Infinite Wisdom

Continuity We Can Believe In

After winning the Presidency promising "change you can believe in", there were many who hoped major reform would be initiated by Obama.  Though there has been a perceptible rhetorical shift in tone emanating from the White House with Obama taking over from Bush, the change ushered in by Obama has so far fallen far short of anything resembling revolutionary change.  Rather than a clear break from the past, Obama is bringing about incremental change that is more timid than bold.  Witnessing what Obama is doing, it strikes me that if he had been completely forthright about his intentions, Obama's main campaign slogan would have been "Continuity we can believe in".

One of the reasons Obama prevailed over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primaries is he had opposed the Iraq war, having calling it a "dumb war".  Thus, many of the Democratic faithful might have gotten the false impression Obama was an anti-war Democrat.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  During the campaign, Obama didn't hide his intention to escalate the military effort in Afghanistan as American troops start leaving Iraq.  As President, Obama is now carrying out his plans to intensify the effort to eradicate the Taliban in Afghanistan.  Beneath the veneer of lofty rhetoric, Obama appears to be just as committed to the war against terror as his predecessor.  It escapes me how a seemingly bright man like Obama can not grasp the simple concept that more brutality by American troops will not be well received by an ornery Afghan population.  Obama has set a course that is not all that different from what could have been expected from a Republican administration.  It is now clear under Obama we'll will continue to fruitlessly chase shadowy troublemakers in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan, all the while planting the seeds for future trouble.  Obama's relatively modest increase in troop strength in Afghanistan is profoundly foolish.  Not only will violence almost certainly rise, but it is also hard to fathom how we can afford to piss away billions of dollars we don't have.  Putting more troops into Afghanistan is not the type of change I was looking for from Bush's successor.

Regarding the bank bailouts, Obama hasn't been any less enthusiastic to assist the big banks than Bush.  With Timoty Geithner as architect, the administration has continued to give preferential treatment to the Wall Street banks.  Oh sure, Obama has spoken out against the nefarious deeds on Wall Street, but his administation is just as cozy with the banks as the preceding one.  What probably should have happened in response to the financial meltdown is a government takeover of the faltering banks, but instead Obama and his advisors have bent over backwards to rescue the banks, while doing relatively little to help homeowners facing foreclosure.   This shows that Obama's economic team has either not fully abandoned trickle-down economics as a viable economic model or is too compromised by its close relationship with Wall Street to prescribe a dose of tough medicine for the big banks.  Whatever the case, the approach the Obama administration has taken in addressing the financial meltdown on Wall Street can hardly be categorized as major change.

After the recent Wall Street woes, it might have been expected that a major restructuring of the economy would take place.  Nothing Obama has done so far suggests he is aiming to do that.  The big banks are as powerful and unwieldy as ever suggesting they are still "too big to fail", which raises the possibility of future bailouts by the federal government.   And though Obama's plans of raising tax rates on the wealthy may curb the explosive growth of the wealth gap a bit, the wealth gap will likely remain rather pronounced given Obama's relatively timid proposals.  As for health care, the Obama plan will laudably attempt to expand the number of Americans with health insurance, but will regrettably spurn the more comprehensive change of a single-payer system.  This will leave the American health care system stuck with a bloated bureaucracy that is woefully inefficient and appallingly expensive.  None of this sounds like major change to me.

Sure, Obama represents a change from his predecessor.  But once we look past Obama's lofty rhetoric, actual change Obama is bringing looks rather unspectacular.  From America's international entanglements to the economy,  not all that much is changing under Obama.  It will apparently take far more than electing a new President to significantly alter the status quo in this country. 

In the Wilderness

After a thumping defeat this past November, the Republicans have been doing some soul searching.  The Republicans are now in the political wilderness left to wonder what went wrong for them in the past few years.  The road to disaster started in 2006, when both houses of Congress fell under Democratic control.  Last year, the Democrats regained control of the White House after Bush's disastrous eight year reign.  Any road back to respectability for the Republicans will likely be triggered by failure of the Democrats to govern effectively.  In any event, the GOP is now a largely moribund party that has no idea how to be relevant after the recent financial crisis. 

