The Mouth of the South (Part II)

Does Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson  lie awake at night thinking of ways to make himself look foolish?

An earlier commentary noted how the controversial Congressman has parlayed his new-found notoriety into campaign cash through the creation of a fund-raising website named CongressmanWithGuts.com.  A Florida Republican, Angie Langley, subsequently created a parody website - MyCongressmanIsNuts.com - to raise money to defeat Grayson.  Its success has been underwhelming; a paltry $10,000 in contributions to date, compared to the $546,000 Grayson claims to be collected.  Grayson should have brushed it off - his frequent media appearances give him ample opportunity to take on his critics.  But the thin-skinned Congressman, who can dish out abuse but apparently can't take it, was so incensed by MyCongressmanIsNuts.com that he penned a rambling four page letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding that the site and its creator by criminally prosecuted for election fraud.  His main complaint is that Ms Langley does not actually live in his electoral district and therefore the website name, MyCongressmanIsNuts.com is "fundamentally fraudulent and deceptive".  In addition, he huffs, the name of the website is "utterly tasteless and juvenile".  Ms Langley, he demands, should be "imprisoned for five years".

It should be apparent even to Congressman Grayson that this latest round of publicity will only help the Republicans.  It shows he has scant regard for this First Amendment, and given his own propensity for crude ad hominem attacks on political opponents, his complaint that the website is "utterly tasteless and juvenile" cries hypocrisy even in Washington, D.C., where hypocrisy is the order of the day.  

With all of the pressing issues on the Congressional agenda, the fact that Alan Grayson thinks this frivolous complaint was the best use of however much of his time it took to write, tells you all you really need to know about him.  If he can't stand the heat of criticism he should stay out of the political kitchen and seek alternative employment  in 2012.

The Mouth of the South

When will the Democratic leadership do us all a favor and rein in Alan Grayson, the uncouth Florida Congressman whose crude outbursts are an ever-increasing source of embarrassment to the Democratic Party?

The self-promoting windbag from Orlando famously rose from political obscurity with a speech (before an empty House chamber) in which he characterized the Republican plan for health care reform as "Die Quickly". The predictable Republican outcry was a monumental exercise in hypocrisy given the Right's own fear-mongering about "death panels", but the argument over Grayson's overblown rhetoric overshadowed the more substantive point in his speech, namely that 44,000 people die annually because they lack adequate health insurance. As a result,  Grayson's speech did nothing to advance the interests of health care reform.

But it did much to advance the interests of Grayson himself. The hitherto unknown first-term Congressman quickly established himself as a fixture on the liberal talk show circuit and moved adroitly to cash in on his new found fame. He created a narcissistically titled fund-raising website, "CongressmanWithGuts.com", and watched as the dollars began rolling in. But he wasn't one to rest on his "Die Quickly" laurels.  More inflammatory comments soon followed. He offended House Repubicans en masse by calling them "knuckle dragging neanderthals". He offended women (and most men) by referring to Linda Robertson, a senior adviser to Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Ben Bernancke and former lobbyist, as a "K Street whore".  Next in his sights was former Vice President Dick Cheney.  Grayson called him a "blood sucking vampire" and, this past week, asked on MSNBC's Hardball program how he would respond to Dick Cheney's criticism of the Obama Administration's foreign policy, he referred to a popular texting acronym - "STFU" - helpfully adding (for the benefit of those not accustomed to communicating in such manner) that the "S" stood for "shut".  Once again, the Republican response was immediate and predictable. An official statement noted that his constituents wanted "jobs, not nut-jobs".  Personally, I couldn't agree more.

People like Grayson bring nothing of value to the table.  His comments, and the Democratic Party's failure to distance itself from them, drag Democrats down to the same debased moral level that had (at least in the context of the health care debate) formerly been the exclusive preserve of Congressional Republicans and their industry paymasters.  The way to counter  a bad argument is not by childish name-calling, abuse or profanity, but simply by making a better argument.  And in this case, that shouldn't be hard to do.  But people like Grayson lack either the self-discipline, integrity, or maybe simply the intellectual capacity, to do that.  Sadly, so do many in the liberal media, who not only give this man the air-time he craves but continue to stroke his immense ego by using terms like "plain speaking", "no-nonsense", "gutsy" or - worst of all - "refreshing" and "honest" to describe his crude, calculating and abrasive persona.

And don't think for a moment, as he might like to have us believe, that his outrageous outbursts reveal a man who believes so passionately in his cause du jour that his emotions sometimes get the better of him. Far from it. He comes to his media interviews with his offensive one-liners ready prepared; if they don't work for one audience he recylces them for the next.  He has learned not only that publicity translates into Dollars, but also that attack politics generates bigger headlines than thoughtful policy proposals, especially on our lowest-common-denominator cable news networks.  It is a sad reflection on what we value in politicians that - according to his website - Grayson has already raked in over $500,000 in cold campaign cash since his "Die Quickly" speech. Talk about cash for trash.

I am absolutely confident that Grayson's carefully scripted diatribes haven't won even a single convert to the cause of health care reform or swayed a single wavering vote in the Congress.  I am equally confident that they have turned many away from the cause, and from the Democratic party as a whole.  So why have the so-called liberal media, and apparently numerous contributors, embraced him?  I think the answer is twofold.

First, there is a symbiotic relationship between people like Grayson and the cable news networks, which increasingly are the outlets people turn to for political news and analysis.  For the media, Grayson is good value for money because he can usually be counted on to say something outrageous (or "refreshingly honest" depending on your point of view), providing fodder for the analysts and pundits to pontificate about for days or even weeks afterwards.  All of which creates more publicity (and hence more campaign cash) for Grayson than would a thoughtful interview about substantive policy issues.  Unfortunately, the losers in this cynical exercise are the viewers.

But (and I return here to a depressingly familiar theme) Grayson's popularity also reflects a lack of  genuine leadership within the Democratic party, particularly on the issue of health care reform.  Progressive Democrats - who were key to  Obama's election victory and who bought into all of that talk about "change we can believe in" - are disillusioned with the President.  Disillusioned that he didn't roll up his sleeves and get to work on writing a health care bill on Day One but instead passed the buck to a dysfunctional Congress while he continued to jet around the country with his White House entourage making what were essentially meaningless campaign speeches; disillusioned that he appeared to buy into the naive notion that bipartisan legislation was possible, even though Republicans were manifestly opposed to any form of health care reform;  disillusioned that he allowed Republicans to set the tone of the debate with a campaign of lies and fear-mongering about "death panels" and "pulling the plug on Grandma";  disillusioned that he took off on a summer vacation while corporate interests and wealthy extremists on the Right bankrolled and organized the disruption of town hall meetings held by Democratic congressmen;  disillusioned that that he preferred to cut back-room deals with Big Pharma and pander to the likes of Joe Lieberman rather than "bang heads" with reluctant Democrats to ensure passage of the reform legislation he had promised and that Americans desperately need.  Given this abject display of political pusillanimity from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, it perhaps isn't hard to understand why some people were happy to see Grayson publicly lowering himself to the Republican level and turning their own tactics of smear and abuse against them.

But that is not the answer.  At the end of the day, vulgarians like Grayson don't help the Democratic Party or the causes it purports to espouse.  Nancy Pelosi and other members of the House leadership needs to take Grayson to the woodshed and let him no in no uncertain terms that further outbursts won't be tolerated - regardless how much they benefit his campaign coffers.

Plus ça Change We Can Believe In

The soap opera involving the pair of social climbing publicity seekers who gate-crashed a recent White House state dinner in honor of the Indian President just doesn’t go away. In the latest installment, the aspiring TV reality show performers, who refused an invitation to testify before a House oversight committee, have now indicated they will invoke their Fifth Amendment rights if the committee issues subpoenas.

The gatecrasher episode story comes hard on the heels of the “balloon boy” farce, in which another pair of irresponsible reality show would-be’s led law-enforcement officers on a wild goose chase after falsely claiming that their young son was on board a home-made balloon that “escaped” from their yard. In fact they had hidden him in an attic. The lie became apparent only when they shamelessly paraded the unfortunate child before the TV cameras and he blurted out the truth.

At a superficial level, these stories are a depressing reflection of the popular obsession with the TV reality show, a mindless phenomenon in which ostensibly “normal” people are willing to stoop to almost any level to gain their 15 minutes of fame - and millions of others take pleasure in watching them do it. This form of programming appeals to the TV companies. It is significantly cheaper to produce than conventional drama or comedy, and there is a seemingly endless supply of willing participants. Most of these shows do not, of course, reflect “reality” – but the engineered emotions and contrived outcomes don’t seem to deter those who tune in each week.

On a more serious level, the gate-crasher couple’s ability to gain unauthorized access to what is supposedly the most secure facility in the United States, and get (literally) within touching distance of the President, Vice President and other senior political figures, raises troubling questions about the quality of protection the President receives. As the Secret Service were quick to point out, the interlopers had to pass through a magnetometer in order to get into the function. Big deal. Once inside, they had access to plenty of potential deadly weapons. Unlike airline meals, White House fare comes with real knives. This couple should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law – they deserve to spend some time in jail, not on a TV screen.

