Why Does Bush Lie? Becuase it is Convenient.

A huge problem with our Washington press corps? There are too concerned with the 'winger accusation of "liberal bias" to do their job, so they hide behind their stenography reporting. They won't call a Republican out, and will report spin as worthy and meaningful statements.

George Bush on why he lied to the country about Rumsfeld's tenure as Secretary of Defense before the election.

The only way to answer that question, and get it on to another question, was to
give you that answer.

In essence? I had to feed you something to get you to shut up. So I gave you a lie. It worked. My image as a strong and resolute decider remained.

This pretty clearly implies that he's used this tactic before and he will use it again. He wasn't even sheepish about being exposed as an empty political liar. Just a bit of a nod and a wink, since the press corps knows he lies all the time, but they are afraid to say so to America. So Bush even openly admits that he is a liar, because he knows it won't be reported. To report that simple truth would be unpardonable liberal bias, after all.

Sure enough, on Meet the Press, David Gregory (who actually can ask some pretty probing questions in a press conference), proves that in front of the public eye the Washington press can't admit to basic facts about the President:

MR. GREGORY: Right, well, he deliberately misled those reporters, and he said he
did it because he didn’t want to inject politics in the campaign. You have to
wonder why–how he could–was there a way to, to get around that question in some
fashion so he didn’t have to give that ammunition to people who thought the
policy was a failure. And that’s what he did right at the end.
(snip)
MR. RUSSERT: Does that hurt his credibility with you and the press
corps?
MR. GREGORY: Well, I–look, you know, you like to get a straight answer
out of the president. He laid out his case for, for why he did it, and there’s
no question that would’ve injected politics. So I think people see it different
ways.

Translation: I wish he wouldn't lie, but some people say the lie was OK, so who am I to question the credibility of a liar? That would be partisan.

It is unfathomable why he didn't answer that question like a normal human being. That answer should have gone "Absolutely, Tim. The President admitted lying to our face for partisan political reasons, and without shame. Whenever he opens his mouth, how do we know he isn't playing the same game? He is clearly willing to lie to the American Public about our military situation, and frankly has lost credibility on that count." Is that a radical response? No. It is the response of a normal human being when he finds out someone lied to his face. A person loses credibility when they are caught in a lie. That's kina of how credibility works, you know?

Different people see it like this: normal people see what happened as brazen, bald-faced lying. Bush partisans think Bush should do whatever Bush feels is best, and if Bush felt it to be the right choice, then it was. So by the act of Bush choosing to lie, it is justifed. They will even applaud Bush for admitting it (Good for Bush for fooling those pesky reporters!). But unprincipled 'wingers schooled in newspeak should not control the definition of what is acceptable.

The Empty Rhetoric of the Pundit Class

It is fair to say that the punditry class and journalism in general has failed America. At the dawn of the new century, we face a myriad of daunting problems and complexities, but the our press does not want to help the people deal with these issues. They want to obscure the consequences of policy and turn everything into a contest, a horse-race. They do this through dis-information and stenography reporting.

A great example of this is Greenwald's recent post on the media treatment of Feingold. He notes

...when Feingold stood up and advocated censure -- based on the truly radical and crazy, far leftist premise that when the President is caught red-handed breaking the law, the Congress should actually do something about that -- the soul-less, oh-so-sophisticated Beltway geniuses could not even contemplate the possibility that he was doing that because he believed what he was saying. Beltway pundits and the leaders of the Beltway political and consulting classes all, in unison, immediately began casting aspersions on Feingold's motives and laughed away -- really never considered -- the idea that he was motivated by actual belief, let alone the merits of his proposal.

They felt it reflected his desire to run for president. That's all they seem to care about: elections. Not who gets elected, but how. Dirty tricks? Exciting! Lying about their opponent? Just part of the game. However, it seems impolite to bring up the substance of someone's policies. For example, I never heard it mentioned by the MSM that Bush radically lightened the tax load and ran up massive deficits, a grave threat to the country, and only the democrats offered to right this problem. Instead, they wanted to talk about a Kerry joke, or how the latest dirty trick du jour showed how tough the Republicans were, how admirable it is that they are so committed to winning. Victory above all (if its Republican).

