Oops

The United States is currently experiencing an economic upheaval. It has already spent half of the 700 billion dollar stimulus package earmarked by Congress in November with Bush giving GM and Chrysler the last $17 billion. The Stock Market has lost 40% of its’ value in just the last few months. Unemployment is at 6.7% and rising. Under-employment (those working in temp jobs or in part time positions though they prefer full time work) is at 12% and is also climbing. Just about everyone with national standing believes that the US and world economy will continue to get worse before it gets better. Most believe an economic up-turn will not occur until late 2009, at the earliest. The US has been “officially” designated by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) as being in recession (defined as a period of general economic decline in Gross National Product [GNP] for two or more consecutive quarters). The US Government’s response to this meltdown has been to infuse large amounts of public monies into 157 financial institutions (e.g., AIG) and Detroit to keep them solvent, and to banks to enhance their willingness to provide private sector loans. We have not seen economic drama like this since the depression which, as we know, resulted in significant changes to the relationship between the private and public sector especially given that the sitting Republican administration that has overseen the current collapse also instigated the largest public sector “purchase” of the private sector in the country’s history. It is clear, that these two events, the economic meltdown and the Bush administration’s response to it, will result in significant and long term changes to our economic system. Crisis is opportunity as they say, so how do we, the electorate, want things to change? How can we take advantage of this crisis to enhance our long term financial and industrial well being?

During Allan Greenspan’s recent testimony to Congress he admitted how disappointed and surprised he was to see that the financial system (e.g., Wall Street, banking, mortgage industry, etc.) had moved away from making long term viable investments and instead encouraged investment in short term, high profit but high risk ventures (similar to the mortgage industry’s venture into making borderline loans). A recent review of the internal workings of companies receiving bail-out dollars reveal that most of their management and sales staff made 4 to 5 times more in bonuses than they had in salary, reinforcing their interest in short term high profit taking and away from sustainable investments with predictable moderate return of 10% a year (which had become standard for the Wall Street investor). When these “high risk” investments went sour client portfolios tanked (e.g., PERS, the largest public retirement system in world, lost $40 billion of it’s $170 billion investment portfolio in the four months between July and November of this year). However, even with the collapse of Wall Street, management and sales staff kept their bonuses. So, Greenspan admitted, the free market laiz e fair financial market that he “sold” to US politicians resulted in a greedy and short term oriented financial system disconnected from long term valuation. Greenspan’s free market economic philosophy became the foundation of the Republican economic platform, starting with Reagan, and has been a cornerstone of Republicanism ever since, perhaps no more so than what we have experienced with the Bush administration.

I’m no economist, only remotely interested in the subject in college. However, it would appear that all economies share a few a few basic and commonsensible principles: how much does the economy’s worker produce; how well does his product sell and at what price (e.g., profit); how much of the difference between the cost of a product and the selling price of the product get invested in future production, how much isn’t (i.e., how much is taken to increase worker wages, how much is taken as profit for management, etc.). An “economy’s” goal, then, would appear to be to enhance worker productivity/efficiency, maximize resource efficiency, and streamline the bringing of products to the marketplace (national and international) and to reinforce citizen confidence in the system itself. Confidence has a lot to do with how fair citizens believe the system to be, how just and equitable. With the current system in free-fall, dramatic revelations of huge CEO, and staff payouts for failing companies’, consumer confidence is lower than it has been in 20 years. So, major changes in our economic system are inevitable.

So, how does Obama and his new economic team, led by Timothy Geithner (Treasury Secretary select) and Lawrence H. Summers (Chief White House Economic Advisor) develop/refine the system to reinforce one with a mixed economic system based on long term sustainability and viability, what kind of tax system do we want and, lastly, what kind of overall economic system do we want to have (i.e., the balance between government oversight and free enterprise, and how much do we want government, versus the private sector, to develop and reinforce future economic policy regarding alternative energy, trade, white versus blue collar job development, agriculture, health care, etc.])? Comments please.