More interesting to me, though, was the White House response to all of this. It has emerged that the blame for this egregious breach of security may lie in part at the door of the White House Social Secretary and Obama confidante Desiree Rogers. Ms. Rogers reportedly failed to arrange for Social Office staffers to be on duty at the door to help the Secret Service vet arriving guests. Ms Rogers herself apparently was not at her post on the night of the state dinner (it is customary for the Social Secretary to greet guests as they arrive) – because she was preening in front of the cameras in a designer gown, hob-nobbing with the dignitaries and generally playing the role of invited guest.

The Congressional Homeland Security Committee, which is investigating the breach of security, has a legitimate interest in questioning Ms. Rogers about what went wrong and what steps she is taking to ensure there are no repetitions. It should be simple enough. But astonishingly, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs rushed to announce that Ms. Rogers would not testify before Congress. "I think you know", Mr. Gibbs told a bemused press corps, "that, based on separation of powers, staff here don't go to testify in front of Congress."

What Mr. Gibbs appeared to be doing, without actually using the words, was invoking the doctrine of executive privilege. This is a absurd assertion in the circumstances, but one that has enormous potential political and constitutional implications for the future. As Mr. Gibbs ought to know, the doctrine of the separation of powers does not establish a broad or unqualified protection for members of the executive branch who would prefer not to have to testify before Congress – such testimony happens all the time. In a series of cases arising out of the Watergate break-in, the Supreme Court made clear that executive privilege is a narrow and qualified privilege that may be asserted only as to communications the President receives in discharging the responsibilities of his office and that bear upon policy or decision making. In such cases, moreover, the interests of the President in maintaining the confidentiality of the advice he receives must be balanced against other legitimate public interests. Whatever testimony Ms. Rogers could have given to the Homeland Security Committee on the planning of the White House dinner doesn't even come close to meeting the standard for asserting executive privilege, let alone for concluding that the President's interests in protecting those communications trumps the committee's performance of its legitimate oversight function.

Perhaps Mr. Gibbs chose not to use the term “executive privilege” because it would have evoked inconvenient memories of the Bush Administration’s expansive use of executive privilege to frustrate a series of investigations into potential White House wrongdoing. Congressional Democrats were righly angered by that, and it takes little imagination to figure out how they would have reacted had the Bush White House dismisively refused to permit its Social Secretary to testify under similar circumstances. The Democrats will no doubt give Obama a free pass this time, but the incident sounds an alarming warning bell that Obama will apparently follow the lead of his Republican predecessor – as he already has on other issues – and adopt an expansive view of executive privilege.

It would perhaps have been naïve to expect otherwise; the arrogance of power is not confined to one party. But Obama was supposed to be different. Isn't that why people voted for him?  He pledged to change the culture of secrecy that pervaded the halls of the Bush White House and usher in an era of unprecedented transparency and openness in government.

That apparently, was another change we should not have believed in. As the French would say, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

President Obama Takes a Bow

The ferocious criticism of the now notorious bow with which Barack Obama greeted his counterpart Wen Jiabao during Obama’s recent Asia trip is a further demonstration (as if we really needed one) of how some on the Right will do or say almost anything, no matter how silly, to try to discredit the President. Unfortunately the episode also demonstrates how both the President’s critics and supporters, as well as our terminally dumbed-down national media, are missing the real issue.

Many politicians on the Right were quick to denounce the bow – one of several Obama made on his Asia trip - as an unprecedented sign of “weakness” by an American President. Their cronies at Fox News, who apparently would view anything even approaching journalistic integrity and objectivity as similarly unprecedented signs of weakness, rolled out the usual array of pundits to analyze the bows – even attempting to calculate, with the aid of multiple slow-motion replays, its exact angle. Across the great media divide, MSNBC predictably scoured its film vault for footage of former Republican Presidents bowing to foreign heads of state and gloatingly aired the images as yet another example of right wing political hypocrisy.

Poor Obama. The Asia trip in general, and his time in China in particular, seem to have been an unmitigated public relations debacle that has done nothing to reverse the slow but steady erosion in his job approval ratings. Even the New York Times editorial pages uncharacteristically chided him – for allowing the Chinese to manage his schedule, and for his failure to speak out as strongly as George W. Bush on issues like human rights, the undervalued renminbi, the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, etc. But all of the overblown commentary on the bow begs more serious questions about the economic relationship between China and the United States.

Both political parties need to acknowledge that the United States has made itself beholden to China – not just as our principal source of cheap clothing, shoes and the endless array of electronics and consumer goods that Americans seem unable to do without, but as the principal source of financing for the Federal government. The Chinese now own roughly $800 billion in U.S. government securities, and the American economy is increasingly dependent on the Biejing’s willingness to roll this debt over month after month, year after year.

How did we find ourselves in this situation? It’s not complicated. It was in large measure the Chinese who financed George Bush’s reckless military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, his irresponsible tax cut for the rich, the “no strings attached” Wall Street bailout and eight straight years of budget deficits. It was the Chinese in large measure who helped Bush and his economic team – probably the most inept in modern American history - maintain an illusion of domestic prosperity while turning Bill Clinton's budget surplus into the deficit of over $600 billion that was dumped on Obama’s doorstep.

Given all of this, one can only wonder why Republicans strategists think it’s smart politics to portray Barack Obama as looking “weak” in his dealings with the Chinese. Like it or not, the position of the U.S. China has weakened over the last decade, and the irresponsible “borrow and spend” policies of the Bush era are the principal cause.

Statistics about the Federal deficit and public debt lend themselves to manipulation, so it’s important to understand what we’re talking about here. The U.S. public debt is currently a whopping $12 trillion. Some argue that even though the total debt may be a problem, the fact that we owe the Chinese “only” $800 billion, less than 7 percent of the total, isn’t such a big deal. They’re dead wrong, and the reason lies in what the public debt represents.  It is made up of a number of separate components, the largest (roughly 50 percent) being the surpluses in governmental trust funds (such as the Social Security Trust Fund), which are required by law to be invested in Treasury Securities. More on the trust funds in a future commentary. Suffice it to say that to the extent the trust funds are in surplus, the government has to borrow less money on the open market to finance its operations than the size of the public debt and annual budget deficit would imply.  That might seem like good news, but it really isn’t, at least in the long term, because as the trust fund surpluses diminish, the securities held in the trust fund have to be sold, thereby increasing the public borrowing requirement beyond the amounts that the annual budget would indnicate.

The Federal Reserve also buys and sells government securities in the market to regulate supply and demand and control interest rates.  In addition, many securities are owned by domestic entities The balance, roughly $3.5 trillion (as of September 30, 2009) is held by foreign governments and institutions And that is what we need to focus on.

Of the $3.5 trillion in foreign-held government securities, China’s share accounts for roughly 23 percent. Japan, the second biggest holder, owns roughly $750 billion, or 21 percent. But of equal or greater concern is the trend that has emerged over the last decade. When George W. Bush took the oath of office for the first time, the portion of the public debt in foreign hands was, in round numbers, $1 trillion.  Of that amount, China held only 6 percent, or $60 billion.  Under Bush, the total foreign-held debt increased by over 200 percent, but Chinese holdings rose over the same period by over 1,000 percent. Though the President will fault the economic policies of his predecessor, the trend has continued unabated under Obama and China continues to absorb a disproportionate amount of the net increase in foreign-held U.S. public debt.

The ballooning public debt is bad in and of itself.  We should recall that the Soviet empire was brought down not by force of arms, but by the collapse of its domestic economy.  Fans of Ronald Reagan credit his policies for reducing the USSR to economic ruin. Unfortunately it’s little exaggeration to say that the policies of his ideological successor, George W. Bush, have done much the same for the United States.   Economic power ultimately begets political power, and the continued concentration of the U.S. public debt in the hands of China has implications for China’s pretensions as a world super-power.

A May, 2009 report by the Congressional Research Office (CRO) downplays the risks of financial dependence on China. If China were to reduce its dollar holdings significantly over a short period of time, the report acknowledges, interest rates would rise, also significantly, domestic investment would decline and growth rates would fall, triggering potential recession. However, the report argues, China is unlikely to take such action because it would hurt itself in the process. The value of its remaining dollar-denominated assets would decline and its trade relationship with the U.S. would be placed in jeopardy, in part because of reduced U.S. demand in general, and in part because any precipitous action by China would likely lead to a "protectionist backlash" against Chinese products. On the other hand, a gradual reduction in China’s Dollar holdings could actually have a net beneficial effect on the U.S. economy, because the reduction in the trade deficit that would accompany a depreciation of the dollar could offset the adverse economic effects of higher interest rates.

I think this is muddled, complacent and dangerous thinking.

First, the report fails to recognize that the issue is not simply whether and how China would reduce its portfolio of Treasury securities; if China simply were to stop increasing its holdings to match the growth in the public debt, interest rates are likely to rise and this could adversely affect whatever fragile recovery may be beginning. But I don’t rule out a move by the Chinese to start making net reductions in their Dollar exposure, at least until they have a higher level of confidence in the U.S. government’s willingness and ability to manage the economy. I also don’t buy the CRO’s conclusion that the resulting interest rate increase would be accompanied by a decrease in the value of the Dollar, thereby improving the trade deficit.  That’s the muddled thinking.  It’s also at odds with a study by the same CRO only 5 years ago that reached exactly the opposite, and generally accepted view: that a rise in interest rates tends to make Dollar-denominated assets more attractive, thereby increasing the value of the Dollar, which negatively impacts the balance of payments (except in the worst case scenario where huge numbers of Dollars are dumped on the market within a short period of time).

