On the Contrary

This weekend’s round of Sunday talk shows was like a never ending recycling of the same old issues.  There is the health care muddle, the Afghanistan debate, the Iran nuclear program, cap and trade being watered down, and least I forget, Glenn Beck getting the key to some city in Washington that I never want to go to.  Banking reform is going nowhere with all the usual suspects.

On the President’s rethinking the Afghanistan war and a troop increase, there was Senator Kyle for Arizona saying what hawkish Republicans have been saying since time began.  We leave and the enemy will see this as a great weakness and they would fill the vacuum.  It will be our downfall.  It must really be comforting to have such a simple world view of every conflict where wagging our…..well you get the point.  What I find simply fascinating is there is no consideration of the cultural or historical record of this country or trying to understand this conflict in terms of what can really be accomplished with more blood and money.

On “60 Minutes”, there was a nice piece about General McChrystal and how dedicated he was to changing the way the war was fought.  He definitely is an admirable man, but that doesn’t make his approach any more appealing.  He is a fine general but this war is not about fighting, it is about minds and we still think like Western white men instead of Afghans (Note: after working on many projects in Afghanistan, Afghans are the people, Afghani is the currency).

I am sure his approach is the only way forward for “winning” the war, if we had 20 years and unlimited funds.  Or would that be 50 years?  Remember we have been there eight and things have gone from bad to worse. The real issue is can we afford it and is it really that high on our national priorities?  If we spent that money here at home making us a stronger economy, would that greatly increase the security of the average American?  I think it is time to quit being terrified of Al-Qaeda.  If the Afghans won’t fight the Taliban, let them live under them for a while and see how they like it.  Maybe it is a problem they have to work out for themselves.

Then there was the arrest of Roman Polanski in Switzerland for having sex with a minor fourteen years ago.  Note that the child, now an adult, wants the charges dropped, but since Polanski was convicted before he ran, apparently California authorities just can’t let it go.  Why do I say that?  This is a horrible crime.  Maybe, but California is broke.  They have a population in prison that is breaking the bank, and they release roughly 120,000 inmates a year.  Many of these are truly dangerous sex offenders that we now no longer have the resources to track and monitor.  So we spend our precious dollars to see that the letter of the law is followed, while we drain the resources from those who could prevent truly heinous crimes.  Sooner or later we need people in government who can prioritize societies needs, not pursue some personal quest at the expense of everyone else’s safety.

The level of stupidity and inaction is reaching intolerable levels, while those in Washington continue to have debates about issues that most of us moved beyond years ago.  Of course banks and Wall Street need to be regulated and the tougher, the better.  If it is too tough, adjust it later.  The evidence for global warming is not just abundant, it is accelerating at an exponential rate (the evidence and the global warming), and yet Washington does nothing except wrangle about protecting vested interests as though disaster is not on the horizon.  Our addiction to oil is being facilitated by low gas prices and yet we know the other shoe is going to drop.  If you don’t buy the global warming thing (you are moron), then look at the transfer of our wealth to the Middle East.  The answer is clean, green energy both for our addiction and for our economy, and yet we do nothing.  Then there is health care.  Oh why bother.  The answer is obvious.

What we seem to be really good at today is denial.  We now have a whole party whose total platform is a denial that that platform has bankrupted us.  If we have health care today that we think is fine, there is no pressure for change because we can’t seem to grasp that health care costs are out of control and today’s satisfaction is tomorrow’s sticker price shock.  Wall Street seems to be coming back so why fix anything?  I don’t see no stinking global warming, and cap and trade will hurt some of my biggest contributors.  Did it ever occur to anyone that we have become a country that can’t?

President Obama in his inauguration address told us what we all should know:  “But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.”

Apparently the message was lost on many who want an easy road forward.  They missed the whole point about this not being easy and even more important, they missed the point that the world has changed:  “What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works…”

What demonstrates this very clearly is the same old Republican obstructionism in their complaints about the economic stimulus plan.  They want to be in charge, they want to do the same stuff that brought us here and was rejected in the last election, and they think that if President Obama doesn’t roll over there is no bipartisanship.  But you expect no less from these low-life scoundrels.  Just keep reminding yourself who got us here and even though the bailout bill is not perfect (see The Economic Stimulus), it is a start.  But what is coming to the forefront is that we are not ready for the hard work, courage, and bold action necessary to bring about the change necessary to save us.  Here is my evidence:

• The Democrats are working way too hard to achieve bipartisanship agreement on the stimulus package when the compromises they make with the Republicans further waters it down and makes it less likely to succeed after passage.  The tax cuts in this bill are a bone thrown to the Republicans, but a big one of 37% of the total package.  They are inefficient for stimulating the economy and give us nothing for our money spent.  Democrats need to have the courage of their convictions and write a bill they think will really help (move the money to infrastructure).  As it is they are giving the Republicans a chance to water down their bill and then claim victory if it fails to stimulate the economy because it is too timid.
• When President Obama signed his executive order to close Guantanamo and to end torture, the cries went up that we would not be safe.  I have addressed this in detail in my blog (What Part of Get Rid of Guantanamo Don’t You Get), but to make long story short either we have values or we don’t.  Those who want to throw out the law so they can feel safe are moral cowards.  They don’t have the guts to stand by their values and except the consequences.  There is no other way to look at it.
• President Obama not only asked EPA to revisit allowing states to set their own greenhouse gas limits, but moved to raise the mileage standard by 2011.  Let the shrieking begin.  The auto industry, you know, those guys who have run themselves into the ground with poor decisions, starting shrieking how this would be their downfall supported by their paid for politicians.  This is just too much to bear in these hard times.  So when do you guys come into the 21st century and retool with a car we want?  When it was the good times you made the same argument.  Hard decisions don’t wait and those that can make this transition will be around for a while, and those that can’t wouldn’t be here anyway.  Just exactly what were they going to do with the bailout money, continue building their gas hogs?  The climate and our dependence on foreign oil won’t wait any longer.  What part of this don’t you get yet?  Recovery is a bitch isn’t it? (New York Times)
• Energy policy is producing some dissidents in the Democratic Party.  Republicans by definition are dissidents.  The argument is quite frankly who are the winners and who are the losers.  The mid-West, dependent on coal and manufacturing, wants a much more slow moving program that does not disrupt their economic life.  The West and East want, well, you have seen California’s approach to capping green house gases.  It would seem at first blush to be prudent to move carefully, but global warming and our dependence on foreign oil are not moving carefully.  Sooner or later we have to make hard decisions to move us away from our failed path and in those decisions some will be losers.  So far we have not shown the moral courage to face the hard consequences of hard decisions.  We are still addicted to the Republican free ride. (New York Times)

There will of course be more to come and the whining and shrieking will commence again, “It’s too hard, we can’t do it now, it hurts too much.”  So I will ask you all, if not now, when?  We already lost eight years.  Every day we lose is a day we lose.  It is now or never.  It is going to hurt and some apple carts are going to get over turned.  Isn’t that what President Obama said?  Where the hell is our courage?  Do I sense some gutless wonders out there hoping for gain without pain?  That is what we got from the Republicans with trickle down economics and it has been a disaster.  Didn’t you all say we were on the wrong path?  Where is your courage to face change?  What I see is a bunch of gutless wonders.

I got this interesting comment on one of my blogs the other day from Mr. Phil Henshaw:

“I kept my faith till today.   I think the “tea leaves” have just turned over to spell a clear sign that Barack’s “pragmatism” is growth “boosterism” and a dark omen…   Barack’s assertion that “there is no contradiction between the environment and growth” shows rather clearly that he’s decided to fake it, and go with the money.  He’ll never admit to a connection between multiplying money and the multiplying trade and consumption of resources it unavoidably produces. Collapsing ecologies will just have to be tolerated. Hell we don’t KNOW they won’t bounce back do we??”

Mr. Henshaw raises the most elementary and worrying element of capitalist growth:  We are using up the resources of the earth and as more and more nations strive for the “American way of life”, the growth required is not sustainable.  Here are a few facts to consider:

• Scientists think the ocean fisheries will totally collapse by mid century.  We have seen the collapse of salmon in California and the recently projected collapse of the Tuna industry from over fishing
• We are losing species at an alarming and increasing rate while we make the world uninhabitable for creatures that have shared the world with us for thousands of years
• Resources, and the big one water, are becoming more and more scare to be shared with fewer and fewer people.  Many have written that the conflicts of the future won’t be from Muslim nut cases, but from nations vying for ever decreasing resources
• Global Warming is here and will continue to increase its havoc on established weather patterns.  I don’t think there is any slow it down anymore

So the question becomes, if we can restore our economic house, are we not doing it at the ever increasing pace of destroying the world around us?  This is the question Mr. Henshaw raises and is really the ultimate challenge that we face.  Well that is not quite true.  The majority of us don’t even think about it.  Conservatives don’t care.  Business, in their mind, is the engine of life.  Everything must take a secondary role to a vibrant economy.  That is why they want economic considerations to outweigh environmental considerations in almost every political decision.  But what about the rest of us?  Have we really faced the reality of the impact of our lifestyle and that it is ultimately unsustainable?  I think when most of us are faced with the reality of limiting our consumption to solve the problem, we look the other way.

