The New York Times reported on Labor Day 2010 that the Obama Administration has unveiled a new long term economic stimulus package that would begin with a $50 billion investment in public works projects, like railroads, air port runways and road construction. According to the Times:

“The $787 billion economic recovery act passed by Congress at the beginning of Mr. Obama’s presidency already included considerable spending on roads and other transportation infrastructure. But the White House says Mr. Obama’s new plan is different, because it would focus on a “long-term vision” as well as create jobs in the near term [emphasis added.”

So, at least this new stimulus spending is different…maybe it will lower the unemployment rate this time? And considering there won’t be a census for a little while we can look at real unemployment numbers and avoid the false positives of the previous year (which was chock-full of temporary census workers).

Two more ridiculous points:

Obama has still not figured out how he is going to pay for the stimulus, saying that he is going to work with Congress and find corporate tax breaks to eliminate (not that we need to encourage corporate growth or anything…) so as to avoid adding the deficit.

Ever the consensus builder, Obama has engaged Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ed Rendell and Michael Bloomberg (The consummate Republican, Democrat and Independent of America, respectively) to build consensus. Mr. President, are you serious?

With the Democrats hurting in the polls and talk of a Republican takeover in the midterm elections I wonder how much the inception of this new stimulus package owes to the terrible economic climate (and failure of the first stimulus) and how much it owes to politics.

Please excuse the Kubrick reference…but sometimes it feels like we are approaching a “Strangelovian” catastrophe.

Welcome to the age of incumbent superpowers, where the rules that apply to the everyday American citizen don’t apply to the people who work for us in the government. Perhaps it is a symptom of the “Old Boy” network in Washington, which continually seeks to protect its own ranks and insulate those in power from the full scope of the law. That is partially true. What is closer to the truth is that in Washington our politicians believe they are above the law. Just because they help draft laws does not mean they are above them (which might be obvious to us common folk).

The most recent news on the corruption in Washington is Representative Charlie Rangel, who was charged with 13 counts of corruption by the House Ethics committee. According to the New York Times, Rangel’s charges included”

“…his improper use of his office to solicit donations for a City University of New York center to be named in his honor; his failure to report rental income from his villa in the Dominican Republic and to pay taxes on it; his omission of some $600,000 in assets on his House financial disclosure forms; and his acceptance from a Manhattan developer of four rent-stabilized apartments, one of which he used as a campaign office.”

One might think that this is enough to put one of our politicians in jail (because it surely is enough to bag someone like me for at least tax evasion). However, the Ethics committee recommended only a “reprimand” for Rangel and not an ousting. The NY Times defends this by saying that other recent ethics hearings, Barney Frank and Newt Gingrich, were also resolved with reprimands. What it doesn’t tell you is that Frank’s crime was the use of Federal stationary and 83 of Gingrich’s 84 charges were dropped and the hearing was inconclusive (they left the determination of criminal activity up to the IRS). So, if those two cases ended in reprimands how can Rangel’s possibly be treated in the same way?

Representative Charlie Rangel should be ousted for disgracing his office and the Federal Government of the United States.

America has always been heralded as the great melting pot: people from across the world were suposed to come to the new world and create a new democratic and uniquely American culture that was united by personal liberty and shared ideals. And while many people would still consider the United States a melting pot, it is quite clear that it is anything but such a pot. We know the true history: Italians occupied their specific area of the city, as did the Irish…African Americans were enslaved, Chinese Americans were killed building the American railroads, and Native Americans were exterminated.

But the headlines, it seems to me, are always filled with the news of America’s progress towards some ideal of a post-racal society. The election of our first black President, whose middle name is Hussein, was heralded as one such indicator of a fundamental shift in the United States. The term “Majority Minority” is the new catchphrase that describes the demographic trend in America, where the current majority white population will slowly decrease proportionally with regard to “minority” groups.

There are two points to consider about the post-racial society. The first is that simply because America is becoming more diverse does not mean that it is post racial. What’s even more concerning is that this quick demographic change can often lead to the rise of intense, race-induced prejudices. How often do we hear about foreign groups stealing American jobs…etc. Regardless of the truth or fiction of these statements, race plays a role in, at least, the expression of these frustrations. This in turn tends to entrench racial identities among respective groups.

Second, if we were truly a post-racial society then none of these racial and demographic changes would truly matter. Think of it this way: what would you think of an Ivy-league educated intellectual who decries the aloofness of the Ivory tower and the heartlessness of the establishment. Hint: you shouldn’t take him/her seriously. The mere fact that American intellectuals/media waits for any particle of an indication that our country moves towards a post-racial society (i.e. its intense focus on race) disproves what they try to prove.

