The Cabinet

A few weeks ago, I wrote a piece proclaiming our freedom from The Regime of political families – Bush and Clinton alike – that had run the country since the 80s. And, alas, I counted my chickens before they hatched. Change is coming. But it seems the motives are not as pure as they seemed. For most, the change promised by President Obama painted a picture of progress; a new America; a return to glory. So why is our President turning to the leadership of the 90s when we need change for today?

This was my initial opinion with regard to his selections for cabinet. But after careful consideration and reading, I realized that many of these politicians carry one important trait: experience. And not only are they experienced, but they are also highly educated. Take, for example, Obama’s selection for Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner. He is the president of the Federal Reserve of New York, he has worked for the International Monetary Fund and has studied Chinese. Or, consider Robert Gates, the current Defense Secretary, who will keep his position in the new administration. Though both fall on opposite sides of the political fence, they are well educated and experienced in their field - making them prime candidates to serve in the cabinet.
And, to also ease my fears, Obama is planning to attack this economic crisis head on. How? He is making, or leaking, his cabinet faster than any President in history. On Monday Obama said, “"If we do not act swiftly and boldly, most experts believe that we could lose millions of jobs next year.” I am confident that if he follows through with this ethic throughout, that my fears will dissolve into trust.

President Obama has chosen many cabinet members with whom I have disagreed in the past. Particularly, Hillary Clinton – his chosen Secretary of State (still yet to be confirmed by the Senate, though). This is the one selection of which I am unsure. I feel that Clinton is not experienced enough with foreign policy. Not to mention the bitter relationship they have from the campaign trail. And, I am also fearful that the Clinton administration has too many familiar faces returning to office. So my hope must rest in Obama. I am hopeful that Obama will maintain control over these powerful political players, being that he is the least experienced politician of them all. In this statement, my hopes are strengthed:

To become Secretary of State, Sen. Clinton and also former President Bill Clinton have accepted restrictions. Ultimately, she must defer to the White House on policy. He [Bill Clinton]has agreed to list contributors to his foundation and also have his public speaking schedule approved by the White House. (Arthur I. Cyr)

Thus far, I am not sure what to make of his cabinet, but I respect it -- it has gone through one tedious job application. Though, with additions like Senators Bill Richardson as Commerce Secretary (though he may not be as clean as he seems) and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State you can absolutely expect former-President Bill Clinton to have some influence in the White House.
Former-President Clinton has many international business and political connections through his global foundation. Since exiting the office eight years ago, he has raised over $500 million for the foundation and has created relationships with many top ranking foreign officials and businessmen. Not to mention, he has relationships that still exist from his days as our President. So, the question arises: What, if any, are his business interests, and will they interfere with Hillary Clinton's abilities in office? Yes, he does offer foreign experience to the side of Hillary Clinton, but he also adds some potentially unwanted or misguided direction to her decision making.
President Obama’s cabinet is a very interesting mix of Republicans and Democrats. There are Senators, professors, and former cabinet members. There are well respected military leaders and carryovers from the Bush administration. The truth of the matter is that Obama is, seemingly, unconcerned by party lines. He is, though, interested in fixing the crisis that we face today in America. Regardless of whom the cabinet members served under in the past, they now serve a new President. And as such, the responsibility falls to Obama. His job is not easy. He must hold tight the reigns of these experienced politicians or else we may see the return Bill Clinton to power in American Politics. Barack Obama, as Your Daily Snitch notes, did do well to win America over during the campaign. But now he must follow through.

Black Friday = New Guitar (and apparently a lot of other stuff...)

UPDATED WITH CONSUMER STATISTICS ON DEC. 7, 2008

Black Friday is the most intense shopping day of the year. Though it may be full of greed and overconsumption, everyone hits the mall. Some stores open as early as 3am on the day after Thanksgiving. And, most can count on people sleeping outside the door before opening. But this year, with the economic crisis and all, will Black Friday fall flat?
I found myself as one of these shoppers. At 8am, I was already in my car and on the 8 East freeway towards east San Diego. My destination? Guitar Center. Lucky for me, Christmas came early as I grabbed a new Fender American Standard Strat. It’s white on black – but I replaced the pick guard with black. It plays beautifully. And man, is it nice to go shopping – especially when everything is 15% off. It would seem that I wasn't the only one racking in the great deals this weekend.
Based on the economic crisis, I assumed that consumers will halt spending – regardless of the deals offered by Black Friday. And it seems only rational. When the economy enters recession, spending slows. It is natural – less money in the bank means less money spent at the store. Yet, Black Friday, and the weekend that follows it, is not a normal shopping day. It is THE shopping day. But my optimism can only stretch so far.
Though, as I entered Guitar Center at 8:20am on Friday, my assumption lost ground. The store was packed head to toe with guitars. Less was I surprised by the quantity of guitars than by the number of people waiting at the register this early in the morning. Apparently 15% is enough of a discount to draw in the crowds. No wonder I had to park three blocks away.
After leaving the store and making it home past the mall traffic, I realized that this weekend was now an American tradition. Regardless of the economy, you can expect Americans to show up for the great holiday shop-a-thon.

As weekend spending totaled over $41 billion, it would seem that I was not the only winner. Statistics show that sales rose 1.9% on Friday and Saturday combined – surprising most. According to the 2008 National Retail Federation survey, over 172 million shoppers went shopping online or in stores during Black Friday. This is an astounding 25 million more people than last year. And, shoppers spent 7.2% more money on items – totaling an average of $372 this weekend.
The interesting note is that Wall Street didn’t do as hoped. Wal-Mart went down 1.4%, Target was down 3.9% and Best Buy lost 1.8%. But, overall, the DOW finished up 102 points (about 1.2%). What is key, though, is that over four trading sessions, it was up about 9%.
All in all, for consumers and the markets alike, it was a green day for our economy. Hopefully it will continue this good trend, but these hopes do rest in the clouds. As we now descend from the largest shopping day of the year, let us hope that Americans did not buy things that they couldn’t afford. Otherwise this crisis may just get worse.

