Budget fiasco harms U.S. economy

Decision just another short-term patch

Gordon L. Weil

In the middle of the night recently, while crises whirled around the world, the U.S. made a major policy move.

Not about Ukraine.  Not about immigration.  The Senate simply adopted a new temporary budget bill to keep the federal government running for six more months, setting up a crisis for just before the election. 

During the 1992 presidential election, a Clinton strategist emphasized the campaign’s focus: “It’s the economy, stupid.”  The government impacts the economy even more now through taxes and spending.  The budget matters.

It can’t seem to get the balance between them right, making borrowing money a major business of government.  The problem is that Congress and the American people like spending and hate taxes.  When it comes to Congress, that includes both Democrats and Republicans.

When the Democrats propose increased spending, they promise to pay for it by increasing taxes on the wealthy and big corporations.  When the Republicans propose cutting taxes for the same entities, they would slash non-military spending and boost borrowing.  When the two sides meet, they deadlock and must temporarily patch over their differences with more debt.

National spending falls into four major categories: Social Security, Medicare and similar programs, military, non-military and debt payments. 

Making payments on the federal debt should be beyond debate. The government has made commitments to lenders both in the U.S. and abroad.  They buy U.S. bonds, because the country always pays its debts. That has led to the American dollar serving as the world’s prime currency, contributing to the country’s role as a superpower.

Threats to America’s credit are caused by battles over the debt ceiling, but the dollar’s world role is also affected by the budget games. They raise concerns about the reliability of the U.S.

Social Security and Medicare are the so-called “third rail” of American politics.  Because these programs are so vital to so many, neither party wants to risk touching them.  They are financed by employer-employee contributions, but are nearing the point where those funds won’t cover the cost.

That leaves unpopular choices.  Raise payroll taxes or cut benefits or do both. The conversation about what to do is picking up speed as the shortfall gets closer.

Some Republicans, though not Donald Trump, want to increase the eligibility age for receiving Social Security, which would amount to a benefit cut.  A few Republicans even see these programs as “socialism” and would slash them.

Democrats would raise payroll taxes on higher income people.  That would not be enough, so they are driven toward using income taxes revenues.  If there were more workers, who would contribute to payroll taxes, it’s less likely these general funds would be needed.  That may explain why some Democrats support immigration.

There is another reason why immigration could have a positive, economic effect. China and Japan, with little immigration, are shrinking in population, and their economies suffer.   More people bring an expanded labor force and boost consumer spending.  The U.S. population will shrink without immigration, which could bring economic decline.

Social Security now provides more than half of the retirement income for more than half of its recipients.   The program may have become part of a national pension policy, not the short-term income supplement it once was.  Plus, people are living longer so more funds are needed, while there are fewer workers contributing.

House Republicans are right about the need for separate spending bills so each area of government activity gets needed attention.  But when they refuse to compromise, they leave Congress with a last-minute desperation bill.  Meanwhile, the Senate budget builders came up with separate bills, thanks partly to Sen. Susan Collins, a key Republican player on spending.

Both parties need to get more serious about dealing with the federal budget, both spending and taxes.  President Biden says he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and has had some success, but a recent report shows he has actually cut taxes.  The GOP says it dislikes deficits, but beats the Democrats in creating them.  Trump was a top-flight debt producer.

No president in decades has submitted a serious and disciplined budget.  Budgets are usually political documents with no real future.  Many depend on impossible revenues, including Biden’s this year, undoubtedly leading to more debt.  Budgets also almost never review the ongoing need for past spending decisions, partly because cutting them may cost jobs.

The media is no help, having created a permanent political campaign.  With an eye on their reelection, politicians follow the almost daily polls that supposedly transmit the popular will. The trouble is that the polls focus on the short-term.

In the current budget system nothing changes, and last-minute patches are applied to keep the government in operation. Without improved leadership looking beyond the next election, the prospect is for another midnight budget fiasco.

Israel aligns with GOP

Gaza crisis creates wedge issue 

Gordon L. Weil

Israel is part of America’s political culture. 

Since its creation in 1948, support for Israel has been constant and bipartisan.  But that is now changing.

For some, this support might have grown as a reaction to the horrors of the Holocaust. For evangelical Christians, Israel as the Jewish homeland would be an essential element of their religious beliefs.

