The View from Right Field

Pension Reform in Illinois: A Better Idea

The Illinois legislature has taken a first step toward addressing problem of escalating pension costs for government workers and teachers. The General Assembly passed legislation last week cutting back on pension benefits for new government workers and teachers. The retirement age for full benefits was raised to 67 from as low as, in some systems, 55. Cost-of-living adjustments were cut back, and pension benefits are to be based on a person’s last eight years of salary, instead of the last four, which will reduce the amount of the pension and cut back on the people scamming the system.*

But, while this helps a little for the future, it really doesn’t address today’s problem, which is the benefits we are going to have to pay for the current workers and teachers. Also, even with this reform, the system hasn’t been fixed; it’s just been made a little less bad. Let me suggest an alternate approach that will both address Illinois’ current pension problem and bring more honesty to politics in Springfield.

A big reason for Illinois’ pension problem is that the legislature and the governor can pass an increase in pensions without having to provide the funding for those higher payments.

Instead of cutting back around the edges, which is what the legislature did last week, what Illinois needs to do is to shift from pension plans, or defined benefit plans, to defined contribution plans. In a defined contribution plan, instead of promising employees a specific monthly payment when they retire, the employer contributes an amount each year to an account for each worker, an account that belongs to the worker. Most of the businesses in Illinois that can afford to help their employees with retirement have already switched to defined contribution plans. It’s time for the state to do this, too.**

Those workers who are already retired or are close to retirement, would still get their pension. All other workers would keep the pension credits they have already earned, but from here on out, they would have a defined contribution account. Under the new plan, each year the State would put an amount of money into each worker’s account. Then, when the worker retired, they would get everything in their account. This approach has a number of benefits.

First, while state employees might not like this idea, it is not as bad as they think. The amount in their defined contribution account would definitely be there. The pension promise they have now is just that, a promise. Maybe the money will be there to pay their pensions; maybe it won’t. Will the legislature raise taxes high enough to actually pay those pensions in the future? They aren’t doing it now; why will they then? And even if they do raise taxes, how many of us taxpayers will still be here to pay those taxes? Promises can be broken and states can default. The defined contribution account will be there and the money will be in it.

Second, it is good for the taxpayers. We can provide for the retirement of state employees, in a way comparable to how private employers do it, without bankrupting the state in the future and putting the burden on our children and grandchildren.

But the best thing is that this plan will, in one small way, actually make our legislators do their job. Instead of promising state employees big pensions that somebody else will have to pay for, each year they will have to pay the amounts that are going into the defined contribution accounts that year.

If the legislators want to be big shots to the state workers, and their unions, they are going to have to find the money to pay those promises now. Which is the way it ought to be.

A more secure retirement plan for state workers. Providing for state workers’ retirement without pushing the burden on our children. Forcing our legislators to pay today for the promises they make today. That’s a win-win-win. It’s a Springfield three-peat!

------------
* Here is the scam you can play on the system if only the last four years’ pay is used to calculate a person’s pension: As the person nears retirement, the government employing the person gives them a couple of big raises to really bump up their pension. When Oak Park River Forest High School did this for one of their former superintendents, they said it was okay because it wouldn’t cost the high school that much. Which was right because it was the State that was going to have to pay. In other cases, workers themselves start working more hours or work overtime to increase their pay in the last several years before retirement, so their pension is more. Figuring a worker’s pension payment on an eight-year average, instead of a four-year average, will make this scam more difficult. The idea I am suggesting in this post, a defined contribution plan, would eliminate this problem entirely.

** The federal government has switched to defined contribution plans for its employees.

Should Tyler Colvin Be on the Opening Day Roster or Playing Full Time in Iowa?

Tyler Colvin has had a great spring, and Lou Piniella is thinking of putting him on the Opening Day roster – but only if Lou can get him some playing time. Per Carrie Muskat, Lou said he would have to get Tyler a couple of starts a week if he was going to stay. I am glad to hear Lou say that Tyler won’t stay unless he gets some at bats, but I wonder whether two starts a week, especially in the cold weather of April and May is really enough.