When the President was caught breaking the law, they decided this was good for him, because he was strong in national security. Nothing about how it violates the 4th amendment to the Bill of Rights. You know, our Constitution. They would let partisans (as in those with an articulated agenda) bring it up, like Feingold. But they would only do it stenographically, and would always post such a comment next to a Republican hack saying there is nothing wrong with this, and you can't enjoy your rights under the Constitution after a scary terrorists kills you and your whole family. Instead of clearly identifying the issue (President determined to violate the Constitution and your rights), the press would just shrug it off as a political dispute with two sides and no answer. They would then cite some polls and note since this was about national security, it helps the GOP and Republicans will use this to attack Democrats as weak, and they will win the election.

The stenography of two positions as equal combined with a horse-race mentality, trumpeting electoral tactics over policy substance, is corrosive to our democracy. When people lie to the press, the press needs to either not print it, or call the liar out. Editors get paid to make these judgment calls. If they could call Clinton a liar, they should be able to call anyone else a liar too. When Bush was on the trail demonizing the Democratic Party, the lead line before any of his quotes should have been "grossly mischaracterizing and at time outright lying about the Democratic position, the President said X before a partisan audience. The carefully screened audience, whom the President forced to take loyalty pledges, cheered on these distortions. The actual position of the candidate Bush disparaged is Y." There are plenty of smart, honest experts out there who don't have a dog in certain political fights. Get their opinion on paper about what it all means. But the press needs to quit going to the well of empty partisanship to pad their reporting.

A national election will roll around every two years. Focus on policy proposals combined with the facts on the ground, and how the two could interact. Honest reporting will create its own dynamic of a more informed electorate that votes based on policy and ideas, not campaign tactics. In the last Presidential election, the press devoted more stories to the meta aspects of the campaign (election strategy) than to actual policy. False narratives were peddled with a straight face (Karl Rove said it, so it must be true!). The pundits only amplified those types of empty discussions.

There should be a real story on the Feingold attempt to censure the President. It should truly examine all the actions taken by the President inconsistent with the Constitution. It should talk about how Republican corruption and acquiescence in the House and Senate helped abet these failures. It should talk about how our forefathers fought and died to prevent these various abuses, like arbitrary and indefinite detentions, torture, and suspension of habeas Corpus. Then, it can talk about the current levels of support in the Senate for such a motion. But no meta talk about this potentially affecting elections, or that national security is a GOP strong spot without any evidence of GOP competence in the field. Reporting the facts in their proper historical context creates changes of opinion. That's what is supposed to happen when new information comes to light. The current punditry merely seeks to perpetuate tired political stereotypes, regardless of the changing reality.

GOP Pundits: Trying to make Iraq like the American Civil War

I was perusing right blogistan, and found this highly recommended article in the Weekly Standard from the ole perfesser on what to do in Iraq (he actually liked it so much he recomended it twice). It says, in part:

A seemingly quick and easy military victory has turned sour. The costs, in blood and treasure, have escalated. Victory looks uncertain and distant. It seems the time has come, if not to cut and run, then surely to cut our losses. If ever the principle of sunk cost applied to warfare, it would seem to apply here.

But that instinct is wrong. Warfare is not like investment banking. At precisely the moment an economist might say to stop throwing good money after bad, a wise military strategist might say to double the bet.

Why might that be so? For one thing, willingness to raise the stakes often wins the game. Why do insurgent gangs, who have vastly smaller resources and manpower than the American soldiers they fight, continue to try to kill those soldiers? The answer is, because they believe they only have to kill a few more, and the soldiers will leave. They need not inflict a military defeat (which would be impossible, given the strength of the American military)--all they need to do is survive until American voters decide to throw in the towel, which might happen at any moment.

The proper response to that calculation is to make emphatically clear that the fight will not end until one side or the other wins, decisively. That kind of battle can only have one ending, as Abraham Lincoln understood. In a speech delivered a month after his reelection, Lincoln carefully surveyed the North's resources and manpower and concluded that the nation's wealth was "unexhausted and, as we believe, inexhaustible." Southern soldiers be gan to desert in droves. Through the long, bloody summer and fall of 1864, the South had hung on only because of the belief that the North might tire of the conflict. But Lincoln did not tire. Instead, he doubled the bet--and won the war.

First of all, this is ridiculous. How exactly is our fight in Iraq like the Civil War? Where is the Confederate Army? What provinces does this army hold? What is the analog for IEDs?