Car Troubles

The American auto industry has hit rock bottom. And today, three of the major Detroit auto makers appealed to the government for emergency assistance. The industry is nearing the edge of collapse. Executives from General Motors, Ford and Chrysler were turned down in their bid to receive $25 billion from the governments $700 billion economic bailout.
According to Senator Michael B. Enzi, a Republican from Wyoming. “We have little evidence that $25 billion will do anything to promote long-term success.” And after four hours of testimony, the outcome remained bleak for the industry – two of the three major auto makers has stated that they could run out of money by the end of the year.
This is a sad time for America. The auto industry is not just an industry, it is a part of our culture. Henry Ford and the American auto industry led the country during the Industrial Revolution. Cars were symbols of the American Dream and a job in the auto industry was often where the dream began for American immigrants. And now, as it is teeters on the edge of the cliff, one question remains: Will the government save this industry again?

The auto industry is one of the leading job providers in the country. And as we face a growing recession in 2008, it would seem that a collapse in Detroit could only worsen the fall. They auto leaders are stuck in the middle of their own recession and adding the current economic crisis broke the camels back. It is necessary that the industry survive - necessary for American culture and the American economy.
The industry hosts 105 automobile plants in twenty different states. And, including the 14,000 car dealers, the automakers employ several million American workers. For the government to refuse assistance to a major industry in this economic crisis is unacceptable. It is the government playing favorites – and that is not what the government should do. Why bailout one part of the economy and not help another sector that is equally important?
Further, it is political suicide that our politicians are refusing to assist the industry, its workers, and therefore their constituents. Yes reforms are necessary, and the future of the industry may seem bleak. But it is better to keep the industry alive than to let it collapse in the midst of our already-unstable economy.

Now, of course there are major issues in the auto industry. The unionization of workers has assisted the failure of these auto makers. Half of the $50 billion that the industry asked for early in November was to be directed to healthcare alone. When a union such as the United Auto Workers (UAW) forces the hand of a company too far, the industry cannot compete successfully in a global market. Remember, Japan produces more cars than America. And being that as it is, American automakers must create business strategies to compete within the global market.
Changes are necessary. We cannot ignore the current crisis – we must assist the auto industry or else face worse economic downturn.

Top of the League Baby!

The best team in football? You may disagree, but that just means you're wrong. Don't worry, tons of people are wrong. Anyways, Chelsea reclaims first in the Premiership after defeating last place West Brom. We picked up an awsome striker, Nicholas Anelka, during the trade period. He picks up two wonderful goals in the match.

City Attorney Jan Goldsmith

The best part of this election cycle, for San Diego at least, is the victory by Jan Goldsmith over Michael Aguirre for city attorney. Aguirre, the man who turned the position of city attorney into a grossly powerful treasure hunt, was ousted after only one term. Having unnecessarily attacked Mayor Jerry Sanders and leading city councilmen, as well as having caused havoc during the October 2007 fires, Aguirre turned his position into a political madhouse. No longer will San Diego have to deal with a city attorney who wastes money on probe after probe without producing any results.
Jan Goldsmith represents a change that San Diego has been waiting for. With only 56% of the votes counted, he was already leading 59% to 40% over the incumbent. Being new to office, Goldsmith sent out a memo to all members of the city attorneys office. He is starting off on a good foot – being straightforward about his plans for the office:

Over the coming months, there will be a transition period. I will be straight with you -- there will be changes and some staff will be let go. I understand the anxiety, but I promise and commit to building a stable and positive work environment.

He has asked each staff member for a resume as well as:

a. A description of your work, which includes specific examples
b. A description of what you have accomplished while employed in the office
c. A highlight of cases or matter on which you are currently working
d. What you would like to do in the future, either in the office or elsewhere.

Finally, we have an attorney who knows how to run an office. The inner-circle of Aguirre will quickly be ousted for less-partisan lawyers. The former judge, Goldsmith, is the right man to help turn San Diego around.

President Barack Obama

Finally, this election season has come to an end. As has the Regime that America has been umbrella’d by over the past 20 years. Yes, a Regime. But not only does this historic election represent a change in leadership, it also marks a significant change in Washington. It is a day that will live in the memory of our nation, a day that will be celebrated in the hearts of millions.
Ever since George H. W. Bush stepped foot in the White House as Ronald Reagan’s Vice President, the name has failed to leave Americas lips. Formerly the head of the CIA, Bush entered the White House on January 20, 1981. He didn’t leave for 12 years. He was succeeded by “The Comeback Kid” Bill Clinton. Clinton served two terms as President and, before America could get the name “Bush” out of their mouth, George W. Bush – son of the former President – became the 43rd President of the United States. Now, finally, eight-more years later, America was almost stuck with another member of the Regime – Hilary. The idea that the White House has been dominated by two families for over 20 years is a rather frightening fact. But, today…today is different.
Alas, today is a great day in American history. President Barack Obama is the first African-American President of the United States. This is a turning point for the country – it signifies the true breaking from our racial prejudices of the past and a fresh look to the future of the nation.
It is important, though, that this day be a day where all Americans come together. The days of polar-politics must cease for the benefit of our nation. Hopefully, this is the change that Barack Obama can bring. If nothing else – maybe he can inspire the next generation of citizens to defend the liberties and freedoms awarded to us by the Constitution, to be the next leaders of this fine nation.

I heard a great quote this afternoon that I felt was inspired, though I don’t know who said it:

“Rosa sat so Martin could walk, Martin walked so Obama could run, and Obama is running so our children can fly”

This Was Kinda Cool...

Hey, I was just online reading something, and my friend sent me this video...I thought it was pretty cool..

Empty Promises?

