The View from Right Field

So How Are the Cubs Going to Do This Year?

With the Cubs season starting tomorrow, I suppose I ought to make a few comments on how they are going to do.  First, they are going to lose more than they win.  That’s pretty simple – and sure.  As to whether they will lose more or less than last year’s 96, who knows?  It would be nice to keep the number of losses under 100, and it would especially be nice if they could win a few more games at home.  Better to lose on the road than at home, when I’m there.  I realize that isn’t the right attitude, but last year was really bad.

Second, is there hope for the future?  There’s always hope.  The question is whether it’s realistic.  I think so, at least on the baseball side.  Theo and the boys seem to know what they are doing.  I like the way they are stocking the farm system with prospects.  You need a lot of prospects in order to have a few come through.  It would be nice if the Ricketts would give Theo, et al, a little more money to play with at the major league level, while the prospects are getting here, but it’s not Theo’s fault that they’re not.

Third, one advantage of the relatively marginal team the Cubs will be putting on the field at Wrigley Field this year, is that the Friendly Confines won’t be crowded.  It will make selling extra tickets a little hard, but at least my view from the cheap seats in the upper deck won’t be blocked.  I guess the owners figure people will start coming back once the Cubs get good, so it’s okay to continue cheaping out at the major league for the next couple of years. 

Opening Day is tomorrow.  Home Opener is Friday.  I’ll be there on Friday because the Cubs are my team, and I’m not going to let anybody take them away from me.
--------
CORRECTION (3/31/14 11:12 am):  I left out a "not" in the last sentence.  I fixed it - and underlined it to show the correction.  Thanks to my number one proofreader.

Ukraine: A “Diplomatic ‘Off-Ramp’” for the West?

Vladimir Putin called President Obama called last night.  According to Reuters, the phone call “offered the possibility that Russia might be willing to negotiate a diplomatic outcome” to the Ukraine crisis.  Maybe.  Or maybe this comment, also in the Reuters article, is more accurate:

“At the heart of subsequent negotiations expected [between] U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is a U.S. diplomatic ‘off-ramp’.

In it, international monitors would be deployed to Ukraine to assure ethnic Russians are safe, there would be a pull back of Russian forces, and a direct Russia-Ukraine dialogue.”

That sounds about right.  Russia would get to keep Crimea, Vladimir Putin’s claims about ethnic Russians in Ukraine would be legitimated, and Russia would “negotiate” with a Ukraine that knows the U.S. and its allies are looking for a “diplomatic ‘off-ramp.’”  Oh, and of course, all those sanctions against Russia would be eventually lifted.

It sounds a lot like what happened in Syria.  President Obama drew a redline that he apparently never thought he would have to enforce and then desperately wanted to get out of when Syria did cross it.  At the last minute, Russia gave President Obama a “diplomatic ‘off-ramp’” when it picked up on an off-handed comment made by Secretary of State Kerry and said Syria would give up its chemical weapons if the U.S. wouldn’t bomb it.  While Syria may give up its chemical weapons, the main result is that Bashir Assad remains in power, strengthened by the results of his use of chemical weapons.

In August of 2008, Russia invaded Georgia and occupied two provinces of that country.  A war-weakened George W. Bush and the U.S.’s allies could do, and did, nothing.  Four years later, Syria crossed Barack Obama’s red-line regarding the use of chemical weapons, and nothing happened.

Now, a year and a half after Syria, Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea, and it appears the U.S. is looking for a “diplomatic ‘off-ramp.’”

Georgia.  Syria.  Crimea.  The only question is when and where Russia will try again – and whether we will be prepared to really do something in response. 

James R. Schlesinger, RIP

James Schlesinger died on Thursday.  Mr. Schlesinger served as Secretary of Defense from 1973 to 1975 and as Secretary of Energy from 1977 to 1979.  While he did good work in both of these jobs, this wasn’t what I wanted to comment on.  Rather, it was Mr. Schlesinger’s clear-headed approach to issues, whether nuclear strategy or energy policy.

I keep copies of articles that I think are important, that tell me something I didn’t know or that explain issues in a better way.  In looking through some of those files yesterday, I found articles by Mr. Schlesinger from as long ago as 1976 and as recently as 2010.

