The Passport lists ten things that won't change after the election. Most of the items on that list sadden me, but I agree they're off the table, so we might as well talk about something else instead of focusing on empty promises.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
It's a little unfair on ethanol and McCain, though.
He's continued to say that:
1) We ought to get rid of the tariff on sugar-based ethanol, and
2) We ought to get rid of the ethanol subsidies.
He has claimed that ethanol "makes sense" with oil at the price it is now, whereas it didn't at $15/barrel, though that's a more reasonable statement.
However, I certainly agree that no matter what the President thinks, Congress will never change on the issue anyway. (For example, the current Administration has several times called for removing the tariff on sugar-based ethanol; Congress has laughed and said no.)
Energy independence is well worth discussing. However, it makes no sense to discuss achieving it in one or two presidential terms, because it cannot happen.
US energy independence is achievable and may well be desirable in the intermediate term and necessary in the longer term. It will not be achieved with a wave of a magic wand, or a wish that it occur. Achieving energy independence would require a major commitment of time and investment capital.
In the current political arena, US energy independence is only a wish, since there is no comprehensive plan to achieve it; and, no obvious serious commitment to begin the ~40 year process of achieving it; and, no commitment of the $10-40 trillion needed to fund the process.
I do not see any actor on the current political stage likely to commit the US to: "Energy Independence by 2050" - too "big picture"; too long term; too enormous investment; too little instant gratification.
With the exception of ending ethanol subsidies, I can’t say I’m all that concerned about any of the things on Passport’s list. In fact as far as #6 goes, I’d support a much larger military than we have today.
#1 is stupid. China holds $1 trillion in U.S. debt because it is in their interests to do so. If they were to dump it, they would move the market for U.S. Treasurys down, costing themselves hundreds of billions of dollars. That would also drive up U.S. interest rates, which would make the dollar appreciate relative to China's currency, which would hurt their exports.
Note that the article did not mention Iraq. It's indeed possible that the outcome of the election may have some bearing on the timetable for U.S. withdrawal.
The only item in this list of importance is energy independence.
1. More like we owe them 1.4 trillion dollars worth of our production should they choose to spend it. And since they couldn't spend it at once, that's not really a problem.
2. Irrelevant, If the dems pick Obama they'll get stuff done not because he's nice to the GOP but because he'll win in a landslide and he'll have a friendly house and senate.
3. You may be right, but I'm going to keep dreaming.
4. As long as we have other jobs, who cares.
5. Not on my top 10 list of problems
6. We're in a war.
7. Again, people just don't get it. If Obama wins big enough, lobbyist will have less influence BECAUSE he has his own base of support, in other words he doesn't need the lobbyists on his side.
8. Why shouldn't we support Israel, that's our choice.
9. Ethanol subsidies are tied to the energy independence thing, like I said, you may be right, but I'm still hoping for sanity.
10. I turns out the primaries seemed to have worked just fine, so chill out.
#1 is stupid. China holds $1 trillion in U.S. debt because it is in their interests to do so. If they were to dump it, they would move the market for U.S. Treasurys down, costing themselves hundreds of billions of dollars. That would also drive up U.S. interest rates, which would make the dollar appreciate relative to China's currency, which would hurt their exports.
Sure, China right now isn't going to do anything funny, because they need the seemingly exhaustless purse of US consumer purchasing to continue funding their technology and infrastructure buildup. Losing several hundred billion when you're in the middle of a multi-trillion dollar nationwide infrastructure buildup is bad news.
However, once China has developed a large, solid, indigent middle class that is able to self-fund a multi-trillion-dollar Chinese economy and enormous, technologically-advanced military (I recently read that the latter is only about ten years out at current spending levels)...a trillion bucks or three of US debt is the Rook and a straight hand of wildcards should they decide to wage indirect war on US interests. At that point, who cares if you lose a few hundred billion if (1) you're an authoritarian government with the power to do that on whim and (2) your biggest global competitor takes it in the teeth?
So, yeah, it would be interesting to see someone taking #1 a little more seriously...although I agree with the referenced post, it's not likely to happen.
If Obama gets elected and succeeds in making government more transparent (which wasn't on the list!), that'd be enough for me to not completely regret voting for him.
There is reason to talk about things that won't change soon. It is so that they will change eventually. In addition, some of those things are off the table only because people think they are off the table. Ethanol subsidies, for example, will disappear very quickly once anyone in a position of power decides they can make political hay out of them.
