It’s all relative

For a time, I wasn’t wholly sure what my stance was on trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian trials, or mirandizing Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. I really understand both sides of the argument. On the one hand, Republicans point out that if we’re at war with Al Qaeda then they should be treated like enemy combatants, not civilian criminals. The Democrats go on about justice, fairness, and letting the world see the American system as having said values. This is also a fair point. Though, any honest Democrat would admit that the world will laugh at us if we acquit KSM and then don’t let him go free. So, in the end, it is theoretically possible that Democrats would make the United States look worse than Republicans. Likely not though, the evidence is too strong against KSM. The problem with this debate is a common one in this country: both sides are presenting their arguments and ignoring another one that neither side is willing to make, for political reasons.

That other argument has its foundations in a realization of reality. Simply put, the threat Americans face from terrorism has been drastically overblown. The politicians can’t say that, because soft on security would hang around their necks until the next election when they’d get booted out of office. But that fact doesn’t make it any less true. More people die in this country from homicide annually than have died in the past two decades from terrorism (I’m discounting the war deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq). If I were to include those deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan of America’s troops, then I’d have to amend that statements to say that over the past two years more Americans have been murdered than have died from terrorism over the past two decades. My point stands either way you look at it.

The terrorist threat’s been exaggerated then. So what? Well, I submit that the biggest threat terrorists pose to us is to make us significantly change our lifestyles and laws to deal with them. Some common-sense steps are good, like having proper security at airports. I don’t for a moment want to give the impression that I’m suggesting we give up the attempts to forestall them. However, it is also true that while we can delay them, you can’t truly stop terrorists as they’re willing to die. The only reason the Abdulmutallab bombing wasn’t successful is because of a mistake he and his Al Qaeda in Yemen helpers made. America dodged the bullet on that one. The same applies to the shoe bomber, Richard Reid. It wasn’t brave passengers that made those attempted terrorist attacks unsuccessful. America did nothing to prevent them. They just screwed up. So we as a nation must be careful in being willing to give up our way of life, freedoms and rights to stop terrorists. Sometimes it’s worth it, sometimes not.

The reason the likes of KSM should be tried in civilian courts isn’t just to not elevate them to the level of warriors. Does anyone honestly think for a moment that they’ll be elevated to martyr level only if we treat them like enemy soldiers? Which court we try them in has no effect on that. Nor is the reason we should try them in civilian courts to give an image of justice and fairness to the world at large. The testimonies and evidence will make it clear how badly we treated this guy. Some of it will likely be used as terrorist propaganda. And our unwillingness to release him should he be found “not guilty” makes that whole concept a joke. The Republican argument that trying him in a military tribunal shows that we’re at war is likewise poorly thought out. Does anyone in the world outside of America think President Obama isn’t prosecuting the War on Afghanistan like a war? No. Only Republicans in this country insist he’s been soft on terrorists. Those who have nothing to gain politically by leveling such a ridiculous charge say he’s taking it seriously as a war. There’s no way that trying KSM in a civilian court will endanger the worldwide perception that America is fighting a war in Afghanistan.

KSM should be tried in a civilian court because that’s what we do with terrorists. We treat them like criminals. It’s what we’ve always done, it’s what we should keep doing. President Bush might’ve made a mistake when he told Americans that we should all go shopping to combat terrorism (or that’s what we all took him to mean), but the sentiment behind that is absolutely correct. Terrorism is there to interrupt our lives, to make us change everything, to make us live in fear. Showing we’re not afraid, that we will go about our lives regardless of what these bastards think of the way we live them, that stands up to them. Changing everything to deal with what is, ultimately, a small threat, is to cede a certain level of defeat to them. They want to change our society. Let’s not let them.

That is also my argument for mirandizing Abdulmutallab (by the way, I encourage people to not call in the Christmas Day attack or the Christmas Day bombing because that plays right into their hands. They want us to think of it that way, as an attack on a certain day). Liberals need to recognize certain facts here. Prime among them is the fact that he was cooperating before he was mirandized, and then he clammed up. It wasn’t until a few weeks later, with the help of his family, we got him to talk again. However, other than as a fear tactic, does anyone truly believe that there was another imminent attack in the works he could’ve provided us information to stop? If you did, you were wrong.