I would argue the prospects for a Republican resurgence in the near future is not very likely unless the Democrats govern ineptly.  When a political party's chief symbol is a blowhard like Rush Limbaugh, it is not in very good shape.  Sure, Limbaugh can stir the faithful, but he has rather limited appeal to moderates.  With the defection of Arlen Specter to the Democrats, the Republican contingent in Congress has become even less moderate.  The true believers in the right wing agenda are misguided in cheering the defection of Specter.  Ideological purists may be overjoyed to see Specter leave the GOP, but such a development is not a good sign for the Republicans.  For the Republicans to recover, the party will have to find a way to appeal to moderates and independents.  And a party that is chasing away a moderate figure like Specter and appears to be embracing its most reactionary elements, will have a hard time scoring points with moderates.

A key problem for the GOP is after eight years of Bush, it is poorly positioned to offer leadership at a time of economic crisis.  Ronald Reagan remains the hero of the Conservative movement, yet the core Reagan views are not terribly relevant amid a major financial crisis.  With the unemployment rate soaring, Americans are now compelled to look to government to make things better.  Having an overt pro-business stance, Republicans continue to be advocates of deregulation.  But at times like this, pushing deregulation is not an easy sell.  A strong argument can be made that reckless deregulation of the financial industry paved the way to the Wall Street meltdown, so a party touting deregulation and free market fundamentalism will find it hard to get traction.  

The strange thing about the surviving Republicans is how seemingly little they've been influenced by recent disastrous election results.  Two successive electoral defeats suggest the Republican Party needs to adapt to stay relevant.  Yet, the Republicans remain deluded into believing their recent electoral defeats were primarily caused by a failure of the GOP to adhere to the central tenets of the Reagan revolution.   What the Republicans fail to acknowledge is the landscape has changed markedly since Bush was re-elected in 2004, such that the old formula of pushing for deregulation and lower taxes is not what the country needs or is clamoring for currently.   Moreover, heaven help the GOP if more people start connecting the dots about the last ten years.  The economy never really caught fire under George W. Bush as job creation remained relatively anemic and salaries for most workers stagnated.  And under Bush, the wealth gap exploded approaching levels unseen since right before The Great Depression.  There would be those who would argue that the economic performance under Bush was pretty good given statistics showing fairly robust economic growth.   That argument now rings hollow as we learn that much of that supposed robust economic growth was due to the reckless and irresponsible behavior of the financial industry(spurred by a real estate bubble precipitated by actions by the Fed) that eventually brought the country(and the world) to the precipice of economic ruin.   With these things considered, it is hard not to draw the conclusion the Republican policies under Bush did not work, which ultimately means the Republicans should not be allowed to control both the Presidency and Congress anytime in the near future.

Usually when a political party suffers clear defeats, it does some self-examination and realizes it must adapt.  So far, the Republicans have drawn the absolutely wrong conclusion that they have fallen out of favor because they were insufficiently ideologically pure, meaning they strayed too much from the Reagan form of Conservatism.  Though this allows the Republicans a small degree of comfort, their collective delusion probably means they will spend a protracted period in the political wilderness.

 

Good Deal For Banks; Raw Deal For Us

The financial industry is still hobbled, yet there is a sense we have already seen the worst.  Though employment statistics continue to be grim, the stock market has rebounded from the depths of earlier this year with the Dow Jones Industrial Average now residing a hair above 8000.  Predictions are starting to surface that prognosticate the recession will end as the year concludes, though there is acknowledgment that the unemployment rate will likely continue to rise into next year.  Even if the wobbly economy hit its nadir in this year's first quarter, there is little reason to pop open champagne.  We'll still likely see high levels of unemployment for quite some time, as any near term recovery is likely to be tepid at best.  After the recent troubles on Wall Street which required massive government intervention to rescue faltering banks, it would have been reasonable to expect the chastened big banks to behave more responsibly, yet there is scant evidence of this.  In fact, the bailed out banks look poised to intitate a whole new round of screwing the little guy.

It is amazing in some respects ordinary Americans haven't flocked to Washington en masse and protested more vigorously the bailouts of the big banks.  The Geithner plan that subsidizes private investors to encourage them to buy the banks' toxic assets reeks of Wall Street favoritism.  This is too favorable a fate for the big banks after their reckless behavior.  One of the rationales used to explain why the big banks had to be rescued by the government is failure by these giant institutions would precipitate a complete economic collapse reminiscent of the Great Depression.   This leaves the public at the mercy of these institutions.  If things go smoothly, the banks rake in the bucks.  But if they are overly aggressive and make too many imprudent loans, the current crisis has taught the banks the government will rescue them.    Though Conservatives are loath to admit it, the current nexus between government and Wall Street smacks of socialism.  This isn't the kind of socialism that leads to a more egalitarian society, however.   It is a repugnant system that privatizes profit for the elite, while socking it to the little guy at every turn.   