According to the Treasury, China is restructuring its portfolio of Dollar holdings and moving toward shorter-term maturities. The CRO believes this is simply because shorter-term securities are viewed as “safer”.  That's the complacent thinking. One can equally speculate that the move towards shorter maturities is designed to enable China to reduce its portfolio more rapidly, less disruptively and with less risk to the value of its remaining holdings. Only time will tell.

The dangerous thinking is to assume that China is so afraid to jeopardize its trade relationship with the United States that it will dutifully keep piling up IOUs as long as Uncle Sam can keep printing them. China has responded to the global recession by stimulating national demand and recent events must have demonstrated to China’s leaders the danger of over-dependence on export markets, especially in the developed world. Over time, and perhaps not too much time, the U.S. market will become less critical for Chinese manufacturers.  And you can be sure the Chinese won’t be scared by the prospect of a hypothetical “protectionist backlash”. At the end of the day, U.S. consumers vote with their pocketbooks and everyone, with the possible exception of the CRO, knows it. The likes of Walmart, who these days seem to stock their shelves almost entirely with Chinese products, certainly do.

The Chinese have repeatedly and publicly made clear their concerns about the long-term stability and value of the Dollar.  According to recent press reports, Chinese Treasury officials have been consulting at length with their U.S. counterparts about the long-term budgetary implications of health reform, stimulus spending and other “big ticket” government programs.  The United States is starting to take on the appearance of a free-spending but impecunious rake, repeatedly begging a stingy rich uncle for money with the promise that “things will be different this time”.  It’s little surprise that the Chinese have questioned the continued reliance on the Dollar as a reserve currency and the fact is that we are likely to see a gradual (or perhaps not so gradual) movement toward use of currency “baskets” such as the SDR in international commerce.  This will also have serious implications for U.S. fiscal policy, but in the interim, given China’s continued importance as a purchaser of U.S. government securities, this is hardly the most appropriate time for Obama to publicly bash the Chinese on exchange rate policy.  It is in part Chinese purchase of Dollar-denominated securities that prevents slows growth in the value of the remninbi; in addition, the exchange rate is a concern not just for the U.S. but for the West in general and is best addressed on a multinational level. I think Obama understands this, and on his recent trip he set precisely the right public tone.

Back at home, the President’s critics, and the American public, need to understand that the best way to restore strength to the U.S. relationship with China is not through public posturing on contentious issues, but by getting control of the Federal budget deficit.   Both Democrats and Republicans need to play a constructive role in that process.  The Democrats need to freeze further wasteful “stimulus” spending that is not targeted specifically at investments in productive capacity and infrastructure.  Republicans must play their part by accepting health care reform proposals that lower the deficit, by agreeing to roll back George Bush’s tax handout for the wealthy and by supporting responsible efforts to curb the ruinously expensive military operations in Afghanistan.  That will require from our politicians a lot more intellectual effort and political courage than making silly cheap shots about Obama’s “bow” to the Chinese – but if they don’t they will only have themselves to blame if future American Presidents have to bow even lower, and with cap firmly in hand, to their bankers in Beijing.

In Praise of Dennis Kucinich

Thank God for Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

The plain speaking former Presidential candidate from Cleveland was the only proponent of health care reform to vote against Nancy Pelosi's Heath Industry Profit Assurance Act  (or as it is officially but misleadingly named, the "Affordable Health Care for America Act").  Amid the orgy of Democratic self-congratulation that followed the passage of this bill, which squeaked by with a majority of only five votes,  Kucinich issued a statement explaining why he had voted against it.  Other Democrats, especially those who profess to belong to the “liberal” or “progressive” wing of the party, would do well to read it.  So too would Barack Obama, whose abject failure to provide leadership on health care reform, and whose willingness to cut back-room deals with health industry lobbyists, in large measure explain why the House bill falls so far short of the expectations the President himself created by his overblown campaign rhetoric

The bill seeks to reduce the number of uninsured through two means - by expanding Medicaid, the government health insurance program for the poorest Americans, and through the creation of a "health insurance exchange" in which individuals without employer-provided health insurance would be able, indeed required,  to purchase coverage.  The bill would create a self-funding public health insurance plan, the so-called "public option", which would participate in the exchange.  Low and moderate income families buying insurance in the exchange would be entitled to "affordability credits" to subsidize the premium cost.

Many voters, who haven't had the time or inclination to wade through the bill's 1,990 pages, could be forgiven for assuming that this much-heralded public option is the "Medicare for All" solution that many reform proponents have been advocating.  Unfortunately it's nothing of the kind.  Anyone eligible for employer-provided insurance would be ineligible to participate and employees won't have the right to "trade in" their employee coverage for the public plan. Health care providers participating in the public option would be paid negotiated rates, rather than the prevailing Medicare tariff, meaning that the cost of the public option - and therefore premiums - will be higher than under a "Medicare for All" approach.  To its credit, the Pelosi bill would permit the government to negotiate lower prices for drugs. However, this runs counter to the deal Obama cut with the drug companies in return for their promise of support, and Big Pharma is already promising to throw all of its considerable weight against the bill if the House doesn't join the Senate Finance Committee in following the White House marching orders.  The Senate version is likely to prevail in the final bill, further increasing the cost of the public option.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Pelosi's public option will in effect become a residual plan for the highest risk individuals, with the consequence that the premiums it charges will actually be higher than the private-sector health insurance companies, even though its administrative costs will be much lower.

Clearly the insurance companies would prefer not to have a public option, but with or without it they stand to make out through the millions of additional policies they will write.   Most employers will be required by law to provide insurance, and all individuals who don't receive employer-provided benefits and don't qualify for Medicare/Medicaid will be required to buy it for themselves.  If they don't, the Obama Adminisration will fine them.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the proposed insurance exchange will attract 30 million customers, with only 6 million enrolling in the public option; that's 24 million new customers for the insurance companies.

There are other problems.  According to the CBO the bill would reduce the Federal deficit.  However opponents, including many state governors, point out that the expansion of Medicaid, which is funded partly by the states and partly by the Federal government, will impose an additional financial burden on states already struggling to balance their budgets.  Unfunded mandates are a convenient way for Congress, which for years has lacked the collective backbone to raise enough in taxes to pay for the services the Federal government provides, to pass the buck on healthcare costs.  State governors are right to be unhappy. If Congress believes that the Federal government has an obligation to provide universal health care, it should pick up the tab.

And it gets worse.  Only after the House bill was passed did it become widely known that one of the prices Pelosi had paid to buy the votes of conservative "Democrats" was the so-called "Stupak amendment".  This provision, included at the behest of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and its Congressional mouthpiece, Rep Bart Stupak, would effectively prohibit any insurance plan that participates in the insurance exchange from offering abortion services.  This restriction goes far beyond existing law, which already prohibits direct Federal funding of abortion services, because it would apply to private insurance plans in which the individual policyholder pays all of the premium.  This amendment, arguably the most significant abridgment of women's reproductive rights in recent years, may well prove the downfall of the bill.  Womens's groups will certainly mobilize against it, while the bishops have threatened to do all in their power to block health care reform if the Stupak amendment does not survive - an extraordinarily arrogant affront to the separation of church and state and and an acknowledgment that the Church's support for the "right to life" does not extend to the estimated 46,000 Americans who die each year because they lack adequate health insurance.

The Stupak Amendment aside, the fundamental problem is that the House bill, together with its equally unsatisfactory Senate counterpart, will preserve and indeed strengthen the very worst aspect of the current system, creating a Gordian knot of mandates and tax subsidies binding together employment and  health care insurance.  It will also increase reliance on a for-profit system in which the primary obligation of those who provide and fund health care is to their shareholders, not their patients.  To quote Congressman Kucinich: 

“We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care.  We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are.  But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem."

The fact that health industry lobbyists have even had a seat at the table reflects a belief by many of those we elect to represent us - including Barack Obama - that they an equal or greater obligation to the health insurance industry.  As previously predicted in these pages, Obama's much vaunted skills of persuasion will be dedicated not to "knocking heads together" on Capitol Hill in order to get a better bill (as Rep. John Conyers recently urged) but to convincing the American public that the existing bill is something it is not - genuine health care reform.  I think this time he's underestimating the intelligence of the electorate and exhausting the patience of many of those who supported him.

So what is a good Congressional Democrat to do when the final bill comes up for a vote?  Vote yes, on the basis that something is better than nothing, or vote no and hold out for real reform.  After reading the House bill, I am coming to the conclusion that the latter may be the better option.  Accepting this bill will likely kill any chance of real reform for a generation.  If it passes, Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will cynically declare victory and move on to other less challenging issues.  But the Democrats' willingness to accept a deal dictated in good measure by health industry lobbyists (and, if the Stupak amendment prevails, by the Conference of Catholic Bishops) will disenchant the progressive base that turned out in large numbers in the 2008 election, thereby virtually assuring a low Democratic voter turnout, and big Republican gains, in next year's mid-term elections.

