There was good news and bad news in Washington today. The good news is that the Congressional Budget Office predicted that over the next ten years annual budget deficits will shrink by $3.3 trillion. The bad news is that, despite the savings, those deficits are predicted to total roughly $3.5 trillion over that same span. The debt now stands at $14.6 trillion. Even if deficits shrink as the CBO predicts, they are not going to go away. The debt will continue to grow. It is expected that the debt will increase by $8.5 trillion over the next ten years. Deficits aren't really a problem. Borrowing money is painless. It is paying off debt that hurts.
Many in Washington, particularly those in the White House, are no doubt pleased by the news. It is proof that they are effectively addressing the situation. Their steps to reduce the deficit are working, or at least are predicted to work (you never know if you will need another bail out or stimulus package). Of course, the news is only good news if you ignore the larger situation and simply consider less of a deficit a good thing. It is predicted, I would say it is certain, that massive federal spending will continue unabated. Cuts will be made and savings will be found but they will in no way be sufficient to stop the financial bleeding. The debt will continue to go up. As the debt goes up the costs of carrying that debt will go up. Interest on the debt cost the U.S. $202 billion last year. Even in Washington that is a lot of money.
If the CBO predictions are borne out we are still looking at yearly deficits of nearly $350 billion over the next decade. That is not good news. The debt is the real problem, not deficits. Deficits can be easily, if painfully, taken care of. The government is perfectly capable of passing a balanced budget. They are simply unwilling to. The reason they are unwilling to is that it would amount to collective political suicide. That is why the debt will continue to go up.
There is a third way to address deficits apart from raising taxes or cutting spending. That is to hold government spending flat and wait for the economy to catch up. That option is nearly as bad to elected officials as the first two. While not quite as bad as cutting spending or raising taxes, it would mean saying no to interest groups and voters.
The debt is an economic issue, but it above all else a political issue. It is the politics of spending that drive the problem. Politicians like to spend. Arguably, they need to spend if they want to be reelected. They are compelled to support spending desired by their constituents. It is the very nature of their job. They are also driven by ego. They want libraries with their name on it. The want the gratitude of their constituents. They want the grandeur of being responsible bridges, harbors, and highways. They want history to know who they were and what they have done. The rely on the largess of government to achieve those ends. Getting Johnny a recommendation to West Point or a smoothing over a constituent's social security problem is no longer enough. Projects are needed. Money must be distributed.
Any solution to the debt crisis will involve members of Congress telling their constituents how much more they will have to pay, what they cannot have, and worse, what they will lose. That is the real problem behind addressing the debt. The vanity and ego of politicians only contributes to it.
So, the good news out of Washington is that deficits are likely to decrease. The bad news is that they are not going to disappear. Even if the economy rebounds, unless there is a dramatic increase in revenue or a historical cut in spending, the debt is going to continue going up: just more slowly than anticipated. I suppose less of a bad thing can be a good thing if you look at it just the right way.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Traps and Snares
Unease is growing in the nation with the mounting national debt. Tension is Washington is rising as Republicans and Democrats try to find agreement on what to do about it. Democrats persist in arguing for the need to increase revenue, something they should have thought of before they went on a spending spree. Republicans insist on cutting spending. The zealous in both camps are reluctant to compromise even though, by most accounts, without a compromise nothing will be done. Meanwhile, the debt clock is ticking. If the debt limit is not raised by August the United States could go into default.
So badly have the talks gone so far that Republicans have walked out on negotiations. Their prospects are looking increasingly poor. They have refused to consider any tax increases. They are making a stand on cutting spending. The Democrats have expressed willingness to cut spending but only over the long term and in conjunction with increased revenue, i.e., higher taxes. Score one for the Democrats. Their willingness to "compromise" portrays them as pragmatic and flexible while the Republicans' principled opposition casts them as rigid and doctrinaire, even in the face of catastrophe. If the Republicans persist in their objections it is likely they will be seen as the ones responsible for any financial collapse. After all, if a deal is not reached it would be because the Republicans refused to budge. Should budget talks break down it is quite possible that the Republicans will be left holding the bag. That is the trap.
