Speaking Diplomatically

I have a strong distaste for what we might call "Cowboy Politics." It's one thing to believe that a foreign nation is acting in a way that is adverse to our nation's interest and another to publically call them part of an "axis of evil", for one thing. Tough talk sounds great in movies and, to some extent, presidential debates, but in the end, we live in a world with shades of deep grey in our international relationships. We have to live with the world community when all is said and done - we can't simply ignore or bomb them into agreeing with us.

So, when a top candidate for the Republican Party's nomination calls the Palestinian people an "invented" people[1], he is treading on thin ice. Many countries strongly disagree with the sentiment, including many of the fledling democracies rising from the Arab Spring. Now is the time to be focussing on constructive conversations with the nations risinig from decades of oppressive rule, not to give them more reasons to hate us and shun our counsel.

Some people may decry this as appeasement and too soft a stance - after all, we're the world's only superpower, right? As a student of history, I would respond that nations rise and fall, and our time as the sole mega force may be waning. China and India are certainly on the rise. The Eurozone, though in dire financial straits and unable at present to form a tighter union, is still not to be discounted. Russia still weilds great influence, if dimished from their USSR heights. If we act brashly now, who will stand by us when next we experience disaster, natural or manmade? Make friends before you need them, before it's too late.

If only the politics of moderation were more in vogue - it seems that each of the two major parties becomes more and more polarized as time goes on. Centrist candidates for congress have been thinned by those more on the extremes, thus leading to stalemaes multiple times this year as representatives refuse to compromise. Shooting from the hip and appearing strong do not make us so. Our leaders need to be careful what enemies they make, both for themselves and the rest of us. Gingrich - I ask you to recant and temper your language. If you seriously want the nomination, you must act presidential. That means you must always put the nation's best interest before your own personal whim and desire.

[1] Palestinians Bristle At Gingrich Comments

Ready to debtonate

Have you heard of the debt ceiling debates? Yes? Okay - skip to paragraph two. So there's this limit called the "debt ceiling" that defines how much money the treasury can borrow via bond and similar instruments to pay for the programs and spending authorized by congress and signed into law by the president. We keep having to raise this limit because we're spending money faster than we're taking it in. On or around August 2nd we will reach the current limit and then be able to pay for about half of the stuff that we're currently doing without any new borrowing.

The debate has faltered numerous times over the last few months. There are several sticking points, or lines in the sand. Most revolve around a strong desire to reform our country's financial situation as a stipulation for raising this debt ceiling. Here are the two main issues I see at the moment:

1. Tea Party Republicans insist the limit be raised only with spending cuts attached, not with any increased tax revenue from current levels
2. President Obama, Senator Reid, and now Representative Pelosi, among others, want the limit raised enough that we won't have to debate this again before the 2012 election

The first has been a major problem for negotiations. Both the President's commission on the deficit and the recent "Gang of Six" proposal formed by three senators from each of the major parties includes additional tax revenue. When you have a cash flow problem, there are two options - reduce outflows and increase inflows. You can do one, the other, or both.

The second issue means that the volume of the money being discussed is very large, potentially up to $4 trillion over the next ten years. The driving force behind this requirement could be political - not wanting to have this issue come up again closer to the election. It could also be an efficiency argument - why have the same debate multiple times? Perhaps it's also tending on the perfectionist side - let's get the right answer rather than the quick one. In any case, I do believe that it is in the country's best interests to have a broader solution than a hack job, but the partial step is better than nothing at this stage.

In the case of a balance sheet as large as our nations, it's very difficult to choose only one of revenue or spending cuts without significantly changing the playing field. Rather, making smaller changes to both outflows and inflows helps keep the system more predictable and allows us time to see the impact of the changes. Several polls have shown that the majority of U.S. citizens favor a compromise that includes some of both. It really depends on the wording of the question, of course.[1] Still, the polls I've checked have shown that Democrats and independents are largely agree that tax increases should be part of the package. Republiicans are generally more in favor of cut only, but not by a large margin.[2]

How will this play out? In one scenario we could get a debt limit increase with only minimal cuts and some ongoing debate on the overall debt. In another, the negotiations that have been underway somehow reach a compromise in time for a vote before the deadline. It's also possible that the limit isn't raised in time and some payments stop going out. The investment world is getting more and more worried about this third option if quotes from economists and fund managers are any indication. Legislators are scrambling over the weekend to come up with something solid to avoid a massive negative market on Monday.

Can they do it? We've seen eleventh hour deals already this year and might be able to get one again. Still, you won't find me playing Russian roullette any time soon.[3]

[1]Poll divide

[2]CNN/ORC July 18-21 poll

[3] "The Tea Party is effectively playing Russian roulette with the bond market and they will, with certainty, lose," said Christian Cooper, head of U.S. dollar derivatives trading in New York at Jefferies & Co. Jefferies is one of 20 primary dealers that trade with the U.S. Federal Reserve.

On debating: Palin's tactics

In last night's debate, Governor Palin decided that she could take a lifeline out at any time by simply deciding not to address the questions posed to her. Toward the beginning of the debate, she said, "And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people."[1]

That is no way to have a debate. I'm one of those American people you mentioned, Governor Palin, and I would have been very interested to hear you address the deregulation question Senator Biden was discussing before the above quote, as well as a dozen other questions you decided to simply ignore.

Let's be very clear - as leaders of the free world, the president and vice president do not get to decide what issues to address. They are responsible for all of them. Playing ostrich and dodging issues you don't like is exactly what got us into the economic mess we're in. Pundits were saying you merely had to hold your own last night, but I believe you had to show you were capable of governing a nation after having governed a state with a population lower than that over a dozen cities in the lower 48 states. In that respect, you have failed to convince me you are ready to serve as vice president of the United States.

Moreover, your broad interpretation of the powers and duties of the office of the vice president are frightening and dangerous. As previously mentioned in "Ongoing Investigations", you consider yourself to be above the law. No citizen of the country is ever above the law, and no citizen in their right mind wants a vice president who puts themselves above the law. To directly quote:

IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.[1]

I think not, Governor Palin. Please reread our Constitution.

[1] Transcript of Palin, Biden debate

First Debate wrap-up

The debate on Friday night was very interesting, and showed both that Senator Obama and Senator McCain agree on several issues, and have very different strategies on others. However, only Senator Obama seemed willing to admit that he agrees with Senator McCain on several points.

A few of the best debate wrap-up articles I've found are the following:

1. New York Times fact checking: Refuting some of the more outlandish claims and misquotes by each candidate.


2. New York Times live debate blogging: Summarizing the highlights.


3. Politico's roundup: Another good summary of the highlights.

The most powerful lines that stuck in my memory were both by Senator Obama:

“You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong,” Obama said about the Iraq war. “You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shia and Sunni. And you were wrong. If the question is who is best-equipped as the next president to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure that we are prepared and ready for the next conflict, then I think we can take a look at our judgment.”[1]

and:

"I've got a bracelet, too."[1]

In addition, as quoted in Senator McCain campaign's YouTube video that came out just after the debate last night, Senator Obama several times indicated that he agreed with Senator McCain. Why would Senator McCain see this as a negative trait? It shows bipartisanship, a spirit of cooperation, and rational thought.

The quote from Senator McCain that stayed with me was his repetition of "Obama doesn't understand." Unfortunately for Senator McCain, Senator Obama's performance in the debate proved otherwise. They both understand the situation, they just disagree on the best resolution.

I agree with the snap polls- this debate was a win for Senator Obama.

[1] McCain on offense; Obama plays it cool