While Tyler is having a great spring, it is spring and it is Arizona. Tyler has never played at Triple A and he only spent part of last year at Double A. I realize some players can skip, or just about skip, Triple A. Mark Grace only spent a month at Iowa, but he was in Double A for all of 1987, where he was the Eastern League MVP and he led the league in RBIs while batting .333. Also, when Mark came up, he didn’t just play a couple times a week. He came up as our full-time first baseman. There is a big difference, especially in terms of the consistency you need for hitting, between playing every day and just playing twice a week.

Tyler Colvin has the chance to be something good, but if he is going to be good, he needs to play – every day. Look at Jeff Samardzija. He played baseball at Notre Dame, but he also played football, so when the Cubs signed him, he was not that experienced. He needed time to become a pitcher. He needed practice. But the Cubs rushed him to the majors in 2008, to help win the Central Division. He did a good job in 2008, but when he couldn’t do it again in 2009, we needed to send him down to Iowa and leave him there. He needed to pitch and learn to pitch. Instead, we kept bringing him up, sending him down, starting him at Iowa, relieving him in Chicago. That is no way to develop a pitcher. But by not looking at the long run, we may have slowed his development. If we had left him at Iowa and let him learn pitching and starting, he would be a lot further along now. As it is, all we have is somebody who might be able to help us in the bullpen – maybe.

Part of the problem is that Jim Hendry seems unwilling or unable to take the long view. He keeps saying Cubs’ fans have waited long enough. I agree we have waited a long time, but you still have to be smart. You still have to develop players the right way because rushing them isn’t the way to get good and stay good.

Back at the Cubs Convention in January, Tom Ricketts said that the family would be making decisions for the long run. When it comes to spending money for free agents, for example, they would look not only at how it would affect things this year but the future, too. You have to balance this year and next year. I was glad to hear that because we have been seeing way to much this-year-itis from Cubs management lately. All those outlandish and back-loaded contracts for poorly performing outfielders contracts are tying our hands now after not producing much in the first place. As Tom Ricketts said, we need a balance.

We messed with Jeff Samardzija by focusing on the short run. We should not do the same thing with Tyler Colvin.

Passing Health Care – and Making Sausage – House Style

Remember the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase and all those other little ways Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used your money to buy votes for his health care bill? Well, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Obama administration were just as creative this past weekend in getting the health care bill passed by the House.

According to Kimberley Strassel in Monday’s Wall Street Journal, it took $100 million of your money to get Rep. Bart Gordon to change his vote from no to yes. (It’s extra Medicaid money for Tennessee. Could Rep. Gordon’s switch be "The Tennessee Waltz"?) California Rep. Jim Costa didn’t want money. He just wanted more water for the farmers in his Central Valley district. The Interior Department came through, giving Central Valley farmers 25% of the water supplies, instead of the expected 5%, and Speaker Pelosi got another vote. (Go to Ms. Strassel’s article {subscription required, unfortunately} to see even more ways your money was used to get this bill approved.)

Ross Douthat in Monday’s New York Times noted that "liberals have made a lot of predictions about what [the bill’s] passage will mean for America" and that over the next decade we will find out if they were right. It does sort of make you wonder, however, how good the bill really is if this is what they had to do to get it passed.*

----------
* I realize that this last sentence may be something of a cheap shot, but sometimes it is hard to resist.

Keep Grant, Not Reagan, on the $50 Bill

Representative Patrick McHenry (R, NC) has proposed putting Ronald Reagan on the $50 bill, replacing Ulysses S. Grant. The Chicago Tribune supported the idea. But Representative Brad Sherman (D, CA), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, doesn’t think we should put "someone whose policies are still controversial" on our money.