Israel’s founding also served the practical need for dealing with the end of the British Empire. The decision to grant Israel independence from British rule came in 1947, the same year that Britain quit India.  In drawing a new world map, the winners could call the shots.  President Harry Truman gave the State of Israel the American seal of approval.

Based on Jewish values and the rejection of totalitarian government in World War II, Israel promised to be a true liberal democracy, making it a rarity in the Middle East and a natural ally. And its existence could go far to reduce the Jewish Diaspora, the worldwide dispersion of the Jews, which had often exposed them to outright hostility.

Surrounded by Arab states intent on its destruction, Israel could count on the steadfast support of the U.S. and many European countries.  In terms of American domestic politics, the unified official position brought the active backing of both parties and the Jewish community.

There were at least two concrete results.  The U.S. provides massive military aid to Israel and has close intelligence ties.  Given its place in American political culture, Israel might rank alongside Britain, Canada or Australia.  This relationship came with assured American acceptance of the policies adopted by the Israeli government.

The relationship began to fray over the issue of dealing with Iran, seeking to develop nuclear weapons, which Israel already possessed. Feeling threatened, Israel wanted tough action to block Iran.  The U.S. and other major powers, including Russia and China, reached an agreement with Iran to slow its nuclear development, while moving toward further limitations.

Republicans continued to adhere to Israeli policy, while Democrats increasingly favored the negotiated approach. In 2015, the partisan break became clear when congressional Republican majority leaders invited Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress without either Israel or the GOP informing Democratic President Barack Obama.

Endorsing Israel’s position, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran agreement, and it collapsed.  He aligned with Netanyahu’s policy without serious partisan conflict, thanks to Israel’s many Democratic backers.  Iran increased as a threat and stepped up its nuclear development,

Last October 7, Hamas terrorists attacked Israel and seized hostages. Israel and most of the world community reacted in horror and strong opposition.  Israel understandably retaliated, attempting to eliminate Hamas from its home base in Gaza. It chose to obliterate large parts of Gaza rather than deploying a more surgical approach.

Its response received renewed Republican support, but revealed a growing split among Democrats.  Some believed Israel’s bombing raids were justified, while others thought they were disproportionate and unlikely to eliminate Hamas.  Over time, the opposition has grown among Democrats and also among the broader American public.

Along with the devastating attacks on Gaza, Netanyahu refused to say what he sought as the ultimate objective.  Apparently, it would not be a two-state solution, despite Israel’s previous nominal support for the idea. A single state runs directly counter to American and European positions.  As a prime financial backer of Israel, the U.S. could be worried about this policy shift,

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is America’s highest ranking Jewish elected official.  In a broad review of the Israel-Palestine situation, he said that Netanyahu should go.  GOP leaders immediately attacked Schumer for meddling in another country. The Israeli Prime Minister responded that his country was not a “banana republic,” to be pushed around by the U.S.

When President Biden agreed with Schumer, the partisan lines were firmly drawn. In effect, the American Middle East policy could no longer always follow Israel’s line.  Israel, obviously not a banana republic, has made its own decision to conduct what many see as an anti-humanitarian war.  That policy has moved Israel outside of the select circle of special American friends.

Despite Republican claims, the U.S. has intervened in other countries, including even helping overthrow an elected Iranian government.  Schumer’s statement that the present Israeli government has mistakenly dropped the two-state solution, a critically important element of U.S. policy, falls far short of treating Israel as a mere dependency.

The GOP likes single hot-button policies known as wedge issues, and is now trying to make Israel into one.  Trump, the current owner of the Republican Party, issues this godlike proclamation: “Any Jewish person that votes for the Democrats hates their religion.”

Whether that influences or changes American politics is unclear.  That Israel’s actions are influencing and changing American policy is clear.

Poll, pundits doing poor job on presidential race

 

Gordon L. Weil

In an old movie, two tribes are fighting brutally on a battlefield in what may be Afghanistan.  Suddenly, a single line of religious monks crosses the field.  The fighting abruptly halts.  All watch in silence and respect as the holy men pass, and then the battle resumes.

The same thing may be happening now in the U.S.  The monks are pollsters, revered for their objectivity and neutrality.  Media pundits are the high priests who explain the “truths” revealed by the pollsters. 

Pollsters’ truths these days are that Donald Trump leads Joe Biden in the presidential race and that, though both are old men, Biden is worryingly older than Trump.  And, while there are about eight months until the election, it’s almost over now. 

