The View from Right Field

Is It Impossible or Is It Just a Cop-Out

When we were in Slovenia recently, we met with a lawyer in Ljubljana. Among the things we talked about was the split up of Yugoslavia and how and why it occurred.

He said he was scheduled to fly to Belgrade the day the fighting started. When he woke up that morning, he heard on the radio there tanks at the airport. He could not believe it, but he turned on the TV and there they were.

As to why the war in Slovenia was only ten days (as opposed to what happened in Croatia and Bosnia), he said two things. First, there were not a lot of Serbians in Slovenia.

Second, in anticipation of independence, the leaders of Slovenia had created a secret army. When Slovenia declared its independence, there was a race between the Slovenians and the Yugoslav army to gain control of the border crossings with Italy and Austria. The Slovenians got there first. At that point Italy and Austria intervened diplomatically. They did not want the Slovenians and the Yugoslavs fighting on their borders. They put diplomatic pressure on Belgrade to give in, and because there was nothing the Yugoslavs really wanted in Slovenia, they did so.

But why did it happen at all? Why did Yugoslavia split up?

By the 1980s, he said, communism was no longer working, so the politicians had to come up with something else. In fact, the politicians no longer believed in communism themselves. They just wanted to stay in power. Their substitute for communism was to appeal to nationalism. What happened after that, we know.

However, the lawyer said that Yugoslavia did not have to split up. In his mind, better politicians could have held Yugoslavia together.

This raises an interesting point. If Yugoslavia’s split up was not inevitable, if better politicians could have held Yugoslavia together (by not appealing to the darker side of human nature, by not turning people against each other with their nationalistic appeals, etc.), then what we were told in 1990s was wrong. What was happening in Yugoslavia and Croatia and Bosnia and Serbia was not inevitable. It was not the inescapable result of hundreds of years of ethnic hatred that nobody could go anything about. It was, instead, the result of the actions, and non-actions, of people at that time. Things could have been different.

After all, for years and years, under other leaders and other governments, these people lived next to each other and intermarried and things were peaceful. With different people and different politicians doing different things, what happened in Yugoslavia did not have to happen.

Killing is not inevitable. Genocides can be stopped. Good people trying hard can make a difference. It may not be easy. We may not succeed all the time. But to not try because "they’ve hated each other for centuries; there’s nothing we can do about it" is a cop-out.

Making the Leaders of Tomorrow Into the Contributors of Today

Last Wednesday’s Washington Post reported on the newest fad in political campaigns: "contributions by kids". Back in 2004 the slogan was "Rock the Vote." The slogan this year might more appropriately be "rock the cradle."

While it appears that Barack Obama wins the prize for youngest contributor (a two-year old), youngsters are contributing to candidates of both parties.

What is really fun, though, is not the age of the contributors but the explanations their parents gave for the contributions (for some reason, none of the youthful contributors explained their contributions themselves):

• The Post reported a 13-year old contributor to Mitt Romney’s campaign "used money from his bar mitzvah and money he earned ‘dog sitting,’" according to his mother. His 15-year old sister "used babysitting money to make the contributions, their mother said. ‘My children like to donate to a lot of causes.’"
• The father of a 7-year old contributor and 8-year old contributor to Obama, explained, "My children are very engaged in politics."
• The mother of two young contributors to Bill Richardson (a 10-year old and 16-year old) said, "We just support him."

When are the supporters of campaign finance reform going to admit that it is hopeless? You can pass all the laws you want, but people will find a way to contribute, and candidates will take the money – at least until the media finds out about it.

Let’s stop setting limits on campaign contributions that make our candidates and politicians into law evaders, if not lawbreakers. Let’s be honest. Let’s get rid of the phony limits and just require immediate disclosure. I think the voters are smart enough to figure it out. If they aren’t, then all the limits in the world, limits that are too often evaded in any case, aren’t going to help.

[10/31/07: Added link to Washington Post story.]

A Real Question About Iraq for Our Presidential Candidates

Here is a question that should be asked of all people running for President, whether Democrat or Republican: Have you read at least the forewards and introduction to the new U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual?*

I know this question sounds sort of silly, but it is not. Traditional U.S. military doctrine has emphasized force protection and the use of firepower over the use of manpower. Our desire has been to protect the lives of our Soldiers and Marines to the greatest extent possible. We have used planes and artillery, bombs and shells, instead of risking the lives of our people. In many of the wars we have fought, it has worked.

The problem is, as we have seen in Iraq (and others have seen elsewhere), this approach does not work when you are fighting an insurgency. In fact, in fighting insurgencies, an overemphasis on firepower is counterproductive. Therefore, the U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual sets forth a new doctrine and new tactics for fighting insurgencies.

