Political-Commentary.com

Not Much Going on Here?

No posts here for quite a while.  Maybe about time to start up again?

The Social Security "Crisis"

Basically,  we have a "crisis" in social security only if you make very pessimistic assumptions about future economic growth (you assume growth will be only half of what it has been in the past). On such assumptions, at some point you won't be getting enough from the payroll tax to fund the system, so you will have to start drawing down the "trust fund" (in 2018), and at some point the trust fund will go to zero (in 2042).  Thus, in the distant future social security funding will have to come from general tax revenues (which is the way the government funds everything else, of course, including Bush's salary and retirement benefits, and no one thinks that is causing a crisis).

Using the same pessimistic assumptions about future economic growth, the stock market won't go up much in the future, so "privitizing" by putting money in the stock market won't give much of a return.  If you use the growth assumptions necessary to make "privitization" attractive, you also will have enough trust fund revenue in the future to keep SS in good shape.  Interestingly, 10 years ago the government was saying the crisis would come in 35 years  -- now, the government is saying the crisis will come in 38 years.  At that rate, it never will arrive, even with pessimistic growth assumptions.

What Is Wrong with George Bush?

From http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Narcissistic_personality_disorder:

A narcissistic personality disorder . . . is characterized by an all-pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration or adulation and lack of empathy, usually beginning by early adulthood and present in various contexts. Five (or more) of the following criteria are considered necessary for the clinical diagnosis to be met:

* Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates accomplishments, talents, skills, contacts, and personality traits to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements);

* Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion;

* Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions);

* Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation - or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (narcissistic supply);

* Feels entitled. Demands automatic and full compliance with his unreasonable expectations for special and favorable priority treatment.

* Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends;

* Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with, acknowledge, or accept the feelings, needs, preferences, priorities, and choices of others;

* Constantly envious of others and seeks to hurt or destroy the objects of his frustration. Suffers from persecutory (paranoid) delusions as he believes that they feel the same about him or her and are likely to act similarly;

* Behaves arrogantly and haughtily. Feels superior, omnipotent, omniscient, invincible, immune, "above the law", and omnipresent (magical thinking). Rages when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted by people he considers inferior to him and unworthy.

Bush's Temper

In the second debate, Bush lost it, yelling at the moderator. Imagine that Kerry had done this. Wouldn't the Republicans be outraged by this behavior, claiming that it disqualified Kerry from being president?

The Presidential Debates

So far, the 2004 campaign has seen two presidential debates, and one vice presidential debate. Who has won them? That depends on what you mean by "win." In a "true debate," you make a list of issues and see how well each side handled them. Looked at that way, there is little doubt that Kerry and Edwards have clobbered their opponents.

However, presidential debates are about getting votes. If you like Bush's style, it doesn't matter that he specializes in empty slogans. The only thing that matters is the effect of the debates upon the horse race. How have the debates affected that? Well, viewers go into the debates with certain impressions of the candidates. If the debates merely confirm those impressions, not many votes will change. But to the extent the debates change impressions, the dynamic of the race can change.

So, what has been the effect of the debates upon the voters’ impressions of the candidates? The first debate made Bush look worse than expected, and Kerrey better than expected. So a clear win for Kerry.

The vice-presidential debate made Edwards look better than expected, but certainly didn't have the same effect upon Cheney. So a win for Edwards.

The second presidential debate was vintage Bush -- arrogant, illogical, full of slogans. So he came across about as expected. By contrast, Kerry was logical, consistent, to the point, and clear -- the very opposite of the stereotype that the Bush campaign has successfully painted of him. Thus, Kerry appeared better than expected, and won the debate.

The overall effect of the debates? A tremendous gain for Kerry. The debates have taken a largely unknown person and make him look like a solid candidate for president. At a little more than three weeks before the election, probably the only question is whether he will peak too soon.

Bank Robbery

If the police have information that a bank is about to be robbed, do they put this information in the newspapers? Not typically, even though this type of information might make the police chief look good in his reelection effort. Instead, they just prevent the robbery.

Is there a reason why the Bush Administration could not follow a similar policy? Rather than telling everyone that the terrorists are targeting certain targets, why not just use this information to prevent the attacks?

To a skeptic, it appears what is going on here is pure politics. If Tom Ridge warns that an attack may occur -- and it does -- the Bush Administation can say "See, we warned you, so we weren't sleeping on the job, and we can't be blamed for not preventing the attack."

Gross Incompetence

In an interview with Wolf Blitzer yesterday, Condi Rice made the following comment:

"And the problem is that when you're trying to strike a balance between giving enough information to the public so that they know that you're dealing with a specific, credible, different kind of threat than you've dealt with in the past, you're always weighing that against kind of operational considerations. We've tried to strike a balance. We think for the most part, we've struck a balance, but it's indeed a very difficult balance to strike."

