Foreign Policy Opinion

It's been a while...

I wanted to express an opinion on how the US conducts foreign policy, particularly with respect to aggressive would-be adversaries such as North Korea. For a recent example, see this; of course there are many others. I think the US response to such provocative statements is somewhat detrimental, and we should consider another posture... allow me to explain.

Currently, the US more or less ignores provocative rhetoric from hostile nation-states. The thinking, I guess, is that "talk is cheap", and the statements are more intended for the domestic audience for political purposes, and/or for keeping up appearances of a posture of strength and defiance. Moreover, we tend to maintain a philosophy of "proportional response", where presumably the proportional response to aggressive rhetoric is strongly worded statements at/with the UN, or such. That is, doing nothing.

I'd submit that there are some problems with this approach. First, it's somewhat disrespectful to the aggressing nation-state itself: by taking no substantive action in response, you're essentially indicating that you consider the threats meaningless, and by extension the nation-state impotent to carry through with the actions they are warning of. Second, you are inviting escalated action from the nation-state as an expression of their foreign policy interests; if they want to show that they are "serious" about something, they are forced to engage in more destructive and harmful actions which they otherwise would not resort to, just to emphasize points which would otherwise be dismissed. This invariably leads to avoidable escalations, undesirable pursuits (eg: nuclear weapons), and preventable loss of life.

Consider an alternative approach, wherein the US resolves to treat all threats of force from nation states as actual use of force, with [potential] proportional response. With that approach, threats of action would once-again mean something, and a nation-state would no longer need to pursue more direct aggression to provoke a response. Instead of ignoring North Korea, we would be war planning, and engaging to actively weaken both their defenses, and their offensive capability. Yes, it would mean more military action on our part, but it also might mean less tension in various parts of the world, and nation-states would be far less apt to make persistent threats without fear of reprisals. It would also provide a far more direct and expedient resolution for foreign policy differences, which would be better in the longer term for all countries involved.

Anyway, as always, just my opinion.

Counter-Obama Position on Fiscal Cliff Negotiation

Side-note: I was going to title this the GOP position, but I'm not sure many/most in the GOP actually appreciate the position itself, or why it's worth fighting for. Rather than make an assumption as to motivations and priorities, I'll simply call my position the counter-Obama perspective, and/or the anti-socialism approach.

In the debate over what way to back off the so-called "unavoidable" automatic deficit-reduction measures Congress enacted (which, if you recall, exist because Congress couldn't find a compromise for deficit reduction the last time around, following the previous "compromise" which allowed effectively unlimited national debt increases in exchange for the cuts the government is now desperate to eliminate), the Democrats have done an enviable job framing the debate in the main stream media as a decision between cutting taxes for the middle class, and cutting taxes for the rich. Now, while the framing itself is obviously inaccurate (Republicans want to cut taxes for everyone, whereas Democrats only want to cut taxes for the "not rich"), the GOP isn't doing itself any favors by not refuting the characterization, nor articulating the alternative in a way which is compelling. So, I'm going to give it a try.

Obama's stated positions are as follows:
- He's willing to compromise with Republicans, and everything should be on the table for discussion
- He's unwilling to compromise or discuss not hiking taxes on rich people
- [also] He's unwilling to compromise or discuss cutting or reforming entitlements, especially the massive new one bearing his name

Setting aside the obvious hypocrisy and absurdity, and concentrating just on the tax question, the counter-position (well, a counter-position anyway) to Obama's proposal is this: we are unwilling to accept any change to the tax law which makes taxation less equal and/or more biased. By equal, in this context, I mean percentage-equivalent for all income, all levels, for all people, under all conditions. Any change which makes taxes less equal should be rejected with conviction, and I'll explain why.

Taxes determine the size of government. You can have deficit spending to increase the size without corresponding taxation, but eventually you need to inflate-down the deficit, and/or increase taxation to compensate. We should have an honest national discussion about the necessary size of government; it's a long-time coming, and desperately needed. In the meantime, though, it's of vital importance for the continued survival of the country that taxation be equally applied across the population, without bias or favor. We must move toward a more flat tax system, or risk the country falling apart.

