seeking legislative favors.
2. Tougher restrictions on trips, meals, tickets and other expenses paid by lobbyists and specal interests.
3. No more pork barrell politics or earmarking, i. e. sneaking funding for clearly unworthy pet projects into bills considered by appropriations committees, as a means to gain support of constituents or campaign contributors.
4. No more filibustering, i. e. extended speeches on the floor of the Senate to stall legislative procedures with the intent to stall or thwart a bill members oppose.
5. Changing the current practice of Congress approving their own compensation and benefit packages, which already are quite generous. Instead these should be reviewed and considered by an independent outside agency or compensation consulting firm, based in part on performance.
6. Requiring that Congress members forfeit at least a significant percentage, say 25-35%, of their pension and related retirement benefits in event they are convicted of a felony or are expelled by their fellow members due to unacceptable behavior.
I'd also like to see leaders of Congress make a strong, publicly shared commitment to work harder on a bipartisan results-oriented basis, and with the President and his staff, to achieve early approval of legislation on key issues that will serve the best interests of the country and the American people.
These needed reforms won't have a good chance to be adopted without effective pressure from the media, business leaders, and, especially, the voters. A great many more voters need to contact their representives in Congress and make their views known to the media. Stand up and be counted! It will take a significant effort, but the return on investment can be substantial.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
Iraq War - What Now?
After more than five years of a highly expensive war, with political party conventions meeting in the next several months, and a presidential election coming up in November, it's definitely time to have a vocal public debate about what we should be doing in Iraq going forward. This is so even though public opinion polls indicate that most American voters are more concerned with economic issues than with the war. What now?
I published two postings on the Iraq War last September primarily expressing strong concerns with the cost in national treasure and mounting casualties, the fact that the U. S. was bearing far too high a burden, compared especially to other countries in the region who also had a strong strategic interest in the outcome. I also expressed the view that we needed to move to a better balance between investing in foreign affairs and investing in, and meeting serious needs, domestically. I mentioned particularly the needs for public infrastructure, healthcare, and mending Social Security and Medicare.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, has indicated he will essentially continue President Bush's policies, pursue "victory," and bring most of our 155,000 troops there now home by January 2013, the end of his first term if he wins the election. The presumptive Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama,
has said he wants to end the war much sooner and bring most of our troops home by the end of December 2009, near the end of his first year in office, if he wins the election.
Supporters of each candidate to a large extent think their candidate's views are obviously entirely correct and that the views of the opponent in the election are obviously wrong. It's not that simple. There are positives (benefits) and negatives (risks) for both points of view. Selecting the goals and policies to be pursued and implemented on this subject should be a matter of pragmatically and objectively weighing the positives and negatives and choosing the goals and policies that are in the best interest of America and our citizens. It should not be a partisan Republican or Democratic issue.
I favor Senator Obama's approach, even though it entails some material material risks. One of these is that conditions on the ground in Iraq may not be stable enough for the Iraqi government and military and police forces to satisfactorily cope with insurgents and potential interference from Iran and other countries in the region. A related risk is that international terrorists led by Al Qaeda will use our troop withdrawals as a sign of U. S. weakness and defeat and as a tool to recruit more terrorists. There is also the highly emotional potential issue of American soldiers "having sacrificed and died in vain" if we withdraw troops before a clear "victory" has been achieved.
However, I'm not persuaded that these potential negatives and risks outweigh the benefits of Obama's approach, assuming that it's prudently implemented. First,
there are many reliable signs that there has been material progress in curbing violence over the past year, beating down Al Qaeda's activities in Iraq, and the ability of Iraqi forces to increasingly take over a larger share of combat requirements. Second, with an Obama victory in November, the Iraqi government would have a much stronger picture of what they need to do to further political progress and they will have at least an entire year to do what's needed. The same with the military and police forces. To support them, I would expect that, even with Senator Obama as President, we will still have a small force of military trainers and advisors available in Iraq and the region. Third, our costs of this war, and needs domestically, are too high to ignore.
As a reminder, the direct costs are reportedly running at a minimum of $12 billion each and every month or $144 billion each year, excluding the effect of inflation. Indirect costs, such as health care and disability payments for veterans, rebuilding our military hardware and support facilities, and interest on the national debt for monies borrowed, add many billions more each month. Then there are the immeasurable costs of our military casualties. We can't do anything to erase the fact that so far we've suffered 4,084 deaths and another 29,000 wounded. However, we can greatly limit additional casualties. It doesn't do the families involved any good to hear that the number of our casualties are relatively very low compared with previous wars. In addressing the costs for a war like this one, where Iraq is no threat at all to the U. S., it is not compelling for war supporters to claim that the costs we're incurring are small in relation to our national GDP.