“I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington…I’m asking you to believe in yours.” Barack Obama leads us to believe that the coming election is the most important political decision of our generation. He promises “Change We Can Depend On”, but it is not the change we need. Yes, both candidates promise much for the next term, and that fervor has spread through the American public. But as America faces economic collapse, two foreign wars and an ever-increasing national debt, there is little that one can hope our president will do in the next four years – regardless of who is elected.
After the $700 billion bailout, the economy has continued to run rampant. But, $700 billion is just part of the governments’ intervention into the economy – the purchase of AIG cost $85 billion, about $29 billion was pledged in the purchase of Bear Sterns by JP Morgan Chase, and the Congressional Budget Office says the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae could cost up to $25 billion. So this begs the question: with almost a trillion dollars committed to the economic crisis, where does either candidate find room for the oh-so-generous tax breaks that they promise?
Yes, Senator McCain offers tax cuts, but not as many as Senator Obama does. The problem is that both plans to cut taxes raise the national debt. From Obama, a $1000 family “Making Work” tax credit is available to 95% of working families. Now of course this will bring votes, but will the votes be rewarded? There is an underlying paradox that his plan misses: the bailout is going to be paid for by taxpayers – the same tax payers that Obama and McCain want to give tax credits and tax breaks to. So, how do they plan to actually pay for the bailout?
Whoever takes leadership in January is also stuck with an over-extended military. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are quietly being won by American forces, and though the end is in sight, it is still a ways away. The war in Afghanistan costs the government about $2 billion a week for 30,000 troops. Further, if Senator Obama begins to remove troops from Iraq, it will require much attention. Thus, if the President is focused on fighting and/or ending our foreign engagements, less will be focused on the broad range of changes promised to come from Washington.
And, as we are on the topic of foreign affairs, where, among all of the major issues facing our next leader, does either candidate find time to have talks with foreign leaders in Israel, North Korea, and other foreign nations that McCain and Obama want to engage? As we near voting time, I fear I cannot believe a word that spits from either candidates mouth.
When we turn to domestic issues, it is also unlikely that Senator Obama will bring about the changes he promises with regard to healthcare. He wants “affordable, accessible health care for all Americans” but he forgets that it will cost billions. In fact, he believes that, when in full swing, the program will cost about $50-60 billion each year. And, on top of that, he wants to cut coverage costs by $2500 for each insured family. Though this may sound great on paper, the implementation of such a plan would cost more money that the country has at hand – unless we want to be more financially subservient to the Chinese banks that loan the government most of its money.
The main issues of this election are straight-forward: healthcare, war and the economy. Both candidates promise change to Americans but neither have the power to instate this change. Our next leader will not be “he who brings change”. Rather, our President will be swamped with rollover issues from the Bush Administration. It’s less of a question of qualification: Senators Obama and McCain may be equally qualified to lead. It is a question of timing. This election, the only change may be the political party of our President. Though many Americans have bought into the “change” promised by both candidates, few realize that these promises are likely to be empty.

Lets Hope He Gambled Correctly

The most recent Gallup polls all have Obama beating McCain by 8 to 9%. But is that enough? And, I really mean it – though it may seem like the Obama-Biden ticket seems to have wrapped up the election with November nearing, they may need a double digit lead to even come close. Not only is Obama counting on young voters of America – those who have a historic tendency to fail to show up to vote – ,but he is also being potentially misled by the polls conducted day-to-day.This may sound harsh, but it is known as the Bradley Effect – as African-American governor-elect for California learned.
Back in 1982, Tom Bradley ran for Governor of California. He was the long-time mayor of Los Angeles, and though he was up in the polls (early prints of the San Francisco Cronicle read “Bradley Win Projected” on the cover), he was narrowly defeated in the final vote by “The Duke”. The Bradley Effect is the idea that, in a race with a white candidate and an African-American candidate, there is a tendency by some voters to tell pollsters that they are either undecided or more likely to vote for an African-American candidate and then, at the polls, actually vote for the white candidate.
Now, this may be diminishing in American politics, but it interesting to note that the polls may not be as accurate as they seem. Another problem with part of the Obama-Biden constituency is that it historically doesn’t vote. In 2000, young citizens (between 18-35), only 35% of the population voted. In 2004, though, the same group turned out 47%. This is much better – and it will hopefully be much higher in this election. Though the turnout rose 12% in 2004, it still lagged behind adults of all other age groups. In fact, 9% less young people between ages 18-25 vote. And Barack Obama is banking on these votes. Hopefully people our age vote, but chances are we won’t jump over 50% turnout – which is really a sad reality of our society.
What Barack Obama must have hope in is the fact that the Bradley Effect has diminished in this country. Though it is sad that a minority candidate must “hope” that the polls are not biased because of voter tendencies, it is a truth. Luckily, in the 2006 Senate elections, it seems that the Bradley Effect was much less present. Remember Senate-elect Harold Ford Jr. Well, probably not because his campaign lost in Tennessee. But, polling and voter records seem to be in line – white voters who said they would vote for Ford did vote for him. So, maybe it is a moot issue.
And, when we look at the youth, it seems that this election is much different than most. Not only is everyone “Rocking the Vote”, there is a real excitement and giddiness in university settings. People are ready for change, hopefully they turn out to vote for it.

