Cubans: The Friendliest People on Earth? May 19, 2015Posted by Afflatus in Uncategorized.
1 comment so far
On December 19, 2014, I flew from Miami to Habana, Cuba, in a charter plane on a trip led by Insight Cuba, an American non-profit that leads legal but expensive tourist trips to Cuba in full compliance with U.S. O.F.A.C. Treasury Department regulations.
This trip was very special for me. I departed two days after my last law school exam of the semester, and I was traveling alongside two of my favorite travel companions: my lovely parents! The trip was also special for another reason: we were departing two days after President Obama and Raul Castro announced their historic agreement to normalize diplomatic relations and begin the long road to U.S.-Cuba friendship.
The trip was wonderful and exceeded my expectations in all regards. I spoke Spanish all day, played pick-up futbol* every day, and learned about the political, socio-economic, and cultural issues in Cuba as we met with artists, professors, young people, and civic society actors, et al. Upon my return to the States, I drafted the following blog post, which I am only now getting around to finalizing. Of all the things in Cuba that left me completely incredulous, I was particularly blown away by the friendliness of the Cuban people.
The friendliness of the Cuban people is hard to overstate; their friendliness — to each other, and to tourists — reflects the best of humanity. I’ve traveled far and wide, and travelers often say “the people in [X country] are so friendly” or “they are the friendliest people in the world.” I’ve said the latter superlative myself, probably about Peruvians in 2008, then South Africans in 2010, then Nicaraguans in 2013, and then the Thai in 2014 (where a cab driver gave me his banana once it became clear we were going to be sitting in traffic for the next hour or two due to political protests).
I thought the superlative of “friendliest people in the world” was true every time I said it, but now it really think Cuba tops them all! Two particular moments from my Cuba trip left me and my-cynical-self in near-disbelief at the extent of the Cuban kindness.
One time, as our group was trying to cross a road, only 5 of us had time to cross before a car came whirring around the bend. As cautious, American pedestrians in a foreign country, we stopped to allow the car to pass. But, as we looked up, the car had in fact slammed on his breaks to allow some of us to cross. Upon realizing there were many more of us, he happily shifted into neutral, smiled, and waved us all across as the remaining thirty tourists (largely elderly) ambled across the road. Cars piled up behind him. But no honks, just patience. Imagine this scene in New York City, where horn blare ad nauseam. Since when do cars go to this length for pedestrians!? The whole street crossing only took about two minutes, but a driver who previously had been driving quite fast transformed into a patient, smiling Cuban host. For me, this moment reflects the welcoming hospitality of the Cuban people to tourists.
The second moment was when my father and I were walking in a dark, poor-looking neighborhood at about 10pm, yet we felt absolutely no risk of theft or other crime. People looked at us, curiously, from the shadows of their stoops and as they strolled by us. My father and I didn’t know exactly where we were, having only a vague sense of how to get where we were going. We were both carrying iPhones — each worth more than 1 year’s salary of the average Cuban — as well as some cash (in U.S. dollars, not the local currency for Cubans, pesos**). Regardless, I was virtually certain that we were completely safe. And I was right. Ultimately, I asked and received directions three times from strangers who smiled and warmly touched my arm as they explained where to go. Having had the fortune to travel to over 25 foreign countries, I’ve never felt so safe anywhere as I did in Cuba. The reasons for the amazingly low crime rates in Cuba are complex and multi-faceted — a subject I would love to write about when the time presents itself.
In conclusion, it doesn’t matter which country’s people are truly “the friendliest.” People all across the world represent the best of humanity — kindness, compassion, and service. Love. Traveling reminds us of the common threads that bind all of us humans together, regardless of nationality, skin color, religion, or creed.
*Baseball, not soccer (futbol) is the preferred sport in Cuba, but soccer is catching on!
**Cuba has two currencies — perhaps the height of the cuban idiosyncrasies — one, pegged to the USD, is for tourists and others who work in the tourist sector, and the other is for locals or those that work for state-run enterprises, which is still something like 70% of the economy. Apparently, the government is planning to phase out the two currencies and switch to a more sane, less-distorting currency model.