Moving to end the war and planning bring at least most of our troops home by the end of 2009, as opposed to 2012, thereby limiting our costs and casualties, and clearly encouraging the Iraqis to do what's necessary for them on a reasonable timeframe to get prepared, is clearly the preferred option. The prospects for the success of implementing this option can be greatly enhanced by effective dialogue, coordination and requests for non-military support with our allies, other countries in the Middle East, and with influential major countries like Russia, China and India.
I published two postings on the Iraq War last September primarily expressing strong concerns with the cost in national treasure and mounting casualties, the fact that the U. S. was bearing far too high a burden, compared especially to other countries in the region who also had a strong strategic interest in the outcome. I also expressed the view that we needed to move to a better balance between investing in foreign affairs and investing in, and meeting serious needs, domestically. I mentioned particularly the needs for public infrastructure, healthcare, and mending Social Security and Medicare.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, has indicated he will essentially continue President Bush's policies, pursue "victory," and bring most of our 155,000 troops there now home by January 2013, the end of his first term if he wins the election. The presumptive Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama,
has said he wants to end the war much sooner and bring most of our troops home by the end of December 2009, near the end of his first year in office, if he wins the election.
Supporters of each candidate to a large extent think their candidate's views are obviously entirely correct and that the views of the opponent in the election are obviously wrong. It's not that simple. There are positives (benefits) and negatives (risks) for both points of view. Selecting the goals and policies to be pursued and implemented on this subject should be a matter of pragmatically and objectively weighing the positives and negatives and choosing the goals and policies that are in the best interest of America and our citizens. It should not be a partisan Republican or Democratic issue.
I favor Senator Obama's approach, even though it entails some material material risks. One of these is that conditions on the ground in Iraq may not be stable enough for the Iraqi government and military and police forces to satisfactorily cope with insurgents and potential interference from Iran and other countries in the region. A related risk is that international terrorists led by Al Qaeda will use our troop withdrawals as a sign of U. S. weakness and defeat and as a tool to recruit more terrorists. There is also the highly emotional potential issue of American soldiers "having sacrificed and died in vain" if we withdraw troops before a clear "victory" has been achieved.
However, I'm not persuaded that these potential negatives and risks outweigh the benefits of Obama's approach, assuming that it's prudently implemented. First,
there are many reliable signs that there has been material progress in curbing violence over the past year, beating down Al Qaeda's activities in Iraq, and the ability of Iraqi forces to increasingly take over a larger share of combat requirements. Second, with an Obama victory in November, the Iraqi government would have a much stronger picture of what they need to do to further political progress and they will have at least an entire year to do what's needed. The same with the military and police forces. To support them, I would expect that, even with Senator Obama as President, we will still have a small force of military trainers and advisors available in Iraq and the region. Third, our costs of this war, and needs domestically, are too high to ignore.
As a reminder, the direct costs are reportedly running at a minimum of $12 billion each and every month or $144 billion each year, excluding the effect of inflation. Indirect costs, such as health care and disability payments for veterans, rebuilding our military hardware and support facilities, and interest on the national debt for monies borrowed, add many billions more each month. Then there are the immeasurable costs of our military casualties. We can't do anything to erase the fact that so far we've suffered 4,084 deaths and another 29,000 wounded. However, we can greatly limit additional casualties. It doesn't do the families involved any good to hear that the number of our casualties are relatively very low compared with previous wars. In addressing the costs for a war like this one, where Iraq is no threat at all to the U. S., it is not compelling for war supporters to claim that the costs we're incurring are small in relation to our national GDP.
Moving to end the war and planning bring at least most of our troops home by the end of 2009, as opposed to 2012, thereby limiting our costs and casualties, and clearly encouraging the Iraqis to do what's necessary for them on a reasonable timeframe to get prepared, is clearly the preferred option. The prospects for the success of implementing this option can be greatly enhanced by effective dialogue, coordination and requests for non-military support with our allies, other countries in the Middle East, and with influential major countries like Russia, China and India.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
U. S. Foreign Policy - Rest of 2008 and Beyond
Foreign policy is always very important for us, but it is especially so at the current time and the foreseeable future. It's important because indirectly or directly it affects our national security, relationships with other countries, our economy, our financial markets, the country's treasury and our national debt, the taxes we pay, and even our standards of living. It's also important because as the world's largest economy and, for the time being at least, the only real superpower, what we do affects virtually every other country in one way or another.
Given events over the last several years and where we are today, it's extremely clear that both President Bush, and the nominee who wins the presidential election in November, have and will have their hands full of critical foreign policy issues to manage. How well these are managed will have a great impact on the nation and our citizens. Voters and taxpayers better pay attention! But, based on past performance, we know that a sizable and embarrassing minority of Americans will probably not pay much attention and they will likely not even vote. They will simply pay their taxes and complain that our government is not doing the right thing, not providing enough services for them, and/or that their taxes are too high.