We are fighting an insurgency, made up of both locals and jihadists. We can add another 150,000 troops (that we don't have) and neither of these two will stop fighting. The locals who resent us aren't going anywhere. They live there. And the jihadists think it is a divine duty to fight against foreigners. They will continue to flock to Iraq as long as we are there. They will fight us if we are there. Period. Maybe they think if they kill a few more people, we will leave. But even if they don't, they would continue to fight.

The Union won the Civil War through a long, bloody slog. It gradually destroyed the South's armies and conquered its territory, first by taking the Mississippi river, then with Sherman marching to Atlanta. They took Richmond in the last days of the war, and an outmanueverd Lee, trapped between Grant's army from the North and Sherman's from the South, surrendered. When conventional combat ended, so did the war.

We beat the conventional Iraqi army in a few weeks. Resenting our occupation, the sunnis started an insurgency. Then Al-Queda type jihadists moved in. They are our counterpart. The yin to our yang. They will remain as long as we do, no matter how many people we add. Our very presence creates a destabalizing dynamic, since our presence draws conflict from both the nationalists in Iraq who resent our presence (mainly Sunni, but some Shiite like Al-Sadr) and the foreign Arabs who come only to fight the US. We cannot provide stability the way we do in Kosovo or the Balkans, becuase there are too many who are comitted explictly to attacking American troops through snipers, IEDs, RPG attacks, and the like. People who think they will become martyrs for Allah are not disuaded when you promise to double your resources.

The failure to grasp this basic issue on the part of many conservative commentators is staggering. They still believe that willpower is the most important tool in winning a battle. That if we clap our hands enough and believe, it will all work out. Do they honestly believe that if the US poured more troops into Iraq, the guerillas would say "gee, looks like they are serious. I guess I will lay down my arms?" It shows a fundamental failure to even understand our enemy and their motivations. It violates some of the oldest dictates of warfare: to know thine enemey.
Later on in the article, the author notes:

Iraq is not an unwinnable war: Rather, as the data just cited show, it is a war we have chosen not to win. And the difference between success and failure is not 300,000 more soldiers, as some would have it. One-tenth that number would make a large difference, and has done so in the past. One-sixth would likely prove decisive.

This shows the conventional warfare mindset of the author. What is winning? How will these troops create a "win?" There is no army facing off against the Iraqi government. There are just gurellias fighting a US occupation, terrorists bent on havoc, and competing sectarian death squads. More troops doesn't change any of these. It might lower the amount of death squad violence, since we'd have more eyes to police the area. But it would just create more targets for those who wish to attack US forces. They attack American troops to satisfy their manhood, to stand up to the perceived oppressor. We can't conventionally win against that kind of mindset. Al-Queda is there to kill Ameicans, no more, no less. More troops = more targets.

These morons want us to play right into the hands of our enemies. They want us to waste our resources in Iraq like the Russians did in Afghanistan. We already won the conventional war. It is up to the Iraqis to win the peace. And they can't do it while we are there. Our presence distorts the entire process. Less is more (less troops, a less visible presence, and less of a target) in Iraq. We are the outsider. Once we are out of the picture, the Al-Queda types will become the hated outsider, and they will be dealt with by the Iraqis at that time.

The Federalism of Persuasion

I would like to make a call for a new Federalism, which will redefine the role of the federal government to the states. It will be that of a more nuetral and non-partisan government that focuses on gathering data, promulgating (but not mandating) new polices, and more trusting of states to fulfill their own duties. It will be a Federal government that focuses less on how it spends money, because it will spend less. Instead, it will provide more discretion to the states to spend, but it will aggressively audit the spending to ensure that the taxpayers money is not wasted on frivolous or corrupt projects.

Currently, the federal government is a source of mandates, like the No Child Left Behind. I will use educational policy as an example to describe the new federalism. The NCLB act mandated all kinds of testing on our schools. It provided some money, but certainly not enough to fulfill the orders from DC. It is administered in a haphazardly and counter-productive fashion, becuase it is run inflexibly by Dept. of Eductaion bureaucrats in D.C. The new federalism would have handled things much differently.