Here are some additional photos I took from my trip. As with the above photo, all rights are reserved:
Love Chess: A Game That Builds Great Skills May 18, 2015Posted by Afflatus in Uncategorized.
add a comment
Chess is a wonderful game! At once pleasurable and edifying, chess teaches important life skills: concentration, cost-benefit analysis, decision-making, thoroughness, and composure. Chess, like so many great games, brings out the best in the human mind! I hope to remain a lifelong player.
The complexity of the game is apparent. Chess challenges players with an almost infinite number of possible combinations of moves; so a chess player will face novel and complex positions in the opening, middle-game, and end-game situations.
More specifically, though, chess develops skills such as concentration, practicing cost-benefit analysis, and shrewd decision-making ability. A good chess player must understand the strengths and weaknesses of each player’s position — at every stage in the game. And there are multiple moving parts, making constant reevaluation necessary.
These skills play out in both a tactical and strategic manner. In many positions, an opponent’s move presents a problem that must be immediately addressed. In a timed game, it’s imperative to quickly isolate the problem at hand, discern various alternatives to address that problem, analyze the pros and cons of each alternative, and finally to select the best one (a process that may take place in as few as 5 seconds). But these tactical considerations should not be simply reactive; instead, each move should fit into the larger strategy of checkmating the opponent’s king. A good player retains simultaneous focus on both the tactical and strategic front — a challenging task!
Finally, chess teaches thoroughness and composure. Even after a player believes she has selected a great move, it is critical for her to thoroughly analyze possible counter-moves the opponent may make. In addition, she should consider potential weaknesses the move may spawn — a step easily overlooked. Chess also teaches a player to emotionally adjust to a bad situation. After I make a mistake, I try to regain my composure, control what I still can, and move forward with renewed rigor.
Attentiveness, cost-benefit analysis, decision-making ability, thoroughness, and composure: these are important skills for lawyers, indeed for all professionals. I hope to continue developing these skills, and I’m convinced chess can help.
Texas’ Voter ID Law and Section 2 Litigation September 21, 2013Posted by Afflatus in History, Politics, Uncategorized.
Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights Act
The story of Texas’ Voter ID law is fascinating. Ever since 1975, Texas was required, under the Voting Rights Act (VRA), to seek approval from the federal government to any changes the state legislature might want to make to its election laws. The purpose of this law was an important one: to ensure that jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination provide all of its citizens with equal access to the voting booths. Yet in June 2013, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the VRA, which stipulated the formula for determining which jurisdictions would be subject to federal “pre-clearance” of proposed voting changes under Section 5 of the VRA. By determining that the Section 4 formula was unconstitutional, Shelby rendered the Section 5 “pre-clearance” regime inapplicable and unenforceable (until Congress updates the formula). So now, Texas may change its voting laws at will.
In 2011, the Texas legislature passed SB 14. It is one of the strictest photo ID laws in the nation, requiring voters to present photo identification from a very limited list before being allowed to vote. The law allows Texans to vote with a Texas concealed handgun license, but not with an ID from a public university or a tribal identification card. (See the Brennan Center’s complaint in its challenge to the law, especially paragraphs 41-45, for how the law will discriminate against minority voters.) In August 2012, in the pre-clearance proceedings, the U.S. District Court in DC rejected the law, finding that it would almost certainly “lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.” The appeals process in this lawsuit was pending when the Supreme Court this summer struck down portions of the VRA, removing Texas from the pre-clearance requirement. Two days after the Supreme Court ruled on the VRA, it instructed the District Court to dismiss the pending litigation against Texas, allowing the State to do as it pleases.
Voting equality groups like the Brennan Center launched lobbying campaigns, and Congressmembers began imploring their colleagues to update the formula as the Supreme Court suggested Congress should do.
