Sunday, April 10, 2011
The baby in the bath water...
Is it possible to mention "New Deal" yet without starting a meltdown?
Let's put away the question of whether or not FDR and Congress had the authority to tax and spend the way they did, and let's not talk about what the defined goals of New Deal were and whether or not they succeeded. There are certain undeniable facts that arose from New Deal that we can still see, feel and measure today, and none of them are greater then the expansion of our national infrastructure.
There are arguments that can be made that more than 1/3 of the entire nation was brought into the 20th Century in the decade of New Deal. More than a million miles of power lines, 600,000 miles of paved roads, 176,000 bridges and 3500 dams. Levy systems in 27 states that still have yet to be totally counted and catalogued. With the extension of the power grid to places that never had them (like the entire state of North Dakota), farms and rural communities gained more than just street lights and cheap water heaters... they gained a degree of regional prosperity that lasted for the next 50+ years.
For the last 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers has given the United States as a WHOLE a national score of "D" in regards to the state of our infrastructure. The levy failure in New Orleans after Katrina, the I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis, the failure of the fly-ash dam in Kentucky. Comparatively speaking, even Italy has managed a score of "C" as a nation... and most pundits look at Italy as a "second world nation" in nearly every catagory there is.
There are two relatively small but absolutely vital bridges here in my county of Wyoming, PA that were built during New Deal. Since moving here, I can't say that I have looked at either of them very carefully UNTIL they were being repaired and replaced recently. The rails on either side of the bridge are concrete piers with wrought iron metal work between them... and the piers are just as rotted as the rusty iron work. There are holes in the road deck that show not only the water beneath the bridge... but quite a bit of rebar as well. The State DOT has been working on these bridges now since November last, and while the one-lane traffic is annoying, I can't complain that it is unneeded.
Of all the hundreds of billions that the Obama Administration spent since 2008 in "stimulus", how much of it could have gone to putting the crumbling state of our national infrastructure right? I don't mean resurrecting the WPA or the CCC... but surely there are firms and contractors that could have bid on jobs repairing bridges, roadways and dams across the nation, putting thousands of people back to work in a time when unemployment was at a 35 year high. Of all the billions spent in "stimulus" can anyone point to something tangible that can be felt/seen/touched and say THERE IS OUR MONEY AT WORK?
Will another failure of even bigger proportions need to happen to get the country to recognize this danger? The Oakland Bay Bridge has been unsafe for more than 18 years, and the Hudson River's Tappen Zee is at even higher risk. There are levy systems all around St Louis, MO that are not only unsafe, but uncatalogued and thus outside of the inspection and repair network. Since the blackout of 2003, cities like New York, Albany, Newark and Boston have known that another blackout lasting weeks (even months) is entirely possible, given the current state of the "grid" in the NE. Imagine that... 21 million men, women and children without power for as long as WE were without power on the Gulf Coast after Katrina. What kind of economic disaster could that turn into?
More later...
Let's put away the question of whether or not FDR and Congress had the authority to tax and spend the way they did, and let's not talk about what the defined goals of New Deal were and whether or not they succeeded. There are certain undeniable facts that arose from New Deal that we can still see, feel and measure today, and none of them are greater then the expansion of our national infrastructure.
There are arguments that can be made that more than 1/3 of the entire nation was brought into the 20th Century in the decade of New Deal. More than a million miles of power lines, 600,000 miles of paved roads, 176,000 bridges and 3500 dams. Levy systems in 27 states that still have yet to be totally counted and catalogued. With the extension of the power grid to places that never had them (like the entire state of North Dakota), farms and rural communities gained more than just street lights and cheap water heaters... they gained a degree of regional prosperity that lasted for the next 50+ years.
For the last 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers has given the United States as a WHOLE a national score of "D" in regards to the state of our infrastructure. The levy failure in New Orleans after Katrina, the I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis, the failure of the fly-ash dam in Kentucky. Comparatively speaking, even Italy has managed a score of "C" as a nation... and most pundits look at Italy as a "second world nation" in nearly every catagory there is.