The Republicans came to victory in the last election largely due to their opposition to higher taxes and government spending. To give in to any tax increase or go soft on government spending would be to give up their single greatest weapon and undermine virtually everything they ran on. If they accede to a budget compromise that raises taxes or fails to reduce spending in any significant way what will they be able to run on in 2012? If government spending is firmly taken into hand republicans will be able to acquiesce to some tax increases. They might even burnish themselves and gain a touch of political responsibility for doing so. But in the absence of any significant cuts in spending the only result of a tax increase will be to allow the government to continue in its profligacy. In that event Republicans will have accomplished nothing. They will have abandoned their principals simply in order to buy some time. That is the snare Republicans face.
Democrats have few good options themselves. To unilaterally proceed to raise taxes would be to take the ire of voters upon themselves. To give in on spending would jeopardize their standing with the many millions of Americans who count upon government spending, not just to keep themselves above water, but for their livelihoods as well. There is also the more subtle threat reduced spending poses to progressives. To reduce federal spending is to hinder federal power. Without the velvet glove of money, only the iron gauntlet of law remains.
When it comes to raising taxes, republicans and democrats are in very different positions. Democrats can raise taxes without jeopardizing their political base. Republicans cannot. Because of this, democrats have more room to maneuver on the issue. Democrats can support increased taxes and keep their base content, as long as those taxes fall on the usual suspects. Republicans do not have that luxury. Most republicans oppose higher taxes of any kind. Unless a deal can be reached where only democrats will pay higher taxes, republicans will need something big to abandon their anti tax position. Simply keeping the government running will not be enough. If Congress cannot step up and do something to avert a train wreck perhaps Republicans should consider just getting out of the way.
The real test of the political resolve to address the debt will come in the fall of 2012. That is when we will learn how determined politicians are to tell the public the truth about spending and find out how willing the public is to accept what it will take to get the national debt under control.
Many years ago I learned the lesson that the first thing you should do if you find yourself in a hole is stop digging. Just digging more slowly won't help. That is a lesson that Congress and the president need to learn.
Getting to a Real Discussion Over Abortion
A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine
reported significant progress has been made in prenatal surgery in the
struggle against spina bifida. Over 1,500 children a year are born with
it. Spina bifida is a condition where the spinal cord does not fully
close and, among other things, can lead to paralysis. The study was
warmly welcomed by scientists, researchers, and doctors. Dr. Terry
Buchmiller, former Chief Resident in Pediatric Surgery at the Children's
Hospital in Boston, stated that it culminated a "wonderful, almost
several decade journey of trying to improve the outcome of a
debilitating condition". She went on to herald the procedure as
"potentially life changing." Others applauded it as a promising step in
the evolving field of prenatal surgery.
There has been great effort put into treating children in the womb. One of the most significant advances in the field has been prenatal surgery. Researchers and doctors have long labored to find ways to treat children and correct their problems before they are born. Fetal surgery offers hope. Not only does it offer hope to children facing the challenge of spina bifida, it also holds promise of treating neurological problems as well as bladder defects and sickle cell anemia. It is anticipated that as the field develops, other conditions and disorders will be treatable before birth. In the case of treating spina bifida, the results were so good that the study was halted early so that the procedure could be adopted immediately.
As prenatal medicine evolves, women contemplating aborting their still developing children due to serious medical concerns have hope. The painful choice between giving birth to a child who will face a lifetime of serious, and at times difficult, challenges and terminating that child will become less common as the threat of those challenges diminishes. As a result, the decision whether to give birth will become easier for some and more complicated for others.
For those who want to give birth, the decision will be easier because their child will likely face fewer challenges over the course of their lives. Indeed, some children will face no challenge at all. For those inclined to abort a handicapped baby, (or fetus if you prefer), the decision whether to abort will be more difficult as they must weigh the potential burden of a disability against the promise provided by advancing medical science. As prenatal care advances, physical deformity and other challenges will no longer be the the threat they once were. Less and less will they be reasons for terminating a pregnancy. For those who are merely harboring a fetus, prenatal medicine is irrelevant.
