Port Authority Shouldn't be a Patronage Pit

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday January 18, 2014 · 3:35 PM PST

2014/01/18 · 15:35

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey has been on the griddle after it became known a senior staff member directed the Port Authority to engineer a traffic jam in Fort Lee, seemingly as an act of political retaliation. The traffic choked up roads for days in the small borough at the western end of the George Washington Bridge.
But an important aspect of this episode has been lost in the din of a political scandal: What does this say about how the Port Authority, which operates the bridge, is being run?
I was executive director of the Port Authority from 1977 to 1985, and what has happened to the agency over the past two decades is unfortunate. Rather than boasting unitary, professional management that is widely admired, the governors of the two states that created the Port Authority have installed political appointees who take their orders from a statehouse rather than from the authority's executive director. Political agendas and shopping lists are not what you want in an authority that is responsible for bridges and tunnels, PATH, port facilities and three major airports, among others.
I am told by former Port Authority staff that Christie has referred as many as 50 people to be hired at the agency. That kind of off-the-radar patronage was unheard of up until the late 1990s. Both Christie and New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo need to ensure the agency is not used for patronage. They need to ensure first-rate, nonpartisan, accountable management so the agency can be an engine of growth and investment -- not of political shenanigans.
But the Port Authority has a deeper problem: the creation of two lines of authority. In the bridge scandal, Christie's former deputy chief of staff spurred the lane closures by contacting a top executive at the Port Authority who had been nominated by Christie, highlighted in a trove of emails released last week.
Where is the chain of command? How is the Port Authority being run if someone can receive such an order and act on it without reporting to the agency's executive director? What does that say about how the authority is managed?
It's fair game for Christie, a popular governor who boasts about his honesty and willingness to buck "the system," to take the heat he's been receiving when his staff seems to have indulged in political dirty tricks. But this should also be a flashing red light for those who oversee the Port Authority: its board of commissioners and ultimately the two governors themselves.
It is inconceivable that the board was not aware that a direct line of authority from some Port Authority officials to Trenton had been created. It is common knowledge inside the Port Authority that there are two people for some functions that used to be performed by one person reporting up through a single chain of command to the executive director. And there is concern within the agency about the number and lack of qualifications of people being appointed to positions at the request of the New Jersey governor's office.
The Christie-Fort Lee affair provides the opportunity to clean out the Port Authority and re-establish it as one of the truly professional and accountable public-service organizations in the country.
Let's see whether anyone seizes the opportunity.

Port Authority Shouldn't be a Patronage Pit

petercgoldmark

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday January 13, 2014 · 10:45 AM PST

2014/01/13 · 10:45

But an important aspect of this episode has been lost in the din of a political scandal: What does this say about how the Port Authority, which operates the bridge, is being run?

I was executive director of the Port Authority from 1977 to 1985, and what has happened to the agency over the past two decades is unfortunate. Rather than boasting unitary, professional management that is widely admired, the governors of the two states that created the Port Authority have installed political appointees who take their orders from a statehouse rather than from the authority's executive director. Political agendas and shopping lists are not what you want in an authority that is responsible for bridges and tunnels, PATH, port facilities and three major airports, among others.

I am told by former Port Authority staff that Christie has referred as many as 50 people to be hired at the agency. That kind of off-the-radar patronage was unheard of up until the late 1990s. Both Christie and New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo need to ensure the agency is not used for patronage. They need to ensure first-rate, nonpartisan, accountable management so the agency can be an engine of growth and investment -- not of political shenanigans.

But the Port Authority has a deeper problem: the creation of two lines of authority. In the bridge scandal, Christie's former deputy chief of staff spurred the lane closures by contacting a top executive at the Port Authority who had been nominated by Christie, highlighted in a trove of emails released last week.

Where is the chain of command? How is the Port Authority being run if someone can receive such an order and act on it without reporting to the agency's executive director? What does that say about how the authority is managed?

It's fair game for Christie, a popular governor who boasts about his honesty and willingness to buck "the system," to take the heat he's been receiving when his staff seems to have indulged in political dirty tricks. But this should also be a flashing red light for those who oversee the Port Authority: its board of commissioners and ultimately the two governors themselves.

