Category Archives: 2012 Campaign

Dare to Be Great, President Obama

US Presidential Inauguration

Close to One Million people were in Washington to celebrate President Obama’s second inauguration. As Rachel Maddow commented on her show, you can catch a glimpse of the character of the man in his unscripted moments. She showed footage of Barack the man, with Michelle and their children. Maddow also showed that on the occasion of his Second Inauguration, President Obama turned, as people walked past him, to regard the crowd, estimated on The Hill, to over 1,000,000 people, and said “I’ll never see this again.”

But we can also infer the character of the man from his speeches. He said “We” 65 times. He said “I” four times, including the phrase “you and I” twice.

Obama’s greatest accomplishments for his first term, according to an NBC Poll:

  1. Ending the War in Iraq
  2. Killing Osama bin Laden
  3. Raising taxes on the wealthiest while not raising taxes on everyone else.

I would add passing the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare and thwarting the Republican efforts in the House and Senate to be a One Term President.

Continue reading →

Congratulations President Obama on Your Re-Election

President Obama

The Editors would like to congratulate President Obama, and the American People, on his reelection.

We see that President Obama is an intelligent and thoughtful person who looks at the evidence before making a decision.  He is able to take risks and has thus far show good judgment, leadership, self-confidence, and humility.  As has been pointed out on the campaign trail, “bin Laden is dead and GM is alive.”

While we disagree with the President on certain issues, we hope he is successful, because when the President is not successful, then America is not successful.

Where do we disagree with the President? Energy, the Economy, and Health Care, what we call the “Bio-Humano-Sphere”.

Continue reading →

Romney, the 47% and Outsourcing

Mitt Romney

We learned this week, thanks to Mother Jones, that Mitt Romney, speaking at a fundraising event on May 17, 2012, said,

  • There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what.
  • All right, there are 47% who are with him,
  • who are dependent upon government,
  • who believe that they are victims,
  • who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them,
  • who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.
  • That that’s an entitlement.
  • And the government should give it to them.
  • And they will vote for this president no matter what…
  • These are people who pay no income tax…
  • [M]y job is is not to worry about those people.
  • I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

But who are these 47%?

Continue reading →

Gore & The Supreme Court

US Supreme Court, 2000

In the Election of 2000, Al Gore won the “Popular Vote” 50,999,897 to 50,456,002, 48.38% to 47.87%, by a margin of 543,895, or 0.51% of the vote. However, he lost Florida by 547 votes. Consequently Florida’s 25 Electoral College votes were awarded to Bush and Gore lost the election in the Electoral College 271 to 266 – by five votes. Had he won Florida votes he would also have won the Electoral College Vote, but the Supreme Court intervened, ruled that there was no time for a recount, (see wikipedia entry, here) therefore George W. Bush had won in Florida, and that Mr. Bush, therefore, was elected President by the Electoral College. But what if Gore had won a decisive majority in the Electoral College? What if our elections were determined by the popular vote? What if the election of 2000 had been called for Gore?  (Source: Federal Election Commission, FEC, Presidential Election, 2000, Official Results.

What kind of jurists would a President Gore have appointed to the Supreme Court?

Presidents tend to appoint justices who agree with them on political philosophy. Notable exceptions were Warren Burger, appointed by President Eisenhower, and David Souter, appointed by President G. H. W. Bush.

George W Bush appointed Samuel Alito and John Roberts, to the Supreme Court. These men typically join with Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas, and they typically find in favor of corporations and the government rather than individual citizens.

Bill Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. They typically find in favor over individuals rather than corporations or the government. Barack Obama appointed Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, who typically agree with Breyer and Ginsburg. Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor have occasionally forged majorities with Kennedy and Roberts.

As President, Al Gore would have probably have appointed jurists like Kagan and Sotomayor who tend to find in agreement with Ginsburg and Breyer. He might have appointed Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court. He probably would have appointed justices with a comprehensive understanding of environmental law and the reasons why we need tough protections on the environment.

We saw these patterns in the decisions on Citizens United and Florence v Burlington, described by me as “Landmark Mistakes of the Supreme Court” (here). These were decided by Chief Justice Roberts, and Associate Justices Alito, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas in the majority and Associate Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor in the minority.  The decision on the Affordable Care Act, aka “Obamacare,” was made by Chief Justice Roberts, with Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor.

