As a matter of political philosophy, conservatives say they feel that government should be as small as possible while taking care of basic functions. I recently had a conservative intellectual express his view by quoting what Abraham Lincoln once said, "the legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot do so well for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities." I certainly have no dispute with that perspective. That is because it reflects a pragmatic rather than an ideological approach to what government ought to do. If it needs to be done, and people can't do it on their own, then government ought to do it. The rub, of course, comes in determining what needs doing, and in assessing whether individuals or other private entities can do it so well on their own.
These days the right is energized in opposition to President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Tea Party protesters maintain that totalitarianism is on the way, that Big Government for its own sake, or for the sake of controlling people, is in the process of being imposed. Well, let's look at the top issues facing the country these days. To rail against big government is truly to blow the dog whistle for these folks. They understand you are one of them and see the world their way. But what is really needed to solve the nation's current many challenges? Is government action or laissez faire required? We ought to take a look on a case by case basis.
Let's start with the economy. When the financial system crashed in late summer 2008, the Bush administration and congressional Republicans and Democrats agreed a massive bailout had to be instituted to save the economy from a Great Depression. It was done and worked. Candidates McCain, Obama and overwhelming majorities of both parties approved TARP. While there is no doubt greater accountability should have been required, to have sat aside and done nothing would have been catastrophic. The (at least) $700 billion infusion will wind up costing, according to current Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, about $78 billion, as the money is paid back with interest. That saved the national economy for less than the cost of one year of the Iraq War--a bargain.
The Obama-Democratic $787 billion stimulus bill from the spring of 2009 was similar. Anyone who has taken Econ 101 understands Keynesian economics and the need to infuse demand into an economy to head off or alleviate serious recession. It is what every goverment has done since the Depression. Even the Chinese committed a $586 billion USD stimulus to their economy in November, 2008.
The same goes for financial regulation. Does anyone seriously imagine the outfits that precipitated the meltdown with unsound but immediately profitable subprime loans and unregulated derivatives speculation will be able to avoid the temptations of quick buck schemes in the future without regulations to prevent them? How many times does it take? We had the stock crash of '29 when there were no regs back then, another in '87 when deregulation was first instituted, then the S & L crisis and now the financial/housing crash after things were loosened up again. Every time the rules come off the system implodes.
How about defense? Do we defend ourselves against terrorism with more government or less? Military and intelligence assets, homeland security practices and equipment, FBI tasking, liaison with foreign nations at all levels, law enforcement assistance, training, covert action, drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan and such all cost money and require government involvement. Do you know many conservatives against any of these things? Neither do I.
Conservatives are worried about immigration again, since an Arizona rancher was killed, possibly by drug traffickers from across the border. The state legislature just passed a sweeping law allowing police to question anyone they think might be an illegal alien and arrest anyone they so question who does not have evidence of citizenship or permission for legal residency with them. Conservatives in general always seem to favor harsh crackdowns to catch illegal aliens. Does that sound like small government to you? The Archbishop of Los Angeles likens it to Nazi and Communist tactics.
Consider energy independence and climate change. These are essential priorities the market can't solve yet. It is still far cheaper to burn gasoline, diesel and coal than it is to go solar or harness the wind. By the time that changes the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be so high the world will face ecological calamity. In the meantime we remain vulnerable to blackmail or delivery interruptions from abroad. Even weak mileage and emissions standards have resulted in a 25% drop in pollution since 1970 though twice as many cars are on the road. Government requirements and incentives are necessary to get this done.
Health care is another example. Conservatives have a surprising blind spot to advocate police state tactics after one person is possibly killed from across the border but turn a blind eye when Harvard Medical School says 45,000 people have been dying yearly from lack of access to health care. This is clearly something events have shown a lot of people "cannot do so well for themselves."
The list could go on and on. We have a lot of issues that have been festering because they have not been adequately addressed. Left to themselves they have been getting progressively worse. Handwringing about the size of government will not solve any of them. We do not need big or small government; we need the right amount-whatever that is in a specific case-to deal with the many serious problems that need solving.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
State Convention
I went to the California Democratic Convention in Los Angeles over the weekend in two capacities, as a delegate chosen by the Tulare County Democratic Central Committee and as faculty advisor for the College of the Sequoias Young Democrats.
