Newsday

Obama: Congress Should Let Panel Set Medicare Payments | Newsday

Cecille Isidro — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:35:00 -0400

"It could be huge," said economist Len Nichols of the nonpartisan New American Foundation, who supports the idea. Yet many lawmakers on both sides of the ...

Schumer's Health Care Compromise to Face Test | Newsday

Cecille Isidro — Sat, 09 May 2009 22:59:00 -0400

Schumer's approach is based on work by economist Len Nichols of the think tank New America Foundation. His compromise could cost more and save less, said Karen Davis of The Commonwealth Fund, but would still work. The final health-care bill might drop ...

No. 1 in Arms Peddling | Newsday

Communications — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:00:00 -0500

The United States peddled $32 billion in weapons in 2007 according to The New America Foundation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit public policy institute. ...

Steven Hill in Newsday | Will Candidates Falter Without Independents?

Communications — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:06:00 -0500

Without independents, will McCain, Obama falter? (Newsday) "Certainly, closed primaries are better for those who have a stronger following among party faithful," said Steven Hill, the director of the political reform program for the nonpartisan New America Foundation.

Candidates Should Get Serious about Pakistan

Ron Tang — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0500

"Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks presidents," goes the old Granite State-boosting saying. We shall see.

But in the meantime, the presidential wheat is being separated from the chaff, to change the metaphor.

And amid the excitement of the presidential horse races, we might pause over just one of the urgent challenges that the 44th president will confront -- and sadly, in terms of policy, there's plenty of chaff, not much wheat.

Pakistan, for example, is home to at least 75 nuclear weapons. It is also a next-door neighbor to Iran and Afghanistan.

Which is to say, it's an important place, worthy of serious discussion, not just cheap sloganeering. And we have already seen the results of foreign-policy fecklessness: the assassination of Benazir Bhutto on Dec. 27. Her killing was more than a tragedy; it was a blunder.

And it was a blunder that bridged party lines. In the past few months top Republicans and Democrats in the executive and legislative branches had reached a seeming consensus on Pakistan policy: Praise Bhutto and root for her political comeback, while demanding that President Pervez Musharraf allow "free elections."

Yet, nobody in Washington seems to have thought through the basics of this policy. For example, was Bhutto in any way capable of carrying out the pro-American policies she pledged while swanning her way through the salons of Manhattan and Georgetown?

And of course, nobody here thought through how to keep her safe there.

Now Bhutto is dead, Musharraf is still in charge and who knows about the next election? Can there even be an election in a country perpetually on the brink of civil strife, maybe even civil war?

But in the meantime, leading U.S. presidential candidates continue to talk big, as if recent events demonstrate just how easy it is for America to have its way in Pakistan.

First, during the ABC News Democratic debate on Saturday night, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico said he would ask Musharaff to "step aside," assuring the obviously skeptical moderator, Charles Gibson, that "we have the leverage to do that."

Now we might ask: How would President Richardson pull off that kind of leveraging? The Pakistanis treasure their independence as much as we do; one of the reasons why they built all those A-bombs is that they were tired of being pushed around by foreigners.

Richardson may think that issuing public orders to foreign leaders will get him votes in America, but Americans might think about the whirlwind to be reaped in response to presidential braggadocio on foreign policy.

Second, over on the Republican side, Sen. John McCain of Arizona said on Sunday night's Fox News debate that he would "get" Osama bin Laden: "I know how to get him, and I will get him."

When pressed as to "how" by moderator Chris Wallace, McCain stuck to his guns, repeating his pledge.

A President McCain would certainly need guns, lots of them. Because, not surprisingly, such tough talk is not well received in Pakistan, where bin Laden is believed to be hiding. The headline in Monday morning's Pakistani newspaper Dawn, reacting to earlier reports of Bush administration covert-operations plans for Pakistan, declared bluntly: "Islamabad says U.S. military not welcome."

"Getting" bin Laden, wherever he might be, is a legitimate goal for America -- and has been for six years -- and so it would be nice, for a change, to see some genuine "command focus" on that objective.

But while nobody can doubt McCain's personal courage or dogged determination, we still must ask: Would a President McCain -- or any next president -- fully mobilize America for a possible confrontation with Pakistan, on top of our existing commitments and conflicts?

Specifically, Americans should wonder: Is our military big enough? Are we adequately monitoring the movement of Pakistanis into the United States?

And, oh yes, how are we doing on missile defense?

Grass-Roots Activists Rule in Iowa

adminn — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:58:00 -0500

So who's going to win the Iowa caucuses tonight?

History tells us that the winner will be the candidate of the base -- that is, the candidate who most appeals to the hard-core activists, those determined folk who have the patience for a lengthy public nose-counting session at a caucus site, as opposed to a quick dash in and out of a voting booth.

