It is perfectly true, as everyone observed at the time, that the Yalta rules were abrogated in 1989 and that the game between the United States and (as of 1991) Russia had changed radically. The major problem since then is that the United States misunderstood the new rules of the game. It proclaimed itself, and was proclaimed by many others, the lone superpower. In terms of chess rules, this was interpreted to mean that the United States was free to move about the chessboard as it saw fit, and in particular to transfer former Soviet pawns to its sphere of influence. Under Clinton , and even more spectacularly under George W. Bush, the United States proceeded to play the game this way.

There was only one problem with this: The United States was not the lone superpower; it was no longer even a superpower at all. The end of the Cold War meant that the United States had been demoted from being one of two superpowers to being one strong state in a truly multilateral distribution of real power in the interstate system. Many large countries were now able to play their own chess games without clearing their moves with one of the two erstwhile superpowers. And they began to do so.

A laptop containing the unencrypted security data for 33,000 travelers using the Clear system was stolen at San Francisco International Airport on July 26, according to CBS5 Television. The Clear system allows travelers who register and pay a $100.00 annual fee to speed through airport security by using a smart card at special kiosks in some airports.

As commenter “BWJones” put it:

To have a company intimately involved with *security* not apparently able to manage their own security in a manner that protects the country and their customers is a joke. Fine… having a laptop stolen is common enough and I don’t fault them, but having unencrypted data of 33,000 of your customers on that laptop is a crime.

Now, over 50 years later, some guy in China has gone and done it! I hope he’s thought through these issues, among other hazards.

McCain’s top-down approach:

1. If you give generous tax breaks to the rich, they will have greater incentive to work hard and invest. . .
2. If you give generous tax breaks to corporations, reduce their payroll costs, and impose fewer regulations on them, they will compete more successfully in global commerce. . . .
3. The best way to reduce the energy costs of average Americans is to give oil companies access to more land on which to drill, lower taxes, and lower capital costs. . . .
4. The best way to deal with the crisis in credit markets is to insure large Wall Street investment banks, as well as Fannie and Freddie, against losses. . . .

All of these propositions are highly questionable, especially in a global economy.

And now the bottom up philosophy of Obama:

Recent Posts

* A Second Stimulus: Much Bigger Than the First, and…
* A Modest Proposal for Ending Socialized Capitalism…
* The End of the Great Moderation, the Bailouts of F…
* Setting the Record Straight on Playground Bullies
* Phil Gramm’s Upcoming Ambassadorship to Belarus
* Fannie, Freddie, and the Pending Taxpayer Bailout
* Why Most Who Lose Their Jobs Don’t Get Unemploymen…
* McCain’s Budget Whopper
* The Terrible Jobs Report
* The Wage Gap is being Fueled by the Gas Gap

Powered by Blogger
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
A Short Primer on McCainomics Versus Obamanomics: Top-Down or Bottom-Up

McCain and Obama represent two fundamentally different economic philosophies. McCain’s is top-down economics; Obama’s is bottom-up.

Top-down economics holds that:

1. If you give generous tax breaks to the rich, they will have greater incentive to work hard and invest. Their harder work and added investments will generate more jobs and faster economic growth, to the benefit of average working people.

2. If you give generous tax breaks to corporations, reduce their payroll costs, and impose fewer regulations on them, they will compete more successfully in global commerce. This too will result in more jobs for Americans and faster growth in the United States.

3. The best way to reduce the energy costs of average Americans is to give oil companies access to more land on which to drill, lower taxes, and lower capital costs. If they get these, they’ll supply more oil, which will reduce oil prices.

4. The best way to deal with the crisis in credit markets is to insure large Wall Street investment banks, as well as Fannie and Freddie, against losses. This will result in more loans at lower rates to average Americans. (Bailing them out may risk “moral hazard,” in the sense that they will expect to be bailed out in the future, but that’s a small price to pay for restoring liquidity.)