Consider the current situation: nearly 50% of the country pays no federal income taxes. That's 50% of the voters who don't care at all about raising taxes, because it doesn't affect them. They could care less about controlling deficit spending, because they don't expect to pay for it. They are, at best, not qualified to elect representatives making policy decisions on taxation, and in reality willingly biased corrupt participants in creating an unbalanced system of government-controlled wealth confiscation. They will willfully and gleefully push the country off the cliff of fiscal ruin, because they are not vested in the process of paying the check. This must be fixed if the country is to survive.

What the country needs is this: every time a politician talks of extra spending, everyone should connect that to an extra few dollars out of their personal paycheck every month... everyone. Not just the rich, not the entitled, not the other guy... everyone. When Obama talks of bailing out GM, that should be one less Christmas present every poor family gets to buy for their children, because some union worker with outrageous benefits needs to keep his job pretending to build cars nobody wants. When Obama wants an extra $50 billion or so to spread around to his campaign backers, that's food out of people's mouths. Yes, that will be painful, for lots of people... but that's the vital point. It's shared pain, shared by everyone, paying for the stuff the government decides is absolutely necessary for the best interests of everyone. And, at the end of the day, it's about being able to get rid of the scum wasting our money, because they really are wasting all our money; and if everyone feels the fiscal pain, we might finally get some real, much needed change, before it's too late.

Anonymity is Vital for Free Expression

Chances are, you have one of two reactions to the sentiment expressed in the title of this post. On the one hand, you might agree, realizing that people are only free to express their honest opinions when they do not fear reprisal, and the only way to ensure that condition is true anonymity. On the other hand, you may feel that a veil of secrecy damages civilized discussion, or makes it impossible to ensure everyone has an equal voice, or allows evil people to spread hateful and/or destructive speech without repercussion, or perpetrates some other societal evil. All points may be valid and accurate, yet free expression is vital to freedom, with all the downsides which come with it. To the point, I'll cite a recent example which was interesting to me.

The government (or more specifically, the executive branch of the US government) has a site where citizens can "sign" petitions to be addressed by the government. In the spirit of other petitions, to sign a petition means to include your [accurate] personal identification information, presumably so that you could be validated as a constituent represented ruled by the leaders rulers you were petitioning. Currently, there are many virtual petitions collecting signatures for various anti-government activities, the most media-popularized ones concerning succession from the US. The motivations of the signatories are no-doubt varied; some see succession as the only viable escape from the broken political system, others are simply frustrated with the current status, and still others just don't like the particular oppressors who happen to be in power.

Consider though, for a moment, the implications of signing such a petition. Already, there are "ideologically-competing" petitions, such as the one which asks the president to try any signatories for treason. Notwithstanding the legal dubiousness of that severe of retaliation, is it far-fetched to assume that signing a succession petition might attract some sort of attention? After all, it's common knowledge that the NSA/CIA has vast information-monitoring resources, already monitors all internet communications for "suspicious" activity, and can do the same with other electronic communication networks (cellular, etc.). The FBI executes hundreds of thousands of warrant-less searches of business information every year, tracks people with GPS without warrants, and searches and/or seizes your property at will. They also kept open files on anyone sighted at political protests (sometimes with active surveillance), and that was long before the capabilities of the digital information age.

Moreover, consider the secondary implications. As someone recently pointed out, signing such a petition might make you ineligible for a security clearance in the US. This might be acceptable, until or unless you are denied a job due to the prohibition. What if your name is entered into a government database of "suspicious" persons, and the next time you fly anywhere, the TSA pulls you out of line for an "enhanced" interview? Would evidence of seditious behavior be grounds to monitor your phone/internet? Might the FBI question your spouse, your friends, your children, your employer? If the government investigates you, will you still be employed? Will the police be less likely to believe your side of events if your name is in a federal database? All of these things should be considerations when you sign your name to something anti-government.

I'm not saying there are not valid reasons for demanding personal accountability for statements and/or petitions. I'm not saying any particular petitions have merit or not. I'm not saying that all the potential bad things which could happen to people signing such petitions will happen, or even are likely to happen. What I am saying, emphatically, is that regardless of my particular feelings on controversial issues, you will not find my real name on any government lists of people publicly opposed to the evils of our government. Admittedly it's a minor distinction, since it's easy enough for the government to discern my feelings about them from this blog alone, if they were so inclined, but that doesn't mean I'm going to paint a target on myself as well. Moreover, I hope that future generations find a way to preserve their anonymity, in a way which most people of my generation have failed. It will be vital to preserving what's left of our formerly free country.

