If you look at American history, you’ll see a pattern. When there’s a war to be fought, we tend to build a military to fight it. With the war done, we demobilize and reduce defense spending. Then at some future point, a new situation emerges that seems to warrant increases in military expenditures. Seems obvious, right? When the Spanish-American War ends, we demobilize. When World War One starts, we mobilize. When it ends, we demobilize.
David Brooks columns are often difficult to grasp hold of, but I want to flag this accurate-but-misleading account of how Paul Ryan’s “budget roadmap” achieves large reductions in entitlement spending: “On the welfare-state side, he’d sweep away most subsidies to the middle and upper classes, like the tax exemption on employee health plans. He’d essentially voucherize federal benefits, like health care and Social Security, and increase federal subsidies for people down the income scale.”
Since Social Security is just checks mailed out by the government I don’t even know what voucherizing it would mean. But it is true that he wants to replace Medicare, a program that pays for health care services, with vouchers that you use to buy private health insurance. But why would that save money? Is it because private insurance is more efficient than a government-run universal pool? No. It’s because while Medicare’s costs are projected to increase at the same rate as overall health care costs, Ryan’s vouchers are designed to increase in value at a much slower rate. So instead of paying for old people’s health care, which is expensive, Ryan proposed to just not pay for old people’s health care. Nobody can seriously deny that refusing to pay what health care costs saves a lot of money relative to paying what it actually does cost. But the savings here have nothing to do with vouchers or with sweeping away benefits to the middle and upper classes. You could accomplish the exact same thing by setting a cap on how much Medicare will pay for any one person’s health care. But conservatives would denounce that as “rationing” even though it’s identical in its impact on patients.
Either way, though, the issue is that as a country we can’t afford the quantity of health care services we’re projected to consumer in 30 or 40 years. Shifting the cost around doesn’t actually address that issue.
I think that if you want to puzzle through the question of whether or not the large status quo bias of the American system is good for liberals you have to start with the observation that public policy is not a zero-sum game. The fact that conservatives complain about growth-stifling inefficient regulations doesn’t mean that liberals should go out of our way to accomplish things through the most inefficient and growth-stifling means possible.
In Canada, their health care system is more equitable and it spends less taxpayer cash per patient. Traditionally, conservatives don’t point to Canada’s health care system as a conservative victory but they do point to Canada’s low taxes which are in part a consequence of its efficient single-payer health care system. So is that a conservative win or a liberal one? Well, it’s both. The main upshot of many features of the US political system that I don’t like is to enhance the influence of interest groups and decrease the influence of ideologues and technocrats. This is basically by design and reflects 18th century state of the art thinking about the dangers of liberal governance being trampled by demagogues. Insofar as the balance we’re currently striking is inappropriate to the conditions of the 21st century United States that’s bad for the right and the left.
I am once again baffled by this rule that prevents the Walter Reed space being vacated by the federal government from being put to optimal use:
The federal government will soon vacate most of Water Reed hospital in northern DC, and DC officials are currently pondering potential uses and getting community input. Metro’s proposal to build a new bus garage should be part of the final plan.
Federal base closure rules restrict the uses to government and non-profit, so DC can’t simply let developers build some condos and grocery stores on the site. It can be used for public health, prison, homeless assistance, seaports, and more. A seaport is probably not in the cards, but a bus garage would be a great use of some of the space.
Dave Alpert makes a persuasive case for his bus garage plan, but what on earth is the purpose of rules of this sort? Why not sell the land and earmark the money for these worthy purposes? That would seem to make everyone better off. You don’t see that many examples of truly pareto optimal policy changes out there, but this is one. No nefarious interest I can think of benefits from this arrangement, it’s just wasteful for no reason. And it comes up in DC all the time because a similar rule applies to a bunch of long-vacant school buildings we have.
Recognizing the need to cut spending in light of record budget deficits, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced major cuts to a number of big-ticket weapons programs last year that the Pentagon concluded it no longer needed. Gates — who was first appointed by President Bush — is so serious about the need to eliminate these programs that he has called on President Obama to veto any defense spending bill that contains funding for further development of these wasteful, unnecessary systems. Chief among the cuts is an extra engine for the F-35 fighter jet, of which Gates has said, “Every dollar additional to the budget that we have to put into the F-35 is a dollar taken from something else that the troops may need.”
One would think that self-styled budget hawks like Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) would herald Gates’ proposed cuts. He has said “if we are going to put our fiscal house in order, everything has to be on the table. We have to be willing to look at domestic spending, we have to be able to look at entitlements, and we have to look at defense.”
