How Brave Are the Democrats?

Posted on October 2, 2013 by Steve

I read something a little while ago that suggested that, among Democratic leaders, there’s the notion that the Senate will reject any spending bill or continuing resolution that doesn’t also raise the debt ceiling.  I’m glad they’re thinking that way.

Imagine that you are being robbed.  The situation is bad enough but then imagine that you realize that the person robbing you is either too scared or too stupid to think rationally.  If I have to be robbed, I’d prefer that the robber was calm and professional.  I’m still going to be robbed but I’m much more likely to be breathing after being relieved of my money, phone and what not.

Polls show that Republicans are bearing and will bear the brunt of the blame for the government shutdown.  However, Republican members of the House, the authors of this farce, seem convinced that they are doing the will of the people and that their cause will prevail in the court of public opinion.  Delusional as this confidence seems, it may well be overly kind to paint the Republican strategy this way.  There are other, more delusional, explanations for what the Republicans are doing but they don’t need to be spelled out here.

In a rational world, the Republicans would look at the current situation, read the polls and determine how to pull off a “declare victory and go home” tactic.  In that rational world, Democrats could double down on this hand and declare that a continuing resolution that doesn’t also address the debt ceiling will be dead on arrival at the Senate door.  A rational Republican House would then fold and complain about sleazy Democrat tactics.  SOP.

Some pundits have compared the Republican malfeasance in the budget battle to a hostage situation.  Imagine now that the hostage takers are sweating with fear or, worse, utterly insane.  Playing hardball in negotiations only works if one can count on their opponents’ rational evaluation of the situation; if one can count on a decision that cutting one’s losses is preferable to utter defeat.

Democrats, emboldened by the polls that show that, by and large, anger over the budget impasse is largely aimed at Republicans, could well decide to “double down” and require that any spending bill include a provision raising the debt limit.  And, in a rational world, it would be the smart, practical thing to do.  After all, the requirement to raise the debt limit will emerge in less than two weeks; so, if the current shenanigans weren’t taking place, the Congress would (should) be working on that problem.

The problem is that the players aren’t necessarily rational.  Even the sanest Republicans know that the Democrats really, really don’t want a default.  Even if all of the blame devolves on Republicans.  The economic chaos that would result from an actual default would likely dwarf the relatively small damage caused by brinksmanship in the 2011 debt ceiling tomfoolery.  Regardless of where the blame lands, real damage will be done to the nation and, perhaps, the entire world economic system.

So, how brave are the Democrats?  Looking at the record, one would conclude “not very.”  Indeed, Republican antics have made it possible for the Democrats in Congress to coast through the term without much incentive to do anything positive for the nation.  There are some Democrats (and, perhaps, some Republicans) who are committed to public service and the betterment of the country.  However, most are self serving, smarmy parasites.

When I began writing this post, I wasn’t entirely behind the idea that the Democrats should demand that the spending situation and the debt ceiling situation be resolved in the same stroke.  I was thinking that, because we can’t count on Republicans’ rational assessment of the situation, such a demand would make a US default much more likely. As I wrote, it occurred to me that if the hostage takers broker a deal that leaves them free to create another hostage situation in a few weeks, not much has been gained.  It’s rather like making an agreement with the person robbing you:  “if you take a little bit of cash but leave my credit cards and phone, I’ll give you my address and you can try to burgle my home in a few weeks.”

Consequently, I  really think the best policy is for Democrats to insist that the debt ceiling be raised concurrent with funding the operation of the government.  This is dangerous and has very high stakes.  At the same time, the likelihood that this farce will be repeated in a few weeks is vanishingly shy of certain.

Posted in Current Events, Economy | Comments Off on How Brave Are the Democrats?

AIG CEO: Anger Over Bonuses ‘Just As Bad’ As Lynchings In Deep South | FDL News Desk

Posted on September 26, 2013 by Steve

AIG CEO Robert Benmosche says opposition to the insurer’s bonuses in the wake of the financial crisis five years ago was like lynchings during the battle over civil rights.In an interview with the Wall Street Journal published Tuesday, Benmosche dismissed the criticism of bonuses saying the uproar “was intended to stir public anger, to get everybody out there with their pitch forks and their hangman nooses, and all that – sort of like what we did in the Deep South [decades ago]. And I think it was just as bad and just as wrong.”

via AIG CEO: Anger Over Bonuses ‘Just As Bad’ As Lynchings In Deep South | FDL News Desk.

