Whatever reforms they produce, the
debt negotiations will fundamentally alter the future relationship between the
federal government and younger Americans. In short, under-35 Americans will
have to work substantially longer, pay more tax and will receive less benefits
in retirement. In part this evolution is unavoidable - demographic and economic
realities mean that major changes to the social-government contract are needed. However, young Americans should not have to repair our sinking national ship alone. The
need for balanced sacrifice makes intellectual sense – it helps us find the
minimum $4 trillion+ ten year trend savings we need, but it also it makes moral sense- our
national psyche is embedded in a notion of shared sacrifice in pursuit of
common national interests. Unfortunately at the moment at least, ‘shared
balance’ is a phrase that neither Democrats nor Republicans have any interest
in hearing.
The
Democrats seemingly have little interest in serious entitlement reforms - they believe that the rich can somehow pay down the debt without necessary structural reforms to Medicare. As this video illustrates, a ludicrous presumption. On the flip side, Republicans
only want to reform entitlements for those over 55. And while both parties
argue that their positions are reflective of ‘fairness’, nothing could be
further from the truth. Today’s Medicare beneficiaries will receive an average
of three
times the amount that they paid in. This reaches into the hundreds of
thousands of dollars per person. And the money has to come from somewhere. Where better than from young Americans who lack the AARP style organization to mount a meaningful political resistance?
Young Americans didn't build the national debt and we shouldn't have to bear the weight of its relief.
In the absence of a major deal on
debt reduction IE - $4 trillion+ ten year new revenue/sustaining trend savings (or at least a $2 trillion pay down with reliable future negotiations), the fiscal cliff would be the least bad option. Ultimately in the
absence of a comprehensive deal, the economic outcome would be far worst. In this scenario the debt markets would continue to lose confidence in the
future of the US economy. An ensuing confidence crisis would
reverberate throughout the economy with continued restrained hiring by
companies, as well as reduced capital purchases. In addition, the
political landscape would be characterized by even greater partisanship
and imbued negativity. In essence, the economy would become increasingly
leeched by a growing condition of doubt - a doubt that would require resolution by a major debt deal or would inevitably
result in the 'abyss'. What would the abyss mean? the economy would be characterized by a
market induced risk premium on debt (leading to v. high interest rates),
significant inflationary pressures, a collapse of the entitlement
system and an evaporation of the already challenged trust in government.
In addition, because of the Fed's present monetary policy to restrain interest rates, the abyss would occur in the context of higher interest rates and therefore an excess annual interest repayment level for the Federal Government of about $200 billion.
In short, where the 'cliff' would be an economic tropical storm, the 'abyss' would be a category five economic hurricane.
'I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too
much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.'
Thomas
Jefferson was right, free speech is not a perfect value. Because of the
infinite subjectivity that defines free speech, sometimes its ideal can achieve a
discord counter to the common interest.
But when free
speech is excessively restrained, society is also detained in a dark,
stagnant cell of lost ideas and imprisoned truths. Sadly in Britain,
the cell door is closing at an alarming rate.
In
order to keep the cell door open, the British Parliament must first reject Leveson's advisory to establish a new press
regulatory framework. If MPs follow his recommendations, they
will weaken the 'scrutiny of power' that any functioning
democracy requires. A new and expansive regulatory body will mean that the contours of 'legitimate' speech in Britain, are practically and (via the 'chilling effect') perceptively determined by the subjective opinions of regulators, rather than by the individual instincts of journalists. Hacking and harassment are already illegal under UK law and simply require more effective enforcement. New restrictions on press freedom would only serve to reinforce the terrible condition of the UK's presentspeech law.
For a timely example of the current law's negative impact, look toLord McAlpine. After wrongly being accused as a sex offender, McAlpine's ensuing
fury was obviously justified. Unfortunately, instead of pursuing vindication via
the facts, McAlpine has gone far further. Seeking to take advantage of the thousands of twitter users who repeated the false
allegations when they first made the news (and before the error became
established), McAlpine's legal team have demanded that all these 'tweeters' pay a
price. Tweeters must apologize, hand over their
details and will then be required to make individually determined
charity donations (plus an 'administration charge') in restitution for
their sins.