As a matter of fact, according to a Harvard study, 45,000 Americans die yearly because they can’t afford the health care needed to keep living. That’s more than double the number who’ve died from terrorist attacks since the end of the Cold War. In fact, that’s more than quadruple the number. So let’s get some perspective, shall we? Terrorism’s biggest threat isn’t to our lives, but to our way of life. And it is for that reason that KSM should be tried in civilian courts and Abdulmutallab was rightly mirandized.

Excellent leadership…

The president’s budget came out on in full on Monday, though there were the usual leaks here and there over the weekend and a bit of last week too. On the whole, there are many things to like about this budget. Tax cuts for the middle class, tax credits to help encourage businesses to get hiring again, what’s not to like?

This budget proposal comes in the middle of yet another renewed debate on the deficit and debt. Don’t expect too much. Republicans want to see nothing but spending cuts, and Democrats favor tax increases on the wealthy. It’s been that way for quite awhile, and you’re only fooling yourself if you think that it’ll change now. That’s the concern that always exists around independent commissions to study the issue and propose spending cuts / tax increases to fix it. Republicans are wary such a commission would actually, gasp, suggest raising taxes. And Democrats are worried that such a commission would actually, oh no, suggest cutting domestic spending. And neither side (though Republicans especially) want to see suggestions that defense spending be cut. Weak on national security, hm? Kick them out of office! Or, at least, that’s what they fear too many constituents would say. So we’re left with everyone wanting an independent commission, as long as it recommends to the chamber at large their ideas on deficit reduction.

I say all that to make plain two things. One: I don’t blame this on Presidents Obama or Bush. Two: it is my view of the situation that it’ll take something extra-ordinary to make Congress actually substantially cut deficit spending and begin to pay down the national debt. Good evidence of this is the blatant politicking on the part of the several Republicans who cosponsored a bill that would create a deficit reduction commission, but then voted against it. My, has that proven itself to be perfect for the Democrats accusations of “the party of no.”

I do find it peculiar, and a bit ridiculous, to read that President Obama encourages Congress to follow his lead on deficit reduction. Some lead. His partial freeze that’s been touted to high heaven will save, wait for it, all of $250 billion over the next decade. That’s it! That averages out to $25 billion a year. Wow, what an amazing contribution. I can’t honestly be the only one who remembers when President Obama laughed off Senator McCain’s promise to end earmarks if he were elected because it would, after all, save a mere $18 billion per year. Well, not only has the president cut this program here, that one there, and each time the White House and Congressional Democrats hailed it as a triumphant step on the road to fiscal responsibility, but he actually has the nerve, the audacity, to claim he’s now a leader on the issue.

The AP wrote that President Obama’s urging Congress to pass major spending increases for job creation and recession relief is “part of a record $3.8 trillion budget that would boost the deficit beyond any in the nation’s history while only slowly beginning to put Americans back to work.” And some of the cuts the president proposed in this new budget have absolutely no chance of making it through Congress, and he knows it. As if cuts in agricultural subsidies, or and end to new purchases of C-17 cargo planes, will ever be approved. But the president can propose that which he knows isn’t politically doable, that which he doesn’t even necessarily want done, and then blame Congress (especially Republicans) when it doesn’t happen. And I have no doubt he’ll figure out how to place some of the blame on his predecessor too.

But don’t worry, he’s increasing taxes on the rich. That’s not what he’s calling it of course, it’s technically simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Whatever it technically is though, the effect is the same as a tax increase. You see, 35% of their income in federal income tax isn’t enough. No no, we must take away 39.6% of the money they earned so we can cut taxes for the middle class. Nearly half this country won’t be paying taxes this year, and none of those people are the rich. Want to raise money? Don’t do it on the backs of the upper class. How about increasing taxes on the block of voters who benefit most from government programs? The middle class. If this president were truly making the tough choices on the deficit, he’d be raising taxes on the middle class, not lowering them. Instead he’s going the easy route and taxing the wealthy few.