I agree with Representative Sherman that Ronald Reagan should not replace Ulysses S. Grant, but for a different reason. I want to keep Ulysses S. Grant on the $50 bill because he deserves to be there.

Over the years, Grant’s reputation, both as a general and as president, has wrongly taken a hit. Grant was not a great president, but he wasn’t nearly as bad as the many suppose, and as a general, he was great. But let me start with something that happened before he became president, even before the Civil War, which speaks to the true character of the man.

By 1859 Grant had fallen on hard times. He was living on his father-in-law’s property in a cabin he had built himself. He had failed at farming. He had been earning money by cutting timber and hauling it into St. Louis to sell as firewood. Now he was moving to St. Louis to take a job as a collection agent, a job for which he was particularly ill-suited. At this point, let Jean Edward Smith tell the story:

"The circumstances are not clear, but sometime during his last year at White Haven [his father-in-law’s farm] he acquired possession of the young slave Colonel Dent [his father-in-law] left behind, a thirty-five-year-old man named William Jones. Grant’s views on slavery were ambivalent and Jones was the only slave he ever owned. When he moved to St. Louis, Grant was initially tempted to rent the man out, but soon decided against it. On March 29, 1859, he went to circuit court and filed the manumission papers to emancipate Jones. Grant never discussed his motives, but the action speaks for itself. Able-bodied slaves sold for a thousand dollars or more, and Grant surely could have used the money. Instead, he set Jones free." (Jean Edward Smith, Grant, 2001, p. 94)

In the Civil War two men were responsible for the Union victory. Both men were necessary; neither man was sufficient by himself. Obviously, without Abraham Lincoln, the Union would not have won. Lincoln had the determination and the vision necessary to lead the Union to victory. But Lincoln could not have won on the war on his own. His determination and vision would not have been enough without a general to beat the Confederacy on the battlefield – and that general was Ulysses S. Grant.

Grant is usually disparaged as a butcher for a side which was sure to win because it had such an advantage in population and industrial strength that it could not lose. Neither of those is true.

First, for those who believe the North was sure to win, read James McPherson’s great history of the Civil War, A Battle Cry of Freedom. Professor McPherson shows how close the South came to winning the war many times, even with the North’s advantages. Ultimately, it was because of Grant, and his protégé William Tecumseh Sherman, that the North won on the battlefield (and that Lincoln won re-election in 1864).

Second, while I do not have time here to go into an extended argument here, the casualties on the Union and the Confederate side, when Grant fought Lee, were roughly equal in terms of percentages, except in a few cases. The North had a larger number of casualties because it had more soldiers. And remember, Grant was on the offense; Lee was on the defense. (Here.)

Third, much of the criticism of Grant comes from supporters of Robert E. Lee. (Here and here.) If Lee was so great, how could a scruffy, common Grant have beaten him, except if Grant was a butcher who was destined to win because of superior supplies and manpower?*

But Grant’s greatest moment in the Civil War may have been after the fighting was virtually over, at Appomattox Court House, April 9, 1865. Consider what has happened after other civil wars. The English killed their King. Millions were killed in Russia. But what happened after the Civil War? Nothing. The southern soldiers returned home and took up farming or whatever trade they left. There were no treason trials, not even of the leading generals. Why? Because of the terms Ulysses S. Grant granted to the Confederate forces under Robert E. Lee at Appomattox Court House that day:

"The officers to give their individual paroles not to take up arms against the Government of the United States until properly exchanged, and each company or regimental commander sign a like parole for the men of their commands. The arms, artillery and public property to be parked and stacked, and turned over to the officer appointed by me to receive them. This will not embrace the side-arms of the officers, nor their private horses or baggage. This done, each officer and man will be allowed to return to their homes, not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside."

When President Andrew Johnson asked Ulysses S. Grant when Robert E. Lee could be tried for treason, Grant replied never, as long as he observed his parole. When Lee was indicted for treason, Grant told President Johnson that if Lee was tried, Grant would resign his commission as General of the Army. Lee was not tried.

