David Brooks, "The Two Economies": Symbiosis or Parasitism?

In his New York Times op-ed entitled "The Two Economies" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/opinion/brooks-the-two-economies.html?_r=1&ref=opinion#), David Brooks describes an article by Tyler Cowen in The American Interest called “What Export-Oriented America Means” (http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1227), which suggests to Brooks the existence of two separate, co-existing economies in the US:

"His work leaves the impression that there are two interrelated American economies. On the one hand, there is the globalized tradable sector — companies that have to compete with everybody everywhere. These companies, with the sword of foreign competition hanging over them, have become relentlessly dynamic and very (sometimes brutally) efficient.

On the other hand, there is a large sector of the economy that does not face this global competition — health care, education and government. Leaders in this economy try to improve productivity and use new technologies, but they are not compelled by do-or-die pressure, and their pace of change is slower."

Brooks then contrasts the attitudes of Republicans and Democrats to these two economies:

"Republicans believe the globalized sector is racing far out in front of government, adapting in ways inevitable and proper. If given enough freedom, Economy I entrepreneurs will create the future jobs we need. Government should prepare people to enter that sector but get out of its way as much as possible.

Democrats are more optimistic that government can enhance the productivity of the global sectors of the economy while redirecting their benefits. They want to use Economy I to subsidize Economy II."

I would take this a step further. There is a need for Economy I to subsidize Economy II; however, Economy II has demonstrated itself to be wasteful, misdirected and prone to fraud. Indeed, Medicare, plagued by $60 billion of fraudulent charges each year, needs to be overhauled, and a much-maligned Paul Ryan has some of the answers. Another example? Government funded research is inordinately slow and not consumed with or even directed at achieving tangible commercial results. I believe that legislators must be vigilant not to allow a symbiotic relationship between the two economies to develop into parasitism.

In short, there will always be a tension between Brooks' Economy I and Economy II, but it is necessary to acknowledge the shortfalls of Economy II and make certain it does not consume Economy I.

Paul Krugman, "The Gullible Center": Argumentum Ad Hominem

Who is the only person in the US capable of rescuing America's train wreck economy? Answer: Paul Krugman, and if you don't believe me, ask Krugman himself.

In his New York Times op-ed entitled "The Gullible Center" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/opinion/krugman-the-gullible-center.html?_r=1), Krugman engages in apoplectic invective against anyone foolish enough to believe that any of the budget proposals of Republican Congressman Paul Ryan might have merit. I suppose that includes New York Times columnist David Brooks, New York Times business writer James B. Stewart, and . . . me.

Krugman begins by telling us that he wants to talk about the "Paul Ryan phenomenon" and "not the man," whom Krugman goes on to describe as "a garden-variety modern G.O.P. extremist" and "an ordinary G.O.P. extremist, but a mild-mannered one," whom centrists credit "with virtues he has never shown any sign of possessing." Or in other words, Krugman is telling us that Ryan is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Hey, weren't we supposed to talk about the Ryan budget proposal and not about the man?

Telling us that Ryan has never once produced a credible deficit-reduction plan and that he is an emperor without clothes, Krugman writes:

"The Ryan cult was very much on display last week, after President Obama said the obvious: the latest Republican budget proposal, a proposal that Mitt Romney has avidly embraced, is a 'Trojan horse' — that is, it is essentially a fraud. 'Disguised as deficit reduction plans, it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country.'"

Okay, Ryan's budget proposal is a "fraud," and his centrist "cult" supporters should instead be "lavishing praise" on Obama, but what exactly is Krugman's problem with the Ryan proposal? Krugman explains that we merely need to understand two numbers, $4.6 trillion and 14 million:

"Of these, $4.6 trillion is the revenue cost over the next decade of the tax cuts embodied in the plan, as estimated by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. These cuts — which are, by the way, cuts over and above those involved in making the Bush tax cuts permanent — would disproportionately benefit the wealthy, with the average member of the top 1 percent receiving a tax break of $238,000 a year.