There are two relatively small but absolutely vital bridges here in my county of Wyoming, PA that were built during New Deal. Since moving here, I can't say that I have looked at either of them very carefully UNTIL they were being repaired and replaced recently. The rails on either side of the bridge are concrete piers with wrought iron metal work between them... and the piers are just as rotted as the rusty iron work. There are holes in the road deck that show not only the water beneath the bridge... but quite a bit of rebar as well. The State DOT has been working on these bridges now since November last, and while the one-lane traffic is annoying, I can't complain that it is unneeded.
Of all the hundreds of billions that the Obama Administration spent since 2008 in "stimulus", how much of it could have gone to putting the crumbling state of our national infrastructure right? I don't mean resurrecting the WPA or the CCC... but surely there are firms and contractors that could have bid on jobs repairing bridges, roadways and dams across the nation, putting thousands of people back to work in a time when unemployment was at a 35 year high. Of all the billions spent in "stimulus" can anyone point to something tangible that can be felt/seen/touched and say THERE IS OUR MONEY AT WORK?
Will another failure of even bigger proportions need to happen to get the country to recognize this danger? The Oakland Bay Bridge has been unsafe for more than 18 years, and the Hudson River's Tappen Zee is at even higher risk. There are levy systems all around St Louis, MO that are not only unsafe, but uncatalogued and thus outside of the inspection and repair network. Since the blackout of 2003, cities like New York, Albany, Newark and Boston have known that another blackout lasting weeks (even months) is entirely possible, given the current state of the "grid" in the NE. Imagine that... 21 million men, women and children without power for as long as WE were without power on the Gulf Coast after Katrina. What kind of economic disaster could that turn into?
More later...
Friday, April 8, 2011
Parallels...
107 years ago today, Great Britain and France signed the entente cordiale, and the ground-work for the Triple Alliance between England, France and Russia was laid out.
France agreed to stop complaining about British actions in Egypt, while Britain stopped bitching about French actions in Morocco. In short, each nation's foreign policy was "shaped" (if not outright determined) by the foreign policy of the other.
In only seven short years, the real winner was neither France nor England... but Russia. After losing the Sino-Russian War in a rather epic manner, Russia managed an amazing recovery of both her military might and her national prestige through the various ententes she signed with her other European imperial neighbors.
This sort of "agreement" is the grandfather of such modern alliances as NATO. NATO was the winning "team" in the Cold War... but can it remain a legitimate factor in a Europe where the "foreign policy" is decided for the entire continent, rather than for individual nations? With each passing year, the European Union centralizes its authority into a single, pan-national government that determines and dictates economic, judicial, executive and domestic policy to each of its member states. When one individual state fails (Portugal or Ireland, for example) to maintain a standard policy, the effect is not only local, but impacts the entire continent.
The parallel that I speak of is with the Triple Alliance (or Triple Entente) of 1914. France, England and Russia all made agreements with each other that dictated how each would react given certain situational possibilities. The ententes gave each member different benefits:
England moved from a position of isolation and purely domestic security to one of greater and greater international involvement. Places like India and Egypt had been "British" for the better part of 100 years prior to the agreement, so I include them in the "domestic" schedule, of course.
France gained allies against the growing threat of German/Austro-Hungarian military growth. As the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy) made increasing advances in naval control of the Mediterranean Sea and political control of the Balkans region, France no longer needed to be the only continental state concerned with the situations.
Russia gained the most. Increased allowances and cooperation with France and England made the recovery of Russian naval and economic wounds after the tragic losses in 1908 to Japan far more rapid than they otherwise would have been. So much so that by the time WWI begins, Russia is a real threat to the Central Powers... something they were definitely NOT in 1910.
The situation I see developing now that parallels this historic example is that of the US, the EU and Russia:
The US is still, at heart, an isolationist state that wants nothing more than to see its economy grow and prosper in a growing and prosperous international market. US concerns over NATO obligations, or (better yet) United Nations obligations, have never been lower... yet the international demand for US involvement in international affairs has never been higher. These demands come from all quarters, too... Israel, the UN, the EU, NATO, our Asian/Pacific allies, South America, and Africa all demand and expect billions in aid and support from the US each year, while Muslim states and regions tie up a greater or equal amount of blood and treasure in national and international security concerns.