The NASA change-up is welcome, and I favor the commission as long as it’s truly independent and non- or bipartisan. I also don’t expect President Obama to be able to do much more than he has. Political capital is in scarce supply in Washington these days, and the government has been reduced to moving legislation that will (hopefully) not only not piss off the populists in America, but may actually make them happy. Everyone’s trying to shove someone else under the bus, or throw people in front of them as they race for the back door. Will it work? For some of them. The others are just engaging in the amusing yet irritating spectacle of pointing fingers, blocking the other party, taking credit where it isn’t due, and claiming to be for “Main Street.” I’ve got news for these politicians: no one’s left on Main Street. The businesses that didn’t close when Wal-Mart came in are sure as hell closed now. We are, by and large, either unemployed or working for the very people and businesses Congress and President Obama keep attacking. But, don’t worry, because the U.S. government is on the case. Don’t we all feel better already?

Bungled, mismanaged and miscalculated

The Democrats are upset at their now only near-super majority in the Senate. With the election of Brown over Coakley, as numerous media outlets have pointed out, Democrats only have 59 seats in the Senate and can’t stop a filibuster. This story has several implications, aspects, realities attached to it, whatever phrasing you prefer.

The most immediate is, of course, the health care bill. There are a few options available to Democrats. One is to merge the bills and use reconciliation to pass it through the Senate. There was strong opposition to reconciliation before this special election, and that opposition would remain. In fact, it would simply grow stronger. Everyone across the country is interpreting this as a rebuke of Democrats. Well, at least everyone who can look at this with biases lesser than that of America’s pundits. I’ll admit to not knowing their reaction to the news. If it’s something totally ridiculous or outrageous, I’ll post on the topic again. But, I digress. Reconciliation, if used, would be wildly unpopular. The Democrats think opposition to their health care plans would change, or even reverse itself, once it was passed. However, if it’s passed in what seems to be a blatantly unfair and undemocratic process, I imagine even the most unaware of senators and representatives know they’d suffer a major backlash come November.

For similar reasons, I don’t see them rushing through this merging process before Brown’s election can be certified, paperwork worked out, and his official filling of the seat. This tactic, in fact, could conceivably see a bigger backlash against the DNC than reconciliation would cause. It’s been mentioned as a possibility, but there’s no chance the Democratic leadership is that out of touch.

Getting Senator Snowe to go along with a health care bill, aka giving her a chance to pick off the menu (Like Senator Nelson did) is another option. But Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC all agree that that’s highly unlikely. I’m inclined to agree with them. The House could always just pass the Senate bill unaltered, thus eliminating the need to have the Senate revote on it. But there’s little chance of that happening. They only got it passed the first time by 5 votes. A 3-vote swing, and it’s easy to think there may be three people in that chamber who voted for it the first time but won’t vote for the Senate version. It has several problems in the eyes of House Democrats, not the least of which is the lack of a public option, the tax on cadillac plans, the abortion provisions, and the essential exemption of payment Senator Nelson secured for Nebraska. That last one had led to Governor Schwarzenegger’s infuriation on Meet the Press in a recent interview. It is, by any reasonable standard, an example of Capitol Hill wheeling and dealing at its worst.

So, that leaves two options. One: come to some sort of lowest common denominator agreement and pass that. After this very public fight, that may disappoint those in this country who still support their health care plans, which is still well over one third of the electorate (42-ish%). And there has been part of the electorate that consistently says there’s no need for change. That group, combined with those who want to see a major overhaul and will see such a compromise as spineless Democrats failing, yet again, to get anything done is about half the electorate. Democrats, especially in the House, can expect to see primary challenges this spring if they go this path of compromise. And many of those challenges will win, since it’s widely known that more moderate Democrats and Republicans don’t vote in primaries in quite the numbers die-hards do. The last option available to them is to turn their attention to the economy and hope this very public failure fades from the conscious of the public in time for the primaries and, especially, the generals this November. This strategy has glaring problems. Thus, I predict that we’ll see a lowest common denominator form of compromise with the Republicans.