Mr. Ryan insists that despite these tax cuts his proposal is 'revenue neutral,' that he would make up for the lost revenue by closing loopholes. But he has refused to specify a single loophole he would close. And if we assess the proposal without his secret (and probably nonexistent) plan to raise revenue, it turns out to involve running bigger deficits than we would run under the Obama administration’s proposals.

Meanwhile, 14 million is a minimum estimate of the number of Americans who would lose health insurance under Mr. Ryan’s proposed cuts in Medicaid; estimates by the Urban Institute actually put the number at between 14 million and 27 million."

Sorry, but that's the whole of Krugman's argument? Based upon these five sentences, we should ignore all of Paul Ryan's proposal?

Well, Krugman's New York Times op-ed colleague, David Brooks, obviously thinks otherwise. Brooks wrote last week in "That Other Obama" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/opinion/books-that-other-obama.html):

"But Ryan has at least taken a big step toward an eventual fiscal solution. He’s proposed necessary structural entitlement reforms, which the Democrats are unwilling to do. He’s proposed real tax reform, which the Democrats are also unwilling to do.

The first truth is that we will have to do these big things to avoid a fiscal calamity. The second truth is there is no one party solution; there has to be a merger of respectable ideas. The third truth is that gimmicky speeches obscure the president’s best character and make it seem as if he doesn’t understand the scope of the calamity looming in front of us."

Then there is also that other "gullible" Times staffer, James B. Stewart, who writes the "Common Sense" column for the Business Day section, shared the Pulitzer Prize for explanatory reporting in 1988, is a professor of business journalism at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, and is a graduate of Harvard Law School. In a New York Times article entitled "For All the Furor Over Ryan’s Plan, It’s a Place to Start" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/business/lots-of-accolades-but-little-action-on-budget-plan-common-sense.html?pagewanted=all), Stewart wrote last week:

"As I pointed out a few weeks ago, Mr. Ryan’s tax plan, which calls for lowering top rates to 25 percent and 10 percent, could actually raise taxes on the ultrarich, since on average they, like the wealthy presidential candidate Mitt Romney, pay substantially less than an effective tax rate of 25 percent, and nowhere near the current tax code’s top marginal rate of 35 percent. The question is what would happen to the big break that the wealthy now get — the lower rate on capital gains.

And on the spending side, the Ryan plan has many elements of the bipartisan plan from a White House commission that said, 'We must make Social Security solvent and sound, reduce the long-term growth of health care spending, and tackle the nation’s overwhelming debt burden.'

. . . .

It’s easy enough to tweak the Ryan tax rates to generate more tax revenue while still lowering rates and broadening the tax base, as Ronald Reagan did in 1986.

In return, Republicans would get lower rates and curbs on entitlement spending. Democrats would get more tax revenue and preserve the essential elements and long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security. The nation would get a fairer tax code, long-term deficit reduction, a secure credit rating, stronger economic growth and a social safety net.

'The overwhelming majority of Congress would agree to this on a secret ballot,' [Tennessee Democratic Congressman Jim Cooper] told me.'"

This is what Krugman labels a "fraud"? Yes, I know: there is no need for discussion, contemplation or compromise. Only Krugman, the great and powerful, has all the answers.

Thomas Friedman, "The Other Arab Spring": The Solution Can Be Found in Israel

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Other Arab Spring" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/opinion/sunday/friedman-the-other-arab-spring.html?smid=tw-NYTimesFriedman&seid=auto), Thomas Friedman finally gets around to linking the rebellion in Syria to the multi-year drought in that country that has destroyed its agriculture. Already in May 2011 I wrote (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/05/thomas-friedmans-they-shoot-horses-dont.html):

"Notwithstanding demands by demonstrators for greater political freedom, the Assad regime is being brought down by the failure of its economy. Syria's agricultural sector employs some 30 percent of its labor force, and much emphasis has been placed in recent years on achieving food self-sufficiency and stemming rural migration. However, Syria's most important cash crop is cotton, which demands much water, and a five-year drought has had catastrophic consequences."

A perplexed Friedman concludes:

"Folks, this is not a hoax. We and the Arabs need to figure out — and fast — more ways to partner to mitigate the environmental threats where we can and to build greater resiliency against those where we can’t. Twenty years from now, this could be all that we’re talking about."