Everyday Americans are justifiably not amused.  They have watched their retirement accounts decline precipitously.  The unemployment rate keeps climbing as corporate America reduces headcount to weather the storm.  In addition, home values have plunged leaving many Americans owing more than their houses are worth.  A good number of Americans are struggling.  One of the few positive developments in recent months is declining interest rates.   Banks have been the beneficiaries of billions injected by the Federal Reserve.  This action was supposed to thaw the frozen credit markets.  To coax people to make purchases, one would expect the banks to offer favorable interest rates for credit cards especially given the aggressive interest rate cuts by the Fed.  Instead, the banks are increasing interest rates on their credit cards even for long standing customers.   It is galling to watch the banks accept the largess of the federal government then turn around and ratchet up the interest rates of customers' credit cards.  

Though Obama came to Washington promising change, he has not seen fit to tame the excesses of Wall Street.  He has constructed an economics team that is compromised by its many linkages to the big banks. The incestuous relationship between government and the financial sector is unseemly.  It leaves one to wonder if the policy being pursued is the best for America or just the best for Wall Street. 

The big banks haven't been forced to restructure after their reckless behavior.  They are hoarding money injected by the Federal Reserve and have unconscionably increased credit card rates at the same time interest rates have fallen.  Unfortunately for Americans, Obama seems to have just as cozy a relationship with the big banks as Bush, which means the banks can continue to expect to get a good deal while most Americans get a raw deal. 

Change That Reeks of Continuity

Obama has now been President for over 70 days.  The past administration's conspicuous ideological propensity has been replaced with a less ideological tone.  It is a relief to see a new leadership team in Washington that doesn't think every problem can be solved with tax cuts.  On the international front, Obama has successfully charmed Europe by showing he will listen to the viewpoints of other nations.  So, it would be unfair to suggest Obama doesn't represent change from the prior administration.  But for those who might have hoped for radical change, Obama has so far been disappointing.  There is a lot to like about Obama like his keen intellect and his cool and reassuring demenaor, but a true Progressive would have plenty to quibble with regarding Obama's first 70 days.

Though Obama has dispensed with the term 'global war on terror', his actions could hardly be categorized as anti-war.  Obama is apparently committed to escalating the military operations in Afghanistan after seven years of US military presence in the war-torn impoverished country.  Inflicting more misery on Afghanistan is hard to justify and is counterproductive if eradicating terrorism is the goal.  Military operations in Afghanistan do result in civilian casualties, which leads to more violence as the senseless deaths of innocents breed hatred.  As for Iraq, there is much praise for Obama's plan to disengage from Iraq after six years of occupation, yet there are murmurs there will be a sizable residual force left in Iraq after our troops are supposed to leave.  Although Obama has been lauded for instituting a less unilateral foreign policy than his predecessor, Obama's foreign policy isn't a radical shift from the Bush years.  A cynic might conclude Obama is demonstrating an interest in largely continuing Bush's foreign policy priorities, but without the unseemly arrogance and overt aggressiveness observed during Bush's Presidency.

On the domestic front, Obama has acted swiftly to get a stimulus plan enacted to deal with deteriorating economic conditions.  Obama's quick action to have government intervene to avert economic collapse contrasts sharply with Bush's stubborn adherence to laissez-faire doctrine.  Though Obama's effort to get the stimulus plan enacted quickly is to be applauded, his economic team's plans to address the troubled financial industry lacks imagination and is too favorable to Wall Street.  Americans are rightly indignant when they observe the federal governmen bending over backwards to help the same charlatans at greedy and reckless financial institutions that brought the world economy to the precipice of disaster.  Though clearly left of Bush, Obama's largely centrist tendencies has drawn fire from the Right and the Left.  An argument can be made that the current economic crisis suggests our economy needs a complete overhaul, yet Obama is implementing plans that won't fundamentally alter the overall structure of the economy.  Despite murmurs from many leftist economists that the teetering big banks ought to be nationalized, Obama has chosen a rescue plan that shuns such advice and instead keeps delivering billions into the hands of some of the most morally-challenged corporate entities.   It is doubtful the Bush administration would have handled the big banks rescue much differently than the plan Obama's financial team concocted.  This is particularly disappointing after Obama's lofty electoral rhetoric in which he promised to implement change we can believe in.