First off, the focus would be on good policy, as divorced from the political process as possible (difficult as that may be). This is because there is no guarantee that the policy will be enacted. The implementation of the policy will be permissive. Instead of mandates and limited funds, there will be suggestions and block grants to the States to help their educational systems. Money sent from DC will only be very general. Money for facilites/equipment, teachers, or training. The states will receive the grants, and they can spend it as the choose in that general field. However, there will be very strict audit requirments by the folks in DC on documentation of how the money gets spent. This will be a federal job, and the feds will not only pay for their own auditors, but will also help provide a little additional money to the states to help them with the audit compliance requirments. The auditors will have the power to subpoena and investigate if they feel something fishy is going on. They can hold public hearings, which will be in the state, not in DC (the audit teams will be based in the staes, paid by the feds, with the HQ in DC). If there is misues of funds, it will be investigated and publicized in the local area. The state will then be penalized by having to give the money back, and hopefully the local state corruption will be rooted out.

This is more of a traditional balance of powers benefit. There is freedom to act by the state, but oversight to ensure responsible use of funds by the federal government. These policy departments will have a mix of political apointments and of career civil servants. Additionally, the political apointees will have fixed, multi-year terms (so they can outlast any particular executive leader and offer advice freely, without fear of offending the orthodoxy). There will be a range of 2 years to 10 years, which will ensure a eclectic mix of opinions. The agency will then issue their policy, based on a mix of the opinions of the career experts and the appointees. If the President doesn't like what he sees for political reasons, he can refuse to issue the report for that year (i.e. provide additional funding for adopting these measures). However, then the President will be exposed as against good policy. Naturally, the continued adherence to older policies will still be valid for additional federal funds.

The feds will also promulgate policy on a yearly basis. There will be policy plans issued, which wil focus on the areas the US most needs to tweak. It is not required to follow these policies. However, the policies will have a certain number of key points (say 10). If a state chooses to follow most of these (say 8 of 10), it will be entitled to additional funding from the feds for adopting what is believed to be a better and more rational policy. The policy arm of the feds will constantly liason with their counterparts in the states to reformulate their ideas. Additionally, while new polices will come out each year, the States themselves only have to adjust to follow the newest federal policy (in order to get the extra funds) once every 10 years or so. They can adpot earlier if they wish, but in order to avoid constant, yearly upheavels, they can wait. States that like a new idea can lead the reform, more cautious States can adpot only the tried and true methods. Such an operation is an incalculable boost to the laboratory of ideas that is our federal system.

Naturally, this should only be for most policies, not all. For example, Civil and Voting rights should be protected by the feds, and following such federal laws won't be optional. But with anything regarding basic administration, the control on such choices should lie with the states. Liberty and due process should remain protected by the federal government (in a meaningful wya, not like it is now with suspension of Habeus Corpus and basic due process).

American Energy Renissance and Employment Ruminations

There is a failure of immagination in energy in the republican party.

100 years ago, people tried all kinds of energy system, and we went with the dirty and cheap one. It's time to actually support, as opposed to Lip Service, real energy goals.

The current policy from Bush Co. is to "hope" that the free market comes up with something. Just like he "hopes" Iraqis will just figure it out and make peace. But just like the great American advances in the space race and the Manhattan project, we need serious government investment into these fields.

We should fund new state university based research centers and new government labs that contain the best and the brightest focusing on critical energy ideals (perhaps with the help of some of them university folk!)

There should be increased grants, sure, but the focus should be on increased american engineering students and physicians. Setting these people loose in our economy, especially after theoretical job experience in cutting edge state and federal research labs, will only increase economic innovation.
State governments should get grants to create joint degrees in both the nuts and bolts of engineering and the concepts associated with pure energy theoretical applications to encourage new ways to conceptualize energy
After sputnik, we invested heavily in these types of things (math, science), and we should increase state block grants for these technical subjects. To make sure the money is well spent, there should be serious audit professionals (who's ethics will hopefully migrate into morally bankrupt industries that need sober auditing).

We should subsidize scholarships for americans in engineering areas, especially for students from finacially disadvantaged areas. Instead of a message of no escape from econmically blighted areas, we should preach that all students in a certain income range will get help to go to college and become an engineer. The poorest should get a free ride, on a slowly decreasing scale, finally peteting out to no tuition assistance around 75 K (and indexed to the CPI). Children from families without means should know that there is a reward to focusing on education: a valuable education about the physical world. Even if it creates a glut of engineering jobs, it creates a vitally educated and practical poulace.
It is a simple sloganan, and many can actually succed quickly under such a program. Want to succed? become an engineer for amcerica!
A hope of working hard and getting an education as a path out of poverty is a far better enticement for society than excellence in sports. Don't belive me? Go ask Maurice Clarrett.

