The National Hustle » Politics

Infrastructure and Institutions

Matt Andrus — Mon, 10 May 2010 15:00:19 +0000

While reading the introduction of Seth Jones‘ non-fiction In the Graveyard of Empires: America’s War in Afghanistan, I came across an interesting quote on infrastructure and institutions from Nobel-prize winning economist Amartya Sen, which I’d like to share:

“Political freedoms (in the form of free speech and elections) help to promote economic security. Social opportunities (in the form of education and health facilities) facilitate economic participation. Economic facilities (in the form of opportunities for participation in trade and production) can help to generate personal abundance as well as public resources for social facilities.”

You might find this either basic or esoteric, but it certainly deserves some thought. Although I think he was actually discussing nation-building, if there is a formula for what makes America such a prosporous nation, Sen’s idea has provided the most accurate and concise I’ve ever seen.

- Matt

—————–

-Similar Posts:

Frontline: Obama’s War

Matt Andrus — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:19:30 +0000

After nearly nine months in office, President Obama is under heavy pressure to follow through on the campaign promises that got him elected. Obama inherited a heaping plate of problems from his predecessor, but he now has to take ownership over the successes and failures of these issues, including the economy, health care reform, and the war in Afghanistan.

Although very few Americans had any reservations about retaliating against Al Qaeda and the Taliban after 9/11, the past eight years has seen many Americans become dissolutioned with our role in Afghanistan. The Iraq War has diverted both military resources and public attention, resulting in today’s all-too-common questions: (1) What are we trying to achieve in Afghanistan?, and (2) Should we send more troops?

To help provide an updated perspective, Frontline aired “Obama’s War” last night:

- Matt

===============

-Similar Posts:

Why We Fight by Eugene Jarecki

Matt Andrus — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 05:55:21 +0000

I came across an insightful documentary on KQED tonight and wanted to share it here. Why We Fight is not a new release (it has been out since 2005), but Eugene Jarecki did a great job in summarizing the fruition of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s warning about the burgeoning military-industrial complex. The documentary is 90 minutes long and should be required viewing for all those interested in American foreign policy.

- Matt

===============

-Similar Posts:

FreedomWorks: 501(c)(3) Front for Big Pharma?

Matt Andrus — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 19:16:24 +0000

Health care. Say the words and they naturally incite deep-seeded emotions. Whether through personal experience or those of loved ones, we have all had some interaction with the system. So, it should be no surprise that when large, sweeping change to the American healthcare system is on the table, both positive and negative feelings will erupt, including hope, fear, and hate.

With so much apparently at stake, members of Congress have headed back to their constituents to explain the contents of the bill and hear about their hopes and fears of the plan. Unfortunately, meaningful dialogue has been impeded by an organized “shouting down” of congressional Democrats at these town hall-style meetings. While I am all for protesting and public displays of dissent, meaningful debate is clearly not the intent of these groups (Note: I use the term “groups” here, not “mobs”, which I feel is being inaccurately used as a Democratic talking point to build support for the healthcare bill) and it’s unfortunate questions can’t be answered in the forum. These individuals come to the meetings with the impression that they know all they need to know about the proposed reforms. Principally, they believe this bill will result in a single-payer system and ultimately, is just more big government intrusion into the lives of citizens.

But who’s informing and organizing these groups? Clearly, this can’t be a random gathering of concerned citizens, right? Last night, Chris Matthews had on a representative from FreedomWorks, the principal group behind these shouting-sessions:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKPHkljrzzU

Then, the next question is, who’s really behind this “non-profit, non-partisan” organization? With former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey running Freedomworks, Rachel Maddow tracked down the link between his other role as Senior Policy Advisor for DLI Piper and a large pharmaceutical company, The Medicines Company:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W8BbJXjda8

Surprised? If these protesters are scared or angry over what may be in the health care bill, then I applaud them for trying to be heard. But if they are being fed inaccurate talking points from a company with a vested interest in stopping health care reform that would bring competition to the industry, then that is a problem.

Take from it what you will, but in every national debate, remember to follow the money.

- Matt

==========

-Similar Posts:

Change Leaders, not Light Bulbs

Matt Andrus — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:00:30 +0000

In a presentation at MIT and replayed on Academic Earth, Pullitzer Prize winning columnist Thomas Friedman discusses his book, The World is Flat. He discusses the competitive impacts of globalization, the evolution of the “Flat World Platform,” and the need for the U.S. to lead the clean energy revolution.