This is called conventional wisdom.  It’s not wisdom, because it could easily turn out to be wrong, but it surely is conventional.  The media promotes what’s conventional, because the pundits listen mainly to one another – a kind of herd (or “heard”) instinct.

In reality, polls may be worse than ever.  Technological change has made it more difficult for pollsters to find a truly random sample of likely voters.  That’s essential if survey responses from the 1,000 people interviewed can predict how tens of millions of people will vote.  

Many people randomly selected cannot be reached or refuse to reply, so pollsters artificially weight some participants more than others. Besides, some people don’t give honest answers. 

In the Republican Super Tuesday primaries, Trump performed less well in most states than his polling numbers had forecast.  For example, in Michigan, a swing state, 57 percent of Republicans told polls they would vote for Trump, but only 42 percent did.

Where will the lost Trump supporters go in November?  And what about those Republicans who say they would not vote for Trump if he were convicted of a felony?  Plus, what will be the effect of third parties if the race is close?  The pundits are silent.

Polls are conducted every day, and the results are instantly interpreted by the journalistic herd to suggest to lowly voters what we will do eight months from now. Campaigns and voters may make decisions based on the doubtful data stated as conventional wisdom. 

In short, statistical guesses are treated as sure things.  Excessive reliance on polling misleads and distorts the election process.

By the way, there is one area where we should consider scientific statistics – the age of the candidates.  The media constantly focuses on doubts about Biden’s age but much less on Trump’s.  It ignores so-called “actuarial tables.”

The U.S. government must calculate how long people at each age will live in order to know the future cost of Social Security benefits.  Highly trained and experienced experts, the actuaries, determine how many more years a man or woman at each age is expected to live.  They set life expectancy at the age to be reached by at least half the people born in the same year. 

They calculate with great accuracy how long men the ages of Trump and Biden will live. Trump would be 78 at the start of the next presidential term; Biden would be 82.  At that time, Trump’s life expectancy would be 88, while Biden’s would be 90.  That means either would have a good chance of serving a full presidential term. 

So, the age difference does not particularly favor Trump.  But they are both old men and both are gaffe-prone.  Either could make such a disastrous error in campaigning that it would seriously threaten their electoral chances. No pollster can take that into account, though both parties and the voters may.

Finally, given their ages, will the election focus less on the two men and more on their two running mates?  If voters believe both are dangerously old, they could focus on the vice-presidential candidates.  Their debate could be the most important ever for the number two slot, especially if one or both of the presidential candidates won’t debate.

The biggest and most public decision a presidential candidate makes during a campaign is the selection of their running mate.  Biden’s is known and Trump’s will be a person who hews loyally to his positions.  Either must be viewed as a possible president, maybe even a likely one.  That could make this election more about the running mates than about the top of the ticket.

Finally, much will depend on the media.  The mainline media seems committed to promoting the conventional wisdom, breathlessly reported every day.  It owes the voters more than daily spot reporting and hot-off-the press analyses.  It should avoid snap conclusions drawn from flawed or possibly biased polling.

Questionable polling and hasty analyses dominate the election campaign these days. We need more light and less heat.

America’s court jester has Middle East peace plan

 

Gordon L. Weil

In medieval times, kings had court jesters who could give them serious warnings or advice, candy-coated with humor.

America may now have its own court jester:  Jon Stewart on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show.”  Perhaps he’s worth our attention, even when it concerns a subject as difficult as the Gaza War.

Israel exists in a hostile corner of the Middle East.  It was created in 1948 to provide a homeland for the Jewish people, in an area that was also the home of the Palestinians. Nazi Germany had shown that, without their own territory, Jews might always face the risk of mass killing.

Israel’s survival has depended on a combination of factors.  Almost its entire Jewish population is trained and armed for defense.  The government has one of the best intelligence operations in the world.  It projects its power into neighboring countries to quash remote efforts to organize attacks against it.  And it has the unwavering support of the U.S.

When Israel was created, much of the Arab population of Palestine either fled or was driven out in what Arabs would call the “Nakba.”  But Israel continued to have Palestinians within its borders, but did not rule parts of the territory that remained under Palestinian control.

Threatened by internal Palestinian dissidents, surrounding Arab countries and terrorist groups, Israel assigned its highest priority to its national security. The U.S. was its guarantor, even if not formally.