All of these propositions are highly questionable, especially in a global economy. The rich do not necessarily invest additional post-tax earnings in the United States; they invest wherever around the world they can get the highest returns. Meanwhile, large American-based corporations are doing business all over the world; their supply chains extend to wherever they can find low labor costs combined with high output, and their sales to wherever they can find willing buyers. Oil companies, too, are operating globally and set their prices largely at the point where global supply meets global demand. Additional drilling here creates environmental risks for us but generates the same marginal benefits for consumers in China, India, and Europe as we might enjoy (most likely not for a decade or more). Credit markets are global as well, so the beneficiaries of bailouts of large investment banks and lenders are also worldwide while the potential costs (including moral hazard) fall on American taxpayers.

This isn’t to argue that top-down economics is completely nonsensical. America is, after all, the world’s largest economy. So whatever helps the top of it will to some extent trickle down to everyone else here, and whatever hurts the top is likely to impose some burdens all the way down.

But in a global economy, bottom-up economics makes more sense. Bottom-up economics holds that:

1. The growth of the American economy depends largely on the productivity of its workers. . . .
2. The productivity of America workers depends mainly on their education, their health, and the infrastructure that connects them together. . . .
3. Global capital will come to the United States to create good jobs not because our taxes or wages or regulatory costs are low . . but because the productivity of our workers is high.
4. The answer to our energy costs is found in the creativity and inventiveness of Americans in generating non-oil and non-carbon fuels and new means of energy conservation, rather than in access by global oil companies to more oil. . . .
5. Finally, in order to avoid a recession or worse, it’s necessary to improve the financial security of average Americans who are now sinking into a quagmire of debt and foreclosure. . . .

He’s also been keeping track of the Chinese government’s messing with the internet, the technology of which he is far more familiar with than most users with his range of interests. In recent weeks he’s been passing along accounts of the obvious ham-handedness of government security organs’ in their attempts to disguise their blocking efforts while seeming to meet the internet-related expectations of the visitors expected for the events. Today he passes along some suggestions from an ethnic Chinese person who is now a naturalized Western citizen:

The bottom line is, there is less than 4 weeks left before the games open. The only thing that there is time to “fix” is to create the best possible public relations and security SWAT team for the games when incidents occur (if it doesn’t, great, but lets be prepared).

The SWAT team can also go about undoing some of the damage caused — like by denying visas to the TV crew you mentioned — in the mean time.

Here is the catch: In order for the team to be any good, they would have to be made up of people who mentally understand the West and is able to constructively, credibly engage with international media. I have no doubt that if China were to politely asked for international volunteers, they would get them to work for this event for free if there is some assurance that their advice would be, a) given at a sufficiently high level to make a real difference, b) listened to and acted on.

To date, I am not aware of China making such a request nor do I see any awareness in Beijing that they are “over their heads” with the challenge they face in 4 weeks.

China needs help from some highly skilled, experienced, foreign friends fast.

Taliban groups and other extremist warlords now threaten Peshawar from three sides. Should they take over Peshawar, the rest of the North West Frontier Province could follow, leaving Islamic extremists in control of a region that borders Afghanistan and sits astride one of the main supply routes to U.S. and coalition troops there.

The strategic disasters initiated by the Bush-Cheney cabal continue to unfold.

What follows is a brief explanation of what the controversy regarding the FISA Modification Bill is all about.