Surprise: I don't hate "off the teleprompter" Romney

So today, there was an "embarrassing" leaked video, purportedly from a fund-raising event, in which Romney talks candidly about the campaign, how he sees the voting blocs, and how he hopes to prevail in the upcoming election. The most damaging revelation, per the mainstream media, was his statement that just under half of the population will vote for Obama regardless of policies or message, because they pay no effective taxes, are dependent on the government, and care more about feeding their handout dependency than whatever is good for the country. Also of note were some comments about how the "black vote" would certainly go to Obama (presumably due to racial bias), and how the Republicans will need to win some of the "Hispanic" vote in order to contend for the election.

The media, and liberal organizations in particular, pounced on this as an example of the candidate disparaging a large section of the population, which may well be accurate. You know what, though? He's absolutely correct. Moreover, it's shockingly refreshing to have someone running for office telling the unedited/raw truth, even if it was intended to be in a private conversation.

I mean, think about it objectively, without PC glasses for a moment. We know almost 50% of the country pays no [federal income] taxes, and of course that voting block will lean heavily toward the candidate promising more handouts and big government: it's [short-sighted, short-term, and self-destructive, but still] just self-interest. I applaud those who don't contribute to the tax base but still support limited government, but understand that you are vastly outnumbered by people heavily dependent on the government, by choice or by necessity, and that section of the population overwhelmingly votes Democrat. This is just one of the ways the government controls people: get them dependent, then they will let you rule them in exchange for more boons. For example, you can bet that the vast majority of union workers vote for Obama, and for good reason (he gave them GM as a reward for his first term).

As for the black vote, of course that's going to Obama. It may be the harsh truth which is verboten, but black people are often more racist than other races (in the sense of favoring race over other qualifications). For example, the NAACP is a racial-preference organization; the black equivalent of the KKK (minus the overt calls for violence against other races, but with a heck of a lot more political influence). It would be rare to hear a white person scolded for voting for Obama because that would be "turning his back on his people", yet that was a common refrain in the last election for black people speaking out against Obama. The harsh truth is that racism is alive and well in America, and as a result Obama will have 95%+ of the black vote, no matter what his policies or beliefs are.

The Hispanic vote will be a battleground, but if we're telling the truth, most of it will go to Obama as well. Why? Well, because lots of Hispanic voters have many friends and acquaintances who are in the US illegally (or are so themselves), breaking the laws of this country regularly and often with impunity. The fact is that the Democratic party is more accommodating to illegal aliens, more willing to ignore or subvert the laws of the United States, and more willing to give handouts to those who happen to be inside the borders, laws be damned. They will get the majority of the Hispanic votes, especially from those who do not pay taxes, do not run [legal] businesses, and/or take advantage of the social safety nets of the US. It may not be a pleasant thought, but it's the truth, and I kinda respect Romney for actually kinda saying it.

Will this leak cost Romney the election? I doubt it. As he observed, the election will come down to the 8% or so who are undecided, the small section of the population who don't vote purely based on either religious views, or [unenlightened] self-interest. Those people are less likely to recoil at admissions of the truth, or be swayed by the media's enthusiastic attempt to bash Romney with it. Will it help Romney? Perhaps a little; it's surprisingly refreshing to see a little beyond the polished, controlled, bland, and utterly uninteresting facade of Obama-lite and Obama-bashing which Romney's campaign managers carefully present at every appearance. At the end of the day, it's hard to see this swaying the election one way or the other, but it's interesting to get a glimpse of perhaps a little of the "real" Romney, and find myself less repulsed than from the candidate.

Interesting Comment; Creeping Normalicy

I was watching the Daily Show, and they had on Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog. In addition to being a very intelligent person, and having a very interesting discussion with John Stewart regarding the Supreme Court and current events, he had another choice comment which struck me (you can watch the interview here if you want). The point that struck me was when John Stewart made the observation that it's the Supreme Court's job to uphold the Constitution, and Tom slightly corrected him, reminding him that it's the job of all branches of government to uphold the Constitution, and the Supreme Court just plays one role in that process.