But what of his presidency? Certainly, there were scandals that occurred while Grant was president. But none of them involved Grant personally. In some cases, Grant appointed people he should not have appointed, and he trusted in people far longer than he should have, but he did not enrich himself. In fact, perhaps the most famous scandal of all, the Credit Mobilier, which came to light during the 1872 presidential campaign, involved events which occurred in 1867, before Grant even became president.

Also, consider other parts of Grant’s presidency. Most forget now that "[a] distinguishing characteristic [of] the Grant Presidency was Grant's concern with the plight of African Americans and native Indian tribes". While the theme of his first inaugural address was "Let Us Have Peace," Grant was unwilling to do that on the back of black Americans. He worked for the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment to guarantee blacks the right to vote. In 1871 Grant went to Congress to personally push for the Ku Klux Klan bill which allowed him to send federal troops into the South to protect blacks against white violence. In 1875 Grant signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which "guaranteed that everyone, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in ‘public accommodations’ (i.e. inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement)".** Ultimately, the fight for the rights of blacks in the South was lost because the people of the North no longer cared. But that was our fault, not Grant’s. Grant fought for the rights of blacks long after America wanted to give up.

Grant fought for our original inhabitants, too. Instead of Indian agents effectively appointed by Congressmen as political plums, Grant appointed military officers to reduce corruption. When Congress prohibited Army officers from being Indian agents, Grant divided the appointments up among church groups. Grant never achieved what he wanted because too many were against him. But Jean Edward Smith sums up what Grant tried to do:

"Grant believed deeply in human equality, and in his view, the Indian, no less than the former slave, deserved the government’s protection. Grant changed the way the United States thought about Native Americans. His decision in 1869 to pursue peace, not war [on the Plains], helped save the American Indian from extinction.

Grant’s policy was nobly conceived. … [F]or the 1870s, Grant’s policy was remarkably progressive and humanitarian. The president stood against the tide of public opinion, and for eight years held steadfastly to the goal of Indian assimilation." (p. 541)

And finally, there is the nobility of his death. In 1881 Grant joined the investment firm of Grant (his son Buck) and Ward (Ferdinand). Grant invested $100,000 of his money in the firm. Unfortunately for Grant, Ferdinand Ward was a crook, and in 1884 the firm went bankrupt, leaving Grant destitute. Then, in October of that year, he was diagnosed with throat cancer. At that point, with the help of a certain Samuel Clemens, Grant began to write his autobiography. He finished the book in July of 1885, just days before he died. In fact, working on the book, which was how he would provide for his wife, Julia, after his death, may have kept him alive longer. The book was both a financial and literary success. It is said to be one of great American autobiographies. Jean Edward Smith again:

"For Grant, it had been a race against time. His determination to finish the Memoirs and provide for his family attracted almost as much attention as his military campaigns twenty years earlier. As Professor James McPherson noted, the elegant simplicity of Grant’s prose made a difficult job look easy. ‘To read the Personal Memoirs with a knowledge of the circumstances under which Grant wrote them is to gain insight into the reasons for his military success.’" (p.627)***

Ulysses S. Grant died on July 23, 1865. In addition to men such as General William Tecumseh Sherman, Lieutenant General Philip Sheridan, former Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, and Admiral David Porter, Grant’s pallbearers included, at Julia’s request, Confederate Generals Simon Buckner and Joe Johnston. Even in death, he sought reconciliation.

Ulysses S. Grant has earned his place on our $50 bill. He should stay there.

--------------
* While not relevant to the point of Grant’s greatness, I note that Robert E. Lee deserted his commission in the U.S. Army to fight, effectively, regardless of what he claimed, for right of one man to own another. Grant freed the only slave he ever owned.

** The law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1883, but many of its provisions were, finally, re-passed in the various civil rights acts of the 1960s.