Most Americans over the age of 15 or 16 probably know that our biggest foreign policy issue over the shorter term directly or indirectly involves national security, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the global war on terrorists, our concerns with Iran, North Korea, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and our relationships with the two emerging superpowers, Russia and China. Over the longer term, aside from overall national security, major foreign policy issues for us, in my view, include international trade cooperation, the roles of the United Nations and NATO, energy independence, and policies to deal effectively with global warming on a world-wide scale.
President Bush, with only about seven more months in office, and despite low public opinion polls, can be expected to continue his current policies, trying to do what he believes is best for the country, and best for his presidential legacy. Foremost for him is probably achieving favorable results in stabilizing Iraq as much as possible and not having us experience any more terrorist attacks in this country. Our three major presidential candidates, Senators McCain, Clinton and Obama, are, understandably, primarily trying to get nominated at their respective conventions and winning the election in November.
How the majority of Americans feel about continuing the Bush Administration's policies and strategies with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan will definitely be a key factor in the outcome of the November election. My strong guess is that this will favor the Democratic nominee. It is also certain that, more so than in most previous presidential elections in recent years, the selection of the best running mate to serve as Vice President and the selection of their choice to serve as Secretary of State, managing foreign policies, will be of critical importance to each of the three candidates. The candidates' choice of their Vice President running mate will be known before the election. It is unfortunate that the name of their choice for Secretary of State is typically not known at that time.
Given events over the last several years and where we are today, it's extremely clear that both President Bush, and the nominee who wins the presidential election in November, have and will have their hands full of critical foreign policy issues to manage. How well these are managed will have a great impact on the nation and our citizens. Voters and taxpayers better pay attention! But, based on past performance, we know that a sizable and embarrassing minority of Americans will probably not pay much attention and they will likely not even vote. They will simply pay their taxes and complain that our government is not doing the right thing, not providing enough services for them, and/or that their taxes are too high.
Most Americans over the age of 15 or 16 probably know that our biggest foreign policy issue over the shorter term directly or indirectly involves national security, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the global war on terrorists, our concerns with Iran, North Korea, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and our relationships with the two emerging superpowers, Russia and China. Over the longer term, aside from overall national security, major foreign policy issues for us, in my view, include international trade cooperation, the roles of the United Nations and NATO, energy independence, and policies to deal effectively with global warming on a world-wide scale.
President Bush, with only about seven more months in office, and despite low public opinion polls, can be expected to continue his current policies, trying to do what he believes is best for the country, and best for his presidential legacy. Foremost for him is probably achieving favorable results in stabilizing Iraq as much as possible and not having us experience any more terrorist attacks in this country. Our three major presidential candidates, Senators McCain, Clinton and Obama, are, understandably, primarily trying to get nominated at their respective conventions and winning the election in November.
How the majority of Americans feel about continuing the Bush Administration's policies and strategies with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan will definitely be a key factor in the outcome of the November election. My strong guess is that this will favor the Democratic nominee. It is also certain that, more so than in most previous presidential elections in recent years, the selection of the best running mate to serve as Vice President and the selection of their choice to serve as Secretary of State, managing foreign policies, will be of critical importance to each of the three candidates. The candidates' choice of their Vice President running mate will be known before the election. It is unfortunate that the name of their choice for Secretary of State is typically not known at that time.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
U. S. Mexico Border Fence
As a key tool to contain illegal immigration, drug trafficking and also to reduce risks of prospective terrorists arriving in this country, a reinforced fence along our 1,952 mile southern border has been proposed for several years. A specific plan was formally proposed by its principal backer, U. S. Representative Duncan Hunter from San Diego, then Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, in November 2005. Eventually Congress passed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 which was signed into law by President Bush in October 2006.
Despite strong opposition from environmentalists and three Native American tribes whose lands would be divided by the fence, among others, construction of the fence is continuing and recent waivers of various federal environmental laws and regulations have put construction relatively back on track. The Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Michael Chertoff now expects to complete construction of a total of 670 miles by the end of this year.
A public opinion poll by widely respected Rasmussen Reports released in August 2007 indicated that 56% of Americans favored the fence and 31% did not. The remaining 13% apparently were neutral on the subject. Not surprisingly, 75% of Republicans reportedly supported the fence. I didn't see a figure for Democrats, but presumably they were more evenly divided.
As I indicated in a previous posting on illegal immigration, I have long opposed the fence plan, principally because to a great degree it's a waste of the taxpayers' money that can be better spent on other needs. I think the ultimate costs will far outweigh the benefits, though I also have some lesser concerns with the environmental and Native American issues.