It is inconceivable that the board was not aware that a direct line of authority from some Port Authority officials to Trenton had been created. It is common knowledge inside the Port Authority that there are two people for some functions that used to be performed by one person reporting up through a single chain of command to the executive director. And there is concern within the agency about the number and lack of qualifications of people being appointed to positions at the request of the New Jersey governor's office.

The Christie-Fort Lee affair provides the opportunity to clean out the Port Authority and re-establish it as one of the truly professional and accountable public-service organizations in the country.

Let's see whether anyone seizes the opportunity.

A little resolution may go a long way

petercgoldmark

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday December 28, 2013 · 9:01 PM PST

2013/12/28 · 21:01

The new year is a few days away. This is a time to think about our resolutions, about hopeful things -- perhaps about a hopeful undertaking called The Resolution Project.
The initiative (resolutionproject.org) challenges college students to propose projects that would improve something -- in any field, anywhere in the world. It also encourages students proposing projects to do so as an international team comprising members from more than one country. The Resolution Project awards grants to teams with winning ideas, usually about $2,000, with which to start work on their projects.
I recently talked with one of the winning teams led by Lamia Bazir, a 24-year-old Moroccan woman in graduate school at Columbia University. Her teammate is Taylor Strosnider, 23, of Cincinnati, a law student at Michigan State.
Their project is to help a group of women in the Atlas Mountains of Morocco build a hammam. If you or I recognize the word "hammam" at all, we think of a luxurious steam bath. That is not quite what is going on here. The village of Adghagh is poor, with problems in water supply and delivery, and consequently hygiene. Sometimes a child goes a month without bathing, and adults longer. The village is not on the electric grid; the energy that is erratically available is so unpredictable and expensive that in winter instead of having a warm tub of water in which to bathe, village women sometimes heat the air in a big plastic bag with a candle. Then, still holding the candle, they put the bag over their heads to stand in to keep warm, and pour a few cups of water heated with a gas lamp over themselves to wash. Not exactly a safe operation; a few have lost their lives when the candle has released a toxic substance from the bag and the villager has passed out and then suffocated in the bag.
The Adghagh hammam will be for both men and women -- at different times, of course. It will be solar-powered. Getting the necessary bureaucratic permissions and organizing the project will increase the power and skills of the women in the village, Lamia explained. That would be the most valuable asset for future development to come out of the project, and why the project is called Empowering Women in the Atlas.
The Resolution Project finds most of its fellows through international youth summits where young people from around the world debate and work on global issues. So Resolution draws from a pool of able young people already committed to understanding and working with colleagues from other countries. It is the young people with their dreams and drive that power the projects. Many of the international teams that win the competition continue to work together on their projects well after the original grant has been exhausted. This is the case with Lamia and Taylor, who are helping the villagers in Adghagh raise the $75,000 needed to complete the hammam project.
I asked Lamia and Taylor whether determined young people understand fully the extent of the challenges our generation is leaving them. "Challenges give us an opportunity to think sharper," said Lamia, a strong young woman brimming with self-confidence. Taylor replied, "We both see what direction we want our generation to go in. We want to bridge the gap between rich and poor. We're more globalized . . . you need to leave your back yard and understand how other people live."
Lamia and Taylor are from different countries and have different backgrounds. But they share a vision, a generation, an impressive measure of confidence and determination, and a project.
I asked Lamia how she strikes a balance in her life given all she is doing. "It's not about finding balance," she said. "It's about managing the imbalances."
A little resolution may go a long way.

The Inexperienced Chief Executive

petercgoldmark

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday December 16, 2013 · 10:17 AM PST

2013/12/16 · 10:17

We have a president with little management experience. And it'sshowing.

The health care reform mess has been spectacular. The troubles with the program's website and enrollment are only the beginning. The news last week that some insurance plans are charging subscribers exorbitant co-pay fees for drugs to help offset the cost of not being able to exclude people with prior conditions also signals poor management. Would tighter management have spotted this trend earlier and avoided gaffes like the president's misstatement about everyone being able to keep their existing health plan? My guess is yes.