If you've never been to a political convention, they are a whirlwind of activity. The principal purposes are to showcase the candidates running for office and to energize the attendees so they go out and work hard to help get those candidates elected. There are innumerable booths to get literature, buttons and what have you for candidates, ballot propositions and causes. Candidates and their supporters, from high-profile heavy hitters like Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom and Janice Hahn to people you have never heard of circulate around pressing the flesh and trolling for support. There are workshops on operations like using voter databases, contacting voters, getting out the vote and recruiting and coordinating volunteers.
Some 1,900 delegates attended, as well as over 500 California Young Democrats. There are caucuses of various groups, such as labor, Latinos, rural, progressives, women, education and environmentalists. The California Young Democrats, of whom we sent five to this convention, had several of their own meetings, including a personal session with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. One of our Young Democrats, Esmeralda Castro, is the official Democratic candidate running for State Assembly in the 34th District! There are luncheons and dinners. I paid an extra $60 for the Saturday lunch featuring a tribute to Congresswoman Diane Watson and a speech and question-and-answer event with Arianna Huffington. Huffington has a degree in Economics from Cambridge University, I was rather impressed to find out. She's no dummy.
At the General Sessions Saturday and Sunday we heard from party speakers, had awards and recognitions and conducted business such as endorsements and platform votes. Some of the noteworthy speakers included Speaker Pelosi, Senator Boxer, Attorney General Brown (running for governor) and Lieutenant Governor candidates Gavin Newsom and Janice Hahn. Fierce contests were waged for the convention's endorsement for Lieutenant Governor and for the 36th Congressional District. Newsom edged out Hahn 52% to 48% but got no official endorsement since 60% is required. My Young Democrats got a good picture taken with him. For the 36th CD, incumbent Jane Harman withstood a challenge from the left from Marcy Winograd who was attempting to overturn Harman's successful endorsement from her locality.
On the ballot propositions, the convention decided as follows: (To see the Ballotpedia descriptions click here.)
Proposition 13 To exempt seismic retrofits from increased property taxes due to the required work. YES. This is only fair.
Proposition 14 Top Two Primary. NO. This would hold open, cross-party primaries in June. The top two vote getters would meet in the general election in November. This would result in Democrats fighting Democrats and Republicans fighting Republicans in many races in November, and would take minor party candidates totally off the ballot in November.
Proposition 15 Public Financing. Would use public financing for the Secretary of State's race. YES. The state's top election official should not be beholden to special interest money. This could be a test case to expand the practice to more offices, such as Arizona, North Carolina and Maine do.
Proposition 16 Two-thirds citizen vote required to set up municipal electricity companies. NO. This is a blatant special interest grab by Pacific Gas and Electric to preserve its monopoly.
Proposition 17 Auto Insurance Regulations. NO. This measure would potentially reduce some insurance premiums but would allow bigger increases, too.
If you've never been to a political convention, they are a whirlwind of activity. The principal purposes are to showcase the candidates running for office and to energize the attendees so they go out and work hard to help get those candidates elected. There are innumerable booths to get literature, buttons and what have you for candidates, ballot propositions and causes. Candidates and their supporters, from high-profile heavy hitters like Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom and Janice Hahn to people you have never heard of circulate around pressing the flesh and trolling for support. There are workshops on operations like using voter databases, contacting voters, getting out the vote and recruiting and coordinating volunteers.
Some 1,900 delegates attended, as well as over 500 California Young Democrats. There are caucuses of various groups, such as labor, Latinos, rural, progressives, women, education and environmentalists. The California Young Democrats, of whom we sent five to this convention, had several of their own meetings, including a personal session with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. One of our Young Democrats, Esmeralda Castro, is the official Democratic candidate running for State Assembly in the 34th District! There are luncheons and dinners. I paid an extra $60 for the Saturday lunch featuring a tribute to Congresswoman Diane Watson and a speech and question-and-answer event with Arianna Huffington. Huffington has a degree in Economics from Cambridge University, I was rather impressed to find out. She's no dummy.