In addition to those advocacy efforts, lawyers at the Department of Justice, the NAACP, MALDEF, and elsewhere, started litigating to enforce the equal opportunity to vote. Though the Supreme Court had eliminated Section 5 pre-clearance as a tool, there was still Section 2.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or certain minority-language memberships. Section 2 is a creative alternative to Section 5 for enforcing equal access to voting booths, but it is a poor substitute. First, it is an ex post approach rather than ex ante — the voting discrimination must have already occurred. Second, it is far more costly and litigious. Third, the burden of proof is flipped: rather than States being required to prove, under pre-clearance, that a proposed law is nondiscriminatory, plaintiffs are required to prove that the law is discriminatory. These are serious drawbacks, and, while I acknowledge that there were problems with pre-clearance regime, I’m of the opinion that unconscionable voting discrimination is already occurring across America as a result of the change in the regulatory structure and enforcement due to the Supreme Court’s VRA decision.
As stated before, the burden of proof to show that Section 2 has been violated is on the plaintiff, and the threshold is high. Plaintiffs must show that, in the context of the “totality of the circumstance of the local electoral process,” the standard, practice, or procedure being challenged had the result of denying a racial or language minority an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. This is a statutory standard deriving from the 1982 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.
The Senate Judiciary Committee in 1982 issued a report in an attempt to provide guidance to courts when interpreting whether, in the totality of the circumstances, an election law has violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The factors the Senate suggests are:
- the history of official voting-related discrimination in the state or political subdivision;
- the extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized;
- the extent to which the state of political subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group, such as unusually large election districts, majority-vote requirements, and prohibitions against bullet voting;
- the exclusion of members of the minority group from candidate slating processes;
- the extent to which minority group members bear the effects of discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process;
- the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns; and
- the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.
The Judiciary Committee pointed out that this list is neither exclusive nor comprehensive. However, plaintiffs need not prove every factor, or even a majority of them. It’s obvious that there is a tremendous amount of room for courts to interpret this how they please.
Lawsuits raising claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act are few and far between — depending on your definition, there are around 35. In the wake of the Supreme Court decision, the leading Section 2 lawsuits are a group of three related cases challenging the same Texas Voter ID law that the District Court in DC reviewed within the Section 5 procedure, one of which was brought by the U.S. Department of Justice. Read more about the latest of these three cases, NAACP v. Steen, here.
The complaint in NAACP v. Steen is complex because what it seeks to prove — that a voter ID law will disproportionally impact, and thus discriminate unconstitutionally against minorities — is a very difficult proposition to prove in court. It’s also interesting because of the back story of Taxas’ voter ID law in District Court, and because of the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the VRA. As a law student learning about argumentation, it’s interesting to see the strategy adopted by the complaint, and which of the Senate’s factors listed above the complaint chooses to stress.
If you’re familiar with Voter ID laws generally, jumping straight to Paragraph 45 might be a good idea. Paragraph 50, listing the historical voting discrimination perpetrated by the State of Texas, is absolutely appalling.
Ultimately, the complaint alleges that the law has both a discriminatory result and a discriminatory purpose. It also alleges that the law violates the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. It was filed 4 days ago in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. I’m very curious to watch this unfold!
Oil Futures Rise on Fears of U.S. Attack on Syria September 9, 2013Posted by Afflatus in Uncategorized.
Tags: Economics, Oil, Syria, World Affairs
add a comment
Today there is heightened tension and risk of instability in the Middle East. (Oil futures are already elevated.) This development is not because Syria has used chemical weapons, but because the United States is threatening — and looking increasingly likely — to attack.
I still cannot understand why President Obama believes this is a good idea.
My Response to the “Red Line” Argument Re: Syria September 9, 2013Posted by Afflatus in Uncategorized.
Tags: Syria, World Affairs
add a comment
The “red line” argument vis-a-vis Syria goes something like this: “Obama said the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime would constitute crossing a “red line” of the United States’. Because of this, the United States must attack Syria’s chemical weapons depots. To do otherwise would render the U.S. a feckless, paper tiger, embolden Assad and other dictators to use chemical weapons by permitting a lack of accountability, and finally it will weaken the U.S. position towards Iran.”