Just as an aside, there ought to be a program helping the children on those who lose their jobs through globalizaton, like scholorship opportunities and tutoring programs.
Even if we give up on a worker's job, we should at least let them know we want their child to have a future.

Government technology centers should also be built in areas based on their economic blight (and despite Kelo, it should be ok to do a little bit of extra rennovation in really bad area, but it needs to be associated with the gov. center. Just saying all right to have a slight commercial [bars, restaurants] incorporated into the gov. rennovation)

The government should invest some in helping the auto industry become more efficent. Locate these research centers in the rust belt and Michigan.

We also need to invest in better basic energy systems. Efficencey creates gains throughout the economy.

Immigration Workers in America

Some Ideas:

Immigration
Immigrants should be able to come to america the capitalist way, by paying a fee (and passing a security clearance). Smugglers get all the money from the trade in illegal entry. We should bring it out of the shadows and capture that revenue stream to help immigrants ajust. Naturally, citizenship would have to be earned (and paid for).
First year immigrants would have to pay a certain amount. The next year, it would be slightly less, it decreases another 2 years, then starts going up slowly. This will increase to a certain point until it is equal (or maybe a bit higher) than a new arrival. Unless, that person begins working towards citizenship. If there efforts reach a certain point (say 3/4 of the citzenship requirments/american political normalization), then the costs will decrease significantly. They can then continue through citizenship and become a citzen later on, or just push through with citizenship. There could also be a benifit credit once you are an immigrant worker (say 25 years) that gets a discount too.

Prison Reform
To give access to better jobs, America should work on a construction job training and supervision program for some of our prisoners. They should earn this privilege, but those who want to earn their keep on the outside should get that chance.

Immigration
Here's a principle to apply creatively to Immigration policy
If there has been a long period of work, don't want permanent "guest worker." So either put them on the path to citizenship (lower fees if taking right steps). If not, raise fees to encourage a return. Immigrants/guest workers as incubators of democratic and governmental norms, so that they will return to their home countries with both capital and with reformist, democratic ideas.

Democratic Refom/Immigration
Encourage demcroacy, especially through internal reforms. One benefit of teaching demoractic ideals to registered immigrants combined with a felixable fee system is that if after a few years (and Liberty based classes focused on civil rights and capitalist efficency) when the guest worker goes home, they will be "infected" with the great ideals that buttress free societies. Even if only 20% of the guest workers actually go home, it will be the spread of great ideals to areas of the world lacking in enlightenment advocates.

Public Works and the New Deal of the 21st Century

What is the purpose of a good government? What should its aims be? I think the best investment for the future should be guided by two key aims. A more comprehensive, American public transit infrastructure and a massive investment in energy and generally hard science research.

Introduction

To help create the new deal of the 21st Century, we need both investment in ideas and investment in infrastructure. In a quick and simple sense, government should develope the systems and structures that will help build a strong, essentially free market system for the future. This is not the abstract future of our grandchildren, but that of our own future, 5 years, 10 years, and 25 years from now. Now, this discussion could devolve into a sort of philosophical discourse on what is appropriate for the federal government to undertake, but I leave that for my post on a New Federalism (see sidebar). The current policy of the government seems to be to operate more like a patronage machine for the favored doners. See (http://agorabum.blogspot.com/2006/09/patronage-machine.html). Clearly, that's a philosophy of "I'll get mine now, and let's not think about tomorrow.

We like to belive in the power of the market, but there are certain large scale enterprises that benefit the commons that the market cannot feasibly handle. This is where the government should step in to help direct investment to plan for the civic future. This is not to suggest a planned economy, but more of to help guide fundamental realingments of policy, into which private funding will then flow. For example, I need only point out our current highway policies. We expand and build, and the private market fills in with certain developments suited to our arterial highway system expansion. The public sector leads with a certain key development, and private investment exploits the opportunities this creates. Another good example is the Hoover Dam and Las Vegas, or the Tennessee Valley Authority and the South. Even the development of early America was spurred by the construction of the Eire Canal and the transcontinental railroad.