In other words, the administration is walking a fine line. On the one hand, it could follow a policy of doing what is best for the county, which would mean saying nothing about someone working undercover within Al Qaeda. On the other hand, it could follow a policy of doing what is best for the Bush reelection effort, which would mean broadcasting to the world that it arrested an Al Qaeda person who now is working undercover.

Here, the Bush administration decided its own political survival was more important than having an informant within Al Qaeda. Rice's defense appears to be:

"BLITZER: There is some suggestion that by releasing his identity here in the United States, you compromised a Pakistani intelligence sting operation, because he was effectively being used by the Pakistanis to try to find other al Qaeda operatives. Is that true?

"RICE: Well, I don't know what might have been going on in Pakistan. "

She doesn't know what might have been going on in Pakistan!! Could there be a more damning statement about the incompetence of this Administration? They claim to be on top of the fight against terror, but they don't even know that one of our allies has a mole within Al Qaeda? And they didn't even bother to check with our allies before releasing this guy's name?

Chalabi Under Arrest

Ahmad Chalabi is under arrest for counterfeiting. There is no way to know whether there is any validity to this charge. However, this is bad news for Bush.

If there is validity to the charge, it further reinforces the awful mistake the U.S. made when it backed Chalabi. If there is no validity to the charge, it indicates that Bush has installed a corrupt regime that is using the Iraqi judicial system against its political enemies. Either way, Bush made big mistakes.

The Clueless News Media

Why is the news media often so clueless and uninterested in matters of public policy? Probably because the people who are attracted to journalism are those who like to track down a good story. Who is ahead in the presidential race? Was that comment by the senator a gaffe that will cost him votes?

By contrast, people who are interested in policy won't become reporters. Instead, they will work in Washington DC or at a college.

Since reporters are those who have the job of opining in our newspapers and magazines, it is not surprisingly that they do a poor job.

Reagan's Legacy

The hawks are telling us that Ronald Reagan was responsible for the downfall of the Soviet Union. They may be right, but almost certainly for the wrong reasons.

Acccording to the hawks, Reagan spent so much money on the US military that the Soviet Union finally threw in the towel. This argument is not entirely convincing, since the US had been spending on the military for years with no apparent effect on the Soviet Union. Why was Reagan's spending any different from the spending before him? And why would the Soviet Union care about increased US military spending, especially on technological boondoogles such as "Star Wars"?

A better explanation is that Reagan was to the Soviet Union as Nixon was to China. Only a politician who had a reputation as a hard-liner could put aside the hard-line rhetoric and sit down and talk business. Nixon had his trip to China, and Reagan had his meetings with Gorbachev. At those meetings, Reagan and Gorbachev agreed to arms reductions. The Soviet Union already was on its final legs, and those meetings may (or may not) have helped lead to its final implosion. "Hey, maybe we are better off being friends with those Americans, rather than spending a fortune on our military."

Was the War Worth It?

Did it make sense to go to war in Iraq? The original justifications for the war related to US national security -- Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US due to his weapons of mass destruction, and there was a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists. Having abandoned those justifications, the Bush administration is now saying the war was worthwhile due to the benefits it will bring to the people of Iraq.

Assume for the sake that argument that the war has resulted in a net benefit to the Iraqi people (which is by no means clear). Even so, one must still do a cost/benefit analysis to determine if the war was worthwhile. Before this thing is through, the cost of the war will be 100's of billions of dollars, with the loss of thousands of lives (both American and Iraqi). That much money could have done a world of good if spent on unmet needs at home, such as education and health care -- and all without any loss of life.

Do the benefits of the war to the Iraqis exceed the forgone benefits at home? Almost certainly not. Of course, the whole comparison between benefits in Iraq and benefits at home may not make sense to Republicans. They may take the position that the government shouldn't be spending any money at all on unmet needs at home. But that raises the question -- why is is OK to help the Iraqi people, but not to help people in the US?

Normally, of course, you would not justify a war by comparing its benefits with the forgone opportunities at home. But most wars involve US security. Having conceded that the Iraq war didn't involve US security, the Bush administration is outside the normal calculus for wars. It must justify this war on a cost/benefit basis, but apparently could not do so.

Asleep at the Controls

According to Former Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson, "no reasonable American could hold the president responsible for the [9/11] attack." That may be true. However, reasonable Americans do want a President who is doing all he can to prevent terrorist attacks. Not only was Bush asleep at the controls before 9/11, but he appears to think it was perfectly fine to be asleep. With an attitude like that, this is not exactly the fellow we want at the controls in the future, even if the 9/11 attack would have occurred regardless of what Bush might have done.

"Historical" Documents

Condolezza Rice has indicated that documents warning about impending terrorist attacks were "historical," and thus of little value. Her definition of "historical document" is not entirely clear, but apparently means "document that is based upon information that was learned in the past." This is a fairly broad definition that -- at least until the invention of a time machine -- would seem to encompass all human knowledge.