McAlpine seeks to use the law for intimidation and profit. By attacking non-malicious speech by those who, albeit
wrongly, believed they were speaking on a critical truth - a sex abuse
scandal at the heart of the British political establishment, McAlpine is challenging the basic and larger presumption of free speech - 'scrutiny of power'. McAlpine
could have accepted an apology and compensation from major media
outlets. Instead, by the impact his lawsuits will have on 'chilling'
future speech, the former Parliamentarian has struck another blow
against free speech in Britain.
Beyond McAlpine's example, there are two overarching elements to Britain's present speech malady - the criminal element and the commercial.
First, the criminal side. This year, Britons have been arrested for
an array of speech offenses. In March, a student was imprisoned for his racist tweets. In
August, a seventeen year old was arrested and given a formal warning after he sent a taunting
message to an Olympian. In October, a man was jailed for 12 weeks after he made jokes
about a missing five year old girl. In November, a man was arrested
after he set fire to a poppy and uploaded its photo onto Facebook. True, all these acts
were affronts to common decency. But it's also true that in each case, the speakers words lacked a
joined violent intention. By setting such a restrictive boundary for
speech, English law asserts popular emotion at the cost of the
individual's voice. Supporters of these restrictions would have us
believe that the laws stabilize society by establishing norms of social
interaction. They are wrong. By limiting speech on
passionately held issues, the law drives the
purveyors of such speech to burrow into hardened narratives of victimhood and to coalesce in new coalitions of anger and fear. Just look at
the rise of the far right 'English Defense League'. For all its idiocy
and evil, the group is still seen by its
members as a voice for the 'oppressed'.
As history teaches us, excessive
restriction of free speech can also quickly lead to a deeply unpleasant reality.
Now the commercial front to Britain's speech sickness.
Though
obfuscated by the phone hacking scandal, over the past few
years Britain's rich and powerful have increasingly pursued aggressive
legal action
against those who would threaten their 'brand image'. Using
democratically ludicrous creations
like the 'super-injunction', lawyers have gagged
the public. At the same time, by restricting public awareness of public figures true personas and then simultaneously allowing those figures to make money off their false public images, the Courts have stood in defense of false corporate personalities. An
example? Until his super-injunction cloaked extra-marital affair was
leaked in Parliament, soccer star Ryan Giggs was viewed by countless parents as a
role model for their children. When you consider Giggs's endorsement deals, his false
personality certainly did no harm for his wallet.
So, thanks to the
English Courts and their ally in Leveson, public access to relevant knowledge is being sacrificed
at the false altar of 'private information'. The result? The English
judiciary has become an absolute arbiter of 'fact', as well as a gleeful and in terms of 'binding the world', even global defender
of misrepresentation. Thus far, the British Government has been an active ally to this agenda.
Aside
from the philosophical-moral deficiency inherent in Britain's war on
free speech, English law also reaps varied and highly destructive
practical consequences for the UK. Consider...
Fearing
a defamation suit, The Sunday Timesfailed to print allegations that Qatar's
soccer World Cup bid was being pursued via corrupt means. The impact? In 2022,
the world's greatest supporting event might be the result of bribes.
Terrorism researchers writing thousands of
miles away from Britain are summoned to pay defamation awards in
response to their crucial analysis.
In 2008, Jimmy Savile (Britain's Sandusky) suedThe Sun after it linked him to a sex abuse scandal. Savile effectively chilled
future allegations and was able to escape justice for the many sex
crimes it now appears that he committed.
And
so, from art to criminal conduct, from sport to politics, the
insidious face of British speech law is rendered apparent. Without
tolerance for
speech, British democracy will become little more than the servant of
the lawyer and the bastion of the activist judge. Free speech imprisoned; debate
will stifle, ideas will wilt and the powerful will reap the dividends of
a society deprived of effective scrutiny.