Both Got It Wrong

There is an obvious, ever-growing – and increasingly formidable – need to reform the American healthcare system. The problem is that neither Sens. Obama nor Mccain has the solution – in fact, neither party has even come close. Instead, the American people are left with a half-assed, close-minded single-payer system that operates as an institutional “reform” that does little but put a band-aid on a deep flesh wound. While this may be better than no action at all, it is a failure with regard to the preservation of market capitalism in the health-care system. It is, though, a step in the right direction.
The main issue at hand is the question of how our government will subsidize health-care for the masses. To achieve “universal coverage” – as is the idea behind a single payer system – would require either having the government provide health insurance to everyone or forcing the citizens to buy it. But, because the government is infamous for doing a poor job of improving quality or efficiency, a single-payer system is undesirable. Further, a member of a free society – like ours – should have the right to refuse healthcare. In other words, what right should the government have in your personal medical affairs? Anyone should have the right to refuse forced cooperation in a governmental program. It may be in the interest, for example, for one to spend the funds afforded towards healthcare on other economic ventures – and the government should not have the right to influence individual economic decisions. Also, under a “universal system”, the cost of healthcare is transferred from the individual to the taxpayer – which, also, begs the question of fairness…Is it fair to force a perfectly healthy person to pay for another’s insurance needs? No.
Even without a “universal healthcare” system, there still lives the main principle behind the reform: the idea that health-care policy should focus on making health care of an “ever-increasing quality available to an ever-increasing number of people”. But, how does the government afford health-care in this country aside from using a single-payer system? Simple -- instead of using such a static and unflexible “universal model”, the government should maximize its options with regard to funding of health-care reform.
If the government desires to subsidize health-care, why should it be limited to subsidizing the program through a single-payer system? In other words, why doesn’t the government consider using cash, vouchers, insurance, public clinics and hospitals, uncompensated care payments or even tax exemptions to promote the expansion of health-care for the approximately 47 million uninsured Americans?
With this vast array of options, one can hope that the nation will avoid the problems of a single-payer system – as seen in Massachusetts – while still protecting the principles of our democratic-capitalist nation. A fine compromise.
Massachusetts learned – after implementing a state-wide, single-payer medical care system – that the program still cannot incorporate a portion of the population that is simply too poor to fit into the system. It is a sad reality about our capitalist democracy: there is always a population that is too poor to afford incorporation into the program. This is a direct example of the need for different forms of subsidies for the low-income class. And, through the use of multiple means of subsidizing health-care, the government can engage a growing social issue and, at the same time, maintain a competitive health-care market.
Simply put, it is becoming more and more necessary for the state to extend its arm of influence into the healthcare industry, but government must not do so through a single-payer insurance program has pitfalls and is limited in its scope of coverage. It is time for the American Congress to start thinking outside the box and act in the interests of the American people, not the interests of the health-care industry.

Between A Rock And A Hard Place

The anti-intellectualism of America is still quite alive and kicking. The Republican party does its best to turn this sentiment into votes as it attacks Senator Obama, the Harvard Law School graduate, by calling him “out of touch” with the needs of the American people. Today’s political arena is much different than that of our Founders. Instead of directly engaging in politics, we see intellectuals taking a different route – aggressive avoidance. William Buckley once famously stated that he would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than the entire Harvard faculty, and his idea seems to have stuck. So, as we see the Republican Party turn away from intellectual leadership – as well as an intellectual constituency – and turn to more radical, rural votes, we also see the development of Election 2008: Class Warfare.
Who would you rather have a beer with, George Bush or John Kerry? Just the simple fact that this question was a leader in influencing undecided voters in 2004 is testament to the notion that America is turning from the intellectual. Though both attended Ivy League universities – and are far from the “common man” – they tried to attract the “average voter” by presenting themselves as “normal citizens”.
Now this is not a bad thing. In fact, it is important that constituents trust their leaders. But, as the political constituency of the Republican Party continues to turn away from the cities and metropolitan areas, it is leaving behind a group of intellectual Republicans as it pursues the rural votes that it has depended on over the past eight years. This can be clearly seen in John McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
When the “maverick” Senator got the nomination, the Bush Republicans began to lose faith in “their party”. So who else to nominate in order to excite these voters than Sarah Palin – a pro-life, anti-stem cell research, anti-gay marriage governor of Alaska. Of course!
But now, where does this leave Republicans like myself? California Republicans are a little different than most. We’re all about leaving the economy alone (even though that’s basically not an option anymore) and we are a lot more lax about social issues. I’m stuck because I don’t want to vote for Obama-Biden because taxing the rich is not the answer, but voting for McCain-Palin leaves me with less hope than I have in Obama.
So today, I think it’s one of the hardest elections for the intellectual Republicans out there. We understand it is time for change – but Obama wants us to pay for everyone else to get in on it and Palin wants us to finally believe that the dinosaurs died 4000 years ago.
We really are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Political Tightrope

Many would argue that this coming election is one of the most pivotal moments in modern American history. And, in a time when private interests are running rampant – as seen with both the housing market and oil crises – it is important to play the role of the polis and keep an eye on those with whom we instill political power. The relationship between politicians and their constituents is pretty straight forward. The winning candidate, it would seem, is the one who best supports the wants and needs of the people. Very often, though, the media acts as a political agent by supporting a particular candidate. Fox News and CNN show viewers the “important issues” of the age; for example, the growing energy crisis, grossly large military spending, and corporate misdeeds. The media has grown into a necessary evil as a “political hub”.
In major campaigns today, politicians receive contributions from individuals as well as major corporations. This begs the question: do politicians have loyalty to those that finance large portions of their political campaigns? Further, one must investigate the extent to which external influences influence legislation. If it is, in fact, the case that large campaign donations do influence legislation, then it is important to look for this external influence in three major areas: major corporations, the military, and the media. As long as politicians are dependent on votes, they are subservient to public opinion. As politicians need campaign funds, they are loyal to different individuals – or entire industries – that fund them. And, as long as the United States hosts the beast that is the military industrial complex, so shall politicians have to engage it, and therefore be in close contact with military leaders. Politicians walk a very fine line: they need the media to portray their image in a positive manner, they are constantly influenced by corporate lobbyists and corporate funding, but they also must look back to the American people to fulfill their needs and wants. The big question is whether or not they do treat each vote equally – or if they simply consider lobbying interests, military needs and their media image.
First, let us look at the military influences upon politicians.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