The EU is feeling the same sort of pains and anxiety that the Austro-Hungarians felt for the last 40 years they existed as a body politic. An almost infinitely varied array of ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious divisions in a pan-national state that wants uniformity and singular authority in its make up and execution of authority. They want allies in their efforts to secure European interests, both in Europe and outside of it, without having to commit European Union authority to such efforts. In short, they want someone else to police the "bad guys" while they reap the rewards of a "pacifist" nationhood.
Again, Russia is the greatest beneficiary of the agreement. Whatever Russia lacked in technology or technical ability after the fall of the USSR, they can look to gain back through the cooperation of both the EU and the US in keeping tabs on radical Islamic states and regional dictators/despots. Their economy gains from EU and US economic concessions in international trade. Their finances gain in artificial support of the ruble over the euro and the dollar. They control vast reserves of resources much of the world considers vital (oil, gas, coal, timber, metals, rare earth, heavy metals, etc), and which they can move through markets with no problems, while things they lack (technology, hard currency, monetary reserves) are provided at a discount through trade and economic treaties.
In my parallel, what is the "central" threat that this "alliance" is arrayed against? The emerging economies of China, India and the turbulent Middle East and Africa.
More and more, India is following her own path. Her century-old ties to the British Empire are now long dead, and her path to national viability has taken her to new friendships with China and Southeast Asia... friendships that do not share ties with the "West" as we know it. China is gaining ground through the almost unstoppable weight of her growing (and ever-growing) population and influence. The Middle East is increasingly less and less friendly toward its largest consumers... mainly the US and EU. It has recently proven itself very (VERY) vulnerable to internal instability, and the threat of radicals in positions of power is never very far away.
The parallels seem sound. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
France agreed to stop complaining about British actions in Egypt, while Britain stopped bitching about French actions in Morocco. In short, each nation's foreign policy was "shaped" (if not outright determined) by the foreign policy of the other.
In only seven short years, the real winner was neither France nor England... but Russia. After losing the Sino-Russian War in a rather epic manner, Russia managed an amazing recovery of both her military might and her national prestige through the various ententes she signed with her other European imperial neighbors.
This sort of "agreement" is the grandfather of such modern alliances as NATO. NATO was the winning "team" in the Cold War... but can it remain a legitimate factor in a Europe where the "foreign policy" is decided for the entire continent, rather than for individual nations? With each passing year, the European Union centralizes its authority into a single, pan-national government that determines and dictates economic, judicial, executive and domestic policy to each of its member states. When one individual state fails (Portugal or Ireland, for example) to maintain a standard policy, the effect is not only local, but impacts the entire continent.
The parallel that I speak of is with the Triple Alliance (or Triple Entente) of 1914. France, England and Russia all made agreements with each other that dictated how each would react given certain situational possibilities. The ententes gave each member different benefits:
England moved from a position of isolation and purely domestic security to one of greater and greater international involvement. Places like India and Egypt had been "British" for the better part of 100 years prior to the agreement, so I include them in the "domestic" schedule, of course.
France gained allies against the growing threat of German/Austro-Hungarian military growth. As the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy) made increasing advances in naval control of the Mediterranean Sea and political control of the Balkans region, France no longer needed to be the only continental state concerned with the situations.
Russia gained the most. Increased allowances and cooperation with France and England made the recovery of Russian naval and economic wounds after the tragic losses in 1908 to Japan far more rapid than they otherwise would have been. So much so that by the time WWI begins, Russia is a real threat to the Central Powers... something they were definitely NOT in 1910.