But in an interview with Bloomberg’s Al Hunt yesterday, Pence defended spending hundreds of millions more on an extra engine, despite having said moments earlier that one of his top priorities is “to get federal spending under control.” Pence attempts to make a national security argument for the engine, before quickly revealing his true motives:
HUNT: Everybody seems to be for — most people say they’re for fiscal discipline, but it gets hard when it’s in your district. Let me give you one example for you. You went to the House floor to defend money for a second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter … [which would have] a factory in your district. The Pentagon says it doesn’t want it. The other day a Tea Party group — this is a Tea Party group — said of this project, it’s an example of “opportunistic parasite feeding on the expansion of government.” Tough stuff.
PENCE: Well, sure. And everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but — and not entitled to their own facts. The reality is, and the Heritage Foundation produced a very important study on this, is that it is believed that when you were talking about a military defense contract that will span decades of time, it is in the interest of taxpayers in the long run to have more than one source, more than one manufacturer of that engine.
The fact that one of those two engines in part is manufactured in Indiana, we certainly welcome. We’re proud of those jobs. But at the end of the day, I really do believe that it was in the interest of our national defense.
Watch it:
In contradicting the Pentagon by claiming that the extra engine is “in the interest of our national defense,” Pence seems to be claiming that he — a former talk radio host — knows more about national security than the military. Rolls Royce, the company that would produce the extra engine, employes 4,000 people in Pence’s district and has spent millions lobbying for the engine. Development of the engine would cost $560 million for next year alone, but Pence believes in this pork project so much that he went to the House floor in May to defend it.
Pence is hardly the only Republican lawmaker to support the wasteful extra engine, despite bloviating about government spending on a nearly daily basis. For example, 32 members of the Republican Study Committee (RSC) — a group of ultra-conservative House members — signed a “no earmarks” pledge, but 17 of that 32 voted to fund the extra engine anyway. Beyond Pence, who is the third-ranking Republican in the House, supporters of the extra engine include such fiscal conservative leaders as Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), and RSC Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) — almost the entire Republican leadership.
Not to be outdone by the lower house, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) recently gave a radio interview in which he accused President Obama of being “the most anti-military president” in history, explaining that Obama “disarmed America.” His evidence? Cutting the C-17, F-22, and Future Combat System programs — all of which Gates identified as unnecessary and put on the chopping block.
“The situation of Baghlan is very serious, and day by day it is getting worse and worse,” said Mohammed Rasool Mohsini, the chairman of the provincial council and a former commander.
Even 15 months ago Baghlan was not like this. It had a few trouble spots, according to Afghans and Americans working on development projects, but for the most part it seemed safe.
Afghan politicians, local leaders and local citizens all said they felt that the Afghan government, coalition forces and development groups had focused so intensively on the south, funneling tens of thousands of troops and billions of dollars to communities there, that they had missed the danger signs.
“Even two years ago the Taliban had a very small influence in Baghlan and we were telling the government, ‘If you don’t deal with their small activities, they will grow,’ ” Mr. Mohsini said.
Instead of focusing NATO attention and resources on the parts of Afghanistan where we were most welcome, we’ve been going hard at the areas where the Taliban has the most support. That’s a high-risk, high-reward strategy and we don’t seem to be reaping the rewards.
Brooks Butler Hays had a smart take on the recent tussle between popular Bloomingdale cafe Big Bear’s problems with the local Advisor Neighborhood Commission which highlights some governance issues of much broader relevance:
One question that arises from the flames: how can such a popular business that has faithfully served the community for several years – in an area that has a dismally minuscule number of retail and restaurant options – be so angrily opposed by residents? Big Bear Cafe was even granted the Mayor’s 2009 Environment Excellence award. Granted, that sounds like a meaningless certificate a third grade teacher would give to make sure all her students felt appreciated, but still! Another logical question is: why is the ANC bestowed the authority to raise such a hissy fit? It seems the large majority of the community is in support of the business’s plans (600 signed a petition in support of the liquor license application), but the ANC has given a symbolic megaphone to a minority of elected curmudgeons in opposition. When an organizations only real power is to say no to things, it’s apparent that they are more likely to conjure the zeitgeist of prohibition-era attitudes in order to play devil’s advocate. How can residents expect property values to improve if amenities like restaurants, bars, and markets are not readily incorporated into the community? DCMud will keep its readership informed as answers to these questions reveal themselves in the coming months.