Unless you subscribe to the most extreme libertarianism, there is a recognized need for public sector investment. This is recognized through investment in Universities, roads, public health, police, fireman, schools, etc. This is necessary to defeat the problem of free riders, and also to destroy negative incentives that could, for example, encourage people to not pay private fees to send their children to schools or pay for fire protection. A self interested person could choose to reject such payments for short term gain. Regardless, sometimes investment is best served by the market, other times it is of a scale and scope that requires national investment, as in investment by the government.

Energy

When Sputnik entered the stratosphere, there was a general recognition in America that a new focus was necessary to prove the superiority of the free mind. The same challenge exists today, witht the omniprescent existence of oil-based regimes that export demogaugery and fundamentalism much in the same way the Soviet Union sought to export communism. We helped bypass the claims of superiority of the USSR by putting a man on the moon. In the same way, we should bypass the smug preaching of the oil regimes by undercutting the basis of their power: energy in a hydrocarbon society.

The development of alternative energy is not a matter of preference. It is a matter of survival for liberal democracies. Our economies, in this post-industrial age, are energy. We use it in every facet of our existence, from the internet, power to our PC's, our cars and trucks that transport ourselves and our goods, and even the toast we have for breakfast. Our use of energy in the future is something that is not in doubt: we will continue to use it, and the world will undoubtedly seek to use more. There must be freedom from the oil we pump from the earth to a harnessing of the energy which is the source of oils power: the power of molecular connections and the power of the sun.

The only way to do this is to spark a new scientific race in America. This should be done in three key wasy: the construction of new, government sponsored research facilities, new engineering universities focused on improving the studies of sheer energy itself, efficent use of energy, and general scientific applications; and the establishement of a massive scholarship program focused on the youth of America to funnel them into these new instituitions.

Government Energy Research

It is a key national security goal that America have baisc energy independence from non-democratic regimes. These countries focus on one thing: slavish support of those in power. In a free market, we have little to fear, but in a system based on obeying the will of one individual over those of the general populace, there is no way a market based system can efficently devine the future. The only solution is to trade energy needs with other free market systems (and a system can only be free if there is no undue political inteference with the means of production by non-market forces). Such a system is essentially impossible today, because the entire system is based on hydrocarbons (oil, natural gas, coal, etc.). Institutions devoted to pure research of energy must be established, in numerous locations across America, to help wean ourselves, and the world, off hydrocarbons.

Oil is valuable. But it is also valuable as a manufacturable commidty. We should endeavor not to simply burn away this resource of many uses, but ensure it can continue in our manufacturing chain throughout numerous generations.

Another important factor in establishing these facilites is that they should be located in areas of America that have suffered recent economic depressions. As our economy evolves, it is tragically true that certain secotors are left behind. It is these areas that the government should invest to help create the industries of the future (which leads me to my next point).

New Energy Universities

When it comes to manipulating the elements to create new possibilites, nothing beats engineering. America has some of the best engineering instituitons in the world, but that doesn't mean we can't use more. We should encourage the founding of new state insitutions (especially in historically economically regressing areas), both through the use of state funds (see "new federalism" at sidebar) and through private encouragement. No reason for Bill Gates or Buffet not to found new universities for the 21st century, much like Rockefeller founded the University of Chicago for the 20th Century. There should be additions to current campuses, but there should also be entirely new campuses created, centered around research labs and the new governmnt research centers, that would provide a fulcrum to both provide jobs to the burgeoning new engineering professions in the public sector, and provide paternships with the private sector. The public sector resarch labs could be a valuable conduit between the Univesity education and private technology transfer initiatives.

Scholarship Program

We must encourage more American scientists. This is easy to accomplish. Heavy government funding for scholarships of disadvantaged youth. With such a progtam, if a student takes math and science in jr. high and high school and perform well, the enterprising child will go to college. This will apply to the traditional poor (both in neglected urban/inner city environments and rural areas), as well as offers to the children of workers who lose their job from globalization.

People like to talk about retraining 50 year old factory workers. That's a tall order, to push an industrial worker like that into the IT sector and expect a quick absorbtion of skills. But it may ease the pain if there is a promise that their children, if they only study in school, will be guranteed a college education in the hard sciences, which will teach them practical facts about the world they inhabit. One of the great existential worries that comes with a loss of a job is the question of the future, and a good parent worries more about the future of their children. Greater investment in the education of these children at the very least gives them the opportunity to succeed.