President Eisenhower properly notes the problem of the military-industrial complex in 1961. And, as the military-industrial complex grew, it naturally began to consolidate and merge in order to grab a larger share-hold of the market. As Ike notes, after the Second World War, the defense industry was faced with a new issue: influence. Never before in our history had a war ended without the simultaneous breakdown of the arms industry and the shrinking of the military establishment. Because of this new found influence, every branch of the military eventually formed its own civilian alumni organization which worked as a lobbying organization between the industry and Congressional officials (this still occurs today). In other words, the military began to unionize – they began to group together and lobby for their own interests in Congress. Since the military has become its own interest group, we see it rapidly reaching its influence into the realm of the legislature.
Today, the Department of Defense spending – excluding the cost of war in Iraq and Afghanistan – budget has grown by about $143 billion since 2001 (FCNL). “Adjusted for inflation, military spending has grown by 27% over this period” (FCNL). And, this spending increase is in a post-Cold War country – a country where the military is one-third smaller than it was during that period. In 2006, world military spending totaled $1,158 billion and nearly half – $528.7 billion – was spent by the United States (FCNL). Why does this excessive spending not cause a tailspin within the American economy? Well, there are several reasons for this. The main explanation being that the government has begun to use the military budget as a public works project – it has created a gigantic military-industrial welfare program. Here is a great example of the relationship: Congress chose to pursue the construction of the MX missile based on the claim that it would create an average of 32,132 jobs each year – and twenty-three states would reap the benefits (Sherrill, Robert Why They Call It Politics 139,140). At the time, Representative Charles E. Bennett (Fl.) correctly stated, “That’s not a way to choose a multi-billion-dollar weapons system. To think a member of Congress would be so parochial as to spend money on a faulted weapon because it might produce jobs in his district is awful. Ye gods, that’s no way to do it” (Sherrill 139,140). As long as the military budget benefits the economy, we are truly stuck in a military-industrial-political complex.
On the Congressional side, politicians must focus so much of the budget on military expenditures. It is easy to understand how military leaders can have so much influence over the leadership of the House and Senate. Beyond the lobbying that occurs, all foreign affairs information is gathered by the Pentagon. All wars are fought by the different branches of the military. Further, the military provides more jobs than any other sector in the United States. So, because Congress must open the purse and fund the military-industrial complex (in order to keep foreign affairs and the economy in order), the military has, to a certain extent, power over political leaders. When it comes to leading a country, and when the military is the top hub of foreign political information, politicians must bow to the power of such a necessary “enemy”.
The military-industrial complex is powered by just that – industry. Companies like Boeing, KBR, DynCorp International and others vie for independent control over government projects. Not only does the military-industrial complex have a strong hand in government – through both extravagant funding and continuous political interactions – but the corporate leaders of America also try to extend their influence into the political realm.
A great example of the relationship between corporate America and political leaders is observed through the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Much before the act was brought to life, in fact, only nine days after being inaugurated President of the United States, President Bush and his administration created the National Energy Policy Development Group which was chaired by Vice President Dick Cheney (Bruce Barcott, Changing All The Rules p.8). The group had, in total, over 40 meetings with energy industry leaders throughout the year. In contrast, the group only met with thirteen environmental groups through the month of April in 2001 (Michael Abramowitz, Steven Mufson Papers Detail Industry’s Role in Cheney’s Energy Report). An important fact to mention is that the energy industry leaders that met with Vice President Cheney and his group include CEO’s from companies such as Exxon Mobile, Enron and Duke Energy.
The National Energy Policy findings were published in 2001 and became the leading recommendation among administration officials. So, when Senator Joe Barton (TX) introduced the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the main influence behind the bill was the National Energy Policy. It passed through the Congress with very little difficulty and was signed into law.
Through investigation, it is found that Senator Joe Barton has a history of relations within the oil industry (U.S. Representative Joe L. Barton. Biography). He was an aide to the Energy Secretary in 1981 (Barton). Then, after moving back to Texas, he worked for ARCO as a natural gas decontrol consultant. And, in 2004, he was elected chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. During his reelection campaign in 2004, he received thousands of dollars from political action committees that represent companies including Duke Energy, El Paso Corp., ChevronTexaco employees PAC, and ExxonMobile.
Now, by no means has Senator Barton ever stated that he works to promote legislation for the interests of the oil, gas and energy industries. But, being that he has relationships dating back to the 1980s with oil companies – he has worked on both sides of the “revolving door” – and that he received large sums of money from political action committees that represent energy corporations, it is strong circumstantial evidence that he was influenced by corporate interests to promote the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
So, when influence is considered, it would follow, rationally, that energy leaders would benefit more than, say, environmental leaders with regard to government funding through the act. And this is exactly the case. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 allowed tax reductions of $4.3 billion for nuclear power, $2.8 billion for fossil fuel, $2.7 billion for renewable electricity and $1.6 billion for clean coal (The Energy Policy Act of 2005). Every single industry that lobbied heavily for the legislation came out receiving billions of dollars in tax breaks. On the other hand, only $1.3 billion, the smallest sum allotted, was given in tax breaks for research and development of alternative motor vehicles and alternative fuel options.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is only one example of relations between corporate America and political legislation. But it is by no means the last. It is important to realize the key issue that allows for corporate influence in Washington. Campaign financing laws allow Political Action Committee’s (PAC’s) to donate up to $5,000 to candidates whereas individual donations are limited to only $1,000. Now, of course, one can argue that a PAC represents multiple individuals, and therefore should have the ability to donate more money than an individual. And theoretically, this is a good idea. But, in practice, it is used improperly. Instead, it allows corporate PAC’s to donate more money to politicians than individuals. Thus, political finance laws actually work to mute the voice of individual voters, while at the same time they strengthen the voices of corporate America. Mind you, corporate interests include aspects of the military industrial complex as well as the media. The media – a heavily consolidated block of leadership full of partisanship – is led by corporate leaders like Fox News, CNN, NBC and others. Their power lies in the masses.
Now, since it has been argued that politicians are less subservient to individual votes, and that they are more loyal to corporate and military desires, one must wonder the role of the news media. Well, first, the news media is the public’s major source of information – the oil that turns the wheels of government. So, with this in mind, let us investigate some of the major news organizations. FOX News is a subsidiary of News Corp. which is owned by a Republican, Rupert Murdoch. FOX News Channel is chaired by Republican political strategist Roger Ailes. Fox holds the largest audience in the country among news corporations. MSNBC, one of the other large news networks, has been called leftist by The New York Times – one of the more liberal print news providers. CNN is one of the largest broadcast news providers – owned by Ted Turner – and is also considered left (though it is probably the most unbiased of the prominent cable news sources).
Do not forget though, as John J. O’Connor – The New York Times television critic – stated, “Everyone knows the networks operate from a base of undiluted greed.” Though this may be grossly exaggerated, he makes quite a point. The media is a conglomerate of corporations, and the goal of a corporation is to earn profit. For example, no newspaper gives more than 40% of its paper-space to non-advertising material (Sherrill 402). The press is much less free than it may seem. A. J. Liebling correctly jokes that, “Freedom of the press is reserved for those who own one.” In other words, he is arguing that the freedom of press is held in the few hands that control the media – Rupert Murdoch, the Hearsts, the Grahams, so on and so forth. Being that these industry leaders do control the leading broadcast agencies in the country (some are even global) it is not farfetched that they have influence in politics.
Since broadcast media is the most prominent form of news – that such a large population is receiving its news from this source – it is scary that partisanship exists. But regardless, politicians must deal with this fact. The media has the power of the masses. The image of a politician can be controlled for either positive or negative means by the media. So, because politicians depend on the media, a bond is created. And, within this bond, the media leaders have the power – public opinion. A powerful statistic that shows the extent to which politicians go to achieve a positive media image is that during the 2003-2004 presidential election cycle, candidates, party offices and independent “527” groups spent $1.78 billion on campaign consultants, of which 67% dealt with the media (The Center for Public Integrity).
On the other side of the coin, the media is able to use its power to pursue its own agenda. For example, if the media leaders object to a bill in Congress, it is within their ability to persuade public opinion against the legislation. And, visa versa, if the news moguls like a piece of legislation, they will act accordingly. The danger is that their agenda may not coincide with the needs and wants of the people.
The three major powers – military, corporate and media – work to influence political decision making. The power of the military is its foreign policy prowess and military strength. The corporate powers are seen through extensive lobbying and campaign donations to candidates, all with the hope of influencing legislation. The media holds the most important power, the public opinion. It can twist and turn any story as it wants. Therefore, it has the power to make and break political careers. It comes down to the polis – the people. We must be the watchdog that is informed and intellectual.
What is important to note is that these three powers are able to create access. By no means does their presence guarantee an outcome. Rather, they pay a hefty sum to simply have access to politicians – some of whom fall under the non-democratic trend of following corporate interests and bribes. This is the influence that corporate, military and media leaders have. They hire lobbying firms, host campaign fundraising parties and invite Congressmen to golf tournaments simply to enjoy the opportunity to persuade an official.