At the General Sessions Saturday and Sunday we heard from party speakers, had awards and recognitions and conducted business such as endorsements and platform votes. Some of the noteworthy speakers included Speaker Pelosi, Senator Boxer, Attorney General Brown (running for governor) and Lieutenant Governor candidates Gavin Newsom and Janice Hahn. Fierce contests were waged for the convention's endorsement for Lieutenant Governor and for the 36th Congressional District. Newsom edged out Hahn 52% to 48% but got no official endorsement since 60% is required. My Young Democrats got a good picture taken with him. For the 36th CD, incumbent Jane Harman withstood a challenge from the left from Marcy Winograd who was attempting to overturn Harman's successful endorsement from her locality.
On the ballot propositions, the convention decided as follows: (To see the Ballotpedia descriptions click here.)
Proposition 13 To exempt seismic retrofits from increased property taxes due to the required work. YES. This is only fair.
Proposition 14 Top Two Primary. NO. This would hold open, cross-party primaries in June. The top two vote getters would meet in the general election in November. This would result in Democrats fighting Democrats and Republicans fighting Republicans in many races in November, and would take minor party candidates totally off the ballot in November.
Proposition 15 Public Financing. Would use public financing for the Secretary of State's race. YES. The state's top election official should not be beholden to special interest money. This could be a test case to expand the practice to more offices, such as Arizona, North Carolina and Maine do.
Proposition 16 Two-thirds citizen vote required to set up municipal electricity companies. NO. This is a blatant special interest grab by Pacific Gas and Electric to preserve its monopoly.
Proposition 17 Auto Insurance Regulations. NO. This measure would potentially reduce some insurance premiums but would allow bigger increases, too.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Politicians Must Be Penalized for Lies
There are a number of things wrong with journalism these days. For one thing, too many media outlets, particularly talk radio and cable news, are stridently and obviously one-sided. The oldline networks try to be impartial, but as they cut and cut their news gathering services they have fewer resources to dig up really good stuff. Then there is print, still the best at ferreting out a story, but also losing that edge through remorseless paring of personnel. It's a vicious cycle of cutting to save money, producing a watered-down product, thus losing readership which forces still more staff reductions.
Then there is the problem of courage, the courage go beyond simply reporting charges and counter charges and actually give an analysis of issues, to let the reader know who is telling the truth. I saw an example of this today in an item in the Nation and World section of the Fresno Bee titled "GOP Leader Accused of Lying." You can read it here. Provided by Kevin G. Hall of McClatchey News Services, it told the story of Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd who took Senate floor and, "delivered a blistering 20-minute speech that included the revelation of a political talking points memo from a Republican strategist that was virtually verbatim to the criticism voiced Tuesday by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky."
The problem with the article is primarily the headline. The article itself does a good job showing McConnell's remarks were full of several outright lies, but the headline is misleading because it makes the "accusations" the story. In so doing it downplays the significance of what happened. A story about politicians making charges against each other is a yawner that most readers will skip over. A good, honest headline that had said, "McConnell Caught in Lies About Bank Bill" would be sure to command a lot of attention.
Dodd's speech refers to a memo prepared by Republican pollster and strategist Frank Luntz. It tells Republicans to characterize Dodd's committee's financial regulatory bill as a "bailout for the banks." It tells that even after President Obama had legislative leadership to the White House to clarify the bill's contents, "and shortly afterward-as if to underscore Dodd's points-an aide to House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio sent an email to reporters that mischaracterized what Dodd's bill would do."
As long as politicians can distort and lie with impunity they will do so. It is the press's job to call them on it remorselessly when they do so. That is the only way we will ever get them to level with the public. The functioning of a democracy depends on the Fourth Estate doing its job,.