Justices appointed by a President Gore would probably have found in favor of Albert Florence, in Florence v Burlington, that the Fourth Amendment should be understood to bar strip-searches of people arrested for minor offenses not involving drugs or violence, unless officials had a reasonable suspicion that they were carrying contraband. In Citizens United, they probably would have found that citizens and groups may not spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcome of elections.

The practical implications those rulings – that police, after reading an apprehended suspect his or her rights in accord with the Miranda decision, can strip-search him or her, and that anyone and corporations can spend unlimited amounts to influence the outcome of elections, suggest that the (human) Citizens of the Republic would be better served with one or two more Justices who would tend to rule in favor of the rights and liberties of (human) citizens rather than the powers of corporations and the state.

In the recent decision on the Affordable Care Act, aka, “ObamaCare” judges appointed by a President Gore might have found, like Chief Justice Roberts, the law Constitutional under the taxing provision of the Constitution. On the other hand, they might have ruled that the laws establishing Medicare for Seniors, Medicaid for the poor, and the Veterans Health Administration must be expanded, because they are discriminatory against non-veterans who do not qualify for Medicare and Medicaid, and that these programs must be combined to create a “Citizens Health Administration” or “Medicare for All,” which would guarantee all Americans access to basic medical care.
–
Neither Presidents Clinton, Bush, or Obama, or any of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court were reached in the preparation of this post.  Observations by current or former Presidents, Justices of the Supreme Court or justices in other courts would be welcome.

–

As an analyst with Popular Logistics, I am available for research and analysis on a per project or a per diem basis. I can be reached at ‘L Furman 97” @ G Mail . com.
–

Gingrich: I’ve a ‘Secret Plan’ for $2.50 Gas

Newt GingrichNewt Gingrich says, “I have a plan to set gasoline prices at $2.50 per gallon.  We have 1.4 trillion barrels of potentially recoverable oil in the United States. Join us to make it happen.” on YouTube, here.

At a rally in Dalton, Georgia, reported here on CNN, he said, “Just tell all your friends we’re setting it up so you can go online at newt.org and you can give one Newt-gallon which is $2.50, or you can give 10 Newt gallons which is $25, or 100 Newt gallons which is $250 or a thousand Newt gallons which is $2500.”

I wonder who’s picture he wants on those “Newt Dollars.”

Bernard MadoffThe Jane Dough blog describes “Today in Improbable Campaign Promises: Gingrich Bus Advertises $2.50/Gallon Gas,” here.

Talking Points Memo, here, says “Newt Gingrich Running On Bitterness and $2.50 Gas.”

Newt doesn’t offer the details, which brings to mind the so-called “investment strategies” of Bernard Madoff and R. Allen Stanford, recently convicted of the largest Ponzi schemes in history. Both consistently refused to explain how they made money; R Allen Stanford“It’s complicated,” they said, “You wouldn’t understand. But I guarantee that I will make you money. And look at these pictures of me with important people”

In “How to Smell A Rat,” Ken Fisher, of Ken Fisher Investments, with co-author Lara Hoffmans, says, “If a so-called ‘Investment Strategy’ is ‘too complicated to explain’ it’s probably a scam.”

The Chairman of the Communist Party in China can set the value of the currency and price of any commodities in China – because China has a command economy not free markets. The President of the United States, who’s authority, responsibilities, and limits are described in the Constitution, has a lot of power. As Commander In Chief, the President can wage war. But the President can not set the price of commodities traded on free markets.

I don’t believe that Mr. Gingrich has a realistic plan to set the price of gas to $2.50 per gallon.  However, I can think of several ways to appear to cut the price of gasoline from $3.73 to $2.50 per gallon:

  1. Devalue the dollar by about 1/3, so that $2.50 “new dollars,” or “Newt Dollars,” as Mr. Gingrich calls them, buys $3.73 worth of gasoline, or other stuff.
  2. Use tax subsidies to pay people the difference between $2.50 and the price at the pump. Then, of course, you would have to raise taxes by $1.23 per gallon.
  3. Drill Baby Drill.
  4. Ration gasoline to artificially cut the demand.

The first two are smoke and mirrors. The third requires massive amounts of clean water and would create massive amounts of toxic by-products. The fourth would work in time of war or disaster. All require what might be termed “Big Government.” All would pour tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, contributing to mile winters such as the winter of 2012, climate change, storms like Hurricanes Katrina and Irene, and acidification of the oceans.

