Thursday, April 29, 2004
Medals, chickenhawks, and the national guard
I haven't written on the presidential race in a while and a quick glance over the news headlines explains why. There has been extensive coverage recently of non-issues, particularly whether or not John Kerry threw his medals from Vietnam away three decades ago. Not the kind of stuff that makes one proud to be fascinated with politics.
The Republicans clearly have two unstated aims in raising this nonissue and beating it to death. First they need to take Kerry's Vietnam resume away from him as a strength as it provides the most positive contrast with (occasional) national guardsman Bush. Second, and equally important, the medals vs. ribbons squawk fits neatly into the image that the Republican Party is trying to fix into people's minds about Kerry. That image is one of someone without deep convictions who will do what is politically expedient and cannot be trusted to lead the nation in a time of crisis. The contrast of course will be with a resolute Bush who "does not read polls" and does what he thinks is right.
Kerry is at a considerable disadvantage in this debate. Bush himself is not raising the issue, Cheney, Karen Hughes, and the Fox News machine are the ones making the charges. Yet it is Kerry who has to respond to them, lowering himself to the level of the charges, looking less presidential, and giving the charges more airtime than they deserve.
A month or two ago there was considerable discussion about when Kerry should name a Vice Presidential candidate. I initially thought that it didn't make much of a difference as vice presidents rarely affect electoral outcomes. However this is a unique campaign. We are one month into a five month period where the only campaign news will be that which is explicitly generated by the campaigns. The Administration has a tremendous advantage by having so many people who by virtue of holding public office, can get attention for their attacks on Kerry. Kerry has only himself.
I have changed my mind and now think that Kerry needs a vice president as quickly as possible. He needs someone who can go on tv and rebut the Republican charges and allow him to make grandiose policy speeches (allow me to delude myself into thinking that Kerry is capable of such vision). Who that vice president should be is the subject of another discussion but Kerry needs help and he needs it now.
The Republicans clearly have two unstated aims in raising this nonissue and beating it to death. First they need to take Kerry's Vietnam resume away from him as a strength as it provides the most positive contrast with (occasional) national guardsman Bush. Second, and equally important, the medals vs. ribbons squawk fits neatly into the image that the Republican Party is trying to fix into people's minds about Kerry. That image is one of someone without deep convictions who will do what is politically expedient and cannot be trusted to lead the nation in a time of crisis. The contrast of course will be with a resolute Bush who "does not read polls" and does what he thinks is right.
Kerry is at a considerable disadvantage in this debate. Bush himself is not raising the issue, Cheney, Karen Hughes, and the Fox News machine are the ones making the charges. Yet it is Kerry who has to respond to them, lowering himself to the level of the charges, looking less presidential, and giving the charges more airtime than they deserve.
A month or two ago there was considerable discussion about when Kerry should name a Vice Presidential candidate. I initially thought that it didn't make much of a difference as vice presidents rarely affect electoral outcomes. However this is a unique campaign. We are one month into a five month period where the only campaign news will be that which is explicitly generated by the campaigns. The Administration has a tremendous advantage by having so many people who by virtue of holding public office, can get attention for their attacks on Kerry. Kerry has only himself.
I have changed my mind and now think that Kerry needs a vice president as quickly as possible. He needs someone who can go on tv and rebut the Republican charges and allow him to make grandiose policy speeches (allow me to delude myself into thinking that Kerry is capable of such vision). Who that vice president should be is the subject of another discussion but Kerry needs help and he needs it now.
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
What to do about the Knicks?
I've always said that being a Knick fan was my punishment for being a Yankee fan. Having followed them since the tender age of three, there have been many great moments but many more disappointing and even debilitating ones. Their first round loss at the hands of their cross-river rivals certainly falls in the disappointing category. As my predictions last week indicate, I did not expect them to win, but I did not think they would get swept.
Now as New Yorkers and sports fans are wont to do, everyone has an idea on what the Knicks should do to improve themselves for next year. The New York Times argues that they need to get help for Stephon Marbury in order to advance beyond the first round of the playoffs. The article also notes that the Knicks players think that all they need is more time together (the team was largely assembled this year) and for Allan Houston and Tim Thomas to recover from injuries. Knick hater (and very funny columnist) Bill Simmons thinks they are doomed no matter what they do.
All the arguments have their strong points. The Knick players are right that they need more time together, but given how badly coordinated they seemed against the Nets, and more importantly, how badly they played defense, it is reasonable to believe that this group will never play well enough together to advance in the playoffs. There is a lot of talent on the team but there is no reason to think that unless there is a sea change in mentality, that this talent will translate to a tough playoff hardened basketball team.
Unfortunately it will not be easy for the Knicks to modify their personnel. They are committed to building around Marbury (the jury is still out on whether this is a good idea) and Houston and Hardaway have contracts that are untradeable. Isiah Thomas has done a great job defying expectations about how impossible it would be to make changes. Still, outside of moving Moutombo, which they should clearly do, it is hard to see them making many major deals that would improve the talent level. I hope they don't trade Sweetney or Williams both of whom showed considerable promise at different times in the Nets series and should evolve into useful role players. At most the Knicks should hope to strengthen themselves a bit up front.
Assuming therefore that they make only minor player moves, that brings us back to the necessary sea change in mentality. The big change that the Knicks need is a new coach. While it is true that they did not have much time to gel, I do think there was enough time to see that Lenny Wilkens did not have them executing even rudimentary plays or getting back on defense. I would suggest a disciplinarian, someone who will beat team basketball into the players heads. This someone should not be Isiah himself. Isiah was an awful coach in Indiana and has proven himself an inventive executive. He should stay upstairs and find a new coach who can take what is a reasonably talented collection of player and make them into a basketball team.
Predictions for round 2 of the playoffs:
Indiana over Miami or New Orleans in five.
Detroit over New Jersey in seven (a great series!)
Minnesota over Sacramento or Dallas in six or Sacramento or Dallas over Denver in five.
San Antonio over Los Angeles in seven
Now as New Yorkers and sports fans are wont to do, everyone has an idea on what the Knicks should do to improve themselves for next year. The New York Times argues that they need to get help for Stephon Marbury in order to advance beyond the first round of the playoffs. The article also notes that the Knicks players think that all they need is more time together (the team was largely assembled this year) and for Allan Houston and Tim Thomas to recover from injuries. Knick hater (and very funny columnist) Bill Simmons thinks they are doomed no matter what they do.
All the arguments have their strong points. The Knick players are right that they need more time together, but given how badly coordinated they seemed against the Nets, and more importantly, how badly they played defense, it is reasonable to believe that this group will never play well enough together to advance in the playoffs. There is a lot of talent on the team but there is no reason to think that unless there is a sea change in mentality, that this talent will translate to a tough playoff hardened basketball team.
Unfortunately it will not be easy for the Knicks to modify their personnel. They are committed to building around Marbury (the jury is still out on whether this is a good idea) and Houston and Hardaway have contracts that are untradeable. Isiah Thomas has done a great job defying expectations about how impossible it would be to make changes. Still, outside of moving Moutombo, which they should clearly do, it is hard to see them making many major deals that would improve the talent level. I hope they don't trade Sweetney or Williams both of whom showed considerable promise at different times in the Nets series and should evolve into useful role players. At most the Knicks should hope to strengthen themselves a bit up front.
Assuming therefore that they make only minor player moves, that brings us back to the necessary sea change in mentality. The big change that the Knicks need is a new coach. While it is true that they did not have much time to gel, I do think there was enough time to see that Lenny Wilkens did not have them executing even rudimentary plays or getting back on defense. I would suggest a disciplinarian, someone who will beat team basketball into the players heads. This someone should not be Isiah himself. Isiah was an awful coach in Indiana and has proven himself an inventive executive. He should stay upstairs and find a new coach who can take what is a reasonably talented collection of player and make them into a basketball team.
Predictions for round 2 of the playoffs:
Indiana over Miami or New Orleans in five.
Detroit over New Jersey in seven (a great series!)
Minnesota over Sacramento or Dallas in six or Sacramento or Dallas over Denver in five.
San Antonio over Los Angeles in seven
Saturday, April 24, 2004
Employer health benefits and Medicare
Another critical regulation was issued this week (this is why I think the area of regulation is the one of the most important yet understudied areas of governance). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that it was not age discrimination for employers to cut off health benefits for retirees who were eligible for Medicare. The regulation (if finalized) reverses a 2000 court decision against employers which ruled that such a policy is discriminatory.
As is often the case in regulatory policy, the good and bad of this rule are not as obvious as they seem. In this case, the politics has made for strange bedfellows as unions and management both support the rule while the AARP opposes it. The AARP position is easy to understand as many people over 65 will now be eligible for Medicare only and will have gaps in their coverage in the areas where Medicare is weak (catastrophic care, prescription drugs).
Where things become difficult to evaluate is on the employer/employee side of the issue. Without this rule, employers were left with two choices, cut care for all retirees or maintain care for everyone. With rising health costs, employers were increasingly choosing to cut care. This left retirees who were not yet eligible for Medicare without any health insurance (hence the union support for this rule).
Of course in an ideal world, employers would insure all retirees. But absent a requirement to do so, it is not realistic to assume that businesses will take this course, particularly as health costs rise. So the question is, does the loss in benefits for those over 65 (who will now likely be cut off of employer plans) outweigh the gain in benefits for retirees under 65? Keep in mind that those over 65 will still have Medicare but those below 65 will have nothing without employer care.
I don't know the numbers offhand but my instinct is that there would have to be a lot more people over 65 affected in order to justify a policy that will result in younger retirees having no health insurance. If this were the case (and how much is a "lot more"? I don't know) then the EEOC decision would be problematic. However ironically all of this may be irrelevant as the rule is certain to end up in court and courts are likely to rule that age discrimination statutes prohibit the EEOC action.
As is often the case in regulatory policy, the good and bad of this rule are not as obvious as they seem. In this case, the politics has made for strange bedfellows as unions and management both support the rule while the AARP opposes it. The AARP position is easy to understand as many people over 65 will now be eligible for Medicare only and will have gaps in their coverage in the areas where Medicare is weak (catastrophic care, prescription drugs).
Where things become difficult to evaluate is on the employer/employee side of the issue. Without this rule, employers were left with two choices, cut care for all retirees or maintain care for everyone. With rising health costs, employers were increasingly choosing to cut care. This left retirees who were not yet eligible for Medicare without any health insurance (hence the union support for this rule).
Of course in an ideal world, employers would insure all retirees. But absent a requirement to do so, it is not realistic to assume that businesses will take this course, particularly as health costs rise. So the question is, does the loss in benefits for those over 65 (who will now likely be cut off of employer plans) outweigh the gain in benefits for retirees under 65? Keep in mind that those over 65 will still have Medicare but those below 65 will have nothing without employer care.
I don't know the numbers offhand but my instinct is that there would have to be a lot more people over 65 affected in order to justify a policy that will result in younger retirees having no health insurance. If this were the case (and how much is a "lot more"? I don't know) then the EEOC decision would be problematic. However ironically all of this may be irrelevant as the rule is certain to end up in court and courts are likely to rule that age discrimination statutes prohibit the EEOC action.
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Overtime Pay
Yesterday the Bush Administration issued one of the more important regulations that it will issue over the course of its tenure. The regulations, issued by the Department of Labor, set the standards for when workers are eligible for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. When the Administration initially proposed the regulations over a year ago, they were widely criticized as unfair to workers and the Labor Department received over 80,000 comments on the rules.
The rules issued yesterday were much more moderate and while the devil is in the details, it appears as if these revisions are a positive development. The rules raise the threshhold for when a worker is automatically eligible for overtime pay from workers earning less than $8,000 per year to $23,000 per year. While I think the number should be higher ($23,000 comes to less than $500 per week) there is no arguing that this increased threshhold will help workers. The threshhold for when workers are presumed ineligible for overtime pay was also raised to over $100,000. It would hard for me to argue that workers earning that much are deserving of much sympathy for not getting overtime pay as well.
Where things get much trickier is for workers earning between $23,000 and $100,000. Here the Labor Department claims to have clarified what was a nightmare set of tests to determine eligibility. Few would argue that the current tests are clear to either employees or employers but only time (and probably the courts) will tell if the massive document issued yesterday by the Labor Department will make things clearer or will disproportinately benefit one side or the other.
The critics of the rule were typically strident ("When you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig said Senator Tom Harkin). However I am confident that these critics have no idea whether or not the changes in the rule will hurt workers. The parts that are easy to understand (the thresholds) will help most workers. The parts that are difficult to quickly evaluate will likely be eventually adjudicated. As is often the case in regulatory policy, one has to be careful not to trust those who are loudest on either side.
The revised regulation also illustrates one of the golden rules of election year politics. The rule as it was initially proposed was worthy of much of the criticism it received. However the Bush Administration conscious of the November election has moderated the rule considerably in an attempt to take weapons away from its Democratic opponents. Now Democrats who want to criticize the Administration rules are forced to make arguments that are much easier to refute.
The rules issued yesterday were much more moderate and while the devil is in the details, it appears as if these revisions are a positive development. The rules raise the threshhold for when a worker is automatically eligible for overtime pay from workers earning less than $8,000 per year to $23,000 per year. While I think the number should be higher ($23,000 comes to less than $500 per week) there is no arguing that this increased threshhold will help workers. The threshhold for when workers are presumed ineligible for overtime pay was also raised to over $100,000. It would hard for me to argue that workers earning that much are deserving of much sympathy for not getting overtime pay as well.
Where things get much trickier is for workers earning between $23,000 and $100,000. Here the Labor Department claims to have clarified what was a nightmare set of tests to determine eligibility. Few would argue that the current tests are clear to either employees or employers but only time (and probably the courts) will tell if the massive document issued yesterday by the Labor Department will make things clearer or will disproportinately benefit one side or the other.
The critics of the rule were typically strident ("When you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig said Senator Tom Harkin). However I am confident that these critics have no idea whether or not the changes in the rule will hurt workers. The parts that are easy to understand (the thresholds) will help most workers. The parts that are difficult to quickly evaluate will likely be eventually adjudicated. As is often the case in regulatory policy, one has to be careful not to trust those who are loudest on either side.
The revised regulation also illustrates one of the golden rules of election year politics. The rule as it was initially proposed was worthy of much of the criticism it received. However the Bush Administration conscious of the November election has moderated the rule considerably in an attempt to take weapons away from its Democratic opponents. Now Democrats who want to criticize the Administration rules are forced to make arguments that are much easier to refute.
Monday, April 19, 2004
The Responsibilities of Public Action
One of the first courses I took as a public policy student was an ethics course entitled, "The Responsibilities of Public Action." A significant topic in the course was the ethical obligations of public officials who are instructed to take actions with which they disagree. A case study of Elliot Richardson's decision to defy Richard Nixon (and Robert Bork's decision not to defy him) and not fire Watergate investigator Archibald Cox framed the issue nicely.
I was reminded of the class this weekend upon reading news of Bob Woodward's book on the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. (I have not read the excerpts and am relying on news coverage here). Apparently Colin Powell spoke off the record with Woodward and relayed numerous discussions in which he advised the President not to invade and highlighted fears which have since come to be realized.
Should Powell have done more? This is not a no brainer of a question. Clearly Nazi officials who carried out the Holocaust cannot be excused on the grounds that they were following orders. Clearly not every civil servant or political appointee needs to agree with every action his or her supervisor instructs them to take. Where do Powell's actions fall on the spectrum?
Powell was in the rare position where his departure could have made a difference in policy. Had he gone public with his misgivings in the winter of 2003 and resigned as Secretary of State, it would have likely (though far from certainly) slowed the Bush Administration's rush to war. This increases his responsibility for taking action. I understand and am sympathetic to the belief that Powell probably thought he could help most by staying in his position and influencing policy once the war had started. However time has clearly shown that his leaving the Administration would have done more good than his staying has.
On a much more microscopic level, I wrestled with the same question. Occasionally under the Clinton Administration and then more frequently (though not always) under the Bush Administration I worked on policies with which I disagreed. Unlike Powell, I was a civil servant charged with informing policymakers rather than being a policymaker. And unlike Powell, few people would have cared had I resigned. Still one of the many reasons I sought a new career was to remove myself from a position where this question would constantly nag at me.
I do not know the depth of Powell's beliefs about the Iraq war, nor do I know all the good he has done in an additional year as Secretary of State. Still if the Woodward excerpts are correct and Powell believed that Iraq would both become a quagmire and that it would take away from the War on Terror, in hindsight it is clear he should have resigned. We can all only wonder if each night he goes to bed with that knowledge coupled with fresh news of new soldiers killed that day.
I was reminded of the class this weekend upon reading news of Bob Woodward's book on the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. (I have not read the excerpts and am relying on news coverage here). Apparently Colin Powell spoke off the record with Woodward and relayed numerous discussions in which he advised the President not to invade and highlighted fears which have since come to be realized.
Should Powell have done more? This is not a no brainer of a question. Clearly Nazi officials who carried out the Holocaust cannot be excused on the grounds that they were following orders. Clearly not every civil servant or political appointee needs to agree with every action his or her supervisor instructs them to take. Where do Powell's actions fall on the spectrum?
Powell was in the rare position where his departure could have made a difference in policy. Had he gone public with his misgivings in the winter of 2003 and resigned as Secretary of State, it would have likely (though far from certainly) slowed the Bush Administration's rush to war. This increases his responsibility for taking action. I understand and am sympathetic to the belief that Powell probably thought he could help most by staying in his position and influencing policy once the war had started. However time has clearly shown that his leaving the Administration would have done more good than his staying has.
On a much more microscopic level, I wrestled with the same question. Occasionally under the Clinton Administration and then more frequently (though not always) under the Bush Administration I worked on policies with which I disagreed. Unlike Powell, I was a civil servant charged with informing policymakers rather than being a policymaker. And unlike Powell, few people would have cared had I resigned. Still one of the many reasons I sought a new career was to remove myself from a position where this question would constantly nag at me.
I do not know the depth of Powell's beliefs about the Iraq war, nor do I know all the good he has done in an additional year as Secretary of State. Still if the Woodward excerpts are correct and Powell believed that Iraq would both become a quagmire and that it would take away from the War on Terror, in hindsight it is clear he should have resigned. We can all only wonder if each night he goes to bed with that knowledge coupled with fresh news of new soldiers killed that day.
Friday, April 16, 2004
NBA First Round
This year's first round is filled with intriguing story lines but series which may not be terribly competitive. There is hope however, if the favorites hold serve in the first round, the second round should have three series with very evenly matched teams. On to the predictions. (Note: my NBA preseason predictions (11 of 16 playoff teams correct -- not great) are here.
East
Inidana vs. Boston: Last year Boston upset Indiana in the first round which led to the dominos of Larry Bird getting hired by Indiana, Isiah Thomas getting fired by Indiana, and Thomas ending up in New York. It appears as if both Indiana and new York are better off as a result. Boston is not. They will get thumped this year. Indiana in 4.
New Jersey vs. New York: The Knicks have added a lot of talent this year. Two things will likely prevent them from advancing however. They have not yet learned how to play together (particularly on defense) and Allan Houston will not play in this series. Houston is particularly important because he opens up the court for Stephon Marbury. New Jersey is battered by injury as well but they should have enough to hold off their cross-river rivals for one more year. New Jersey in 6. (this may be the first time I ever publicly picked against the Knicks in a playoff series)
Detroit vs. Milwaukee: Along with the Miami-New Orleans series, this one has NBA marketing executives cringing. It should be lopsided, low scoring, and features two teams with very limited national profiles. That will likely change for Detroit over the next month or so. Not so for Milwaukee. Detroit in 4.
Miami vs. New Orleans: If the above series has marketing executives cringing, this one has them running for cover. "Next on NBC, a 42-40 team vs. a 41-41 team for the right to lose to Indiana in the next round, NBA Action, its Fantastic." Miami at least makes a good story after starting the year 0-7, they have become competitive and exciting. Miami in 6.
West
Minnesota vs. Denver: During the series, I can guarantee the following three things will happen. Carmelo Anthony will lead his team to a thrilling win. We will be repeatedly reminded of Minnesota's 7 consecutive first round losses and Denver's win over Seattle in 1994 (ten years ago) as a #8 seed (particularly after Denver wins a game). And Minnesota will win. Minnesota in 6.
Los Angeles vs. Houston: This is not a great matchup for LA as Yao forces Shaq to move outside on defense and to work on offense. That's why Houston has had success this year against LA. Unfortunately Houston does not have an answer for Kobe beyond hoping that he is distracted by his upcoming trial. LA in 5.
San Antonio vs. Memphis: It has been a great year for the Grizzlies who have the made the playoffs for the first time. They've done this without any star players and with a 70 year old coach who manages to reach his 20 year old charges. Unfortunately the nice story ends here as they run into a team that makes very few mistakes and does not lose series they aren't supposed to. San Antonio in 5.
Sacramento vs. Dallas: What happened to Sacramento. They were cruising to the best record in the league when all of sudden, boom a 4-8 finish. Dallas gets a break here. They would have been destroyed by the Lakers, instead they get the free falling Kings. Dallas is not a great team. Their third best small forward could start for most teams while they don't really have a center or a defense. Still, unless Sacramento wakes up quickly they will find themselves out of the playoffs and deciding whether to retool the team. Dallas in 6.
East
Inidana vs. Boston: Last year Boston upset Indiana in the first round which led to the dominos of Larry Bird getting hired by Indiana, Isiah Thomas getting fired by Indiana, and Thomas ending up in New York. It appears as if both Indiana and new York are better off as a result. Boston is not. They will get thumped this year. Indiana in 4.
New Jersey vs. New York: The Knicks have added a lot of talent this year. Two things will likely prevent them from advancing however. They have not yet learned how to play together (particularly on defense) and Allan Houston will not play in this series. Houston is particularly important because he opens up the court for Stephon Marbury. New Jersey is battered by injury as well but they should have enough to hold off their cross-river rivals for one more year. New Jersey in 6. (this may be the first time I ever publicly picked against the Knicks in a playoff series)
Detroit vs. Milwaukee: Along with the Miami-New Orleans series, this one has NBA marketing executives cringing. It should be lopsided, low scoring, and features two teams with very limited national profiles. That will likely change for Detroit over the next month or so. Not so for Milwaukee. Detroit in 4.
Miami vs. New Orleans: If the above series has marketing executives cringing, this one has them running for cover. "Next on NBC, a 42-40 team vs. a 41-41 team for the right to lose to Indiana in the next round, NBA Action, its Fantastic." Miami at least makes a good story after starting the year 0-7, they have become competitive and exciting. Miami in 6.
West
Minnesota vs. Denver: During the series, I can guarantee the following three things will happen. Carmelo Anthony will lead his team to a thrilling win. We will be repeatedly reminded of Minnesota's 7 consecutive first round losses and Denver's win over Seattle in 1994 (ten years ago) as a #8 seed (particularly after Denver wins a game). And Minnesota will win. Minnesota in 6.
Los Angeles vs. Houston: This is not a great matchup for LA as Yao forces Shaq to move outside on defense and to work on offense. That's why Houston has had success this year against LA. Unfortunately Houston does not have an answer for Kobe beyond hoping that he is distracted by his upcoming trial. LA in 5.
San Antonio vs. Memphis: It has been a great year for the Grizzlies who have the made the playoffs for the first time. They've done this without any star players and with a 70 year old coach who manages to reach his 20 year old charges. Unfortunately the nice story ends here as they run into a team that makes very few mistakes and does not lose series they aren't supposed to. San Antonio in 5.
Sacramento vs. Dallas: What happened to Sacramento. They were cruising to the best record in the league when all of sudden, boom a 4-8 finish. Dallas gets a break here. They would have been destroyed by the Lakers, instead they get the free falling Kings. Dallas is not a great team. Their third best small forward could start for most teams while they don't really have a center or a defense. Still, unless Sacramento wakes up quickly they will find themselves out of the playoffs and deciding whether to retool the team. Dallas in 6.
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Last night's press conference
I consider myself an extremely confident person. There are few things I regret. That said, if someone asked me to name my biggest mistake, I would come up with many candidates very quickly. Apparently either the President makes far fewer mistakes than I do or he is congenitally unable to think of any. All humility aside, my guess is the latter.
As far as I am concerned, the moment when Bush stuttered at the podium and declared that while he was sure he made some mistakes, he could not come up with any, far dwarved anything else coming out of his press conference last night. It at once told us first, that this is a man so sure of himself that he is dangerous, second, it told us the extent to which he is driven by religious conviction (where else does one get that feeling of absolute certainty), and finally that there is a good reason they never let him do press conferences. Don't get me wrong, I want our President to be confident. I do not want him to think himself infallible.
Reagan or Clinton would have nailed that question. Either one of them would have made us feel they were like us and that they have made mistakes that they learned from. We would have emerged from their answer with a greater confidence in their abilities and their humanity. Of course, the need to ask them the question would never have arisen in the first place.
Bush is often stereotyped as stupid. While he is no Einstein I always thought this was a bit of an exaggeration. His primary character flaw is not his intelligence but his arrogance. After 9-11, this arrogance led to a level of conviction that was comforting and correct for the moment. Now with soldiers dying in increasing numbers, we need a president willing to question himself and his advisers. The answer to the question of what we should do in Iraq has gotten increasingly complicated. We have no reason to believe that the person making those decisions recognizes that complexity. This should worry us all tremendously.
As far as I am concerned, the moment when Bush stuttered at the podium and declared that while he was sure he made some mistakes, he could not come up with any, far dwarved anything else coming out of his press conference last night. It at once told us first, that this is a man so sure of himself that he is dangerous, second, it told us the extent to which he is driven by religious conviction (where else does one get that feeling of absolute certainty), and finally that there is a good reason they never let him do press conferences. Don't get me wrong, I want our President to be confident. I do not want him to think himself infallible.
Reagan or Clinton would have nailed that question. Either one of them would have made us feel they were like us and that they have made mistakes that they learned from. We would have emerged from their answer with a greater confidence in their abilities and their humanity. Of course, the need to ask them the question would never have arisen in the first place.
Bush is often stereotyped as stupid. While he is no Einstein I always thought this was a bit of an exaggeration. His primary character flaw is not his intelligence but his arrogance. After 9-11, this arrogance led to a level of conviction that was comforting and correct for the moment. Now with soldiers dying in increasing numbers, we need a president willing to question himself and his advisers. The answer to the question of what we should do in Iraq has gotten increasingly complicated. We have no reason to believe that the person making those decisions recognizes that complexity. This should worry us all tremendously.
Monday, April 12, 2004
Condi's testimony and the PDB
The very surprising Administration self destruction took some small steps forward last week with the testimony of National Security Adviser Condolezza Rice and the release of the Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001 entitled, "Bin Laden determined to strike United States." Neither of these events by themselves are fatal to the Bush reelection effort but they are two more pieces in an accumulating body of work that is leading the public to doubt the credibility of the Administration.
Primarily they are two more examples of the cardinal rule of scandal in Washington. It is not the initial action that gets you in trouble, it is the lies that follow it. If it weren't for the Bush Administration's almost pathological inability to admit even the most trivial error, then this issues would be history. There have been several points during the evolution of this discussion over responsibility for 9-11 that Bush or Rice could have said, "We came into office in January. We had a number of priorities and we acted on them first. We were only beginning to understand the implications of terrorism. While the attacks were likely not preventable we are certainly sorry we did not do more." End of story.
This of course leads one to suspect that there is still something they are trying to hide. My guess is that with Iraq going so badly right now, they want to minimize exposure and ciritical examination of their reaction after 9-11 rather than their actions before 9-11. If so, stringing out discussion and coverage of the events leading up to 9-11 may not be as bad an idea as it initially seems to a naive outsider like me.
For it is the Administration reaction after 9-11 (as I've discussed before) that merits far more criticism than any perceived lack of preventitive action in the summer of 2001. We've already heard pieces of it. Rumsfeld wanting to attack Iraq because of the lack of good targets in Afghanistan. Wolfowitz seizing upon the 9-11 attacks as a way to justify a war against Saddam. Clarke's perception that Bush was telling him to find a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Putting the pieces together makes a very unattractive picture.
And putting the pieces together with the current carnage in Iraq, makes it even uglier. If the public ends up believing that Bush cared less about attacking the terrorists who attacked us and more about getting us into a war that is well on its way to claiming 1000 American lives without increasing the safety of Americans then the image of him as a leader who provides a strong bulwark against terror is gone. And if that image is gone so is his presidency.
Primarily they are two more examples of the cardinal rule of scandal in Washington. It is not the initial action that gets you in trouble, it is the lies that follow it. If it weren't for the Bush Administration's almost pathological inability to admit even the most trivial error, then this issues would be history. There have been several points during the evolution of this discussion over responsibility for 9-11 that Bush or Rice could have said, "We came into office in January. We had a number of priorities and we acted on them first. We were only beginning to understand the implications of terrorism. While the attacks were likely not preventable we are certainly sorry we did not do more." End of story.
This of course leads one to suspect that there is still something they are trying to hide. My guess is that with Iraq going so badly right now, they want to minimize exposure and ciritical examination of their reaction after 9-11 rather than their actions before 9-11. If so, stringing out discussion and coverage of the events leading up to 9-11 may not be as bad an idea as it initially seems to a naive outsider like me.
For it is the Administration reaction after 9-11 (as I've discussed before) that merits far more criticism than any perceived lack of preventitive action in the summer of 2001. We've already heard pieces of it. Rumsfeld wanting to attack Iraq because of the lack of good targets in Afghanistan. Wolfowitz seizing upon the 9-11 attacks as a way to justify a war against Saddam. Clarke's perception that Bush was telling him to find a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Putting the pieces together makes a very unattractive picture.
And putting the pieces together with the current carnage in Iraq, makes it even uglier. If the public ends up believing that Bush cared less about attacking the terrorists who attacked us and more about getting us into a war that is well on its way to claiming 1000 American lives without increasing the safety of Americans then the image of him as a leader who provides a strong bulwark against terror is gone. And if that image is gone so is his presidency.
Friday, April 09, 2004
Bureaucrats and Political Decisions
One of the subjects I spend a lot of my academic time thinking about is the role of bureaucrats in public policy making and the attempts by political actors to control their decisions. Two questions frame this issue and much academic journal space has been devoted to both of them. The first is whether bureaucrats do make political decisions and the second is whether they should.
We discussed the first of these questions in my class on Wednesday. Our guest speaker a former New Jersey agency head asserted (in my mind correctly) that all decisions made by bureaucratic agencies are political. The question remains however whether those decisions are being made in the way that legislators and executives would have made them had the decisionmaking power not been delegated to bureaucrats.
I have spent most of my (still very limited) research arguing that the procedures put in place by legislators and executives to control bureaucrats routinely fail to influence their decisionmaking. That said, I do think that political actors have important influences on bureaucratic decisions. The successful agency personnel that I have know are always acutely aware of their political environment and take the preferences of elected officials into account when making their decisions. I do not believe we have an out of control bureaucracy.
Of course advocates of an increased governmental role argue that bureaucrats by virtue of their technical expertise should play an important role in policymaking. To these advocates, political influence is an inherently negative characteristic. Congress delegates policymaking authority to bureaucrats because it wants agencies to use their expertise to make the "best" decision. Once the delegation is made, politicians should butt out and let the experts have their say.
I'm not terribly fond of this point of view. I think the accountability that exists is a good thing. One can argue that the President has too much power over these decisions and Congress too little and that is a legitimate debate. But I would rather vest such power in elected officials who face the voters every two, four, or six years than in unelected experts. Expertise should inform policy decisions but not uniquely determine them.
We discussed the first of these questions in my class on Wednesday. Our guest speaker a former New Jersey agency head asserted (in my mind correctly) that all decisions made by bureaucratic agencies are political. The question remains however whether those decisions are being made in the way that legislators and executives would have made them had the decisionmaking power not been delegated to bureaucrats.
I have spent most of my (still very limited) research arguing that the procedures put in place by legislators and executives to control bureaucrats routinely fail to influence their decisionmaking. That said, I do think that political actors have important influences on bureaucratic decisions. The successful agency personnel that I have know are always acutely aware of their political environment and take the preferences of elected officials into account when making their decisions. I do not believe we have an out of control bureaucracy.
Of course advocates of an increased governmental role argue that bureaucrats by virtue of their technical expertise should play an important role in policymaking. To these advocates, political influence is an inherently negative characteristic. Congress delegates policymaking authority to bureaucrats because it wants agencies to use their expertise to make the "best" decision. Once the delegation is made, politicians should butt out and let the experts have their say.
I'm not terribly fond of this point of view. I think the accountability that exists is a good thing. One can argue that the President has too much power over these decisions and Congress too little and that is a legitimate debate. But I would rather vest such power in elected officials who face the voters every two, four, or six years than in unelected experts. Expertise should inform policy decisions but not uniquely determine them.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Is the bottom falling out in Iraq?
It has not been a week filled with good news from the cradle of civilization. Last week 4 civilian contractors and 5 soldiers were killed in Fallujah with the bodies of the civilians burned and hung. This past weekend Shiite rioting inspired by radical cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr took the lives of several more soldiers. Now today, CNN is reporting that al-Sadr's supporters have taken control of the town of Najaf.
This doesn't sound like a country all rarin to go for a transition to self-government on June 30. Yet the Bush Administration continually reemphasizes the importance of that date for a transition of power to an Iraqi government. They never seem to articulate a rationale as to why that date is so special (other than the infantile "because we said it was" argument).
There are one of two scenarios envisioned by the Bush administration for Iraq after the transition of power. The more likely one is that nothing will change, with our soldiers still getting killed and our "ambassador" still dictating decisions to a powerless Iraqi government. If this is the case then Bush's certain boasts that we have transferred power to a democratic Iraq will be utterly hypocritical and among the worst abuses of truth of his presidency. The other possibility is that genuine power will be passed to this "interim government." The possibility that such a government will quickly collapse appears to grow by the day.
Senator Kennedy yesterday called Iraq, Bush's Vietnam. Obviously everyone desperately wants to believe that this is not the case. Unfortunately as the artificial deadline of June 30 draws nearer, the lack of an exit strategy becomes more apparent. We have violated the Powell doctrine of not going in to a country militarily unless we know how we will get out. The costs (in dollars and in lives) of this violation will mount for years to come. Soon we will be faced with the decision that plagued LBJ and Nixon throughout Vietnam. Do we send in more troops in an uncertain enterprise, or do we leave with conditions worse than when we went in.
This doesn't sound like a country all rarin to go for a transition to self-government on June 30. Yet the Bush Administration continually reemphasizes the importance of that date for a transition of power to an Iraqi government. They never seem to articulate a rationale as to why that date is so special (other than the infantile "because we said it was" argument).
There are one of two scenarios envisioned by the Bush administration for Iraq after the transition of power. The more likely one is that nothing will change, with our soldiers still getting killed and our "ambassador" still dictating decisions to a powerless Iraqi government. If this is the case then Bush's certain boasts that we have transferred power to a democratic Iraq will be utterly hypocritical and among the worst abuses of truth of his presidency. The other possibility is that genuine power will be passed to this "interim government." The possibility that such a government will quickly collapse appears to grow by the day.
Senator Kennedy yesterday called Iraq, Bush's Vietnam. Obviously everyone desperately wants to believe that this is not the case. Unfortunately as the artificial deadline of June 30 draws nearer, the lack of an exit strategy becomes more apparent. We have violated the Powell doctrine of not going in to a country militarily unless we know how we will get out. The costs (in dollars and in lives) of this violation will mount for years to come. Soon we will be faced with the decision that plagued LBJ and Nixon throughout Vietnam. Do we send in more troops in an uncertain enterprise, or do we leave with conditions worse than when we went in.
Sunday, April 04, 2004
National League Picks
Unlike the American League, where I picked the same exact 4 teams to make the playoffs this year as last, the National League is the parity league, where turnover is a regular phenomenon and the Yankees are but a presumed World Series opponent.
National League East
Philadelphia 93-69
Florida 89-73
Atlanta 87-75
New York Mets 79-83
Montreal 75-87
Commentary: The best thing for the Phillies would be if they got off to a bad start and Larry Bowa got fired. They have by far the most talent in the division but Bowa limits their success. Don't underestimate Florida which returns their World Series winning pitching staff or Atlanta which returns Bobby Cox and Leo Mazzone. The Mets and Montreal will both be decent making this the best division in the league.
NL Central
Chicago 97-65
Houston 94-68
St. Louis 90-72
Pittsburgh 70-92
Milwaukee 63-99
Cincinnati 61-101
Commentary: A tale of two divisions. The top three teams are pennant contenders and the bottom three are contenders for being the worst run team in the League. The Cubbies have made real improvements from last year's division winner and I think Maddux will have a great season. Houston is also improved although their hitters are aging. St. Louis will be in it all year and if they can bolster their pitching in-season they have a shot as well. Pittsburgh has some decent pitchers, Cincinnati, some good outfielders and Milwaukee some good prospects. If you put them together you have one decent team.
National League West
San Diego 85-77
San Francisco 84-78
Arizona 80-82
Los Angeles 74-88
Colorado 67-95
Commentary: A harder division to pick than even the AL Central because none of these teams is really that good. If Schmidt and Nen were completely healthy I would go with the Giants to repeat, but they are not. If Randy Johnson was two years younger, I would pick Arizona, but he is not. If Los Angeles had three decent hitters, I would pick them, but they do not. If Colorado . . . well I can't see any reason I'd pick Colorado. So that leaves San Diego which will become this year's feel good story.
Postseason: The Cubs and Astros appear to be the class of the league but both are sufficiently vulnerable to either not make the playoffs or get upset once they are there. I will bet they will do not get tripped up and meet each other in the NLCS. At that point, history will be made as Wood, Prior, and Maddux lead the Cubs to their first World Series in 59 years.
MVP: Albert Pujols
Cy Young: Kerry Wood
Rookie of the Year: Jason Bay
National League East
Philadelphia 93-69
Florida 89-73
Atlanta 87-75
New York Mets 79-83
Montreal 75-87
Commentary: The best thing for the Phillies would be if they got off to a bad start and Larry Bowa got fired. They have by far the most talent in the division but Bowa limits their success. Don't underestimate Florida which returns their World Series winning pitching staff or Atlanta which returns Bobby Cox and Leo Mazzone. The Mets and Montreal will both be decent making this the best division in the league.
NL Central
Chicago 97-65
Houston 94-68
St. Louis 90-72
Pittsburgh 70-92
Milwaukee 63-99
Cincinnati 61-101
Commentary: A tale of two divisions. The top three teams are pennant contenders and the bottom three are contenders for being the worst run team in the League. The Cubbies have made real improvements from last year's division winner and I think Maddux will have a great season. Houston is also improved although their hitters are aging. St. Louis will be in it all year and if they can bolster their pitching in-season they have a shot as well. Pittsburgh has some decent pitchers, Cincinnati, some good outfielders and Milwaukee some good prospects. If you put them together you have one decent team.
National League West
San Diego 85-77
San Francisco 84-78
Arizona 80-82
Los Angeles 74-88
Colorado 67-95
Commentary: A harder division to pick than even the AL Central because none of these teams is really that good. If Schmidt and Nen were completely healthy I would go with the Giants to repeat, but they are not. If Randy Johnson was two years younger, I would pick Arizona, but he is not. If Los Angeles had three decent hitters, I would pick them, but they do not. If Colorado . . . well I can't see any reason I'd pick Colorado. So that leaves San Diego which will become this year's feel good story.
Postseason: The Cubs and Astros appear to be the class of the league but both are sufficiently vulnerable to either not make the playoffs or get upset once they are there. I will bet they will do not get tripped up and meet each other in the NLCS. At that point, history will be made as Wood, Prior, and Maddux lead the Cubs to their first World Series in 59 years.
MVP: Albert Pujols
Cy Young: Kerry Wood
Rookie of the Year: Jason Bay
Friday, April 02, 2004
American League Picks
National League to follow on Sunday.
American League East
New York 103-59
Boston 100-62
Toronto 90-72
Baltimore 79-83
Tampa Bay 68-94
Commentary: This division has finished in the exact same order for the past six years and I don't see any reason to break the tradition. The Yankees and Red Sox are both exceptionally talented. The Yankee lineup has gotten better and now is probably better than Boston but the Sox' starting pitching has improved and may now have an edge on the Yankees. The bullpens are about even. Both teams have health risks (Pedro and Schilling on Boston and Brown and Giambi on NY) but both could survive a serious injury or two. More than two big injuries and Toronto is lurking. The Blue Jays upgraded their pitching and are on the verge of breaking the New York/Boston duopoly atop the division. They will probably have to wait one more year however. Baltimore and Tampa Bay should petition to move to the Central where they might have a chance of contending. Surviving 38 games against the Sox and Yankees is too much to ask of them.
American League Central
Minnesota 85-77
Kansas City 83-79
Cleveland 75-87
Chicago 74-88
Detroit 58-104
Commentary: I've gone back and forth on Minnesota and Kansas City all offseason. Both have clear weaknesses but one of them has to win the division. Minnesota, despite losing two starters and two relievers, still has a better rotation and bullpen than KC. Kansas City has a better lineup with the addition of Juan Gonzalez but it is relatively close. The two teams should go down to the wire with Minnesota pulling out its third straight crown. Chicago will be a big disappointment and Loiaza goes back to being Loiaza and Ozzie Guillen antagonizes Frank Thomas. Cleveland will surprise and be the division favorite in 2005. Detroit will improve by 15 games and still be the worst team in the majors.
AL West
Oakland 91-71
Anaheim 90-72
Seattle 84-78
Texas 60-102
Another agonizing choice. Anaheim made some nice additions in the offseason, most notably Vladimir Guerrero. However Oakland still has the great pitching and Billy Beane will make the necessary midseason deal to strengthen the lineup. Oakland's hold on the division is more precarious than the previous two years but they will hold on. Seattle will regress as their lineup begins to approach AARP membership and Texas will finish in the same position without A-Rod that they did with him.
Postseason: Everyone is looking forward to the New York Boston rematch in the American League Championship Series. I predict that it will not happen. Injuries could prevent one of the teams from reaching the playoffs (with the wildcard coming from the West) although as mentioned above this is unlikely. Instead the second place finisher in the AL East will get caught looking ahead and lose to the AL West champ in the first round (Oakland or Anaheim). My prediction for the American League Championship Series is that the Yankees will beat the A's in another epic series.
MVP: A-Rod
Cy Young: Johan Santanna
Rookie of the Year: Bobby Crosby
American League East
New York 103-59
Boston 100-62
Toronto 90-72
Baltimore 79-83
Tampa Bay 68-94
Commentary: This division has finished in the exact same order for the past six years and I don't see any reason to break the tradition. The Yankees and Red Sox are both exceptionally talented. The Yankee lineup has gotten better and now is probably better than Boston but the Sox' starting pitching has improved and may now have an edge on the Yankees. The bullpens are about even. Both teams have health risks (Pedro and Schilling on Boston and Brown and Giambi on NY) but both could survive a serious injury or two. More than two big injuries and Toronto is lurking. The Blue Jays upgraded their pitching and are on the verge of breaking the New York/Boston duopoly atop the division. They will probably have to wait one more year however. Baltimore and Tampa Bay should petition to move to the Central where they might have a chance of contending. Surviving 38 games against the Sox and Yankees is too much to ask of them.
American League Central
Minnesota 85-77
Kansas City 83-79
Cleveland 75-87
Chicago 74-88
Detroit 58-104
Commentary: I've gone back and forth on Minnesota and Kansas City all offseason. Both have clear weaknesses but one of them has to win the division. Minnesota, despite losing two starters and two relievers, still has a better rotation and bullpen than KC. Kansas City has a better lineup with the addition of Juan Gonzalez but it is relatively close. The two teams should go down to the wire with Minnesota pulling out its third straight crown. Chicago will be a big disappointment and Loiaza goes back to being Loiaza and Ozzie Guillen antagonizes Frank Thomas. Cleveland will surprise and be the division favorite in 2005. Detroit will improve by 15 games and still be the worst team in the majors.
AL West
Oakland 91-71
Anaheim 90-72
Seattle 84-78
Texas 60-102
Another agonizing choice. Anaheim made some nice additions in the offseason, most notably Vladimir Guerrero. However Oakland still has the great pitching and Billy Beane will make the necessary midseason deal to strengthen the lineup. Oakland's hold on the division is more precarious than the previous two years but they will hold on. Seattle will regress as their lineup begins to approach AARP membership and Texas will finish in the same position without A-Rod that they did with him.
Postseason: Everyone is looking forward to the New York Boston rematch in the American League Championship Series. I predict that it will not happen. Injuries could prevent one of the teams from reaching the playoffs (with the wildcard coming from the West) although as mentioned above this is unlikely. Instead the second place finisher in the AL East will get caught looking ahead and lose to the AL West champ in the first round (Oakland or Anaheim). My prediction for the American League Championship Series is that the Yankees will beat the A's in another epic series.
MVP: A-Rod
Cy Young: Johan Santanna
Rookie of the Year: Bobby Crosby