A Dunce as President

When Cheney and Rumsfeld are alone, do they make jokes about Bush's intelligence and lack of interest in ideas? One suspects they do -- "How did we ever end up working for this dunce?"

Condolezza Rice

Condolezza Rice doubtless is a very smart person, and probably fit well into academia. However, her testimony before the 9/11 commission indicates her utter incompetence in her present position. Far from being a "mover and shaker," she seemed to view her job as sitting back and waiting for people to give her information and ideas. And once received, she didn't seem to know what to do with the information and ideas. If Bush is re-elected, will we have four more years of her, or will she have the grace to resign?

Incompetence

The 9/11 hearings confirm the impression that the Bush administration -- Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld -- are a bunch of incompetents who couldn't do a decent job as dog-catcher. Has this bunch made a single decision that turned out right?

9/11 Hearings

We hear that the 9/11 hearings are politically motivated, and won't accomplish anything. Of course, anyone who says this is making a politically motivated statement.

The hearings will accomplish two things. First, they will indicate whether the Bush administration is competent to run the county, and that will help voters make a wise choice during the next presidential election. Second, people can't learn from their mistakes unless they know what they did wrong. Thus, we can at least hope that the hearings will help the Bush administration develop more effective policies. Of course, this may be wishful thinking, since Bush apparently would never admit to making a mistake, and thus will see no reason to change his policies.

Condoleezza Rice and "Principle"

Condoleezza Rice says that "principle" prevents her from testifying before the 9/11 Commission. Since when has this administration ever put principle before political expediency? To all appearances, the real problem is that her testimony would be under oath, and so she might have to be a bit more truthful than when spinning her story before the news media.

Clarke and Perjury

It appears that the Republicans may be thinking about bringing perjury charges against Richard Clarke. Their theory is that Clarke's recent testimony is inconsistent with his previous testimony before Congress when he was still working for Bush. Several points may be noted about this matter:

1. To the extent that Clarke has testified inconsistently, it is important to determine which of his testimony was true and which was false. That is the only way to discover exactly what happened in the Bush Administration. One suspects, however, that the Republicans have something else in mind.

2. In a perjury prosecution, Clarke would be entitled to legal discovery so he can try to prove that he spoke truthfully. The last thing Bush wants, however, is to release information.

3. When Clarke testified previously, he was speaking for the Bush Administration, while now he is speaking for himself. One may presume that he is more likely to speak truthfully when speaking for himself. Thus, any falsehoods were in his previous testimony, and helped Bush. The Republicans are outraged, then, that Clarke might have "spun" in Bush's favor?

4. If the Republicans declassify only some of Clarke's previous testimony, one may presume that they are making available only the testimony that makes Clarke look bad. Thus, by implication, the rest of Clarke's previous testimony supports his recent testimony. Thus, the Republicans may just highlight the accuracy of most of the Clarke's recent testimony. On the other hand, if the Republicans declassify all of Clarke's previous testimony, much of that also should reinforce Clarke's recent testimony. Either way, the Republicans will confirm the accuracy of most of Clarke's recent testimony.

5. Most of the Republican attacks have been upon Clarke’s honesty and motivations -- ad hominem attacks, in other words. Few of the attacks have pointed out anything other than minor inconsistencies in Clarke's testimony.

6. This whole affair makes the Republicans look mighty desperate.

The Spanish Bombings

Various commentators (such as Tom Friedman of the New York Times) say that the terrorists “hijacked the recent Spanish election, ” and achieved their goal of electing a government that would appease terrorists.

But are things really that simple? There is, of course, no doubt that terrorism can affect elections. Look at how Bush’s popularity skyrocketed after the 9/11 attacks. If there had been an election after 9/11, Bush would have won in a landslide.

However, things are not as clear when you apply this to real elections. Before the Spanish elections, who could have predicted the effect of a terrorist attack? Maybe the voters would have decided to appease the terrorists, or maybe they would have been outraged and voted for the party they thought would be the toughest against the terrorists. In addition, how can we be certain that terrorists favor appeasement? If their goal is to cultivate hatred of the West, wouldn’t they want the Spanish army in Iraq?

The situation is just as unclear in the upcoming U.S. election. If the terrorists want to cultivate a hatred of the U.S., wouldn’t it be likely that they would favor Bush, who has done a fine job of angering much of the rest of the world? If Al Queda did favor Bush (or, for that matter, Kerry), it is not at all clear that they would use terrorism before the election. Perhaps another terrorist attack would help Bush as 9/11 helped him. Or perhaps it would destroy the illusion that Bush has been tough on terrorism, and would lead to his defeat.

Who knows? All we can know for certain is that things are a lot less simple than Friedman and others are making them.