The Natural Superiority of Women

September 11, 2012, 8:55 a.m.
And Why Men Fail

Over the past 40 years I have become increasingly conscious of the mounting evidence I have encapsulated in the phrase, "the natural superiority of women." Observing my wife, Mary Vasey, has brought more evidence each day over the past twenty-plus years.

Today [September 11] the New York Times' David Brooks has dropped the other shoe in a column titled, "Why Men Fail." David Brooks, "Why Men Fail," New York Times, September 11, 2012, p. A23 ("To succeed today, you have to be able to sit still and focus attention in school at an early age. You have to be emotionally sensitive and aware of context. You have to communicate smoothly. For genetic and cultural reasons, many men stink at these tasks.").

We have undergone what has been a tectonic shift in what it means to be human in America, our social relationships, gender roles and responsibilities.

Women may have always been superior to men in a variety of ways, but from the 1930s through the 1960s they were not accorded many opportunities to demonstrate that fact. Aside from the early 1940s, World War II's "Rosie the riveter" and all that, "homemaker and mother" was considered the honorable profession it still is ("stand by your man," and "the wind beneath my wings"). The choices available to women wishing to venture outside the home with their college degrees, ended up being in large measure teacher, nurse, secretary or airline stewardess (as they were then called; remember the airline commercial with the line, "Fly me"?).

And a lot of help the media was. TV producers deliberately created what they derisively referred to as "T&A" shows, and the appalling portrayal of women in commercials was no better. (Remember the commercial aimed at doubling the nicotine dealers' market: "Cigarettes are like women; the best ones are thin and rich"?)

The last 40 years have been a different story for a whole variety of reasons that need not be reproduced here, including but by no means limited to Title IX. And it is primarily a story, and society, of which women can accurately say, "We built that."

The disparity between men and women remains. But what David Brooks reports, channeling the work of Hanna Rosin, is that it is not just because of what I've called "the natural superiority of women." It is also because of the reasons why, in increasing numbers, "men fail."

Read it, guys. If you think there's still a "battle of the sexes," forget it. As Warren Buffett said when charged with fomenting "class warfare," "if there’s class warfare, the rich class has won." If there ever was a battle, it's long since over and the women have won. Women never were our "enemy." As Pogo told us long before David Brooks documented the reasons why, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

# # #

Trust Your Instincts, Auto Bailout 's Terrible Idea

November 14, 2008, 10:45 a.m., 3:20 p.m.; November 15, 2008, 10:20 a.m. (video of Peter Schiff's prescient predictions during last couple of years); November 16, 2008, 11:00 a.m. (Sunday Register's consistent editorial; bottom of blog entry)

"Workers of the World Unite
You Have Nothing You Need Use But Your Brains"
Forgive the distant play on "workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains;" the point is that the observations of workers and all the rest of us are worth something when evaluating the judgments of the "experts."

On balance, I'm a proponent of a meritocracy, expertise, graduate and post-graduate education, and looking to scientists and experts rather than ideologues for solutions to public policy challenges.

But it's also reassuring when ordinary folks like myself, relying on instincts, intuition and such limited information and understanding as we possess, can come to the same conclusions ultimately adopted by the experts.

(And I won't even note the instances when the "experts" prove to be not all that expert -- except to provide you the following video look-back on how Fox's "experts" trashed the prescient predictions of Peter Schiff.)



That amateur's instincts can often prove right is fortunate for a blogger like myself, since I enjoy expressing opinions on dozens of public policy topics for which I have neither formal educational training nor the expertise of "experience."

But there may be a lesson here for the experts as well. In a variation on "when the people will lead their leaders will follow," when the public says "the emperor has no clothes" it might well behoove the experts to at least take a second look at their naked proposals.

So it is with the coming global economic collapse.

Please note that my point is precisely the opposite of "we're smarter than the experts." My point is that even though many of us are not smarter than the experts, even though we don't have the educational credentials or experience that they do, doesn't mean that we aren't capable -- drawing on what we do have -- of coming up with positions and understandings that ultimately prove to be correct.

When I wrote the op ed column, "Ten Questions for Bush Before War" in February of 2003 (along with many similar analyses at that time), I wasn't the only "non-expert" who was able to predict, pretty much step-by-step, the disasters for America that would result from our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

When Secretary Paulson announced his three-page $700 billion bank bailout plan many noted that if we were going to go down that road we should at least give the taxpayers some equity in return for being bilked, rather than just buy up the banks' securitized worthless mortgages. I was among them: Nicholas Johnson, "Better Alternatives to Congress' Bailout Plan; Senate Bill: Wrong Plan, Favoring Wrong People, at the Wrong Time," October 2, 2008. Now even Paulson has reversed course and acknowledged we were right.

Today's issue involves the automobile industry bailout being pushed by the Democratic Party leadership -- President-elect Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Reid. Indeed, apparently Obama made this among his top priorities during the limited time he had with President Bush (who has opposed the idea) during their visit. Declan McCullagh, "Big Three Bailout? Not So Fast," CBSNews.com, November 12, 2008 ("The labor movement spent, according to Financial Week, a whopping $385 million to elect Obama and other Democrats last week. Nobody writes such large checks without expecting something: now it's payback time.").

To many observers this proposal looked nuts. Nicholas Johnson,"Jobs, Not Unemployment, Key to Recovery; Why America Needs a Jobs Program: Because When Your Automobile (Industry) is in the River It Makes More Sense to Go For the Shore Than to Continue Bailing it Out," November 8, 2008 ("GM went through nearly $7 billion in cash in the course of losing over $4 billion during the last three months! Pouring more billions of taxpayers' money into this bottomless pit can do little more than postpone the agony for three or four more months.").

GM's problems are fundamental and have been for decades.

Management has been unimaginative, resistant to change, and bureaucratized beyond belief. It has opposed progress of all kinds: seat belts, air bags, and bumpers that might withstand a crash at more than two miles per hour; small cars when customers wanted them and foreign car manufacturers were gaining an increasing share of our domestic market by providing them; efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and climate change; their lobbying for tariff protections rather than confronting competition in an open marketplace; dragging their feet on hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles or even improving the gas mileage of conventional vehicles; continuing to manufacture trucks and SUVs in the face of rising gas prices. See, Declan McCullagh, "Big Three Bailout? Not So Fast," CBSNews.com, November 12, 2008 ("Detroit's problems aren't caused by a one-time slump. They can't be fixed by another infusion of cash. One cause is that union labor and legacy costs are too high and make the so-called Big Three companies uncompetitive. Another is that their profitability is tied to large, heavy trucks and SUVs that Americans no longer want to buy, at least in such large numbers. That's just common sense.").

The company has permitted itself to assume liabilities (for employees' health care and pension plans among other things) far beyond its ability to pay. And now it's burning through cash at a rate that will bring it to bankruptcy by early next year. Sales of internal combustion vehicles are down dramatically around the world -- but far more so for GM than for those made at American plants by American workers by Toyota, Honda, BMW, and Kia. "Sales of cars and auto parts plunged 23.4 percent from last year, . . . and 31.9 percent in October . . . the lowest recorded in 25 years and analysts predict the market will remain weak into 2009." Jack Healy, "A Record Decline in October’s Retail Sales," New York Times, November 14, 2008; Declan McCullagh, "Big Three Bailout? Not So Fast," CBSNews.com, November 12, 2008 ("Honda kept its focus on smaller cars such as the Civic and Accord, and saw its sales continue to increase this summer while GM, Ford, and Chrysler have slid.").

And today we learn European insurers are now refusing to provide insurance to suppliers of the Big Three.

There would seem to be little justification for a bailout -- nor does there seem to be a realistic business plan in place regarding what the money will be used for, what it will accomplish (especially in this economy), where it will get us and when and why.

To the extent the earlier, special $25 billion taxpayer gift is to be used for re-tooling and design of new, more "green" vehicles, (a) is that a business the taxpayers really want to get in? (b) isn't the market (e.g., Toyota) responding to that desire? (c) if not, is there a point to doing it if customers won't buy the cars (e.g., how many Volts will sell at $40,000 a copy?) (d) if we want any private institution to undertake such research, why on earth would we pick GM -- whose executives have had decades to provide this response and have fought doing so? (e) even if some GM employees had the ability to pull this off, what is the likelihood the company will be able to do in the next few months what it has been unwilling to do for years? and (f) if it takes three years to bring a car from design to showroom, how is that going to save a company that is less than six months from bankruptcy?

So what, exactly, is going to be done with the near-$100 billion the Democrats want to give the (formerly) "Big Three" besides continuing excessive executive compensation and payments to shareholders? Workers are going to continue to be laid off -- which won't make it any easier for them to buy cars (a principle that Henry Ford understood in setting his workers' wages in the early 20th Century). There's little point in the few who will be retained making cars for dealers who are closing their showrooms and don't want the inventory, or potential customers who have lost their jobs and can't pay their mortgages.

Slowly, these seemingly obvious facts appear to be coming to the attention of "the experts" as well as all the rest of us. David M. Herszenhorn, "Dodd Says Auto Bailout Lacks Votes in Senate," New York Times, November 13, 2008.

And this morning one of my favorite conservatives (because he's smart, rational, and rarely ideological or mean spirited), David Brooks, sums up the situation as well as anyone. David Brooks, "Bailout to Nowhere," New York Times, November 14, 2008. Here are some excerpts:

Not so long ago, corporate giants with names like PanAm, ITT and Montgomery Ward roamed the earth. They faded and were replaced by new companies with names like Microsoft, Southwest Airlines and Target. The U.S. became famous for this pattern of decay and new growth. Over time, American government built a bigger safety net so workers could survive the vicissitudes of this creative destruction — with unemployment insurance and soon, one hopes, health care security. But the government has generally not interfered in the dynamic process itself, which is the source of the country’s prosperity.

But this, apparently, is about to change. Democrats from Barack Obama to Nancy Pelosi want to grant immortality to General Motors, Chrysler and Ford. . . .

It is not about saving a system; there will still be cars made and sold in America. It is about saving politically powerful corporations. . . .

It is all a reminder that the biggest threat to a healthy economy is not the socialists of campaign lore. It’s C.E.O.’s. It’s politically powerful crony capitalists who use their influence to create a stagnant corporate welfare state. . . .

G.M. and Chrysler . . . are not innocent victims of this crisis. To read the expert literature on these companies is to read a long litany of miscalculation. . . .

There seems to be no one who believes the companies are viable without radical change. A federal cash infusion will not infuse wisdom into management. It will not reduce labor costs. It will not attract talented new employees. . . .

In short, a bailout will . . . just postpone things. . . .

[T]he most persuasive experts argue that bankruptcy is the least horrible option. Airline, steel and retail companies have gone through bankruptcy proceedings and adjusted. It would be a less politically tainted process. Government could use that $50 billion — and more — to help the workers who are going to be displaced no matter what. . . .

Is this country going to slide into progressive corporatism, a merger of corporate and federal power that will inevitably stifle competition, empower corporate and federal bureaucrats and protect entrenched interests? Or is the U.S. going to stick with its historic model: Helping workers weather the storms of a dynamic economy, but preserving the dynamism that is the core of the country’s success.

There you have it.

We have a mechanism in place to deal with the auto industry's problem: Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. It's clearly a preferable "least-worst solution" to bailouts. Some corporate executives will be out of work, but they deserve to be -- indeed must be if the companies' prospects are to improve. Shareholders will suffer a loss -- but their stock has already declined some 90% in value, so it's not like Chapter 11 is their biggest problem. "Shares in American automakers, the Ford Motor Company and General Motors, have fallen to multi-decade lows as the companies reported billions in losses." Jack Healy, "A Record Decline in October’s Retail Sales," New York Times, November 14, 2008.

Economic support should go to workers, not named, pre-existing corporations. (That means jobs programs, unemployment compensation, food stamps, healthcare and retraining programs.) The corporations' physical assets aren't going anywhere. As Brooks points out, they can (and will) continue to be operated either in Chapter 11, or by whatever other companies may acquire them at market value. (As a sidenote, our largest local mall, Coral Ridge, will probably be in Chapter 11 by early 2009; the theater, big box stores, restaurants and skating rink will continue to operate -- or, if not, they will be reacting to their own economic conditions, not those of the mall owner.)

See, Amitai Etzioni, "Bail Out the Workers, Not the Plants," The Huffington Post, November 11, 2008; Declan McCullagh, "Big Three Bailout? Not So Fast," CBSNews.com, November 12, 2008 ("The better solution is a simple one: Allow automakers to declare bankruptcy. Contrary to popular belief, that will not mean the end of a company such as GM, which has indicated it may run out of cash by the end of this year. Under Chapter 11, a bankruptcy judge will weigh the different interests of GM's creditors, labor unions, shareholders, and so on, and the resulting company will emerge leaner and stronger. Many current customers of United Airlines, Texaco, Global Crossing, and Pacific Gas and Electric probably don't even know that those companies once filed for Chapter 11."). Micheline Maynard, "G.M.’s Troubles Stir Question of Bankruptcy vs. a Bailout," New York Times, November 12, 2008 ("But not everyone agrees that a Chapter 11 filing by G.M. would be the disaster that many fear. Some experts note that while bankruptcy would be painful, it may be preferable to a government bailout that may only delay, at considerable cost, the wrenching but necessary steps G.M. needs to take to become a stronger, leaner company.").

Robert Reich, "The Real Difference Between Bankruptcy and Bailout," November 11, 2008:

"Under it [Chapter 11], creditors took some losses, shareholders even bigger ones, some managers' heads rolled. Companies cleaned up their books and got a fresh start. And taxpayers didn't pay a penny.

So why, exactly, is the Treasury substituting government bailouts for chapter 11? . . . Wall Street's major banks and insurance giant AIG . . . [don't] have to be bailed out. They could be reorganized under bankruptcy protection. . . .

And what a tragedy it would be if the government spends so much on these bailouts there isn't enough money left for the next administration to help average people get affordable health insurance, send their kids to good schools, and find good jobs -- including jobs rebuilding the nation's crumbling infrastructure and finding alternative sources of energy.

It's not the big guys who need rescuing. It's the small. Right now, the government has its priorities upside down.

As a final, not insignificant comment note that this ill-considered, seeming capitulation to the auto industry and UAW is not an example of "reaching across the aisle" to serve the interests of Obama's oft-heralded "United States of America" (as distinguished from our "Red States" and "Blue States"). Whatever the red state Republicans' motives may be, they are opposed to this idea. (Not incidentally, they give many of the same reasons for their opposition as the rest of us.) Coupled with Obama's earlier support for the original $700 billion bailout, and his prior vote supporting immunity for the telephone companies that spied on us in violation of law, it does not bode well for the new Administration's ability to offer "change" (beyond freeing up stem cell research) to a "broken" Washington, subservient to corporate power.

November 16: Register's Consistent Editorial

Editorial, "Be bold: Start a WPA-style jobs program," Des Moines Register, November 16, 2008, p. OP1. You will want to read it all, but here are some excerpts:

The U.S. unemployment rate hit a 14-year high of 6.5 percent last week. The fear of losing a job is compounded by the difficulty in finding another if you're laid off. . . .

Iowa State University economist and professor emeritus [Neil Harl] said it's not out of the realm of possibility that the United States could see unemployment rates [of] some 25 percent . . . and "there's nothing to indicate [employment rates] are going to improve." . . .

What has been tried so far hasn't worked so well.

Tax cuts pushed by the Bush administration didn't trickle down to create sustained job growth. Rebate checks didn't sufficiently stimulate the economy. Recent investment-bank bailouts haven't done enough to boost lending.

It's time for a better, bolder strategy. President-elect Barack Obama should make job creation his No. 1 priority. . . . Spending dollars to create jobs benefits workers directly and boosts the overall economy. . . .

The federal government could quickly infuse money into states to fund projects that are already planned -- including roads, bridges, sewers, parks and trails. That would create jobs for unemployed Americans, [send] money rippling through the economy [and] this country would get more of its infrastructure updated [strengthening] the economy against global competition for years to come. . . .

In the summer of 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt . . . began putting the country to work through the Works Progress Administration.

Within a few years, millions of Americans were working to build infrastructure -- improvements that are still around today. . . .

Create jobs. Boost consumer confidence. Put the country on track for a brighter economic future.

It makes more sense than pouring more billions into bailouts.

# # #

Change We Can No Longer Believe In

June 22, 2008, 6:30 a.m.

And see further comment on the topic in Nicholas Johnson, "Holding Obama's Feet to the Fireside Chat," June 24, 2008.

Obama: No Longer "Change We Can Believe In"?
I really doubt that there will be many of Senator Barack Obama's supporters who will stay home, let alone vote for Senator John McCain, because of Obama's recent flip-flops on major issues. And apparently he's counting on that as well since he's just left $85 million of public money on the table.

But can he now continue to count on his supporters' continued financial support, and enthusiastic campaigning, between now and November? That has become more problematical.

As anecdotal evidence, a friend has shared with me an email she received from an Obama supporter in California that reported,

"Barack Obama owes me $600.43. I sent him my [federal government economic] stimulus rebate with the proviso that if he opted out of public finance he should return my contribution. I enclosed a self-addressed envelope with a 43 cent stamp attached."

Another friend who has been a nearly monthly contributor to Obama tells me she swears she's not sending him another dime -- as much because of Obama's switch on FISA as because of his switch on public finance.

At least a part of what brought out Obama's crowds of thousands, the new voters and contributors, and the enthusiasm of the young, was the Robert Kennedy-esque suggestion (some would say "promise") of a new kind of politics, "change we can believe in," the practical implementation of a bottom-up-community-organizing approach to national politics, a small-d democratic replacement for the "to-get-along-go-along" expediency, campaign-contributor-lobbyist-sub-government control, compromise-anything-and-everything-to-win, special privilege, and corporate welfare of which we've all grown cynical and disgusted.

The story is told of Louisiana Governor Earl K. Long that when asked by a staffer what he could tell some Baton Rouge constituents who had come to the governor's office to claim some of his campaign promises, he replied, "Tell them I lied."

Had Senator Obama presented himself as "just another conventional politician" he, too, could try telling his supporters that he lied, knowing that while they might be disappointed they could certainly not claim to be surprised.

After all, with Congress' approval ratings at an historic 18% low who could fairly claim to be surprised by anything a senator might have done?

But he has marketed himself as something more than that, something better than a conventional politician or manipulative "Pied Piper." So his every change in position, his every abandoned campaign promise, further alienates the supporters who are both disappointed and understandably surprised -- and when his behavior is repeated, ultimately discouraged, disaffected, distant and depressed.

After all, they were promised "Change We Can Believe In." In fact, you can still buy a fan with that message on it from the Obama "store" for $3.00. But the number of "fans" "buying" that slogan may be declining.

Because now, in the course of two or three days, Senator Obama's enthusiastic supporters are discovering that what he has been talking about is not "change we can believe in." We needn't characterize it with the "L" word; let's just say he "misspoke" when he pledged to use public financing to fund his campaign; when he said he opposed spying on Americans and granting immunity to the telephone companies which did so illegally; when he said he would eliminate taxes for the working poor and seniors earning under $50,000; when he said he opposed NAFTA.

If you hadn't noticed, there are a lot of other days between now and November 4. So stay tuned. Remain attentive.

And if you have been, or are still, an Obama supporter you might want to let him know how you feel about changes in the positions you thought you and he were supporting, positions that were important to you. Don't let him take your vote for granted. You know he's going to hear from the lobbyists and major campaign contributors -- regardless of what he says -- and he also needs to hear from you to keep it all in balance and remember who got him to where he is. You can email him here.

Meanwhile, here are brief excerpts from the media's reports regarding these four changes in which his supporters can no longer believe, plus excerpts from a David Brooks column, and my concluding thoughts along with a video of President Bush.

Public Financing of Campaigns

Sen. Barack Obama reversed his pledge to seek public financing in the general election yesterday, a move that drew criticism from adversaries and allies alike but could provide him with a significant spending advantage over Republican rival John McCain. . . .

"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama said in a video message to supporters, circulated yesterday morning by his campaign. "But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system." . . .

In the hours after the announcement, McCain indicated he would consider forgoing public financing as well, but he later indicated that he will opt into the system. "We will take public financing," he said on the Straight Talk Express bus. Asked why, he said simply, "Because we decided to take public financing."

But earlier in the day the senator from Arizona lashed out at Obama. "This is a big, big deal," McCain told reporters . . .. "He has completely reversed himself and gone back, not on his word to me, but the commitment he made to the American people." . . .

Yesterday, government watchdog groups expressed disappointment with Obama's move. Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook called $85 million "plenty of money" and warned that private funding -- even in the mostly small sums that Obama relies on -- "comes with the expectations of special access or favors." . . .

"Senator Obama knew the circumstances surrounding the presidential general election when he made his public pledge to use the system," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), a co-sponsor of the [campaign finance reform] bill, called Obama's decision "a mistake" but added: "I look forward to working on this and a wide range of other reform issues with him when he becomes president." . . .

Although campaign finance issues rank low on lists of voter concerns, the McCain team pounced on Obama's move, along with his rejection of the 10 town hall meetings that McCain has proposed, as evidence that his claim to represent a "new politics" is empty rhetoric. The campaign circulated Obama quotes praising public financing and accused him of breaking his pledge to negotiate the issue with the GOP nominee. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers dismissed an account by Obama aides of recent talks between the two camps on the issue, saying it was "flat-out false."

"He's broken his word," said Charles R. Black Jr., a top McCain adviser. "He said he believes in the new politics; to me it sounds like the old politics. If you're going to change politics in America, that's a step backward." . . .

Shailagh Murray and Perry Bacon Jr., "Obama to Reject Public Funds for Election," Washington Post, June 20, 2008, p. A1.

Spying on Americans: FISA

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) today announced his support for a sweeping intelligence surveillance law that has been heavily denounced by the liberal activists who have fueled the financial engines of his presidential campaign.

In his most substantive break with the Democratic Party's base since becoming the presumptive nominee, Obama declared he will support the bill when it comes to a Senate vote, likely next week, despite misgivings about legal provisions for telecommunications corporations that cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program of suspected terrorists.

In so doing, Obama sought to walk the fine political line between GOP accusations that he is weak on foreign policy -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called passing the legislation a "vital national security matter" -- and alienating his base.

"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program," Obama said in a statement hours after the House approved the legislation 293-129.

This marks something of a reversal of Obama's position from an earlier version of the bill, which was approved by the Senate Feb. 12, when Obama was locked in a fight for the Democratic nomination with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Obama missed the February vote on that FISA bill as he campaigned in the "Potomac Primaries," but issued a statement that day declaring "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty."

Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) continue to oppose the new legislation, as does Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). All Obama backers in the primary, those senior lawmakers contend that the new version of the FISA law -- crafted after four months of intense negotiations between White House aides and congressional leaders -- provides insufficient court review of the pending 40 lawsuits against the telecommunications companies alleging privacy invasion for their participation in a warrantless wiretapping program after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. . . .

Paul Kane, "Obama Supports FISA Legislation, Angering Left," The Trail/Washington Post, June 20, 2008.

Tax Cuts

On the presidential campaign trail, Democrat Barack Obama promises to "completely eliminate" income taxes for millions of Americans, from low-income working families to senior citizens who earn less than $50,000 a year. . . .

To which the folks who monitor the nation's financial situation can only say: Good luck. Because, back in Washington, tax collections are slowing, the budget deficit is rising, and the national debt is approaching $10 trillion. Whoever wins the White House this fall, fiscal experts say, is likely to have a tough time enacting expensive new initiatives, be they tax cuts or health care reform. . . .

Meanwhile, the first baby boomers started receiving Social Security checks in January. Without major policy changes, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to devour half of all federal spending by 2050. But the more immediate problem is the depletion of excess cash in the Social Security trust fund, which has been used for years to cover a portion of the annual budget deficit. Government economists predict that the Social Security surplus will start shrinking in 2011 and dry up completely by the end of the next decade, exposing government-wide budget deficits of a magnitude not seen since Bush's first term.

In a new paper titled "Facing the Music: The Fiscal Outlook at the End of the Bush Administration," University of California at Berkeley economist Alan Auerbach and two co-authors from the Brookings Institution conclude that, if spending grows at historic rates, simply keeping the Bush tax cuts and halting the spread of the AMT [alternative minimum tax] would drive the budget deficit to $481 billion by the end of the next president's first term, or 2.7 percent of the economy. Subtract the cash borrowed from Social Security and other retirement funds, and it would be $796 billion, or 4.4 percent of GDP.

"It's a train wreck," said Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), a member of the House Budget Committee. "The government is making promises to people right now it knows it can't keep. And you have some candidates piling more promises on top, which are clearly unfulfillable."

Former House Budget Committee chairman Leon Panetta, who served as President Bill Clinton's first budget director, said the financial situation is "much worse" than it was in 1993, when Clinton was forced to abandon promises of a middle-class tax cut before he took office. Instead, Clinton wound up devoting his first State of the Union address to a plan that aimed to tame rising deficits with one of the largest tax hikes in history.

"It's worse because there are a huge number of crises out there that are going to confront the new president," Panetta said, . . .. The likelihood is that it's going to get worse. And the fundamental problem has been that there's very little willpower by Republicans or Democrats to confront the issue." . . .

Obama has not made balanced budgets a priority. Instead, he promises numerous tax cuts likely to make the situation worse, including subsidies for education, child care, homeownership, "savers" and people who work. Obama also vows to extend the Bush tax cuts for families who earn less than $250,000 a year. According to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of Brookings and the Urban Institute, his tax plans would deprive the Treasury of nearly $900 billion in his first term, and increase the national debt by $3.3 trillion by 2018. . . .

The analysis also excludes a possible reduction in corporate tax rates, which Obama first mentioned in an interview this week with the Wall Street Journal. . . .

"They're promising the world with ways to pay for it that are really suspect," Bob Williams, one of the authors of the Tax Policy Center study, said . . ..

Lori Montgomery, "Big Promises Bump Into Budget Realities; New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say," Washington Post, June 21, 2008, p. A1.

NAFTA

OTTAWA — American presidential hopeful Barack Obama appears to have moderated his opposition to NAFTA just ahead of Republican rival John McCain’s extraordinary visit to Canada to praise the trade pact.

Obama, who said in March he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement if he’s elected, said he might have gone too far.

"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," the Democratic nominee told Fortune magazine in an interview.

Were his attacks on NAFTA a product of that brand of campaign posturing?

"Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself," he answered.

The admission was published shortly before McCain was expected to pour unvarnished praise on NAFTA, drawing a clear distinction between America’s two combatants for the White House. . . .

North American free trade and Canada played a pivotal role in at least one state — Ohio — during the U.S. primaries.

A Canadian government memo written after a meeting with an Obama adviser suggested the Democrat’s biting opposition to the pact was rooted in politics that would not blossom into policy if Obama becomes president.

That memo was leak to The Associated Press and many of Obama’s own supporters believe it cost him the Ohio primary, which was won by Hillary Clinton.

The Canadian Press, "Obama Softens Stance on NAFTA," The ChronicleHerald [Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada], June 20, 2008.

David Brooks

Although you may find it hard to believe, it really is the case that it was only after I had written and assembled the material above that I came upon David Brooks column of June 20. You should read the entirety of it. It makes what I wrote look like the chants of an Obama cheerleader by contrast. Brooks may be a conservative, but he's my kind of conservative: normally much more both "fair" and "balanced," as well as reasonable, informed and soft spoken, than the network that markets itself with that claim. Here are some excerpts:

Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside. . . .

[O]n Thursday [June 19], Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.

But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now. . . .

If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? . . .

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades.

David Brooks, "The Two Obamas," New York Times, June 20, 2008.

Concluding Thoughts

Senator Obama and his staff should reflect on these reactions -- and the fact that Senator Clinton has only "suspended" her campaign. He's not yet the nominee, and super delegates can change their votes at any time.

Nor is the only rational response for Obama supporters to suddenly drop him like last week's moldy pizza as a result of these recent flip-flops. He may not be all they thought -- and he promised -- and still be head and shoulders above the mediocre, far better than merely the "least-worst" alternative.

But meanwhile, what are voters in general, and Senator Obama supporters in particular, to make of this behavior? Should they assume that these will be the only four shifts in position, that he is really, deep down inside, the same person he represented himself to be, the same person they believed in? Or should they ask, with David Brooks, "If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out?"

Or is the lesson a much more serious and depressing one? Should they listen much more closely to the lyrics from the 1951 film, Royal Wedding (starring Fred Astaire and Jane Powell), "How Could You Believe Me When I Told You that I Loved You When You Know I've Been a Liar All My Life." Not because of Senator Obama, but because of politics and life in general. Will it always (or virtually always) be the case that offerings of "hope" and promises of "change" -- regardless of context -- are, like the enticement of winning the lottery, as ephemeral and short-lived as the morning fog on a hot summer's day?

There are many contexts and stories leading to the punch line, or "lesson," "Don't ever trust anyone, not even your own father." Is that the great lesson of the Obama campaign? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me"? Or, as President George Bush puts it, "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."



Sadly, we can get fooled again -- and again, and again, and again.

Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli's famous works, The Prince and The Discourses, were published in 1531, four years after his death, and have been read -- and to some extent followed -- by most politicians since. Is it perhaps the case that politics can't be changed? That it has always been thus? Do we have nearly 500 years of history to warn us that the "change we can believe in" was inherently unbelievable?

No, there have been changes, some improvements, and there can be more. But we must work for them -- with or without a President Obama. The changes will only, can only, have only, come from the peoples' sustained efforts.

"When the people lead, their leaders will follow." It's up to us to lead, not to look to the rear of our marching ranks in search of our "leader."

# # #