*** For a detailed look at Grant’s death, see Richard Goldhurst, Many Are the Hearts: The Agony and the Triumph of Ulysses S. Grant, 1975.

Note on sources: Information not linked to came from Jean Edward Smith, Grant, 2001, and Josiah Bunting III, Ulysses S. Grant, 2004.

Lessons for Illinois in the Economies of Eastern Europe

The Economist this week writes of the turnaround in the economies of Eastern Europe:

"In the depths of the financial crisis a year ago, it was easy to see how the woes of the ex-communist economies could cause huge problems for the rest of Europe. … A combination of weak governments and angry voters looked ominous enough for some commentators, including this newspaper, to fret that the bill for bailing out new members from the east could be big enough to threaten the European Union.

In the event, the ex-communist economies have so far ridden out the storm. … Something went right—and it holds lessons for troubled countries in western Europe. …

Yet the greatest credit should go to the resilience and level-headedness of the region’s own politicians and citizens. Seemingly weak minority governments in places like Hungary and Latvia proved capable of making enormous fiscal adjustments. … [C]uts in spending and increases in taxes and the retirement age that some ex-communist countries have imposed over the past year were much more savage than anything that Greece or Spain have so far contemplated.

That is salutary for the many countries that have yet to change public expectations enough to make big, painful structural changes more acceptable. Greece and the other Mediterranean countries in the euro area—Spain, Portugal and even Italy—nowadays seem to be sicker than ex-communist Europe. They should look east for a cure."

I would suggest that the legislators in Springfield, the voters of Illinois, and the employees of the State of Illinois should also "look east". All of them need to accept the fact that things need to change and that they/we all are going to have to pay more and accept less. Our legislators are going to have to make hard decisions and actually pay for what they spend. Our voters are going to have to accept, at least for a while, a tax increase. Hopefully, the employees of the State of Illinois will not have their pay cut, as in some countries in Europe, but they are in this, too, and they are going to have to accept that their pensions will not be as good as they had expected – because we can’t afford it. Pensions are going to accrue at a slower rate, and employees will have to work longer to get them.

The people in eastern Europe understood this. I don’t know about Illinois yet. Maybe the difference between eastern Europe and Illinois, is that the people of eastern Europe know what the alternative is and they know there is a price for freedom and democracy, and that price is called responsibility. The legislators, voters, and employees of the State of Illinois need to understand that, too.

Hold Obama and the Democrats to the CBO Assumptions They Relied On

Now that the Obama/Pelosi/Reid health care contraption has passed, to a large extent because of the Congressional Budget Office estimate that it would reduce the deficit, the Democrats need to be held to the assumptions they gave the CBO to get that estimate. The Democrats better not try to stop the 21% cut in doctor reimbursement rates under Medicare that was part of the assumptions. That tax on "Cadillac" health care funds has to stay, too. (For more, see here.)

And if any of these things, or any changes to the other assumptions in the CBO estimate, do pass Congress, President Obama better veto them. Because he promised.

In Honor of Charlie Brown: That Old Kite-Eating Tree

River Forest, March 20, 2010 

As the Vote on Health Care Approaches

As we approach the upcoming vote (or non-vote, as the procedure allows) on health care, there is no need to say again in detail what I have said before. Let me just make a few general comments.

First. Yes, it is hypocritical for Republicans to object to things that they have done themselves in the past. But it is also hypocritical for Democrats to do things now that they objected to in the past when Republicans did them.

Second. The changes will not be cost neutral. I gave just one very small example of the way the bill will not be cost neutral here. President Obama can say it will cost neutral, but it is not true. The President is either saying things that he knows are not true (though you might want to check his precise wording for slick lawyer language) or he is just taking as true what some people tell him without really looking it.