‘Cause, you see, a little known fact about those ‘deep south lynchings’ was the lynchees were living large on taxpayer money and the lynchers resented it.

I bet Wall Street has more sociopaths than any other thoroughfare in New York.

Posted in Current Events, Economy | Comments Off on AIG CEO: Anger Over Bonuses ‘Just As Bad’ As Lynchings In Deep South | FDL News Desk

Breaking News, Or Not: Tom DeLay’s Conviction Overturned | Crooks and Liars

Posted on September 21, 2013 by Steve

The two Republican judges on the Appeals Court voted to overturn Delay’s conviction; the Democrat dissented:

“We are concerned and disappointed that two judges substituted their assessment of the facts for that of 12 jurors who personally heard the testimony of over 40 witnesses over the course of several weeks and found that the evidence was sufficient and proved DeLay’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

via Breaking News, Or Not: Tom DeLay’s Conviction Overturned | Crooks and Liars.

Posted in Current Events | Comments Off on Breaking News, Or Not: Tom DeLay’s Conviction Overturned | Crooks and Liars

Baltimore puts $10M toward Vacants to Value program – Baltimore Business Journal

Posted on September 19, 2013 by Steve

Baltimore will put $10 million from a national mortgage settlement toward the Vacants to Value program aimed at bringing more families to the city.

via Baltimore puts $10M toward Vacants to Value program – Baltimore Business Journal.

This is good news.  Vacant houses can create the impression that a neighborhood is in decline and/or unsafe; as is often the case, such an impression can soon become a reality.

I have lived in my house for a little more than 24 years.  When we bought the place, the house next door had been vacant for several years.  We didn’t realize this because 1) we were young, first time home buyers and 2) the neighbors pitched in to keep at least the front of the house from being an eyesore.  Not too long ago, new people moved into the house on the other side of the vacant house; they, too, didn’t realize that the house was vacant until after closing.  The realtor had entered the house and hung new curtains on the side facing his potential buyers.

When we moved in, the owner of the vacant house showed up rarely — perhaps once a year to mow the lawn.  There was also an uncovered in ground pool that was full of mud and muck.  I pulled at least three different dogs from the goo after they got stuck in the ooze.  Calls to the city didn’t help much.  The owner apparently was doing (just) what was necessary to forestall any action on the part of the city government.

Eventually, he put a sturdy cover over the pool and it has been intact for several years now.  For whatever reason, he now shows up about twice a month to mow the lawn and perform some level of maintenance.  I don’t know what prompted his new found responsibility but I’m happy for what we can get.

It’s a mystery why the house has remained vacant so long.  Neighborhood lore has it that he and his wife were rehabbing the house and got into a fight.  One thing led to another and . . . well, I’m sure that not all of the stories are true.  Even if there was an ongoing dispute with the co-owner, I would think that practicality would demand that differences be set aside and the house sold.  However, he’s not only not interested in selling, he’s actually hostile to the idea.

A number of years ago, one of our other neighbors moved from the neighborhood.  One of the couple’s parents had died leaving them a house.  This couple had a child approaching school age.  Baltimore City’s schools, at the time, had a very poor reputation.  The inherited house was in a county abutting Baltimore in a good school district.  So, the couple moved.  Because they wouldn’t have two mortgages to pay, and because the couple had some rehab skills, they decided to put some work into the house before selling, hoping to get top dollar.

Unfortunately, while the house was vacant, an electrical problem caused a fire.  The couple was unaware that their homeowners’ insurance was voided because the house was unoccupied (apparently, one can purchase a rider to extend coverage during such periods).  Consequently, they negotiated a default with their mortgage holder and the house was empty for some time.

One weekend day, a team of workers showed up at the house.  They worked all day, both days, for several weekends in a row and then sold the house to a lovely family that lives there to this day.