Presidents have come from a variety of backgrounds, and some had deep executive experience before assuming the job. George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower were generals with challenging leadership jobs before the presidency. The two Roosevelts were former governors well-prepared to manage domestic issues. Barack Obama arrived in the White House with four years' experience in the U.S. Senate, a few years in the Illinois State Legislature, and no experience in line management or familiarity with the executive function.

There are two classical options for a president with his background. Obama, a person with great personal strengths and assets, chose neither.

One option is to ensure White House staff includes people with experience in project management oversight -- a practice known by most strong executives as "hiring to your weakness."

The other option is to appoint experienced executives to the Cabinet. Except for the successful appointment of Robert Gates as secretary of defense, Obama did not pursue that option, either. His first round of Cabinet nominees included nine people whose experience had been in elective office, largely legislative. One of them, Kathleen Sebelius, had served in Kansas as a lobbyist, insurance commissioner and governor. But in her case, experience as governor appears not to have prepared her for the management challenge of health care reform implementation as secretary of health and human services.

According to several stories reportedly leaked by White House staff, Obama wasn't told "directly" about the problems with health care reform implementation. Nonsense. It is part of his job as chief executive to direct staff to relay all information and to create a climate in which bad news is fully conveyed.

Look at how John F. Kennedy, who also had zero executive experience, handled the Cuban missile crisis. He learned to probe the positions of his advisers, to make sure he received accurate information and independent advice, and to ensure decisions were carried out. What might have happened if his team had brought to the missile crisis the modus operandi that the Obama White House brought to health care reform? Can you imagine the Kennedy White House saying lamely the president wasn't "told directly" about the Soviet missiles in Cuba?

Listen to what Obama recently told MSNBC's Chris Matthews about health care reform implementation: "The challenge . . . is not so much my personal management style or particular issues around White House organization . . . it actually has to do with . . . these big agencies, some of which are outdated, some of which are not designed properly." Welcome to the presidency and the world of government, Mr. President.

Another missed opportunity was Obama's failure upon re-election to set up a personnel review team to assess the performance of the first-term team and suggest changes where appropriate.

Is it too late to fix it?

The president has three years left in his term -- longer than the tenure of some chief executives. He has a reputation as a quick learner. It is never too late for strong management.

Nelson Mandela focused on the horizon

petercgoldmark

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday December 06, 2013 · 2:50 PM PST