Not long ago Secretary Chertoff estimated the construction cost at $4 -8 billion. However, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, whose study was made public in December 2006, the estimated cost of the expected 25 year life of the fence would be as much as $49 billion, and that excludes the cost of acquiring the necessary land from private landowners! Supporting my concerns with the costs, actual per mile construction costs have uniformly far exceeded pre-construction estimates, as is very common with most government projects and programs.
Aside from the substantial costs involved, there is a serious issue with how effective a fence, even a high reinforced fence, will be. Think of all the tunnels dug across the border over the past many years, through which thousands of illegals and drug traffickers have come.
Illegals will find a way to come across the border, no matter the risks and obstacles, as long as they can't find any decent jobs in Mexico and they can earn many times more with low level jobs here. Prospective terrorists will not be materially impeded by a southern border fence either. They will try to enter the country from Canada or through our airports and ports, especially the latter because of much greater controls and vigilance at our airports.
That said, it is unrealistic that the fence construction project at this point will be either reversed or stopped, at least through the rest of this year. All opponents of the project can realistically hope for is that, following our November election, the new Administration will revisit the project and minimize marginally needed new construction for the rest of the unbuilt miles, be prudent in further spending, and implement new strategies and practices to deal more effectively with our legitimate national security and priority immigration issues.
In terms of national security, this includes strategies to improve cooperative relationships with Russia, China and India, as well as our traditional European and other Asian allies. Russia and China are especially important because of their significant political and commercial influence in Africa, the Middle East and other parts of southern Asia where al Qaeda and many other terrorists are based, operate and are funded. This influence importantly includes Iran, which has the potential to be very important in helping us stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan.
In terms of illegal immigration, this includes, as recommended in the earlier posting, a new serious and frank dialogue involving carrots and sticks with the Mexican government on how to work together to greatly curtail the flow of illegals. It also includes, among others, more effective steps to finally secure our border, a viable, well-controlled guest worker program, and stronger enforcement measures against U. S. employers knowingly hiring illegals.
Despite strong opposition from environmentalists and three Native American tribes whose lands would be divided by the fence, among others, construction of the fence is continuing and recent waivers of various federal environmental laws and regulations have put construction relatively back on track. The Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Michael Chertoff now expects to complete construction of a total of 670 miles by the end of this year.
A public opinion poll by widely respected Rasmussen Reports released in August 2007 indicated that 56% of Americans favored the fence and 31% did not. The remaining 13% apparently were neutral on the subject. Not surprisingly, 75% of Republicans reportedly supported the fence. I didn't see a figure for Democrats, but presumably they were more evenly divided.
As I indicated in a previous posting on illegal immigration, I have long opposed the fence plan, principally because to a great degree it's a waste of the taxpayers' money that can be better spent on other needs. I think the ultimate costs will far outweigh the benefits, though I also have some lesser concerns with the environmental and Native American issues.
Not long ago Secretary Chertoff estimated the construction cost at $4 -8 billion. However, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, whose study was made public in December 2006, the estimated cost of the expected 25 year life of the fence would be as much as $49 billion, and that excludes the cost of acquiring the necessary land from private landowners! Supporting my concerns with the costs, actual per mile construction costs have uniformly far exceeded pre-construction estimates, as is very common with most government projects and programs.
Aside from the substantial costs involved, there is a serious issue with how effective a fence, even a high reinforced fence, will be. Think of all the tunnels dug across the border over the past many years, through which thousands of illegals and drug traffickers have come.
Illegals will find a way to come across the border, no matter the risks and obstacles, as long as they can't find any decent jobs in Mexico and they can earn many times more with low level jobs here. Prospective terrorists will not be materially impeded by a southern border fence either. They will try to enter the country from Canada or through our airports and ports, especially the latter because of much greater controls and vigilance at our airports.
That said, it is unrealistic that the fence construction project at this point will be either reversed or stopped, at least through the rest of this year. All opponents of the project can realistically hope for is that, following our November election, the new Administration will revisit the project and minimize marginally needed new construction for the rest of the unbuilt miles, be prudent in further spending, and implement new strategies and practices to deal more effectively with our legitimate national security and priority immigration issues.
In terms of national security, this includes strategies to improve cooperative relationships with Russia, China and India, as well as our traditional European and other Asian allies. Russia and China are especially important because of their significant political and commercial influence in Africa, the Middle East and other parts of southern Asia where al Qaeda and many other terrorists are based, operate and are funded. This influence importantly includes Iran, which has the potential to be very important in helping us stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan.