There’s one other thing we could try:

Develop fuels derived from sustainably grown plants to legitimately cut demand on fossil fuels.

While this would require “Big Government” to fund research this seems to me to make sense. It is also the mid-term to long term plan of Continental / United, Virgin, Alaska Air, Horizon Air, other carriers, and Boeing (click here for Gizmag or here for Bio-JetFuel Blog). Solazyme (SZYM) and General Electric (GE) are working on the technology.  The US Navy is also working with Solazyme for fuels derived from algae (Business Wire). However, based on Mr. Gingrich’s statement that “We have 1.4 trillion barrels of potentially recoverable oil in the United States,” I suspect that he is playing fast and loose with facts and ginning up support for “Drill, Baby, Drill.”

Liz Cheney — Desist! – NYTimes.com

We generally try to avoid partisan politics, believing that with respect to public health, disaster preparedness and risk reduction, we’re all in the same metaphorical boat. However, Maureen Dowd, writing in The New York Times, has pointed out some alarming statements by Mitt Romney, candidate for the Republican nomination in this year’s presidential election. We’re going to try to parse some of the statements

“If Barack Obama is re-elected,” Romney robotically swaggered in Georgia, “Iran will have a nuclear weapon and the world will change if that’s the case.”

If President Obama is re-elected, then Iran will have a nuclear weapon. That’s the fairest reading, since there’s no point in mentioning the premise/cause (“If President Obama is re-elected”) unless asserting a causal relationship. If Iran’s nuclear weapon development were inevitable, in Romney’s view, he could say that, and then argue that a Romney administration would somehow procure a better outcome with respect to Iran’s nuclear weapons acquisition.

 

It might be true Romney has a better plan.

That apocalyptic answer came in response to a question from an 11-year-old boy at a pancake breakfast. Romney is channeling Dick Cheney, who wooed voters in 2004 with the cheery mantra that voting for John Kerry would lead to a terrorist attack. Message: You die.

Speaking by satellite to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference here, Romney outpandered himself.

“I will station multiple aircraft carriers and warships at Iran’s door,” he said as if he were playing Risk. Not afraid to employ “military might” (or alarming alliteration), Romney wrote a blank check to Bibi Netanyahu, who governs a nation roiling with reactionary strains, ultra-Orthodox attacks on women and girls and attempts at gender segregation, and increasing global intolerance of the 45-year Palestinian occupation.

As the New Yorker editor David Remnick wrote, Netanyahu and his supporters too often “consider the tenets of liberal democracy to be negotiable in a game of coalition politics.”

Nonetheless, Romney promised that “Israel will know that America stands at its side in all conditions and in all consequence.” We will support Israel when its survival is threatened. But we can’t possibly support every single military action of every single Israeli government.

Romney crudely painted Obama as an Arab sympathizer. “As president, my first foreign trip will not be to Cairo or Riyadh or Ankara,” he said. “It will be to Jerusalem.”

The Israeli fear of an Iranian nuclear weapon must be respected, not least because the regime intent on developing this weapon is the world’s greatest center of Holocaust denial. And the timing is tricky. As Bill Kristol put it, Obama’s urge to wait “would precisely undermine Israel’s ability to determine her fate.”

But I’d feel better if our partner was not the trigger-happy Netanyahu, who makes hysterical arguments even in the absence of a dire threat. At Aipac, he compared those who want to be less hasty than he does to America’s refusal to bomb Auschwitz in 1944.

I’d also feel better if war was not being mongered by the same warmongers who drew us into a decade of futile, bloody, expensive and draining battles.

At Aipac, Liz Cheney urged that we put ourselves in Israeli hands because “America’s track record on predicting when nations reach nuclear capability is abysmal.” She’s right about that, given her father’s wildly erroneous assertions about W.M.D.s in Iraq.

“There is no president,” she outrageously averred, “who has done more to delegitimize and undermine the state of Israel in recent history than President Obama.”

The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, promised “overwhelming force” on Iran if necessary. And John McCain, who is also calling for an international air assault on Syria, agreed with Liz Cheney, arguing that since the U.S. was “surprised” when Pakistan and North Korea got nuclear technology, it was not fair to ask Bibi to rely on Barry’s judgment about when to use force.

Let’s get back to pre-emptive wars!