Well, unbeknownst to Friedman, Israel, which borders Syria, has also been experiencing a multi-year drought, but has been building massive desalination plants in order to compensate for the shortfall in rain. It doesn't take much insight regarding what needs to be done by Syria and other Arab states, but are they capable of swallowing their pride and buying this technology from Israel?

Maureen Dowd, "What Would Jesus Do at the Masters?": Comparing Obama With Jesus

On Monday, after the conservative Supreme Court justices crucified the administration’s hapless solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, who had vainly sought to justify the constitutionality of Obamacare, the president responded:

"I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

In the aftermath of this cock-and-bull story recited by a former constitutional law professor, you might hope that one of Obama's liberal devotees at The New York Times would see fit to chasten the president. Instead, in her latest opinion piece entitled "What Would Jesus Do at the Masters?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/opinion/sunday/dowd-what-would-jesus-do-at-the-masters.html?_r=1), Dowd begins by comparing Obama with Jesus:

"THERE was a boys’ club, of course, a band of ardent, jockeying disciples. But as his fame grew, the messiah was also surrounded by women and talked about women with great respect. With his father far away, the golden boy was most influenced by his strong mother and the women in his inner circle.

I’m talking about the real messiah, not Barack Obama, although it applies to both."

Dowd observes in this op-ed how Obama, like Jesus, has extensively availed himself of the services of women:

"Swaddled by women on stage, he bragged on Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton."

Well, I'm entirely in favor of gender equality, but to be proud of apostles Pelosi and Clinton? Personally, I will never forget how Pelosi, after meeting with Assad in Damascus in 2007, labeled him a "model Arab leader." And consider Hillary's defense of Assad in March 2011, notwithstanding overwhelming evidence at the time of the Syrian president's monstrous suppression of the revolt against his regime (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/syrias-reformer/2011/03/31/AFy4JFCC_story.html):

"Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer."

Why did Hillary go to bat for Assad? Because her savior had invested more than two years trying to show his love to Assad and Iran's Ahmadinejad and to convince these international lepers that they should behave themselves. In fact, Obama would have had better luck raising the dead, and today we have him trying to convince Iran to curtail its nuclear weapons development program in exchange for the US refraining from action against Damascus.

Later in this op-ed, Dowd draws an inapt comparison between Saudi Arabia and Israel:

"Saudi Arabia, which seemed to be inching ahead on women as ultra-Orthodox extremists in Israel fell backward, dropped its snail progress, refusing to sponsor women on its team for the London Olympics after intimating they could compete."

Excuse me, Maureen, but how does one compare Saudi Arabia, which imprisons and whips women who have been gang-raped, with Israel, which had a female prime minister, which had until very recently a female president of its supreme court, which had until very recently a female head of the leading opposition party, and whose leading financial institution is managed by a female CEO?

By the way, this is the same Maureen Dowd who traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2010 and declared that the Desert Kingdom is "chipping away at gender apartheid and cultural repression" (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/opinion/03dowd.html), notwithstanding the horrifying abuse of women that was being perpetrated in that country under her nose.

Bottom line: I think it is to Obama's credit that many key positions in his administration are held by women. Unfortunately, many of these women play just as diabolically as the boys. Meanwhile, suffering for our sins, Obama continues to ride on his ass around the links.

George Will, "What Romney needs in a running mate": Paul Ryan or Bobby Jindal

Although it had been hoped that hiring in US in the beginning of 2012 portended an economic recovery, it is now thought that the dismal March jobs report, issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, indicates that warm winter weather artificially inflated February jobs growth (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/mild-winter-may-have-artificially-inflated-jobs-data-economists-fear/2012/04/06/gIQAb8clzS_story.html). In short, there are still 12.7 million Americans desperately seeking work.