But this Manual says some hard things for our Soldiers and Marines:

"Sometimes, the more you protect your force, the less secure you may be. Ultimate success in COIN [counterinsurgency] is gained by protecting the populace, not the COIN force."

"The more successful the counterinsurgency is, the less force can be used and the more risk must be accepted. … Soldiers and Marines may also have to accept more risk to maintain involvement with the people."

"Sometimes, doing nothing is the best reaction."**

Sarah Sewall sums it up in her introduction:

"Just as an additional moment for target identification could save a civilian life, so might that momentary hesitation prove deadly to the Soldier. The COIN mission creates more than just a complex ethical environment; it fundamentally challenges U.S. views of force protection.

The [COIN] doctrine explains why increased tactical risks can reduce strategic risk for U.S. forces. … Thus, short-term losses can yield success more rapidly and efficiently."

Today’s enemy insurgent’s tactics and strategy have forced additional risk upon the American Soldier and Marine. It is unquestionably unfair, for the enemy is violating longstanding rules of war. … Yet the answer is unavoidable. … Because the civilian is fundamental to the COIN mission, force protection must now give way."***

In other words, the only way to successfully fight an insurgency involves more personal risk to our Soldiers and Marines. Instead of dropping bombs from 30,000 feet (as we did in Serbia in 1998), our Soldiers and Marines in Iraq are going to have to take more risk and accept more danger to get the job done. To succeed in Iraq we are going to have to ask our Soldiers and Marines to follow a doctrine that means, in the short run, more of them will get hurt and more of them will get killed.

This is something each and every Presidential candidate needs to think about and understand. The whole manual does not need to be read, but the forewards and introduction do. They give the essence of the manual, and they total less than 50 pages. It would not take long.

When the Congress voted to support President Bush’s Iraq policy in October 2002, some of those now running for President apparently did not have enough time to read the confidential documents about Iraq. They need to find the time to read this.

Other candidates may say they did not want to go into Iraq and we ought to get out, so it is not necessary for them to read it. If they won’t read it for Iraq, they need to personally read it for next time – because there will be one.

This new doctrine is asking a lot of our Soldiers and Marines. We need to ask our Presidential candidates to spend a little bit of time reading it.

-----------------------
* I am referring to the University of Chicago Press edition. The forwards are by Lt. Colonel John A. Nagl and by General David H. Petraeus and Lt. General James F. Amos. The introduction is by Sarah Sewall.

** Sections 1-149, 1-151 and 1-152.

*** Pages xxviii and xxix.

Honest Abe Should Ask for His Name Back

The Wall Street Journal had an article on Friday about Bobby Jindal, Louisiana’s new governor. Being from Illinois I have sort of a fellow feeling with Louisiana – and New Jersey. Our three states are, after all, just about the most corrupt states in the country. In fact, when I read articles trying to figure out whether Louisiana is worse than New Jersey, or vice versa, I want to say what about Illinois. Sometimes it has almost seemed it would be easier to get a quorum for Chicago City Council meetings in the federal penitentiary than in City Hall.

In any case, and more seriously, the article about Bobby Jindal depressed me. It looks like Louisiana has finally gotten a really good governor. Illinois, on the other hand, is stuck with a bunch of politicians who we probably deserve (we did, after all, elect them – and reelect them), but who are doing a terrible job.

Let me step back for a minute. I was born in Illinois and, except for the three years I spent in law school, I have lived in Illinois all my life. I used to be proud to be from Illinois and glad to live here.

When I was interviewing for a job after law school, I had to decide where to look. I considered other places. Finally, though, I remember sitting in the lounge at law school, reading the Chicago Tribune (I was having it sent to me by mail to me because, before the Internet, it was the only way to stay even a little bit up-to-date on the Cubs), and realizing I really wanted to move back to Illinois.

Thirteen years later I was on the wrong end of a leveraged buy-out. I had the chance to go with the new company, but that would have meant going to St. Louis. And I did not want to move out of Illinois. Illinois is the Land of Lincoln. The last home of Ulysses S. Grant before the Civil War. It was where I wanted to be from.

But now, that feeling is pretty much gone. We have just had another ex-governor convicted for corruption. The governor we had in the 80’s always seemed to find that the State’s finances were worse after he got re-elected than they were when he was running for re-election. Our current governor ran for re-election promising not to raise the sales tax or the income tax. He did not do that, but as soon as he got re-elected he proposed a huge, new gross receipts tax. Of course, he claimed only business would pay that. (Right, like they would not pass it on to the consumers.) In any case, it was our fault for not asking.

But our governor also seems to think it is okay to start up new programs without having the money to pay for them. It is no problem for him. It is just a matter of paying the State’s bills more slowly. If doctors and hospitals want to get paid for treating Medicaid patients, they will just have to wait. It won’t be his problem. He will be out of office before somebody else has to clean it up the mess.

