Friday, March 26, 2010
Really?
Politico.com reported today that over 2,000 House staffers make a salary of over $100,000. That means for every Representative, there are nearly 5 staffers making $100,000, or more.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Israel is at Risk
The Obama Administration wants a Middle East deal badly. They really need a deal. Their credibility is at stake. And, they don’t like the intransigent and uncooperative Netanyahu Government standing in their way. Obama did his smack-down this week (over a municipal zoning decision that has already been approved three times) because he wants to put Netanyahu in his place . . . which is to say, at the feet of Obama.
Why do I say this? Because Obama has maneuvered U.S. foreign policy into a corner from which the only way out is to squeeze Israel. He needs to deliver a peace deal in order to shore up support for his efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Certainly containing Iran is an important political and security goal for the U.S. I am not sure I completely understand how alienating, and publicly castigating, our closest ally in the region squares with this goal, however.
More central to my overall point, Obama is asking Israel to make concessions that are permanent in order to allow Obama to pursue a fleeting, ephemeral political win. Convincing one country, or another, to go along with economic sanctions on Iran at this moment in time may, or may not, achieve the goal of eliminating the Iranian nuclear program. Countries can change their polices (i.e. Bush to Obama on Israel, Poland, Czech, Georgia, etc…) So, Israeli concessions to the Palestinians that help convince Russia, or China, to support sanctions one day, and then change their mind the next day when the U.S. does something that they don’t like (such as sell arms to Taiwan) completely negates the political value of the Israeli concessions.
And, once made, Israeli concessions are not easy to take back. Removing settlements and splitting Jerusalem is not something that can be undone. What we are doing is asking Israeli citizens to put themselves at risk (ask the people living near Gaza how much they have enjoyed the last five years of rocket fire since Israel pulled out of Gaza) so Obama can score political points that may mean nothing six months later. Not sure this is a great deal for Israeli citizens.
Especially with the backdrop of not having a viable, stable partner in negotiations who has the will and the power, to deliver on their promises. Just this week, a senior Minister in the PA government called for riots on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Would you trust such a government with your life? Your childrens’ lives? That is what we are asking them to do. It is their lives we are messing with. I am not sure most people understand this point.
And, the shame of it all is, as I have pointed out numerous times, including on the Chicago Tribune editorial page, Israel has consistently shown a willingness to make the ultimate sacrifices for peace when they have felt the support of their strongest ally, the U.S. and when there appeared to be a partner for peace. Today, the Obama Administration has removed the feeling of support (see Joe Biden’s telling remarks last week about the need to have no daylight between the U.S. and Israel, as a precondition to peace). And, the PA has shown no commitment to negotiations. So, what does Obama expect Israel to do? They are being told, loudly and clearly, that the U.S. special relationship with Israel is changing and that they (meaning the Obama Administration) want to be an “honest broker” and not favor one side over the other. This is what our foreign policy is morphing into.
That is why I titled this blog post the way I did.
Why do I say this? Because Obama has maneuvered U.S. foreign policy into a corner from which the only way out is to squeeze Israel. He needs to deliver a peace deal in order to shore up support for his efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Certainly containing Iran is an important political and security goal for the U.S. I am not sure I completely understand how alienating, and publicly castigating, our closest ally in the region squares with this goal, however.
More central to my overall point, Obama is asking Israel to make concessions that are permanent in order to allow Obama to pursue a fleeting, ephemeral political win. Convincing one country, or another, to go along with economic sanctions on Iran at this moment in time may, or may not, achieve the goal of eliminating the Iranian nuclear program. Countries can change their polices (i.e. Bush to Obama on Israel, Poland, Czech, Georgia, etc…) So, Israeli concessions to the Palestinians that help convince Russia, or China, to support sanctions one day, and then change their mind the next day when the U.S. does something that they don’t like (such as sell arms to Taiwan) completely negates the political value of the Israeli concessions.
And, once made, Israeli concessions are not easy to take back. Removing settlements and splitting Jerusalem is not something that can be undone. What we are doing is asking Israeli citizens to put themselves at risk (ask the people living near Gaza how much they have enjoyed the last five years of rocket fire since Israel pulled out of Gaza) so Obama can score political points that may mean nothing six months later. Not sure this is a great deal for Israeli citizens.
Especially with the backdrop of not having a viable, stable partner in negotiations who has the will and the power, to deliver on their promises. Just this week, a senior Minister in the PA government called for riots on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Would you trust such a government with your life? Your childrens’ lives? That is what we are asking them to do. It is their lives we are messing with. I am not sure most people understand this point.
And, the shame of it all is, as I have pointed out numerous times, including on the Chicago Tribune editorial page, Israel has consistently shown a willingness to make the ultimate sacrifices for peace when they have felt the support of their strongest ally, the U.S. and when there appeared to be a partner for peace. Today, the Obama Administration has removed the feeling of support (see Joe Biden’s telling remarks last week about the need to have no daylight between the U.S. and Israel, as a precondition to peace). And, the PA has shown no commitment to negotiations. So, what does Obama expect Israel to do? They are being told, loudly and clearly, that the U.S. special relationship with Israel is changing and that they (meaning the Obama Administration) want to be an “honest broker” and not favor one side over the other. This is what our foreign policy is morphing into.