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "What Romney needs in a running mate" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romney-needs-a-heavy-hitter-as-his-vice-president/2012/04/06/gIQAB0sVzS_story.html?hpid=z2), George Will claims that if Romney chooses Marco Rubio as his running mate, he cannot expect that Rubio will have an effect on Hispanics nationwide. Will writes:

"But are, for example, Hispanics nationwide such a homogeneous cohort that, say, those who came to Colorado from Mexico will identify with a son of Cuban immigrants to Florida (Sen. Marco Rubio)? Do these realists know that, according to exit polls, Nevada’s Hispanic Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican, won only about a third of the Hispanic vote in 2010?"

Will also observes that historically, "in the 16 elections since World War II, 10 presidential candidates have failed to carry the home state of their vice presidential running mates." This fact weighs against the choice by Romney of both Florida's Marco Rubio and New Jersey's Chris Christie.

Instead, Will points to two excellent choices: Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

Indeed, it now appears that the November presidential election is going to turn on the stalled US economy, and although ordinarily presidential elections are not determined by the choice of one or another vice presidential candidate, this election could be different, particularly if Romney selects Ryan.

Ryan's budget plan is very much in the news, and has received praise from New York Times columnist David Brooks ("Ryan has at least taken a big step toward an eventual fiscal solution," see: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/opinion/books-that-other-obama.html) and scathing criticism from President Obama ("thinly veiled social Darwinism," see: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/ryan-responds-to-obama-criticism-says-president-is-more-partisan-and-desperate-by-the-day/).

Let's hope Romney brings the US budget crisis and deficit to the fore by choosing Paul Ryan. I agree with David Brooks that Ryan's budget proposals do not amount to a panacea; however, there is much substance there and the basis for discussion, negotiation and an ultimate solution to America's crushing economic problems.

The Columbia Journalism Review Slimes Israel

In November 2011, Justin D. Martin published an article in the Columbia Journalism Review entitled "Speech in Israel Is Not Free" (http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/speech_in_israel_is_not_free.php) in the Columbia Journalism Review), in which he stated:

"Palestinians rights to assemble, to visit family and friends, and to access institutions are crippled by an Israeli police presence that would’ve made Mao giddy and George Orwell vomit. This is in addition to a twenty-five-foot-high wall that is over 400 miles long, equipped with electrical fencing, sniper towers, and razor wire that keeps Palestinians where the Israeli military wants them."

Martin failed to mention that over the past three years the number of Israeli checkpoints in the West Bank was reduced from 41 to 15, through which traffic flows freely. Moreover, as Palestinian President Abbas indicated in May 2009 to Jackson Diehl of The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html):

"'I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,' he said. 'Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.'"

People in the West Bank are living a "normal life"? Peculiar, that's not what Martin would have us believe.

But what about Martin's twenty-five-foot-high, 400-mile-long "wall"? In fact, the Israeli West Bank separation barrier is some 470 miles long, but only 10% of the barrier consists of a concrete wall; the remainder is a fence.

Martin didn't know this? The Columbia Journalism Review didn't conduct a fact check? Anyone traveling along Israel's Route 6 can see this for himself or herself.

More to the point, who is Martin? Beside his article there is an "About the Author" blurb stating:

"Justin D. Martin , Ph.D., is the CLAS-Honors Preceptor of Journalism at the University of Maine and authors the Borders & Bylines column for CJR."

But now do a Google search using his name. Surprise: The American University of Cairo tells us (http://www.aucegypt.edu/fac/Profiles/Pages/JustinMartin.aspx):

"Justin D. Martin is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication.

. . . .

His research and writing have appeared in . . . Columbia Journalism Review . . . ."

So why does the Columbia Journalism Review only refer to Martin's association with the University of Maine? When writing a scathing article about Israeli journalism, his association with a university in Egypt is irrelevant?

Martin has just written another Columbia Journalism Review article entitled "Which Countries Jail the Most Journalists Per Capita?" (http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/which_countries_jail_the_most.php), condemning - you'll never guess in a million years - Israel. In his article dated April 2, 2012, Martin writes:

"By far the country that jails the most journalists per capita is Eritrea; Israel is a distant second. The CPJ report was quick to list Iran as the world’s premier jailor of journalists, and the Islamic Republic is up there, but clearly Eritrea and Israel also need to do some explaining. Israel jails more journalists than either the Palestinian Authority (zero) or militant group Hamas (three), both of which it criticizes for human rights miscarriages."