In terms of illegal immigration, this includes, as recommended in the earlier posting, a new serious and frank dialogue involving carrots and sticks with the Mexican government on how to work together to greatly curtail the flow of illegals. It also includes, among others, more effective steps to finally secure our border, a viable, well-controlled guest worker program, and stronger enforcement measures against U. S. employers knowingly hiring illegals.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Columbian Incursion Into Ecuador
As widely reported in the media, Columbian government troops this past week-end crossed their border a mile or two into Ecuador without that country's advance permission, chasing a band of Columbian rebel members of the leftest Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC). The rebel leader, Raul Reyes, was killed. Although the Columbian government subsequently issued a formal apology to Ecuador's government, military forces of both Ecuador and Venezuela are being mobilized along their borders with Columbia and there is apparently serious talk of military conflicts, inflaming the entire region.
This matter is important to Americans because the U. S. has strong strategic interests in Latin America and is a major political and financial supporter of the Columbian government, in large part to help them control the huge drug trafficking and terrorist activities in Columbia of powerful groups like FARC. It's also important because the leftist, opportunistic, anti-American president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, is using this relatively minor incident to rail against "U. S. imperialism" and unnecessarily heightening political tensions through most of South America.
Of course, it would have been much preferable for the Columbian government to have consulted in advance with Ecuador and gotten the government's blessing for the incursion. There may or may not have been adequate time to do that. However, the mobilization by Ecuador and, especially, Venezuela, and the talk of potential military conflicts are clearly unwarranted and stupid. Venezuela was not involved in the incursion and Chavez, not surprisingly, is simply trying to take advantage of another opportunity to gain political influence at the expense of the U. S., similar to Iran's Ahmadinejad in Iraq and other countries in the Middle East.
That said, this incident reinforces my feelings, I believe shared by many others, that our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and understandable involvement with Israel in dealing with the problematic Palestinian situation, have led us to pay insufficient attention to our interests in Latin America. It is very unlikely there will be any meaningful foreign policy changes in the ten or so remaining months of the Bush Administration. However, our next President and Secretary of State should make a comprehensive fresh review of our relationships with our Latin American neighbors a foreign policy priority. With respect to Columbia, that review ought to include looking seriously at our strategy for dealing with drug traffickers and the seemingly unsustainable and unwarranted size of our financial support to the government and its armed forces.
This matter is important to Americans because the U. S. has strong strategic interests in Latin America and is a major political and financial supporter of the Columbian government, in large part to help them control the huge drug trafficking and terrorist activities in Columbia of powerful groups like FARC. It's also important because the leftist, opportunistic, anti-American president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, is using this relatively minor incident to rail against "U. S. imperialism" and unnecessarily heightening political tensions through most of South America.
Of course, it would have been much preferable for the Columbian government to have consulted in advance with Ecuador and gotten the government's blessing for the incursion. There may or may not have been adequate time to do that. However, the mobilization by Ecuador and, especially, Venezuela, and the talk of potential military conflicts are clearly unwarranted and stupid. Venezuela was not involved in the incursion and Chavez, not surprisingly, is simply trying to take advantage of another opportunity to gain political influence at the expense of the U. S., similar to Iran's Ahmadinejad in Iraq and other countries in the Middle East.
That said, this incident reinforces my feelings, I believe shared by many others, that our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and understandable involvement with Israel in dealing with the problematic Palestinian situation, have led us to pay insufficient attention to our interests in Latin America. It is very unlikely there will be any meaningful foreign policy changes in the ten or so remaining months of the Bush Administration. However, our next President and Secretary of State should make a comprehensive fresh review of our relationships with our Latin American neighbors a foreign policy priority. With respect to Columbia, that review ought to include looking seriously at our strategy for dealing with drug traffickers and the seemingly unsustainable and unwarranted size of our financial support to the government and its armed forces.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Happiness and Politics
The wealthy U. S. ranked only 23rd among nations of the world in terms of the degree of happiness of their people? Little Denmark ranked number one? What gives? What is to be learned?
The issue was brought to our attention recently, due primarily to a "60 Minutes" piece that aired this past Sunday. The ranking was from a University of Leicester in England study published last year, authored by a British psychologist, Adrian White. The study was based largely on data provided by an agency of the United Nations (UNESCO), the CIA, and the New Economics Foundation, among others, backed by over one hundred individual studies and the participation of roughly 80,000 people world-wide.
According to White, the concept of happiness, sometimes referred to as satisfaction with life, is currently a major area of research in economics and psychology. One of the main interesting conclusions of the study was that a nation's happiness seems to be closely associated with, firstly, the general health of its people, followed by their wealth, and, next, their access to a quality education. Also of interest, a recent BBC study found that 81% of the U. K. population thinks the government should focus more on making its people happier, than on making people wealthier. This is for them how politics directly enters the discussion.