What If The Neo Cons Were Right?

In an op-ed column this past Sunday in the New York Times (November 30, 2008) Thomas L. Friedman used a recent Iraqi’ high court decision about a parliamentarian’s right to free speech as evidence of what he believes is a reduction in tyranny in Iraq due to our invasion. Mr. Friedman also believes that Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq for having failed to initiate inter-scene warfare. This has then led them to shift their focus to other parts of the world; e.g., Afghanistan, India, etc. Mr. Friedman’s opinion piece argues that, given the successes we have seen in Iraq, especially since the surge, that President Elect Obama should be patient with his withdrawal plans to “salvage something positive” out of the war, e.g. reduction in tyranny, increased democracy in Iraq and in the region.

With the United States set to inaugurate a new President and say good bye to an unpopular one and with Mr. Friedman’ well timed column it would seem appropriate to try and put the Iraq war within a long term perspective, if no other reason than to help guide our actions in the next few years. The electricity the Country felt during the recent Presidential and Congressional elections, fanned in part due to the huge issues the Country currently faces have reinforced the need for citizens to stay involved in the US political process, to continue to talk about the threats we face and the opportunities these threats present and to inform elected officials about what we think. Thus far, at least, President-Elect Obama appears to want to hear from us.

While many Neo Cons profess disgust at the way President Bush has conducted the war they believe that the invasion was justified due to our critical need to stem the spread of terrorism, the continued instability in the Middle East and the likelihood that extremists could obtain and use weapons of mass destruction against the West. Neo Cons further believe that the democratization of Iraq would allow the country to become a democratic mentor to other countries in the Middle East and help move the Arab community away from Islamic extremists and towards a more Western style democracy. Many Neo Cons believe that by “finishing” the job in Iraq the Middle East can begin to stabilize, setting the stage for an overarching Arab, Israeli peace agreement, the diplomatic holy grail.

Given that we can’t know what would have happened to Iraq if we had not invaded (many analysts believe that Iraq could not have continued for long under Hussein but these same analysts had been believing this for years) and we can’t change the circumstances of our attempt to stabilize Iraq, therefore, we must focus our attention on what to do from this point forward. If the Neo Cons are fundamentally correct, i.e., that a freely and successful democratic Iraq is the only way to stabilize the Middle East, and to set up true peace in the Middle East what should we do to achieve these goals? If they are wrong, that no effort on our part can possibly lead to stabilization, democratization and Middle East peace how do we move forward given our continued military and political involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and our resolute unconditional support of Israel. Should we act differently depending on which outcome you think possible/inevitable, and, if so, in what ways? Should we cut our losses and pull out? Should we allow the “conditions on the ground” to dictate how and when we withdraw? Obviously many complex issues here. However, no matter how smart President Obama’s National Security Team may be, and there is no denying the brain power and experience they bring to the table, they will need the clear support of the United States electorate to achieve anything meaningful out of this incredible debacle. So, it would seem, it starts and ends with us. Thoughts?

Does anyone have a reference to the governmental and political structure of the White House (i.e., who reports to whom and what their roles are)?
Here is a list of the announced and rumored individuals that will make up the Obama’ team preceded by legend:

A = announced
C = Cabinet Position
?=Not sure of role/position
WHA – White House Aide/Staff
DS= Department Staff
RC – Requires Congressional Confirmation