Consider these excerpts from an interview with Mr. Schlesinger that appeared in The Wall Street Journal on July 11, 2009.  Melinda Kirkpatrick of the Journal wrote:

“But above all Mr. Schlesinger is a nuclear realist. …  ‘The notion that we can abolish nuclear weapons reflects on a combination of American utopianism and American parochialism. … It’s lie the [1929] Kellogg-Briand Pact renouncing war as an instrument of national policy … It’s not based up on an understanding of reality.’ …

[Mr. Schlesinger] reminds me of the comment of Japanese political leader Ichiro Ozawa, who said in 2002 that it would be ‘easy’ for Japan to make nuclear warheads and that it had enough plutonium for make several thousand weapons.  ‘When one contemplates a number like that,’ Mr. Schlesinger says, ‘one sees that a substantial role in nonproliferation has been [played by] the U.S. nuclear umbrella.  Without that, some and perhaps a fair number of our allies would feel that necessity of having their own nuclear capabilities.’”*

We will miss Mr. Schlesinger’s clear-eyed, hardheaded advice.  We don’t get enough of it today.
------------
* Melanie Kirkpatrick, “The Weekend Interview with James R. Schlesinger: Why We Don’t Want a Nuclear-Free World,” The Wall Street Journal, July 11, 2009.

Fracking and the Keystone XL Pipeline Need President Obama’s Support

While in Europe this week, President Obama told European leaders that they needed to develop their own energy sources and not be so dependent on other nations (i.e., a Vladimir Putin-led Russia) for their energy needs.  I wonder if the President is going to be telling the same thing to those members of his own party who oppose fracking anywhere and anyhow.  Also, when is he finally going to decide on the Keystone XL pipeline?

President Obama Says He’s Not Interested in Vladimir Putin’s Motivation

While in Europe to meet with NATO allies and G-7 members, President Obama said, in response to a question about whether he had misread Vladimir Putin’s intentions:

“I’m less interested in motivation and more interested in the facts and the principles that not only the United Sates but the entire international community are looking to uphold.”

If the President said that because he’s trying to play with President Putin’s mind, that may be okay.  I doubt it will work, but maybe it’s worth a try.

If, on the other hand, President Obama really means this, we are in trouble.  Facts and capabilities are important, but so are intentions and motivations.  In fact, sometimes intentions and motivations are more important than facts.

At times, with the right intentions and enough motivation, a country can do more than it thought (or anybody thought) it was capable of.  In 1936, Germany’s capabilities were not that great, but Adolf Hitler was motivated, and Germany re-occupied the Rhineland.

On the positive side, in 1982, few people thought the United Kingdom could organize a task force, send it 8,000 miles away and kick the Argentinian invaders out of the Falklands.  England’s ability to do this was in serious doubt.  But Margaret Thatcher’s motivation was not.  The Falklands were freed, and an evil regime in Buenos Aires collapsed because of the loss.

Motivation matters.  Intention matters.  I hope President Obama understands that.  If not, we’re in for a long, andpotentially dangerous, three years.

Michael Madigan. John Cullerton. Oh Yes, and Pat Quinn, Too.

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn presented his budget yesterday.  Surprise of surprises, Governor Quinn, with the support of both Speaker of the Illinois House Michael Madigan and Illinois Senate President John Cullerton, called for the 5% state income tax rate to be made permanent.  If it’s not done, Governor Quinn said, there would be massive teacher layoffs, big cuts in social services, and increases in local property taxes.

Three comments:  First, in the 2010 campaign, Governor Quinn told us he would veto any tax increase bigger than 33%.  In January of 2011, he signed an increase of 67%.  In 2011, Governor Quinn, Senate President Cullerton and Speaker Madigan’s number two person in the House all told us the increase would be temporary and that it would be cutback to 3.75% on January 1, 2015.  They told us bills would be paid, and Illinois could get back on its feet, financially.  (Here.)  It didn’t happen.  Illinois’s credit ratings have been repeatedly cut, and there is still a huge backlog of bills.  (Here.)  But now we are told that, if the income tax increase is made permanent, all will be well.  Why should believe them? 

Second, Governor Quinn said that, if we don’t keep the full increase in the state income tax, “extreme and radical cuts will be imposed on … critical public services.”  But money is clearly not the issue because Illinois isn’t doing the job now.  Last Sunday the Chicago Tribune reported that Illinois had a backlog of more than 200,000 applications for Medicaid.  According to the Tribune, the State was “caught … flat-footed.”  In other words, “critical public services” aren’t being provided now.  Is Illinois’s problem money or incompetence?  Will keeping the full increase in the state income tax solve the competence issue?  Why should we believe them?

Third, during the 2006 campaign, then Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn campaigned with and said good things about his running mate, Governor Rod Blagojevich.  It was obvious, even then, that there was something wrong with Rod Blagojevich.  He was running the state into the ground financially because he kept spending without figuring out how to pay the bills.  And his ethical issues were there, too, if you wanted to look.  Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn either didn’t see what was happening or didn’t want to.  The same with Messrs. Madigan and Cullerton.  Why should we believe them?