As doctors increasingly become able to treat children in the womb, the reasons for having an abortion will become fewer. If the day ever comes when the only reason for having an abortion is because a woman simply does not want the child, the argument over abortion will have reached its core. On that day we will finally be able to have a real discussion over the issue.
It is a strange world indeed where some doctors labor to treat children in the womb while other doctors endeavor to destroy them.
There has been great effort put into treating children in the womb. One of the most significant advances in the field has been prenatal surgery. Researchers and doctors have long labored to find ways to treat children and correct their problems before they are born. Fetal surgery offers hope. Not only does it offer hope to children facing the challenge of spina bifida, it also holds promise of treating neurological problems as well as bladder defects and sickle cell anemia. It is anticipated that as the field develops, other conditions and disorders will be treatable before birth. In the case of treating spina bifida, the results were so good that the study was halted early so that the procedure could be adopted immediately.
As prenatal medicine evolves, women contemplating aborting their still developing children due to serious medical concerns have hope. The painful choice between giving birth to a child who will face a lifetime of serious, and at times difficult, challenges and terminating that child will become less common as the threat of those challenges diminishes. As a result, the decision whether to give birth will become easier for some and more complicated for others.
For those who want to give birth, the decision will be easier because their child will likely face fewer challenges over the course of their lives. Indeed, some children will face no challenge at all. For those inclined to abort a handicapped baby, (or fetus if you prefer), the decision whether to abort will be more difficult as they must weigh the potential burden of a disability against the promise provided by advancing medical science. As prenatal care advances, physical deformity and other challenges will no longer be the the threat they once were. Less and less will they be reasons for terminating a pregnancy. For those who are merely harboring a fetus, prenatal medicine is irrelevant.
As doctors increasingly become able to treat children in the womb, the reasons for having an abortion will become fewer. If the day ever comes when the only reason for having an abortion is because a woman simply does not want the child, the argument over abortion will have reached its core. On that day we will finally be able to have a real discussion over the issue.
It is a strange world indeed where some doctors labor to treat children in the womb while other doctors endeavor to destroy them.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
I no longer have access to my original Antifederalist blog so I will be working here now. In addition to writing new posts, I will be re publishing my favorite articles from from my old blog. My old blog is alive and well. I just no longer can post to it. I do not know what happened. I do not work for blogger. I just write stuff.
My original blog can be found at http://antifederalism-agrippa.blogspot.com
My original blog can be found at http://antifederalism-agrippa.blogspot.com
A Right to Ignorance
Not long ago a federal court struck down much of Texas's new abortion sonogram law. The court concluded that it is unconstitutional to compel women to listen to information regarding abortion that isn't "medically relevant and that they (patients) don't wish to hear." The ruling was heralded as a victory for doctors and women. Under the ruling, doctors are no longer required to provide medical information deemed unnecessary to the termination of the pregnancy. Texas officials have made it known that they intend to appeal the ruling.The ire directed towards the new abortion law is based on the objection that the law unfairly compels physicians to collect information regarding a medical procedure, namely by performing a sonogram, and places too great an onus on women contemplating getting that procedure by requiring them to listen to it. It is asserted that women have the right to request and receive an abortion with as little information about the procedure as necessary. Essentially, they simply need to know where the clinic is and what time it opens.
The debate over the abortion law is an anomaly. No one objects to x-rays regarding sore knees or aching backs. Very few demand medical treatment with as little information collected or provided as possible. Indeed, many physicians would be considered negligent if they declined to collect information concerning a medical condition and provide that information to a patient before offering it. But then, pregnancy is a peculiar medical condition. Most often a patient is very much aware of her medical condition before she walks into a doctor's office. She knows she she is pregnant and she knows the cure, at least by name. She does not need an x-ray to tell her she are pregnant. What she might not know, and what she may not want to know, are the details. She simply wants to be rid of the problem with a little muss or fuss as possible.