Chief of Staff - Rahm Emanuel (WHA,A)
Secretary of State – Hillary Clinton (C,A,RC)
Secretary of Defense – Robert Gates (C,A,RC)
Treasury Secretary – Tim Geithner (C,A,RC)
National Economic Commission Director – Larry Summers (WHA,A)
Economy Recovery Advisory Board Chairman – Paul Volcker (WHA,A)
Director, Office of Management and Budget - Peter Orszag (?,A,RC)
Chairman, Council of Economic Advisors – Christina Romar (?,A)
Secretary of Interior – Robert Kennedy Jr. (C,RC)
Secretary of Agriculture (C,RC)
Secretary of Commerce – Bill Richardson (C,RC)
Secretary of Labor – Kathleen Sibelius, David Bonior(C,RC)
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development-Manny Diaz (C,RC)
Director, Department of Health and Human Service – Tom Daschele (C,RC)
Health Czar – Tom Daschele (WHA)
Press Secretary-Robert Gibbs (WHA,A)
Director of Communications – Ellen Moran (WHA,A)
Deputy Director of Communications -Dan Pfeiffer
Ambassador to the United Nations – Susan Rice (A,C,RC)
Director, Department of Homeland Security – Janet Napolitano (A,C,RC)
Secretary of the Interior-(C,RC)
Director, Environmental Protection Agency-Robert Kennedy (C,RC)
Secretary of Energy – Al Gore (C,RC)
Attorney General – Eric Holder (A,RC)
National Security Agency Director – James Jones (A)
Director, CIA (C,RC)
Director, FBI (C,RC)
Chief Campaign Strategist – David Axelrod (WHA,A)
Cabinet Secretary – Chris Lu (WHA,A)
Staff Secretary – Lisa Brown (WHA,A)
White House Counsel - Greg Craig (WHA,A)
Valerie Jarrett – Public Liaison, Senior Aide (WHA,A)
Senior Advisor – Pete Rouse
Deputy Chief of Staff –Mona Sutphen (WHA,A)
Deputy Chief of Staff –Jim Messina(WHA,A)
Liaison to Capitol-Phillip Schiliro (WHA,A)
National Intelligence Director-Dennis C. Blair (WHA,A)
Secretary of Education-Ray Barnes (C,RC)
Secretary of Transportation-(C,RC)
Secretary of Veteran Affairs-Max Cleland, Tammy Duckworth, Anthony Brown (C,RC)
Administrator of the Environment Protection Agency-Robert Kennedy Jr., (C,RC)
Director of National Drug Control Policy-(C,RC)
US Trade Representative-(C,RC)
Deputy Attorney General-(DS)
Deputy Secretary of State-(DS)
Director, White House Military Office-Louis Caldera (WHA,A)

I will update and correct in future blogs.

Welcome to Half Bright, with Blog Protocol

HELLO AND WELCOME

I've started this blog to invite "serious" political thinkers to share their observations and make comment about the Obama Administration and America's response to it over the next four years. By "serious thinkers" (borrowing from a recent comment made by Barney Frank) I mean those that: are passionate about the national political scene but are not a part of it; are dedicated to keeping their emotional and intellectual biases in check; wish to seek other veiwpoints and perspectives to broaden their understanding of who we are as a nation, how we are to move forward on the complex issues we face and how our dealing with these issues will effect and be effected by the world community. As we all know America will be hard pressed to deal with the heavy footprints of the Bush Adminstration. Choosing Barry Obama as the next President of the United States is the first of many steps we, as a people, will need to take to undue the domestic and international damage done to us by us over the last ten years (beginning with the impeachment of President Clinton). As we have recently seen, an informed electorate is the only way we, as a nation, can move forward to solve the many pressing problems we face.

PROTOCOLS:

I will be posting a "start up" comment each Tuesday based on a culling of the week's and the weekend's articles, with an emphasis on major media editorials and op ed posts. I will focus on what I believe are the most important issue or issues that surfaced during the week. The most important part of this blog, though, will be the comments that those, such as yourself make, and the conversation that follows.

Obviously, we will want to keep our conversations polite and respectable. No foul language (which will reduce my comments by half); no undignified/disrespectful comments to other commentators; after a week of intellectual gnashing let's agree to move on. Only invitees will be allowed to comment. Send comments about the blog structure/protocols, names and emails of newly proposed invitees, to lancegmorton@gmail.com. Thx. Remember, above all things, "the dude abides".