On its face, the IRS scandal involving the questioning of 501(c)(4) applications by conservative Tea Party groups looks bad, and it is, but it's not terrible. David Brooks makes a good point in his NYT column on the issue, generally critical, but pointing out that most Tea Party groups hate the IRS, which is reviewing their applications, and would eliminate it or drastically limit it. Brooks says, "It’s hard to tell now if the I.R.S. scandal is political thuggery or obliviousness. It would be one thing if the scandal is just a group of tax people targeting the most anti-tax groups in the country. That’s just normal, run-of-the-mill partisan antipathy."
In addition, the 501(c)(4) provision is bad policy, as Steve Rattner wrote in the NYT, and as Stephen Colbert illustrated when he created his bogus, but legal, Super PAC during the last election cycle. Rattner points out the one of the biggest advantages of 501(c)(4) status is that the group does not have reveal the names of its donors. Carl Rove has worked out a scheme where he collects money through his 501(c)(4) so that he does not have to reveal donors' names, and then transfers the money to his Super PAC. In theory the 501(c)(4) group should not be overtly political, but the Super PAC can be. So, the IRS was given the job of overseeing one of the most controversial election financing provisions, something that should be overseen by the Federal Elections Commission, but the FEC is toothless and worthless, the IRS is probably a better organization to it, if you are interested in protecting the American people from election fraud. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has only strengthened the legal channels for political corruption in America.
So, the IRS made a little stand against political corruption, and it has been viciously attacked for doing so. It is at fault, particularly if it routinely granted 501(c)(4) status to liberal groups while giving conservative groups a hard time. However, the real problem is the corrupt politicians who passed section 501(c)(4) in the first place so that their campaigns could rake in millions of dollars in untraceable contributions.
Friday, May 17, 2013
Try Diplomacy with Syria
Here's an op-ed in the NYT by a real FSO in Colorado, Amb. Christopher Hill, arguing the case for diplomacy to solve the Syrian civil war. I think it is worth a try. We should be having meetings with the Russians, the Syrians, and anybody else signficantly affected by the war, like the Jordanians and Turks; however, I am not optimistic that anything will stop the bloodshed, including American boots on the ground, much less creating a no-fly zone, or other half-way measures. It is becoming increasingly clear that the US intervention in Libya, which appeared to be relatively cost-free and successful, was not so successful. The attack on the American mission in Benghazi, the attack on the Amenas oil facility in Algeria, and the al Qaida unrest in Mail all showed the remaining power of the Libyan rebels who do not like us. So, the American intervention in the relatively manageable Libyan civil war, was less than completely successful. Whether it turns out to be 25%, 50% or 75% successful, only history will tell, like the war in Iraq. Hopefully Libya will turn out better than Iraq. Unfortunately one of the best American strengths in Libya, the well-liked Ambassador Christopher Stevens, was killed by the anti-American group Ansar al Sharia, weakening America's future role there.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Too Much Benghazi
I have had enough of the Republicans' screaming about Benghazi. They are overjoyed that Amb. Stevens was killed, and they are dancing on his grave, making political capital with his death. They, of course, argue that it is the administration and the Democrats who are dishonoring his death by not saying that he was killed by terrorists. If you compare Benghazi to the friendly-fire death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan, where the Bush administration actually lied to cover up the fact that he was killed by friendly fire, there is no doubt that the Obama administration was more honest and more concerned about the death of those serving this country.
Only recently has it become clear that Benghazi was neither an embassy nor a consulate; it was some kind of other diplomatic mission, which seems to have been devoted to the CIA. There were relatively few State Department personnel there; the Ambassador and an IT specialist just happened to be visiting when the attack occurred. It's not clear what the CIA was doing; they could have been advising local leaders on political and security issues, or they might have been planning drone attacks on the very people who attacked the mission. If that's the case, they were just too slow.
I also think it's unbalanced to have a man of outstanding moral character arguing with a low-life like Issa. Wikipedia says Issa was accused of several car thefts, although he apparently was never convicted, and collected on a large fire insurance policy on his company under suspicious circumstances. He apparently served honorably in the military, although apparently without leaving the US or serving in combat. Meanwhile, Ambassador Pickering is an honorable man who has served in many senior jobs in the State Department, as ambassador to several countries and as assistant secretary and under secretary in Washington. While I was an intelligence analyst in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, I worked with Pickering when he was Assistant Secretary for Oceans, Environment, and Science, and had such a high opinion of him that he is one of the reasons I stayed in the Foreign Service.
Ambassador Pickering's report led to the firing of several State Department employees from their jobs dealing with security. The Republicans are less interested in security; they are only interested in the talking points prepared for Ambassador Rice the Sunday after the Benghazi attacks, claiming that the talking points were modified for political reasons because of Obama's election campaign.