Then there is the problem of courage, the courage go beyond simply reporting charges and counter charges and actually give an analysis of issues, to let the reader know who is telling the truth. I saw an example of this today in an item in the Nation and World section of the Fresno Bee titled "GOP Leader Accused of Lying." You can read it here. Provided by Kevin G. Hall of McClatchey News Services, it told the story of Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd who took Senate floor and, "delivered a blistering 20-minute speech that included the revelation of a political talking points memo from a Republican strategist that was virtually verbatim to the criticism voiced Tuesday by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky."
The problem with the article is primarily the headline. The article itself does a good job showing McConnell's remarks were full of several outright lies, but the headline is misleading because it makes the "accusations" the story. In so doing it downplays the significance of what happened. A story about politicians making charges against each other is a yawner that most readers will skip over. A good, honest headline that had said, "McConnell Caught in Lies About Bank Bill" would be sure to command a lot of attention.
Dodd's speech refers to a memo prepared by Republican pollster and strategist Frank Luntz. It tells Republicans to characterize Dodd's committee's financial regulatory bill as a "bailout for the banks." It tells that even after President Obama had legislative leadership to the White House to clarify the bill's contents, "and shortly afterward-as if to underscore Dodd's points-an aide to House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio sent an email to reporters that mischaracterized what Dodd's bill would do."
As long as politicians can distort and lie with impunity they will do so. It is the press's job to call them on it remorselessly when they do so. That is the only way we will ever get them to level with the public. The functioning of a democracy depends on the Fourth Estate doing its job,.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Science vs. Superstition: 400 Years Later
In 1610 Galileo Galilei turned his telescope to the night sky and immediately began poking holes in the astronomical misconceptions of his day. The moon was not smooth, but had mountains and craters. The earth was not the only body around which others revolved; he could see four moons around Jupiter, for instance. The sun was not an unblemished ball of light; it had dark spots on its surface and irregular prominences projecting out from it. Saturn was surrounded by a giant ring. The planets appeared to revolve around the sun, not the earth, as religious authorities insisted. Copernicus was therefore right and Aristotle and the Church were wrong. Such heresies would not be tolerated for long. Galileo soon found himself under torture and on trial for his life.
These were the opening volleys in a historical showdown that has come to be known as the Scientific Revolution. During the crucial seventeenth century, the forces of logic, fact and reality slowly gained the upper hand over the dead hand of superstition, dogma and vested interest. The effort culminated in 1687 with Isaac Newton's axial Principia Mathematica, which formulated the laws of motion and whose calculations unveiled the workings of universal gravitation. Science, logic and mathematics had laid bare the machinery of the physical universe. Inquisitors, witch burners and Luddites would fight diminishing rear-guard actions against reason in the years ahead, but their following shrank year by year as the wonders and mysteries of the world revealed their secrets to the scientific method and the functional marvels it spawned, including in turn the steam engine, electricity, powered flight, antibiotics and space travel.
Now, remarkably, exactly 400 years since the Scientific Revolution began, it is once again coming under increasing attack, at least in the United States of America. Here, the fact and reality-based worldview appears to be losing ground to a combination of vested interest group advertising and wishful-thinking know-nothingism. My regional newspaper had a guest opinion piece today by a scientist that may seem poignant if it is remembered sometime in the future. UC Merced Associate Professor of Geography and Environmental Engineering Anthony L. Westerling, writing in the Fresno Bee, told of a symposium his university will be sponsoring beginning Monday on "the dramatic disparity between perceptions by the public and the scientific community" regarding climate change.
Though the evidence gathered by science demonstrates that, "the conclusion that the observed warming can only be explained by human causes has only strengthened over time," he reports that "numerous polls" including "a Gallup poll made public last month found that a large and increasing number of Americans believe that the seriousness of climate change has been exaggerated, that it will not post a serious threat within their lifetimes, and that it is not caused by humans." He backs this up with data, of course, as scientific types tend to do, even saying that the by-now standard skeptic theory that the sun is heating up is dead wrong, that instead "variations in the energy from the sun would have produced a decrease in temperature were it not for the warming caused by human actions."