Another point to raise here is that the ANCs are one of America’s examples of electoral democracy without democratic accountability—nobody knows who these guys are or what ANCs do, so incumbents tend to just keep getting re-elected indefinitely. Then they’re empowered to say “no” to stuff, so their default position is that nobody should be allowed to do anything. And last they’re hyper-local so they don’t properly weigh the interests of the broader community of people—lots of people who live near-but-not-in ANC5A (me, for example) go to the cafe and also enjoy the farmer’s market that’s associated with it. Community input in decision-making is important, but you need to think hard about how you structure these institutions.
On Monday, a disastrous leak in one of the world’s largest pipeline systems gushed over 1 million gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River, located in southwest Michigan. Already, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm has declared the area a disaster zone, quickly activating State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC) to ensure all state resources are devoted to oil spill response. “From my perspective, the response has been anemic,” Granholm said. Spill workers and volunteers have been hard at work, cleaning the horrifyingly oily water:
This is not the first failure of Enbridge Inc., the Canadian energy company responsible for the spill. Michigan Messenger’s Todd Heywood reports that, “documents from the agency show that Enbridge Energy pipelines have leaked oil on 12 different occasions in Michigan since 2002.” Furthermore, documents obtained by the Detroit Free Press and other news outlets indicate Enbridge Inc. was “notified twice this year of potential problems involving old pipe prone to rupturing and an inadequate system for monitoring internal corrosion.” While this is one of the biggest threats to a pipeline, it is currently unclear whether Enbridge addressed the notices or if “the concerns played any role in the leak.”
Although Michigan’s spill represents only 32 percent of the amount of oil spilled per day in the ongoing BP oil disaster, the environmental implications of the leak are already clear. Not only has wildlife — including geese and muskrats — been coated in oil, but fears also remain high that the oil will contaminate local water supplies. The Calhoun County Health Department has advised residents around the area of the Kalamazoo River oil spill to evacuate, due to “‘higher than acceptable levels of benzene’ in air quality studies.” Benzene, notes the press release from the health department, is a “highly flammable” organic chemical that can lead to a series of symptoms from dizziness to tremors. The long-term effects of benzene exposure, however, are more dire and are linked to excessive bleeding and even cancer in human beings. Enbridge has agreed to reimburse affected families for the cost of hotel stays.
Yesterday, Enbridge spokeswoman Terri Larson said “no fresh oil is leaking from the leak site itself.” Moreover, as the Michigan Messenger reports, “Despite claims by Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel that the company would reopen the leaking oil pipeline ‘in a matter of days,’ the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has issued a Corrective Action Order directing the company not to reopen the pipeline until a comprehensive safety assessment can be completed.”
On Monday, a disastrous leak in one of the world’s largest pipeline systems gushed over 1 million gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River, located in southwest Michigan. Already, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm has declared the area a disaster zone, quickly activating State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC) to ensure all state resources are devoted to oil spill response. “From my perspective, the response has been anemic,” Granholm said. Spill workers and volunteers have been hard at work, cleaning the horrifyingly oily water:
This is not the first failure of Enbridge Inc., the Canadian energy company responsible for the spill. Michigan Messenger’s Todd Heywood reports that, “documents from the agency show that Enbridge Energy pipelines have leaked oil on 12 different occasions in Michigan since 2002.” Furthermore, documents obtained by the Detroit Free Press and other news outlets indicate Enbridge Inc. was “notified twice this year of potential problems involving old pipe prone to rupturing and an inadequate system for monitoring internal corrosion.” While this is one of the biggest threats to a pipeline, it is currently unclear whether Enbridge addressed the notices or if “the concerns played any role in the leak.”
Although Michigan’s spill represents only 32 percent of the amount of oil spilled per day in the ongoing BP oil disaster, the environmental implications of the leak are already clear. Not only has wildlife — including geese and muskrats — been coated in oil, but fears also remain high that the oil will contaminate local water supplies. The Calhoun County Health Department has advised residents around the area of the Kalamazoo River oil spill to evacuate, due to “‘higher than acceptable levels of benzene’ in air quality studies.” Benzene, notes the press release from the health department, is a “highly flammable” organic chemical that can lead to a series of symptoms from dizziness to tremors. The long-term effects of benzene exposure, however, are more dire and are linked to excessive bleeding and even cancer in human beings. Enbridge has agreed to reimburse affected families for the cost of hotel stays.
Yesterday, Enbridge spokeswoman Terri Larson said “no fresh oil is leaking from the leak site itself.” Moreover, as the Michigan Messenger reports, “Despite claims by Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel that the company would reopen the leaking oil pipeline ‘in a matter of days,’ the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has issued a Corrective Action Order directing the company not to reopen the pipeline until a comprehensive safety assessment can be completed.”