The situation I see developing now that parallels this historic example is that of the US, the EU and Russia:
The US is still, at heart, an isolationist state that wants nothing more than to see its economy grow and prosper in a growing and prosperous international market. US concerns over NATO obligations, or (better yet) United Nations obligations, have never been lower... yet the international demand for US involvement in international affairs has never been higher. These demands come from all quarters, too... Israel, the UN, the EU, NATO, our Asian/Pacific allies, South America, and Africa all demand and expect billions in aid and support from the US each year, while Muslim states and regions tie up a greater or equal amount of blood and treasure in national and international security concerns.
The EU is feeling the same sort of pains and anxiety that the Austro-Hungarians felt for the last 40 years they existed as a body politic. An almost infinitely varied array of ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious divisions in a pan-national state that wants uniformity and singular authority in its make up and execution of authority. They want allies in their efforts to secure European interests, both in Europe and outside of it, without having to commit European Union authority to such efforts. In short, they want someone else to police the "bad guys" while they reap the rewards of a "pacifist" nationhood.
Again, Russia is the greatest beneficiary of the agreement. Whatever Russia lacked in technology or technical ability after the fall of the USSR, they can look to gain back through the cooperation of both the EU and the US in keeping tabs on radical Islamic states and regional dictators/despots. Their economy gains from EU and US economic concessions in international trade. Their finances gain in artificial support of the ruble over the euro and the dollar. They control vast reserves of resources much of the world considers vital (oil, gas, coal, timber, metals, rare earth, heavy metals, etc), and which they can move through markets with no problems, while things they lack (technology, hard currency, monetary reserves) are provided at a discount through trade and economic treaties.
In my parallel, what is the "central" threat that this "alliance" is arrayed against? The emerging economies of China, India and the turbulent Middle East and Africa.
More and more, India is following her own path. Her century-old ties to the British Empire are now long dead, and her path to national viability has taken her to new friendships with China and Southeast Asia... friendships that do not share ties with the "West" as we know it. China is gaining ground through the almost unstoppable weight of her growing (and ever-growing) population and influence. The Middle East is increasingly less and less friendly toward its largest consumers... mainly the US and EU. It has recently proven itself very (VERY) vulnerable to internal instability, and the threat of radicals in positions of power is never very far away.
The parallels seem sound. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Sunday, April 3, 2011
We've got BIG fans...
... because I'm telling you, Paul Ryan must be reading this site.
Literally, within days of F. Ryan posting his bit about being unhappy with the GOP budget cuts, Rep. Paul Ryan (R, WI) has submitted his budget for the next year, and it has more than $4 trillion cut out of it, or roughly 33% less than what Obama was planning on for the next year's deficit spending.
It's never going to get past the Senate, of course... but what it will do is force the issue front-and-center on the Dems and bring the budget debate right back into the limelight coming into the opening rounds of the 2012 election cycle.
Ryan's budget includes a return to the 25% top tax bracket (down from the Dem's 35%) for the average Joe... and a 25% top tax bracket for corporate taxes, too (which the Dems had at just under 50%). This cut will keep revenues at very nearly the exact level they are at now... mainly by not waiting for the Feds to pump money BACK into the economy by leaving that same money in the hands and pockets of the people that earn it (namely ME AND YOU). In addition, roughly $1 trillion NEW dollars will be taxable by the Feds through the corporate tax rates because the lower rate will make keeping corporate funds INSIDE the US much more viable, rather than keeping it offshore (in places like Tripoli, Columbia, Venesuala, or Singapore).
THIS is solid, conservative planning and execution. THIS is coming to the table with a plan, and making that plan available to anyone that wants to see it.
Damn, I like this Paul Ryan guy...
Literally, within days of F. Ryan posting his bit about being unhappy with the GOP budget cuts, Rep. Paul Ryan (R, WI) has submitted his budget for the next year, and it has more than $4 trillion cut out of it, or roughly 33% less than what Obama was planning on for the next year's deficit spending.
It's never going to get past the Senate, of course... but what it will do is force the issue front-and-center on the Dems and bring the budget debate right back into the limelight coming into the opening rounds of the 2012 election cycle.