The campaign sugar daddy of Newt Gingrich (and soon, Romney) is Sheldon Adelson, a multibillionaire casino owner and hawkish Zionist who endorses Gingrich’s view that the Palestinians are “an invented people” who have no historic claim to a homeland. Gingrich told Aipac that “if an Israeli prime minister decides that he has to avoid the threat of a second Holocaust through pre-emptive measures, that I would require no advanced notice to understand why I would support the right of Israel to survive in a dangerous world.”

At a press conference Tuesday, the president excoriated the “bluster” and “big talk” in this political season about bombing Iran. “When I see the casualness with which some of these folks talk about war, I’m reminded of the costs involved in war,” he said, adding: “This is not a game. And there’s nothing casual about it.” There would be consequences for both Israel and America, he cautioned, “if action is taken prematurely.”

“When I visit Walter Reed, when I’ve signed letters to families,” he said, “whose loved ones have not come home, I am reminded that there is a cost.”

And, he noted dryly, “Typically, it’s not the folks who are popping off who pay the price.”

via Liz Cheney — Desist! – NYTimes.com.

Reality, Pseudo-Reality, and China

Does Freedom of Speech imply the responsibility to speak honestly – even when what is not what people want to hear?  John Ehrenfeld, on his blog, in discussing the US Presidential Campaign, noted (here),

“[M]y concerns and consternation at the virtually complete absence of truth from [a GOP debate in New hampshire]. Not only was the truth gone, but the participants appeared almost gleeful about speaking freed from the constraints that truth-telling creates…. I recall an interview with Eric Fehrnstrom, Mitt Romney’s campaign manager, who said, in response to a question about the untruths being uttered by Romney, that this was none of his concern; it was up to the media to provide the facts.”

I addressed this in a wry manner with “Ridin’ the Magic Carpet” on XB Cold Fingers.

Richard Seireeni, on the Chelsea Green site (here), suggests that our biggest challenges, perhaps threats, come from outsoucing manufacturing of American branded consumer goods to China.

And in the New York Times, Paul Krugman explains how America is not a corporation (here).

For one thing, there’s no simple bottom line. For another, the economy is vastly more complex than even the largest private company.

Most relevant…, however, is … giant corporations sell the great bulk of what they produce to other people, not to their own employees — whereas even small countries sell most of what they produce to themselves, and big countries like America are overwhelmingly their own main customers.

Yes, there’s a global economy. But six out of seven American workers are employed in service industries, which are largely insulated from international competition, and even our manufacturers sell much of their production to the domestic market.

And the fact that we mostly sell to ourselves makes an enormous difference when you think about policy.

Consider what happens when a business engages in ruthless cost-cutting. From the point of view of the firm’s owners (though not its workers), the more costs that are cut, the better. Any dollars taken off the cost side of the balance sheet are added to the bottom line.

But the story is very different when a government slashes spending in the face of a depressed economy. Look at Greece, Spain, and Ireland, all of which have adopted harsh austerity policies. In each case, unemployment soared, because cuts in government spending mainly hit domestic producers. And, in each case, the reduction in budget deficits was much less than expected, because tax receipts fell as output and employment collapsed.

Ehrenfeld, observing the irony in a GOP Debate on the day of Vaclav Havel’s death, wrote about truth;

Havel’s signature accomplishment [was] pointing out that people have to live in truth or lose their freedom…

Truth, as Havel says, is essential to our existence as a free people at all times, but perhaps even more now as we become ever more aware of the complexity of the world we live in. Ideologies are the epitome of denial of the interconnectedness of this world, where ties grow more in number and strength everyday. Actions here have effect in places and times we do not expect or ignore. Are we really going to bomb away the so-called threat of Iranian nuclear weapons with no other consequences? Will freeing the market from all government oversight and restraints create wealth for everybody when the results of the last few decades show us the exact opposite? Ideologies, either from the left or right, are all dangerous, but our two-party system and the means their leaders communicate with us pushes themes into ideological positions frequently compressed into tiny sound bites or political ads….

There are many, many truths out there that are getting clobbered. If any of these men (no women left) are elected, they will be expected to act in accordance to these statements, ignoring what they find. Obama was faced with a financial crisis and its fallout on the economy as he moved in. He certainly was not the creator of these problems. It is interesting and ironic that the name Bush, on whose watch these problems started to arise, has been barely mentioned during this campaign, and not at all during these recent “debates.” I continue to put quotes around this word as real debates require some depth in discussing issues and solutions. Truthfulness would require putting the current messes into context, a least attempting to do so. I admit that would be difficult because the big messes are all a result of our failures to recognize complexity and act accordingly.