That is why I titled this blog post the way I did.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
One Fish, Two Fish, Three Fish, One Fish
The bad luck Mall in Dubai . . .
First, the World's Tallest Burj Tower gets closed down because the elevator to the 124th floor malfunctions and starts to drop like a stone with terrified passengers locked inside. Luckily the emergency brakes worked and no one was injured.
Then, the World's Largest Aquarium springs a leak and thousands of gallons of water spray onto the floor of the World's Largest Mall, forcing evacuation of the Dubai Mall.
Lastly, I heard from a friend who lives in Dubai that when the Aquarium first opened, it was stocked with the wrong species of shark. Which they discovered when shocked tourists reported that they thought they saw the sharks eat some of the other fish . . .
What else could go wrong?
First, the World's Tallest Burj Tower gets closed down because the elevator to the 124th floor malfunctions and starts to drop like a stone with terrified passengers locked inside. Luckily the emergency brakes worked and no one was injured.
Then, the World's Largest Aquarium springs a leak and thousands of gallons of water spray onto the floor of the World's Largest Mall, forcing evacuation of the Dubai Mall.
Lastly, I heard from a friend who lives in Dubai that when the Aquarium first opened, it was stocked with the wrong species of shark. Which they discovered when shocked tourists reported that they thought they saw the sharks eat some of the other fish . . .
What else could go wrong?
Something is up in Pakistan
All of a sudden, we are catching or killing high value Taliban targets in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan . . . too much activity all at once to be a coincidence. Something has changed in Pakistan. The surge is going on in Afghanistan, which is undoubtedly helping, but it seems that the Pakistan Government has decided to take this fight for real.
Here's hoping it continues so we can get the heck out of there and bring our boys home.
Here's hoping it continues so we can get the heck out of there and bring our boys home.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Babi Yar
How do you make sense of a place like Babi Yar?
We stood on the edge of a perfectly normal looking ravine, filled with trees and covered in snow. It is cold. The wind is blowing. It would be cold in this place, even in Summer. But now it is bitter, and we shiver.
To get there, we walked down a long ice-covered driveway. Turned off a busy street in town to get to the driveway. Walked past buildings. In plain site. Questions arise. How do you not notice 33,711 people tromping along this path over the course of two days? Carrying suitcases. Families.
How do you not hear the 33,711 gunshots ring out in this ravine, situated inside the city, not in some far off forest where the winds do not carry the sound. People lived a few hundred meters from this ravine.
They heard the sounds. They saw the people. They knew.
In two days, they died. 33,711 of layed down, stripped naked, one on top of the other, face down. Shot in the back of the head. It is horrible to write these words. But it happened and we need to remember Reveka Bachrach, and the others who died in this place.
So, we stood there in the cold and we read. We read names of Reveka’s neighbors. We read Reveka’s name. And, we shed a tear.
There are many ravines just like this one in my hometown. As children, we played in the ravines, running up and down the slopes, branches snapping against us as we ran. Getting thoroughly, and joyfully, muddy in the process. Ravines were a place to play. And, here I stood on the edge of a different kind of ravine in the heart of big city Kiev. Very different kind of ravine.
When I arrived in Jerusalem, I placed a small prayer for Reveka Bachrach in the Wall. She is not forgotten.
We stood on the edge of a perfectly normal looking ravine, filled with trees and covered in snow. It is cold. The wind is blowing. It would be cold in this place, even in Summer. But now it is bitter, and we shiver.
To get there, we walked down a long ice-covered driveway. Turned off a busy street in town to get to the driveway. Walked past buildings. In plain site. Questions arise. How do you not notice 33,711 people tromping along this path over the course of two days? Carrying suitcases. Families.
How do you not hear the 33,711 gunshots ring out in this ravine, situated inside the city, not in some far off forest where the winds do not carry the sound. People lived a few hundred meters from this ravine.
They heard the sounds. They saw the people. They knew.
In two days, they died. 33,711 of layed down, stripped naked, one on top of the other, face down. Shot in the back of the head. It is horrible to write these words. But it happened and we need to remember Reveka Bachrach, and the others who died in this place.
So, we stood there in the cold and we read. We read names of Reveka’s neighbors. We read Reveka’s name. And, we shed a tear.
There are many ravines just like this one in my hometown. As children, we played in the ravines, running up and down the slopes, branches snapping against us as we ran. Getting thoroughly, and joyfully, muddy in the process. Ravines were a place to play. And, here I stood on the edge of a different kind of ravine in the heart of big city Kiev. Very different kind of ravine.
When I arrived in Jerusalem, I placed a small prayer for Reveka Bachrach in the Wall. She is not forgotten.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Health Care, Cadillac Plans and Unions
The landscape has changed for health care legislation since Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts, but an associate of mine said something interesting to me yesteday that I thought I would pass on.