Ryan's budget includes a return to the 25% top tax bracket (down from the Dem's 35%) for the average Joe... and a 25% top tax bracket for corporate taxes, too (which the Dems had at just under 50%). This cut will keep revenues at very nearly the exact level they are at now... mainly by not waiting for the Feds to pump money BACK into the economy by leaving that same money in the hands and pockets of the people that earn it (namely ME AND YOU). In addition, roughly $1 trillion NEW dollars will be taxable by the Feds through the corporate tax rates because the lower rate will make keeping corporate funds INSIDE the US much more viable, rather than keeping it offshore (in places like Tripoli, Columbia, Venesuala, or Singapore).
THIS is solid, conservative planning and execution. THIS is coming to the table with a plan, and making that plan available to anyone that wants to see it.
Damn, I like this Paul Ryan guy...
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Not as clear as I'd hoped...
My last didn't seem to make my point the way I'd hoped, so I'll try again... quickly.
Can anyone really expect actual reductions and substantial budgetary cuts to happen in an economy that is still this soft? Who could do that and hope to win an election? I guess the first thing I'd have thought that the new GOP leadership would have done is return the "Bush Tax Cuts" to the books, but without the Senate, that isn't going to happen either.
I know what I would like to see reduced... but I am not the majority opinion, it seems. What 18 months ago seemed to be "radical socialist agendas" are now the "status quo" in this nation, and changing the status quo is very hard to do in an election year.
Can anyone really expect actual reductions and substantial budgetary cuts to happen in an economy that is still this soft? Who could do that and hope to win an election? I guess the first thing I'd have thought that the new GOP leadership would have done is return the "Bush Tax Cuts" to the books, but without the Senate, that isn't going to happen either.
I know what I would like to see reduced... but I am not the majority opinion, it seems. What 18 months ago seemed to be "radical socialist agendas" are now the "status quo" in this nation, and changing the status quo is very hard to do in an election year.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Agreed, with caveat...
We've often talked about how the last "New Deal" President was James Earl Carter... but that isn't technically true, is it?
Reagan was not "New Deal"... and neither was Bush Sr. I can't see Clinton fitting that label, either, Democrat or not. Bush Jr, however... New Deal all day long. Between "No Child Left Behind" on one end of the spectrum and his prescription drug program on the other, what President since Carter has done more to prove the maxim that "Big Government does it better"? I think, to give credit where credit is due, that Bush thought he was following the Reagan paradigm... but government grew at a rate of more than 17% each year he was in office, and that is NOT counting his military spending. Yes, he cut taxes... but with the tax cuts came huge increases in government spending (much of it years into the future, too).
Bush Jr. took the New Deal "ideal" in exactly the opposite direction that FDR did: FDR raised taxes and increased spending in order to "stimulate" the economy... while Bush lowered taxes and increased spending, with no apparent intention to reduce that spending... ever. Short term gains... long term pains.
There are no "Tea Party" candidates on the radar yet... unless you count Ron Paul. No mainstream GOP candidate, regardless of promises to the electorate, will actually reduce the size or scope of government... period. They might reduce the rate it grows, but they will NOT reduce the size or cost by one employee or one penny. In fact, I doubt that any will even PROMISE to do so until the economy actually does recover. They will roll back the Obama increases, sure... but the cost and size will be AT LEAST what it was in 2006, and by even my card-carrying-Democratic-Party-member's opinion that is WAY TOO MUCH. If the unemployment rate is still over 7.5% nationally, there will be no change in the 99 week UI benefit extension plan... hell, it might even extend again. If the national rate of uninsured is still above 20 million, no change will come to the MedicAid and Medicare extensions, either. Social Security will NOT be restructured... or even addressed at all. Taxes might be reduced... but to no lower than they were in 2008, and nothing close to what they were in 1982.
Ironically, my 18-year-old received her first voter registration card today in the mail, and was very excited about the prospect of exercising her sovereign franchise as an American citizen as soon as this May (for the primary elections here in PA). I had a brief talk with her about how I will never judge her for how she votes, as long as she takes her vote seriously and learns both sides of an issue before she does so. Once she casts that ballot, though... she will have all the same rights and opportunities to voice her opinion here at the house as her mother or I do. No one can say she didn't do her duty then, as long as she does do her duty.
