Paul Ryan on Military Spending

Paul Ryan is great for the Republican Party and great for Congress. I hope that one day he runs for President. However, when it comes to the current debate on military spending he is wrong. If Republicans are to be seen as serious about the need to cut the deficit and the debt, we need to be honest about the necessity of cuts to military spending. Obama's proposal to cut around $450/ten year money from the defense budget is proportionate in level and effect. Such cuts will allow the US Military to retain its power projection capabilities in an environment of austerity. We can't demand cuts to govt. spending that we dislike and then claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism while ignoring reforms to military spending. Ryan should support the President's DOD budget as a realistic contribution towards reducing the deficit.

US-UK Extradition Treaty

I fundamentally disagree with the position of Parliament's Home Affairs Select Committee. As I have previously suggested, the extradition of Christopher Tappin was necessary and fair (as will his trial be). The US-UK extradition treaty is just and proportionate.

Obama and Boehner Debt Negotiations

A good article in the NYTimes magazine on the Obama/Boehner debt negotiations. 

Two points stand out for me.. 

1) Obama unilaterally changed the previously agreed framework of $800 bn/10 yr new revenue to  instead demand $1.16 tn/10 yr revenue. In doing so he ambushed Boehner and showed that he was not willing to engage in realistic negotiations.

2) Compared to the looming medicare cost curve explosion, the medicare savings that Obama was offering were extremely low - $1.05tn/20 yr savings. From my perspective, a serious deal would have required at least 50% more savings on that time frame and more realistically, probably double that amount. Democrats can try and claim that the President was offering terribly hard ideological sacrifices, but the state of medicare's finances demand that real, substantial savings can be found.

It is true that elements of the Republican Party lack a realistic attitude that accepts the need for compromise. However, Obama and Boehner had a deal and Obama reneged on it. The suggestion that even after the President's antics, Boehner considered the possibility of offering higher revenues, should be taken as an indication of how serious the Speaker was in his desire to reach a deal. 

In the end though, it is pretty hard to deal with someone who doesn't accept fair and honest negotiation.

Netanyahu's mind

The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is ultimately the man who will decide if and when Israel bombs Iran.

Today, the NYTimes carries an article on Netanyahu's relationship with the Israeli Defense Minister (and former Israeli PM), Ehud Barak. The NYT piece has some value - it outlines the differing political backgrounds of the two men. 

Still, it concludes with a seriously silly quote... an Israeli columnist's statement that Netanyahu is ''a coward''.

Let's be clear, whatever one thinks of Netanyahu's politics, labeling him a coward is absurd. Netanyahu is a former Tier One special forces soldier. Paying heed to this military service provides a critical insight into Netanyahu's personality. Specifically, it helps us to understand how he frames the Iran issue- through a character that is aggressive, clinical and comfortable with risk.

As analysis of the Israel-Iran showdown continues, it is important that this analysis be rooted in pragmatic assessment of fact and not born of emotionally charged ideology. Astute leadership assessments are of paramount relevance.

Related writings.

Incitement to Racial Hatred law

This guy is a bone head but he should not have been sent to jail. The incitement to racial hatred law is an overly broad assault on freedom of speech. The law lacks a mens rea requirement of intention and in doing so, forces the speaker to consider any prospective listener's contemplation of his words before he speaks. This inevitably has a chilling effect on speech. True freedom of speech requires a robust exchange and contest of thoughts (even if some thoughts are far outside the mainstream of views). Racists are morons. They are best defeated by challenge and debate. Restricting speech in the way that this law does, chills debate and fuels the martyrdom complex from which groups like the KKK and BNP source their power. Forcing these groups to contest their ideas in open debate serves to expose them for their intellectual deficiencies.

I have written on the differences between US/UK law in this area - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/04/freedom-of-speech-us-constitution-and-civil-liberties

US domestic support for Afghanistan mission

Polling suggests decreasing American support for the US presence in Afghanistan. This is fine, but it should not be a cue for a change of policy in Afghanistan. ISAF can succeed by continuing to develop Afghan security forces, continuing to exert pressure on the middle/upper ranks of the Taliban and by continuing to develop local governance and empowerment. If polling data set the course of America's foreign military operations, Iraq would still be plagued by sectarian warfare and used as an operating base by Al Qa'ida for attacks against the west. Politicians are elected to make good policy. They are not elected to make popular policy.

Obamacare Constitutional?

The Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of Obama's new health care law. In my opinion, the President's health care law is a bad law. I do not believe that it will reduce America's absurd annual inflation in health care costs and it imposes new financial concerns onto already struggling businesses. HOWEVER, I do believe that the law is constitutional. Health Care in America accounts for around 18% of the US economy. With increased personal mobility in the 21st century, individuals increasingly seek health care in different states and rely upon health care services/companies that are based in different states. Case law suggests that the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce if there is a rational basis for that regulation. If an individual does not buy health insurance, he risks imposing costs on society at a later date (in the case of requiring expensive medical services in the future and being unable to afford those services). Nearly everyone will require health care services at some point in their lives.

Interpretation of the law requires analysis of the Constitution/case law applied to facts. Personal political ideology should be irrelevant. As such, in my opinion, requiring Americans to buy insurance falls under the orbit of Congressional authority to regulate the health care industry. 

At a political level, I believe that Obamacare should be repealed and replaced with reforms to cut health care cost inflation while improving coverage.

Race Relations in America

I like this photo a lot. The hand of a white Secret Service agent moves protectively behind the President as he greets a predominantly black crowd. The photo shows that the US has come along way since terrible acts like this. When it comes to supporting or opposing politicians, for the vast majority of Americans, race is now irrelevant.

President Obama and Trayvon Martin

How the hell did the President become editor of the Harvard Law Review. 

By engaging so personally with the Trayvon Martin incident he has injected huge amounts of new emotion into an already emotionally overloaded situation. A situation in which the facts are not yet clear and in which incredibly serious criminal charges might follow. The job of the President is to stand above the fray and generate good policy. So.. Obama was absolutely right to suggest that the Govt. may need to look at the law etc.. but as President, he was absolutely wrong to engage race into the debate. The effective function of the law requires the accumulation of facts and calm analysis. This function is harmed by emotional outbursts from the Chief Executive.

Obama has a record for this kind of judicial interference. In 2010, he launched a highly partisan attack on the Supreme Court. And of course... when he threw himself into the Gates situation.

Santorum destroys his campaign

Santorum just destroyed his own campaign. Comparing Romney's politics to that of Obama is absurd.