Probably the most important issue of our future, this issue is not being discussed at all.  What we have is population growth, consumption, and expanding economies that fuel consumption as the way forward.  We look with disdain at China and their attempts at population control, but we fail to see the connection between exponentially expanding population and our exponentially growing depletion of natural resources.  In this country we still think having a big family is somehow a good thing, and yet sneer at third world countries who do the same.  We know oil is going to run out and it is the canary in the mine for other resources.  So what should an economy look like that allows us a good standard of living and yet sustains our environment?

I don’t know the answer to that.  I do know that population growth has to be curbed.  I do know that those other creatures that are being crushed in our consumerism have the same gift of life as we do, and even more important, I don’t think we are sustainable without them.  I know that when I am in nature, I revel in it, and I know somehow we are all connected to it.  I know that we have to have this conversation, but I don’t think we are anywhere near ready to accept the reality of the sacrifices all of us are going to have to make.  Maybe in 2050 when the fisheries do collapse and there are real water shortages we will face this most difficult issue.  Right now all we can focus on is getting our piece of the American dream.  But the American dream is not sustainable for the whole world and sooner or later we have to face up to that reality.  Hope I am wrong, but if we continue on our present path, we are heading for a collapse of the ecosphere.  Thanks Mr. Henshaw.  Hope more think about this.

Congress will be considering a bill to allow offshore drilling this week and there is a lively debate going on about its merits.  We have seen the battle lines drawn and then we have seen the Democrats move the battle lines.  There was the chant at the Republican Convention of drill, baby, drill.  That was the anti-intellectual side of the argument of the Republicans on display.  There was no cost/benefit ratio considered.  What was on display was pure hatred for anything Democratic.   It was a poke in the eye aimed at Democrats, not any considered facet of the policy or honest intellectual disagreement of that policy.  It was a raw look at Republican faith in their conservative philosophy, the arrogance of their perceived superiority, and their distain for anything appearing to be intellectual reasoning.  But there have been some considered opinions on both sides, and they are worth looking at.

The first is “One if by Land, Billions if by Sea”, an op-ed piece in the New York Times by David Abraham who oversaw offshore drilling the White House from 2003-2005.  Mr. Abraham opines that the Republican Plan lead by John Boehner, the House Minority Leader, would give away federal resources to the states:

“Mr. Boehner’s proposed American Energy Act would, over the next decade, give nearly $40 billion from oil and gas royalties and leasing activity to coastal states that support drilling. And that would be just the beginning. After 2019, the federal government would transfer to coastal states 37.5 percent of all federal revenue from offshore oil and gas activity — at least $6 billion annually, based on current production alone. That’s nearly as much as the government spends on environmental-protection programs.”

In other words Mr. Abraham is concerned that the federal government would be giving way too much of its revenue to the states to spend any way they wanted, in effect having non-costal states that would lose this revenue in federal spending subsidizing these costal states that benefited from the drilling.  He wants the issue discussed on its own merits, not on buying votes with oil revenue profits.

The other piece is also appearing in the New York Times, “Save the Environment – Drill, Baby, Drill”, by Robert Hahn and Peter Passell (Robert Hahn is the director of the Reg-Markets Center at the American Enterprise Institute. Peter Passell is a senior fellow at the Milken Institute).  This analysis considers the cost/benefit analysis of drilling by using the income to fund environmental set-asides and offset environmental damage.  They note that the underlying anti-intellectual conclusion of the Republicans that it will help with gasoline prices is false, but then they look at the income and what it could fund, and conclude that it would be foolish not to drill for oil and use this revenue.

“For better or worse, “drill, baby, drill” is now widely viewed as the cure for what ails. Giving the public what it wants wouldn’t lower gas prices by any meaningful amount. But it would create an opportunity to move public opinion (and huge sums of cash) in the direction of good environmentalism and good economics.”

I find several big omissions in both of these discussions.  First and foremost is global warming.  Neither discusses the impact of continuing to burn fossil fuels on global warming and how this further dependence on oil will hinder/delay our development of alternate energy, which is the ultimate solution to this problem.  It is almost as if global warming doesn’t exist or there is no connection to the use of fossil fuels for energy and this massive threat to our environment.

Then there is the addiction issue.  If we continue to look at our problem as just getting more oil, we have done nothing to change our attitude about its use.  What has got our attention is the price of oil and gas so that we are looking for alternatives.  But even more important are the national security issues.  T. Boones Pickens has got this one right.  We are funding and making possible our greatest threats in the world, Iran, radical Muslim extremists, and let us not forget Russia.  When we consume 40% of the world’s oil and only have 3% of the worlds reserves, adding all of the reserve we can find in off shore drilling won’t change this equation in any significant manner.  So the  focus on more drilling is a focus on more consumption which simply exacerbates our national security problems.