I talked to the leader of the work team.  He and his crew were skilled rehabbers that took on weekend projects like my former neighbor’s house.  They were able to buy the property at a very good price and then, after a furious bout of fix up, sell the house at market value.  I was impressed with the work and the speed of the turnaround.  I told the man about the property next door to me and gave him the owner’s contact info.  The man said that he’d approached owners of vacant properties before, owners who didn’t know they wanted to sell, until someone was putting a check into their hands.

Since I already mentioned that the house next to me is still vacant, this plan didn’t pan out.  The rehab man approached the owner and offered him money on the spot.  The owner not only refused to discuss a sale at all but was furious that someone had provided his contact information.

So, the house remains vacant.  Even though the owner has stepped up a bit and is being responsible to some extent, it would still be better if the house wasn’t empty, if there was a family living there, if there were people there that, like most of my neighbors, feel invested in the neighborhood.

I doubt that the program that prompted me to write this reminiscence can be used to rectify the situation next door.  In fact, I’d have serious concerns about government intrusion on property rights.  On the other hand, vacant houses are a problem.  Owners have a responsibility to their neighbors to maintain properties to the standards (at least) of the neighborhood.  I would hope that there could be a process by which the responsibilities of home ownership can be compelled that doesn’t invite abuses or unduly burden property owners.

 

Posted in Baltimore | Comments Off on Baltimore puts $10M toward Vacants to Value program – Baltimore Business Journal

BBC News – Voyager probe ‘leaves Solar System’

Posted on September 13, 2013 by Steve

Well, this is pretty cool:

The Voyager-1 spacecraft has become the first manmade object to leave the Solar System.

Scientists say the probe’s instruments indicate it has moved beyond the bubble of hot gas from our Sun and is now moving in the space between the stars.

via BBC News – Voyager probe ‘leaves Solar System’.

Posted in Science | Comments Off on BBC News – Voyager probe ‘leaves Solar System’

There’s Only One Kind of Fight

Posted on September 6, 2013 by Steve

Back in the 70s, there was a not very good movie called Buster and Billie.  It was a melodramatic bit of high school fluff about a romance between the most popular boy in school and a teen slut.  Jan Michael Vincent plays Buster (the boy).  As he drives to high school each morning, he makes a point of passing the school bus at high speed on the dusty road, spraying the bus with gravel and forcing it to slow down because of the cloud of dust.  One day, the bus driver has had enough.  He arrives at the school parking lot.  Buster is still sitting in his car.  The bus driver, furious, walks up to the window and says something like “Out, boy.  You and me are gonna have it out right here, right now.”  Buster calmly replies “OK, but I have one question.  Is this a fair fight? or a dirty fight?”  The bus driver says “There’s only one kind of fight.”  Buster smiles and suddenly kicks the car door open knocking the bus driver down.  He jumps on top of the bus driver and proceeds to beat the crap out of him.

As I try to make sense of what the United States wants to do in Syria, I am reminded of that scene.  Particularly the line “There’s only one kind of fight.”  Purportedly, Syrian President Bashar al Assad deployed chemical weapons and killed hundreds of his own citizens as a tactic in that country’s two year old civil war.  Naturally, we all believe that this is horrible.  And it is.

As a response, the United States proposes to unleash some Tomahawk missiles or some similar ordnance on some chosen targets within Syria to send the message that chemical weapons, outlawed by most countries since the first World War, are unacceptable ways of waging war.  At the same time, sending cruise missiles to blow up buildings and, more than likely, blow a few human beings to pieces is an acceptable way to send a message.  To a party in a war that does not involve the United States.

I have no doubt that the effects of chemical weapons are agonizing and horrible.  But I can’t imagine that being suddenly burned and dismembered by a bomb is preferable.  Why are chemical weapons banned but high explosive missiles, depleted uranium shells, and a myriad of other ingenious ways to kill people are not?

The ‘international community’ puts a great deal of effort into nuclear nonproliferation.  The goal of these efforts is to thwart the acquisition of nuclear weapons by countries (or terrorist organizations) that don’t yet have them.  Many countries have vowed not to use nuclear weapons in a “first strike” but reserve the right to strike back in kind if subjected to a nuclear assault.  We acknowledge the horrible power of these weapons but they are not outlawed.  But chemical weapons are banned.