If you have seen the new GM commercials you know what I am talking about. GM CEO Ed Whitacre speaks about how GM has paid back its loan to the United States, with interest, and that GM’s new goal is to make their company a company that America can be proud of again.

People who are not outraged by this commercial have easily forgotten how GM got into this mess to begin with: unreasonable deals made with their unions combined with large amounts of dollars flooding into Washington that insulated GM from market forces and foreign competition. If that’s not enough, GM didn’t realize (hard to imagine after the ’79 oil crisis, but true nevertheless) the trend towards more fuel efficient cars as the key to the future of any car company.

Where did this lead GM? To financial ruin, and rightfully so: if you do not obey the market and adapt to its influences then you will fail, pure and simple. So, please explain to me why my tax dollars should go to bailing your mismanaged company out of financial ruin?

The only American car company I am proud of is Ford, who bit the bullet, did not take government financing, and got back to the basics: Americans want quality cars at competitive prices. Take a look at the new Taurus’ and you will know what I am talking about.

The events unfolding in the Southwestern U.S. are quite troubling. Can cities and states wage economic warfare against each other? That is what Los Angeles has done by effectively levying an embargo on Arizona’s goods and services. In turn, Arizona has threatened to turn off its electrical supply to the city. If you took the states’ names out of these sentences, you could mistake this for a call to action against Chinese goods and services or Russia threatening to cut off gas lines to Eastern Europe and Germany.

This is an outrage: how can an American city “punish” an American state for drafting a law to curb the flow of illegal aliens who are citizens of another country? The Obama administration needs to stand up and take some leadership on this issue. While states may be allowed to disagree with each other or with the federal government they must be expressly forbidden to engage in harmful action towards other states (or the federal government). What’s the point of being an American if I cannot even trust another city or state in my own country?

For a good read check out: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64I6UA20100519?type=domesticNews

Many will remember Arlen Specter for his deft political maneuvering over the past couple of years (I will personally remember him for screaming at Ted Kennedy during the Judicial Confirmation hearings of Justice Alito). Last night marked the end of his long career in his defeat in a Democratic primary election. Speculation concerning the political death of one member of the old guard abounds: “The rain killed Arlen…Whatever chance he had went down with the rain,” said Pennsylvania Governor Edward G. Rendell. How will Specter characterize his defeat? Even his switch from a Republican to a Democrat could save his reelection bid.

It would appear that Specter, and Rendell for that matter, is mistaken as to the true reason underlying his defeat. The defeat is acknowledgement of two facts: the first is the general discontent with how the old boy network has been running the United States. Specter has been around for 30 years and Americans are dying for new blood, with new perspectives and a fresh approach to how Washington does business. We saw this with the election of President Obama, who ran explicitly on a strategy of building consensus and revolutionizing how politicking was conducted on Capitol Hill and from the White House.

The second is a general discontent with the Democratic party. Bush-bashing has lost its appeal: the White House, Senate, and Congress are under the firm control of the Democrats (except the loss of a filibuster-proof political process) so who will the American public now blame? Since the economic stimulus package unemployment has remained high (and underestimated as people stopped looking for jobs or their unemployment benefits expired). The wars are still on halfway across the world (and escalated by Obama). I know it’s nothing new when I say we can all be assured that we will see a Republican resurgence this fall. But, across party lines, I am sure we will an “out with the old and in with the new” approach to voting.

Sorry, Arlen, old buddy…nothing you could have done would have been enough to save you.

NYTimes article cited: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/us/politics/19specter.html?ref=politics

The United States has a storied history in land wars: it has met success in World Wars One and Two on land in Europe, fought to stalemate against the Chinese in Korea, and was defeated by irregular forces (and domestic unrest) in Vietnam. This history of U.S. involvement in land wars could confuse exactly what kind of power the United States actually is.

Before we get to that, a quick point: There are two kinds of great powers: land powers and sea powers. This is determined by geography more than politics, technology and choice. For instance, with a huge territory that borders multiple states, Russia is a land power because it must upkeep a large army to defend its borders. The United Kingdom, when it was a great power, was a sea power. This is determined by the simple fact that it is surrounded by sea and, because it did not have to fund a standing army, had to invest in a navy for its defense.

Though the United States has a large landmass and borders, it does not have any military power on its borders. Weak border states (thank you Canada and Mexico) allow great powers to focus military funding to other areas. Without threats on its borders, the United States does not need to maintain a standing army to defend the homeland and focuses on power projection through its navy. Hence, the United States has 11 aircraft carriers (the UK and France are the only other countries with real carriers, they are half the size of U.S. carriers and they only have 2 and 1 respectively).