Here is my response:
Just because Syria crossed a so-called “red line” for the United States, why must President Obama then necessarily respond with a military attack? There are other ways to provide accountability for this horrific atrocity the Syrian regime has perpetrated. Why not tighten sanctions? Ambassador Power and other officials in the Obama Administration don’t say. Why not respond in a way consistent with international law? The United States has decided not to attempt to go to the UN (there are decent reasons for this, of course. But still!). Then, even if one assumes the U.S. chooses to disregard international law in a supposed effort to uphold international law (indeed), why not allow UN inspectors to finish their work discovering evidence prior to attacking with military force?
I don’t understand why crossing a fictitious “red line” (which we supposedly have evidence Syria actually already crossed twice prior to this recent, large-scale chemical attack), necessitates a rapid military response in violation of UN rules. Furthermore, how far does this supposed “red line” extend. What if, in 2014, there is an uprising in North Korea or China and the government there uses chemical weapons to put down the rebellion?
Finally, even if one finds the “red line” argument more convincing than my rebuttal, I still believe a “realist” analysis of the underlying interests at stake for the United States in the Middle East — counter-terrorism and oil price management — will be better served by not attacking Syria. In my opinion, this “national interest” analysis should be finally devastating to any arguments in favor of striking.
Disappointed and Dumbfounded by Obama’s Syria Policy September 8, 2013Posted by Afflatus in Uncategorized.
Tags: Syria, United Nations, World Affairs
Since last writing, my views about the normative question pertaining to Syria have changed dramatically. Through a bit more reading on the subject, thinking through my own views further, and discussing with friends, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s a very poor decision to conduct even limited strikes against Syria.
Listening to United States Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power speak at the Center for American Progress, I find myself downright confused and disheartened by the arguments and statements I’m hearing from the Administration. Power and Neera Tanden (President of CAP) make an appeal for intervention that rests largely on emotional arguments, calling it “monstrous,” talking about fathers crying over their dead babies. Yes, this all horrible. Atrocious. The videos of the Syrian chemical attack are shockingly gruesome. And I don’t doubt that it was Assad and the Syrian government behind these attacks. But ultimately, there are humanitarian atrocities the world over. Omar al-Bashir, President of Sudan has murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. The Lords Resistance Army, led by Joseph Kony, is a band of rebels causing havoc in uncontrolled regions of Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Central African Republic. Kony and his gang mutilate and rape their victims, while abducting children and forcing them to fight on their behalf. And the list goes on. If we accept Ambassador Power’s argument for humanitarian-based intervention, where do we draw the line? Which do we get involved it, and “how can we stomach,” in her words, sitting out and “standing idly by” while other atrocities takes place? (Side note: a fact too little known is that the US did send military personnel to fight against Kony and the LRA in October 2011.)
Furthermore, the idea that the United States is the moral international arbitrator in this situation — an argument Ambassador Power alludes to repeatedly — is patently absurd. In the 1980’s, the United States helped Sadaam Hussein massacre thousands of Iranians with chemical weapons in a calculated effort to maintain the balance of power between those two countries in the Persian Gulf region. This is not an allegation, but a fact proven by recently declassified CIA memos. Read them, they’re shocking.
Additionally, Ambassador Power claims that we must do this because it’s an international treaty. The simple yet devastating counter to this silly point that the administration is making has become almost hackneyed: since when has the United States obeyed international law, or upheld treaties? The United States hasn’t even ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty! And why didn’t the United States care when it’s ally, Bahrain, (where the U.S. Navy 5th Fleet is harbored) was arresting doctors and other medical personal as they rushed to tend to peaceful demonstrators (who had been injured by government riot police) that were demanding democracy and a voice in their government affairs? Why didn’t the United States want to intervene to uphold the Geneva Conventions in Bahrain. So, having belabored the point, I hope I have shown how absurd Ambassador Power seems to anyone who has a conception of history, international law, and the traditional role the United State has played in world affairs.