Finally and related to addiction of oil use, is the addiction to the income from oil revenue.  Once states start to utilize oil as their principal source of revenue, thereby reducing the need for taxes for infrastructure improvements and other services like education, police and fire services, what do you think is going to happen when the oil starts to run out and citizens of those states have to pony up to pay for these services?  It will be drill, baby, drill, and it never ends.  Look at Alaska and Louisiana for examples.  Both are running surpluses in their state coffers and both totally dependent on oil income.  Once that addiction sets in, do we think they will want to show the sacrifice necessary to get us off oil to both radically improve our national security and deal with global warming?  Hell no.  Taxes are evil.  There is no shared burden in this mindset.

I think there is a middle ground, but the Republicans won’t think so.  Remember in politics money drives everything so the income going to the voters instead of enhancing our national security is the mantra of the conservatives.  But the answer is that we can allow drilling with the proper environmental controls (meaning expensive) and most of the revenue funding going to what is going to be an expensive national effort to move away from oil.  I would think that the only income to the states to benefit its citizens over all the citizens of the country would be to offset any cost or damage they might have to their state. Note that with oil and gas companies operating in their state, they are already reaping a benefit from the income produced and the state’s taxes on it.  Alaska comes to mind here.  This is the rational approach, but money is king and this will not happen unless we wake-up to the reality of what is happening to us by our own actions or lack thereof.  Thomas Friedman (“Hot, Flat, and Crowded”) describes an interesting analogy that may describe the path we are on right now.  When a man jumps out of a window on the 80th story of a building, for the first 79 stories he thinks he is flying.  It is when he reaches the 80th flight down that reality comes home to roast.  I think we are about 75 stories down already.

In my continuing attempt to answer the questions Anderson Cooper posed to Fareed Zakaria and David Gergen in his “Extreme Challenges, The Next Four Years”, today I would like to focus on the economy, energy, and global warming.  Big topic?  Actually they are all interrelated and you could throw in health care also but I already hit that one.  Here is what Fareed and David said on each topic:

Economy
Gergen:  “The big movement of our time is that the center of gravity in the world, geopolitically and to a large extent economically, is moving from the west to Asia.”
Zakaria:  “….can you take short-term pain for long-term gain?  Can we figure out where, if you look at all our problems, whether it’s dealing with health-care expenditures, dealing with fixing Social Security, dealing with energy, all of these are going to involve some kind of short term pain.”
Gergen:  “And the next president has got to sort of either take us up and get us to change what we’re doing or the country is in serious danger of going into a downhill slide.”

Energy/Global Warming
Gergen:  “This is another transcendent issue that—and it’s very hard to do, because it involves both having a comprehensive energy plan and program and also having something which helps to solve the environment at the same time.”
Zakaria:  “I think we can do a lot to put our house in order.  The problem is the planet doesn’t care where the carbon emissions come from.  And so we’ve got to figure out how to get other people’s houses in order, as well.”  “So whatever we do out here in the west, it doesn’t make any difference as long as India and China keep growing the way they are.”

Bottom line here is that they are tremendous challenges for the future President and no easy answers.  Sound a little different from what you are hearing from the candidates right now?  And a Zareed cautioned, “ We can’t keep getting dragged back into every small crisis and hell hole because a bomb goes off somewhere.  We’ve got to look ahead and ask how do we reshape this world and how do we help America thrive and succeed in it?”

My answer is very simple.  It will be the implementation that will be complex.  We need massive investment from our government in alternate energy.  We can’t close the door to anything, but the rule has to be that it not only gets us off our dependence on oil, but it is also carbon neutral.  Our economy will benefit if we become the leader in the world in providing alternate energy solutions.  It won’t happen by waiting on the marketplace and we will have to sacrifice under some taxes to pay for it.  We will have to look at every program we invest our tax dollars in and say what is the long-term gain.  How does this help our economy for the future?  Investing in alternative energy may develop a whole new industry that just might be the spark that lights a fire under our economy again.  Alternate energy gets us off imported oil and helps our balance of payments not to mention our security.  And it begins to address our global warming problem.  As an aside I think the Olympics in China will produce one positive outcome.  People will be appalled at the level of pollution and unhealthy air they have wrought burning carbon based fuels.

If you look at my earlier blog on health care you would see that it could be evaluated in the same light.  As Fareed pointed out, “… If you have a job in Michigan, it cost them, the company, $6500 in health care costs.  You move that job to Canada, because of Canada”s health care system, they only have to pay $800.”  My point is simply this.  They are all interrelated and you can’t fix one with fixing the other and they all have to be fixed.  The next President will have to lead the country in an entirely new direction and be willing to take big political risks to deal with these intractable problems.  What we need in this election cycle is to really pin the candidates down on these questions and not let the sound bite suffice.  Will our press do that?  Haven’t yet and we really need to know these answers about where they are going to take us.