When Bush I was running against Dukakis, the continued existance of the Soviet Union was much more certain than many of the items on that list.
anony-mouse said:
once China has developed a large, solid, indigent middle class
Hopefully they will develop some tall midgets as well.
The Israel comment is good.
Did you know that Israel has received more US foreign aid --both civilian and military -- then any other country.
So much for those who say foreign aid does not work.
1: I think is true, but probably not for the reasons the article states. I've seen several candidates say they'll be tougher on the Chinese government and they all wuss out. I don't think it's due to any debt exactly. I think it's more that it's hard to get tough on a nation when it has 1.2 billion people, nukes, and a significant share of the global economy. China, despite many structural problems, has a good chance to become the world's largest economy. It certainly has a better one than Japan ever did. No one wants to tick off a nation like that, even the Taiwanese are backing off.
2: Although it will always exist partisanship goes through periods of intensification and some relaxation. In addition to that the polarization of the voters is new and higher than normal. During Watergate a majority of Republican voters disapproved of Nixon, even if it was a smaller majority than among Democrats. During Iran-Contra Reagan did go through a period of disapproval among Republican voters. At present something like 60-70% of Republicans still approve of Bush while something like 80% of Democrats disapprove. (This doesn't mean 20% of Democrats approve, I think something like 11% were undecided) It's not unrealistic to hope this polarization will calm.
3: This is depending on the idea that domestic oil will pretty much always be the only alternative to foreign oil. Alternative energy, even nuclear, is basically treated as a pipe dream in the article. That may or may not be valid.
4: Yup, although I think McCain said as much and lost Michigan for it.
5: No crime will ever be completely eliminated. I believe there are still horse thieves or I wouldn't be surprised if so. However there are nations with strict drug laws, like Sweden and Japan, that are quite successful on reducing it to manageable levels. The rate of drug use can and has at times gone down.
6: In percent terms military spending is still much lower than most any point from 1940 to 1992. I don't even think any Democratic Party politician has claimed to want to reduce the percentage to Canadian levels and why should they?
7: Possible.
8: This is true in so much as the American people want us to be Israel's closest ally. Americans sympathize with Israel greatly as baffling as that is to Europeans and to a lesser extent me. If there was ever a real movement to reduce foreign aid to Israel I think it could be done. (I know some believe there's a cabal of Zionists that would squash any such movement, but putting that to one side)
9: Purely opinion.
10: Probably, not sure if this is even a bad thing.
1. China is currently going through a period of economic reform. They are probably smart to maintain their authoritarian government while trying to reform their economy. Trying to reform both at the same time hasn't had good results.
If their economic reform succeeds, then I suspect their government will reform out of necessity. Wealthy capitalists wouldn't put up with an authoritarian government unless it made sure they stayed wealthy.
While we need to crack down on leaded children's toys and ethylene glycol flavored toothpaste, I think that whe should largely try to work with China and develop a partnership. When China modernizes and becomes an economic superpower, it would be nice if we were involved and connected to them to the point where the idea of a war between us would be absurd.
2. Fixing the partisan divide is easy... both parties need to stop acting like morons.
3. Agreed... this won't happen for a while. It CAN'T happen quickly. A massive program to build nuclear power plants is about the only way to change quickly. We are laying the ground work for long-term change, though.
4. Not sure this is a problem... I'm okay with robotic factories. The shop I work at uses big CNC machines to do most of the work. I can't imagine how they did it before we had them.
5. Drugs can be reduced more easily in countries with more homogenous cultures and authoritarian governments. Japan does not have the civil rights that we have in the United States. The War on Drugs has failed. While legalizing drugs may not be the only fix, the War needs to change radically (as in, stop being a War).
But that won't change.
6. Thank god! I'd rather we spend more and develop a higher tech military so that we can keep our soldiers safer while fighting. Let the other guys die for their countries... Also, part of this sum should be counted towards the humanitarian aid that the military does on a regular basis.
7. Not much point in talking about this one... not going to chagne. It'd be nice if we could bring more transparency to the issue.
8. Good... if we abandoned Israel, it would be quickly overrun in a bloody war that would result in a lot of dead Jews and Arabs.
9. Ugh. This one makes me sad, too. The whole issue of sugar protectionism and corn subsidies is stupid.
10. ? Not sure this is a problem.
11. Shrink the government. This is on my list... it won't happen. Neither party will give up power. But I sure wish it would.