Russia, Ukraine, the Baltics, and NATO

Yesterday President Obama warned Russia about threats it might make and actions it might take against countries that were either part of the Soviet Union or under effective Soviet control as members of the Warsaw Pact:

“With respect to the broader issue of states that are bordering Russia and what assurances do they have about future land grabs, as you put it, obviously some of those countries are NATO countries.  And as NATO allies, we believe that the cornerstone of our security is making sure that all of us, including the United States, are abiding by Article 5 [of the NATO Treaty – see here] and the notion of collective defense.  And what we are now doing is organizing even more intensively to make sure that we have contingency plans, and that every one of our NATO allies has assurances that we will act in their defense against any threats.”

I was glad to see President Obama making statements like this.  But we need to do more than just make statements.  I am not sure how impressed President Putin is by any verbal redlines the United States draws.  It’s not what we say that is going to deter Russia; it’s what we do.  And in terms of protecting our NATO allies, and stopping Russian aggression, what we need to do is to stop the cuts in defense spending.  Instead of reducing the size of the Army and the Navy and the Air Force, we need to maintain their size. 

In today’s Wall Street Journal, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained:

“The only way to counter Mr. Putin's aspirations on Russia's periphery is for the West also to play a strategic long game.  That means to take actions that unambiguously demonstrate to Russians that his worldview and goals—and his means of achieving them—over time will dramatically weaken and isolate Russia.

Europe's reliance on Russian oil and gas must be reduced, and truly meaningful economic sanctions must be imposed, knowing there may be costs to the West as well.  NATO allies bordering Russia must be militarily strengthened and reinforced with alliance forces; and the economic and cyber vulnerabilities of the Baltic states to Russian actions must be reduced (especially given the number of Russians and Russian-speakers in Estonia and Latvia).

Western investment in Russia should be curtailed; Russia should be expelled from the G-8 and other forums that offer respect and legitimacy; the U.S. defense budget should be restored to the level proposed in the Obama administration's 2014 budget a year ago, and the Pentagon directed to cut overhead drastically, with saved dollars going to enhanced capabilities, such as additional Navy ships; U.S. military withdrawals from Europe should be halted; and the EU should be urged to grant associate agreements with Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine.”

Following on from what former Secretary Gates said, now is the time to make sure that the purpose of defense spending is defense, not congressional pork.  Unnecessary military bases need to be closed.  Weapons should be built where it is the most cost-effective to build them, not where some congressman wants them built to help a company in his or her district.

While I was glad to see President Obama reaffirm our NATO commitments, I do not think it was smart of him to dismiss President Putin and Russia as a mere “regional power”.  What Russia does in Europe, affects the whole world.  Former Secretary Gates again:

“Tacit acceptance of settling old revanchist scores by force is a formula for ongoing crises and potential armed conflict, whether in Europe, Asia or elsewhere.  A China behaving with increasing aggressiveness in the East and South China seas, an Iran with nuclear aspirations and interventionist policies in the Middle East, and a volatile and unpredictable North Korea are all watching events in Europe.  They have witnessed the fecklessness of the West in Syria.  Similar division and weakness in responding to Russia's most recent aggression will, I fear, have dangerous consequences down the road.”

I understand that some Americans may see what is happening in Ukraine as “a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing”.  If that is true, then it is up to President Obama to not only warn President Putin and Russia, but to explain to the American people what needs to be done and to make sure they support our doing it.

Constitutional Rights of – Corporations

The Supreme Court will be hearing arguments tomorrow in a very important case on religious freedom.  The case is generally known as the Hobby Lobby case (after one of the big companies involved).  The case involves the question of whether the federal government can require a private company to provide its employees with full contraception coverage under its health insurance plan, even if doing so would violate the religious beliefs of those who own or control the company. 

The family that controls Hobby Lobby says that certain forms of contraception the government is requiring to be covered, in particular those which involve preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus, violate their religious beliefs.  The Obama administration, obviously, disagrees, saying that commercial enterprises do not have the right to be exempt from government regulation based on religious beliefs.

There is a tremendous amount of misinformation about this case in the media.  For example, this morning’s Chicago Tribune calls this a First Amendment case.  It is not.  Rather, it is case of statutory interpretation.  The question is whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 gives Hobby Lobby a basis for not providing insurance to cover those methods of contraception, which it says violates its religious belief.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 provides that the “[federal] government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” except if necessary to further a “compelling government interest".  While the language of the statute mimics language in Supreme Court cases relating to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, it is the application and meaning of the language in the statute that is in question here, not the First Amendment itself.  While the decision in Hobby Lobby may give some indication of what the Supreme Court might do in a constitutional case, in this case the Court is interpreting specific statutory language, not the First Amendment, and that limits what its decision might be.