2013/12/06 · 14:50

A generous and principled giant has died.
Nelson Mandela stood for half a century as a unique example of a selfless leader capable of driving through tough but fair and pragmatic change.
He oppressed no one, forgave much and reached out to all. He helped to bring peace where most had been convinced there would be only conflict. He made possible cooperation and tolerance in a tortured land that had known too much hate and bloodshed.
I was lucky enough to have known and worked with Mandela.
I met him in the early 1990s when he had been released from prison and I was running the Rockefeller Foundation. We worked together on a proposal for a national development bank for South Africa that would have harnessed some of the immense wealth of that country to the task of nation-building and personal opportunity for the majority of South Africans who, for 300 years, had access to neither.
It almost came to pass.
Under the plan, the four giant companies whose combined wealth at that time constituted 80 percent of the value of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange would each "voluntarily" transfer 10 percent of their stock to the new bank, in return for a government commitment of no forced nationalization.
The bank would use the assets to match the savings of any South Africans earning less than a designated amount, allowing them to borrow against those savings for a home mortgage, for the capital to start a new business, or to finance higher education for themselves or their children.
Mandela, I learned, focused on you as an individual. It was as if he put his arm around your shoulder and said: "I am walking toward those mountains over there on the horizon." Even when he was looking you right in the eyes, part of his soul seemed focused on the horizon. Somehow, 27 years of imprisonment had driven out of him all petty emotions. There was no envy, selfishness, annoyance or self-reference. Among the qualities remaining were humility and tenacity.
"If you would like to walk with me, you are welcome to do so for as long or as short a period as you like. I will welcome your company, and we will talk and travel together."
Mandela accepted you without judgment, as he accepted and befriended his jailers on Robben Island. "But you must know that when you leave me I shall go on. I shall continue on my path toward those far mountains, one step at a time -- for as many steps and as long a time as may be required."
We lost the proposal for the National Development Bank in the end because of a very human incident.
Mandela was to meet with the first President George Bush in Washington. We had done the preparatory work to ensure the Bush team was aware of the proposal and saw it as a useful way the international community could contribute to broad and fair investment in the new, multi-racial South Africa. The plan was for Mandela to ask Bush to lead the G7 in helping to capitalize the bank.
Bush and Mandela had not met before, so their meeting began with chit-chat about their backgrounds. At some point -- I never learned exactly what it was -- Bush said something that set Mandela off on a long discourse about racism and the problems of South Africa. It was so long, in fact, that it took up the entire meeting. The White House staffer who was present called me afterward and said, "Peter, we were ready to catch the ball, but your man never threw it."
By such unplanned turns in the chemistry of two individuals is history sometimes formed.
Mandela's generosity of spirit and his capacity to transcend rancor and racism were the powerful and virtually miraculous tools that helped South Africa stagger onto the road of cooperation and co-existence between people who had hated, demonized and fought each other. That, and the remarkable partner he had in Frederik De Klerk, the Afrikaans prime minister who freed Mandela and met him halfway in their bold experiment in reconciliation.
Mandela did not "have greatness thrust upon him," as is said so often of other leaders who emerge at key turning points in history. He could well have come away from Robben Island a broken, insignificant man whom history had passed by. Consider the resilience, the persistence, and the openness of spirit it required for him to grow stronger and wiser and more effective over those 27 years.
Mandela found greatness within himself and was able to nurture it, to temper it, to humanize it so that when he was invited at last to walk out of prison onto the wide, noisy stage of history he could stand as one of the most remarkable leaders of his period -- indeed, of any period in human history.
Now he goes to his grave in peace, with dignity, with the affection of all his countrymen and the respect of the entire world.
And the rest of us lose one of the great figures of our age and one of the most powerfully inspiring examples of what principle and leadership can mean.

Don't gamble with NY State's future

petercgoldmark

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday November 29, 2013 · 7:33 AM PST

2013/11/29 · 07:33

It's now more than five years since the economic crash of 2008.
Nationally, four times as many people as before the crash are long-term unemployed (longer than six months). The recovery, if we call it that, is weaker and more halting than that after any recession since World War II. And the picture is roughly the same at the state level; like the country as a whole, New York is in an economic quagmire.
Nationally, we are cursed with a destructive feud between the executive branch and congressional Republicans on fiscal and budgetary policy. As a result, we have no growth plan for the country.
In New York, the governor and legislature have proved they can work on difficult things, like putting the state budget on sounder footing. But like the federal government, the state doesn't have a bold plan for investment and growth. We urgently need one.
Such a plan should be a program of structured investments in our shared but deteriorating capital assets -- such as transit, road and energy systems -- for the following reasons:
Investing in efficient infrastructure helps us grow the economy and become more competitive -- and that means more jobs, and jobs that will last.
Capital investment in infrastructure is something New York knows how to do. It has the financing skills, the public authorities, the design and management know-how.
Smart investment of public funds can unleash a larger investment of private dollars. For example, a modern freight rail system upstate can encourage investment in manufacturing and agriculture for export.
Investment in infrastructure is something we can do without the approval of a divided federal government.
Indeed, investment in infrastructure might be the only thing the state can do on a scale large enough to dramatically affect our long-term economy. Our capital plant is rusting out, rotting out and wearing out. No one questions the need to modernize it. But we are talking far more than roads, rails and bridges. We must achieve levels of efficiency in energy generation, distribution and consumption that are world-class so companies can improve productivity and bottom lines.
If the state and its public authorities increase the rate of capital investment, we can create scores of new jobs, according to a national engineering group, which would dramatically increase employment in our state.. And with the right public investments and changes to incentivize utilities to reward efficiency, we can trigger $60 billion to $80 billion in private investment in better energy systems, state officials estimate. (I serve on the New York State Infrastructure Works Council, which is studying the issues.)
I voted against the casino gambling measure on the ballot on Nov. 5 because it had nothing to do with long-term growth or productivity -- any more than gambling in Atlantic City made New Jersey more competitive. It won't create better jobs. Perhaps people will gamble here a little more and in Atlantic City and Las Vegas a little less. But it won't make us a global economic competitor.
I'm ready to vote for building a strong, growing economy for our children rather than leaving them a hollowed-out skeleton of a formerly great state that once led the country and the world by building the Erie Canal, our city subway and road networks, and our energy and health care systems.
I hope the governor and the legislature put a bold investment program on the ballot next year, and give us a chance to vote for real growth.