Yes, Obama has brought change.  His keen intellect and deliberative style constrasts sharply with his predecessor.  The evident energy of the new administration is a marked improvement after the listless and aimless last two years of Bush's Presidency.  Despite Obama's lofty campaign rhetoric, the change he has brought so far has been timid and not very innovative.  So though change has come to Washington after Bush as was sorely needed, it is becoming increasingly clear corporate America has little to fear from Obama.

Is There Any End to Wall Street Favoritism?

So, Timothy Geithner has unveiled the bank rescue plan.  Judging from today's soaring stock prices, Wall Street is pleased as punch with Geithner's plan.  If Wall Street is happy with the plan, it can only mean investors have concluded troubled banks are going to be treated with kid's gloves.  Quite a few economists have argued that the bank mess can't be solved until the clearly insolvent banks are nationalized.  Yet, Geithner has spurned such advice, and has concocted a plan that has Wall Street cheering.  It is another example of a corrupt system overtly favoring Wall Street over the ordinary taxpayers.

Obama better hope Geithner's plan jolts the credit markets to life.  Yet, it wouldn't be surprising if it fails miserably.  Even if the banks are desperate to lend, the deepening recession has sent confidence plummeting, which means the banks won't find too many risk takers out there eager to expand a business in this rough environment.  Because of record low interest rates, some life may return to the housing market.  And it wouldn't be surprising if a spate of mortgage refinancing activity emerges because of unbelievably low interest rates.  Yet, it is hard to imagine that will be enough to resuscitate the sick economy.

Let's not waste time predicting whether Geithner's plan will work.  No one really knows if the Geithner plan will restore a vestige of normalcy in the credit markets.  That doesn't mean we can't critique the plan.   Even if the Geithner strategy does somehow miraculously get banks lending again, it is hard to justify subsidizing private investors to entice them into buying the toxic assets of banks.  The hope lies in spurring interest in the banks' toxic assets(by lending private investors money), so their values rise.  If that were to happen, this would give a boost to the troubled banks.   It sounds good on paper, perhaps.  But, it is also a terribly convoluted plan that is almost impossible to justify on any level.  Reckless banks have already received massive injections of capital from government(which ultimately comes from taxpayers), so another scheme drawn up to help the banks avoid tough medicine seems particularly unfair.  It is hard not to conclude Geithner is too wedded to the banking interests to responsibly manage the banking crisis. 

There is a danger to Obama here too.  Obama rode to the White House offering change.  Taxpayers are losing patience with the seemingly endless bailouts that are protecting institutions that have demonstrated shocking recklessness.  And now Obama's Treasury Secretary has crafted a bank rescue plan that is overly favorable to Wall Street.   If Obama doesn't handle this potentially explosive situation deftly, he risks a huge hit to his credibility.  

The Geithner bank rescue plan announced today brought an outpouring of irrational exuberance to Wall Street.  This is not a good sign.  With the Geithner plan seemingly tilted in the favor of the same charlatans that engineered the financial crisis and with billions of dollars already injected into the greedy institutions, it must be asked is there any end to Wall Street favoritism.

The AIG Bonuses Are a Mere Sideshow

Given the current surly mood of the public, it is hardly surprising public outrage was sparked when it was divulged AIG had given out millions in bonuses.  After all, government intervention is essentially all that has kept AIG from extinction.  The public is already seething because taxpayer money has been needed to rescue AIG from itself, and now we learn AIG has used some of that money to dole out millions in bonuses.  Such an action is unconscionable, regardless of the contention AIG had to honor contracts(which had guaranteed these bonuses) that preceded the government's rescue.  Yet, the bonuses AIG paid out constitute a mere fraction of what it has received from the government.  Experiencing blinding rage because AIG remarkably paid out bonuses from government funds is certainly understandable, but the AIG bonuses are really merely a sideshow.  The truly galling thing is our federal government has injected billions into irresponsible corporations without much oversight.  Is it unreasonable to conclude that generous political contributions made by the financial industry is at least part of the reason why the government has rushed to the aid of troubled financial institutions while refraining from forcing the institutions to accept rather onerous conditions?