Richard Seireeni on the Chelsea Green site (here) wrote:

In the run up to the Republican Convention, we’ve heard everything and nothing. We’ve heard Newt, Mitt and Ron go on about issues that have little if any impact on jobs and national security, but not a single word about the real reason we have massive and permanent unemployment….In 2010, we imported 364 billion dollars in goods from China while we exported only 91 billion to them. That is nearly a 4 to 1 trade imbalance….

The Chinese people have become admirable competitors, but their hybrid Totalitarian-Capitalist government is not our friend. They don’t share our philosophies on human rights, labor rights, or geo-political issues, like containment of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In fact, China is a major importer of Iranian oil, in opposition to U.S.-sponsored trade restrictions, and has probably received access to our recently downed drone aircraft as a reward.

While GOP candidates are preoccupied with Terrorism and Obamacare, the People’s Liberation Army has been quietly developing a new advanced stealth fighter, Predator-style drones, the first in a planned fleet of blue water aircraft carriers, an advanced rocket and space program, and a growing nuclear arsenal. Those cheap consumer products have turned China into a super power one purchase at a time. Every time an American patriot buys a Made-in-China product at Walmart, he or she is investing in China’s military expansion, which forces us to invest more in our military to counter the threat.

 

How to Deal With Iran: Sanctions? Bomb? Rescue?

USS Kidd & Iranian fishing vessel

While the editors of Popular Logistics understand that it is important to prepare for emergencies – and carry flashlights, per the 911 Commission, we also understand that it is important to avoid emergencies.

We also note that President Theodor Roosevelt once said “Speak softly but carry a big stick.”

ABC News reports the statements made by the candidates for President in regards to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Most agree that Iran wants nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

ABC, Quoting Candidate Barack Obama, from 2008 as saying, “In confronting these threats, I will not take the military option off the table. But our first measure must be sustained, direct and aggressive diplomacy…. I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally, Israel.”  The article did not mention the Stuxnet attack on the Iranian Nuclear program, which has been reported to have slowed the development of nuclear technology in Iran. While the origin of the computer virus is unknown, it is reported to be American or American and Israeli.

Newt Gingrich supports regime change in Iran, and using military action if necessary “as a last recourse.” (ABC News).

Jon Huntsman: “Realistically, you’ve got to have all options on the table. You’ve got to be prepared to use all elements of national power.” (ABC News)

Ron Paul: “Why do we have to bomb so many countries? Why are we [having] 900 bases in 130 countries and we’re totally bankrupt? . . . We need a strong national defense . . . and we need to only go to war with a declaration of war.” Paul has called sanctions against Iran an “act of war” that could damage the global economy by impeding the flow of oil. “I think they solution is to do a lot less a lot sooner, and mind our own business, and we wouldn’t have this threat of another war.” (ABC News)

Mitt Romney: ‘Ultimately, regime change is what’s going to be necessary,” says Romney, who believes both “covert and overt” actions should be used to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. He said the U.S. should develop military plans, though he hoped they were never put into effect. “But the Iranians will understand that we have prepared credible military options, that they’ll know there is a consequence of becoming nuclear.” (ABC News)

Rick Santorum: “‘Yes, that’s the plan,’ said Santorum, when asked if he would order air strikes on Iran if they were going to obtain nuclear weapons. The conservative dark horse … is the most bellicose of the GOP contenders when it comes to Iran. In an interview with Glenn Beck, he said Iran’s regime was worse than al Qaeda, and that an attack on Iran would prevent war.” (ABC News).

As noted, President Theodore Roosevelt once said “Speak softly but carry a big stick.”  Huntsman and Obama are speaking softly. Paul is whining. Gingrich, Romney and Santorum are waving their sticks. Santorum went as far as to say “an attack would prevent war.” That is “War prevents war.”

Iran, like Syria, is unstable. The people want food and a healthier economy. They also want change. Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum are saying what the Ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad want to hear. Their bellicose statements unify the people behind the Ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad. But rescuing fishermen – this is the last thing the Ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad want us to do.  It shows that they cannot protect Iranians against Somali pirates. It unifies the people of Iran against the government of Iran. And it unifies the people of Iran behind the United States.