Think about that for a moment. It's the President's job and responsibility to uphold and respect the Constitution; it's in the oath of office. It's also Congress' job and responsibility to uphold and respect the Constitution; it's in their oath of office too. Yet, it seems that often gets overlooked, of not ignored entirely. As a poignant example, just the previous day President Obama had given a speech where he pre-admonished the Supreme Court for performing their Constitutional duty. Moreover, I don't think most people (at least in his own party) even thought too much of it; it was a calculated political move to discredit the Supreme Court in case they strike Obamacare, but the fact that it was an implicit attack on the structure and powers of branches of government (and hence the Constitution) didn't really even register with people, even those who found it distasteful.

Of course, it certainly not the first time in recent memory that a President or Congress has openly defied the Constitution. You don't even need to focus solely on Obama's dismal record of staying within the bounds of power granted under the Constitution: Bush gave us CIA domestic operations and indefinite detainment. Obama has certainly pushed the boundaries with undeclared wars, sanctioned assassinations of Americans, warrant-less surveillance, the individual mandate, etc., but ignoring or subverting the Constitution has become standard practice in the executive branch.

There's a phrase "creeping normalcy". It means when something, usually objectionable, is brought about slowly or gradually, people are more likely to accept it as "normal". Government is full of examples of creeping normalcy, from the taxation, to debt, to government size, government power, police abuses, corruption, etc. You could be forgiven for thinking it's not the President's job to defend, or even respect, the boundaries of the Constitution, based on the creeping normalcy of expansive executive power in the US. That is, until you realize that that's not right at all!

All Presidents, and all members of Congress, swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Perhaps it's time we find some people for those positions who will actually do so, and hold the people who do not accountable for their abuses.

Standing Semi-Corrected

A bit ago, I criticized the Chrysler superbowl commercial, in which they touted Detroit as a model for the re-invigoration of America. I didn't explicitly state, but strongly implied, that it would be disastrous if the country followed the same path as Detroit, with corruption, bailouts, destruction of industry, and all the other maladies Detroit has brought upon themselves. I suppose you could extend the sentiment to Michigan as a whole, with Detroit being the major city there, but it turns out that would not be entirely fair: there is something pretty interesting going on in Michigan, which I think the country could indeed learn from.

I was not aware, until recently, of the Emergency Financial Manager law/system in place in Michigan, and in effect in several of the more destitute cities there. Basically, the law allows the state to appoint a financial manager if the city finances get critically bad, and empowers the manager to fix the problems (by cancelling contracts, firing government employees, reducing costs, etc.). Essentially, it allows for some fallback adult supervision if the irresponsible children/idiots running the city do a poor enough job. And... I think it's a great idea.

Granted, there is a substantial potential for abuse, and I would be very wary of such if adopting this paradigm in a broader sense, but the idea is fairly sound. Basically, it's a strong incentive for local government to not be reckless and irresponsible, and allow the financial situation to deteriorate through mismanagement and corruption. It also may allow for a certain amount of "cleaning house" in otherwise entrenched corrupt government, and incentivizes the organizations which do business for and/or with the government to not steal quite as much public money (lest their contracts be cancelled by the EFM, and their work contracted to less corrupt organizations). It doesn't solve any of the systemic problems, but it does give the people a fighting chance to right the ship after problems arise, rather than being held hostage to the unions and such.

Imagine, for example, if the EU were able to impose such a mechanism on Greece. There would be no more wrangling, negotiation, and double-talk to get ongoing bailouts; the EU would impose a EFM, who would unilaterally make the appropriate changes to restore fiscal sanity (ie: firing all the current corrupt government officials, cutting pensions, raising the retirement age, privatizing 90% of the current government's functions, selling assets, etc.). It would be a painful transition, to be sure, but Greece would then actually have a chance to restore its economy free of the socialist leadership which has destroyed it, and rebuild to prosperity, instead of wallowing in a perpetual austerity program where only the political elite have any chance of prosperity.