If Democrats do vote for a watered-down reform bill, they should visibly hold their collective noses while they do so.  They should make clear that, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, this vote is not the end of the end in the battle for health care reform, or even the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.  Regardless whether the bill becomes law, Democrats must contest the next election on a platform of a single payer or "Medicare For All" solution.  The so-called "bluedogs" in the party, many of whom have resolutely opposed any form of health care reform, need to decide which side of the aisle they really want to sit on.  If they are not wiling to support the program on which Barack Obama was elected,  they shouldn't get a penny in campaign funding from the DNC, and the party should actively seek out progressives to run against them in primaries; the same should be true for Barack Obama himself, whose credentials as an agent of change look more suspect with each week that passes.

On a more immediate note, the sanctimonious Joe Lieberman, who has already announced he will collaborate with Republicans in attempting to ensure that the bill doesn't even come to a vote on the Senate floor if his paymasters in the insurance industry don't like it, should be stripped of his committee chairmanship and expelled from the Democratic caucus.   The "big tent" theory is all well and good, but it is no substitute for a party that actually believes in something, and has the will and ability to keep its promises to the voters.   In short, the Democrats need fewer time-serving bought-and-paid-for political hacks like "Traitor Joe" Lieberman and more honest mean and women like Dennis Kucinich.

Kucinich is the type of politician the right-wing windbags at Fox News et al love to hate.  He is an old-fashioned Liberal and isn't ashamed to admit it.  His policy position are driven by principle, not expediency.  He isn't afraid to answer tough questions, and he answers them  directly.  You don't have to peel away layers of nuance and double talk to figure out where he really stands on the issues.  Unlike his pompous and self-promoting House colleague Alan Grayson (the self-styled "Congressman with guts"), Kucinich doesn't descend to Republican-style attack politics to make his point on health care.  And unlike Barack Obama, he unerstands that the best way to counter the likes of Fox News is not to boycott them but to take them  on head-to-head.   Unfortunately Dennis Kucinich is unlikely ever to win the Democratic nomination - we have seen repeatedly that the hollow traits of "charisma" and "pragmatism" invariably trump brains and conviction, and that rhetoric beats outsubstance every time.  However, I hope he keeps trying.  He reminds people of the values that the Democratic party supposedly stands for.  Unfortunately there aren't too many others that do.

We the Subjects

The city of Philadelphia is rich in cultural and historical attractions.  One of my favorites is the National Constitution Center, an institution dedicated to increasing public understanding of, and appreciation for, the Constitution of the United States.   Through a series of dramatic presentations and interactive exhibits, the Center describes the origins of the War of Independence, the adoption of the Articles of Confederation and the drafting and evolution of the Federal Constitution.   A visit to the center provides a reminder of the type of nation envisaged by the founding fathers; one of equality under the law, free of aristocratic rights and privileges.

How ironic, absurd even, that the National Constitution Center would play host to "Diana - A Celebration", Earl Spencer's traveling circus that "showcases [the] unique life and the legacy" of his late sister, Diana Princess of Wales.

The exhibit, which runs through December 31, is on loan from the Althorp Estate, the family home of the Spencer family, and is now on its second tour of the United States.  It is a tedious and unmemorable collection of costume jewelry, designer gowns, family photos and the like, seemingly intended to promote the Spencer family in general as much as Diana in particular.  To this end, an entire gallery is devoted to the "important women" of the Spencer family who, according to the official handout, "helped shape the culture of their age" (whatever that means).  A convoluted family tree purportedly demonstrates Diana's close familial links with the monarchy, and generally touts the Spencers as one of the most significant aristocratic lines in Britain.  Of course the most important gallery is saved for last - the souvenir shop, offering fake tiaras and other overpriced knick-knacks bearing the family crest.  I was curious to see what the visitors packing the exhibit thought about all of this nonsense and scanned the Comments Book on my way out.  I was depressed to find that every entry was a gushing tribute to the Princess and/or the exhibit and/or the Spencer family - but then again, I suppose that is the type of visitor the exhibit is intended to attract.

Earl Spencer has been criticized in Britain for attempting to cash in on his sister's memory.  I have no idea how much U.S. punters will be contributing to the family coffers; according to the exhibit's web site, profits go to the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Trust, but only after the Spencer family takes its cut, which equals at least 10 percent of the retail sales price of the merchandise sold in the U.S.  That's 10 percent of the retail sales price, not 10 percent of the profit.  As the English would say, "a nice little earner".

Ironically, the Spencers' attempts to use the Diana exhibit to hone their own aristocratic credentials tend to undercut the carefully-crafted image of Diana as the "People's Princess".  In the course of her very public estrangement from Prince Charles, she played (with the assistance of PR advisers and favored journalists) on the sympathies of the British people, portraying herself as the victim of a cold and arrogant system.  And in some senses she was.  But as the exhibit shows, she was also a product, and indeed a beneficiary, of that same system.   She and her family knew better than most the rules by which the game is played in the royal family.  She naively believed, to her cost, that she could change them.  She could not.  She learned too late that the system is one that readily devours its own, and at the end of the day that is really the ultimate tragedy of Diana.

I have no doubt that most of the people forking over their $23 to view the Diana exhibit are enthralled not just by her, but by the monarchy itself.  I have never understood the fascination that Americans have for the British royal family, given the efforts they went through to get rid of them.  But come to that, I confess I have never understood the fascination that many Britons sill have for them.  It is frankly absurd that in any modern democracy the position of Head of State should pass by heredity.  The very existence of the royal family, with its attendant legion of lesser aristocracy and social-climbing hangers-on, has long had a stultifying effect on the rest of British society, perpetuating an invidious class system and in turn impeding social mobility.  This isn't mere speculation.  A 2009 study by researchers at the London School of Economics and the Sutton Trust found that Britain and the U.S. have the lowest rates of social mobility among the eight developed nations studied, and that in Britain the rate is actually declining, notwithstanding increases in expenditures on education.

The current occupants of Buckingham Palace have shallow British roots.  They are basically German imports, a combination of the houses of Hanover and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, who had the good sense to adopt the name "Windsor" in 1917, as Britain fought the armies of their cousin the Kaiser.  A few have served in the military (Prince Andrew did so with distinction during the Falklands conflict and Prince Harry served briefly with British forces in Afghanistan) but in general the Windsors have done little if anything to earn the respect or admiration of the people whose taxes support their lavish lifestyles.  Opponents of the monarchy portray them as a rather dim-witted group of reactionary and profligate philistines, with an ill-concealed contempt for those who foot their bills.   I happen to share this view, but I believe a more serious problem is that they just don't seem to understand the concept of a "constitutional monarchy" and refuse to acknowledge the impropriety of meddling in affairs of state or using their public office for personal gain.

Former government ministers have disclosed the repeated and entirely improper efforts of Prince Charles (whose views on most subjects could most charitably be described as "eccentric") to interfere in public policy and planning decisions.  In one recent and highly publicized case, he brazenly used his influence to have a leading British architect removed from a multi-billion dollar redevelopment project in West London, so that an architect of his choosing could be brought in.  Charles, whose views on architecture appear to be mired somewhere in the mid-eighteenth century, nonetheless regards himself as an authority on the subject, and seems intent on turning London into an outdated architectural pastiche better suited to the "Olde Englande" pavilion at Disneyworld than to a modern capital city.  His eccentricities don't stop with his opinions on architecture.  His "Duchy Originals" company, which peddles high-priced organic health supplements and prepared meals, recently found itself  in hot water with regulatory authorities for making unsubstantiated claims about the therapeutic effects of two herbal concoctions, while a third such product, the so-called "Duchy Herbals Detox Tincture" was branded by one expert as "outright quackery".   Always quick to lecture others about what's good for the country, Charles recently proposed that Britons should give up their cars in favor of public transportation.  Good advice perhaps, were it not coming from a man who owns two Jaguars, two Audis, a Range Rover and an Aston Martin, and who has consistently fought government proposals to scrap the royal family's private train, funded by the hapless British taxpayer to the tune of over $1.1 million per year.  The mere possibility of this man ascending the throne should be enough to send shivers down the spine of anyone who believes in a transparent and representative democracy.

Or consider the case of his younger brother Prince Andrew, who for some unaccountable reason was able to get himself appointed as a roving "trade ambassador" for Britain, and whose frequent taxpayer-funded first class junkets have earned him the nickname "AirMiles Andy".  The Prince, who needless to say has no actual experience in trade or commerce,  incurred the wrath of MPs earlier this year when he refused to make public a report he himself had commissioned from Pricewaterhouse Coopers in the hope it would demonstrate his effectiveness in the post.  Last month he again drew widespread criticism when he foolishly chose to weigh in on domestic economic issues about which he he equally ill-acquainted, defending the huge bonuses paid to City bankers and urging the government not to proceed with plans to close tax loopholes that favor wealthy non-domiciliary UK residents (many of whom, no doubt, he regularly sees on the golf course or polo field).   This is not the first time the aging playboy turned "ambassador" has embarrassed the government with his verbal gaffes.  He should never have been given the job in the first place, and needs to be shown the door before he causes further damage and wastes more taxpayer money.

The youngest of the three "Windsor" brothers, the Earl of Wessex, and his wife, are no strangers to scandal either.  He is alleged to have used public funds for an overseas trip during which he sought to raise cash for his ailing TV production company, which happened to be based in a facility that had been renovated at the public's expense.  In a separate incident, his overly-ambitious wife was taped making indiscreet remarks about members of the royal family and some leading politicians to an investigative journalist posing as a sheik, apparently in an effort to secure a lucrative contract for a PR firm in which she had an interest.