A Guy Who Lives In My Neighborhood

The guy in the “neighborhood” is not always someone you want to associate with. For Obama, this is exactly the case. Just because Bill Ayers is just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood” (Obama), does not make him a worthy or acceptable associate. First, let’s give some background. Bill Ayers was leader among the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in 1968 and 1969 before deciding that the action taken by this “new left” movement was not enough. Growing continuously more militant, he and his sect broke from the SDS and formed their own group, the Weatherman underground. He participated in the bombings of the New York City police headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and The Pentagon in 1972. He has stated his non-repentance three times.
So today, one would assume that an older, wiser, less activist Bill Ayers would be around. Wrong. Ayers, today, is an education reform advocate with a focus on transforming teaching and curriculum. So, it would seem he is now on the right track. Wrong again. He isn’t sorry for destroying millions of dollars of federal property, and on September 11, 2001, he is even quoted in the New York Times as saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” But, for Obama, because he is a University of Illinois at Chicago professor of Education, it’s ok. Because it happened 30 years ago, we can let it slide. Well, The Wall Street Journal would disagree. In an article by Stanley Kurtz, several disturbing aspects about the relationship between Obama are further exposed.
From 1995 until 1999, Barack Obama led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), remaining on the board of directors until 2001. The connection lies here: The CAC was created by Bill Ayers. According to the Journal, Mr. Obama’s “first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched in 1995 at Mr. Ayers’s home.” They definitely have a history of business and political relationships. Now, let us investigate the extent of their relationship through this organization.
The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created with the hope of improving Chicago’s public schools. Funding comes from a national education initiative from Ambassador Walter Annenberg. As the first chairman appointed in 1995, Barack Obama worked closely with the guiding force of CAC, Bill Ayers. According to Kurtz, public documents provide proof that the two collaborated on funding initiatives – which schools to endorse, which to not. So, how did Mr. Obama, having only experience as a community organizer and fresh out of Harvard Law, jump to the head of this foundation? Documents also show that Mr. Ayers was one of a group of five people who created the board, and being that Ayers founded the CAC, no one could be appointed without his approval -- lets face it, Bill Ayers is not just the guy next door.
Next, lets look at the function of the CAC. The foundations agenda is mostly rooted in Bill Ayers’s education philosophy – he is a teacher at University of Illinois at Chicago. But, his philosophy calls for empowering students and parents to have radical political commitments. The foundation also downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism, according to the article. Being that Ayers worked at a radical alternative school in the mid-1960s, it would make sense that a similar radicalism is present today. “It works like ‘City kids, city teachers’ and ‘Teaching the personal and the political,’ Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression.” This sounds good, but it undermines the entire education system, and has no proven success rate with regard to educational excellence. On funding issues, the foundation has removed its focus on math and science excellence and instead has filtered money through various far-left community organizers, “such as the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (or Acorn)”. The final issue is that Mr. Obama actively worked on leadership training seminars and used Acorn and CAC assistance is his early campaigns.
Now, I’ve yet to decide who I want to vote for. I’m scared of Mrs. Palin’s inexperience and Mr. McCain’s age and senility, yet I am becoming more terrified of the other ticket. At least with McCain and Palin you get a weaker federal branch, and you get to be led in a better balance of power (i.e. a stronger Congress). Yet, when I think about the political relationships Obama has had, I am afraid if he is in office with someone as experienced in working the political system as Joe Biden, I slowly become fearful of their potential for radicalism and what they may do in office, rather than what McCain-Palin won’t do.