If we are to invent our way out of our current energy predicatment, we should invest in the intellectual structures that will encourage such investment, and provide the essential raw material of young and dedicated minds for our information economy.

Mass Transit

America's system of mass transit, aside from limited areas on the Eastern seaboard, are frankly embarassing. We had far better transit systems 60 years ago. But we choose to tear them up to build highways to create an Auto-topia. Instead, most cities now have bumper-to-bumper gridlock at rush hour.

The solution is obvious. A new transit paradigm. It should be based on differnet levels of distance and speed. Inter-city travel should be very fast (100 mph +) with very few stops. Slightly slower systems (50 mph +) should feed into these stations. Local feeder routes should feed into these mid-level stations (25-50 mph). Light rail/subway/bus to regional to national systems.

Naturally, this requires heavy investment by the public sector. And there shoudl be assurances that this work is done by Americans. Managers must swear, under penalty of law, that their workers are Citizens (or the appropriate level of immigrant worker: see Homeland security and immigration post). Willful ignorance will not be tolerated. To avoid complaints about companies unable to find competent workers, there will also be money available for training programs in the interested states.

With any large government project, there is always the danger of public investment pulling resources away from the capital and labor of the private sector. But there is also a danger that exists from inaction on this front. National Security dictates that a comprehensive transit system be developed, both for use in the case of national emergencies and to help America cope with its oil addicition. If costs are driven up in such a fashion as to discourage sprawl (as should be done with tax policy as well), and more energy efficent development is planned, then such an effect is actually a benefit. Already, road building sucks in a massive amount of money in America, so redirecting some of these emminent domain actions and construction costs to rail transit isn't really much of a change.

Most importantly, these acts will go slowly. Major transit systems will likely take many years to come online. The funds for this work will go only to states who are willing; the system should not be unilaterally imposed. This will allow for a variety of ideas and actions, and the "laboratory of the states" can hopefully lead the way, creating new efficencies. Additionally, the research of the new school facilities and grants can also focus on promoting infrastructure improvements.

Conclusion

America is a land of modernism and progress. But the acheivements that helped create the American 20th Century did not happen in a vaccum. They often happened with express or implied government support. The American people and the greater humanity deserve cutting edge energy research for a cleaner, more economical future. America also deserves a state of the art mass transit system. Government should support both of these laudable goals.

Reflections on Saftey after 9-11

Are we safer today? Some say yes, some say no. 3000 people died in 9-11. There has been no major terrorist attack on American soil since then. But there was no major attack on our soil the five years before. And many Americans have died since then. According to the official statistics from the Department of Defense, 2,669 American solidiers have died in Iraq. 19910 have been wounded. Also, this war has been fought with mercenaries, CIA operatives, and American contractors. Their casulties I do not know, although I'm sure the numbers are out there.

Not counting respiratory illness and other lingering chronic problems from 9/11, there were a total of 5367 casualties (adding dead and wounded) as a result of that terrible day.
As a response, we went into Afghanistan. To be frank, we appeared to score a quick victory, and then the political leadership lost interest. Troops began to leave the country before we even had a chance to catch Bin Laden at Tora Bora. Since we entered that country, we have lost approximately 336 soldiers killed and 901 wounded, a total of 1237 casualties.
Imagine if that was the final number. Just 1237. Instead, our total casualties from the war on terror after 9-11 is 23,816 American soldiers, and probably a few thousand more government civil servants, contractors, and U.S. mercenaries.

So has the president kept Americans safe? Or did his actions lead to the death or maiming of about 30,000 Americans since 9-11?

As usual, the only ones asked to sacrifice by the President are the military. Their deaths are not honored by acknowledging this grim toll, but instead, they are hidden. The administration has censored their pictures and downplayed the cold facts.

The administration did not keep these young men and women safe. That’s a fact. So since we have had a bit less than 10 times the casualties of 9-11, of Americans hurt in our “war on terror,” does it matter if a shopping mall in Topeka is “safe,” when it never was going to be a target anyway? Does the life of civilians now matter more than a soldier? What kind of respect is that for our military?These casualties are a cost of our struggle. I believe the enemy is Al Queda and Bin Laden. He is the one who struck on 9-11. And yes, he has an ideology. But you can’t kill an ideology with bombs. Nor can you do it by invading Iraq and then managing an incompetent occupation. So if you ask are Americans safer, remember that our military consists of Americans too, and the policies of the Bush administration did not make them safe.