It also begs the question – “Why is piracy so common in Somalia?”

Shakespeare, Sorkin, and The American Presidency

Mallard, common to North AmericaMandarin duck

“If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks …  it’s a duck” – anonymous

“What’s in a name? A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet” – Shakespeare, “Romeo and Juliet.”

“Being President of this country is entirely about character.” – Aaron Sorkin “The American President” /screenplay  / YouTube.

Santorum, Gingrich & Lobbying

Since he lost his reelection campaign in 2006, the Honorable former Senator, Rick Santorum, has been consulting, primarily to companies which benefited from legislation he pushed as a Senator. He earned over $1.0 Million in 2010. Like the Honorable Mr. Gingrich, we know Mr. Santorum is not a “Lobbyist” because he has not REGISTERED as a “Lobbyist.” (NY Times article by Mike McIntire and Michael Luo here and Op-Ed by Maureen Dowd here.)

However, as reported (here) by ABC News, the non-profit “Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington” (CREW) filed a complaint with the U.S. attorney in D.C. and the FBI in which it claims Gingrich repeatedly met with or called members of Congress to pressure them to pass a contentious 2003 Medicare reform bill — legislation from which members of a Gingrich-founded group may have directly profited and Gingrich himself may have indirectly benefitted. (Press Release, here).

These men may try to sell us the Brooklyn Bridge. Or they may try to lease it to someone else, who will in turn erect toll booths and charge us to drive, bike, or walk across.

Continue reading →

GOP Debate On CNN, with Questions by American Enterprise Institute & Heritage Foundation

GOP Candidates, 2011, Courtesy CBS News

Follow LJF97 on Twitter Tweet At the conclusion of the GOP debate, Wolf Blitzer thanked CNN‘s partners, the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. This partnership explains the framing of the debate on energy as “Burn Baby Burn” or “Drill Baby Drill.”

No questions were asked on the potential for renewable energy technologies, such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydro. Nor were questions asked on climate change or on the pollution and cleanup costs from coal, oil, gas, or nuclear.

Energy policy and climate are linked, and could be addressed in one question:

This summer people in Texas experienced an extended drought and 100 days in which the temperature was over 100 degrees (CBS). Is this normal? Is this the ‘new normal?’ If this is triggered by burning so much carbon based fuel in the last 200 years that we have elevated the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide from about 260 parts per million in 1800 to about 390 ppm today (350.org), and we have burned mountains of coal, lakes of oil and gas, is it prudent to continue to burn coal, oil, and gas, or should we embark on a plan to transition to non-fossil-carbon sources of energy, such as wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc? And if so, how quickly?

This could also be asked in a national security context:

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, identified energy and climate change among the constraints which, in his words, “could place the United States at a strategic turning point…. Glaciers are melting at a faster rate, causing water supplies to diminish in Asia. Rising sea levels could lead to a mass migration and displacement similar to what we saw in Pakistan’s floods last year.  And other shifts could reduce the arable land needed to feed a growing population in Africa, for example. Scarcity of water, food and space could create not only a humanitarian crisis but create conditions that could lead to failed states, instability and, potentially, radicalization.” (NRDC / WWF) What does this mean for the USA in the next 4 to 8 years and what should the President do about it?
Continue reading →

Worldly Philosophers for Hire

| |Follow LJF97 on Twitter Tweet | In “Wanted: Worldly Philosophers,” Roger Backhouse and Bradley Bateman say:|”IT’S become commonplace to criticize the “Occupy” movement for failing to offer an alternative vision. But the thousands of activists in the streets of New York and London aren’t the only ones lacking perspective: economists, to whom we might expect to turn for such vision, have long since given up thinking in terms of economic systems — and we are all the worse for it. ”

 As these pictures, from here, and here, show, the “Occupy” movement supports labor rights and environmental protection. The “Occupiers” do not, therefore, lack perspective.

Image shows union support at Occupy Wall St.They – we – see my work here at Popular Logistics, here at XBColdFingers, or meet me at Zuccotti – lack influence.

Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz are the most famous economists whom Backhouse and Bateman might describe as “Worldly Philosophers with perspective.” Tom Friedman may not have have studied economics; but he too fits the bill of “Worldly Philosopher with Perspective.” There are others.