Before you take a look at the 45-minute video, here are my main five takeaways from Friedman’s presentation:

Global economic competition has been flattened in the last decade. (06:10) According to Friedman, “From the year 2000 to the present, [competition] was shrinking the world from size small to size tiny and flattening the global economic playing field at the same time. Only what’s really new, really different, really exciting, and really terrifying, is that this era of globalization is certainly not spearheaded by countries, and it’s not exclusively spearheaded by companies anymore. This era of globalization is spearheaded by individuals.” During these times of mass media and mass communication, we are also witnessing a new dawn of mass competition on a global level.
Friedman’s four “Key Flateners” consist of the PC, Netscape, the “Work-flow Revolution,” and Uploading. (07:20) Everyone’s familiar with the power of the PC, but the Netscape browser brought the Internet to life and it’s successful 1995 IPO boosted investment in fiber optic cable all over the world. This led to greater world-wide collaboration and eventually, to today’s YouTube and Wikipedia.
Iron rule of business on the Flat World Platform: Whatever can be done, will be done. (17:48) “The only question left is, will it be done by you, or to you?”
The way the U.S. is going to stay on top is to start a real Green Revolution (32:50). We all like to think we are becoming more energy efficient and making progress in the fight against global warming, but Friedman brings up an important point about this Green “Revolution”. He says, “Have you ever been to a revolution where no one got hurt? This is not revolution, this is a party.” (36:55) Now, Friedman’s not suggesting an uprising and installing an authoritarian regime. Rather, he’s stating that for true fundamental change in clean energy, companies who fail to innovative will disappear.
The problem with the term “green,” is that is has always been named by its opponents. (42:16) Green has been labeled “liberal, tree-hugging, sissy, girly-man, unpatriotic, vaguely French.” This term needs to be rebranded to mean what it truly stands for: “geo-political, geo-strategic, economic, capitalistic, entrepreneurial, patriotic.” As Friedman says, “Green is the new red, white, and blue.”

Pretty powerful stuff.

- Matt

==========

-Similar Posts:

Unhealthy Health Care

Matt Andrus — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:00:07 +0000

While many people turn on their auto-response when they hear the phrase “universal health care,” I would like to offer a follow-up to The Camo’s discussion from last week. Whether you find yourself automatically a proponent or enemy of the concept (whether we have a true grasp of what it means or not), there are a few things far scarier than the government reforming our failing health care system:

You or a family member dying because you could not afford proper health care, and
Learning that the free market does not always have the motivators in place for insurance companies to break from the pack and do what’s morally right for consumers (read: removing rescission from their arsenal).

A recent PBS Frontline program covered both these travesties.

If you’re already convinced that an overhaul of our health care system is to be feared, not welcomed, then I implore you to watch Frontline’s Sick Around America to learn about some of the 46 million Americans who the system fails to cover (yes, that’s roughly 15% of citizens living in the greatest economic powerhouse in human history). They represent a large cross-section of the population and in these worsening economy conditions, they could easily be representing you and me.

- Matt
==========Similar Posts:

Suffer Well: Universal Health Care

The Camo — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 23:59:05 +0000

Universal Health Care? In the United States, I feel the term is greeted with the same skepticism/derision as the mythical unicorn, perpetual motion, and World Champion Chicago Cubs. So why then is the United States the only “industrialized” nation in the world to not have a universal health care system? And what does the term actually mean to you and me?

Universal Health Care actually means exactly the same as it reads; health care coverage that is extended to all eligible residents of a government region. Coverage typically includes medical, dental, and mental health care. During his recent presidential campaign, Barack Obama was a strong supporter of a comprehensive restructuring of our national health-care system amidst much criticism from opponent John McCain.

Despite criticism that health-care reform should be delayed until after the economy is “fixed” (what, we haven’t gotten our economy back from the body shop yet?) the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus recently delivered a “Call to Action” proposal for Heath Care Reform in 2009. The principle goals of his health-care reform plan are to provide health care to the 45 million American’s who lack it, and to reign in the soaring costs of the current system.

The Baucus plan seeks to improve upon the current system in which the majority of American’s receive medical coverage through their employers. Small businesses who do not currently provide medical benefits for their employees would be required to do so or pay into a fund to cover the uninsured, however, the businesses would qualify for a new tax credit to help them offset these costs. Insurance would be required for all citizens, and those who would not receive coverage through an employer would purchase coverage on their own, with a government subsidy available dependent upon the individual’s income.