Abortion has always been a psychologically difficult medical procedure to contemplate. Numerous studies have been conducted that identify the often troubling psychological consequences that occur after an abortion is received. Many women suffer from depression and remorse in the years following having an abortion. For abortion advocates, front loading the procedure with details will only make a difficult decision even more difficult. There is concern that many women will forgo obtaining an abortion if they are required to listen to details before receiving one. A women strolling down to the clinic in anticipation of receiving an abortion might have second thoughts if she is required to confront the details of what she is seeking. She might conclude that an abortion is not quite the casual procedure she anticipated. She might even have second thoughts about getting an abortion if she learns all of what it involves.
Why any of that should disturb abortion rights advocates escapes me. If the law is allowed to stand abortion will be no less safe or legal. It might become more rare. Hasn't that been the stated goal of abortion advocates from the beginning? Or have they really meant that abortion should be safe, legal, and easy?
If information is the enemy of abortion, what does that say about its allies?
Thursday, May 19, 2011
How Much Time is Left?
The clock has started ticking in the Levant. It is set to go off in September when the Palestinians will seek recognition as a state by the U.N. General Assembly along the lines of the 1967 border. Given the make up of the U.N., it is likely that recognition will be had. If it is granted Israel will find itself in a difficult position. Should a Palestinian state be recognized, Israel would overnight find itself an occupying power. Not that it would matter much. Israel has shown little but disdain for the U.N. and its resolutions over the years. Nevertheless, a formal recognition of the 1967 borders would officially make Israel a transgressor in violation of international law. That would be a serious blow to Israel's international standing (such as it is) and severely complicate its desire for continued expansion. It might even occasion sanctions.
Naturally, Israel and the U.S. were critical of the move. Israel condemned the action as a threat to the peace process. It insists that any resolution of the issue must go through Jerusalem, a sensible enough demand since any agreement would ultimately have to be one Israel could live with. The U.S. disapproved of the action since not only would the move undermine its efforts to find a solution to the problem: a project it has been working on intermittently for over 40 years, it would potentially place it in conflict with its most important ally in the region. U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state would be much more than another rebuke of Israel. The international recognition of a Palestinian State along the lines of the 1967 border would change the whole dynamic of Palestinian Israeli negotiations. Israel could find itself in the position of negotiating to keep land rather than to give it away.
As a new era is emerging in the Middle East the U.S. is finding itself in an increasingly awkward position. After advocating democracy, self determination, and pluralism throughout the region it is reinforcing ethnic division in Israel and being pressured to throttle the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. As the U.S. twists and turns it is inviting the charge of hypocrisy and risking the ire of emerging regimes, to say nothing of alienating a whole new generation of Arabs.
By all means the Palestinians and the Israelis should keep talking. But it should be kept in mind that it is the Palestinians who are suffering while the talking is going on. If the Palestinians can be persuaded to wait, perhaps in a decade or two we might have an agreement, assuming there is anything left to negotiate. But time is not on the Palestinians' side. The longer negotiations go on, the less there is to negotiate. If Palestinians cannot get satisfaction at the hands of Israel or the U.S. they should not be blamed for seeking it elsewhere. If Israel wants negotiations to go through Jerusalem it should make it possible for them to go through Jerusalem rather than stop in Jerusalem.
If you look at a map of Israel at its founding in 1948 and compare it with a map of Israel in 1967 it is clear that even if Israel was persuaded to return to the 1967 borders, it is still coming out very much ahead. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has condemned the proposal claiming that a return to the 1967 border would render Israel indefensible. Against whom? The Palestinians would have no army and Jordan poses absolutely no threat to Israel. Whatever danger Israel faces, it is not from the east unless you include Iran. When it comes to Iran, the Jordan River is no barrier. The most probable reason for Israel's insistence on a military presence along the Jordan River is to keep the Palestinians in a bottle. As for terrorism, a Palestinian state would have every incentive to prevent infiltration by Hezbollah or other radical organizations. The presence of such groups would give Israel ample pretext to intervene and reoccupy the West Bank and thereby doom any chance of a sovereign Palestine along the Jordon River.