As Israel became more secure, repelling failed military attacks, it occupied parts of Palestine that were adjacent to its territory.  Gradually, Israel has moved toward ultimately absorbing the occupied territories and maintaining dominance over the Palestinians.

That policy has been expected to provide security for Israel.  It implied that the Jewish state would keep Palestinians under its control, even if they had limited self-government.

For the Palestinians, this outcome is unacceptable, and some are willing to engage in armed resistance. Desperation has led to the formation of terrorist organizations whose agendas seem focused on continual efforts to disrupt the Israeli plan.  The murderous October 7 Hamas attack on Israel reflected enormous Arab frustration and anger with what their future might be.

The bottom line is that Israel wants to be a secure state able to protect itself, and the Palestinians want the ability to govern themselves independently.  These seem to have become mutually exclusive goals.  Sensing the Hamas attack offered it an opportunity, Israel’s response both in Gaza and the occupied West Bank has been to move toward complete control.

The U.S. and other countries have always favored two equal side-by-side states.  This is not what Israel wants.  But it is doubtful that its military control of the entire territory of Palestine would bring regional peace or enable it to completely control the Palestinians.  From American post-Civil War Reconstruction to Russian oppression of Ukraine, history shows this policy does not work.

Israel rejects a two-state solution, because it lacks confidence that the Palestinians would refrain from using their homeland to launch continual attacks on the Jewish state.  In short, Israel seems to believe that a two-state solution fails to provide what is most essential – security.

Along comes Jon Stewart.  With humor and feigned modesty, he advances a way to make the two-state solution work.  He proposes stationing a buffer force all along the border between the two states. At crossing points, each state could control the passage of people and goods.

Stewart suggests a force staffed and financed by neighboring Arab countries. Israel would get security and the Palestinians would get their own country.  Yet it’s impossible to believe that Israel would find Stewart’s arrangement durable or better than complete control of Palestine.

The neighboring countries should provide financial support.  So should the U.S. and European nations who now pay to arm one or both sides, trying to patch over an impossible regional security situation.

The border force patrols could be staffed by three elements: Israelis, Palestinians and well-trained third-party soldiers from countries outside the region.

Israel seeks to impose its own unilateral solution to its security needs, so rejects international involvement with the Palestinian problem.  But the world community has great concern about Middle East peace, and Israel is somewhat dependent for its security on the U.S. and Europe, and cannot go it alone.

Stewart’s proposal may be labeled naïve and impractical.  Yet, after 76 years, nothing else has worked.  Maybe the buffer force is not the best solution, but it’s something new and that alone makes it worthy of serious consideration. Perhaps there are other ideas still to be explored. 

The U.S., as Israel’s prime military backer, should take the lead.  The bloody Hamas-Israel confrontation requires America to do more than just plead for peace and pass the hat.

Supreme Court’s new split emerges in Colorado case

 

Gordon L. Weil

The Supreme Court’s decision preventing Colorado from keeping Donald Trump off the Republican primary ballot revealed two splits among the nine justices.

While all nine agreed that were adequate grounds to determine that a decision relating to a federal office could not be made by individual states, but only by the federal government, five justices went even further. 

The five ruled that Congress is required to pass a law giving effect to a ban on insurrectionists holding public office before they can be blocked.  In other words, the Constitution’s 14^th Amendment ban cannot function without additional congressional action.  This ruling was not necessary to overrule Colorado, but, for the first time, it established rules for the future.

Three justices disagreed vehemently and protested that it was not necessary for the majority to go that far, and it should not have.  Frequent judicial practice is to avoid making decisions that are not needed to produce a result.

Another justice wrote that sending a unified message rather than displaying a heated and unnecessary split would have been in the public interest.  This justice agreed with the three that the Court should not have gone beyond what was required and did not endorse the majority’s additional ruling. The justice said the Court should not have entered into unneeded controversy during a campaign year.

This justice stated: “In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”

This justice put the public interest ahead of the frequent partisanship shown even on the Supreme Court.  She is Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee.  Thus, this was not a purely partisan split, though the three other justices who opposed the extra ruling had all been appointed by Democratic presidents.

So, aside from the split on the wisdom of the extra opinion, what other split existed? 

Male-female.

Five justices, all men and all GOP appointees, couldn’t resist going too far in their enthusiasm to overrule Colorado and ease Trump’s way.  Without their unnecessary and potentially controversial expansive ruling, the women might have simply agreed with the decision to block Colorado’s decision.  The result would have offered the public a unanimous and appropriate decision.