The AIG bonuses are galling, yet it is a mere symptom of the real problem here.  Our elected officials should be embarrassed by their ineptitude in crafting a truly horrible rescue plan for Wall Street.  Since the 1970's, the federal government has bent over backwards to make an uneven playing field even more unfair.  Through its slavish devotion to big corporations, we have seen an appalling consolidation of wealth in the past three decades.  Much of this was accomplished by stealthily tinkering with the tax code like the decision during the Reagan years to hike the Social Security tax, which is about as regressive a levy as one could construct.  As appalling as that might be, that doesn't compare to the current circumstances.  Now, the government is overtly funneling money to the same institutions which through reckless risk-taking have brought the economy to the precipice of disaster.  It is hard not to conclude this is nothing less than legal grand theft.  It is time to recognize that the government plays a redistributive role.  Now and for some time, the government seems only open to redistributing wealth to the affluent. 

Maybe I'm missing something here, but the TARP program looks like it will fail in its stated mission.  TARP was ostensibly supposed to unfreeze the credit markets.  Has that happened at all after billions of dollars have already been squandered?  There is another puzzling question that few people are asking.  Even if the Fed's intentions are benevolent in trying to thaw the credit markets, can the Fed be successful when the American consumer is suddenly not eager to spend because of the very rational fear of being imminently laid off?  Even Americans in relatively secure jobs aren't rushing into stores because they've sustained colossal losses in their retirement accounts and have seen the values of their homes plummet.   Watching their net worths evaporate with shocking suddenness has propelled Americans to jettison their profligate ways.  So even if there were bountiful supplies of credit the banks were willing to lend, how many debt-laden Americans will want to dig themselves deeper into debt?

Let's admit something, even if the politicians won't.  The TARP program was poorly designed.  Its glaring deficiency is it was crafted by those who believe in the fantasy of trickle-down economics.  After Bush implemented a series of tax cuts, job growth was not remarkable despite the rhetoric of Conservatives.  Given a fairly rapid explosion in the wealth gap during the first decade of the twenty first century and that most American workers have seen stagnant or falling real wages(after adjusting for inflation), one must conclude that showering the elite with tax breaks and subsidies will not lead to nirvana or anything close to it(except for the already wealthy).  In a similar vein, there should be no expectation greedy big banks will act in the interest of the common good, since their past behavior suggest the opposite.  That the government hasn't figured this out is a bigger travesty than AIG awarding bonuses with government money.

The Outrage Builds...

Slowly but surely, public outrage is building in reaction to the seemingly endless parade of monetary bailouts of irresponsible corporations by the federal government.  The financial behemoths getting assistance are teetering on the brink of insolvency because of unquenchable greed.  The most appalling case is AIG, the insurance and financial services behemoth that laid waste to itself by taking on way too much risk without nearly enough capital.  The rationale for the injection of hundreds of billions into the financial sector has been that a collapse of the big banks would quickly trigger a deep depression that would hurt everyone. And while such a doomsday scenario is certainly plausible, that still doesn't explain why the government bailouts have been so poorly designed that they have essentially become gifts from taxpayers to irresponsible companies.  When it was first announced the government would be bailing out shaky financial institutions, the news wasn't warmly received by the public, but there was some hope that if the program were effectively administered it might prevent an economic collapse.  Now months later, the public rightfully can't quite grasp how so many billions have disappeared down a rat hole with so little to show for it.

The government's reaction to the financial crisis is exposing the unfairness of our capitalist system that is hidden in less perilous times.  It is hard for the public to swallow that the same rapacious financial industry that lobbied for a more draconian bankruptcy law and got it enacted is now being saved by ordinary taxpayers who have been regularly fleeced by the big banks.  Though it is laudable the Obama administration has moved to enact legislation that will offer troubled homeowners  help to stave off foreclosure, there is only a relatively paltry $75 billion earmarked for Obama's foreclosure rescue plan.  To put this in perspective, this is far less than the financial help the government has provided to just one company, AIG.  Which leads almost inevitably to the conclusion the government favors big corporations over ordinary people.  And why shouldn't it?  The big financial behemoths have essentially rigged the game by their sizable political contributions and lobbying efforts in recent years.  This essentially is systemic corruption. Because the glaring unfairness has now been exposed, the public is understandably(and rightfully) not amused.