It will be interesting to see what the Sigma Xi Research Society is able to come up with in the symposium this coming week. Climatologists will speak on the data, its relation to the recently held Copenhagen Diagnosis will be explained, others will discuss popular misconceptions that hinder the public's understanding of science and another seminar will "address how special interests and the media have contributed to confusion" about the issue. In case you can make it, it will take place in UC Merced's Lakireddy Auditorium. The Monday session goes from 1:30 to 5:00 P.M. It is free of charge and will be open to the public.
These were the opening volleys in a historical showdown that has come to be known as the Scientific Revolution. During the crucial seventeenth century, the forces of logic, fact and reality slowly gained the upper hand over the dead hand of superstition, dogma and vested interest. The effort culminated in 1687 with Isaac Newton's axial Principia Mathematica, which formulated the laws of motion and whose calculations unveiled the workings of universal gravitation. Science, logic and mathematics had laid bare the machinery of the physical universe. Inquisitors, witch burners and Luddites would fight diminishing rear-guard actions against reason in the years ahead, but their following shrank year by year as the wonders and mysteries of the world revealed their secrets to the scientific method and the functional marvels it spawned, including in turn the steam engine, electricity, powered flight, antibiotics and space travel.
Now, remarkably, exactly 400 years since the Scientific Revolution began, it is once again coming under increasing attack, at least in the United States of America. Here, the fact and reality-based worldview appears to be losing ground to a combination of vested interest group advertising and wishful-thinking know-nothingism. My regional newspaper had a guest opinion piece today by a scientist that may seem poignant if it is remembered sometime in the future. UC Merced Associate Professor of Geography and Environmental Engineering Anthony L. Westerling, writing in the Fresno Bee, told of a symposium his university will be sponsoring beginning Monday on "the dramatic disparity between perceptions by the public and the scientific community" regarding climate change.
Though the evidence gathered by science demonstrates that, "the conclusion that the observed warming can only be explained by human causes has only strengthened over time," he reports that "numerous polls" including "a Gallup poll made public last month found that a large and increasing number of Americans believe that the seriousness of climate change has been exaggerated, that it will not post a serious threat within their lifetimes, and that it is not caused by humans." He backs this up with data, of course, as scientific types tend to do, even saying that the by-now standard skeptic theory that the sun is heating up is dead wrong, that instead "variations in the energy from the sun would have produced a decrease in temperature were it not for the warming caused by human actions."
It will be interesting to see what the Sigma Xi Research Society is able to come up with in the symposium this coming week. Climatologists will speak on the data, its relation to the recently held Copenhagen Diagnosis will be explained, others will discuss popular misconceptions that hinder the public's understanding of science and another seminar will "address how special interests and the media have contributed to confusion" about the issue. In case you can make it, it will take place in UC Merced's Lakireddy Auditorium. The Monday session goes from 1:30 to 5:00 P.M. It is free of charge and will be open to the public.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Benedict XVI Needs to Clean House
I've been watching the seemingly ever-expanding Catholic sex abuse scandal with growing amazement. What amazes me is more than the extent of some of these problems, it is how utterly clueless the church leadership appears to be. As a Catholic myself, the whole episode is painful enough. But then to top it all off with a hierarchy that fails to do even the most basic things right is really making me take stock.
I believe that most priests, nuns and monks are sincere and dedicated people. I'm talking about "most" meaning 95% here. But there have always been problem members of the priesthood. As a church member you would hear whispers about them over the years, priests who seemed to get transferred abruptly from place to place. There were various rumored reasons, from church politics to moral turpitude of various types. Then came the sex abuse revelations beginning about ten years ago in the U.S.
The church in its various arms has paid billions in settlements to victims. It looks like they get it that this has been a serious problem. But that seems to be as far as it goes. They do not appear to perceive that a whole culture of secrecy and complacency needs to be ended root and branch. An apology is not enough; there needs to see a major housecleaning. And it needs to come directly from the man at the top, Pope Benedict XVI himself.
Here is what he needs to do:
1. Come clean on his own record. If he made mistakes in judgment or was operating under an outmoded code that valued institutional whitewashing over unpleasant truths truth then that must be admitted.