The royals have survived one scandal after another because they have learned the importance of a well-oiled PR machine.  They have also been able to count on a cadre of fawning hacks in the right wing press to keep making the case that the monarchy represents "good value for money".  That is an increasingly difficult argument to make, and the royal spongers don't exactly help their own cause.  In the face of an economic crisis that has lead to spending cuts throughout the British economy the Guardian newspaper disclosed that the royals were demanding an increase in the "Civil List" - the annual laundry list of taxpayer handouts for the Queen and her family - even though they currently have a surplus of over $30 million in the kitty.  They apparently won't get their increase - even the usually compliant Tories have said no to that - but it seems they will not be asked to take a cut either.  Had they any sense of civic responsibility (or simple common decency), they would have offered  to take a cut.  But they apparently have no interest in sharing any of the sacrifices their subjects might have to make. The time has come to call a halt to this.  The monarchy performs no function - from opening Parliament to opening garden fetes - that could not be performed as or more effectively, at lower cost and with greater transparency and public accountability, by an elected Head of State or other elected official. 

Abolishing the anachronistic institution of the monarchy would not only save money but - more importantly - would be an important step towards eliminating the insidious and pervasive web of patronage and privilege that permeates British society. At the very least, Britons deserve to vote in a referendum on the subject.  Proponents of the status quo should have no objection - assuming, that is, that they really believe they can sell the case that the monarchy earns its keep.  After all, public endorsement of the monarchical system in a referendum would give it a legitimacy it currently lacks.  Regrettably the Liberal Democrats are alone among the major political parties in advocating a referendum on the future of the monarchy.  Gordon Brown and his New Labour colleagues would do well to endorse the proposal too, as they look for ways to regain some political momentum and avoid the general election defeat now looks increasing inevitable.

A European Diversion - Blair for President?

As the debate rumbles on in Washington over the economy, health care reform and the military strategy in Afghanistan, a controversy of a different kind is brewing "across the pond".  Who will become the first "President of Europe"?  A leading contender, though of course he claims not to be actively seeking the office, is former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.  In addition to the British Government, his principal backer appears to be his old friend and ally, the scandal-plagued lothario Silvio Berlusconi.  They say that you can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps. If that's true, then the support of the right wing and increasingly erratic Italian Prime Minister should be grounds enough to rule Blair out of contention.  Bu there are other more serious reasons why Blair is the wrong man for the job.

First of all, some context. The post, technically "President of the European Council" is an new one, created by the Lisbon Treaty, which now awaits only the ratification of Czechoslovakia if it is to enter into effect as planned on January 1, 2010.  The President would be appointed by the Council of Member States (i.e., in effect, by their heads of government) for a term of 30 month.  This would replace the existing system under which the Presidency of the Council rotates among Member States for periods of 6 months at a time.  There is no requirement that the appointment be approved by the European Parliament, and a President could be removed only by the Council of Ministers.  Officially, the role of the President is largely administrative: to chair meetings of the Council and report on those proceedings to the European Parliament.  In addition, however, together with the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (a position also created by the Lisbon Treaty), the President would represent Europe on the international stage.  And it is in the area of foreign policy that the role of President will largely be shaped.

So why is Blair a bad choice?   Lord Owen, who served as Foreign Secretary under Jim Callaghan's Labour government, summed it up perfectly.  Quoted recently in the Guardian newspaper, he had this to say:

"Lord Butler on 22 February 2007 [in his report into the origins of war in Iraq] made devastatingly clear why Tony Blair is not a fit and proper person to preside over Council meetings of European heads of government. Butler used the word 'disingenuous' to describe how Blair was told by the UK intelligence community 'we know little about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons work since late 1988' and yet told parliament just over a month later that the picture painted by our intelligence services was 'extensive, detailed and authoritative'. Like contempt of court, contempt of parliament should always be a disqualification for holding high office."  

I differ from David Own only in my view that Blair's contempt of parliament - or, perhaps better put,  contempt for parliament - was not limited to the events leading up to the Iraq War, but was a pervasive characteristic of his term in office.  The greatest British Prime Ministers, from William Pitt to Winston Churchill, were first and foremost parliamentarians.  (Persons of the Conservative persuasion may include Baroness Thatcher in the "greatest" list; I would disagree with that, but would concur as to her stature as a parliamentarian.)  They understood and respected the fact that under the British system Parliament is the supreme authority in the land.  They understood and respected the principle of cabinet government and the role of the Prime Minister as "primus inter pares" - first among equals.  They understood and respected the fact that the Prime Minister's foremost responsibility is to account fully and truthfully to Parliament for his or her government's actions.  Above all, they understood and respected the fact that the powers of the Prime Minister are circumscribed not so much by statute as by the respect that the holder of the office has for the British constitution and traditions of government.

Blair, by contrast, neither understood nor respected any of this.

Professor George Jones, Emeritus Professor of Government at the London School of Economics, has commented that Blair  "had been used to working with a small number of like-minded cronies" and "almost seemed to despise collective decision making".  From the start, Blair adopted not just a Presidential style, but a Presidential style of the worst possible order.  He surrounded himself with a coterie of PR consultants and "spin doctors".  Policy announcements were leaked to favored journalists, rather than unveiled in Westminster.   His use of patronage to appoint political friends and party contributors to public offices led to the coining of the term "Tony's Cronies" and to a major "Cash for Honors" scandal involving "New Labour" fundraiser Lord Levy or, as he was better known among the party faithful,  "Lord Cashpoint".  Blair tinkered needlessly with British constitution, reducing the independence of the Judiciary, and pushed through controversial legislation banning political demonstrations within one kilometre of Westminster Square - an unprecedented restriction on freedom of speech and peaceful dissent directed primarily at anti-war protesters.  In place of traditional Cabinet government, where decisions are reached through consensus, Blair opted for what came to be known as "sofa government", in which key Cabinet members were "persuaded" to Blair's way of thinking over tea and biscuits in his den, before decisions were rubber-stamped by the Cabinet.    The enquiry into the Iraq War headed by Lord Butler, to which Lord Owen was referring in the remarks quoted above, criticized the "informality" of Blair's syle, noting that ministers were frequently not even provided with key documents in advance of meetings at which they were expected to take decisions for which they were expected to assume collective responsibility.  And in a country with an established church but a decidedly secular tradition of government, Blair too often let his personal religious views intrude into public life, causing the satirical magazine Private Eye to nickname him "the Vicar".

There is every reason why the post should not go to a British candidate, whether Blair or anyone else for that matter.  Britain has never fully embraced the concept of a united Europe.  It has periodically (albeit not without some justification) found itself at odds with its European partners over key domestic policy issues such as the Common Agricultural Policy and the U.K.'s contribution to the community budget.  It opted out of certain key provisions of the Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties and it is not a member of the European Monetary Union.  Gordon Brown's decision to deny British voters a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was perceived by many as reflecting a concern  that the Treaty would go down to defeat.  David Cameron, who looks set to replace Gordon Brown as Prime Minister at some point within the next eight months, has acknowledged urging Czech President Vaclav Klaus to delay ratification of the Treaty until his Conservative party takes office, in order that a referendum can be held in Britain.  (If that strategy works, and Britons have a opportunity to vote, the possibility of the broadly unpopular Blair assuming the Presidency of the European Council would inevitably become a lightning rod for anti-European sentiment - a potentially disastrous result for Britain.)

If Blair does get the job, it will likely be by default.  True, there are other possible candidates.  Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Junker has announced his interest.  His Dutch counterpart Jan Peter Balkenende has also been mentioned as a possible contender, as has former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez.  However, Blair will be doubtless be touted as the man who can give Europe the greatest clout on the international scene - even though his close association with the disastrous foreign policy of George W. Bush would almost certainly prove an impediment to European diplomacy, especially in the Arab world.   However, European leaders would do well to heed Lord Owen's warning and consider long and hard the record of arrogance and personal ambition evident in Blair's approach to governance, as they assess his suitability for a position with such ill-defined powers and so little accountability.

Obama's Finger on the "Trigger"

I have repeatedly expressed my skepticism about Barack Obama's commitment to "real" health care reform - and by "real" I mean reform that includes a strong public option, such as "Medicare for all".  Further reason for skepticism emerged on Friday afternoon.  Amid encouraging reports that the vacillating Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now leaning in favor of including some form of public option in the bill that will go to the Senate floor, came news from Talking Points Memo that Barack Obama is weighing in against it.  He is reportedly pushing Republican Senator Olympia Snowe's half-baked "trigger" proposal, under which a public option would be deferred for five years and implemented only if the private health insurance companies fail to bring down insurance premium costs themsleves.  Some pundits expressed shock; I was about as shocked as Inspector Renault when confronted with evidence of gambling in Rick's Cafe.