Though Obama has rightfully denounced the awarding of bonuses to AIG executives, it must be noted the real problem here is the TARP program(the plan hatched to save teetering financial institutions) is fundamentally flawed.  Supposedly, the TARP was supposed to re-energize the moribund credit markets.   Yet, all indications are the banks have essentially hoarded much of the money.  This is not surprising given the current dysfunctional condition of the financial system.  The banks don't trust one another and are consequently reluctant to lend to each other.  It can only be described as criminally insane that the government has been willing to inject billions into the banking system without proper oversight and regulation.  Trusting banks to do the right thing might not have seemed absurd five years ago, but it is nothing short of criminal negligence for the government to trust the big banks after their irresponsible behavior of recent years.  Because there does not seem to be any end in sight to the government bailouts of greedy corporations, the public is getting angry.

Though Obama is the beneficiary of the honeymoon period afforded a new President, the honeymoon period won't last long if the populace believes it is being snookered.  Unfortunately for Obama, recent development are revealing to ordinary Americans that our capitalist system is rigged in favor of corporations.  If this trend continues, the public's outrage will continue to build and they may eventually turn against Obama.

Obama is no Radical

Though the Republicans have largely discredited themselves by their recent poor execution in governing, that has not stopped them from taking swipes at Obama as the President tries to lead the country in these difficult times.  The deteriorating economic conditions have propelled Obama to support and pass a stimulus package which Obama hopes will ease the pain as the economic difficulties continue to worsen.  Despite the lack of alternatives being offered by Republicans at a time when Americans are looking to the federal government to avert an economic collapse, Conservatives are loudly protesting Obama's stimulus plan with many asserting the details of the stimulus plan reveal Obama to be a dangerous left wing radical.  Don't believe this nonsense.  There is little to suggest so far that Obama is either a radical or a closet socialist.

Let's start with the stimulus plan.  If Obama were a true radical, his stimulus plan would be even bigger than what has been enacted.  Fiscal Conservatives will lament the almost $800 billion price tag of Obama's stimulus plan, but many leftists argue the stimulus plan isn't big or bold enough to rescue the economy.  Moreover, Obama did include a generous helping of tax cuts in his stimulus package that must warm the hearts of Conservatives.  When an economy is clearly ailing, it isn't radical to spend a healthy amount of government money to give the moribund economy a shot in the arm.  At times of distress, deficit spending is an accepted strategy to turn things around.  So though Republicans decry Obama's stimulus plan as a dangerously radical scheme, it is actually less radical than lowering taxes while initiating wars which was a hallmark of Republican rule.

Nothing better exemplifies Obama's mainstream tendencies than his continuation of the Bush policies to prop up the financial industry.  Though there are whispers in leftist publications and even in Conservative circles to nationalize teetering banks, there is little indication Obama intends to do that.  Obama's economic team is hardly radical, and if anything has shown a tendency to be overly deferential to Wall Street and the big banks.  There is an argument to be made that a failure to nationalize troubled banks is only prolonging the misery.  Yet, so far the Obama team has shown little inclination to take over shaky financial institutions.  Given Obama's apparent aversion to nationalizing troubled banks, if he is really someone who is on the leftmost fringe, he is concealing it rather well.

Obama has plans to broaden health insurance coverage.  This isn't radical given the 47 million Americans without health insurance.  Any plan to increase health insurance coverage is laudable.  To call this radical is ridiculous, yet Republicans are attacking Obama for spending money to attain more universal coverage.  A truly radical step would be to support a government run single-payer health care system that would replace the unwieldy and spectacularly inefficient system we have today.  This is the dream of many leftists.  Yet, Obama isn't planning a complete overhaul of our health care system much to the dismay of many Liberals.  Conservatives may not agree with spending money to increase the number of Americans with health insurance, but they are stretching the truth to the breaking point in describing Obama's health care policy as radical.  

Conservatives are seemingly in love with fossil fuels.  Their adoration for fossil fuels have seemingly blinded them to the reality that the earth is not blessed with infinite supplies of fossil fuel.  And while scientists largely agree that the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to the phenomenon of global warming, Conservatives largely reject this premise.  Thus, they may disagree with the need of government to spend money to promote alternative renewable energy sources.  But, that hardly sounds radical to me. 

What seems strikingly evident after Obama's first fifty days in office given his actions and his words is he is no radical.  This won't stop Republicans from accusing Obama of being an extremist, but right now such accusations are wholly bereft of merit. 

 

 

 

Surging to Nowhere in Afghanistan

Given the myriad of challenges facing the nation, the country doesn't need a distraction like an escalation of the conflict in distant Afghanistan.  Yet, Obama appears committed to unwisely augment the war effort there.  After seven years of occupation that has failed to quell unrest, it is illogical to believe a relatively small boost in troop strength will make much of a difference.  More troops will almost certainly spur more misery and death in Afghanistan, but it wouldn't seem to be a sound strategy if the goal is to eradicate international terrorism.