There seems to be some consensus that the attack was carried out by a group called Ansar al Sharia, although different from the group with the same name in Yemen. This group made a positive name for itself during the rebellion against Qaddafi, but it aroused hostility by its attack on the Benghazi mission, especially since Amb. Stevens was well known and loved by the Libyan people. It does not appear that it has done anything of significance since 9/11/2012. It seems to me that in a rational world the Republicans would be mad at Ansal al Sharia for killing the Americans, rather than at President Obama for allowing some watered-down talking points to be used while the US Government was still trying to figure out exactly what happened.
Only recently has it become clear that Benghazi was neither an embassy nor a consulate; it was some kind of other diplomatic mission, which seems to have been devoted to the CIA. There were relatively few State Department personnel there; the Ambassador and an IT specialist just happened to be visiting when the attack occurred. It's not clear what the CIA was doing; they could have been advising local leaders on political and security issues, or they might have been planning drone attacks on the very people who attacked the mission. If that's the case, they were just too slow.
I also think it's unbalanced to have a man of outstanding moral character arguing with a low-life like Issa. Wikipedia says Issa was accused of several car thefts, although he apparently was never convicted, and collected on a large fire insurance policy on his company under suspicious circumstances. He apparently served honorably in the military, although apparently without leaving the US or serving in combat. Meanwhile, Ambassador Pickering is an honorable man who has served in many senior jobs in the State Department, as ambassador to several countries and as assistant secretary and under secretary in Washington. While I was an intelligence analyst in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, I worked with Pickering when he was Assistant Secretary for Oceans, Environment, and Science, and had such a high opinion of him that he is one of the reasons I stayed in the Foreign Service.
Ambassador Pickering's report led to the firing of several State Department employees from their jobs dealing with security. The Republicans are less interested in security; they are only interested in the talking points prepared for Ambassador Rice the Sunday after the Benghazi attacks, claiming that the talking points were modified for political reasons because of Obama's election campaign.
There seems to be some consensus that the attack was carried out by a group called Ansar al Sharia, although different from the group with the same name in Yemen. This group made a positive name for itself during the rebellion against Qaddafi, but it aroused hostility by its attack on the Benghazi mission, especially since Amb. Stevens was well known and loved by the Libyan people. It does not appear that it has done anything of significance since 9/11/2012. It seems to me that in a rational world the Republicans would be mad at Ansal al Sharia for killing the Americans, rather than at President Obama for allowing some watered-down talking points to be used while the US Government was still trying to figure out exactly what happened.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Income Inequality Changes Housing Market
Income inequality is putting more and more houses into the hands of the wealthy 1 or 2 percent, raising prices and making it more difficult for regular people to buy a house. Stories in the Washington Post and the New York Times document this phenomenon. The big investors buying the homes are counting on regular people not being able to buy and having to rent the homes the investors are buying. The New York Times says that the investors are taking a risk, because renting a large number of single family houses is a new undertaking that is difficult to manage. The investors say that computer technology will allow them to keep up with the numerous records, repairs, etc., that have to be kept for each house.
The Washington Post says that in the formerly depressed Florida market, big investors are buying as much as 70% of the houses sold, perhaps inflating the figures indicating a revival of the housing market. These are houses that had been owned by individuals until they were foreclosed. Now they will be rental units being rented by the rich to regular people, who used to own their homes. The Washington Post says the percentage of Americans owning their home has fallen from 69.2% to 65.4% since 2004.
The attraction for big investors is that very few assets these days pay any significant return. Bond and stock yields are low and the risk is relatively high for the low return of 1 or 2%. Buying cheap, foreclosed properties that can yield an 8% return quickly is inviting.
Both articles point out the risks for investors if there is another housing downturn, but the problem with income inequality is that for the rich, an investment that turns sour is not the end of the world, while for a regular person, losing his only home to foreclosure is something like the end of the world.
The Washington Post says that in the formerly depressed Florida market, big investors are buying as much as 70% of the houses sold, perhaps inflating the figures indicating a revival of the housing market. These are houses that had been owned by individuals until they were foreclosed. Now they will be rental units being rented by the rich to regular people, who used to own their homes. The Washington Post says the percentage of Americans owning their home has fallen from 69.2% to 65.4% since 2004.
The attraction for big investors is that very few assets these days pay any significant return. Bond and stock yields are low and the risk is relatively high for the low return of 1 or 2%. Buying cheap, foreclosed properties that can yield an 8% return quickly is inviting.
Both articles point out the risks for investors if there is another housing downturn, but the problem with income inequality is that for the rich, an investment that turns sour is not the end of the world, while for a regular person, losing his only home to foreclosure is something like the end of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)