The Man Who Asks too Many Questions

What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? Why do drug dealers still live with their moms? What kind of impact did Roe v. Wade have on violent crime? Co-authors of Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner instantly landed in the “New York Times Bestsellers” section. Steven Levitt, in particular, is a great example of a modern day leader in his field.
A 1989 graduate from Harvard University, he received his Ph.D. at MIT in 1994. In 2003, he was awarded the John Bates Clark Medal which is awarded bi-annually to the most promising economist under the age of 40. He is quite an intellectual, and he is also one of the most recognized economists amongst laypeople. Today, he is a Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago.
When I hear the word “economist”, I think of Alan Greenspan and a group of old, boring conservatives who raise and lower the interest rate. Luckily, Steven Levitt crushes this stereotype. Jokingly calling himself a “rogue economist” Levitt is not just concerned in the interest rate. He applies his mathematic equations to questions that have social impact. What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? Would you believe that they are both…cheaters? Levitt finds pretty convincing evidence of teachers cheating for students on standardized tests and sumo wrestlers throwing matches for a payoff.
Or, what about drug dealers’ living situations? Well, as they say in the book, “if you ask enough questions, strange as they may seem at the time, you may eventually learn something worthwhile”. The crack dealers that the study focus’ on worked in a gang that is structured like a corporation with franchises (different gangs in different areas) all under a (they literally were called this) “board of directors”.
Levitt likes to ask questions. One of the most controversial studies he did in 2001 in a paper titled Legal Abortion and Crime Effect. Levitt, and co-author Jon Donohue, argue that since Roe v. Wade, legalized abortion can account for almost half of the decrease in crime that occurred in the 1990s. Now, this is not a truth, this is just an argument. And it is a very interesting at that. There is much criticism to this argument. In 2005, two economists published a paper arguing against the methods used in determining the findings. The Economist notes the debate in a December 1, 2005 article:

Abortion, legalised throughout the United States by the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade ruling in 1973, prevents unwanted pregnancies from becoming unwanted children. Higher abortion rates from the 1970s onwards thus help to explain why crime rates fell in America about two decades later.
That's the theory. But a paper published last week by Christopher Foote and Christopher Goetz, two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, finds an embarrassing hole in the evidence. Messrs Donohue and Levitt subjected the data to a battery of tests, some suggestive, others more systematic, in an effort to prove the links in the chain. The challenge is to distinguish the role of abortion from other potential influences on crime, many of which cannot be observed directly.

Donohue and Levitt have since responded to the argument. A key statement made to NPR by Steven Levitt is:

The numbers we're talking about, in terms of crime, are absolutely trivial when you compare it to the broader debate on abortion. From a pro-life view of the world: If abortion is murder then we have a million murders a year through abortion. And the few thousand homicides that will be prevented according to our analysis are just nothing—they are a pebble in the ocean relative to the tragedy that is abortion. So, my own view, when we [did] the study and it hasn't changed is that: our study shouldn't change anybody's opinion about whether abortion should be legal and easily available or not. It's really a study about crime, not abortion.

He shows himself as one who is both a humanitarian and a scientist. The duo has re-subjected their statistics to more tests in order to prove their legitimacy. But regardless, Steven Levitt is working not just to develop his field for the future, but also to change the public view of his field. So, is he a public intellectual?
Being that he has graduated from both Harvard and MIT, works as the director of University of Chicago’s The Becker Center on Price Theory, and is considered one of the best economists under 40, it is easy to call him an intellectual. So let us take it a step farther. In response to Stephen Mack’s piece The “Decline” of the Public Intellectual, I wrote a piece asking what, in fact, is a public intellectual? Really, the public intellectual evades a description and rather must fulfill a set of requirements. Among these requirements, Mack notes the importance of criticism. Steven Levitt is a social critic, though an economist. Through questions ranging in topic from the Ku Klux Klan to the drug trade to cheating teachers, Steven Levitt finds a way to contextualize the ways that these groups function and act within society. And he does it in a way that the layman can understand.
So to re-ask the question, is Steven Levitt a public intellectual? Yes, by all means. And not only is he a leader within his field but he is also helping others rise to level. After publishing his first book Freakonomics, Steven Levitt and his co-author Stephen Dubner created a blog. Since picked up by The New York Times, they continue to run the site and they have expanded their influence even farther. Steven Levitt is not only a public intellectual, but he is also a young leader who has many more years of thought provoking social criticism that only an economist can give.

What is the Role of a Public Intellectual in A Democracy

In a liberal society as ours, we cherish the individual. The American Constitution protects the rights to individual freedoms. The Supreme Court has even interpreted the Constitution to provide an individual right to privacy (though it may seem to be quickly disappearing). Further, democratic government has been established, in the first place, because of the individuals’ attempts to protect private property and personal interests. It would seem, then, that modern life in our democracy is focused on the individual. “I” want, “I” need, and “I” desire – I have an ego.
In America, unlike many parts of the modern world, free speech reigns free. In fact, America is the destination for many important intellectual dissidents of tyrannous regimes and unethical leadership. This fact is true because the United States provides the means for public discourse on the major issues concerning humanity. Yet in a land where each individual is just that – an individual – how can such a discourse occur without conflicting egos and interests?
In a panel discussion on the issues concerning the public intellectual, John Donatich asks this question:

What does a country built on headstrong individualism and the myth of self-reliance do with its people convinced that they know best?