The topic is the way that disagreement was resolved between the House and Senate on the Senate health legislation's proposed tax on expensive health care plans (so called "Cadillac Plans"). The Senate had put in a provision to tax certain health plans that cost more than the average plan. This tax would have generated a substantial amount of money to pay for the new plan ($60 Billion of the $900 Billion cost).
The Unions (broadly speaking) were opposed to this proposed tax because many Union members have Cadillac Plans. Under the Senate version, many Union members would have had to pay thousands of dollars per year in additional tax because their health plans were more expensive than the average American. So, the House and Senate decided to delay for six years (i.e. cancel indefinitely) the imposition of this tax on Cadillac Plans . . . but only for people who are part of a collective bargaining employment arrangement (i.e. Union members).
So, those of us who have more expensive health plans would pay the tax . . . only if we are not members of Unions. We would each pay several thousand dollars per year in additional taxes . . . if we are not Union members.
Do you get where this is going? The Unions, and their backers, have created a back-channel method of providing a massive incentive for people to join Unions (and a massive financial penalty for NOT being a Union member). It could conceivably be cheaper for people to join a Union and pay Union dues, then it would be for them to remain non-Union and pay the tax on their health plan.
Slick, isn't it? Since Unions can't convince people to join, and remain members of, Unions ("Card Check" died last year), they will use their lobbyists and their hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign contributions, to have Congress basically legislate financial penalties for workers . . . unless they join Unions.
Write your Congressman or Senator about this one . . . it needs to go!
The topic is the way that disagreement was resolved between the House and Senate on the Senate health legislation's proposed tax on expensive health care plans (so called "Cadillac Plans"). The Senate had put in a provision to tax certain health plans that cost more than the average plan. This tax would have generated a substantial amount of money to pay for the new plan ($60 Billion of the $900 Billion cost).
The Unions (broadly speaking) were opposed to this proposed tax because many Union members have Cadillac Plans. Under the Senate version, many Union members would have had to pay thousands of dollars per year in additional tax because their health plans were more expensive than the average American. So, the House and Senate decided to delay for six years (i.e. cancel indefinitely) the imposition of this tax on Cadillac Plans . . . but only for people who are part of a collective bargaining employment arrangement (i.e. Union members).
So, those of us who have more expensive health plans would pay the tax . . . only if we are not members of Unions. We would each pay several thousand dollars per year in additional taxes . . . if we are not Union members.
Do you get where this is going? The Unions, and their backers, have created a back-channel method of providing a massive incentive for people to join Unions (and a massive financial penalty for NOT being a Union member). It could conceivably be cheaper for people to join a Union and pay Union dues, then it would be for them to remain non-Union and pay the tax on their health plan.
Slick, isn't it? Since Unions can't convince people to join, and remain members of, Unions ("Card Check" died last year), they will use their lobbyists and their hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign contributions, to have Congress basically legislate financial penalties for workers . . . unless they join Unions.
Write your Congressman or Senator about this one . . . it needs to go!
Monday, January 18, 2010
Health-Care-Slamma-Jamma
Now that the polls are uncertain as to whether the Dems will hold onto the Senate seat in Massachusetts in the special election tomorrow, Senate Dem leadership is shifting into high gear to try to convince House Dem leadership to pass the Senate bill as is, with no changes. If the House does that, then the bill will not need to go back to the Senate for another vote. Which means, the Congress can pass the Health Care legislation without having to worry about whether the Massachusetts Senate seat is Democratic or Republican.
But, paradoxically, it is increasingly clear that a central reason why the GOP candidate is even in the race in Massachusetts at all is because he is running against the Health Care legislation. So, in order to circumvent what is apparently strong public sentiment against the legislation in what is possibly the most liberal state in the country, the Congressional Democrat leadership's response is to hurry up and try to get this damn thing passed quickly, before the public can do anything about it.
WHAT?
Is this representative government or is this the House of Lords? Do these people work for us, or the other way around? I was under the distinct impression that this is not how this thing, known as the U.S. Congress, is supposed to work. It is called the "House of Representatives" for a reason. They are supposed to "represent" us.
If the Congress finalizes this legislation in the face of popular opposition, look for their approval rating to sink to . . . well, you can't get much lower than it is now, but expect it to go down more.
Woldy
But, paradoxically, it is increasingly clear that a central reason why the GOP candidate is even in the race in Massachusetts at all is because he is running against the Health Care legislation. So, in order to circumvent what is apparently strong public sentiment against the legislation in what is possibly the most liberal state in the country, the Congressional Democrat leadership's response is to hurry up and try to get this damn thing passed quickly, before the public can do anything about it.
WHAT?
Is this representative government or is this the House of Lords? Do these people work for us, or the other way around? I was under the distinct impression that this is not how this thing, known as the U.S. Congress, is supposed to work. It is called the "House of Representatives" for a reason. They are supposed to "represent" us.
If the Congress finalizes this legislation in the face of popular opposition, look for their approval rating to sink to . . . well, you can't get much lower than it is now, but expect it to go down more.
Woldy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)