It seems to me that we want to project the idea that war has rules.  A more or less certain list of behaviors that are acceptable or unacceptable.  This provides the illusion that wars can be prosecuted in a civilized, tidy manner.  It’s rather like using drugs to sedate and stop the hearts of condemned prisoners; firing squads and hangings are far too cruel and brutal.  I suppose that a corpse with a few IV punctures is preferable to a bloody, broken one, but the person is still dead.  It is still killing no matter how civilized the method.

I suppose if you’re going to kill someone, seeking to minimize or eliminate pain is worthy.  But, it is still killing.

In a technical sense, war does have rules.  They permit aggressors and defenders to wage war with a sense of honor.  But, history shows that the rules are broken routinely by all parties.  A recent book, Kill Anything That Moves:  The Real American War in Vietnam posits that incidents like My Lai were more SOP than crimes committed by rogue soldiers.  I don’t know if that is an accurate characterization but certainly we can agree that broaches of the rules of warfare, by commanders or individuals, are not uncommon.  This is particularly true in conflicts like Vietnam in which combatants and civilians were virtually indistinguishable.  Is it against the ‘rules’ to refuse to wear an outfit that clearly indicates one’s combatant status?  I suppose that failure to do so earns some measure of culpability for the inevitable “collateral damage” — which, of course, is another term of art that helps to obscure the sheer horror of war.

Ultimately, it is probably a good thing that some types of weapons are unacceptable.  At the same time, it is rather perverse to devise ways to run wars at some acceptable level of horror.

There is another thing to bear in mind.  When a country engaged in a war is up against the wall of defeat, or even facing a severe setback, that country’s forces will use whatever tactics and weapons that are available in an attempt to change the situation.  Surrender is an action for the defeated, not for the army with an arsenal of banned weapons.

After all, there’s only one kind of fight.

 

 

 

Posted in Current Events | Comments Off on There’s Only One Kind of Fight

Being Poor In America

Posted on July 15, 2013 by Steve

Yesterday, I overheard a conversation at my favorite bar.  Several people were trading stories about how people had tried to scam them for money by pretending to be homeless or needing bus fare.  Typically, these anecdotes centered on how the teller realized that the person was lying and didn’t get the handout he was looking for.  Sometimes, the anecdote ended with the teller saying “Get a job!”  Fortunately, at least one story featured a truly hungry person.  The teller had exited a sandwich shop with a sub in his hands when a many asked him for money.  Instead of money, he gave the man his sub.  The man said “Thank you” and proceeded to devour the sub adding that he “hadn’t had any food for three days.”

We all have stories that describe how our sympathies were preyed on by some apparently homeless/hungry person.  It’s a shame that this sort of scamming happens . . . but it does.  But, there are truly needy people who rely on others’ generosity to survive.  The fact that people who aren’t needy sometimes pretend to be causes sympathetic people to be suspicious of beggars and permits any qualms of conscience to be easily pushed aside.  “He probably isn’t really homeless.  He probably has a nicer place than I do.”

In America, if you’re poor it’s your own fault.  You’re unwilling to work, you’re lazy, you’re sponging off the good intentions of the social safety net programs.  It’s likely that there are people that exploit the social safety net that aren’t really needy.  It’s paradoxical that one of the richest countries in the world has a proliferation of homeless and hungry people.  So, the paradox is resolved by imagining that the poor aren’t really poor or, if they are, it’s because they don’t want to work.

Even before this long recession we’re in began, 5% unemployment was considered to be optimal — full employment — by many economists.  By having unemployment at that level, upward pressure on wages is lessened and inflation is constrained.  Although many people would disagree with this interpretation, I see this as deliberately keeping 5% of the willing workforce out of work for the good of the economy.  Assuming that this is right and necessary — that the economy is most robust with that level of unemployment — I think the government has some responsibility for some degree of support for those people who are willing to work but constrained from working.

If it’s possible to make the means testing for social safety programs more perfect we should certainly do it.  On the other hand, as long as there is some fraud, it’s easier to push the problem of homelessness, unemployment and hunger aside by assuming that if you’re poor in America, it’s your own damned fault.

Posted in Economy | Comments Off on Being Poor In America