In a country where Senator Barack Obama is he who will provide “change we can believe in”, a country where Sen. John McCain and his running-mate Gov. Palin are the “Ticket for America”, a country where individuals try to bring about their own change, it would seem that Donatich’s question is a troublesome one. What, in fact, is the role of a public intellectual in a democracy – a land full of individuals?
Often, leaders of their respective fields – everything from economics, chemistry, philosophy, law, even leaders of countries – are represented within the intellectual elite. Now, this is by no means always the case, but to an extent, it is arguable that those leaders are often some of our highest regarded scholars. Well, we all know where this argument leads…anti-intellectualism. In a nutshell, this argument slowly develops into the elitist view of the intelligentsia within a society. But is there merit to this argument? Because, if the “intellectual class” in fact exists, then the argument follows that the laypeople fear these intellectual leaders. Their fear is, as Adam Smith famously notes:

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public…

That those with knowledge will use it for personal gain, so on and so forth. In accordance with the warning of Smith’s statement, the public sentiment of fear is rather well grounded. Stephen Mack addresses this issue of anti-intellectualism in his article The “Decline” of Public Intellectuals:

As to what Donatich derisively calls a “headstrong individualism and the myth of self-reliance,” it’s worth noting that he’s not giving us full-fledged descriptions of real political ideas but caricatures of an imagined psycho-cultural disposition. An “immature” disposition, at that. One can almost hear the sit-com dad railing against his willful, stubborn, impetuous kid who has once again gotten himself in trouble because he refused to heed Pop’s unwaveringly wise advice. And in this myth, common-folk (like kids) always get into trouble because they lack what all paternal intellectuals have by birthright—impulse control. The infantile common-folk who comprise the “mob” has been the star of elitist melodrama for centuries; they’re also “exhibit A” in nearly every hand-wringing, anti-democratic treatise in the western tradition. Now, are some people ill-equipped for self-government? Of course. But the strongest alternative argument, the best argument for democracy, is not that the people are “naturally” equipped for self-government—but that they need to become so, and, moreover, experience is the only teacher. So here’s the point: Any argument for the public intellectual that, like Donatich’s, rests the assumption that common citizens are forever childlike and must be led by a class of experts is politically corrosive and historically dangerous.

Now, let’s investigate as to what the public intellectual is. This country cherishes the individual, but the arguments promoting headstrong individualism and self-reliance have been debunked, so what does that leave us with?
Recent trends show that record numbers of students are attending College. The number of educated individuals within society is on the rise. Though there exists the “educated poor” within society, those who attend a university, as compared to those who only complete high school, often make substantially more money over their lifetimes. Statistics show, though not guarantee, that higher levels of education lead to better paying careers. Because it is argued that there is a high correlation between education and income (though not a guaranteed relationship), it would seem that we hold educated individuals in high esteem. We pay them a lot to do what they do so well – whatever it may be.
So, the country regards both individuals and educated peoples as important within society. Well where do you slip in the ego, the individual, the “I”? Here we have the public intellectual. The educated leaders within society, those that lead their fields and use their voices to question social and humanitarian issues. Now it’s not to say that ego is necessarily a bad thing – how else can one stubbornly (for lack of a better word) stand up to political and social leaders. For those intellectuals that want to voice their opinions and ideas for social and political change, ego is necessary.
A public intellectual is can come from any realm of study. Steven Levitt, for example, is a University of Chicago economics professor. But, the reason he is considered a public intellectual, in a nutshell, is because of the work he does with regard to social change. The role of the public intellectual is not to necessarily be an activist, but to be an informant. If knowledge is power, then the intelligentsia has power. It is the necessary duty of the public intellectuals to wield this power with caution. It is important that the public intellectual is constructively critical of social progress and change. It is important that he constructs his criticism on rational arguments and reasoning. So why is it the role of our intellectuals within society to wield this power? It is not just because of their power within society but as Stephen Mack argues, “[It is] because learning the processes of criticism and practicing them with some regularity are requisites for intellectual employment. It’s what we [intellectuals] do at our day jobs.”

Change Ain't A Comin'

Though Barak Obama has faced much criticism already this election cycle, he has continued to struggle in foreign policy. So, naturally, he would select a foreign policy buff for vice president. But rather than following his own ideals, Sen. Obama has followed the party in selecting long-term Senator Joe Biden. In a campaign centered around “Change We Can Believe In” (he even sells this phrase on a t-shirt on his website), it is difficult to expect anything other than traditional party politics. With his selection of Senator Joe Biden of Deleware, Sen. Obama simply confirms that he is willing to play all the political games of the past.
Joe Biden joined the Senate in 1973. Nixon was still in office; Vietnam was still ongoing; Elvis was still alive. Barack Obama was only 12 years old. Sen. Biden is now serving his 6th term, the sixth longest period among current senators. He is a powerful veteran of the political world. Senator Biden ran for and failed in his first attempt at the presidency in 1988 (the same year that Obama joined Harvard Law School). Since then, he has been an influential chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
In 2002, Biden stated that Sadaam Hussein was a threat to national security and that the threat had to be eliminated. He supported the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq which justified the war. But this is the same for many Democrats who feel they were tricked, with false military information, by the current administration. What is odd is Biden’s exit plan: Biden is an advocate of breaking Iraq into three ethnic states. He supports neither the current plan for Iraq nor a withdrawal plan, as Senator Obama does. His desire to have Iraq broken in to three eithnic states was released in a comprehensive outline, and as a result, Iraq’s political leadership and the American Embassy in Iraq both denounced the plan. And further, some senior military planners cautioned that this type of policy could lead to up to the addition of 100,000 troops in the region, over the coming years. This Iraq War strategy is a far cry from Senator Obama’s plan, The Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007, which the senator himself introduced and promotes troop caps and benchmarks.
“We are the change we seek.” (Barack Obama, 5 February 2008). But, Biden may not be. Though, he was selected for a reason. And he may just be the ticket to the Presidency for Barack Obama. Biden has a few important political qualities: he appeals to many middle class and blue collar workers and he is willing to criticize Senator McCain. He’s rough and tough, just what Senator Obama was lacking. He also has much experience in Foreign and National security which is one point that Senator McCain continues to point out as Sen. Obama’s weak spot.
With no incumbent president, a woman on the Republican ticket, and an African-American on the Democratic ticket, we are geared toward change. Though Sen. Biden may be one of the most senior members of the Senate, and though he may have an outburst or slip of tongue during the campaign trail, he may be exactly what Presidential hopeful Barack Obama needs.