The British Parliament must reject the Leveson report.
1) Susan Rice is facing some stormy waters in her move to succeed Hillary Clinton at State. Earlier today the Ambassador met with three top Republican Senators on Capitol Hill. The meeting didn't go well. A couple of weeks ago I blogged about why I didn't support Rice's nomination for State (and why I support Kerry instead). My feelings haven't changed. It should be evident even to hard-core Democrats that if Rice is incapable of talking privately with three Senators without infuriating them, then she probably isn't suited to the role of America's chief 'diplomat'.
2) The New York Times is reporting that the fiscal cliff negotiations are facing resistance by Democrats to entitlement reform. If the Democrats are unwilling to negotiate in good faith, the only option open to the GOP will be the cliff. It's either the cliff, or the abyss that will surely follow if we don't face up to our problems. I have long argued that Republicans must be willing to be make serious compromises as part of these discussions. But only if reciprocity is the tenor of the talks. Resolving America's fiscal crisis requires reform of Medicare. This is a truth that cannot be escaped.
A reader has asked for my thoughts re- the attack by some 'conservatives' on Chris Christie's Islamic outreach program. Over the past couple of weeks, fringe GOPers have attacked Christie for supposedly supporting terrorists. These idiots hate Christie because he rightly opposed the GOP furor over the Park 51 Mosque. These attacks are absolutely absurd. Membership of a large Mosque is no grounds for an assault on the dignity of American citizens. Mosques, like large churches, often tend to have congregations that reach into the thousands. As we didn't judge Catholic congregations for the offenses of some Catholic priests, we shouldn't judge Muslim congregations for the offenses of individuals. To do so is intellectually defective and rooted in pure prejudice. As I opined a while back, Republicans must speak out against casual attacks on our Muslim fellow citizens.
Concerning the challenges to international security posed by nuclear proliferation, much greater attention must be given to the relationships between different Islamic extremist organizations.
Consider Hezbollah's attitude towards Al Qa'ida. If Iran attains a nuclear weapon, Hezbollah's peripheral access presents many problems. Such a capability (whether perceived or real) would enable Hezbollah to pursue nuclear blackmail against Israel and the United States, but also against Al Qa'ida. Rooted in a history of conflict and accentuated by years of recent and brutal Shia-Sunni sectarian bloodletting in Iraq, Hezbollah despises Al Qa'ida and its allies. Where the groups do sometimes co-operate, this co-operation is vested in shared short term interests. Hezbollah ultimately opposes Al Qa'ida's objectives, because Al Qa'ida seeks to destroy Hezbollah's on-going pursuit of greater Shia theological power in political Islam (see below). For Hezbollah, weakening Al Qa'ida isn't just a defensive objective, it's a means to pursue the precedence of Shia theology at the forefront of Islamic 'traditionalist' discourse. And in obvious terms, a nuclear weapon is a powerful tool for that agenda.
Next let's consider the Al Qa'ida perspective. Yesterday's news
from Pakistan indicates that whether involving subscribers to Salafist (Al Qai'da) or
fundamentalist Deobandi (Pakistani Taliban) theology, an embedded hatred
underpins the outlook of many Sunni extremists when it comes to Shia Muslims. Anyone who doubts the strategic importance of this hatred should read Al Zarqawi's 2004/05 letters from Iraq. Should these individuals gain access to nuclear weapons, the outcome would be rather unpleasant. In such a scenario, while India, the US and Israel would certainly be in the crosshairs, major Shia Islamist groups like Hezbollah would also face a major threat. Thus is the understated point - Al Qa'ida would believe that they finally had the means to 'purify' Islam.
In essence, while nuclear proliferation in the Middle East obviously presents a profound challenge for international state security dynamics, it also portends a second, equally dangerous face. A security environment where non-state groups which idolize counter-intuitive notions of existential value, are armed with nuclear weapons and propelled by hatred, mistrust and irreconcilable ideologies. This would be a security dilemma on steroids- unrestrained, uncontrollable and a whisper away from nuclear war.