Sadly, Obama, Biden, Sommers, Geithner, and Chu, like Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove and Rumsfeld, like Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Perry, Romney, and Santorum, don’t know the answers – and what is worse, they don’t even seem to know which questions to ask.

As noted above, “the ‘Occupiers’ do not lack perspective.  They – we – lack influence.” To correct that I would like to personally extend an invitation to President Obama, Vice President Biden, any members of the cabinet, or the White House or campaign staff and any of the current candidates for the Republican nomination to meet me at Zuccotti Park, or at the time and place of their choosing, for a discussion on the issues.

Mitt Romney: "Corporations are People"

Mitt Romney  Follow LJF97 on Twitter Tweet On the campaign trail in Iowa, Mitt Romney said, “Corporations are people.” (NY Times, Washington Post)

An argument can be made that Mr. Romney meant that corporations are composed of people, that they magnify the abilities of individuals. However, Ayn Rand might suggest that the candidate made a collectivist statement. Mr. Romney could also have meant that corporate profits eventually wind up in the pockets of investors like himself and Warren Buffett, and their heirs, like his children and Paris Hilton. However, that may be a nuance that may be lost in the political debate.

It could also be that Mr. Romney meant exactly what he said.

But what is closer to the truth, I think, is that corporations are legal mechanisms by which people use to limit their liability and to develop and protect their wealth.

In my courses at the Marlboro MBA in Managing for Sustainability, we discuss corporations as a “nexus of contracts.” That’s not really a definition of a person that a flesh and blood person, a person whos DNA is DNA would use.

People, that is flesh-and-blood-based people, DNA-based people can own corporations. Corporations can own other corporations. But neither people nor corporations can own people.

In “The Divine Right of Capital,” Marjorie Kelly (Amazon, EcoBooks) clearly describes why corporations ought not be considered “persons.”

But that’s not the only issue I have with Mr. Romney’s statements in Iowa.

Mr. Romney also said, “Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid account for about half of Federal Spending.” This seems to be factually incorrect. According to the Congressional Budget Office summarized on  Wikipedia, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid account for 43% of total federal spending, in fiscal year 2010. (Note that total defense spending is greater than the 20% reported in the figure because certain programs and agencies, such as the CIA, the NSA, and other defense and intelligence agencies are funded, in part, out of the “Discretionary” category.)

While $1.491 Trillion, 43%, is $350 Billion less than 50% of the budget of FY 2010, you could argue that Mr. Romney was exaggerating for effect, something politicians do. However, I imagine if we were to raise taxes to 50% on the wealthiest 1% of Americans, people with over, say, $50 Million, Mitt Romney has $284 Million, and say, “It’s only about 43%,” he would at the very least question our understanding of mathematics.

Mr. Romney also said, “You can raise taxes, that’s not the approach I would make.”

That is the approach I would take. As noted here, taxes are “The price we pay for civilization.” They are revenues raised by the people in governments to pay for the things they understand must be paid for; things like education, infrastructure, security. I would raise taxes on people making more than $250,000 per year. And raise them significantly on people, making more than $1,000,000 per year, whether they make their money as actively as salary, or passively as dividends, capital gains, or distributions from trust funds.

I make less.  A lot less. My expenses – my health insurance, the costs of food, fuel, etc., are going up.  My income, however, is going down. In “real” terms, as inflation is going up, and in actual numbers, as the bonus I used to be given have shrunk or been eliminated because of, it has been said, “the economic conditions faced by the firm.”

The government Lincoln defined as “Of the people, by the people, and for the people” needs money to pay its obligations. It needs money to build infrastructure. And as has been noted, Keynesian economic theory suggests that in an economic conditions such as we face only the government can be willing to act to create jobs. The government can only really raise money by borrowing it or by raising taxes. We should be developing government programs to shift the energy paradigm to clean, renewable, sustainable energy. It will create 2.4 Million jobs, directly cut unemployment from about 9.1% to about 7.3%, indirectly cut unemployment by another 1.0 to 2.0% and generally stimulate the economy in a terrific manner. (Click here).

As we have noted before, and will doubtless do again, Popular Logistics is a POLICY blog, not a POLITICS blog. However, we  do think about politics, at least occasionally.  And it appears to this blogger that Mr. Romney just lost the election. Whether he has lost to Mr. Obama or to one of the other Republicans remains to be seen.