Returning to the study rankings, Denmark was first, followed in order by Switzerland, Austria, Iceland, The Bahamas, Sweden, and Finland. Canada was 10th, Norway 19th, U. S. 23rd, U. K. 41st, Japan 90th and Russia 167th. Several African nations were among the lowest of all. Obviously, as one would expect, the well developed European countries generally did very well. However, as a Norwegian, it was noteworthy and surprising that Norway, a richer country with similar health care and a good education system was back so far, and Sweden, with a healthier population than Denmark, with similar health care and also a good education system was back in
6th.
Based on the study and the "60 Minutes" piece, Denmark was ranked first basically because their small 5.5 million population considered themselves quite content with the quality of their lives and had very little to worry about, despite their high average overall 50% income tax rate. Another significant factor brought out is that while people in general had high hopes with their lives, they had quite modest expectations and were therefore rarely disappointed. In addition, Danes generally are more interested in the quality of their life than in the amount of their income.
There are many compelling reasons why the Danes are quite content. There is little serious violence in Denmark, so people generally feel very safe. They typically don't worry much about losing their jobs, because the government pays them a high percentage of their relatively good salaries if they're not working. Their average work-week is just 37 hours, much less than in the U. S. There is universal health care and free education through college, even for retired seniors. Students are even paid to go to college and don't need to worry very much about student loans, although many students do have loans to pay for room and board, if they do not live at home. They have six weeks vacation versus our two or three weeks, plus quite a few days off for several holidays. Maternity and paternity leaves of absence are very generous. Day-care facilities are widely available and the cost is based on parental incomes. Social programs for needy seniors, though they vary around the country, are typically also generous. Their freedoms, liberties and civil rights are similar to ours.
What about the U. S.? As most of us know, our Declaration of Independence, authored primarily by Thomas Jefferson and adopted on July 4th, 1776, argued for "certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." So our Founding Fathers apparently had a serious interest in our happiness. While I have not seen any recent study on the subject, I'm fairly certain that a significant percentage of our 305 million Americans are generally quite content and reasonably happy. However, my guess is that a larger percentage of Americans, perhaps even a majority, are probably not.
An admittedly very limited piece of backing for this contention is that the most popular course this year at Harvard is a "Positive Psychology" class taught by Professor Tal Ben-Shakar. One of the big points he made in a recent interview is that 94% of U. S. college students are highly stressed, due in large part to concern about the high level of competition for grades and jobs, difficult to meet high expectations, common need to work while studying to support themselves, and high student loan levels upon graduation. In his class and outside lectures he teaches that a good predictor of well-being and happiness is having realistic expectations and good personal, especially family, relationships. Furthermore, he says, happy people function better and tend to live longer. Hard to argue with most of this.
What can we learn from this and what role, if any, should the government play? It seems to me individuals, employers, as well as our government representatives should think seriously about all this and decide if meaningful changes would be appropriate and beneficial. As individuals, we owe it to ourselves and our families to invest some time and effort to figure out if we should make any lifestyle, education or career changes to improve our well-being and happiness, for example. Perhaps it would be changing our diet and exercise habits, negotiating with one's employer to work one day a week from home, prioritizing more quality time with family on week-ends, or taking some courses to improve better job prospects. In other words, what can we do ourselves to make our families more happy and content, without counting on help from employers or the government?
Employers, for example, might decide they can improve productivity and ability to hire and retain better quality employees by reviewing benefit packages and consider instituting an improved 401(k) program or a convenient day-care facility if they have employees with young children.
Government representatives may decide that there is nothing appropriate and beneficial for them to do, as long as the majority of people don't want to pay higher taxes. However, it is quite likely that there are, in fact, things they can do without necessarily raising taxes or spending more money, though those steps should not necessarily automatically be excluded, especially the latter. I'm thinking particularly of how our armed forces personnel are treated. Could we, for example, not do a better job of providing long-term care for injured combat veterans and better attention to the needs of their immediate families to improve their lives and thereby raise their degree of happiness and contentment? At least as our economy improves and our national security and defense needs make it more affordable, can not government either lower taxes, upgrade our worn down infrastructure facilities, and/or take steps to put Social Security and Medicare, for example, on a stronger financial footing?
All these types of efforts by individuals, employers, and our politicians, properly executed, should certainly serve to lessen the level of stress a great many Americans are living with and raise virtually everyone's general contentment and overall happiness. I can't imagine our Founding Fathers disagreeing with this. Can you? Let's pursue it!
The issue was brought to our attention recently, due primarily to a "60 Minutes" piece that aired this past Sunday. The ranking was from a University of Leicester in England study published last year, authored by a British psychologist, Adrian White. The study was based largely on data provided by an agency of the United Nations (UNESCO), the CIA, and the New Economics Foundation, among others, backed by over one hundred individual studies and the participation of roughly 80,000 people world-wide.