The state legislature is no better. Individual legislators do not matter. Most of them just vote like their leaders tell them. (In fact, we could probably save a lot of money if we just gave each leader a number of votes equal to the number of seats their party has and told the legislators to go home.) But the leaders do not seem to be able to agree on anything, and the Speaker of the House is having his own little war with the Governor. (They’re both Democrats,)

While Governor and the other Democratic leaders (the Republicans hold no statewide offices and not enough seats in the legislature to matter much) all claim they favor reform on things like corruption, they all support different proposals so that, conveniently, nothing passes.

The most recent proposal to cure the state budget problems is to build yet another casino – and hook even more people on gambling. (Smokers and gamblers. If it wasn’t for them, our state government would go broke.)

It’s depressing, but as I said, what is really depressing is that we knew about these people, and we still re-elected them. Is it really fair to complain about politicians when you knew about them and voted for them anyway?

Illinois. The Land of Lincoln. I used to be proud to be from Illinois. I wanted to live here. Now I am just embarrassed.

Most of all, though, I feel sorry for Abraham Lincoln. I bet if he could, he would sue to get his name back – or at least for the damage we have done to his reputation.

Global Warming and Carbon Credits

The best comment I have seen about global warming appeared in a column by Jim Hopkins in The New Zealand Herald on September 28, 2007:

"Carbon credits are just the papal indulgences of a new religion. A way to keep sinning and still feel virtuous."

It's Called Federalism

The front page of today’s Chicago Tribune has an article about the Elder Justice Act, a proposed law "designed to combat abuse, neglect and exploitation of older Americans." According to the article, the proposal "still gathers dust in Congress. It has been doing that for five years, odd for a bill with few visible opponents."

The article talks about a woman from New Yorker whose 91-year old grandmother was raped in a nursing home last year. Congressional and other supporters of the bill are quoted as saying its lack of success is, among other things, "kind of inexcusable."

The one thing that is not explained, however, is why the federal government should be dealing with this problem. The man who attacked the New York woman’s grandmother was convicted in March. A supporter of the bill from California prosecutes 200 cases of elder abuse a year.

Elder abuse is a problem, but is it one that needs a new law out of Washington? If state laws are inadequate to deal with the problem, why shouldn’t the states pass new laws? If more enforcement is needed, let’s make sure local prosecutors and investigators have the resources they need to get the job done.

The United States is a big country. Our federal system divides things among different levels of government for a reason. By doing so, each level of government can focus on what it can do best, and no level of government will have more to do it can (hopefully).

Just as state and local governments do not need to pass resolutions on foreign policy issues, the government in Washington does not need to pass laws on elder abuse. Each level of government has its responsibilities. They need to do them, and let the other levels do theirs.

Taxes and Inequality: The Rich, the Middle Class and the Politicians

Back on October 16, 2007, Republican Jim Ogonowski came close to beating Democrat Niki Tsongas in a special election to fill the vacant seat in Massachusetts’s fifth district (a Democratic vacancy, of course, since it was Massachusetts). Ogonowski lost 51% to 45%.

Michael Barone, of U.S. News & World Report, said this about the election:

"This suggests to me that Ogonowski’s two leading substantive issues, taxes and immigration, cut significantly into the Democratic vote in middle-income areas while failing utterly to do so in the high-income suburbs. Perhaps high-income voters, whose accountants do their taxes and who have plenty of money to spend no matter how high taxes are, don’t really mind tax increases, while middle-income voters, who may do their own taxes and have to think hard about how much they can afford to spend on vacations, tuitions, etc., mind more. At least that’s my tentative conclusion."

I would make the comment about taxes slightly differently. Because tax rates stop progressing at about 35%, the amount of additional taxes on each dollar of earned income is not that much more than for some middle class people, especially when both husband and wife work, than it is for higher income people. Also, with capital gains taxes down at 15% (which is good for the economy), to the extent higher income people get more of their income from capital gains than do the middle class, then the overall tax rate on all of their income may actually be less than the overall tax rate for those in the middle class.* If it is not actually higher for the middle class, it will feel like it is higher since they have less.

Barone is spot on, as they say in England, on one point: The high-income people have accountants to do their taxes and figure out all kinds of ways, some legal, others not so, to not pay taxes. When you can do that, taxes may not matter as much. But when you are in the middle class and you cannot, they matter a lot.

This leads to an interesting philosophical question (actually, maybe not so philosophical given what some of the candidates for President are saying): What do you do if it can be shown that a relatively low capital gains tax rate actually helps the economy grow (and helps create more jobs and higher wages), but at the same time the low capital gains tax rate makes people feel upset or mad because of a perceived (though maybe not actual) increase in inequality? What counts: Inaccurate perceptions, possibly/probably fueled by politicians seeking their own advancement, or actual facts?

