Hello, Democrats. Guess What! We just had an election. You lost. In a couple of weeks there are going to be significantly more Republicans running around in your Congress. Which part of this reality do you not understand?
The grousing about President Obama making a deal with Republicans is misguided and counter productive. The window for deal making is about to close. Dont forget, you just had two votes to try to enact the Obama tax agenda. They both failed. There is zero possibility that the results would be better after January.
Republicans actually gave up something in this deal. It is the first real bipartisan action in two years. Democrats got many things they have wanted that they cannot possibly get at a later time. Extension of unemployment benefits for thirteen months, small business tax breaks, and a reduction in the payroll tax are critical Democratic priorities. So the temporary extension of tax breaks for the rich may be a bitter pill to swallow, but guess what? That's exactly what compromise is. Each side likes part of it and dislikes other parts of it.
What is the alternative? Let all the tax cuts expire as of January 1? Do we really care about the problems of the middle class or not? Can we possibly want nothing to happen? In the process of dragging out this debate what is being accomplished? The opportunity to resolve other critical legislative issues is slipping away. There is a window for Don't Ask Don't tell, the DREAM Act, the new START treaty, and a few additional items, but the delay and the bickering is making it less likely each day that these items will get passed. Only one reason to continue this opposition seems plausible, and that would be the pursuit of a cynical political strategy.
That kind of thinking puts us right into the category of Republicans. Just say no. Maybe it is good politics. It worked for the Republicans. At least the Republicans don't really believe in government so maybe they actually believed that doing nothing was a positive thing. Democrats believe government is capable of helping others, and can even be a force for contributing to an improving economy. Are we really going to sit on the sidelines for the next two years to watch the economy continue to falter in the hopes of winning back a majority in the house? Shame on you, Democrats. I thought this was a party that really believed in trying to make things better for all the people.
Then there is the question of the budget deficit. It is interesting that everytime a proposal comes up that one doesn't like, the deficit is cited as the problem. No one seems to care about the deficit if they approve of the program. Republicans cry deficit when it comes to unemployment benefits, but see no need to pay for tax cuts for the rich. Moderate to conservative Democrats are so concerened about the deficit when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthy but not for tax cuts for the middle class. The fact is the deficit is a real problem, but so is unemployment. This deal will be the last opportunity to try to strengthen the economy. I'm pretty sure we will not be seeing any infrastructure or job training bills in the new congress. It makes little sense to me to implement austere budget restrictions unless the economy itself is in better shape.
We have a deficit reduction panel which has just issued its recommnendations. There is of course difficult work ahead, but clearly the President will address the deficit in this year's State of the Union address. Work will begin in earnest. There will be much horse trading, and again much to like and dislike about the final result. It needs to be done, and Democrats need to be at the table to make the deal as fair as possible. That, however, is the work of next year. Now is the time to pass the tax deal to boost a weak recovery and get millions of Americans back to work. So don't bring up the deficit as an excuse to vote against the deal.
Much good has been accomplished under this administration over the past two years under very difficult circumstances. Much more can still be done in the next two years. If Democrats just want to be vindictive because of how Republicans acted the past two years then you are simply lowering yourselves to their level. The goal of government is to govern. The American people expect that to occur. The President is trying to govern and he deserves your support.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
WikiLeaks Assaults International Diplomacy
I was surprised and disturbed by the lack of outrage over the extraordinary leaks coming out of the WikiLeaks operation. There are even indications of support or approval, including from some in the mainstream media. To me, the results of this leaking of information ranged from embarrassment and chagrin to dangerous tampering with the mechanisms of diplomacy and government.
Don't misunderstand. I would agree that the role of a whistle blower can be important. If someone has information that serious violations of human or personal rights are being endangered, or that criminal violations are occuring, the whistle blower can be an individual of integrity and nobility serving the common good. A thoughtful individual who carefully concludes that a piece of information should come to light for the good of individuals or even the country and is willing to accept the consequences of his or her actions is to be applauded.
The indiscriminate distribution of some 250,000 documents to the press is another matter altogether. Did anyone even bother to screen these documents? Did it matter, or was this just an effort to demonstrate power, vent hostility, and cause harm to governments. The whole affair seems petty, thoughtless, and malicious. The leaks are clearly designed to cause as much disruption and damage as possible. This is not heroic it is offensive and dangerous.
Consider first, at the level of embarrassment, one's own personal situation. Do you really want what you say about your Aunt Minnie after she leaves, revealed to her and those around her when she arrives back at her home? Do we not expect our private conversations to be private? Is it no longer possible to share a serious private conversation without being in danger of having our private thoughts and secrets shared with others? Remenmber how betrayed we felt when we shared a confidence with a best friend and then found that it had been shared with others? How do leaders of other countries feel when they hear their private words bandied about the press, or when they see unflattering depictions of themselves from officials they had worked with in confidence? What damage will this do to future contacts with these and other foreign officials?
The press of course believes the public has a right to know in almost every instance. There is no doubt that there are too many secrets and many things are classified that need not be. Also, too many items are kept classified beyond the period of time that would be necessary or appropriate. Some recent efforts had been made to declassify many of these documents but it has ground to a halt, partly due to the problems of the Iraq war. More needs to be done along these lines, but this does not justify the wholesale dumping of material with no concern about who it may hurt or what damage it may cause. This is irresponsibility of the worst sort, because it involves the security and well being not just of this nation but of nations across the world.
