Oregon Strategist

Reinventing the Oregon Dream

Government Shutdown: The Poison of a Partisan Perspective

by

Capitol HillOur federal government has ground to a halt. Again. Republicans and Democrats were unable to meet a deadline to fund the government Monday night. While a group of “combative” Republicans are largely bearing responsibility for the impasse in Congress due to their hawkish advocacy to defund the Affordable Care Act, the reality is the factions in Congress are more varied and deeply divided than ever.

Both parties are to blame for this stalemate, and the result may very well be an ever-divided Congress where each party will blame the other for their unwillingness to negotiate. On the one hand, Republicans are claiming they want to reign in spending but are unwilling to compromise when it comes to military budgets and spending on our overseas police power – a capacity that is becoming increasingly disfavored by the public. And, indeed, the Department of Defense is, by far, the largest contingent that will be affected by the shutdown. On the other hand, Democrats spearheaded a bill that is not feasible to fund given the current economic crisis because the government is strictly not generating enough revenue to support such a program short of spending our future away.

Our government’s sole focus right now should be on economic improvement. While the Affordable Care Act promotes a noble purpose, the fact of the matter is that our government cannot afford to pay for it. Our federal programs, such as Social Security, are already failing for lack of funding and mismanagement. There is little support for the idea that the Affordable Care Act would face any more promising future.

Economic improvement will come from taking military spending and re-investing those dollars here on the home front where our infrastructure and education are sorely lacking. Economic improvement will stem from creating a positive climate for small business and entrepreneurship by removing barriers to entry and by encouraging smaller, more flexible entities. These entities will, in turn, create the types of jobs we want in our society – the types based on relationships and accountability. And, finally, at the heart of economic improvement, is the idea that we decrease the stratification of wealth in our society. Simplifying the tax code is essential for leveling the playing field for all people. Complexities in the code create the types of loopholes that allow for corporate exploitation and tax shelters for the wealthy.

There are very certain and definite roles for our federal government. The services Washington D.C. provide through the unification of essential interstate laws and international treaties should be primary but focused. We must be realistic in what we can and cannot sustainably afford at that level. And let’s be honest, Cover Oregon is doing and would do a better job at providing health care for our citizens than any federal program. If our federal government is unable to afford Social Security and Medicare, then what good will the Affordable Care Act do for us when we ultimately cannot afford to pay the doctors?

Will it take a nationwide default to provide the political impetus to reform?  That is a possibility. But blaming one party or the other is only fuel for a divisive fire. The stopgap just may be to practice viewing this shutdown from an opposing point of view.

 

Syria: Not Another War

by

SyriaAgain we face military intervention in the Middle East, this time from a President who has come to Congress for authorization. 

There is no doubt that action by the United States, absent the formation of a coalition or joint resolution with other nations, would be an act of war against the Syrian government. We face no imminent threat from Assad nor from the chemical weapons he has chosen to unleash against his own people – horrific as these events are.

An act of war, at this time in our nation’s history, is perhaps the last thing we need. Who amongst us is still advocating international intervention of this kind? Are we not able to honestly reflect on our current capabilities as a nation? We have borrowed money to spend it again on our policing powers. Our trade deficits show we are now importing security. So what should our leaders do?

Any proposed military action by the Obama Administration or by Congress should be outright rejected. Our economy, while having shown signs of slight recovery, still drags its feet with 7.4 percent unemployment. The government programs that are still functioning drastically underserve their stated objectives – despite many of their objectives being too broad, too deep, and too overlapping. Our infrastructure is wearing and outdated. John Kerry’s words heard around the world two days ago declared “This is not the time for armchair isolationism. This is not the time to be spectators to a slaughter.” Mr. Kerry: By an act of war against a non-aggressor, you will be slaughtering our Nation’s future.

If strikes against the Assad regime were intended to be limited, as Obama suggests, then striking their chemical weapons capabilities would not be a scenario where “the punishment fits the crime.” On the other hand, a strike that cripples the regime and tips the balance of power in favor of the rebels (as the United States did for Libya) means the United States would be ushering into the power vacuum a proxy regime likely made up of al-Qaeda and other extremist groups.

For now, as the G20 Summit wraps up, world leaders are tremendously divided. China and Russia remain opposed to action against the Assad regime, while only France and the United States have committed to using force. Even the Pope has weighed in, urging leaders to put aside prospects for military action.

To make a dire situation enormously worse, Yale law professor Stephen Carter points out the “limiting lanaguage” in the Senate’s Syria Resolution is deceptively broad.

Finally, authorizing a strike to oppose Assad’s use of chemical weapons to massacre his own people is not morally superior to opposing Assad’s use of conventional weapons against his own people. The propensity of chemical weapons to inflict greater indiscriminate harm on civilian populations than their conventional counterparts originally led to their condemnation in the international community. However, in his use of both chemical and conventional weapons, President Assad has proved indiscriminate towards the killing of civilians and rebel fighters.

Surplus, Transparency and International Trade

by

TPPAccording to the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis the United States is running a trade deficit of $34.2 billion. This is a decrease from the previous annual period; however, it is still enormously unhealthy for an economy attempting to recover from the blow of 2008.

A country’s trade surplus or deficit speaks mightily about where that country stands in its growth and development. Like a college kid with a credit card, we ran up our deficits at the bar, one of those $300 nights, and expected Mother and Father to foot the bill in the end. Only now, we realize Europe has problems of its own. Yes, we have started to offload some of our debt to Asia. This is why Japan maintains an interest in Montana mines and why our Navy controls their harbors from bases in Yokosuka and Okinawa. This is why China, our much younger sibling, is racing to the top to secure its stake in our debt. And this is why we are attempting to join trade associations like the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (“TPP”) that has been the source of much criticism from Congress and the public in Washington D.C.

Understanding our goals for international trade are equally important as understanding our role and status. As Europe’s glory faded into ours, their economies relied upon specialty market goods that now find tremendous appeal in burgeoning regions like eastern and southeastern Asia. We, as a nation, have protected our resources well by relying upon others’ gases, textiles, metals and wood. But as our reliance has grown, so has our deficit, and so has our expectancy that a variety of choices will be laid at the Prince’s feet. Growth comes from acceptance to atonement to demand for greater responsibility.

Part of this acceptance results from raising public awareness about our proposed trade agreements like the TPP. Mega corporations have veiled the negotiations and are inhibiting our acceptance, growth and democracy. Their power over governmental processes is such that they can now bargain away our most important choice: the choice in how we will live and carry on. Yet the reason they are so large and have ultimately consumed our government itself is because we allowed our federal government run what our local government should have been dealing with. We centralized authority over the minute details of our lives.

Trade is, undoubtedly a federal issue that requires broad base, uniform dealings. However, when those dealings are skewed to the perspective of the highest orders, the interests protected tend to be those of the highest orders. Increasing exports by lowering tariffs through trade agreements, reducing imports through restricting the processing of our natural resources overseas, and ultimately working towards a trade surplus is one route to restore our “war” chest, that, next time around, will hopefully be used to advance our internal economic mechanisms and sustain our prosperity.

Such an effort requires the highest order of checks and balances. These checks and balances must span not merely between the three branches of our government, but between those three branches’ relationship to the fourth branch: the lobbies that have hijacked our government and are now controlling negotiations overseas. We must impose checks and balances between the public sector and the private sector in the form of simple, straightforward laws, that reveal where our politicians have been bought and paid for, in order, thus, to bring them down from their supposed role as stewards of our society.