Instead, the majority got a scolding by Barrett, and the Court did nothing to repair its declining image.

Putin has lost his Ukraine gamble, but has U.S. won?

 

Gordon L. Weil

Vladimir Putin has lost in Ukraine.

Has the U.S., Ukraine’s major backer, won?

Putin stated Russia’s goals, has not met them and has no chance of success.

The U.S. has not stated America’s goals in intervening in the Ukraine War. Simply saying that the U.S. backs Ukraine has proved to be inadequate.

Putin has had two objectives. First, he wanted to prove that Ukrainians were really Russians and a second-rate version at that. In line with Soviet mythology, “the Ukraine” is merely a part of Greater Russia, he thought, and its people were inferior and subject to exploitation. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had literally starved millions of them to death in the 1930s.

Second, Putin worried that the truly independent Ukraine, having expelled his puppet president in 2014, would bring the West, notably NATO and the EU, right to Russia’s borders. He wanted Ukraine to serve as a buffer state subject to Russian domination, just as is neighboring Belarus.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine two years ago is an utter failure. Ukraine’s heroic stand to repel the Russians has made the entire world aware of the strength of its people and their rejection of Russia. Despite Putin’s hopes, there would be no Russian puppet president ruling in Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital.

Both the EU and NATO have begun moving toward positive consideration of Ukraine’s membership. The Russian threat has led Europe to step up its own defense efforts. If Ukraine joins NATO, the U.S. and Europe will be committed to defend it against any further Russian invasion. That could be a powerful deterrent.

Meanwhile, reacting to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Finland and Sweden are becoming NATO members, more than doubling Russia’s border with NATO members. It would just about double again with Ukraine as a member. Putin’s policy backfired.

If defeating Putin is the U.S. objective, then it has won. But American policy still seems to support Ukraine’s hope of expelling Russia from all territory it has taken since 2014, notably eastern Ukraine and Crimea. The question is whether that’s possible.

While Russia can seize territory and bomb Ukraine, Russia itself is almost immune from attacks by Ukraine using NATO-supplied weapons. Russia’s nuclear weapons give it a military advantage that cannot readily be overcome. It’s like fighting with one arm tied behind your back.

Aside from arming Ukraine, other wartime developments have been less favorable for the U.S. and Europe. The U.S. ended the great powers’ agreement with Iran that restrained its nuclear ambitions. That propelled Iran into a closer relationship with Russia under which it supplies military drones.

Russia replaced its trade links with Europe by an enhanced relationship with China, making the Chinese Yuan into Russia’s main international exchange currency, displacing the U.S. dollar. It managed relatively easily to evade American economic sanctions, using intermediary countries like Armenia to launder transactions.

The military stalemate in Ukraine and the failure of the efforts to cripple the Russian economy, which would force it to end its invasion, have contributed to increased American political fatigue with the Ukraine War. A broad understanding that the U.S. opposes invasions to seize the territory of free countries has been turned into a partisan issue by some Republicans.

The U.S. might yield some of its leadership responsibilities to Europe if countries there continue their recent moves to strengthen their own defenses, simultaneously reducing reliance on the U.S. Would the U.S. willingly cede some of its international influence?

If not, the U.S. needs to better define its objectives in Ukraine and pursue them while leading the Western alliance. Could Russia be further weakened by continued American pressure? Or is the GOP correct that endless conflicts have become sufficiently unpopular that a path to the end of the current level of Ukraine support must be found?

A stronger policy based on American interests could require less deference to Ukraine’s understandable desire to recover all of its lost territory.

Of course, Russia must accept formally what it has already lost in Europe and recognize Ukraine as a future member of the EU and NATO. Russian troops must withdraw from territories taken in the past two years, allowing referendums on their future. As for Crimea, Ukraine could gain free access through it to the open sea, just as it gave Russia when it controlled Crimea.

The Republicans are desperate for issues to fight out with the Democrats and Ukraine increasingly looks like one. But allowing U.S. policy on Ukraine to become part of this year’s political campaign would serve Russia’s purposes and weaken America’s place in the world.

An end to conflict in Ukraine may depend on avoiding political conflict on this issue in the U.S. The first step toward ending the conflict might begin with an attempt by the parties to find a bipartisan endgame policy.