There is appropriately much emphasis today on transparency and accountablility in the conduct of government, corporations and the like. In many cases open meetings are required and it is expected that no business will be conducted behind closed doors or decisions made that have not seen the light of day. Two memorable examples of business conducted in secret include the efforts to produce a health care plan during the Clinton administration, and the conversations Vice President Dick Cheney had with oil executives early in the George W. Bush administration.
While transparency and accountability are laudable goals, can any business really be conducted fully in the light of day? How do deals actually get made? Isn't it necessary to discuss and plan what is to take place? Can decision makers really talk openly and candidly and negotiate as necessary with the world looking on? I remember that Baltimore City required open meetings, yet when the school board would meet in public session to pass and implement policies the decisions had already been made prior to these open meetings. It is difficult for me to understand how it oould ever be otherwise.
On the national level the issue becomes even more complicated. Nations have positions that they have taken on issues important to their own interests. The whole point of diplomacy, however, is to nudge countries to more moderate or cooperative positions. As seen from the recent leaks, Saudi Arabia has adopted positions that are appropriate for public consumption, yet our goal may be to have them explore serious issues and consider options that may go beyond their stated public positions. It's bizarre to think all communication can be stated publicly without providing opportunities for private negotiations.
What will happen now? Who will be willing to make statements that might move negotiations forward if they think they may be reading their words on the front page of the New York Times tomorrow. These kinds of leaks will paralyze internationaal diplomacy, and retard the possiblity of productive deals getting made. Who knows for how long this disruption to international diplomacy may continue? WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange should be dealt with in the most severe manner possible, and security must be truly made secure whatever that entails within the limits of the law.
Don't misunderstand. I would agree that the role of a whistle blower can be important. If someone has information that serious violations of human or personal rights are being endangered, or that criminal violations are occuring, the whistle blower can be an individual of integrity and nobility serving the common good. A thoughtful individual who carefully concludes that a piece of information should come to light for the good of individuals or even the country and is willing to accept the consequences of his or her actions is to be applauded.
The indiscriminate distribution of some 250,000 documents to the press is another matter altogether. Did anyone even bother to screen these documents? Did it matter, or was this just an effort to demonstrate power, vent hostility, and cause harm to governments. The whole affair seems petty, thoughtless, and malicious. The leaks are clearly designed to cause as much disruption and damage as possible. This is not heroic it is offensive and dangerous.
Consider first, at the level of embarrassment, one's own personal situation. Do you really want what you say about your Aunt Minnie after she leaves, revealed to her and those around her when she arrives back at her home? Do we not expect our private conversations to be private? Is it no longer possible to share a serious private conversation without being in danger of having our private thoughts and secrets shared with others? Remenmber how betrayed we felt when we shared a confidence with a best friend and then found that it had been shared with others? How do leaders of other countries feel when they hear their private words bandied about the press, or when they see unflattering depictions of themselves from officials they had worked with in confidence? What damage will this do to future contacts with these and other foreign officials?
The press of course believes the public has a right to know in almost every instance. There is no doubt that there are too many secrets and many things are classified that need not be. Also, too many items are kept classified beyond the period of time that would be necessary or appropriate. Some recent efforts had been made to declassify many of these documents but it has ground to a halt, partly due to the problems of the Iraq war. More needs to be done along these lines, but this does not justify the wholesale dumping of material with no concern about who it may hurt or what damage it may cause. This is irresponsibility of the worst sort, because it involves the security and well being not just of this nation but of nations across the world.
There is appropriately much emphasis today on transparency and accountablility in the conduct of government, corporations and the like. In many cases open meetings are required and it is expected that no business will be conducted behind closed doors or decisions made that have not seen the light of day. Two memorable examples of business conducted in secret include the efforts to produce a health care plan during the Clinton administration, and the conversations Vice President Dick Cheney had with oil executives early in the George W. Bush administration.
While transparency and accountability are laudable goals, can any business really be conducted fully in the light of day? How do deals actually get made? Isn't it necessary to discuss and plan what is to take place? Can decision makers really talk openly and candidly and negotiate as necessary with the world looking on? I remember that Baltimore City required open meetings, yet when the school board would meet in public session to pass and implement policies the decisions had already been made prior to these open meetings. It is difficult for me to understand how it oould ever be otherwise.
On the national level the issue becomes even more complicated. Nations have positions that they have taken on issues important to their own interests. The whole point of diplomacy, however, is to nudge countries to more moderate or cooperative positions. As seen from the recent leaks, Saudi Arabia has adopted positions that are appropriate for public consumption, yet our goal may be to have them explore serious issues and consider options that may go beyond their stated public positions. It's bizarre to think all communication can be stated publicly without providing opportunities for private negotiations.
What will happen now? Who will be willing to make statements that might move negotiations forward if they think they may be reading their words on the front page of the New York Times tomorrow. These kinds of leaks will paralyze internationaal diplomacy, and retard the possiblity of productive deals getting made. Who knows for how long this disruption to international diplomacy may continue? WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange should be dealt with in the most severe manner possible, and security must be truly made secure whatever that entails within the limits of the law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