So Iowa caucusers concern themselves with ideological purity -- while, on the other hand, New Hampshire primary voters worry more about November electability. That's the thesis of Christopher Hull, adjunct professor at Georgetown University, as set forth in his new book, "Grassroots Rules: How the Iowa Caucus Helps Elect Presidents." Hull, for all his scholarship, is no ivory tower-ite; he grew up in the rough-and-tumble of Hawkeye State politics.

In an interview, Hull cited historical precedents, including the 1984 Democratic caucuses, won by Walter Mondale, and the 2000 Republican caucuses, won by George W. Bush.

In both cases, the grass roots ruled. That is, Iowa activists winnowed through the candidates, awarding caucus victory to the most "true blue" of the presidential hopefuls -- or, if one prefers, "true red."

Hull quips that party stalwarts on both sides apply the IAAAT, or Iowa Activist Authenticity Acid Test. But of course, for activists, such tests are no laughing matter -- because it's their party.

And so back in '84, for example, Mondale, a former vice president, was the obvious ace of the base. But while his long-standing liberalism was a turn-on to Democratic activists, it was a turnoff to moderates and independents -- which was exactly the argument made by Sen. John Glenn of Ohio, one of Mondale's rivals for the nomination that year.

Glenn was a war hero and a centrist, as well as a famous astronaut; there's little doubt he would have been a stronger nominee for the Democrats than Mondale. But Iowa activists didn't care -- and Glenn finished fifth, garnering a mere 4 percent of the vote.

But of course, Iowa is not the whole of the nomination process. And so, Mondale, after winning Iowa in 1984, faced a stiff challenge in New Hampshire from the telegenic Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado. Like Glenn, Hart was undoubtedly a stronger general-election candidate than Mondale, who was seen, even by his supporters, as dull.

Yet, Hart's broader appeal had not impressed Iowa caucusers; the Coloradan came in a distant second behind Mondale. But just a week later, Hart did hit the sweet spot of New Hampshire primary voters. In the end, of course, Mondale called in all his party-insider chits and won the Democratic nomination -- only to be clobbered by Ronald Reagan in the general election.

Over on the Republican side, the 2000 Iowa caucuses proved the same point: Purity trumps electability. Sen. John McCain of Arizona was another war hero with a strong maverick following. But by the same token, McCain was much mistrusted by Iowa activists. So the Iowa winner that year was George W. Bush, son of a former president.

In keeping with Hull's model, McCain went on to win in electability-oriented New Hampshire. Eventually, of course, Bush overtook McCain for the '00 nomination -- although he barely eked out a November election, which McCain probably would have won handily.

And so what of this year? Hull's analysis helps explain why Rudy Giuliani, for example, was wise to stay mostly out of Iowa -- because he and his social liberalism would have been whacked by social-conservative Hawkeyes. But according to this logic, Giuliani was foolish also to downplay New Hampshire, because Granite Staters hunger for someone with his kind of middle-ground appeal.

OK, knowing all that, who's going to win Iowa? On the eve of the caucuses, Hull conceded that both races are too close to call. But watch the activists tonight, because in Iowa, the grass roots always rule.

For '08: A New Perspective on Worry

adminn — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 14:53:00 -0500

My New Year's resolutions:

I resolve to worry more about Pakistan's 75-weapon nuclear stockpile than about global warming. I am more worried about being incinerated by a loose nuke than I am about the water table rising a few feet.

Yet, I also resolve to worry more about global warming than about democracy in Pakistan. Democracy is wonderful, but only for people who want it, and who are willing to play by its rules. Democracy without self-discipline is a formula for, well, Pakistan.

I further resolve to focus more on who gets into America from scary countries -- such as Pakistan. And I wish the federal government would do so, too, although I am not confident. For example, four months after 9/11, in January 2002, a Pakistani by the name of Shabbir Ahmed, holding a long record of pro-terrorist/anti-American statements, was given a "religious worker" visa and allowed to come to the United States and lead a mosque in Lodi, Calif.

Was that such a good idea? Apparently not. In 2005 Ahmed, suspected of keeping up his terrorist ties, was arrested and finally deported.

So maybe the Department of Homeland Security can have its own resolution: to err on the side of caution on behalf of protecting Americans, not on the side of free expression for jihadis.

I have more resolutions, specifically for this election year:

I resolve to support candidates in 2008 who take seriously what the preamble of the Constitution sets forth: "insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense." Speaking of which, I resolve to vote for people who understand that it's idiotic to send hundreds of billions of dollars a year in oil money to countries that alternate between disliking us and wanting to kill us. It's hard to find any nonlobbyist American who thinks that our current energy "policy" is a good idea, but it's hard to find a politician who speaks credibly of an alternative.

In addition, I resolve to support candidates who understand that there are two kinds of competitiveness: economic and military. And if I had to choose one, I'd choose the latter -- military. I can deal with a recession, and so can you. But none of us can afford to lose a war.