According to White, the concept of happiness, sometimes referred to as satisfaction with life, is currently a major area of research in economics and psychology. One of the main interesting conclusions of the study was that a nation's happiness seems to be closely associated with, firstly, the general health of its people, followed by their wealth, and, next, their access to a quality education. Also of interest, a recent BBC study found that 81% of the U. K. population thinks the government should focus more on making its people happier, than on making people wealthier. This is for them how politics directly enters the discussion.
Returning to the study rankings, Denmark was first, followed in order by Switzerland, Austria, Iceland, The Bahamas, Sweden, and Finland. Canada was 10th, Norway 19th, U. S. 23rd, U. K. 41st, Japan 90th and Russia 167th. Several African nations were among the lowest of all. Obviously, as one would expect, the well developed European countries generally did very well. However, as a Norwegian, it was noteworthy and surprising that Norway, a richer country with similar health care and a good education system was back so far, and Sweden, with a healthier population than Denmark, with similar health care and also a good education system was back in
6th.
Based on the study and the "60 Minutes" piece, Denmark was ranked first basically because their small 5.5 million population considered themselves quite content with the quality of their lives and had very little to worry about, despite their high average overall 50% income tax rate. Another significant factor brought out is that while people in general had high hopes with their lives, they had quite modest expectations and were therefore rarely disappointed. In addition, Danes generally are more interested in the quality of their life than in the amount of their income.
There are many compelling reasons why the Danes are quite content. There is little serious violence in Denmark, so people generally feel very safe. They typically don't worry much about losing their jobs, because the government pays them a high percentage of their relatively good salaries if they're not working. Their average work-week is just 37 hours, much less than in the U. S. There is universal health care and free education through college, even for retired seniors. Students are even paid to go to college and don't need to worry very much about student loans, although many students do have loans to pay for room and board, if they do not live at home. They have six weeks vacation versus our two or three weeks, plus quite a few days off for several holidays. Maternity and paternity leaves of absence are very generous. Day-care facilities are widely available and the cost is based on parental incomes. Social programs for needy seniors, though they vary around the country, are typically also generous. Their freedoms, liberties and civil rights are similar to ours.
What about the U. S.? As most of us know, our Declaration of Independence, authored primarily by Thomas Jefferson and adopted on July 4th, 1776, argued for "certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." So our Founding Fathers apparently had a serious interest in our happiness. While I have not seen any recent study on the subject, I'm fairly certain that a significant percentage of our 305 million Americans are generally quite content and reasonably happy. However, my guess is that a larger percentage of Americans, perhaps even a majority, are probably not.
An admittedly very limited piece of backing for this contention is that the most popular course this year at Harvard is a "Positive Psychology" class taught by Professor Tal Ben-Shakar. One of the big points he made in a recent interview is that 94% of U. S. college students are highly stressed, due in large part to concern about the high level of competition for grades and jobs, difficult to meet high expectations, common need to work while studying to support themselves, and high student loan levels upon graduation. In his class and outside lectures he teaches that a good predictor of well-being and happiness is having realistic expectations and good personal, especially family, relationships. Furthermore, he says, happy people function better and tend to live longer. Hard to argue with most of this.
What can we learn from this and what role, if any, should the government play? It seems to me individuals, employers, as well as our government representatives should think seriously about all this and decide if meaningful changes would be appropriate and beneficial. As individuals, we owe it to ourselves and our families to invest some time and effort to figure out if we should make any lifestyle, education or career changes to improve our well-being and happiness, for example. Perhaps it would be changing our diet and exercise habits, negotiating with one's employer to work one day a week from home, prioritizing more quality time with family on week-ends, or taking some courses to improve better job prospects. In other words, what can we do ourselves to make our families more happy and content, without counting on help from employers or the government?
Employers, for example, might decide they can improve productivity and ability to hire and retain better quality employees by reviewing benefit packages and consider instituting an improved 401(k) program or a convenient day-care facility if they have employees with young children.
Government representatives may decide that there is nothing appropriate and beneficial for them to do, as long as the majority of people don't want to pay higher taxes. However, it is quite likely that there are, in fact, things they can do without necessarily raising taxes or spending more money, though those steps should not necessarily automatically be excluded, especially the latter. I'm thinking particularly of how our armed forces personnel are treated. Could we, for example, not do a better job of providing long-term care for injured combat veterans and better attention to the needs of their immediate families to improve their lives and thereby raise their degree of happiness and contentment? At least as our economy improves and our national security and defense needs make it more affordable, can not government either lower taxes, upgrade our worn down infrastructure facilities, and/or take steps to put Social Security and Medicare, for example, on a stronger financial footing?
All these types of efforts by individuals, employers, and our politicians, properly executed, should certainly serve to lessen the level of stress a great many Americans are living with and raise virtually everyone's general contentment and overall happiness. I can't imagine our Founding Fathers disagreeing with this. Can you? Let's pursue it!
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Baseball and the U. S. Government - Why?