The idea of paying for the plan by reducing "waste" is silly (at best). One person’s waste is another person’s essential health care. Broad rules of which treatments or drugs are cost-effective and which are a waste are true in most cases. Which is fine, as long as yours is one of "most cases". I commented on this point here and here.

Third. The "plan" that is being voted is actually a combination of a number of changes. I wonder if anybody has a clue as to how it really fits together or how it really will work – or how many people’s health care, as opposed to their insurance status, will improve. I called it "the Obama/Pelosi/Reid health care contraption" for a reason.

Fourth. A government health coverage that has "worked," in terms of providing care (in this case a drug plan for seniors) that participants like at an acceptable cost, is Medicare Part D. (See here and here.) But Democrats don’t like it because it has too much private involvement. They think government can do better. Some of us don’t.

Fifth. There are other approaches. Senators Tom Coburn (R, OK) and Richard Burr (R, NC) introduced such a plan in 2007. Representative Paul Ryan (R, WI) has included a plan in his Roadmap for America’s Future. (For information on that, just type "Paul Ryan Roadmap" into Google.)

Sixth. Two final comments. Consider the "Health Care Triangle": Guaranteed care. Right to choose. Controlled costs. Pick any two.

As I said here:

"[W}e cannot continue on a path of constantly increasing health care costs, while at the same time paying less and less of these costs ourselves. It can’t continue, and it won’t.

One of two things is going to happen. Either people are going to have to pay more of their own health care costs, especially first dollar costs, and assume some responsibility for controlling their own health care costs, or government and health insurance bureaucracies are going to start rationing care based on whether a procedure or a drug provides enough ‘value’ for what it costs. If it’s too expensive or has a high enough chance of not working, you are not going to able to get the operation or the medicine that you want because some bureaucrat (whether public or private) says the benefit isn’t worth the cost."

Democrats favor the second option, with government bureaucrats making the decisions, of course. I favor the first.

The 20th Anniversary of the Only Free Election in East German History - and the Expansion of NATO

Tomorrow is the twentieth anniversary of the only free election in the history of the German Democratic Republic. On March 18, 1990, East Germans were allowed to vote freely for the first time, and they did, voting, in effect, for reunification with West Germany, which happened on October 3, 1990.

The speed and peacefulness with which Germany reunited was incredible. But changes of similar magnitude were happening across central and eastern Europe as the 1990s turned into the 2000s. On March 12, 1999, less than ten years after the Berlin Wall came down, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined NATO. Until 1990, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were part of the USSR. On March 29, 2004, they, too, became a part of NATO. Look at the list of the countries that have joined NATO since the Wall fell:

Czech Republic
Hungary
Poland
Bulgaria
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Albania
Croatia

Mind-boggling.

Throughout the twentieth century, Europe was the main center of conflict in the world. In the first half, it was the Great War and then World War II. In the second half, it was the 40-year Cold War, with a constant threat of nuclear annihilation.

But in the last decade of the last century, peace spread over Europe, and except for the country that was Yugoslavia, it happened almost without bloodshed. It was a magnificent success.

And that success has, to a large degree, continued in the 2000s. Certainly, there have been problems. Things are still not fully settled in parts of the Balkans. The development of democracy in some of the countries has not always been easy and without difficulties. There was even the war in Georgia, on the outer edge of Europe, in 2008.

But for anybody who remembers the ‘60s and ‘70s and into the ‘80s, the progress in Europe has been incredible. For the first time in I don’t know how long, nobody can realistically see a war happening in Europe. As I said above, mind-boggling.

But as often happens, no matter how great a success, eventually questioners and naysayers begin to appear. All of the successes are assumed; of course, they were going to happen. There was no doubt about them. But look at the additional things that could have happened. If we had only done this differently or gone about that in another way, we could have avoided the problems we have today. Instead of seeing the successes, they look only at the things that they think could have been better.