Think it, and a computer will make it happen

petercgoldmark

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday November 04, 2013 · 6:43 AM PST

2013/11/04 · 06:43

We've learned that most of what the brain does consists of receiving, sending and processing electrical signals.

And we've seen what modern technology can do in terms of capturing and interpreting digital signals. Just ask the presidents of Germany and Brazil, whose phone conversations were hacked by modern American signal-capturing equipment.

So wouldn't it be logical to expect that techies would be trying to connect signals from the brain directly to computers to perform tasks the brain commands?

Guess what: It's happening. They call it brain-computer interface (BCI) and it's a cutting-edge scientific field that will some day engineer direct electronic commands from your brain to a computer, and then from the computer to a robot or a 3-D printer or perhaps a stock market exchange or a drone.

Many activities in our brain have electronic signatures that scientists are learning to read. There have been experiments at Brown University and the University of Pittsburgh in which someone who has lost an arm can "instruct" an artificial limb to grab something purely through mental activity. At this early stage in the research, a small electrode must be planted on or inside the brain to allow the subject to interact with the computer that controls the movement of the artificial limb. But that will not always be the case. A lab at Samsung Corp. is working on devices that would be placed on a person's head like a cap to detect and translate the weak electrical signals of brain activity. It will be a small step from a cap to something like the computerized glasses Google is working on which allow a person to nod to turn a computer on or off, or wink to take a picture.

Like the research that originally led to the Internet, much of the early work in the area of brain-computer interface has been commissioned and financed by the Defense Department. Researchers at the University of Washington published findings this summer that show how the part of the brain that is sending the "instruction" draws on many other parts of the brain to formulate and transmit the "message." The implication of this is that you don't have to find "the right neuron" in the brain to attach the electrode to; the brain itself may learn to find "the right neurons" and hook them up to the BCI, according to researchers.

Several high-tech companies already are working on BCI applications, and you may see some soon.

NeuroSky, a Silicon Calley company, has released a Bluetooth-headset that can monitor slight changes in brain waves and enable users to play concentration-based games on computers and smartphones. In one game you have to dodge bullets -- and in this app your mind is the joystick. In some experiments, subjects have moved the cursor on a computer screen through mental activity alone.

Carmakers are working on gimmicks they can put into seat backs that will detect a change in brain waves if you begin to fall asleep while driving. The device will rattle the steering wheel or shake the seat to wake you up. (Personally, I'd prefer a trumpet blast from the radio.)

Wizards in the Defense Department are reportedly working on both human and robotic "super soldiers." The human variety, reports Dr. Gareth Evans of the University of Durham in Great Britain, would use BCI technology to manage an entire range of weapons capabilities.

The Defense Department researchers also are apparently looking into whether BCI and other lines of research could help the "super soldiers" ignore such inconvenient obstacles as conscience or empathy that might interfere with the most efficient possible discharge of their duties.

BCI may not be a one-way street. If the brain can communicate with the computer, then there is no reason the computer should not someday be able to send instructions to the brain. And then maybe someone can hack your mind.

You think the Internet changed the world? Wait till you see what BCI does.

What New York's near-default can teach the federal government

petercgoldmark

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday October 20, 2013 · 1:25 PM PDT

2013/10/20 · 13:25

Peering over the edge of default, Congress has kicked the can down the road, and managed for now to avoid blowing up the American economy.

Hardly what you could call a breakthrough moment.

I once had to look into the lifeless eyes of the menacing monster known as default.

In 1975 and 1976, I was budget director under then-governor Hugh Carey when the City of New York, the state and the state's public authorities all came close to default at different points. Facing debt and spending problems as acute as those the federal government faces today, we worked around the clock to stave off default because of the havoc it would have wrought on families, businesses, and the fabric of life in our state and city.

The contrast between that experience four decades ago and what has just happened in Washington is clear. With the eyes of the world upon us, we avoided shooting ourselves in the head last week, but we did little to forge a cooperative path forward out of our predicament. And financial markets and other nations have noticed that we postponed the crisis, we didn't resolve it. The new default deadline is in early February.

"We shake our heads in disbelief at the inability of the U.S. to comply with the basic requirements of financial responsibility," one overseas business leader told me, summing up the situation. "Kicking the can down the road just means another minutes-before-midnight crisis a few months from now and further erosion of America's standing in the world."

To get off the world's critical list of giants suffering from self-inflicted wounds, we will have to:

End statutory debt ceilings that can be manipulated for short-term political purposes.

Pursue budget and tax disputes without resort to "economic terrorism," in the phrase of a Financial Times pundit.

Make clear beyond any doubt to the world and to our own citizens that America's leaders will act responsibly to maintain and strengthen our financial system and meet our financial obligations.

In a free republic built on a system of checks and balances, any branch of the government has the power from time to time to bring it all to a halt. The Supreme Court, the president, and either house of Congress can throw the whole system off the rails by refusing to do their duty. A faction of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives is the first group to use that threat seriously since the run-up to the Civil War.

The Founding Fathers understood that protecting liberty and preventing abuse of power would require elected officials and citizens to stand behind the self-governing system as a whole even if they differed over particular policies. The conditions, especially a polarized electorate, and the attitudes, particularly the willingness by some members of Congress to hold the American economy hostage, that brought us to the edge of the precipice last week remain. Our elected representatives are divided because we, the citizens who elected them, are divided. What have we learned? And what are we prepared to do differently going forward?

It's not clear at this point what we've learned. Representative Tim Griffin, an Arkansas Republican, said: "And the long teachable moment ends: stove is hot." Maybe that's a forward step. But it's not enough.

We'd better start thinking about what we're prepared to do differently if we want a different outcome. Self-government is not a spectator sport.

Large-scale investment to stimulate economy, reduce carbon emissions (ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER)

petercgoldmark

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday October 02, 2013 · 7:53 PM PDT

2013/10/02 · 19:53

More weather extremes, plus reduced agricultural yield, plus droughts, plus dwindling marine life as a result of growing ocean acidification, are what the overwhelming majority of climate scientists tell us to expect if we continue to spew carbon into the atmosphere in growing amounts.The U.S. economy continues to stutter:roughly 20 million people unemployed or wanting more work than they can find, and business investment hesitant. Europe is in worse shape – it has tumbled into a crippling longterm recession. Is there a way to address soaring carbon emissions and stimulate economic growth at the same time?

Can one response address both challenges – help create jobs and avert a global recession on one hand, and help avoid frying the planet on the other? The answer is yes.That response is a pro-gram that mobilizes large-scale investment to stimulate the economy and create jobs, and directs that investment to energy efficiency and built-space retrofit around the world in order to reduce carbon emissions. More carbon emissions come from built space than from any other source if you count total emissions – directly from the buildings and in-directly from the power stations that send them electricity for heating, cooling and operating. With most countries trying to reduce their indebtedness, is there anyone who could finance such a program?

There is. It’s the World Bank Group and its sister institutions, known as the International Financial Institutions, such as the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the African Development Bank,the European Investment Bank, and others.The investment program would have to be global and large, covering both the faltering economies of the north and the emerging markets of the south, such as China and India.Even-handed treatment of all the large economies, north and south, would be a politically attractive feature. Some of the emerging economies, such asBrazil and China, have huge national development banks that could mobilize investment,and some of the sovereign wealth funds could chip in as well. The money raised by the IFIs would go to national governments to launch extensive retrofitting of buildings with energy saving improvements and appliances, and lend money to businesses and industry to make them more energy efficient. The global investment and mobilization means at least $1trillion for the first round, and if that goes well, more for subsequent rounds.The word “trillion” makes our eyeballs spin.

petercgoldmark

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday September 22, 2013 · 1:05 PM PDT

2013/09/22 · 13:05

Who's in charge here?
We have lived through a summer of vacillation and hesitation by the American government. Even the normally imperturbable Federal Reserve seemed to catch the bug this past week when it announced that no, it hadn't really meant to imply that it was going to taper down its program of stimulating the economy.
President Barack Obama had a tough time this summer deciding and then explaining what he meant by the "red line" he had drawn concerning use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime. Apparently our closest ally couldn't quite figure out what they wanted to do either, and voted against supporting the president in his proposed military strike on Syria.
The lifetime of the proposal for a military strike was briefer than expected -- though long enough both to ask Congress to approve it and to allow the Syrians to move their chemical weapons. But before Congress could get around to debating the question, the Russians came up with a plan under which the Syrians would hand over their chemical weapons to an international force supervised, in part, by the Russians. After having said that you can't trust the Russians on Syria, the U.S. government leaped into their arms -- even though their plan was dependent for both approval and enforcement on a UN Security Council where both Russia and China have a veto.
And in the middle of all this, a group of influential senators from the president's own party attacked Obama's putative nominee to head the Federal Reserve before the choice was even announced.
Yes, indeed, many of the weaknesses of the Obama administration have been on display over the past few months. They include not thinking clearly through the consequences of decisions and not communicating with the American people or world leaders in terms compelling and coherent enough to command support.
And this is the government we are counting on to lead us through a difficult confrontation over approving a spending plan and raising the debt ceiling next month -- a crisis with enormous potential to disrupt the economy and harm American families.
What's at stake here?
The financial system depends on confidence -- confidence that debts will be paid, that governments will support their currencies, that large financial institutions will not fail, and that all the millions of retail financial payments and transactions on which families and businesses depend will continue. A failure or even a significant delay in agreeing on a financing and spending plan for the U.S. government could cause that web of trust and transactions to unravel in several places. And the very prospect of damage to that web could itself trigger a cascade of breaks in the system.
The financial markets are skittish cats, as we have had painful reason to be reminded over the past several years. Consider, for example, the consequences of the inability of the U.S. government to assure an orderly market in the face of low or no demand for U.S. Treasury notes. Consider the impact on the U.S. economy and global confidence if the government were unable to fully meet its obligations under Social Security or Medicare and Medicaid in October or November, or had to stretch out payments to its contractors and vendors.
What have the Republicans in the House said about this prospect? At least some have said they don't care. And this summer has taught us that under great pressure and against tough deadlines, this administration is not at its best.
It would be a cruel outcome for Americans struggling to find work and make ends meet in a fragile recovery if a divided and incompetent government threw us back into a deeper recession.
Fasten your seat belts, please. We are about to experience some turbulence.

Obama shouldn't attack just to save face

petercgoldmark

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday September 09, 2013 · 1:01 PM PDT

2013/09/09 · 13:01

yria is a cruel puzzle. It is hard to see any promising roads forward -- either for the children and families who remain in danger of being slaughtered there, or for the United States.

It is cursed with a messy, violent, multisided civil conflict. Among those opposing the brutal dictatorship of Bashar Assad are violent extremist groups, some of them sworn enemies of the United States. A dozen or so countries and groups are intervening with weapons, money, armed fighters or all three. Yet there is no common disposition for collective action on the part of Arab nations or Syria's neighbors. The United Nations is paralyzed by China and Russia, allies of Assad.

For the United States, the most sobering reality here is also the hardest to absorb. No matter how heinous the crime -- in this case, the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons on civilians, killing 1,400 last month -- solo retribution in a heated, confusing and dangerous situation is almost certain to have consequences we don't want and to be used by other actors as fuel in their own plans for outrage and violence. The most dangerous poker game in the region is that between the West and Iran. No move in Syria can or should be made without assessing its impact on the Iran nuclear situation.

We continue to pay a terrible price for leading others into war in Iraq a decade ago with false representations, as the British Parliament underscored by voting against intervention late last month. We will continue to pay that price for a long time to come.

It hurts to see our president squirm and flail. Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei are no doubt each saying to themselves: "This is terrific. I win if the United States intervenes, and I win if it backs down. Either way I have more options, more influence, more support and less opposition." For Iran, unilateral, illegal U.S. military intervention may be a godsend that goes a long way toward legitimizing its drive to acquire nuclear weapons.

There are actions here that are supportable. We could go into Damascus with a humanitarian mission of medical and other help for the survivors in the families that were massacred, and use military forces only if the humanitarians were attacked. We could support the arrest of Assad and his top military leaders as war criminals, and simultaneously create havoc electronically with Assad's personal finances and activities. The stance represented by those actions might make the point we really want to make: that gassing civilians is a brutal act beyond the pale, and that we will use our power to respond, bring help, and hold those responsible to account -- even in the heart of the dictator's country.

But a remote-control attack on Syrian government military targets, in which some civilians will inevitably be killed, carried out alone in an arena of multi-dimensional carnage with no real "good guy" in sight? And where the likelihood of negative outcomes dwarfs the chance of positive outcomes?

Not in this bloody free-for-all. Not alone. Not just because the president once uttered an unfortunate ultimatum about a "red line."

It's stupid to make a threat that's not well thought out and that you may not wish, or be able, to carry out. But it is even more stupid to carry out that ill-considered threat and unleash consequences you cannot foresee just because you said you would.

At some point you have to understand that it's time to cut your losses to avoid even worse consequences. That time is now.

Candidates mustn't stay silent on NYC pension woes

petercgoldmark

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday August 26, 2013 · 10:33 AM PDT

2013/08/26 · 10:33

One of the toughest problems staring at the next mayor of New York City is what to do about city pensions.

New York City today is nowhere near the kind of trouble Detroit is in. That city is bankrupt and no one knows how or even whether pensioners are going to be paid what they're owed. But New York City will be in exactly that kind of trouble if it keeps promising fat pensions for retiring workers but doesn't put up the money to pay for them.

Here's the problem in commonsense terms, without the numbing use of words like billion or trillion.

The city and its unions agreed on contracts that promised generous pensions and post-retirement health benefits to city workers: teachers, firefighters, police officers and others. To pay for those pensions, the city sets aside money in each year's budget. That money is invested and grows, and if everyone has done his or her job right, when a city worker retires there's a pile of money waiting big enough to pay the pension and some post-retirement health benefits till that worker dies.

But not all have been doing their jobs right.

The amount of money being put aside isn't enough to provide the future pensions workers are earning -- and expecting. The situation of New York State is even worse. For the past few years, the state has borrowed to pay the pension funds for those future pensions present workers are earning. And guess whom they borrowed from? From the pension funds themselves.

If you're gagging on that one, then you understand just how shortsighted that little maneuver is.

New York City's pension situation demands what in the financial world is called a workout. That's what you do when things get so far off the rails that no silver bullet, no immediate fix, can solve the problem, and you need a multiyear plan to work out of the mess one digestible bite at a time. We need a workout for the city pensions deficit.

What elements might go into such a workout? Everyone will have to give something. Options include higher payments by the city to cover past shortfalls; trimming health benefits for city workers already retired or who've yet to retire; shifting benefits for future employees from a promise of a fixed benefit to an amount that is purely the result of what the money invested earned; and asking present retirees to pay slightly more for their present benefits.

All these pieces wind up, in the inexorable logic of public finance, being paid for by some combination of taxpayers, present retirees and future retirees. So don't hold your breath to see if the candidates address this explosive problem during the campaign. And you can be equally sure that union leaders -- who ought to have an interest in a thoughtful solution, rather than driving their members right off a cliff, a la Detroit -- won't be seeking a public dialogue on this subject between now and Nov. 5.

So with this huge long-term problem staring us in the face -- and all the candidates focused 100 percent on saying the right things in the short term to win a primary in three weeks and a general election in two months -- what should we expect?

We should expect this: A serious candidate, who wants our trust and the votes of city taxpayers, should tell us we have to address this problem, and that he or she will appoint an independent commission to estimate roughly just how big the hole is and lay out the tough choices. That would be a serious first step.

Newer
Older

RSS