Now, back on topic…carriers are essential to American power projection. As a naval power and with geographic isolation, the aircraft carriers provide platforms for assault on foreign land, disruption of enemy naval operations, and, most importantly, defense of carrier groups and troop transports en route to military engagement.

With the economy going sour and no true naval competitor in the running, politicians may be willing to cut back on military spending and the number of aircraft carriers the navy operates. Defense Secretary Gates “asked whether the United States could afford ‘a Navy that relies on 3- to 6-billion-dollar destroyers, along with 7-billion-dollar submarines and 11-billion-dollar carriers.’”

While the United States may not be actively engaging in military operations against an enemy with its own aircraft carriers, they remain essential tools in American foreign policy. First, they are a demonstration of American power projection: with a global presence that packs a true punch, the aircraft carrier is the face of the United States abroad. Among other reasons, aircraft carriers are also tools for demonstrating US credibility. For example, sailing a carrier down the Taiwan Strait in response to Chinese aggression says “Back off, Beijing.” As a naval power, it would be an utter mistake to cut back on the number American aircraft carriers.

For more see: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6460AN20100507?type=politicsNews

This was reported in the NY Times today:

“A majority of the people polled, 57 percent, said the federal government should determine the laws addressing illegal immigration. But 51 percent said the Arizona law was “about right” in its approach to the problem. Thirty-six percent said it went too far and 9 percent said it did not go far enough.”

If you didn’t catch the math on that, that means that 60 percent of Americans agree with the Arizona immigration law, with 9 percent of that saying it isn’t strong enough. I wonder what Washington is going to do to address these concerns…

Article cited can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/us/04poll.html?hp

Louisiana seems to be headed for disaster…again. An underwater oil well in the Gulf of Mexico is spilling out uncontrollably and a massive cloud of oil is moving for the Louisiana coastline. If you didn’t have satellite photos showing a black spot in the ocean you would think everyone was talking about a new hurricane: “Who is going to clean up afterwards?” “It is making its way towards land.” “Where’s the federal government?”

Either way, this is going to take a toll on Louisiana, both environmentally and economically. BP, the oil company that owns the oil rig, is taking full responsibility for the clean up, a welcome step towards corporate responsibility…though I suspect that the prospect of profiting from expanded offshore drilling, which Obama just OK’ed, much to the chagrin of his environmentalist supporters, has more to do with their motivation that human decency…

Though, as this disaster unfolds before our eyes, and parallels to Katrina are being made, it is clear that Obama, unlike Bush, is not under intense scrutiny for his lack of action. In a recent article in the New York Times, one writer points directly to a lack of decisive action on the part of the Obama administration with regard to this disaster. According to the article, the Administration’s first response was to chastise BP for the accident. This is an exaggeration, Obama did address the issue and said that BP would pay the bill, but there was no mudslinging.

However, where the article is correct is to point out the delayed response from the Department of Homeland Security, which took until this past Thursday (April 29) to declare the spill a matter of national concern so that a new HQ could be set up and the Department of Defense could be counted on for aid. That was a full nine days before action was taken (The explosion occurred the night of April 20). Initial estimates were that the oil well could be plugged and that clean up crews would be able to handle what oil had escaped to the ocean (and possibly land). However, choppy seas cut the success of the clean up and unmanned robots were unable to close the leak, which expanded to 5,000 barrels a day.

It remains to be seen exactly how this will all play out after the oil makes landfall and the Louisiana coast, the fertile reserves of the Mississippi Delta and all its animal inhabitants are covered in black. The only good thing about this is that at least no people are in danger as of yet. Though, for all the coverage of the political fallout at BP and Obama’s response, you may have forgotten that 11 people died in the oil rig explosion.

Immigration reform, understandably, has taken a back seat to the economy in the past year. Both parties have been content to ignore this elephant in the room because they are either spending all their political capital on pet projects (Healthcare Reform and their reelection campaigns) or avoiding the issue altogether. It is clear that, even though the pace of immigration has slowed with the economy that it is not going to be fixed by itself. Someone truly needs to take action…enter Arizona.

Whether or not you agree with the immigration bill passed in Arizona, which contains controversial policies regarding the identification of illegal immigrants, at least they did something about it. America is a country built on immigrants. It has been the key to our success: people from across the world have come to America and brought with them a zeal for hard work and innovation. If this system, which is so essential to our survival as a nation, is broken how can we possibly move forward in the coming years. Problem is, like most serious political reform in this country, no one wants to jeopardize their reelection or their political party.

I commend Arizona for taking a stand and forcing the issue. Immigration needs to be fixed and if the President and Congress can’t do it then let the states, themselves, at least give it a shot.