The author of 1989: The Struggle to Create Post-Cold War Europe, Mary Elise Sarotte wonders whether the United States and West Germany misled Mikhail Gorbachev as to their plans for Germany and NATO if the USSR (as it still was then) agreed to a reunified Germany staying in NATO. Did the US and West Germany lead Mr. Gorbachev to believe that, while Germany would re-unite, NATO would not expand into East German territory (and beyond), as some Russian leaders claim now?

Ms. Sarotte writes (in an article in The New York Times):

"Did the United States betray Russia at the dawn of the post-cold war era? The short answer is no. Nothing legally binding emerged from the negotiations over German unification. In fact, in September 1990, an embattled Mr. Gorbachev signed the accords that allowed NATO to extend itself over the former East Germany in exchange for financial assistance from Bonn to Moscow. A longer answer, however, shows that there were mixed messages and diplomatic ambiguities."

Many of us would look at Europe today. We see freedom and democracies across a continent that for most of the twentieth century knew war and tyranny. NATO, which is probably the greatest alliance for peace in the world’s history, expanded for 16 countries in 1989 to 28 countries today, and with that spread, the security of peace spread, too.

But Ms. Sarotte focuses on the problems in Russia and the grievances and resentments that some in Russia feel toward the West in general and the United States in particular.

According to Ms. Sarotte, "Mr. Gorbachev later complained to Mr. Kohl that he had fallen into a trap [regarding the expansion of NATO into not only East Germany but also Eastern Europe]." And as for the money that the Soviet Union/Russia got from West Germany:

"Gorbachev would complain to [U.S. Secretary of State James] Baker in 1991 that the money from Kohl had already vanished: ‘Things disappear around here. We got a lot of money for German unification, and when I called our people, I was told they didn’t know where it was.’ … Clearly, Moscow needed more than just credits to ease its transition to being a modern market economy, but (other than from Bonn) it got little."

And so Ms. Sarotte suggests the following:

"By acknowledging that there might be some substance to Russian grievances, the Obama administration would strengthen our relations with Moscow. Given that NATO enlargement has already taken place (and efforts for further expansion are stalled), little would be lost with such an acknowledgment but much could be gained. Certainly, Western attempts to manage everything from Iran’s nuclear program to European energy supplies during the coming winter would be a great deal easier with Russia’s cooperation."

Ms. Sarotte is wrong for several reasons. First, there is nothing to apologize for. Look at what was accomplished. Look at the freedom and democracy – and peace – that has spread across Europe in the last two decades and look at the chances of war that are no longer there. This is a huge accomplishment. It is unfortunate that Russia did not use its chances as well as it could have. But what is there to object to if a country like the USSR does not dominate big swaths of Europe? If this is Russia’s grievance, why should we care?

Second, Ms. Sarotte says, "Given that NATO’s enlargement has already taken place, little would be lost with such an acknowledgement [i.e., ‘that here might be some substance to Russian grievances’ concerning the growth of NATO]". But Ms. Sarotte fails to understand that such an acknowledgement would give Russia a basis, a legal basis, to start to push back on the expansion of NATO. Ms. Savotte apparently thinks that size of NATO is fixed and unchangeable. But Erich Honecker said in January of 1989 that the Wall could stand for another 100 years. It was gone in ten months.

However, it is more than just NATO. Five countries that were in the Warsaw Pact, and subject to the Soviet Union, in 1989 are now in NATO. If NATO’s enlargement was improper, what happens to freedom and democracy in those countries?

Also, as I mentioned above, there are countries in NATO today that were part of the Soviet Union in 1989. If NATO’s enlargement was improper, what protects the freedom – and independence – of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? Are they to rely on the good intentions of the Russian government, the president of which said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the twentieth century?