Why has the U. S. House of Representatives' very busy Committee on Oversight and Government Reform so far spent two days holding hearings on a Major League Baseball scandal? Why did Congress bless the decision of Commissioner Bud Selig to hire former U. S. Senator George Mitchell to prepare a report ("The Illegal Use of Steroids in Major League Baseball") of over 400 pages at a cost estimated at as much as $20 million? It's not easy to come up with a convincing and satisfactory answer.
The Committee, established way back in 1816, is the main investigative committee in the House. It's charged with investigating any federal program and any matter with federal policy implications. As one of the most influential and powerful committees in the House, its chairman, currently Democrat Henry Waxman from California, is the only committee chairman in the House who has the authority to issue subpoenas without a Committee vote.
The Committee has 5 sub-committees: Domestic Policy; Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia; Government Management, Organization, and Procurement; Information Policy, Census, and National Archives; and National Security and Foreign Affairs. None of them seem to cover baseball, sports in general or even entertainment. It's not obvious to me which sub-committee would have jurisdiction. Perhaps it's Domestic Policy. In recent years the Committee has held hearings on such other issues as Administration contracts entered into for reconstruction and development in Iraq involving tens of billions; allegations of fraud, waste and abuse at the new U. S., Embassy in Iraq; and the financial risks of building new coal-fired power plants without emissions controls for greenhouse gases.
The answers to the two questions in the first paragraph don't seem at all compelling to me, but one apparent answer is because baseball is considered the "national sport", baseball is a multi-billion dollar industry, there are tens of millions of serious baseball fans in the country interested in the scandal; and, finally, a great many politicians are not good at setting legititmate priorities. The second answer, as I understand it, relates directly to national anti-trust legislation.
Any business that operates across state borders and therefore participates in interstate commerce, like baseball, is subject to antitrust legislation covered in the historically important Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act of 1914. For reasons associated with the above answer, baseball has been exempt from the anti-trust laws since 1922, when the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in its favor in the case of a Baltimore baseball club and National Baseball Clubs, representing the owners of all the professional baseball teams at the time. By virtue of the exemption, plus decades of reluctance by various courts to overrule, baseball is the only sport or other business that has an exemption to the extent that it does.
Nevertheless, I submit that the Committee can find much better things to do with the taxpayers' representatives and money. One more logical reform they could spend time on and implement quickly would be to reduce the number of members on the Committee, currently totaling 41 (23 Democrats and 18 Republicans). How about prioritizing a smaller number of more important investigative issues and dealing with these with,
for example, a Committee limited to the 20 most experienced and productive members and a budget 50% smaller?
The Committee, established way back in 1816, is the main investigative committee in the House. It's charged with investigating any federal program and any matter with federal policy implications. As one of the most influential and powerful committees in the House, its chairman, currently Democrat Henry Waxman from California, is the only committee chairman in the House who has the authority to issue subpoenas without a Committee vote.
The Committee has 5 sub-committees: Domestic Policy; Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia; Government Management, Organization, and Procurement; Information Policy, Census, and National Archives; and National Security and Foreign Affairs. None of them seem to cover baseball, sports in general or even entertainment. It's not obvious to me which sub-committee would have jurisdiction. Perhaps it's Domestic Policy. In recent years the Committee has held hearings on such other issues as Administration contracts entered into for reconstruction and development in Iraq involving tens of billions; allegations of fraud, waste and abuse at the new U. S., Embassy in Iraq; and the financial risks of building new coal-fired power plants without emissions controls for greenhouse gases.
The answers to the two questions in the first paragraph don't seem at all compelling to me, but one apparent answer is because baseball is considered the "national sport", baseball is a multi-billion dollar industry, there are tens of millions of serious baseball fans in the country interested in the scandal; and, finally, a great many politicians are not good at setting legititmate priorities. The second answer, as I understand it, relates directly to national anti-trust legislation.
Any business that operates across state borders and therefore participates in interstate commerce, like baseball, is subject to antitrust legislation covered in the historically important Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act of 1914. For reasons associated with the above answer, baseball has been exempt from the anti-trust laws since 1922, when the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in its favor in the case of a Baltimore baseball club and National Baseball Clubs, representing the owners of all the professional baseball teams at the time. By virtue of the exemption, plus decades of reluctance by various courts to overrule, baseball is the only sport or other business that has an exemption to the extent that it does.
Nevertheless, I submit that the Committee can find much better things to do with the taxpayers' representatives and money. One more logical reform they could spend time on and implement quickly would be to reduce the number of members on the Committee, currently totaling 41 (23 Democrats and 18 Republicans). How about prioritizing a smaller number of more important investigative issues and dealing with these with,
for example, a Committee limited to the 20 most experienced and productive members and a budget 50% smaller?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)