Tied in with this: If it is important to reduce economic inequality**, do we reduce it by raising the bottom or by cutting the top? And if cutting the top does not really help the bottom (because government wastes the money or spends it so inefficiently), is it still important enough to reduce economic inequality that you can take money away from the top even though you are not raising the bottom? In other words, is it okay to take money from the people at the top, even though that money will not be effectively used to help people at the bottom (or even in the middle), just so the people at the bottom and in the middle feel less unequal?

---------------------
* This does not even take into consideration social security taxes, which stop at a little less than $100,000 of income. Social security taxes are a big deal for the middle class, but they are not much more than a speed bump for the rich. (I am not suggesting this be changed. There are good policy reasons for social security taxes to be collected as they are. However, one should realize that they affect the middle class in a different way than they affect higher income people.)

** For a view that it is not important to do so, see Arthur Brooks’ column in the October 22, 2007 Wall Street Journal (subscription required).

The Death of an Earmark

Three cheers, if not more, for Republican Senators Tom Coburn and Jon Kyl. After attempt upon attempt, Senator Coburn and Senator Kyl got the United States Senate to finally eliminate an earmark. (See here and here.) The earmark was $1,000,000 for a museum memorializing Woodstock (not the nice little town in Illinois but the 1969 music festival of the same name). The defeat will not stop the museum from opening. It is already scheduled to open next year. It just means the federal government will not be giving a gift to its backers, who already have enough money to build the museum.

While I called this an earmark, which it is (was), the problem is not "earmarks". Some earmarks are useful, and some members of Congress do not get thousands of dollars of campaign contributions after getting an earmark added to a spending bill. (Guess which Democratic candidate for President from New York got a big contribution on this one.) The problem is useless, wasteful spending. The federal government should not be giving money to rich baby boomers who want to memorialize a concert they went to almost 40 years ago. If they don’t have the money to build the museum, it shouldn’t be built.

There are things the government needs to do. But every time the government gives money to things like this, it takes money away from what it should be doing and from people it should be helping.

The problem is that when government gives, or tries to give, money to things like this, it tells me (and a lot of other people) that it has more money than it needs and that I ought to give it less.

Mike Huckabee – Top Tier?

David Brooks wrote a complimentary column about Mike Huckabee in yesterday’s New York Times, saying, inter alia, "Huckabee is the one candidate acceptable to all factions" (I wonder what faction that puts me in), "Huckabee is the most normal person running for president" (not a high hurdle), and he "deserves" to be in the top tier of Republican candidates. (For a different view of former Governor Huckabee, see here.)

Brooks did mention one concern about Huckabee, however: "His foreign policy thinking is thin."

Great, just what we need. Another southern governor with whose foreign policy experience is "thin". I would have thought that having had that for 20 of the last 32 years would have been enough.

Honoring Those Who Died in Armenia in 1915 By Saving Those Who Live in Darfur

Last Wednesday the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a nonbinding resolution labeling the killings of Armenians that began in 1915 as "genocide." The Bush Administration opposed the measure, as did eight former secretaries of state, as being not helpful in terms of the US’s relations with Turkey, a key ally in, among other things, the war in Iraq.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she will call the measure for a vote by the full House. Pelosi did not explain why it was important to do this now, other than to say "there’s never a good time and all of us in the Democratic leadership have supported" the resolution.

Two comments: First, prior versions of the resolution passed the House in 1975 and 1984, so passing it yet again seems a little unnecessary unless there were votes or contributions to be gained (complications for US foreign policy being irrelevant in that case) or a Republican President to be embarrassed (complications for US foreign policy being doubly irrelevant in that case).

Second, some will say, as did Bryan Ardouny of the Armenian Assembly of America, "It is long past time for the U.S. government to acknowledge and affirm this horrible chapter of history – the first genocide of the 20th century and a part of history that we must never forget."

It is important to not forget genocides in the past. However, I cannot help wonder if, instead of spending time and effort arguing whether what happened to the Armenians starting in 1915 was genocide or just "mass killings" (as the Bush administration has called it), we might better remember the victims of what happened in Armenia by trying to actually stop the killings that are going on in Darfur today.

In 1998 Bill Clinton went to Rwanda to say he was sorry for the killings that happened there in 1994. His apology was nice, but nicer would have been the people whose lives might have been saved if the United States had done something on a timely basis when the killings were actually happening.

Apologies are nice. Acknowledgments of past wrongs are good. But better than either of them is doing something now so that fewer apologies and acknowledgments are needed in the future.