Moreover, the threat of such would serve as a powerful, real incentive for the governments of Greece and the other EU countries, to not stray too far down the path of overspending, borrowing against the future, and/or unsustainable entitlements. With the appropriate mechanisms in place, you wouldn't need bailout provisions, loan guarantees, negotiations about appropriate austerity measures, or anything of the sort. The EU could simply allow each country to manage its own finances however it saw fit, stepping in if and only if a country demonstrated a pressing need for responsible adult intervention, and staying only long enough to clean house, and get the country back on a fiscally sustainable path. You might even be able to convince politicians to be more responsible stewards for the countries in general (the holy grail of public policy governing governments, if you will).

So my hat off to you, Michigan: I stand semi-corrected in my thought that you had nothing positive in the way of public policy which could be emulated elsewhere. I think a great many governmental entities could benefit from EFM's or the like, and the ability to "clean out" existing government bureaucracies and entitlements could be a huge boon for a lot of people.

What the US Really Needs

With the election season getting underway, and America once again approaching the time when they will choose between two statist, freedom-abolishing, debt-ignoring, big government blowhards, an interesting thought occurred to me: what would be the single most beneficial thing which could be done for the country? Obviously, in light of the equally horrible choices for the presidency, a Congress which is the #1 enemy of the people with an approval rating to match, and a government which is absolutely out-of-control, it's a fairly hypothetical mental exercise, but one with an interesting outcome. You see, while there are a lot of good things with could be done, virtually none of them would be overwhelmingly good in isolation: America has a lot of large, pressing problems, and no single fix would be sufficient to alter the course to eventual collapse enough.

Rather, I was thinking about the situation in Greece, and how it pertains to America. Greece is, in many ways, a window into our future: a country with an unsustainable entitlement system, little remaining non-service industry, a crippling debt, and little responsibility or accountability among the general populace. In the same way as us, there's no one solution for Greece's problems, and in their case they are well past the point of feasible course correction before their inevitable national default. However, their largest problem currently is not any of their structural problems, but rather the fact that they have no plan in place for an orderly default, and no path beyond. In essence, this uncertainty is what is crippling the markets, causing social unrest within Greece, and impeding what might otherwise be a fairly non-disruptive obvious end-result of their chosen political policies.

Along the same lines, I think if the US could only have one positive change, I think the thing we need most is collapse and restructuring plan for our entire economy. Like funeral planning, this could take much of the stress and uncertainty out of our eventual default, and try to make the transition to a new, less entitlement-based system much less painful. After all, we know we're going to default: there's no political will to fix our debt problems of live within our means, and our population is incapable of making responsible decisions. At least we have a chance, though, of being able to recognize this, and plan ahead for when the weight of all our bad decisions crushes what's left of the economy, and put some real honest effort into thinking about how to move forward after that event.

For example, we could start thinking about ways to move US people's savings out of direct or indirect investment in government debt; when the country defaults, all that debt will be written down, and if that loss can primarily effect foreign governments, that would be better for the American people. The US government could also start forming a transition plan for the months when the country's currency is worthless, and putting in place a structured bartering system. We could start planning for decentralized police, fire, and emergency services, to keep local communities functional if the federal and/or state government is in transition. Obviously you would also want to ween people off public support and entitlements as much as possible as well, as those will certainly be at least temporarily disrupted when the country goes broke. All of these would be good, prudent steps to take, when eventual default is all but inevitable.

As a bonus, by taking these steps, the country could alleviate or reduce several of their other problems by side-effect. For example, by educating people about how to be prepared for when the country defaults, perhaps we could finally get the message across to all the ignorant sheeple that the country's spending trajectory is utterly unsustainable. Weening people off entitlements would force a discussion about the dangers of creating a society too dependent on the government, and perhaps help stop socialist-leaning politicians from getting traction in the US government. Moving social services to a more local level would have lots of benefits, not the least of which could be shrinking the federal government itself. Who knows... with enough of the beneficial secondary effects from this one simple change, we might actually be able to avert a catastrophic collapse of the country in the first place.

Here's hoping we can get a solid transition plan in place, though, at least, before our country goes through the same inevitable collapse as so many have before, and seemingly all eventually do.