Ambassador Power claims the United States has exhausted alternatives, yet she makes no mention about any efforts to tighten sanctions. Sanctions won’t stop chemical weapons being used on civilians, but neither will targeted strikes. And if targeted strikes do succeed in stopping further chemical weapons attacks by Assad, what is to stop Assad from decimating innocent Syrians with traditional weapons? What is the end game for the United States?
Ultimately, I don’t buy the argument that this is a humanitarian ground for the reasons stated above. Rather, I think (but I have no evidence for this claim) that America’s national security apparatus is exaggerating the “threat” to America’s national security, to global stability, or to any of our non-core interests, in order to work to take out Assad. This is exactly what happened in Iraq in 2003. And Libya in 2011 was very similar. The common theme in all 3 cases is that a decent pretense (9-11 with Iraq, the Libyan Spring, and sarin gas now in Syria) is used as an excuse to achieve a longstanding goal — getting rid of a dictator we don’t like. But why must we do it again!? In both Libya and Iraq, the outcomes were terrible for the United States! In Libya the outcome was good for Al-Qaeda and very bad for the U.S. embassy and the estimable Ambassador Christopher Stevens; in Iraq today there is no democracy, internecine sectarian violence continues, and in many important ways Iran’s position in the region was strengthened by the US intervention. So, assuming we even could somehow take out, or weaken, Assad, what could the national security apparatus of the United States possibly expect as a productive outcome for US interests!? The U.S. knows it doesn’t like the opposition forces (that’s why the Obama Administration has been reluctant to provide lethal military support). The United States fears that the opposition is sympathetic to Al-Qaeda or other extreme Muslim groups. I’m struggling to see what good for the United States will come from an attack on Syria.
I think this intervention plays perfectly into Al-Qaeda’s narrative and will undermine our global counter-terrorism efforts. It will surely increase instability in the Middle East possibly increasing the price of oil. Counter-terrorism and oil price management are the primary core national interests of United States in the Middle East. Limited strikes on Syria will undermine both of those goals.
So what is President Obama doing? I am dumbfounded.
The US Turns Its Eyes to Syria September 4, 2013Posted by Afflatus in Uncategorized.
Tags: Congress, executive power, Libya, Syria
add a comment
A couple quick thoughts on the impending Syria intervention by the United States:
Over the weekend the President stated that while he has the legal authority to proceed unilaterally and without Congressional approval, he will seek Congressional approval prior to engaging the armed forces in Syria. The legal authority for the President to engage — both from an international law standpoint, and a domestic law standpoint — is very ambiguous, and I would be very curious to read the administration’s legal memos on the subject. But ultimately the gray areas are where law is created, right!? I have written previously about the War Powers Act and the legality of the Libyan operation, so I’ll put this issue aside for now.
Unlike the Libyan operations — where the President did not seek Congressional approval, but Congress attempted (and failed) to assert its authority — the President with Syria is affirmatively seeking authority from Congress. The President argues in his speech that having a national debate, through our Congressional leaders, is the right thing for our democracy. Then he proceeded to lay out the case for why intervention in Syria is a good idea.
Seeking congressional approval is a good thing, whether or not Congress “rubber stamps” the issue, unquestioningly providing the authority to intervene, because it inherently demands that a deeper debate occur. I’m happy to see that this is already happening. Moreover, I would argue that Congress is not merely “rubber stamping” but rather they are providing meaningful checks on the executive: a limit on the duration of engagement to either 2-3 months, no boots on the ground, and the requirement that the President submit to Congress a report detailing U.S. aid to opposition groups in Syria. This is valuable, and it is to Mr. Obama’s credit that he jump-started this debate.
Again, the proposals coming out of Congress lead us back to whether any of this matters because ultimately if the President doesn’t need Congressional authority in the first place, then what meaningful checks can Congress place on the Executive? This is the stuff that gets decided in the court of public opinion. Precedent is being set here, and the judgment of public opinion will affect the “legality” of future interventions. (Precedent was set in Kosovo in 1999 even when President Clinton affirmatively stated that the intervention should not set precedent.)