The importance of legal agreements and legal bases for arguments cannot be underestimated. Consider the Helsinki Accords in 1975. The Soviet Union had been pushing for a conference on security in Europe for years. The Soviets wanted to gain recognition for the post-World War II boundaries in Europe, thus ratifying the Soviets’ territorial gains (from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Rumania) and recognizing the division of Germany. The final agreement did recognize the boundaries and stated that borders should only be changed by peaceful means.*

But the Helsinki Accords were more than just boundaries and territory. In addition to political and economic matters, there was a third "basket" on cultural issues, which included human rights. In the third basket, the signatories agreed to, among other things:

"respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief"

"promote and encourage the effective exercise of civil, political, economic, social, cultural and other rights and freedoms"

"act in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

At the time, many in the United States were opposed to the Helsinki Accords. They thought that the West was giving up somebody real, the agreement on borders, for mere words about human rights.

But those words wound up being very important. While the agreements were no more binding than previous agreements (or even the countries’ own laws and constitutions), they provided a new impetus for human rights throughout the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Basket III became "the basis for the work of the Moscow Helsinki Group, an independent non-governmental organization created to monitor compliance [with] the Helsinki Accords."

In Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Havel and others founded Charter 77 to hold the Czechoslovak government to the promises it made at Helsinki. People throughout Eastern Europe could now point to their governments’ own agreements to allow them human rights. (See here.)

Obviously, the agreements in Basket III did not, by themselves, cause the Wall to come down and the Soviet Union to break up, but they did play a part in giving the people of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union a new hope, something to believe in. Basket III was important because there are times when words do matter.

And that is the problem with "acknowledging that there might be some substance to Russian grievances" concerning NATO’s enlargement. By doing so we would be giving Russia a legal basis for an argument to push back on NATO enlargement. We would also be creating doubts in the minds of people in eastern Europe and the Baltics as to whether we would really come to their aid if Russia did to them what it did to Georgia. The Russians have pressured Ukraine the last couple of winters over natural gas supplies. Do we have any reason to doubt that they would do the same, or something else, to other countries if they thought they had a chance of success – and if they had a legal basis for doing it?

The spread of freedom and democracy across Europe, and the enlargement of NATO, has been the great accomplishment of the last twenty years. We should not do anything that might put it at risk.

-----------
* The United States specifically stated during the conference that it did not recognize the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into the Soviet Union. Other countries did the same.

President Obama (through Robert Gibbs) Responds to Chief Justice Roberts

When I posted this item yesterday morning and said that it would be interesting to see what President Obama had to say, I did not realize that the President, via a statement issued by his press secretary, had already responded. When I wrote the post, I thought that the situation was pretty even. The President had been able to criticize the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United on national TV during the State of the Union address, and he had gotten lots of Democratic Senators and Representatives to stand up and cheer, while the justices had to just sit there. The Chief Justice had responded to a question from a law student at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

I thought that the President might just ignore the whole thing. He is, after all, trying to pass a big health care bill, along with trying to resurrect some form of climate change/cap-and-trade legislation and everything else he is supposed to be doing. It’s not like somebody was asking him a question about what the Chief Justice said. He could have just left it there.

Instead, the White House went into full campaign mode. Within hours, Robert Gibbs had issued a statement:

"‘What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections - drowning out the voices of average Americans,’ Gibbs said. ‘The president has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response.’"

In campaigns, you must not let any charge go unanswered; you must not let any opponent’s claim win a news cycle. And that is what the White House seemed to be doing here. But we’re not talking about a political campaign here. We’re not talking about an opponent (I hope). We’re talking about the Supreme Court.

President Obama’s State of the Union address was back in January. Chief Justice Roberts did not say anything until March 9 – and then he only said something in response to a question. He did not bring it up on his own. The White House, on the other hand, responded within hours and did so on its own.

I had been hoping for more out of President Obama. After all, as Jan Crawford noted, "George [W.] Bush repeatedly got slapped down" by the Supreme Court and "he never lashed out at the justices." But then maybe that’s the difference between a classy President and a schoolyard bully.

-----------
Update (3/11/10 8:20 am): Fixed a typo in the last sentence.