2. Promulgate a new policy for the church, announce it publicly and publicize it to the skies. The policy must unequivocally state that protection of the people in the church's trust is a mandatory and sacred duty, and that violations of that trust will not be tolerated. Investigations of those charged with criminal abuses of power, particularly against children, will be turned over to the civil authorities. Due process will be followed; the way teachers and police officers' cases are now handled could be good models. But if crimes have been committed it should be the church's position to support the civil authorities in punishing such criminal predators to the full extent of the law. That would not have to include capital punishment, which the church opposes, but long incarcerations at least. The counseling services of the church will still be made available to the offenders. Only it should be in prison, if they want it, not as a means to avoid the penalty for their crimes.
3. Immediately order an investigation to see what other undiscovered skeletons remain hidden. Assign massive personnel and legal resources to it. Set them loose with a free hand to pursue any and all leads.
A pope who was more concerned about proclaiming Christ and following his teachings than defending the institutional church would do these things. The overwhelming majority of clergy, who selflessly serve God and their parishioners, would fully support these steps. The laity are already wondering why they are not being taken.
It is troublingly puzzling that the pope and the top hierarchy do not see that such an approach would save the reputation of the church rather than harming it. Instead we see statements that the press is attacking the church. We see legal opinions that the pope is immune from subpoenas and prosecution. This sort of wagon circling bodes most ill. Rather than clearing the air, it only heightens suspicion.
The church teaches its followers that they are not perfect and that they will stumble. Yet through sincere confession, penance and faith in divine guidance they can be redeemed. It is high time the church followed the advice it gives the faithful. It is time to do the right thing.
I believe that most priests, nuns and monks are sincere and dedicated people. I'm talking about "most" meaning 95% here. But there have always been problem members of the priesthood. As a church member you would hear whispers about them over the years, priests who seemed to get transferred abruptly from place to place. There were various rumored reasons, from church politics to moral turpitude of various types. Then came the sex abuse revelations beginning about ten years ago in the U.S.
The church in its various arms has paid billions in settlements to victims. It looks like they get it that this has been a serious problem. But that seems to be as far as it goes. They do not appear to perceive that a whole culture of secrecy and complacency needs to be ended root and branch. An apology is not enough; there needs to see a major housecleaning. And it needs to come directly from the man at the top, Pope Benedict XVI himself.
Here is what he needs to do:
1. Come clean on his own record. If he made mistakes in judgment or was operating under an outmoded code that valued institutional whitewashing over unpleasant truths truth then that must be admitted.
2. Promulgate a new policy for the church, announce it publicly and publicize it to the skies. The policy must unequivocally state that protection of the people in the church's trust is a mandatory and sacred duty, and that violations of that trust will not be tolerated. Investigations of those charged with criminal abuses of power, particularly against children, will be turned over to the civil authorities. Due process will be followed; the way teachers and police officers' cases are now handled could be good models. But if crimes have been committed it should be the church's position to support the civil authorities in punishing such criminal predators to the full extent of the law. That would not have to include capital punishment, which the church opposes, but long incarcerations at least. The counseling services of the church will still be made available to the offenders. Only it should be in prison, if they want it, not as a means to avoid the penalty for their crimes.
3. Immediately order an investigation to see what other undiscovered skeletons remain hidden. Assign massive personnel and legal resources to it. Set them loose with a free hand to pursue any and all leads.
A pope who was more concerned about proclaiming Christ and following his teachings than defending the institutional church would do these things. The overwhelming majority of clergy, who selflessly serve God and their parishioners, would fully support these steps. The laity are already wondering why they are not being taken.
It is troublingly puzzling that the pope and the top hierarchy do not see that such an approach would save the reputation of the church rather than harming it. Instead we see statements that the press is attacking the church. We see legal opinions that the pope is immune from subpoenas and prosecution. This sort of wagon circling bodes most ill. Rather than clearing the air, it only heightens suspicion.
The church teaches its followers that they are not perfect and that they will stumble. Yet through sincere confession, penance and faith in divine guidance they can be redeemed. It is high time the church followed the advice it gives the faithful. It is time to do the right thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)