Martin's article notes that four journalists have been jailed in Israel, which has a population of seven million. However, as observed in the Elder of Ziyon blog (see: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2012/04/how-to-misuse-statistics-israel-accused.html) and by Omri Ceren in Commentary (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/04/03/academic-attack-on-israel-press-freedoms/#more-789797), Martin's article fails to consider the extremely high number of journalists working in Israel, the numbers of arrested journalists cited by Martin are incorrect (e.g., in Turkey), and at least one of the four journalists detained by Israel engaged in terrorist activity.

I would only add that Martin might want to consider reading David Keyes April 5 opinion piece in The Washington Post, entitled "Where’s the outcry over Palestinian censorship?" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/silence-on-palestinian-censorship/2012/04/05/gIQAZ3khxS_story.html). Keyes, who is executive director of the New York based organization Advancing Human Rights and co-founder of CyberDissidents.org, writes:

"A university lecturer and single mother of two, Ismat Abdul-Khaleq, was arrested in the West Bank last week for criticizing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Facebook.

. . . .

In recent months, Hamas has cracked down on dissidents, women and online activists. It has arrested journalists, banned a social media conference and jailed several bloggers.

. . . .

Under Abbas, the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank has replicated Hamas’s brutality.

. . . .

George Canawati, director of Radio Bethlehem 2000, was arrested in September over a Facebook post that criticized Bethlehem’s health department.

Mamdouh Hamamreh, an employee of al-Quds TV, was detained last fall and charged with libel and slander against Abbas for allegedly posting on Facebook a picture of Abbas standing next to a photo of an actor who plays a traitor on a Syrian soap opera.

Journalist Rami Samara was held in February after criticizing Palestinian leaders on Facebook. And Palestinian journalist Youssef al-Shayeb was jailed last month on allegations of defaming public officials after he reported on corruption among Palestinian diplomats.

. . . .

On Sunday, yet another journalist, Tarek Khamis, was arrested by Palestinian forces after he posted criticism on Facebook of the recent Palestinian Authority crackdown."

Yet according to Martin's article, "Israel jails more journalists than either the Palestinian Authority (zero) or militant group Hamas (three), both of which it criticizes for human rights miscarriages." Zero arrested by the Palestinian Authority? What's wrong with Martin's math? The Columbia Journalism Review, published by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, needs to seriously examine the kind of "journalism" it is fostering.

Obama Sends a Message to Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei

Yes, Obama is dangerously naive.

After conveying his infamous open microphone message to Putin that the US would be more "flexible" regarding missile defense following his reelection, Obama asked Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan to inform Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei that the US is prepared to tolerate an Iranian civilian nuclear program, provided that Iran "will never pursue nuclear weapons."

This new information is provided by David Ignatius in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s signal to Iran" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-signal-to-iran/2012/04/05/gIQApVLDyS_story.html). Without disclosing his sources, Ignatius writes:

"The statement highlighted by Obama as a potential starting point was made on state television in February. Khamenei said: 'The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. . . . Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.'"

Obama believes Khamenei (and also in the Tooth Fairy), or is he grasping at straws to avoid a confrontation prior to November?

Meanwhile, Iran's delaying game continues. As reported by Iran's Mehr News Agency (http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1569528):

"Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said Iran has proposed Baghdad as the venue of talks and the 5+1 group should announce its decision in this regard.

'In regard to Iraq’s transparent stance on the Iranian nuclear issue I believe that the negotiations should be held in Iraq instead of Turkey,' Boroujerdi told the Mehr News Agency.

Iran and the major powers are scheduled to meet for nuclear talks on April 13.

Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said on Wednesday that Iraq and China are possible venues for the next round of talks."

Apparently Obama still doesn't understand the manner in which the game is played in the Middle East. "Talk quietly and carry a big stick"? In this instance, Obama would have been wiser to handle Khamenei in accordance with a different maxim: "Stop with the nonsense, or I'm going to ram this big stick up your posterior."