Lastly, I’ll say that Congressional leaders would do themselves and the institution of Congress well by making sure to come up with reconciled language that authorizes the President to conduct a limited intervention. It’s clear that President Obama is going to intervene on a certain scale. If Congress wants to avoid its authority as an institution from being further undermined, it should produce a reconciled resolution authorizing the use of limited force in Syria, and it should do so fairly quickly.
I’ve yet to address the normative question of whether or not this is actually a good idea. I tend to think a limited intervention in Syria is, in fact, a good idea for the United States and the world. I’m persuaded by the argument that the chemical attack was tragically heinous and the world should not stand idly by. I believe we need to bolster the rule of law in the international community, and I think a small-scale intervention, hopefully with Arab, Asian, and European partners, bolsters a rules-based international regime (though I acknowledge that there are arguments supporting the view that this merely undermines the rule of law internationally). In general, though, I’d rather stay away from this normative question because, ultimately, I am so far from being in a proper position to address this question with any sort of accuracy or informed opinion. For better or worse, foreign policy is a facet of policy-making where we must trust our leaders.
Closing the Justice Gap September 26, 2012Posted by Afflatus in Uncategorized.
Tags: Legal, Public Interest
add a comment
Perhaps the biggest news in the public interest legal world right now is the new requirement that applicants to the New York Bar must have completed at least 50 hours of pro bono legal work. This is the first of its kind in the United States, but it’s easy to foresee that other states will soon follow New York’s lead.
The details of the program were announced on September 19 by Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, Jonathan Lippman. It’s a flexible program – the work can be performed anywhere in the United States, and it uses a wide-ranging definition of public service work. Work in law clinic, for example, will count towards the program as long as it is counted for school credit.
Those that are complaining about the new requirement should reconsider. This small requirement will help institutionalize the importance of public interest work for the legal profession. It will also energize the trend in legal education towards experiential learning, incentivizing schools to create more opportunities for their students to perform pro bono work. Indeed, this is already happening. New York Law School announced a new Pro Bono Initiative as a result of the new requirement.
Hannah Arterian, Dean of Syracuse University College of Law, complained the 50-hour requirement “is a whole other level of responsibility that the law schools have to take on.” Really? I hardly need to point out how cold-hearted and unsympathetic she sounds.
Those that can give back must do so. This will help us all remember that. 50 hours is not a very high number. This can be accomplished easily in one semester or one summer. The most reasonable objection is that the requirement will create additional burdens for legal aid organizations as they work to onboard and train the young attorneys-to-be. But this is a good problem to have. Public interest legal organizations can work with universities to make sure the students are capable and prepared. They will surely find ways to turn this additional talent into a resource to carry out their mission more fully.
It’s estimated that civil legal services providers in New York turn away as many as eight of every nine people seeking their assistance due to a lack of resources, according to a task force on legal aid formed by Lippman. Eight of every nine people in need! 50 hours is the least a new attorney should be required to do, and thanks to Judge Lippman, that is now the law.
This is a great step for New York, and for the tradition of pro bono legal work. Millions of New Yorkers in need of legal services will now receive it. Other states should raise their pro bono standards. Those lawyers that are already barred should take heed and redouble their efforts to help close the justice gap.
Speaker Boehner’s Latest Gimmick December 11, 2011Posted by Afflatus in Politics.
Tags: Boehner, Congress, Keystone, Obama, politics, Taxes
1 comment so far
Yet again the United States Congress is approaching crucial deadlines before which it must act in order to prevent devastating consequences from resulting. After averting a government shutdown by mere minutes in April, avoiding a default on its Treasury bonds in August, the federal government is once again on the edge of an abyss. This time the issues at hand are whether to re-extend a host of provisions that expire at the end of the year, and how to pay them. The expiring payroll tax cut, the expiring “doc-fix” which temporarily appropriates money to pay Medicare doctors, and the expiring unemployment insurance provisions are the main provisions at stake. Cue the political brinksmanship, backroom deal-making, and late-night Congressional sessions! Far from the best way to form policy, comprehensive, last-minute grand bargains appear to be the only way American “leaders” do it nowadays.