The trigger is objectionable for several reasons.  First, for every year that the status quo continues, up to 45,000 Americans may die because they lack adequate health insurance.   Delay is no longer a morally acceptable solution.  Second, the political reality is that the trigger is essentially a delaying tactic intended to stymie the public option indefinitely.  Republicans are well aware that if Democrats are successful in passing a strong public option - Medicare for all, for example - it will quickly become as popular as the original Medicare program.  Even should Republicans regain control of Congress in the near future, tampering with Medicare for all would be political suicide.    But a trigger is readily amenable to tampering; cost containment targets can be adjusted, compliance periods extended.  However, the best argument against a trigger was provided by the health insurance industry itself.  Shortly prior to the Senate Finance Committee vote, health insurers released a report, commissioned from PriceWaterhouse Coopers, purporting to prove that premiums would rise significantly should the Finance Committee bill (which does not contain a public option) become law.  The integrity of that report leaves something to be desired - to say the least - and was apparently a crude attempt to pressure the Finance Committee to increase the penalties that would be imposed on individuals who fail to purchase private health insurance.  But the report conclusively refutes any expectation that may previously have existed that the health insurance industry will be able or willing to contain premium costs absent a strong (and immediate) public option.

Support for a strong public option remains as strong as ever among voters and most Congressional Democrats now seem to be getting on board - thanks to the persistence of Nancy Pelosi, Anthony Weiner, Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer and others, but no thanks at all to President Obama.  Having watched from the sidelines for months, why is he now throwing his diminishing political weight behind the "trigger" proposal and against a strong public option?  Apparently because he is obsessed with obtaining a "bipartisan" solution, even if "bipartisan" translates to a single Republican vote and fails to deliver the real health care reform he promised on the campaign trail.    This may be bad news for the Democratic party and for the nation as a whole.  But it should come as a relief to anyone still genuinely concerned that Obama is pursuing some secret socialist agenda that will destroy the country as we know it.  We're not likely to see any of that  - unless, of course, he can persuade Olympia Snowe to get on board.

Addendum: Notes from the Garden State. 

 I was surprised recently to see a slick TV campaign commercial touting the health care record of New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Menendez.  The ad exhorts viewers to call the Senator's office to say "thanks for standing  up for seniors and fighting for their Medicare".  I was surprised for several reasons.  First, notwithstanding right wing rhetoric, Medicare benefits have never been under serious threat in the current health care debate.  Second, although New Jersey is currently embroiled in a depressingly uninspiring gubernatorial campaign, Mr. Menendez does not have to defend his Senate seat until 2012.  And third, while Senator Menendez, to his credit, voted in favor of a public option amendment on the Senate Finance Committee, his more visible contribution during the Committee stage was to vote with the Republicans against a Democratic amendment that would have lowered the amount the Federal government pays for medication for dual-eligible Medicare and Medicaid patients.  The proposal, by Senator Nelson, would have eliminated the current "sweetheart" arrangement that prohibits the Federal government from purchasing these drugs in bulk.  (Obama also let it be known that he opposed the amendment, having earlier cut a backroom deal with the pharmaceutical lobby pledging to preserve the current arrangement.)  In addition, despite the overarching requirement that the Senate Finance Committee bill should not increase the deficit,  Menendez successfully sponsored an amendment to provide generous tax credits for biotechnology firms.

So who is paying for the TV ads praising the Senator's efforts on behalf of health care "reform"?  An organization called the HealthCare Institute of New Jersey, which describes itself as " a trade association for the research-based pharmaceutical and medical technology industry in New Jersey."  In other words, the same crowd that will benefit directly from Menendez' votes on the Senate Finance Committee, and that also contributes generously to his campaign kitty.  

The Wall Street Journal recently reported on the efforts of some senior Democratic proponents of health care reform to skew the legislation to support special interests and enhance their own chances of re-election.  The extent to which these provisions survive in the bill that goes to the Senate floor will be the true test of Harry Reid's leadership.

Stimulus Revisited

In the latter part of last week the government delivered a triple dose of discouraging economic news.

On Thursday, the Offices of the Inspectors General published data detailing how the Obama Administration’s $787 billion stimulus package (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) is being implemented. The figures show that Federal contracts awarded under the stimulus plan have so far saved or created a meager 30,383 jobs, at an apparent costs of $528,000 each. The same day, the General Accounting Office published its Fall 2009 Update of the Federal Government’s Long-Term Fiscal Outlook. The report projects that within ten years the U.S. public debt, measured as a percentage of GDP, will have exceeded the record high level of 109% reached in 1946, and will continue to climb steadily thereafter to 200 percent and beyond. The GAO concludes that the “long-term fiscal outlook remains unsustainable”. The following day brought confirmation from the Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget that the Federal deficit for the 2009 fiscal year, which ended on September 30, 2009, was a record $1.417 trillion. This news came on the heels of reports that the Administration and Congressional Democrats are considering further  tax cuts and additional spending to jump-start the economy and, in particular, reverse the continuing rise in unemployment.   Before even thinking about additional spending or tax cuts that would add to record deficits, the Administration needs to take a very critical look at what its original measures have accomplished.

First, though, a quick economic retrospective. In their statement announcing the deficit for FY 2009, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and OMB Director Peter Orswag were predictably quick to blame George Bush, asserting that the deficit for FY 2009 “was largely the product of the spending and tax policies inherited from the previous Administration, exacerbated by a severe recession and financial crisis that were underway as the current Administration took office.” Given his prior position as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Geither is not in the best position to point fingers, but he is right nonetheless. There can be no question that the prior Administration’s reckless (or perhaps simply clueless) economic and fiscal policies were major drivers of the current crisis.

The final four budgets of the Clinton Presidency (including “off budget” receipts and outlays) were in surplus, with Bush inheriting a budget surplus of $128 billion for FY 2001 and a national debt, as of the end of the fiscal year, of $5.8 trillion - 57.4 % of gross domestic product. By the time Obama took office, the debt had ballooned to $10.6 trillion, or roughly 90% of GDP, a higher percentage than any year since the aftermath of World War Two. Part of the increase is attributable to fiscal policy; Bush resorted to discredited “trickle-down” theories to justify irresponsible tax cuts that benefited primarily the wealthiest Americans. Citizens for Tax Justice, a non-partisan tax research group, recently estimated that the Bush tax cuts will have added more than 2.48 trillion to the deficit by the time they expire in 2010, with over one quarter of that amount flowing into the pockets of the 1 percent wealthiest taxpayers. The estimated cost for 2009-10 alone, is $640 million.

In the waning months of his Presidency, Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson presided over the ill-conceived Troubled Assets Relief Plan (TARP) a panic-driven over-response to a crisis resulting in large measure from the Bush Administration's own lax and complacent approach toward regulating Wall Street. Total commitments under TARP now exceed $450 billion - nobody seems to know for certain what the final tab will be. The trade balance also deteriorated sharply under Bush, as the domestic manufacturing sector declined; the balance of payments deficit, which stood at 380 billion in 2000, had grown to 696 billion by 2008.

Bush’s fiscal and economic policies also widened the gap between rich and poor. Seasonally adjusted unemployment rates rose from 4.2 percent in January 2001, when he assumed office, to 7.6 percent in January 2009, when he left. During the Clinton Presidency, annual average civilian unemployment rates fell each year; under Bush, the rate rose or remained flat during 5 out of eight years. Under Clinton, the percentage of the "working poor" (the proportion of people in the workforce for at least 27 weeks during the year who live below the poverty line) declined steadily; under George W. Bush, the rate rose again. A 2008 OECD report found that the United States had the highest poverty rate and highest income inequality rate of any OECD nation save Mexico and Turkey. The earnings gap in the U.S. widened by 20 percent during the latter part of the decade and social mobility remains less than in other developed nations. These are shameful statistics that demonstrate why, for the vast majority of poorer Americans, the “American Dream” will remain just that. If there is any economic or socio-economic metric under which George W. Bush does not rank as the worst President in living memory, I have yet to see it.

Republicans Congressional lawmakers who presided over this descent into economic chaos have now reinvented themselves as “deficit hawks”. The voted en masse against Obama’s initial $787 billion stimulus and are lining up to oppose Round Two, should there be one. But that is the question; should there be one? My answer is no – not because I don’t believe in the virtues of fiscal stimulus, but rather because I don’t trust the current Administration or Congress to get it right. They certainly didn't first time around.

The first stimulus package was sold to the American public as a plan that would put people back to work quickly. We heard a lot about “shovel-ready” projects that could be implemented within weeks of funds being allocated. Proponents invoked memories of Franklin Roosevelt’s great public works projects that helped lift the nation out of recession in the 1930s. And so it could have been in 2009, had the funds been carefully targeted and promptly deployed. The stimulus package provided a rare opportunity not only to create much needed jobs, but also rebuild roads, bridges, public buildings and public housing that are crumbling from years of neglect, the result in part of states deferring non-essential maintenance in order to balance budgets. In the short-term, infrastructure projects create well-paying jobs in the construction sector and boost demand for steel, cement, asphalt, lumber, heavy equipment and the like. They also serve obvious broad societal benefits that endure for years - we all get to drive on better roads, travel on new and faster trains, enjoy better public facilities or have a better place to live. We were also told that stimulus funding would be targeted toward “green” industries, spurring the creation of cutting-edge environmental technologies that would provide long-term economic and social benefits to the economy in the long term, as well as much-needed jobs in the short term. That also sounded pretty exciting. So what actually happened?