• The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted in 1978 to rein in the various elements of the intelligence community following the revelations of the Senate committee led by the late Senator Frank Church. The committee hearings had exposed rampant violations of Americans’ civil liberties that had been going on for decades.
• Beginning in 2005 the Bush-Cheney administration, with a troubling level of acquiescence on the part of the Congressional Democratic leadership, pushed through several modifications to FISA. So far they have been unable to overcome the push-back from Constitutionalists against their most egregious attempts to erode civil liberties and to immunize themselves from being called to account for their past misdeeds.
• There is compelling, indirect evidence suggesting that the Bush administration surreptitiously but massively violated the terms of FISA as then in effect in the wake of 9/11, and very likely even before. These violations are believed to include huge data mining operations conducted by the NSA on most or all communications of American citizens, in direct violation of the minimization provisions of FISA.
• The “compromise” FISA Modification Act that passed by the House Friday, June 20, was negotiated in secret between the Congressional Democratic leadership and the White House, and formally introduced in t he House only about 24 hours before the vote. Thus there was no time for meaningful debate.
• This is a flagrant breaking of the promise made by then minority leader Nancy Pelosi in January, 2006 to stop such behavior, which was routine during the twelve years of the GOP House majority control, if she became Speaker.
• A similar attempt is being made to push the bill through the Senate in an equally hasty manner this week.
• The FISA Modification “compromise” in effect guts the Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure of American citizens with regard to any form of electronic telecommunication.
• The “compromise” is vehemently opposed by the progressives on the left, as well as the remaining Constitutionalists on the right. Most but not all such people have severed their relationships with what has become of the Republican Party. Among the most vocal of them are: John Dean; Kevin Phillips; Paul Craig Roberts; Bruce Fein; Rep. Ron Paul; and former Rep. Bob Barr, who was recently nominated to be the Libertarian Party’s candidate for President.
• The administration’s primary “must have” provision in the negotiations is the so-called “Telecom Immunity” clause that prevents the carriers from being sued by private parties for complicity in civil rights violations during government surveillance.
• In reality the Telecoms almost certainly don’t need immunity. Lawyers who’ve had extensive experience dealing with that industry dismiss as laughable the suggestion that sophisticated companies like AT&Ts and Verizons would enter into contracts of this type with the government that did not include ironclad, blanket indemnity provisions.
• The real purpose of the Telecom immunity clause is to prevent the rampant FISA violations that took place earlier this decade from ever seeing the light of day. In view of the fact that the Justice Department is now an utter captive of the GOP White House political operatives, private litigation is the only remaining avenue through which the misdeeds might be exposed.
• It is believed that Congressional Democratic Party leaders, several of whom were among the so-called “gang of four” and “gang of eight” who were responsible for intelligence community oversight, have conspired with the White House on this bill because they, too, don’t want their meek acquiescence to the wide-spread Constitutional violations exposed.
• The “compromise” FISA Modification bill, if enacted, will set an ominous precedent for future presidents of whatever party, saying in effect that it’s OK to blatantly violate the law and subsequently pass legislation to cover it up.
• There’s still time to stop this! Contact your US Senators. Both Klobuchar and Coleman. Emphasize the danger these precedents set for any future president.
• Contact Senator Barack Obama! Join the thousands who just since this past Friday have pleaded with him to step forward and take the lead on this critical Constitutional issue. After all, he claims this branch of the law his specialty!

For more information here are some links:

Keith Olberman’s interview of Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley provides a succinct video of the issues at stake.

Marcy Wheeler’s blog post entitled “The FISA Bill”, dated Thursday, June 19, hits the highlights in her clear prose.

For more background information and ongoing coverage:

Marcy Wheeler’s blog (She covers a range of Bush-Cheney malfeasance besides FISA, especially revelations related to Valerie Plame Wilson)

Glenn Greenwald’s blog at Salon, which addresses a variety of issues, most of which relate to his background as a Constitutional lawyer.

Update - The Olberman/Turley interview link, above, has been updated to one that is still active. Also, Constitutional scholar Scott Horton has this to say at the Harpers Magazine website about the forthcoming Surveillance State.

Shock doesn’t begin to describe the effect on those who stay behind. Try anger, try a sense of loss that, contrary to greeting-card drivel, never fades until, I expect, one’s own final collapse. Russert wasn’t family, but it’s fair to say, as the casket-lidded lines at the end of obituaries usually do, that his survivors include the 3 million viewers who tuned in every Sunday to watch “Meet the Press,” and even the procession of politicians who’ve been squirming their way through his show since 1991. . .