This is such a sticky issue for me. On the one hand I don’t want anyone to not have health insurance, but where does the money come from? Our tax dollars will either go to help the uninsured receive medical care (it is illegal for any medical provider to refuse medical service) or it will go to provide subsidies for individuals to buy insurance that they could not otherwise afford. And after bailing out the automakers, the insurance industry and the banking industry, where is this money even going to come from? Furthermore, in this economic state, I think that we would be stifling entrepreneurs from starting businesses by placing more prohibitive costs on hiring employees.

So, what is the answer? For the majority of us, nothing would change. Most Americans receive medical insurance through their employers. Will trading the cost of the uninsured receiving medical care help lower spiraling medical costs for the rest of us by providing all with insurance? I would love to hear what you think!Similar Posts:

Resource: WhoRunsGov

Matt Andrus — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:30:48 +0000

With 100 senators, 435 house representatives, and literally thousands of congressional and Executive branch staffers running around Washington, it’s nearly impossible to keep straight who’s who and who they “pal around with” (thank you, Mrs. Palin).

Fortunately, the folks at WhoRunsGov.com have removed the guess-work from this process and introduced a valuable resource that “offers a unique look at the world of Washington through its key players and personalities. It’s your window into how deals get made and policy is shaped in the new Obama administration that is remaking the nation’s capital.”

WhoRunsGov breaks each political figure down in a user-friendly format, which includes Why He (or She) Matters, their Path to Power, and my favorite part, their Key Associates. Literally within four clicks, I found out that both Tim Geithner (‘83) and Henry Paulson (‘68) graduated from Dartmouth, Ben Bernanke won the South Carolina state spelling bee in 1965, and what exactly Christina Romer and the White House Council of Economic Advisors actually do!

If you care about what’s going on in Washington or just want to know more about your elected officials, this site is an invaluable tool. And with it’s moderated user-edit functionality, this resource should continue to grow in both breadth and depth for years to come.

Let us know what you think!

- Matt
==========Similar Posts:

Geithner’s Plan and Inside the Meltdown

Matt Andrus — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:48:22 +0000

It only took a few hours after Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner announced his troubled-asset bank relief plan for House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) to label it “fundamentally flawed” and a “shell game that hides the true cost of the program from the taxpayers that will be asked to pay for it.”

While the country’s economy struggles and attempts to “right the ship” have been met with heavy partisan politics, it appears Geithner’s “bank plan” is not sitting well with every Democrat on Capitol Hill either. Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman of California criticized the plan for rescuing banks while neglecting taxpayers. This is a common refrain that’s beginning to sound like a broken record: Why are we “bailing out” banks that got us into this mess?! Trust me, I’ve asked myself this many times.

However, the problem with this line of thinking is the banks and lending institutions are not the only ones whose hands are bloody. After all, the American mortgage and housing industry does not exist without lenders, borrowers, mortgage brokers, real estate appraisers, developers, and of course…a government who chooses how each of these entities will be regulated. It’s easy to forget how we got to where we are today.

Fortunately, there are resources available to remind us. Recently, PBS Frontline aired one of their thoroughly researched and impressively concise 60-minute programs titled “Inside the Meltdown.” While the video doesn’t cover the pre-2007 housing market, it focuses on the systemic risk and difficult decisions former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and Geitner had to make.

There are no heroes in this story, only delayed disaster at every turn. With this as a reference point, we can understand that the decisions Geithner is making today, whether right or wrong, are wrought with painful deliberation and overwhelming consequences.

- Matt

==========Similar Posts:

Obama Agenda Overload

Matt Andrus — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:30:52 +0000

This week, President Obama confronted the nay-sayers of his progressive budget:

The American people don’t have the luxury of just focusing on Wall Street. They don’t have the luxury of choosing to pay their mortgage or their medical bills. They don’t get to pick between paying their kids’ college tuition or saving enough money for retirement.

They have to do all these things. They have to confront all these problems. And as a consequence, so do we.

Obama states the obvious that only focusing on the economy (and AIG) is impossible for a successful president, and he’s clearly inherited a bevy of domestic and international issues to address. He could try to handle them one-by-one, but since the World won’t wait, he should probably start fixing all of them…right…about…now:

War in Iraq — As we spoon-feed responsibility to the Iraqis in accordance with the agreed-upon mandate, things are improving, right?
War in Afghanistan — The new administration’s most seasoned veteran of U.S.-Afghan engagement (and I don’t mean just since 9/11), Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is telling everyone who will listen about the complicated difficulties of solidarity in Afghanistan.
Military presence in Kosovo — Yes, we’re still there, with some criticism that we are using our bases as a European Guantanamo.
Resurgent Taliban in Pakistan — The tribal regions and Swat Valley in northwest Pakistan are essentially under Taliban control.
Potential failure of nuclear state in Pakistan – Due to (1) the resurgent Taliban, (2) a history of mistrust between the President, Army, and the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI, the Pakistani CIA), (3) the current political unrest (resignation of President Pervez Musharraf last year, the assassination of his likely replacement Benazir Bhutto, and the election a questionable leader in Bhutto’s widower Asif Ali Zardari), and (4) a destructive paranoia of all things India, there is significant concern of Pakistan’s viability as an independent state and that an extremist organization (read: the Taliban) may gain control of their nuclear arsenal.
Potential failure of Shiite-controlled Iraqi government — Ever since Paul Bremer’s de-Ba’athification of Iraqi politics and society and the near boycott of initial elections by Sunnis, questions have lingered whether a Shiite-dominated parliament can maintain popular support once the Americans “leave” the country. Recent elections might actually provide some insight into future of Sunni political power.
Guantonamo — Close the base? Sure. What to do with the prisoners? Umm…not as easy.
Darfur — As a genocide goes unrecognized by the Sudanese government and undeterred by the United Nations’ bureaucratic futility, will our country’s first African-American president be willing to pressure China to help end Africa’s most publicized crisis?
Iran — Bush labeled them “evil“, McCain wanted to “Bomb, bomb” them and Obama welcomes them to the table. Are they our worst nightmare or a stabilizing force in the turbulent Middle East?
Israeli-Hamas Conflict — The demands from each side may be both historically justified and in direct conflict, so can another Camp David meeting with an American president solve anything? Probably not, but…got any better ideas?
Al Qaeda — With bin Laden in control or not, the extremist organization is still alive and thriving.
No attacks on U.S. soil — Perhaps the only unquestionable success of President Bush is that there have been no major terrorist attacks within our borders since 9/11. While we can question the means to how this was acheived, Obama must recognize that he’s not going to be allowed any mulligans and that any failure in this area would doom his presidency. And if the pressure wasn’t high enough already, he’s got this guy salivating at the opportunity to title his memoirs “I Told You So”.
New Secretary of Defense — Robert Gates is the best inheritance from the Bush Administration and is worthy of the job, but it remains to be seen if his world-view is in line with Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, or CIA Director Leon Panetta.
Domestic spying — Wielded openly by Bush and Vice President Cheney as necessary in the War on Terror, will Obama carry on these quasi-illegal activities or will he please the masses by removing this tool from the presidential arsenal? This is a constant sticking point in the freedom v. security debate.
Constitutional basis for advancement of presidential power? – Cheney, David Addington and John Yoo played the most significant roles in advancing executive branch powers since 9/11, but with a former whistleblower appointed to head the Department of Justice, Obama appears willing to concede some of the Bush Administration’s questionable Constitutional justifications.
Recession – You can’t turn on the news anymore without hearing about the “worst financial crisis” since the Great You Know What, but can Obama’s stimulus package right the ship or should we just take our medicine and ride this thing out?
China — We spend and they save. We want low-priced products and they swallow our industry. Are we already too far in to get out from under the potential world power of the 21st century?
Deficit spending and the rising national debt – With balanced budgets under President Clinton seemingly a lifetime away from D.C.’s current corporate shopping spree, are we destined for complete foreign ownership or will we find out President Reagan was correct and deficits just don’t matter?
Rising unemployment — Unemployment is at its highest rate in 16 years (8.1%) and some economists estimate the rate will max out around 10%. Now would probably be a good time to dust off that resume and invest in a new suit.
Industry nationalization and bailouts — The government has purchased equity stakes in a large number of banks and lending institutions, the auto industry received their unexpected share of help, and the American people are waiting for their personal bailout. Who should be salvaged and who will be left to fail?
Mortgage crisis — With thousands of upside-down ARM loans resetting in the next few years, the mortgage crisis has yet to hit its peak. Will lenders be willing to renegotiate terms or will Obama play hardball to keep people in their homes?
Health care — The costs of employee-based health care plans continue to increase while the coverage appears to be getting worse. Is universal health care the answer or can we learn a few things from the mistakes and successes experienced overseas?
Tax policy — Republicans were quivering at claims of Obama’s redistribution of wealth plans, but the economic downturn is having the largest impact on his tax policy. Step one: Extend the Bush tax cuts or maintain campaign promises of lowering taxes for 95% of the country? We have an answer.

Obviously this is only a list of the high-visibility issues and Obama will have to handle far more, but if he can resolve all of these effectively and maintain a campaign promise or two, the White House should start filling out his canonization application just prior to his second term.

- Matt

==========Similar Posts: