Taxes Are Last Step Not First

[This blog post contains both a Gazette column, immediately below, a variation that appeared in the Iowa City Press-Citizen, the earlier blog post from which both were drawn [Introduction; Follow the Money; Where to Begin], and a sample of two of the comments they produced.]

Decisions Must Come Before Taxes

Nicholas Johnson

The Gazette, January 3, 2018, p. A5
[link to location on Gazette Web site.]
The worst thing about tax cut discussions is the “Oh, look at the squirrel” distraction from what we should be talking about.

Example? Cutting Iowa employers’ taxes can’t create more jobs when employers say their real problem is a shortage of skilled workers.

If a skilled workforce is needed, it’s time to increase, not slash, funding for the state’s universities and community colleges that create those workers.

What is your vision for America?

Some believe we are a nation of 320 million rugged individualists, where everyone is obliged to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps — even those without boots. As Grover Norquist revealed, “My goal is to get government down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

Others believe those benefiting from a community are morally obliged to care for everyone in the human family. Some cite Jesus’ urging us to provide food, drink, clothing, health care, and prison visits for “the least of these.”

Until we decide whether we want an America of rugged individualism or humanitarianism, little agreement on public policy can follow.

This newspaper is full of reporting and opinion about our plethora of policy challenges — affordable housing, education, environment, flood control, health care, homelessness, hunger, jobs, net neutrality, refugees, transportation, water quality. The Gazette’s Iowa Ideas project explores some answers.

Lynda Waddington recently described Philip Alston’s U.N. report on U.S. poverty and human rights. Read his comparative rankings for U.S. infant mortality (highest), water and sanitation (36th in the world), incarceration rate (highest), youth poverty (highest), poverty and inequality (35th of 37). [Philip Alston, "Statement on Visit to the USA on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights," United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner Human Rights, December 15, 2017.]

We built this America. Is it the nation and state you want? No? Then fix it. How do we do that? In order:

1. Don’t start with tax talk.

2. Decide whether we’re rugged individualists or humanitarians.

3. Provide enforcement of metrics for the values and society we want — for ourselves and “the least of these” — not just aspirations.

4. Develop public policies that can reach those goals.

5. Calculate their costs.

6. Explore ways of accomplishing goals through education and training, philanthropy and volunteerism, churches and trade unions, corporate policies and cost avoidance, other innovative approaches.

7. Propose a tax code, consistent with community values, sufficient to provide the remaining, necessary public funding. And remember:

• No tax cuts until there are surpluses and declining debt.

• When corporations and the wealthy have trillions of dollars they don’t use, don’t hand them more.

• Consumer spending drives 70 percent of the economy. If stimulus is needed, give the money to the bottom 80 percent who will spend it.

8. Vote.

Philip Alston reports that only 64 percent of Americans bother to register, and many of them don’t vote. In Canada and the U.K., 91 percent register, 96 percent in Sweden, nearly 99 percent in Japan.

Could that possibly be a part of our problem?
_______________
• Nicholas Johnson is a former law professor and commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission. Comments: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

____________________
Taxes Are Last Step, Not the First, to Making U.S. Great

Nicholas Johnson

Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 27, 2018, p. A6
The worst thing about tax cut discussions is the “Oh, look at the squirrel” distraction from what we should be talking about.

Example? Cutting Iowa employers’ taxes can’t create more jobs when employers say their real problem is a shortage of skilled workers.

If a skilled workforce is needed, it’s time to increase, not slash, funding for the state’s universities and community colleges that create those workers.

What is your vision for America?

Some believe we are a nation of 320 million rugged individualists, where everyone is obliged to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps — even those without boots. As Grover Norquist revealed, “My goal is to get government down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

Others believe those benefiting from a community are morally obliged to care for everyone in the human family. Some cite Jesus’ urging us to provide food, drink, clothing, health care, and prison visits for “the least of these.”

Until we decide whether we want an America of rugged individualism or humanitarianism, little agreement on public policy can follow.

There’s no shortage of policy challenges, such as affordable housing, education, environment, health care, hunger, jobs, net neutrality, refugees, transportation and water quality.

Last month, Philip Alston, United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, reported America’s standing among nations: infant mortality (we’re highest), water and sanitation (36th in the world), incarceration rate (highest), poverty and inequality (35th of 37). (Read more: https://tinyurl.com/y8avqv4p)

We built this America. Are the present policies of America, Iowa, and Iowa City what you want? No? Then fix it. How do we do that? In order:

1. Don’t start with tax talk.

2. Decide whether we’re rugged individualists or humanitarians.

3. Provide enforcement of metrics for the values and society we want — for ourselves and “the least of these” — not just aspirations.

4. Develop public policies that can reach those goals.

5. Calculate their costs.

6. Explore ways of accomplishing goals through education and training, philanthropy and volunteerism, churches and trade unions, corporate policies and cost avoidance, other innovative approaches.

7. Propose a tax code, consistent with community values, sufficient to provide the remaining, necessary public funding. And remember:

• No tax cuts until there are surpluses and declining debt.

• When corporations and the wealthy have trillions of dollars they don’t use, don’t hand them more.

• Consumer spending drives 70 percent of the economy. If stimulus is needed, give the money to the bottom 80 percent who will spend it.

8. Vote.

Alston reports that only 64 percent of Americans bother to register, and many of them don’t vote. In Canada and the U.K., 91 percent register, 96 percent in Sweden, nearly 99 percent in Japan.

Could that possibly be a part of our problem?

Nicholas Johnson is a former law professor and commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission.

# # #
Original Blog Post
Why Would You Want to Do That?
Introduction. It's not easy losing weight, and I wanted to share my accomplishment with my doctor.

"Got my weight down to 215 pounds," I proudly said, "and my new goal is 210" -- before I realized what would surely come next. It did.

"Why would you want to do that?" he asked. It was not the first time during the previous near-forty years he'd uttered those words.

If medical treatment was essential he'd provide it. Otherwise, if he thought a patient had a touch of anxiety about their health, he believed some exercise and a sense of calm and well being were often as good as, and always cheaper than, any pills he could prescribe.

He appeared puzzled. "Don't you experience the joy of eating?" he continued. "Why deprive yourself of that pleasure?"

"I just thought it might be better for my health," I mumbled. Whereupon he brought out the morbidity and mortality data to reassure me that the additional five pounds would provide no statistically significant difference in my health or longevity.

Follow the Money. I thought again of his words when reading about the Republicans' plan to put $1.5 trillion on a credit card and then hand over the cash to billionaires. "Why would you want to do that?"

The top 1% of Americans own 40% of the country's wealth -- more than the total owned by the bottom 90% combined, more than anytime in the last 50 years. Worldwide, the total wealth of 62 families exceeds that of 3.4 billion people. [Christopher Ingraham, "The Richest 1 Percent Now Owns More of the Country's Wealth Than at Any Time in the Past 50 Years," The Washington Post, December 6, 2017.] [Photo credit: Kalynn Hines, "Why Are All American Houses Like Mansions?" Quora.]

It's hard to get a precise number on the dollar value of the wealth of individuals in the 1%. It depends on which economist you ask, what is and isn't counted, means vs. medians, and what year you use. But here are some (approximate) numbers from 2007 (obviously there have been substantial increases during the last 10 years of a soaring stock market).

Top 1% -- $14,000,000
Top 5% -- $1,250,000
Middle Fifth -- $110,000
Bottom Fifth -- -$14,000 (debt)

Joshua Kennon, "How Much Money Does It Take to be In the Top 1% of Wealth and Net Worth in the United States," Thoughts on Business, Politics, and Life, Table 3, November 14, 2011.

Even more significant is the near-two-trillion dollars of cash (and cash equivalents) held by American corporations (one-third of it by the top 5; 72% held overseas). [Matt Krantz, "A Third of Cash is Held by 5 U.S. Companies," USA Today, May 22, 2016.]

"OK, so what's your point?" you ask.

Ultimately, I want to address why a discussion of taxes is not the right place to begin. But since that's where the nation's dialog is at the moment, let's deal with it.

1. There's a "National Debt Clock" that increases by the second. On December 23, 2017, at 7:30 p.m. CT, the national debt was $20.6 trillion and growing. If massive tax cuts might sometime be appropriate, this is not that time.

2. If there ever were to be rational tax cuts they should come after the national debt is significantly reduced, and from balanced budget surpluses. Putting the cost of tax cuts on a credit card makes no more sense that paying for wars of choice with debt.

3. Why mention individuals' wealth and corporations' cash reserves? Because when there are trillions in cash sitting on the sidelines and bank loan rates are relatively low, there is no compelling rationale for handing out more cash to those who already have access to more than they can use.

4. Using the funds to improve the environment and the lives of those at the bottom of the wealth pyramid would not only create more human happiness per dollar, but would also more effectively boost an economy 70% dependent upon consumer spending. The wealthy already have most of what they need or want, and tend to invest, rather than spend, any excess income. [Photo credit: unknown; file photo.]

5. If the idea of helping the bottom 50% is not appealing, the money could at least better be used to carry out President Trump's expressed support for massive, essential, overdue, infrastructure projects.

In short, "Why would you want to do that?" It doesn't make economic sense.

But economics -- more specifically taxes -- is not where this conversation should begin.

Where To Begin? Imagine this breakfast table conversation:

"What are your plans for the day?"

"Oh, I thought I'd go down to the bank and borrow some money."

"How much?"

"Maybe $10,000, maybe $25,000. I don't know."

"Tell me now, why would you want to borrow that much money?"

"I don't know. I was just thinking I'd like to have more money."

"But you wouldn't have more money. After paying off the loan and interest you'd have less money. What are you going to do with the money anyway?"

"Just have it. I haven't really thought about what I'd actually do with the money."

That's one unlikely breakfast conversation. This one is more likely:

"We have to fix that big hole in the roof. How are we going to pay for it?

Insurance should cover most of it. And what better use for our "rainy day fund"? "Rainy day fund," get it?

Yeah, I get it. It's just that right now I don't find it funny. What if we need more?

Once we find out how much it's going to be, if we don't have enough I can always go down to the bank for a loan.

Where do you start? You start with your desire for a warm, dry house, and the ongoing maintenance to keep it that way. Then you address how you're going to pay for it.

That's how it ought to be with all governmental budgets -- city, county, state, and our federal budget. You don't ignore economic growth, the need for revenue, and tax policy. It's just that you don't start there.

You start with the most fundamental question. From your answer to that one the answers to the others will more easily flow.

Do you believe you have an obligation -- or if not, at least a desire and willingness -- to create an America that is a large, caring community in which no one is invisible? Or, do you find more appealing a country of individuals, with everyone on their own, where "greed is good," pollution is acceptable as long as it's profitable, and everyone must "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" -- regardless of whether or not they have boots -- until they, like you, can say, "I've got mine, Jack"?

If we're not just talking about professions of belief on Sunday, but the supporting evidence of action throughout the week, there is a discouraging quantity of evidence that a substantial number of Americans, and their elected representatives, are somewhere between a willingness to accept, and an enthusiasm for, the second choice.

So, let's pause for a moment to examine where America may have holes in its roof -- and its safety net.

I am indebted to The Gazette's Lynda Waddington for bringing to my attention Philip Alston, "Statement on Visit to the USA on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights," United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner Human Rights, December 15, 2017. (Mr. Alston is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights.) Lynda Waddington, "American Poverty is On Display," The Gazette, December 23, 2017, p. A5 (not yet available online).

When Philip Alston crawled up there on America's roof to take a look, here are some of the things he found.

In talking with people in the different states and territories I was frequently asked how the US compares with other states. While such comparisons are not always perfect, a cross-section of statistical comparisons provides a relatively clear picture of the contrast between the wealth, innovative capacity, and work ethic of the US, and the social and other outcomes that have been attained.

• By most indicators, the US is one of the world’s wealthiest countries.
• It spends more on national defense than China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan combined.
• US health care expenditures per capita are double the OECD average and much higher than in all other countries. But there are many fewer doctors and hospital beds per person than the OECD average.
• US infant mortality rates in 2013 were the highest in the developed world.
• Americans can expect to live shorter and sicker lives, compared to people living in any other rich democracy, and the “health gap” between the U.S. and its peer countries continues to grow.
• U.S. inequality levels are far higher than those in most European countries.
• Neglected tropical diseases, including Zika, are increasingly common in the USA. It has been estimated that 12 million Americans live with a neglected parasitic infection. A 2017 report documents the prevalence of hookworm in Lowndes County, Alabama.
• The US has the highest prevalence of obesity in the developed world.
• In terms of access to water and sanitation the US ranks 36th in the world.
• America has the highest incarceration rate in the world, ahead of Turkmenistan, El Salvador, Cuba, Thailand and the Russian Federation. Its rate is nearly 5 times the OECD average.
• The youth poverty rate in the United States is the highest across the OECD with one quarter of youth living in poverty compared to less than 14% across the OECD.
• The Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality ranks the most well-off countries in terms of labor markets, poverty, safety net, wealth inequality, and economic mobility. The US comes in last of the top 10 most well-off countries, and 18th amongst the top 21.
• In the OECD the US ranks 35th out of 37 in terms of poverty and inequality.
• According to the World Income Inequality Database, the US has the highest Gini rate (measuring inequality) of all Western Countries.
• The Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality characterizes the US as “a clear and constant outlier in the child poverty league.” US child poverty rates are the highest amongst the six richest countries – Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden and Norway.
• About 55.7% of the U.S. voting-age population cast ballots in the 2016 presidential election. In the OECD, the U.S. placed 28th in voter turnout, compared with an OECD average of 75%. Registered voters represent a much smaller share of potential voters in the U.S. than just about any other OECD country. Only about 64% of the U.S. voting-age population (and 70% of voting-age citizens) was registered in 2016, compared with 91% in Canada (2015) and the UK (2016), 96% in Sweden (2014), and nearly 99% in Japan (2014).

Is that really the country you want? Or is it just kind of what happened while we were watching the Superbowl game, neither voting nor otherwise paying attention?

That's where we need to begin. What kind of country do we want? Is it inevitable, or at least OK, that we are accelerating climate change, that some people are just going to have to sleep on the streets, go without healthcare, lack adequate nutrition, education, job training, and the dignity that comes from at least some kind of regular work?

There is no secret sauce. It's clear what we could do, and how to do it. Other countries have offered us examples of how to create a caring nation -- one in which everyone has healthcare and meaningful work to do, one in which free public education extends beyond the 12th grade, one in which there's always someone to care for those without family or friends. Indeed, we accomplished some of these things ourselves coming out from under the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Until we candidly confront the kind of country we have become, decide we want a change, and fashion the programs that can bring it about, we can't begin to address how much it will cost, the best ways to pay for it -- and how to restructure our tax system.

# # #
Comments
Note: These columns and blog post generated much positive comment. With the permission of the authors, I reproduce here two emails that are illustrative of the others. Most merely addressed the proposed process and thought it a good idea. The author of the second comment, below, assumed hypothetically that the proposed process was in place and set forth some of the values and approaches he would bring to the table.

Dear Mr. Johnson,

I am an old man soon to be 79. was the Mayor of my small town for 8 years. HEAR-HEAR for your logical thoughts.

I wish the common sense you express was a very contagious viral disease and you could haunt the halls of all our elected bodies, state and federal, and infect all our law makers.

I am contacting my reps and telling to read and heed your thoughts.

Please continue your efforts to instill common sense in the electorate.

-- James Raymond

____________________
Read your piece in the Gazette today.

There are 6 million open jobs in America looking for qualified applicants.

The immigration systems both legal and illegal are bringing in people who do not have the skills or ducation to fill those jobs. So I assume you oppose the current immigration systems. Many people say we need immigration but then why are so many jobs unfilled with millions of illegal immigrants here?

Let's fix it:

- Revise the immigration system to be merit based. Limit chain migration and lottery systems that support unskilled entrants. Fund the wall and improve border security. Address VISA's for foreign students who want to stay, they are skilled people. I'm OK with DACA given these limitations.

- Approve a national voucher system so parents can chose where their funding goes for their children's education. Eliminate the US Dept. of Education and start over.

- Slash university funding. Focus resources on the kinds of skills and education the economy needs and minimize producing people with degrees who cannot find a job that matches those degrees. The current situation creates financial individual burdens and wastes valuable resources on inefficient programs.

- Create more programs to encourage trade schools to fill the jobs required to support the economy. Connect the funding to actual economic needs.

- Approve a federal budget amendment to limit federal debt. There is no net benefit to keep pushing ourselves toward the brink of financial > ruin.

- Impose a border tax so that countries that limit trade with the US are limited in access to our economy. Develop trade policies that support American jobs not American wealth.

- Reform Social Security and Medicare. Eliminate people who have not supported funding the system (see immigration). Increase the expense for those that can afford to pay a larger percentage of the cost of service.

- Make sure that the bottom 80% have skin in the game. Handing out free money is a fool’s errand. Instead of minimizing the number of people in poverty government policy has actually grown the percentage of the population on government assistance. The Great Society has been a colossal failure. Refer to 6 million job openings.

I vote every election. I vote against every Democrat because their party has moved so far to the left as to be unrecognizable as American citizens. Obama and Hillary Clinton are being proven to be crooks worse than the Watergate affair. At least the Republicans had the guts to tell Nixon to leave.

In conclusion the level of taxation is well above what is reasonable in a free society. I understand your point about deciding who you want to be before setting a level of funding. We simply disagree with so much of the current funding it seems reasonable to try and starve the beast, or as Grover put it "drown it in a bath tub". I would point out that the usual zero-sum arguments made by progressives receive on distain from me. There is always middle ground. I think you proposed that but I'm not really sure.

-- Gary Ellis

_________________________

Afghanistan: Our Unaffordable War to Nowhere

The Reasons We Should Leave
Contents

History

Absent Prerequisites for War

"War on Terror" is Oxymoron

Cost of Wars

The Powell Doctrine

Conclusion

Nicholas Johnson's Additional Writing on War and Terrorism

Some Recent Afghanistan-Related General Media News and Opinion

The shorthand for President Obama's foreign policy? "Don't do stupid stuff."[Christi Parsons, Kathleen Hennessey and Paul Richter, "Obama Argues Against Use of Force to Solve Global Conflicts," Los Angeles Times, April 28, 2014.]

Our 16-years-long military efforts in Afghanistan qualify as "stupid stuff." The list of reasons is long, and has been discussed in a variety of contexts by me since 2001, illustrated in the 23 examples linked below. So I'll try to keep this short.


-- Sam Cooke, "What a Wonderful World" ("Don't know much about history . . ..")

History. We fail to learn from history. When it comes to war, we go where "no nation has won before."

France had been interested in Vietnam since the 17th and 18th Centuries, ultimately creating a large colony (French Indochina) in 1887 which it ruled until defeated by the Vietnamese in the First Indochina War [1946-1954]. ["France-Vietnam Relations," Wikipedia.] Never mind. We're not French. Those Vietnamese won't be able to defeat our military might. Remember how that worked out for us?

And so it's been in Afghanistan.

"Great Britain and Russia [were] maneuvering for influence in Afghanistan" as early as 1826. The British brought military force to Afghanistan on three occasions: 1839-1842, 1878-1889, and 1919. None ended well for the British.

Following the 1839-1842 conflict, "The Afghans. . . would tolerate neither a foreign occupation nor a king imposed on them by a foreign power, . . . insurrections broke out" and ultimately the British were run out of the country. The outcome of the second Afghan War was a little more complicated, but ended with the murder of the British envoy, and a joint effort of Britain and Russia to draw what are today's Afghanistan boundaries.

After the 1919 war, Britain had to recognize Afghanistan's independence, and Afghanistan was one of the first states to recognize the Soviet Union (with a treaty of friendship). That "special relationship" lasted until the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Editors, "Anglo-Afghan Wars," Encyclopedia Britannica.

Russia (Soviet Union) was involved militarily in Afghanistan from 1955 to 1989. "The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and the U.S. Response, 1978–1980," Department of State, Office of the Historian, Milestones: 1977-1980 ("Since 1955 Moscow had provided military training and materiel to Afghanistan; by 1973, a third of active [Afghan] troops had trained on Soviet soil.")

The results for the Russians were little better than for the British. "The War" lasted from December 1979 to February 1989. "Soviet-Afghan War," Wikipedia.

And with what results?

"In the brutal nine-year conflict, an estimated one million civilians were killed, as well as 90,000 Mujahideen fighters, 18,000 Afghan troops, and 14,500 Soviet soldiers. Civil war raged after the withdrawal, setting the stage for the Taliban's takeover of the country in 1996."

Alan Taylor, "The Soviet War in Afghanistan, 1979-1989," The Atlantic, August 4, 2014 (includes 41 large photos).

Absent Prerequisites for War. Might there be some common themes in why Great Britain, Russia, and the United States have been so unsuccessful over the past 200 years in trying to conduct "wars" in Afghanistan? Let's see.

In addition to our refusal to study history, and our hubris in believing we have a level of smarts and military might denied all other countries, it's as if we don't recognize that war1 is not war2 -- all wars are not the same. You can't expect to win wars you launch willy-nilly, wherever, whenever, with whomever you choose. There are conditions and characteristics that make for wars' successful, and unsuccessful, likely outcomes.

It's best if your military effort is a response to your country being attacked (e.g., Revolutionary War; World War II). Next best is coming to the defense of another country that has been invaded (Kuwait in Gulf War I). Worst are unnecessary, "pre-emptive" attacks on other nations that have not attacked us (e.g., Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).

Why? Think about it. If Iowa had a 200-year-history of Canadian military invasions from time to time, and Canadian tanks and military were now moving, uninvited, through Minnesota, toward Iowa -- regardless of their pretense for doing so -- even I would be picking up a gun. The Canadians would have a hard time "winning Iowans' hearts and minds." Similarly, when we create a war inside a country with a centuries-old history of foreign invaders, it's not unreasonable for those whose home it is to think of us as just the latest in that history, and respond as Iowans would to Canadians.

Obviously, supporting one side in another country's civil war is even worse. There's no way it can be universally popular ("a British shipyard [built] two warships for the Confederacy . . . over vehement protests from the US." "United Kingdom and the American Civil War" Wikipedia.org.)

Fighting in countries where most Americans know little or nothing about that country's language, culture, economy, history, politics, literature, religion, social structure, and geography -- such as Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan -- is bristling with unintended consequences that make "winning" somewhere between extraordinarily difficult and impossible (as distinguished from the European Theatre of WWII).

"War on Terror" is Oxymoron." Whatever "terror" may be, it is not a country, or even a tightly coordinated group of individuals. Of course, every country seeks to minimize the death and damage to its citizens and property from acts of violence. But were the deliberate human and property damage in Oklahoma City, Boston, and Charlottesville really part of a "war"? The literary license in labeling anti-violence efforts a "war" is questionable at best; but strategies and tactics premised on the assumption that it really is "a war" are self-defeating and dangerous.

Wars are best when fought on behalf of, or against, countries rather than failed states; countries with some semblance of an organized central government -- more like Germany in WWII, rather than 21st Century Afghanistan, which is still largely a collection of tribal war lords' fiefdoms.

Wars are best when both sides wear uniforms that distinguish them from each other -- and the surrounding civilian population. The Taliban and ISIS often don't wear uniforms. Without uniforms it's very difficult to tell your enemy from your allies, and civilian casualties mount and further erode support for U.S. forces -- who are easy to identify.

Wars are best when there is a "front line" (as in Europe in WWII). (1) Fighting individuals without uniforms, (2) who can easily blend in with the population, (3) over constantly shifting parcels of land, (4) individuals who can easily shift from one place to another, (5) resulting in our gaining, losing, and regaining once again the same "battlegrounds," is a recipe for our seemingly endless wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, with their ever-increasing death tolls and financial burdens.

Cost of Wars. A year ago, the combined costs of U.S. military actions in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan (2001-2016) were estimated at $4.207 trillion ($4.792 trillion minus the Department of Homeland Security budgets). Neta C. Crawford [Boston University], "US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting; Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security," Brown University Institute of International & Public Affairs, September 2016.

Because it's hard to imagine that much money, how could we translate $4.2 trillion into its opportunity cost -- the other things we could have bought with it (but weren't able to)? What else could that $4.2 trillion have paid for? Here are some possibilities: a 35-year program of tuition-free college at public universities, or health insurance premiums for every American for 12 years, or wiping out all student loan and credit card debt while leaving an additional $2 trillion for rebuilding infrastructure, or a fund to pay for rebuilding after the damage from the next 41 major tropical storms. Ethan Wolff-Mann, "7 Amazing Things America Could Have Bought Instead of a $1.45 Trillion Jet," Money, May 2, 2016 (if you care, and can't follow my math, email me for an explanation).

While I believe the Brown University and Money magazine numbers do not distort the reality, even with the best of intentions precision in these matters is impossible. For starters, what do you count? The numbers do not seem to include the post-war costs of such things as rebuilding the infrastructure we've destroyed in war (such as the post-WWII Marshall Plan), lifetime healthcare for wounded combat veterans, the consequences from the opportunity costs mentioned above. If you include the costs in the war torn countries (as I think we should), although worse than economic numbers convey, what tort law calls the "pain and suffering" of the population, the survivors who have lost their primary income provider, not to mention their homes, the wounded, dying and dead, the children denied food, shelter, and education -- not to mention parents -- would be enormous. [Photo credit: U.S. Department of Defense.]

Even if we could agree on what costs to include, determining what they were is virtually impossible with a Defense Department that is so sloppy in its accounting that it is impossible to audit. "The Department of Defense . . . once again finds itself under intense scrutiny . . . because it couldn't account for more than a trillion dollars in financial transactions, not to mention dozens of tanks, missiles and planes." Tom Abate, "Military Waste Under Fire / $1 Trillion Missing -- Bush Plan Targets Pentagon Accounting," SFGATE, San Francisco Chronicle, May 18, 2003.

The Powell Doctrine. There are some basic questions to ask about any rational undertaking -- starting a business, choosing a college and major, planning a vacation trip, building a new home or office building.

The consequences of failing to do so can lead to physical injury, financial disaster or bankruptcy, or merely great disappointment.

In the case of war, the consequences can be much more serious, as the discussion above suggests. This is not to say that there are never acceptable reasons for going to war, or maintaining overwhelming military might as a strategy for avoiding the need to go to war. It is only to say that, if you prepare and use a checklist before packing the car and going on a family vacation, you might also want to have and use a checklist before going to war.

Here is a variation of the ways I've summarized that checklist of questions in the past -- sort of my version of the Powell Doctrine:

Is the national security of our homeland seriously threatened?

What, specifically, is the goal you’re trying to accomplish?

What nonviolent means might accomplish the goal, and have they all been tried and failed?

Why do you think a military operation will contribute to (rather than impede) the accomplishment of the goal?

In a benefit-cost analysis, what are the risks, what are the costs (including opportunity costs), what will a military mission require in troops, materiel, lives and treasure to achieve that goal, and what will be the benefits for the United States?

What is a reasonble projection of how long the military mission will take to achieve the goal?

Are the American people, their representatives, and the international community prepared to take those risks, provide those resources and pay those costs for as long as it takes?

What are the probabilities that a military intervention will make matters worse?

What are the metrics or other means to inform us whether we’ve ever been “successful”?

What, then, will be the exit strategy?

What will happen when we leave?

Will that be consistent with our original mission?

See, e.g., "General Semantics, Terrorism and War," Fordham University, New York City, September 8, 2006 (sub-heading "War: Military Control of the Civilians and the Powell Doctrine"); also as Nicholas Johnson, What Do You Mean and How Do You Know, ch. 6 "You As Citizen II: Terrorism and War," p. 61, and see, Stephen M. Walt, "Applying the 8 Questions of the Powell Doctrine to Syria," Foreign Policy, September 3, 2013.

Conclusion. I could go on with this -- indeed the list below suggests I already have. Why? Because President Trump -- after opposing our war in Afghanistan for years -- has recently announced that it will be perpetuated by his Administration. In fact, he wants to send even more troops and taxpayer money into the hopeless pit.

A "war" in Afghanistan was a mistake from the very beginning. If we were trying to punish the state most involved in 9/11 it was Saudi Arabia -- the country that supplied both the financing and the participants. But the U.S. didn't want to declare war on Saudi Arabia after 9/11 any more than it wanted to bomb Idaho after Oklahoma City. So we chose Afghanistan instead.

It was argued that Afghanistan was "harboring terrorists." But any near-failed state can and does do that. To totally eliminate terrorist training in Afghanistan (1) would require more like 200,000 to 300,000 American troops (as I, and others, suggested at the time; clearly President Obama's 100,000 weren't enough) -- if even that would do it. (2) Our efforts to do that turn out to be counterproductive: our mere presence in the Middle East only intensifies anti-American feelings and terrorist recruiting. (3) Terrorists can, and do, easily move from one part of the world to another. If we drove them all out of Afghanistan they would not disappear, they would merely relocate -- as they now have in at least 70 countries. "Michael Evans" "Al-Qaeda finds three safe havens for terror training" The Times (of London), July 2, 2008 ("Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organisation, driven out of Afghanistan and defeated in Iraq, is re-emerging in strength in three alternative safe havens for training, operational planning and recruiting – Pakistan, Somalia and Algeria – according to Western intelligence and defence sources").

To the best of my recollection, no American official has declared that our real motive for staying in Afghanistan is to plunder it's resources. I raised this possibility in "Why Afghanistan? Think Oil & Gas," September 25, 2009. Rachel Maddow recently suggested it might be our search for a source of the rare earth element Lanthanum (LA); transcript not yet posted. (If we were in Afghanistan for rare earth elements, however, we've been a little late. While we were sending troops the Chinese were sending negotiators, and have by now pretty much cornered all the supplies in Afghanistan's rare earth market.)

In summary, the politicians pursuit of our Afghanistan War has ignored virtually all of the Powell Doctrine checklist. We never should have entered Afghanistan in the first place. As soon as that was obvious we should have left. Having failed to do so for 16 years, it is a very expensive tragedy (in lost lives and opportunities to fund what America really does need) that our current president has gone against his earlier instincts and is sending more troops to keep it going.

# # #
Nicholas Johnson's Additional Writing on War and Terrorism
"Spending on Military Always Comes at al Cost," The Gazette, April 9, 2017, p. D5, embedded in "Of Missiles and Teachers," April 7, 2017

"Focus on Muslims Misplaced After Shooting," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 17, 2016, p. A5

Understanding Terrorist Thugs," The Daily Iowan, December 3, 2015; "What Motivates Terrorist Thugs," The Gazette, December 20, 2015,

Nicholas Johnson, "Sober Risk Assessment Needed to Respond to Terror," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 28, 2015, p. A11; and as "Sober Risk Assessment Needed to Respond to Terror," Standard-Times [San Angelo, Texas], November 28, 2015

Nicholas Johnson, "Syria's Refugees: Job One and Job Two," The Gazette, November 1, 2015

"Why Unwinnable 'Wars' Are 'Stupid Stuff;' Add 'Impossible to Win' to Objections to War With ISIS," September 23, 2014

"Six Step Program for Avoiding War," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 11, 2014, p. A7

"Is U.S. Response Strengthening ISIS? Playing Into the Terrorists' Hands," September 19, 2014

" Why Iowans Should Care About Iraq War III; Why Do We Accept Words Like 'Islam,' 'State,' and 'Caliphate'?" September 16, 2014

"Is War the Best Answer?" Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2014, p. A7; embedded in " Whatever the Question, Is War the Best Answer?" September 10, 2014

"Syria: Moral Imperatives and Rational Analyses; Spotting the Issues," September 4, 2013

"Thinking About War -- Before Starting One," March 20, 2013

"Terrorism, War, 9/11 and Looking Within," September 10, 2011

"War in Libya, the Unanswered Questions," March 23, 2011

"General Semantics, Terrorism and War," Fordham University, New York City, September 8, 2006; also as Nicholas Johnson, What Do You Mean and How Do You Know, ch. 6 "You As Citizen II: Terrorism and War," p. 61

"War in Iraq: The Military Objections," International Law Talks: War With Iraq, University of Iowa College of Law, February 27, 2003

"Ten Questions for Bush Before War," The Daily Iowan, February 4, 2003, p. A6

Nicholas Johnson, "Capitalists Can Help U.S. Avert War with Iraq," Iowa City Press-Citizen, Sunday Insight, October 6, 2002, p. A11

Nicholas Johnson, "On Iraq, Tell the Rest of the Story," Iowa City Gazette, October 2, 2002, p. A4

Nicholas Johnson, "Let's not get between Iraq and a hard place," Omaha World-Herald, August 13, 2002 (and as published in the Iowa City Press-Citizen and as submitted to both)

Nicholas Johnson, "Search for Better Response Than War; Don't Reward the Terrorists, but Understand Their Interests," Des Moines Sunday Register Opinion/Iowa View, June 30, 2002, p. OP3

Nicholas Johnson, "Rethinking Terrorism," National Lawyers Guild Conference, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, March 2, 2002

"Teach Our Children Tolerant Ways," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 25, 2001, p. 9A

# # #
Some Recent Afghanistan-Related General Media News and Opinion
Glenn Thrush and Maggie Haberman, "Forceful Chief of Staff Grates on Trump, and the Feeling Is Mutual," New York Times, September 2, 2017, p. A1

Micah Zenko, "Bush and Obama Fought a Failed 'War on Terror.' It's Trump's Turn." New York Times, August 26, 2017, p. A17

Mujib Mashal, "Trump's Afghan Gamble Now Rests on General He Doubted," New York Times, August 25, 2017, p. A1

Mujib Mashal, "U.S. Troop Increase in Afghanistan Is Underway, General Says," New York Times, August 24, 2017

Max Fisher and Amanda Taub, "Why Afghanistan's War Defies Solutions," New York Times, August 24, 2017, p. A4

Bret Stephens, "On Afghanistan, There's No Way Out," New York Times, August 24, 2017

Rod Nordland, "What an Afghanistan Victory Looks Like Under the Trump Plan," New York Times, August 23, 2017, p. A1

# # #

Rappelling Down the Fiscal Bluff

December 16, 2012 2:25 p.m.; December 19, 2012, update: For a classic example of why the cliff is preferable to what will come out of December negotiations, see, "Social Security, Inflation, and Punishing the Poor."

[Newtown comment: Think that "guns don't kill people, people kill people"? Think again. Within hours of each other 20 elementary school children were attacked in both the U.S. and in China. The American children died. The Chinese did not. Why? No guns. The attacker used knives. A gun in the home is 16 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder -- as happened to Lanza and his mother in Newtown. There are dozens of things we could do to cut the carnage, while letting hunters keep their rifles. Come on, Iowa and Washington legislators. Are your NRA campaign contributions and support, and the necessity of your re-election, really enough to justify these deaths and your silence? It was an appreciated, thoughtful and heartfelt appearance by President Obama in Newtown. But so far as I know even he has yet to mention the word "gun" during the entirety of 2012. See, "Guns Do Kill -- 30,000 Americans a Year."]

Why Cliff is Clearly the 'Least Worst' Win-Win Solution

Don't get me wrong. There is no painless way out of our nation's fiscal quicksand, only a variety of worst solutions. Of them, which is the "least worst"? That's the only issue. I think it's "rappelling down the fiscal bluff." [Photo credit: multiple sources.]

The numbers.

Our credit card debt is $800 billion, headed toward $1 trillion. Student loan debt just passed $1 trillion in 2012. Total mortgage obligations of $13 trillion approach those of the federal government, a debt of $16 trillion (roughly half of which is owed by foreign investors).

Can't just blame "the politicians." Those first three (totaling $15 trillion) represent debt we, individually, voluntarily, took on. We even bear some responsibility for the federal debt, when we say we "hate Congress," but think our local congressperson is just terrific and return her or him to Washington.

Of course, those aren't our only debt obligations. We may owe something on our car, farm or manufacturing equipment, a loan from a friend or family member, a gambling debt. But let's limit ourselves to those four. (Because if you look at unfunded future obligations of the federal government, we're talking four or more times the present federal debt.)

The total? Let's say $31.4 trillion. Why $31.4? Because if we count every newborn baby and elderly person in the last days of their life, there are now 314 million Americans. So it makes the math easier. Each of our shares of all this debt? That's right, $100,000.

Then there's state, county and city debt. Iowa's total: $14.4 billion; $4,700 for each and every Iowan. The City of Coralville's $279 million debt is $14,700 for every Coralville resident. Jason Clayworth, "Iowa's debt a record $14.4Bl; Report: Amount owed equivalent of $4,704 per resident," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 24, 2012 (originally in Des Moines Register).

And don't forget the accumulating and compounding interest. On the federal debt alone it runs $432 billion a year. Think about that. I remember when President Lyndon Johnson was insistent on holding the federal budget -- that is, all the expenses for the Great Society programs, the Vietnam War, the Congress, every government agency and employee, all the courts and the Department of Justice, everything -- to $99 billion or less. We now have a single budget item that is over four times that much -- the interest on the national debt!! More than a billion dollars a day. That's $1375 a year in interest alone for every man, woman, and child in America.

That's $432 billion, nearly one-third of our federal government's annual expenditures, for which we get nothing in return, absolutely nothing -- except for the credit rating (for raising the debt limit and paying others what we owe them) that enables us to borrow even more. No purchases of raw materials or equipment, no roads or bridges built, no schools, no social services for our people. Nothing. It is, as is said in another context, like paying what you owe on a horse that has already died. Whatever we once got for it, like an endless war leading nowhere, was in the past, not now. It is also the case that those whom we pay have done nothing for the interest paid them; no work; they've provided us no goods or services. They've just cashed our checks, deposited the money, or spent it on luxuries.

Ever wonder who gets all that money? Why, the bankers and other investors, of course; some in this country, many abroad. Each of us has a part time job working for the banks -- for which we have to pay them, they don't pay us.

The Congressional cliff is rational and has precedent.

(1) What has come to be called the "fiscal cliff" is the result of an act of Congress. It was the majority's judgment at the time that it was the best course. It was a product of our constitutional, representative democracy. That does not make it really wonderful. But it does mean it is not unconstitutional, illegal, the result of a military coup, or imposed upon us by the North Koreans.

We voters see our House and Senate as dysfunctional. It's not all the time. For example, it can pass bills that name post office buildings. Indeed, that was 20 percent of all the bills that were passed recently.

(2) But there are some things the members realize need to be done that they are simply not able to do.

Some involve reverse "tragedy of the commons" conflicts, like closing military bases. Closing unnecessary bases can save American taxpayers a lot of money. It may even improve our military readiness. Members realize that. Everyone sees the benefit; but no one wants to close a base in their district. How can Congress deal with such a dilemma? Create a base closing commission to come up with a proposal that is not subject to revision or amendment, bring it back to Congress, and have Congress vote it up or down, yes or no.

Others involve issues that are complicated, and sometimes technical, as well as controversial. What did Congress mean when it created the 1927 Radio Commission (that later evolved into the Federal Communications Commission) and told it to award radio licenses, and otherwise regulate licensees, according to "the public interest, convenience, and necessity"? It was little more than handing off the mystery of radio broadcasting, and its regulation, to a new independent regulatory commission, and saying, "Here's a problem; you solve it."

(3) Congress' "solution" of a "fiscal cliff" is similar. "Here's a problem that must be solved," it realized. "We can't solve it now, and we doubt that we'll ever be able to. If we do, well, great. But if we continue to kick the can down the road, here's what will happen January 1, 2013. Tax rates will go back to the levels that existed during our last prosperity, and defense spending -- now greater than that of all our adversaries, and allies, combined -- will be cut to more reasonable, though still more than adequate, levels."

Is that a happy solution? No, of course not. But it was a realistic solution, a rational way out, a pragmatic move -- and one for which there is precedent.

This is as much about politics as economics; why rappelling the bluff is a win-win.

(1) The fiscal cliff, or bluff, is as much or more about politics as about economics and finance. There's no shortage of ideas about what we should do from economists, finance professors, journalists, and other citizens. That's not the problem. The problem is that our constitutional system of governing, especially during times of ideological extremism, coupled with the increasing power of the special interests funding our elected officials' campaigns, makes it somewhere between very, very difficult and impossible to come to rational resolution.

(2) That means that there has to be something in it for everyone; both political parties have to "win" this one. Rappelling down the fiscal bluff makes that possible.

(3) President Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent, but can't get the Republicans to agree. Although many of the wealthiest Republicans have no real objection to having their taxes raised, and even see the need for doing so, their elected representatives have signed Grover Norquist's pledge that they will never raise anyone's taxes.

Both will win something and lose something by jumping off the cliff. Obama gets his higher taxes on the wealthy -- but gets an increase in middle class taxes, too (which he opposes). The Republicans can keep their pledge; they did not vote to raise taxes on the wealthy; January 1 merely triggered that increase without a vote -- however, there has been a tax increase.

(4) Once tax rates have gone back to more rational levels, both Republicans and Democrats can take credit for voting to reduce middle class taxes to some degree, by voting to do so after middle tax rates have taken the cliff's automatic jump. (They could also keep some of that additional revenue by not reducing them back to current levels.)

(5) Similarly, partisans can take credit for both "increasing" defense spending (above the post-cliff-cut levels) -- while, hopefully, also taking credit for the savings brought about by the cuts that are not restored.

(6) This leaves the matter of the automatic cuts in social programs -- a win for Republicans and a significant challenge for Democrats (not to mention the millions of Americans dependent upon those programs). Even here a win-win of sorts is possible.

Win or lose, Democrats can be seen to be fighting the good fight for their natural constituencies against those heartless Republicans. On the other hand, the more rational among the Republicans seem to have grasped from the last election that they cannot continue to alienate women, minorities, immigrants, youth, and the elderly and still maintain a healthy political party capable of winning elections. Reversing course, and surprising everyone, might actually be an opportunity they would seize.

Why this is a better deal than any eleventh-hour "compromise."

I don't think this is about our taxes at all. Not yours, not mine. You know what I think it is about? Corporate taxes -- or the lack thereof, the exclusions, the deductions, the offshore deals, the Swiss bank accounts.

Why do I think so? I've been reading the White House guest list. Who are these folks who are evidencing less opposition to having their taxes raised? How might they actually end up with more money at the end of every year, even if their rates go up a notch? By having a very much larger overall income on which to be paying those taxes. Here are a few from that long line of recent visitors:

David M. Cote, chief executive of Honeywell; Daniel Och, the billionaire founder of Och-Ziff Capital Management; Gary D. Cohn, president of Goldman Sachs; Greg Fleming, head of wealth management at Morgan Stanley; Frederick W. Smith, the chief executive of FedEx; Marc Lasry, who runs Avenue Capital; the real estate tycoon Barry Sternlicht; Tony James, president of the Blackstone Group; Roger Altman, executive chairman of Evercore Partners; Robert Wolf, a longtime UBS executive who recently began his own firm, 32 Advisors; Blair W. Effron, co-founder of Centerview Partners; Mark T. Gallogly, a Blackstone veteran who founded Centerbridge Partners; Lloyd C. Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs; Randall Stephenson, the chief executive of AT&T; Marriott’s chief executive, Arne Sorenson; Doug Oberhelman of Caterpillar; the president of the Business Roundtable, Rex W. Tillerson, the chief executive of Exxon; Andrew N. Liveris of Dow Chemical; Jeffrey R. Immelt of G.E.; Alexander Cutler of Eaton; Bill Dunkelberg, the chief economist at the National Federation of Independent Business.

There are undoubtedly many more, but this should give you a clue as to what we're up against. Nelson D. Schwartz and Jonathan Weisman, "Unlikely Backers in a Battle Over Taxes," New York Times, December 12, 2012, p. B1. As the authors comment regarding this cast of characters, and why they might be lining up to support an increase in their taxes, "their stance in favor of lower corporate tax rates could actually benefit their bottom lines in the long run."

And that's what our president, the Democrat, is up to. You can only imagine what will be the source of any gains by the Republicans in these "negotiations" between the White House and the Congress.

No, I think I'd rather we just rappel down that fiscal bluff, thank you. That's the least worst option I see.

Conclusion.

So that's the idea. When you're lost in the woods, as America seems to be at the moment, rappelling down the bluff, however frightening, might just be a better way out than continuing to wander in a dark woods filled with wild dogs without a compass or GPS receiver.

# # #