The Patronage Machine

Today, we have a federal system of Government. There is a national income tax, so the governmental system with the most money is in Washington D.C. It also is the most powerful, accoridng to the Constitution and the Supereme Court's interpretations thereof. So just what is it supposed to do with this money and power? Currently, the idea is Patronage.

What it has Done:

Since the Republicans took Congress in 1994, the stated policy was that Government is no good. The private sector, affected by the "invisible hand" of the market, can always do a better job. And so taxes have been cut, and services privatized. However, the Government is still distorting the market. It does not demand accountability or stringent audits (like a responsible private sector contractor would). In fact, the practices of Congress and the current administration shows that efficency and low costs are not a goal. The goal is patronage. The use of earmarks (where a congressman adds provisions to a bill that basically serves to send money to one of his friends) has ballonned at an astonishing rate. Vast programs have been proposed and initiated that do not work, but do employ Republican donors. A good example of this is the missle defense shield. Every test the Air Force sets up for this program is rigged, and about half the time, they fail. Nonetheless, we are building and investing in a massive deployment of this system. Presuming that the government is a rational actor (a big presumption), the only plausible purpose for rewarding such a failure is to bribe their defense contractor buddies. Who will then donate generously to electoral campaigns

The current crop of Republicans have even downsized the military and sent many former military jobs to contractors. It actually didn't seem like a terrible idea in the 90's. The military can be lumbering and ineffecient, and every soldier knows that its just Uncle Sam footing the bill, and that he can afford it. So cost is often disregarded. But the soldiers do understand following orders. So the right solution was not to privatize, but make officers more accountable on costs. They would then order their subordinates to keep those things in mind. These orders come in handy in a war zone as well. Contractors don't mind working when its quite, but when the bullets fly, it takes a soldier.

So when our soldiers went to Iraq, so did the contractors. And they needed massive pay raises to work in the war environment. Suddenly, these "savings" became losses. It also became huge profits for the politcally connected companies, like Halliburton. Indeed, the US began sponsoring private militas to protect these contractors, since the soldiers were busy. More profits for companies, but still, no efficency.

Another example is health care. When someone had the idea to reform Medicare, the Republicans didn't examine the system and try to devise a way to deliver the most care for the least cost to the US taxpayer. Instead, the forbid the government to act efficently by negotiating for drug prices. It allows deceptive and confusing advertising for competing drug plans. It encouraged private sector bureacracy and paperwork. Why? Because there were big companies, in the pharamaceutical and hospital industry, that wanted a big injection of taxpayer money to boost their bottom line.

This is patronage government. By the party, for the friends of the party, in order to keep the election campaigns of the party filled.

The professional nature of the government burecracy was created to avoid the problems of patronage. Certainly, the top positions are always open to the friends of the politcal party, and especially to the friends of a victorious president. But the actual employees, the people who run the system through fair weather and foul, have to pass certain tests to get their job. They are also "professionalized," so to speak, in that they will work for the U.S. people and the citizenry instead of the political ledaer of the moment. In practice, they often work in their own interests, in order to make their own job easier. The solution to that is to demand higher standards and better management. The "privitization" of these jobs just ensures one thing: that the people running the programs care about profit most of all.

The private sector cares about profit. That is the reason for its existence. To make money. All other concerns are secondary. Even if a bureacrat is lazy, he can't pad his bills. And without oversight, which is woefully lacking in the current government, the privatized worker can be lazy as well. But by permitting these false invoices, the patronage machine continues.

A government of patronage is the enemy of any patriot. It is not wrong to ask for good government. Every citizen should ask no less. But the current Republican refrain is that government is no good and it can't be trusted. They then go out and prove this to be the case by delibertly subverting good government in order to provide patronage. The hold no hearings to investigate the corruption, but instead participate (see Delay, Cunningham, etc.).

There is only so much money the government has to spend. This money can go to worthy projects that help build a stronger nation ready for the challenges of the coming years. Or it can go into the pockets of the wealthy and corrupt. The current Republican Party has choosen the later. Congressmen hold lavish parties for their cronies, and buy gilded commodes out of the Palace of Versailles. And the patronage machine rolls on.