If we need to spend more money on defense, so be it. But more to the point, we need to mobilize our technological and industrial base -- and concentrate on keeping both here at home. Do you think it matters that Honda has built a robot that can play the violin? Do you think there's a military application to such niftyness? I do, and so do the Japanese. Imagine if we had 'bots on the ground in Iraq, as opposed to boots on the ground.

Finally, I resolve to love my country all the more, and to remember that freedom isn't free, that liberty isn't license, that democracy means keeping the fools out of power.

Resolve for Victory -- Waning, Waxing

adminn — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:36:00 -0500

In American history, Christmastime has been wartime many times. And yet, in past conflicts our country seemed more motivated to win than it does today.

On Christmas Day 1776, Gen. George Washington crossed the Delaware River into New Jersey to attack the Hessian mercenaries at Trenton. The password for the day was "Victory or Death." 'Nuff said.

During the Civil War, on Dec. 20, 1864, Union General William T. Sherman completed his legendary -- Southerners say infamous -- March to the Sea. A triumphant Sherman sent a message to President Abraham Lincoln: "I beg to present you as a Christmas Gift the City of Savannah."

And during World War II, on Dec. 25, 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued a Christmas radio message to the "fighting men" of the U.S. Merchant Marine, those brave souls tasked with carrying cargo across oceans swarming with deadly U-boats. FDR's rhetoric was stirring; a pledge that "the steel walls of Hitler's and Hirohito's brutal empires will draw tight about their throats."

The common thread in those conflict-ridden Christmases, of course, was that the United States won the war.

Now fast-forward to the American leaders of today -- and how they express themselves about the current war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. For openers, we might consider Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's "Holiday message to the troops," easily findable on her Web site, or on YouTube. She mentions "heroism" and "sacrifice," but her emphasis is on "wishing you a safe return home."

With apologies to Sherlock Holmes, what word don't you hear in her spiel? Answer: "Victory."

Even more interestingly, President George W. Bush's message to our armed forces, issued last Friday, was similarly devoid of the word "victory." The best Bush could say was that he was "proud" to be the commander-in-chief of "the greatest force for freedom in the history of the world." That's nice, although not exactly Pattonesque.

To be sure, Bush has used the "V" word many times in the past. But "the surge" and his fighting presidency seem to be winding down at about the same time.

Indeed, now it's the Iranians who are claiming victory over the United States, crowing about their plans to build 19 more nuclear power plants. And why do you think they want them?

For the past seven Christmases, our armed forces have been in hot zones. Now, many Americans, and their leaders -- in both parties -- seem to be growing weary of the effort.

But our adversaries, past and potential, aren't wearying; they are gearing up. By the way, which country was doing most of the fighting against us in Korea on Christmas Day 1950? Ah yes, the People's Republic of China. And it was China's Chairman Mao who dubbed the United States a "paper tiger."

The United States is not a paper tiger, but if other countries get the mistaken idea that we are, future Christmas nights will be anything but silent.

Paul's Smear of Huckabee a Low Blow

adminn — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:04:00 -0500

Is Mike Huckabee a fascist? That's the insinuation from Ron Paul, one of Huckabee's rivals for the Republican presidential nomination.

And it's a cheap shot. One needn't agree with, or even like, Huckabee to know that throwing around the f-word "fascism" is a low blow.

This story is important, because it speaks to the larger question of whether Christians can fully participate in politics without being slurred. Here's the context: Huckabee ran a TV spot in which the former Arkansas governor wishes Americans a "Merry Christmas." And in the background, there's a windowpane, or some shelving, that looks a bit like a cross.

On Fox News Tuesday morning, Paul was asked his opinion of the spot. The Texas congressman declared: "It reminds me of what Sinclair Lewis once said. He says, 'When fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.'"

Then, Paul caught himself a little: "Now I don't know whether that's a fair assessment or not, but you wonder about using a cross, like he is the only Christian or implying that subtly." It's hard to know if Huckabee was pitching his Christianity. But it's easy to know that Paul smeared Huckabee.

The author Sinclair Lewis is remembered for skewering Protestant evangelicals in his 1927 novel "Elmer Gantry." Then in 1935, Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here" took one step further, envisioning a fascist takeover of the United States, led by a cornpone politician in league with religious-radio demagogues.

In other words, Paul, by citing Lewis, must have known he was invoking the name of a fiercely biting critic of religion in America. Faith-minded Republicans might take note, as they ponder Paul.

But what about the larger question: Is the public airing of Christian-oriented political themes some sort of leading indicator of fascism?

If so, then virtually all of our American presidents have been "fascists." A look through "Willmington's Guide to the Bible" reminds us that George Washington, for example, declared: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without the Bible." And here's Ulysses S. Grant: "The Bible is the Anchor of our liberties." And Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was, come to think of it, notable for fighting fascism: "It is a fountain of strength ... a comprehensive study of the Bible is a liberal education for anyone."