The only threat the Palestinians hold to Israel is their presence. Israel wants to get rid of them. There is very little room in a Jewish state for non Jews. It will drive out the Palestinians it can and build a wall around the ones it can't. The Palestinians are not just fighting to get a state of their own, they are fighting for a place to live. Short of being allowed citizenship in Israel, the only place Palestinians will be secure in their lives, property, and possessions is in a state of their own. Israel ought to appreciate that.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Traps and Snares
So badly have the talks gone so far that Republicans have walked out on negotiations. Their prospects are looking increasingly poor. They have refused to consider any tax increases. They are making a stand on cutting spending. The Democrats have expressed willingness to cut spending but only over the long term and in conjunction with increased revenue, i.e., higher taxes. Score one for the Democrats. Their willingness to "compromise" portrays them as pragmatic and flexible while the Republicans' principled opposition casts them as rigid and doctrinaire, even in the face of catastrophe. If the Republicans persist in their objections it is likely they will be seen as the ones responsible for any financial collapse. After all, if a deal is not reached it would be because the Republicans refused to budge. Should budget talks break down it is quite possible that the Republicans will be left holding the bag. That is the trap.
The Republicans came to victory in the last election largely due to their opposition to higher taxes and government spending. To give in to any tax increase or go soft on government spending would be to give up their single greatest weapon and undermine virtually everything they ran on. If they accede to a budget compromise that raises taxes or fails to reduce spending in any significant way what will they be able to run on in 2012? If government spending is firmly taken into hand republicans will be able to acquiesce to some tax increases. They might even burnish themselves and gain a touch of political responsibility for doing so. But in the absence of any significant cuts in spending the only result of a tax increase will be to allow the government to continue in its profligacy. In that event Republicans will have accomplished nothing. They will have abandoned their principals simply in order to buy some time. That is the snare Republicans face.
Democrats have few good options themselves. To unilaterally proceed to raise taxes would be to take the ire of voters upon themselves. To give in on spending would jeopardize their standing with the many millions of Americans who count upon government spending, not just to keep themselves above water, but for their livelihoods as well. There is also the more subtle threat reduced spending poses to progressives. To reduce federal spending is to hinder federal power. Without the velvet glove of money, only the iron gauntlet of law remains.
When it comes to raising taxes, republicans and democrats are in very different positions. Democrats can raise taxes without jeopardizing their political base. Republicans cannot. Because of this, democrats have more room to maneuver on the issue. Democrats can support increased taxes and keep their base content, as long as those taxes fall on the usual suspects. Republicans do not have that luxury. Most republicans oppose higher taxes of any kind. Unless a deal can be reached where only democrats will pay higher taxes, republicans will need something big to abandon their anti tax position. Simply keeping the government running will not be enough. If Congress cannot step up and do something to avert a train wreck perhaps Republicans should consider just getting out of the way.
The real test of the political resolve to address the debt will come in the fall of 2012. That is when we will learn how determined politicians are to tell the public the truth about spending and find out how willing the public is to accept what it will take to get the national debt under control.
Many years ago I learned the lesson that the first thing you should do if you find yourself in a hole is stop digging. Just digging more slowly won't help. That is a lesson that Congress and the president need to learn.
antifederalism-agrippa.blogspot.com
There was good news and bad news in Washington today. The Congressional
Budget Office predicted that over the next ten years annual budget
deficits will shrink by $3.3 trillion. The bad news is that, despite the
savings, the annual budget deficits are predicted to total roughly $3.5
trillion over the next decade. The debt now stands at $14.6 trillion.
Even if the deficit shrinks according to CBO predictions, it is expected
that the debt will increase by $8.5 trillion over those same ten years.
Deficits aren't really a problem. Borrowing money is painless. It is
paying off debt that hurts.
Many in Washington, particularly those in the White House, are no doubt pleased by the news. It is proof that they are effectively addressing the situation. Their steps to reduce the deficit are working, or at least are predicted to work (you never know if you will need another bail out or stimulus package). Of course, the news is only good news if you ignore the larger situation and simply consider less of a deficit a good thing. It is predicted, I would say it is certain, that massive federal spending will continue unabated. Cuts will be made and savings will be found but they will in no way be sufficient to stop the financial bleeding. The debt will continue to go up. As the debt goes up the costs of carrying that debt will go up. Interest on the debt cost the U.S. $202 billion last year. Even in Washington that is a lot of money.