Imagine how pissed her father would be if he found out she voted "conservative"? Hehe...
Reagan was not "New Deal"... and neither was Bush Sr. I can't see Clinton fitting that label, either, Democrat or not. Bush Jr, however... New Deal all day long. Between "No Child Left Behind" on one end of the spectrum and his prescription drug program on the other, what President since Carter has done more to prove the maxim that "Big Government does it better"? I think, to give credit where credit is due, that Bush thought he was following the Reagan paradigm... but government grew at a rate of more than 17% each year he was in office, and that is NOT counting his military spending. Yes, he cut taxes... but with the tax cuts came huge increases in government spending (much of it years into the future, too).
Bush Jr. took the New Deal "ideal" in exactly the opposite direction that FDR did: FDR raised taxes and increased spending in order to "stimulate" the economy... while Bush lowered taxes and increased spending, with no apparent intention to reduce that spending... ever. Short term gains... long term pains.
There are no "Tea Party" candidates on the radar yet... unless you count Ron Paul. No mainstream GOP candidate, regardless of promises to the electorate, will actually reduce the size or scope of government... period. They might reduce the rate it grows, but they will NOT reduce the size or cost by one employee or one penny. In fact, I doubt that any will even PROMISE to do so until the economy actually does recover. They will roll back the Obama increases, sure... but the cost and size will be AT LEAST what it was in 2006, and by even my card-carrying-Democratic-Party-member's opinion that is WAY TOO MUCH. If the unemployment rate is still over 7.5% nationally, there will be no change in the 99 week UI benefit extension plan... hell, it might even extend again. If the national rate of uninsured is still above 20 million, no change will come to the MedicAid and Medicare extensions, either. Social Security will NOT be restructured... or even addressed at all. Taxes might be reduced... but to no lower than they were in 2008, and nothing close to what they were in 1982.
Ironically, my 18-year-old received her first voter registration card today in the mail, and was very excited about the prospect of exercising her sovereign franchise as an American citizen as soon as this May (for the primary elections here in PA). I had a brief talk with her about how I will never judge her for how she votes, as long as she takes her vote seriously and learns both sides of an issue before she does so. Once she casts that ballot, though... she will have all the same rights and opportunities to voice her opinion here at the house as her mother or I do. No one can say she didn't do her duty then, as long as she does do her duty.
Imagine how pissed her father would be if he found out she voted "conservative"? Hehe...
Whigging Out
You know how Muslims hold other Muslims, whom have converted to Christianity, in greater disdain then someone born into Christianity, because in a rudimentary way they're suposed to "know better?"
Well let me put the GOP on notice - the history making mid term election, the thousands of Tea Party rallies, the marches, the unprecedented participation, the speeches, the donations, the time spent, DO YOU THINK ALL THAT WAS FOR A LOUSY 4% CUT!?
Boy I'm pissed about this. Boehner & McConnel are going to cave. 50-something billion dollar spending cuts is ALL THE EXCESS YOU COULD FIND in a 2.1 Trillion dollar budget and 14 Trillion dollar deficit????
Do you pubas in the GOP not get it? Do you not know your own history, what party you replaced?
Pay attention kiddies, THIS is how successful 3rd parties are born - the party they replace commits suicide.
Well let me put the GOP on notice - the history making mid term election, the thousands of Tea Party rallies, the marches, the unprecedented participation, the speeches, the donations, the time spent, DO YOU THINK ALL THAT WAS FOR A LOUSY 4% CUT!?
Boy I'm pissed about this. Boehner & McConnel are going to cave. 50-something billion dollar spending cuts is ALL THE EXCESS YOU COULD FIND in a 2.1 Trillion dollar budget and 14 Trillion dollar deficit????
Do you pubas in the GOP not get it? Do you not know your own history, what party you replaced?
Pay attention kiddies, THIS is how successful 3rd parties are born - the party they replace commits suicide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