Respect for the man aside, there’s a matter of respecting journalism when assessing Russert’s place in the trade. That respect has been lacking in the almost universally fawning tributes to Russert and the craft he represented. . . .

The truth is that on any night of the week Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” does more in a two-minute segment to show in politicians’ own words how venal, dishonest, contradictory and just plain dense they can be than Russert did in his Sunday services. . .

I mourn his death. But I wish I could mourn the death of the journalism he represented. To the detriment of journalism and malinformed citizens, that parody lives on.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found aspects of the Military Commissions Act unconstitutional because it tried to limit the review of Article III Courts to mere review of whether the Administration had complied with its own procedures, and not a real review of the legality of the detention of men at Gitmo.

The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction not to inquire into the legality of the detention generally but only to assess whether the CSRT complied with the “standards and procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense” and whether those standards and procedures are lawful. [from Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion]

Yet this is precisely the kind of procedural review that the current FISA bill envisions. The “political branches” are attempting to limit court review of wiretaps on Americans to a procedural review in three ways:

* The Court can only certify that the current Attorney General has claimed the warrantless wiretap program was legal; it cannot assess the representations to the telecoms, nor review the legality of the underlying program.
* The Court can only approve the procedures planned in a given wiretap program, it cannot review whether the actual program is legal.
* The Court can only review proposed minimization procedures intended to protect US persons’ data; it cannot review whether the Administration is actually following its own minimization procedures.

The Courts’ role in protecting Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights is just as important a check on unrestrained executive power as its review of habeas corpus. After all, the Fourth Amendment, just like habeas corpus, is a foundational principle of this country designed to guard against the abuse of power familiar before our Forefathers revolted against the rule of Kings. As Justice Kennedy said, we cannot suspend these principles simply because the country faces a crisis.

Senator Obama, you are asking voters to choose you to become the President of the United States. You had to as Senator–and will as President–swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

You cannot remain silent on this issue and at the same time fulfill your promise, the one you have made, and the one you will make, to defend the Constitution.

Later today Senator Obama issued a statement in response to Marcy and the tens of thousands of others who have been bombarding his senatorial and campaign websites and offices with calls, faxes and emails pleading for leadership. Here is Marcy quotes the reply. Her “shorter version” of it goes as follows:

In case you couldn’t parse the three bolded sentences yourself, here’s my take on them.

1. I will make a showy effort in the Senate on Monday to get them to take out immunity. I will lose that effort 32-65. But hey! I can say I tried!
2. But don’t worry, little boys and girls, Inspectors General are an adequate replacement for our third co-equal branch of government!
3. Nice little bloggers! Aren’t you cute! After you demanded accountability we gave you piggy lipstick and fig leaves and told you it was time to move on while we important Senators told you–in polite terms–to fuck off.

]]> http://stridentcentrist.com/sc/archives/465/feed http://stridentcentrist.com/sc/archives/464 http://stridentcentrist.com/sc/archives/464#comments Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:48:11 +0000 Strident Centrist http://stridentcentrist.com/sc/?p=464 From The Globalist, under the title “A Leaderless Global Order”:

Usually in such circumstances [the internal political conflicts in Lebanon], the United States would have intervened by sending a prominent ambassador or the Secretary of State to conduct shuttle diplomacy — and resolve the conflict. But not this time.

Even if the United States had sought to address the crisis in Lebanon, it would have failed. As has been the case in recent years, the United States found itself aligned with one side — the government and Sunni Muslim leaders — and not on talking terms with the other side.

The “we talk only with those who agree with us” policy has disabled U.S. diplomacy. The world’s most powerful player is finding itself on the margins of peacemaking.

. . .

Qatar has shown that with the decline of the United States as a global pivot point and broker, regional players who enjoy the respect, trust and confidence of all parties can play the role of peacemakers in the absence of the superpower.

]]> http://stridentcentrist.com/sc/archives/464/feed