Goldman-Sachs economists estimate that letting the current payroll tax cut expire at the end of this month would reduce economic growth by as much as two-thirds of a percentage point in early 2012. The most recent data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis shows that in the third quarter of 2011 the economy grew at a rate of 2.0 percent. Letting unemployment insurance expire would remove money from the economy causing a further hit to America’s economic output and additional hardship for millions of American families.
After much wrangling in the Senate, Speaker Boehner on Friday unveiled H.R. 3630, comprehensive legislation that would extend the payroll tax cut at its current rate, extend (some) unemployment insurance, and extend the “doc-fix” for two years. This is all good and fine. The problem is how Speaker Boehner proposes to pay for the measures, which will cost roughly $166.8 billion in fiscal year 2012 according to the Congressional Budget Office. H.R. 3630 would accumulate $38.4 billion from Medicare spending cuts; $36.7 billion from increased federal employee retirement contributions; $35.7 billion from increased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage insurance rates; $33.4 billion from other health care offsets, such as cuts in the Affordable Care Act’s prevention fund; $16.5 billion from FCC spectrum auction; and an additional $36.6 billion from many small and miscellaneous cuts, many of which are problematic.
There a whole host of major problems with Speaker Boehner’s proposal. In addition to how the bill would weaken unemployment insurance, the bill contains all sorts of harmful policy-riders. The most brazen provision is one that requires the President to approve within 60 days the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. If the President does not approve the permit, H.R. 3630 would automatically trigger its approval on day 60. As a result of widespread protests against the Keystone XL pipeline, President Obama in early November delayed a decision on its permit until 2013. The President has said he veto any bill that contained a Keystone XL pipeline policy-rider such as this one. What’s more, the bill would delay new pollution standards for industrial boilers, extending a deadline for five years for companies to comply. The Environmental Protection Agency has completed the rule-making process on these standards and says the rules would cut pollution of mercury and soot. In October, House Republicans passed a bill that would have repealed these same EPA boiler standards, and once again, President Obama threatened to veto it if it reached his desk.
While the two policy-riders I just mentioned are perhaps the most flagrant, there are other deplorable provisions in the bill. One would restrict the Federal Communications Commission’s ability to impose net-neutrality conditions on wireless companies that purchase spectrum leases at auction. The bill also seeks to eliminate certain tax credits that illegal immigrants may be currently taking advantage of. While this bill is supposed to be about 3 important expiring tax provisions, House Republicans are attempting to use this opportunity to make significant policy changes to totally unrelated programs. One provision even makes substantial reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program.
Speaker Boehner is lining up the Republican Conference behind the measure, and it will almost surely pass the House before Thursday. However, there are so many provisions that cross red-lines for Democrats from all persuasions that it is almost guaranteed to fail in the Senate (assuming Majority Leader Reid even brings it up for a vote). President Obama has reiterated his veto, and called the legislation what it is: classic political maneuvering. Speaker Boehner used this exact same tactic during the April budget negotiations and the summer’s debt ceiling talks. In all three cases he has crafted legislation that his party can support, and that no Democrat will, and quickly passes it through his body of Congress, daring the President and Senate Democrats to reject it while they struggle to find a bi-partisan solution.
Speaker Boehner will pass this bill, which he has called “the Middle Class Tax Relief & Job Creation Act” in an attempt to gain bargaining power over Democrats. He knows this wont be the final solution to the expiring tax provisions, but by passing it through the House he gains leverage and helps guide the negotiations towards his preferred policy-outcomes. Will he get what he wants? For America’s sake, I sure hope not.
Making Sense of US Arms Sales to Taiwan August 22, 2011Posted by Afflatus in World Affairs.