OK, but what about fundamentalist Protestants with a preachery background, such as Huckabee -- are they, perhaps, a special threat? Do Baptists deserve comparison to Hitler?

I put that question to Michael Kazin, professor of American history at Georgetown University, self-described liberal Democrat and the author of a well-regarded biography of William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic nominee for president in 1896, 1900 and 1908.

Here's Kazin: "Huckabee is no more a fascist than is Hillary Clinton -- or Ron Paul.

Mussolini, Hitler and Franco believed in and practiced one-man rule ... made aggressive nationalism into a militant equivalent of religion, and revered military force." And none of that, Kazin concludes, fairly describes Huckabee.

Contacted on Wednesday, the Paul presidential campaign stuck to its verbal guns. Too many Christian leaders, communications director Jesse Benton argued, were complicit in "big government." So, then, is it fair to suggest that Huckabee is a fascist? Benton said "no," but then in the same breath he insisted that "the movement in general" was drifting ominously away from "the Constitution."

The bottom line was that Benton had no apologies for Paul's televised insinuation of a fusion between fascism and Christianity.

Here's what's really going on: Paul & Co. despise the federal government so much they can barely see the difference between the modern welfare state and incipient fascism. Fair enough.

That's their right -- and that's their problem. But it's not right for Paul to hurl fighting-word epithets at his political rivals. Republicans, and all Americans, should reject such reckless rhetoric.

I, Mike Bloomberg, Have a Darned Good Idea

adminn — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:07:00 -0500

Inside the mind of Mike Bloomberg, mayor of New York City:

Could the Democratic nomination really go to Barack Obama -- you know, middle name Hussein?

And could the Republican nomination really go to Mike Huckleberry? I mean Huck Finn; I mean Huckabee. Whatever.

This is the best the two parties can do? In which case, maybe I should reactivate my own presidential ambitions -- because I can beat those two, running right down the middle, in between the Third Worlder and the Bible Belter.

I'll admit it: I have an ego to feed. That's why I called my company "Bloomberg." So yeah, if a Bloomberg terminal is good enough to sit inside the headquarters of every big company in America, then why not a Bloomberg inside the White House?

In addition to being the two-term mayor of the largest city in America, I've been raising my national profile. I speak all over the country, and I give away lots of money. In fact, since I own one of the few media outlets that's actually hiring reporters these days, I'm getting a strange new respect from the chattering classes.

For a while, though, it seemed that my White House hopes were sadly thwarted. If the major-party nominees were going to be Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Rodham Clinton -- well, there's just not enough political space for another New Yorker.

But if it's Obama and Huckabee? And it's not just that those guys are low-rent. Look at the lack of confidence in the overall system: Both the president and Congress are competing to see who can have the lower approval rating. Now I know how Ross Perot felt in 1992; I'm smarter than these clowns, so why aren't I president?

Everyone knows I'm the best qualified for the job. I'm pro-business -- not because I sat around reading Adam Smith or Ayn Rand -- but because I actually built a business. Republicans respect big money; I make Mitt Romney look like a piker.

And as for Democrats, the upper crust of the party has completely bought into globalism; they will appreciate my international sophistication. I have played it smart; I endorsed Joe Lieberman for re-election in Connecticut last year, so the neocons like me. And yet at the same time, since I'm basically an open-borders guy, I am separate and distinct from the yahoo right wing.

Doug Bailey, the veteran Republican consultant, has been pitching me on an independent candidacy through his Unity '08 operation. And now here's a front-page piece in The New York Sun citing experts who think I could win as many as 312 electoral votes -- 42 more than needed to win the presidency. No point in paying for a landslide!

And now I see Pete Wehner, the ex-Bush II White House aide, sending out a blast e-mail, in which he trashes both Obama and Huckabee.

About Obama, Wehner says, "His foreign policy experience is extremely thin -- and on the major issue confronting America, the war against militant Islam, he is manifestly weak. On virtually every front in the war against jihadism, he would pull back."

OK, maybe that criticism is to be expected. But here's Wehner on his fellow Republican Huckabee: "Foolishness" appears in the headline, and then Wehner describes Huckabee's new article in Foreign Affairs magazine as "stunningly silly, misguided, and unfortunately for Huckabee, deeply revealing."

So if that's the choice, Obama vs. Huckabee, wouldn't Wehner, and a lot of others, want another name on the ballot? Mike Bloomberg!

Not everyone in this country is looking for a president who is pro-choice on abortion, pro-gay rights, and pro-globalism on trade, immigration and environmental protection. But if I run, I'll have a solid base on both coasts, and then I'll buy enough of the rest in the middle. That checkbook approach worked for me before, here in New York City.