Is it too complex a concept for Americans to grasp that our seemingly interminable occupation in Afghanistan is spawning hatred among Afghans?  Moreover, the incompetence and impotency of the US-backed Karzai government has not helped the American cause.  The US has failed to bring stability to much of Afghanistan, while making little headway against the resurgent Taliban.  When innocent Afghans die as a result of our aggressive actions, it can only foment more hatred among the war weary Afghan population.  Success in Afganistan is impossible if we fail to win the hearts and minds of the native population.  Boosting the numbers of the occupying force will likely have the undesirable effect of spurring nationalistic Afghans to take up the cause against American troops.  As long as our actions continue to anger Afghans, we'll get nowhere in Afghanistan.

Though we are loath to admit it, many of the so-called extremists arrayed against America in Afghanistan are presumbaly waging battle against our forces because they are tired of our troops being there.  Just think how America would react if Russia or China occupied this country for seven years and showed no inclination to leave.  And by boosting troop strength, the signal we are sending is we are here to stay whether Afghans like it or not.  This is bound to stimulate anti-American sentiment and lead to a surge of exasperated Afghans ready to fight against our forces.    

The most persuasive argument against more troops being deployed in Afghanistan is we can't afford to continue fighting a senseless war.   To prop up a rapidly cratering economy, the federal government is now prepared to fend off economic disaster by spending billions.  We are looking at a gaping budget deficit next year and beyond.  A county in such perilous shape has no business fighting a senseless war in a distant locale.   So let's do the sensible thing and save some money by gradually disengaging from Afghanistan and stop breeding resentment in a volatile region.

The war weary Afghan people deserve a chance to pursue their own dreams.  That can't happen as long as the country is occupied by foreign troops.  In addition, it is not in America's best interest to escalate a war in a distant land when the country is facing such tough economic challenges.  Seven years of senseless war is more than enough.  Americans should oppose any effort to expand the war in Afghanistan.

Worse than European Socialism

As the economic downturn intensifies, it is no longer fashionable to rail against big government.  If it were not for the decisive actions of the US federal government, AIG, Citigroup and other financial behemoths would have already been forced into bankruptcy.  What should be obvious is the current economic difficulties were spurred by reckless behavior by the private sector in its rapacious search for profit.  While Conservatives still decry the actions of government, it is hard to take them seriously when angst-ridden Americans are looking to government for a way out of the current economic mess.  The severity of the current economic crisis is forcing everyone to revisit the mantra of the Reagan years that government is the problem.   In fact, a strong argument can be made that one of the key causes of the economic crisis has been overly lax regulation of the financial industry.   All of a sudden, no one is boasting right now the era of big government is over.

With the advent of the Reagan revolution, Americans were bombarded with anti-government messages that suggested government was hopelessly inefficient and couldn't be relied upon to effectively address the nation's challenges.  If we just unleashed the private sector, prosperity would be assured.  As the economic crisis worsens, the notion the private sector has all the answers has never looked more absurd. 

Many Republicans have argued Obama's stimulus plan is moving the country towards socialism.  This argument is transparently preposterous.  With the economy cratering, there is an obvious need for the government to spur economic activity.  Even if this weren't the case, it is patently absurd for Republicans to decry government's actions to help the middle class, when there seems to be no limit to how much capital the government is willing to inject into irresponsible financial institutions.  What Conservatives seem to be against is any government intervention on the behalf of ordinary Americans.  This myopic stance may mean a protracted stay in the political wilderness for the GOP. 

I think it is important to emphasize the current economic crisis arose from private sector irresponsibility.  This shouldn't come as a big surprise.  When corporations maneuver to maximize short term profit at the expense of everything, reckless behavior is inevitable.  And when government regulation is loosened because of persistent corporate lobbying and massive campaign contributions, the result can be disastrous.  As recent developments show, the private sector can make lousy decisions.  And when big corporations betray the public trust, it is ordinary Americans who are often left to clean up the mess. 

There has always been a revulsion towards socialism in America.  I would argue what we have now is worse than European socialism.  What we unfortunately have now is the privatization of profit by large corporations while society is burdened by the risk.  That this is unfair should be obvious.  That Conservatives still have the gall to complain the country is lurching towards socialism should remove any doubt they are not worth listening to.