Also, in the second paragraph of its article this morning, the Tribune said:

“Four years ago, in their controversial Citizens United decision, the justices ruled that corporations had full free-speech rights in election campaigns.  Now, they're being asked to decide whether for-profit companies are entitled to religious liberties.”

No.  That is not correct.  In Citizens United, the Supreme Court did not say corporate entities (whether they be businesses, labor unions or public interest groups) had “full” free-speech rights.  The Citizens United case held that corporate entities could make independent expenditures and “electioneering communications” in campaigns for federal office.  The decision did not involve, and it did nothing to change, the prohibition under federal law against corporations or unions making direct contributions to candidates or political parties for federal elections.

Now to my thought of this morning:  While, as I said above, the Hobby Lobby case is not a constitutional case, many people (such as the Tribune and others) like to talk as if it is.  So let’s look at it that way.  The question is:  Does a corporation have a right to freedom of religion”; i.e., does the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment apply to corporations?*  Some people say no.  Just as they object to Citizens United, claiming that a corporation does not have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech, they argue a corporation does not have rights under the free exercise of religion clause.  If that is true, I wonder how they feel about other parts of the First Amendment.  Do they think that corporations (and unions) have rights under the “petition … for a redress of grievances” clause?

What about other parts of the Bill of Rights?  Can “cruel and unusual punishments” be imposed on corporations, regardless of the Eighth Amendment?  What about “unreasonable searches and seizures” (Fourth Amendment) or being “deprived of … property, without due process of law” (Fifth Amendment)?  Do these apply to corporations and unions?
--------
* Here is the full text of the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Illinois Democrats Say They Want to Increase the Minimum Wage. But in 2011, They Cut Workers’ Pay by 2%.

As I commented a couple of days ago, the Democrats in Illinois are pushing a minimum wage increase, to over $10.00 an hour, to show how much they care about workers in Illinois.  Of course, what they don’t talk about is that a little over three years ago, on January 11, 2011, they cut the pay of every worker in Illinois by a full 2%.  That was the day that the Democrats snuck through an increase in the Illinois income tax from 3% to 5%.*

Obviously, workers’ paychecks were the same before and after the tax increase.  But when it comes to what workers got to take home, which is what most people consider their pay, workers’ pay was cut by 2%. 

I understand that Illinois was in a big hole with its pension system in 2011.  The Democrats had been fighting among themselves since 2003, and they didn’t make the required contributions.  Illinois was also in a big hole with its bills because Democrats were passing programs and not paying for them.  (Here and here.)

So, on January 11, 2011, the Democrats did something:  They cut workers’ pay by 2% - by increasing the Illinois income tax from 3% to 5%.  They said this would let them pay the bills and contribute to the pensions.  It did help with the pensions, but the bills are still way behind (though not quite as far). 

Why didn’t the big increase in taxes help with the backlog of unpaid bills?  Because, while the Democrats cut workers’ pay, they didn’t make the cuts needed in state spending.  State spending continued while all of the workers in Illinois got a pay cut.

Keep this in mind when the Democrats talk about how much they care about workers and how they want to raise the minimum wage.  Maybe they want to increase the minimum wage, but in 2011, when they had a choice of cutting state spending or cutting pay of all the workers in the State of Illinois, they the cut workers’ pay.
------------
* I think it is fair to say that they “snuck” it through.  They waited until after the election.  In fact, they finally approved it the morning before the new legislators were to be sworn in in the afternoon.  And a number of the votes to approve the increase came from legislators who either were retiring voluntarily or had been beaten in November.  Also, Governor Quinn promised during the campaign that he would only approve a tax increase from 3% to 4%, but he too decided to cut workers’ pay by 2%, instead of the 1% he promised, after he won the election.  All in all, I think that constitutes “snuck.” (See here and here.)

Illinois Dems Really Know How to Run a Campaign

Less than 48 hours after Bruce Rauner won the Republican nomination for Governor of Illinois, Illinois Democrats rolled out their campaign against him.  House Speaker Michael Madigan announced a proposal to put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to increase state income taxes on those making over $1,000,000.  Illinois Senate President John Cullerton pushed a bill in the legislature to increase the minimum wage to over ten dollars an hour.  Governor Pat Quinn launched TV ads comparing Mr. Rauner to an evil businessman in “The Simpsons.”  (See here.)  All in all, a very quick start to the Democrats campaign.

Illinois Democrats really know how to run a campaign.  Now if they only knew how to run a state.