If the CBO predictions are borne out we are still looking at yearly deficits of nearly $350 billion over the next decade. That is not good news. The debt is the real problem, not deficits. Deficits can be easily, if painfully, taken care of. The government is perfectly capable of passing a balanced budget. They are simply unwilling to. The reason they are unwilling to is that it would amount to collective political suicide. That is why the debt will continue to go up.
There is a third way to address deficits apart from raising taxes or cutting spending. That is to hold government spending flat and wait for the economy to catch up. That option is nearly as bad to elected officials as the first two. While not quite as bad as cutting spending or raising taxes, it would mean saying no to interest groups and voters.
The debt is an economic issue, but it above all else a political issue. It is the politics of spending that drive the problem. Politicians like to spend. Arguably, they need to spend if they want to be reelected. They are compelled to support spending desired by their constituents. It is the very nature of their job. They are also driven by ego. They want libraries with their name on it. The want the gratitude of their constituents. They want the grandeur of being responsible bridges, harbors, and highways. They want history to know who they were and what they have done. The rely on the largess of government to achieve those ends. Getting Johnny a recommendation to West Point or a smoothing over a constituent's social security problem is no longer enough. Projects are needed. Money must be distributed.
Any solution to the debt crisis will involve members of Congress telling their constituents how much more they will have to pay, what they cannot have, and worse, what they will lose. That is the real problem behind addressing the debt. The vanity and ego of politicians only contributes to it.
So, the good news out of Washington is that deficits are likely to decrease. The bad news is that they are not going to disappear. Even if the economy rebounds, unless there is a dramatic increase in revenue or a historical cut in spending, the debt is going to continue going up: just more slowly than anticipated. I suppose less of a bad thing can be a good thing if you look at it just the right way.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Good News and Bad News
Many in Washington, particularly those in the White House, are no doubt pleased by the news. It is proof that they are effectively addressing the situation. Their steps to reduce the deficit are working, or at least are predicted to work (you never know if you will need another bail out or stimulus package). Of course, the news is only good news if you ignore the larger situation and simply consider less of a deficit a good thing. It is predicted, I would say it is certain, that massive federal spending will continue unabated. Cuts will be made and savings will be found but they will in no way be sufficient to stop the financial bleeding. The debt will continue to go up. As the debt goes up the costs of carrying that debt will go up. Interest on the debt cost the U.S. $202 billion last year. Even in Washington that is a lot of money.
If the CBO predictions are borne out we are still looking at yearly deficits of nearly $350 billion over the next decade. That is not good news. The debt is the real problem, not deficits. Deficits can be easily, if painfully, taken care of. The government is perfectly capable of passing a balanced budget. They are simply unwilling to. The reason they are unwilling to is that it would amount to collective political suicide. That is why the debt will continue to go up.
There is a third way to address deficits apart from raising taxes or cutting spending. That is to hold government spending flat and wait for the economy to catch up. That option is nearly as bad to elected officials as the first two. While not quite as bad as cutting spending or raising taxes, it would mean saying no to interest groups and voters.
The debt is an economic issue, but it above all else a political issue. It is the politics of spending that drive the problem. Politicians like to spend. Arguably, they need to spend if they want to be reelected. They are compelled to support spending desired by their constituents. It is the very nature of their job. They are also driven by ego. They want libraries with their name on it. The want the gratitude of their constituents. They want the grandeur of being responsible bridges, harbors, and highways. They want history to know who they were and what they have done. The rely on the largess of government to achieve those ends. Getting Johnny a recommendation to West Point or a smoothing over a constituent's social security problem is no longer enough. Projects are needed. Money must be distributed.
Any solution to the debt crisis will involve members of Congress telling their constituents how much more they will have to pay, what they cannot have, and worse, what they will lose. That is the real problem behind addressing the debt. The vanity and ego of politicians only contributes to it.
So, the good news out of Washington is that deficits are likely to decrease. The bad news is that they are not going to disappear. Even if the economy rebounds, unless there is a dramatic increase in revenue or a historical cut in spending, the debt is going to continue going up: just more slowly than anticipated. I suppose less of a bad thing can be a good thing if you look at it just the right way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)