The first problem is that, as eventually enacted, the Obama stimulus plan owed as much to Ronald Reagan as to John Maynard Keynes. The $787 billion is made up of tax cuts ($288 billion), government grants, loans and contracts ($275 billion) and entitlements ($224 billion). I don't believe that tax cuts are an effective stimulus, at least in the short term. At the individual level, reducing someone’s taxes by a few dollars a week provides an immediate benefit only to those that already have jobs; reductions in personal income tax create new jobs only if the recipients of the tax cuts spend that additional money on goods or services that originate in the U.S. In times of economic uncertainty, recipients are more likely to use the additional cash to bring their mortgage up to date, pay down their credit card balances or simply save the money, rather than recycle it back into the domestic economy. Even if some do increase spending – on a new TV or cell phone, for example - the likely beneficiaries will be in China, Taiwan or Mexico, where the goods are likely to have been manufactured. The most effective measure Congress could take in terms of tax policy is to repeal the Bush tax cut - or at least stand firm against attempts to extend the cuts after their scheduled expiration date in 2010. But many Congressional Democrats, like their Republican counterparts, can’t seem to resist the temptation to try to buy votes with tax cuts. With the mid-term elections approaching, it is almost inevitable that if Congress gets its hands on another stimulus plan, the result will be more tax cuts that will increase the deficit without providing an offsetting economic stimulus.

The second problem with the initial stimulus plan is that it is unfocused; the $787 billion is spread around 28 Federal agencies and organizations, some of which by their very nature can do little if anything to stimulate the economy. Moreover, much of the funding is not allocated to specific purposes and disbursement is left to broad agency discretion. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services (which is the biggest conduit for stimulus funds, with $122 billion at its disposal) has announced that it will spend up to $650 million for chronic disease prevention - a worthwhile goal no doubt, but the agency’s press release announcing the program doesn’t even attempt to explain how this will provide economic stimulus. Or how about the Department of Education, which was given $100 billion to spend on education funding, college grants and tuition tax credits? $40 million of this is to be doled out to states as “stabilization funds” to help avert education cuts and to promote education reform (whatever that means). Don’t get me wrong – I’m all in favor of increasing funding for education, but the fact is that these expenditures will create virtually no new jobs. The Department of Agriculture plans to allocate most of its $52 billion (which includes various loan guarantee programs) to nutrition assistance ($21 billion) and rural community development ($27 billion). The list goes on and on, with little indication of how these programs will spur employment. In fact, the biggest job creation may be on K Street, as would-be beneficiaries of “stimulus” funding call their lobbyists and lawyers to find out how they can cash in.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, it seems that most agencies are struggling to come up with ways to spend the huge amounts of tax dollars that have been shoveled into their coffers. As of October 8, only 22 percent of the initial $787 billion stimulus had been paid out, and only 17 percent of the portion allocated to grants, loans and contracts had actually been disbursed. The Department of Transportation, charged with overseeing grants to fund major infrastructure projects, has paid out less than 10% of the $45 billion allotted to it. But of perhaps greater concern is the fact that, according to the most recent government data, the $16 billion so far allocated to Federal contracts has created or saved only 30,383 jobs; this translates to an average cost of $528,000 per job. Further data showing the job creation effects of grants and loan guarantees are due at the end of this month, but what we have seen so far does not provide grounds for encouragement.

I had a certain sense of deja vu when I read recently that the Administration may be weighing a second round of spending targeted specifically at transportation and infrastructure. Isn't that what the original plan was supposed to have done? The Administration seems to believe that the sluggish response to the first stimulus package justifies more of the same. I suggest the contrary is true, and that before considering spending an additional penny, Congress and the Administration need to provide voters with a better accounting of how the existing funds are being used to create jobs, freeze further disbursements on wasteful programs that will not stimulate the economy and re-allocate those funds to more productive use. $787 billion is more than enough stimulus, if it is used properly.

Obama's Health Care Snowe Job

“Now is not the time to pat ourselves on the back”, the President proclaimed. "Now is not the time to offer ourselves congratulations." How right he was. If only he really meant it.

He was reacting, of course, to the so-called “bipartisan” health care bill that had passed the Senate Finance Committee a few hours earlier. It is astonishing that he could tout this bill, which bears little resemblance to the principles he outlined in his address to a joint session of Congress a few short weeks ago, as “a critical milestone” that brings us “closer than ever before to passing health reform.” Equally astonishing that in Obama’s mind the support of a single Republican Senator – Olympia Snowe – apparently qualifies the bill as “bipartisan”.

It becomes more apparent with every passing day that Obama lacks an ideological commitment to serious health care reform. I don't buy the alternative argument that he simply lacks the political savvy to translate campaign promises into legislation, even with the benefit of substantial majorities in both Houses of Congress. If that is the case, then he has been out-maneuvered at every turn by the proponents of the status quo. Polls show that a majority of Americans favor either a single payer system or a strong public option. Had Obama shared that view, the obvious negotiating strategy, and one that would have had broad public support, would have been to push for a single payer system and “settle” for a public option. But Obama and Max Baucus, the Senate Finance Committee Chairman, effectively took not only the single payer solution but also the public option off the table even before sitting down to negotiate.

When Obama returned from vacation on September 1 he had to confront a growing groundswell of criticism from progressive Democrats dissatisfied by his failure to press for the public option they view as an essential element of health care reform. Obama's carefully crafted response was to re-affirm that he “favored” the public option as one possible means of cost containment. Not "demanded", "favored". Most seemed to overlook the choice of words, but the signal to Baucus, Grassley et al was clear.

Obama has tried to justify abandoning the public option by stressing the value of “bipartisanship”, as if bipartisanship was a goal in itself. What we are witnessing is not even bipartisanship; it is the triumph of special interests over the interests of the American people – in other words, business as usual. But to take the analysis a stage further, why should bipartisanship be a goal in the first place? Why should Obama care whether or not the Republicans support health care reform? Instead of attempting to schmooze the special interests, Obama should have played hardball with the Democrats and made clear to the so-called "bluedogs", many of whom rode into Congress on Obama's coattails, that they should get behind the party's platform or fend for themselves in the 2010 elections. The legislative process is partisan to its core, and that’s a good thing. Our democracy is founded on the principle that the electorate can chose between parties of differing philosophies and the prevailing party then has a mandate to implement the policies on which it ran. Perhaps Obama genuinely believes that a majority supports bipartisanship as an end, or even as a means to an end. But if so, he is missing a very fundamental distinction between bipartisanship and civility. People are not disenchanted when their elected representatives fight to promote the policies on which they were elected. That’s what they expect them to do. It is the terms of engagement that voters don’t like; the shrillness of the debate; the rhetoric intended to scare or confuse, rather than to inform; the personal attacks; above all, the pervasive and corrupting influence of money.

There is a saying in Washington that “elections have consequences”.  Many people expected that this over-used cliche might actually gain some currency following the election of a candidate ostensibly dedicated to “change”. But that is not what we have seen, at least in the case of the health care debate, where special interests have demonstrated that their grip on the legislative process remains as firm as ever, especially in the case of the Senate Finance Committee. The Committee Chairman, Max Baucus, is the leading Congressional beneficiary of health industry largesse. Between 2003 and 2008 he reportedly pocketed an astonishing $3 million in campaign contributions, with half of that total coming in the last two years after he assumed the Committee Chairmanship. Baucus delegated preparation of the initial draft of the bill, the “Chairman’s mark”, to the so-called “Gang of Six”; three Democrats (Baucus-MT, Conrad-ND and Bingaman-NM and) and three Republicans (Grassley-IA, Snowe-ME and Enzi-WY). This neutralized the Democratic majority on the Committee as a whole, and effectively assured an industry-friendly bill.  In a travesty of the democratic process, Baucus excluded Senators from the most populous states – like Chuck Schumer of New York.  The Gang of Six between them represent less than 3 percent of the nation’s population.

However, the special interests received their usual attentions and favors.  Candidate Obama had criticized the influence of the drug companies on Capitol Hill, but President Obama secretly negotiated a deal with Big Pharma to block Congressional action to allow the Government to negotiate drug prices, undercutting the efforts of Congressional Democrats to rein in prescription drug costs. (Two Democrats, Menendez of New Jersey and Carper of Delaware, subsequently put their mouths where their money comes from and joined Baucus in voting against an amendment that would have generated savings in drug prices. Menendez, a self-proclaimed advocate of health care reform, has reportedly taken $1.2 million in campaign contributions from the health care sector.) To say that the health insurance lobby was closely involved in the drafting would be an understatement.  Much of the bill was reportedly drafted by one Liz Fowler, Baucus' senior adviser on healthcare matters.  Prior to working for Baucus,  Fowler was the Vice President of Public Policy for Wellpoint; she recently traded jobs with Baucus’ former adviser. And union and business lobbies teamed up to defeat the Wyden Free Choice amendment, which would have allowed employees dissatisfied with their company health insurance plan to shop around; Baucus ensured that the amendment was thrown out on spurious technical grounds. About the only special interest not represented was the American people, including the 45,000 who, according to Harvard University researchers, will die this year because they don’t have adequate health insurance.