Tags: Arms Sales, China, Diplomacy, East Asia, Taiwan
DefenseNews and a few other sources (including Taiwan’s defense ministry) are reporting that the United States has decided to deny Taiwan’s request for 66 new F-16C/D fighter aircraft. The Obama Administration has denied that this is true, but promised that it would make its final decision on the matter by October 1. According to the reports, the United States will make various upgrades to Taiwan’s older F-16A/B airplanes rather than granting Taiwan its request for the more advanced C/D class. These upgrades include a substantially more advanced radar system, better air-to-air missile, and fitting the planes to carry laser-guided bombs.
Taiwan wants the F-16C/D class in order replace its 60 Mirage 2000-5 and 60 F-5 Tigers that are due for retirement in 5-10 years. The 150 F-16A/B which the United States has offered to upgrade instead are aircraft it sold Taiwan in 1992 as part of a $6 billion dollar request. Taiwan also requested from France the 60 retiring Mirage 2000-5 in 1992, and the 60 F-5 Tigers are even older. So rather than receiving 150 new and improved F-16 jets, Taiwan will get its 1990’s F-16s upgraded. While the upgrade is qualitatively substantial, it does nothing to address the numerical problem of the 120 retiring aircraft in Taiwan’s arsenal. Moreover, further qualitative upgrades could have been made to the F-16A/B class, meaning the sale wont equip Taiwan’s F-16A/B with the very best radar system, or the best missiles.
Even more background is necessary to understand the larger implications of this decision. The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 is the law that governs US arms sales to Taiwan. It states that it is US policy “to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character;” in order to “enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.” The United States also promised China in a 1982 communique to gradually scale back arm sales to Taiwan. These two obligations are inherently contradictory, particularly as China’s military power projection grows. That same law requires the executive branch “to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion” by China that would jeopardize the security, or social or economic system of Taiwan’s people. China’s growing military strength along with American overstretch concerns call into question how sustainable this commitment can be. This trend is most recently exemplified by China’s Varyag aircraft carrier, which this month began its first sea trials.
The Balance of Power
The military balance of power between China and Taiwan is shifting significantly in China’s favor. China remains unwilling to renounce the possible use of military force against Taiwan, and its military posture is threatening. With the largest military in the world, China has substantial quantitative advantages over Taiwan even if only the Chinese forces in the Taiwan Strait area are counted. Whereas Taiwan’s military spending as a percent of GDP has decreased almost every year since 1994, China’s military expenditures have grown rapidly. In 2010, China’s military budget (including weapons research and foreign arms purchases) was $150 billion, while Taiwan’s was only $9.3 billion.
Today, China has a deployed arsenal immediately across the Strait from Taiwan of 1,050-1,150 short-range ballistic missiles and a large quantity of land attack cruise missiles. To counter this Taiwan has the state of the art Patriot missile defense system, which it received from the United States. But a recent report by Pentagon intelligence officials states that Taiwan’s ability to deny China air superiority is increasingly diminishing. The two country’s air forces are now roughly in qualitative parity, whereas China’s have historically been far behind in this regard.
It is clear that Taiwan would have great difficulty repelling a full-scale Chinese attack. While I’m not prepared to criticize the decision to reject Taiwan’s bid for advanced F-16’s, I do worry about China gaining an overwhelming and unrecoverable advantage in hard power terms. The United States is obligated to defend Taiwan in the case of Chinese unilateral aggression. While this commitment will become more burdensome as the balance of power shifts, it is a responsibility which the United States should welcome, as it advances America’s national interest. The active engagement of the United States has contributed greatly to the peace and stability between China and Taiwan; in addition to arms sales, America’s commitment to defend Taiwan is a critical deterrent against aggressive Chinese action. Taiwan is a democracy with a good human rights record, and it is a responsible and important player in the global economy. Further, America’s alliance with Taiwan provides the United States with many geopolitical and strategic benefits. For all these reasons, America must support Taiwan.
Taiwan arms sales are a delicate balancing act for the United States. While America must maintain a good relationship with China, it is important to preserve the balance of power across the Taiwan Strait. The difficult, but necessary task is for American diplomats to reconcile these seemingly incompatible goals.