Part number two of this story is the ineffectiveness of the Democratic Party. They have 59 seats in the Senate still, for crying out loud. But they’re stuck. Comedians like Colbert, Stewart, and even SNL have pointed out how many accomplishments can be tallied up to President Obama’s first year in office. Such lofty rhetoric. And yet, there’s been no environmental bill, no healthcare bill, unemployment’s in the double digits, “Wall Street executives” are getting record bonuses, the deficit’s gone up, entitlements are still a problem, the War on Afghanistan has no end in sight, Al Qaeda’s clearly regrouped/regrouping, our trade deficit hasn’t shrunk, our military forces remain stretched, Guantanamo’s still open, and the list goes on. Let me be clear, not all of these things are necessarily bad, or even the fault of the government. I’ve said before how little effect the president has on the economy compared with the power we traditionally attribute to that office. The same is true of Congress. Record bonuses for Wall Street aren’t necessarily bad, though certainly annoying, and they’re even less necessarily the fault of the administration. I support an escalation of the War on Afghanistan for an indefinite amount of time. The trade deficit may never be fixed, and environmental plans have a clear potential of being bad for an economy still in a recession.

Nevertheless, there’s a whole lot not done compared with what the American people were promised. And the focus has not been on jobs. It’s been on health care, and the environment, and Afghanistan. Of course America’s angry. They care, first and foremost, about the economy right now. I understand that health care is related to the economy, being one sixth of it. I understand that environmental policies can help the economy, particularly when it comes to green jobs (though cap-and-trade, while something we should perhaps introduce, is effectively a tax and not a good idea right now). But it’s not enough for politicians to say, “There’s a connection, trust me.” Americans don’t understand politics and economics and international relations really well, if for no other reason than our understanding doesn’t have to be that extensive, that’s why we elect representatives to know about it.

That, of course, is all related to the third major part of this story: how did a Democrat lose in a Senate election in Massachusetts? They haven’t had a Republican senator for over 30 years. Part of it is, no doubt, the way the campaign was run. Coakley took her victory totally for granted. This much can’t be disputed. But, let’s be clear, it should have been that easy in the Bay State. However much the White House and the DNC want to blame her entirely for the loss, that’s just not reasonable. The president, after all, won the state by 26% in 2008. Of course, the GOP line is that it shows the people are fed up with Democratic rule and the health care bill. That’s no doubt partially true. But I don’t think that wholly accounts for a 31% swing in party preference between now and thirteen months ago. No, I think there’s something else at work here that likely accounts for this more than the GOP line, the Coakley line, or the White House / DNC line. And there’s an understandable reason why none of them want to admit it.

If only the loss of the DNC or GOP wasn't guaranteed to be the gain of the other...

There is, in this country, a resurgence of populism. No one can doubt that, and both parties have recognized and attempted to take advantage of it by claiming to be the party of “Main Street” while their opponents are buddies with the fat cats on Wall Street. When the president announced the “fees” (aka taxes) on the financial sector, Republicans opposed it. President Obama seized on their opposition to claim they’re in bed with Wall Street executives. I mean, it’s not like increasing taxes in the midst of a deep recession is thought of as bad economics or anything. The people don’t like either one of these parties. Our particular system of elections means that there’s really no viable alternative. People refer to third party votes as wasting votes, after all. But they can, and it appears, intend to, switch around the parties in power as often as they feel necessary to keep either party’s agenda from being pushed through. After all, the people may not like the Democrats’ health care plans, but they don’t exactly love the Republican’s foreign policy plans either. The Republican party has been around for 156 years, and the Democratic party 26 years more than that. The Constitution’s only been around for 223 years. So these parties are, unfortunately, not likely to go anywhere. They are way too entrenched. But that’s exactly the problem. They’ve tried to modify their platforms to match the will of the people, but they aren’t always correct in that assessment. And so people are turning away from both parties, disgusted with the entire thing. In Massachusetts, independents outnumber Democrats and Republicans combined. And we’re surprised at the apparent lack of party loyalty? The GOP and DNC can posture all they want, but the people want them both to just stand down for awhile.