Which brings me back to Olympia Snowe. Obama's plaudits were apparently insufficient gratitude for her meaningless vote in favor of the bill she herself helped write (a vote, she stressed, she may in any event reverse when the bill comes to the Senate floor.) The Finance Committee bill must now be merged with the Health Committee bill, which includes a public option. This critical process will be led by a committee comprised of Harry Reid, the Majority Leader, Max Baucus and Chris Dodd, the two Committee Chairmen, and – you guessed it, Olympia Snowe. That is the reward she extracted in return for her vote. Press reports suggest that she is expected to play a significant role in the process and that Harry Reid will go to substantial lengths to keep her happy. Am I alone in thinking that Snowe’s hard won and grudging “support” for the bill was in fact a carefully orchestrated strategem to plant a Republican Trojan horse at the center of the merger process? Whatever the answer, Snowe’s inclusion means that at least two of the four principals involved in merging the legislation – Max Baucus and Olympia Snowe – are on the record as opposing the public option. Don’t hold your breath over how this one will turn out.

“Now is the time to work even harder to get this done.” Inspiring words from the President, and you can be sure he at least will be doing his bit and working harder than ever. Working harder than ever to ensure that no Democrat will have the temerity to offend Olympia Snowe by pressing for a public option and working harder to persuade the electorate that whatever watered-down proposals emerge from this appalling and unseemly process somehow resemble the genuine health care reform candidate Obama promised us. The latter goal may exceed even Obama’s much vaunted powers of persuasion.

Wrong Prescription from Dr. Obama

See my guest piece on Mike Rulle's Law of the Bad Premise.

Tortured Logic

The following is a comment on Mike Rulle's essay "Torture": Bringing it All Back Home published on Mike's blog, Law of the Bad Premise.

I commend you for venturing a justification for "waterboarding" that does not rely on the usual argument that it is at worst a necessary evil - something that successfully elicits critical information, not otherwise obtainable, from those seeking to do us harm. I happen not to believe the premise, but the fact of the matter is that the debate over whether waterboarding "works" has too obscured the underlying moral issues.

Is "Waterboarding" Illegal Under Existing Law?

Before I venture a view on whether waterboarding "should be" legal, it is relevant to discuss whether it currently is legal, because those who hold public office have an obligation to uphold the law as it is, not as they believe it should be. Debating whether waterboarding is "torture" may be an "intellectual punt" when discussing the morality of the practice, but from a legal perspective it is, of course, the very essence of the question. It is a shorthand way of asking whether the practice known as waterboarding falls within the technical definition of "torture" for purposes of treaties and domestic legislation that proscribe and punish torture. If waterboarding does not constitute torture, as the treaties and legislation define it, then the Administration certainly may (and in my view should) take into account the morality of the technique in deciding whether the United States should or should not engage in it. But if waterboarding does meet the definition of torture, then two consequences necessarily follow. First, the Administration should not authorize it and no agency of the U.S. should engage in it. Second, if it happens. the Administration has an obligation to prosecute those who ordered or perpetrated it. For practical purposes, any remaining debate on the topic basically boils down to a question of whether or not we expect our elected officials to follow the law, even if they don't agree with it.

The United States is one of 146 countries that have ratified the UN Convention Against Torture. I mention this because it is unusual for 146 countries to agree on anything, and the mere existence of the Convention suggests a broad, even overwhelming, acceptance of the moral values from which it derives. As relevant to this discussion, the Convention defines "torture" as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession." Signatory States are prohibited from engaging in torture, are required to enact domestic legislation making torture a criminal offense and have an affirmative obligation to prosecute those who have authorized or perpetrated it. The U.S. has enacted legislation (codified in Chapter 113C of Title 18 of the U.S. Code) that incorporates the general definition of torture found in the U.N. Convention and elaborates on the meaning of "severe mental pain or suffering". Persons responsible for authorizing torture may be charged as conspirators. The anti-torture statute applies to torture committed outside the United States, though torture committed within our boarders is prosecutable under a variety of re-existing criminal statutes.
My view (and that of others, such John McCain, whose views on the subject deserve infinitely more respect than mine) is that waterboarding is "torture" for purposes of the U.N. Convention and U.S. law. At the very least, there is in my opinion sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case against those directly and immediately involved in the waterboarding of terrorist suspects, and a further investigation is warranted to determine who else is implicated. Anecdotal evidence and press reports suggest the trail of evidence reaches high into the chain of command. But these issues should properly be decided by courts of law, not by politicians based upon what seems politically expedient at the time - but I return to that later.

Is Waterboarding Moral and Should it be Legal?

I therefore suggest that opposition to waterboarding is not, as you posit, "inconsistent, incoherent and immoral". It is merely an affirmation of the rule of law. But (to address the broader question) I also believe it and any other form of torture should be illegal, and I therefore turn to your argument that waterboarding and similar techniques are justified in part because they are "consistent with war's purpose".

I think the problem with this analysis is threefold. First, the definition of "war" is becoming increasingly illusive. We have had traditional wars between Nation States, such as the Great War and World War Two, metaphorical wars, such as the "War on Want", law enforcement actions, such as the "War on Drugs", and more recently the "War on Terror" which is none of the above but has elements of all three. Torture does not become an accepted practice simply because it takes place against a backdrop of something we refer to as a "war". We don't, for example, torture drug traffickers in order to get information about the whereabouts of the kingpin. One could argue that justifying torture as being consistent with war's purpose is as much of an intellectual punt as stating that waterboarding is immoral if its constitutes torture. It simply asks the question in a different form.
Second, even if we confine the analysis to a "traditional" conflict (you cite WWII), "war" does not have a purpose per se. Its purpose depends on the circumstances of the conflict, and any given conflict will generally have different purposes for the opposing parties. Some purposes may be moral and legal, others will not. So justifying the morality of torture based on the purpose of war begs the question of whether the war in question is moral. Surely torture cannot be justified as moral and/or legal because it is consistent with the purposes of war, if the war itself is immoral and/or illegal? But if not, doesn't this leads to the anomalous result that the "good guys" may use torture, whereas the "bad guys" may not.
Third, and perhaps most important in the context of the current discussion, the "war's purpose" analysis invites exactly the type of "expediency" argument you are seek at the outset to avoid. Your premise that "it is impossible to not waterboard [a suspected terrorist] if we believe it will give us the best chance to get information to prevent hostages from being killed" implies that the practice should be legal - provided we think it will work.

Among nation states, war is an accepted instrument (perhaps the ultimate instrument) of foreign policy. As such, it has for centuries been governed by standards that derive from generally accepted norms of morality, which evolve with time. The Geneva Convention is merely the latest embodiment of these standards. Countries are not free to dispense with those minimum standards of morality simply because they are at war and wars kill people. The bombing of civilian populations during WWII by both the Allies and Germans does raise troubling issues. I think it is fair to say, however, that the practice offended the "rules of war" as they then existed. Perhaps this was simply because the technology of aerial bombardment had evolved more quickly than the rules of war, and I would venture to suggest that, by contemporary standards, bombing of civilian populations, and the use of weapons that cause an unnecessary degree of what we euphemistically refer to as "collateral damage", do offend fundamental moral values and are illegal under international law. In any event, the bombing of London, Coventry, Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, et al during WWII does not in my view justify the use of torture half a century later. Neither does the fact that, as you point out, we also kill criminals from time to time in the course of enforcing the law. The essence of the moral argument against torture is not the fact that it causes death - indeed, the skilled torturer always seeks to keep his victim alive to suffer another day - but rather the extraordinary degree of physical and/or mental pain it entails. To use your "criminals" analogy, criminals may only be lawfully executed if the mode of execution is not "cruel and unusual", and the police may not use torture to extract confessions from suspects.

Everyone can form his or her own views on the morality of waterboarding and whether or not it should be legal, but there is nothing inconsistent or immoral in opposing it. (I'd also like to believe the views I've outlined aren't incoherent, but I'll leave that for others to decide.)

Tortured Logic

As we like to say, ours is a government of laws not of men. This means that Presidents cannot decide for themselves what is a crime and what is not, that crimes should be prosecuted if there is a case to answer, and that no man is above the law. To judge from recent statements, this seems to have been lost on both the Bush and Obama Administrations (though for different reasons) in their handling of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" issue.

Responding recently to a question about whether waterboarding is torture, Condoleezza Rice recently made the astonishing assertion that "by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture." In other words, she apparently believes that George W. Bush had the unilateral right to decide what was and was not a crime. MSNBC et al were quick to draw comparisons to Richard Nixon, and I won't belabor the analogy. I only hope that Rice misspoke and she doesn't really believe what she actually said.

For his part, Barack Obama has apparently concluded that waterboarding is illegal under U.S. law, but that we should nonetheless not prosecute anyone involved because, in his view, we should only look "forward". I'm sure many people who violate criminal statutes would wholeheartedly endorse his approach. However, politicians, even Mr. Obama, are not free to pick and chose which laws they follow and which they don't. If Obama believes that waterboarding is torture he is required to ensure that those who perpetrated it are prosecuted.

Of course the reality is that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzalez et al are not going to be facing trial for torture any time soon (though if they have plans for a vacation in Spain they may want to re-think the itinerary) (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/29/spain-court-guantanamo-detainees-torture). But we need to have an impartial judicial investigation into what happened. If this reveals that crimes may have committed, Obama has the constitutional authority, should he chose to use it, to grant clemency or issue pardons to those involved (again, the example of Richard Nixon comes to mind). He does not have the constitutional authority simply to sweep illegality under the mat because he is afraid of the political fallout. The handling of this case will show whether Obama's professed desire to set a high moral tone for the rest of the world is anything more than empty campaign rhetoric. Don't hold your breath.