The Republicans and the Public Debt

This post is written during the 2012 US presidential election campaign, in response to some factually accurate but politically misleading slogans from the Republican party, such as "The national debt is now higher than it has ever been!", or "Our national credit was downgraded under Obama!", which are being given as  reasons for voting for Mitt Romney instead of Barack Obama.

The higher-than-predicted public debt since 2001 includes $1.6 trillion of Bush tax cuts, $3.1 trillion for warfare, and $0.9 trillion in stimulus and tax cuts under Obama - but this latter is the issue over which Republicans are apoplectic. In congress, Republicans were insistent that the debt ceiling, raised seven times under Bush, could not be raised under Obama, even if it meant threatening default to our domestic and foreign creditors.

Bickering in front of the bailiffs does not demonstrate economic competence, however worried you claim to be. This has never happened before: to have a party in Congress willing to ruin the country's credit, so long as it has a chance of ruining the administration. And then to say "aha, the past four years demonstrate that we should be running the whole country" - this makes me less likely than ever to vote for Republicans. They have behaved recklessly and are now assuming that I, the voter, am forgetful, unable to compare their present with their past actions, and only able to remember this week's sound-bytes.

The silliest spectacle was perhaps Michelle Bachmann being incensed about the currency going down some 11% compared to foreign exchanges under Obama (largely during the aforementioned debt crisis). What about the years from 2002-2004 (obviously, the years of the Iraq war), when the US currency went down some 40% against the Euro? Did she speak out then? No. Devaluing the currency to pay for wars abroad is apparently quite acceptable: devaluing it by less than a third as much to pay for infrastructure at home is apparently a disaster.

Yes, I'm worried about government debt, but I was worried about it for years before there was a non-white guy in the White House. The recent Republican concern over debt, having raised it so much under Bush, does not convince me that the Republican cares about it: it convinces me that the Republican party is full of anger and hypocrisy, and not fit to govern. Still the Republicans do not explain why they thought raising the debt ceiling under Bush for foreign wars was patriotic, but raising it any further for domestic spending during a recession is devastating and immoral.

At the end of this analysis: yes, the numbers and the economics do matter, but it's not a case of "Republican numbers vs Democrat values". Our current economic and fiscal state comes directly from our choice of values, compounded over 10 years of unbudgeted interest. On moral values: I'll not vote for a party run by men who say that a pregnant rape victim has to bear a child, when there are alternatives. But even without that, if I was just thinking about the economy: I've lived in the USA for 12 years now, and from the Republican party I've seen only a bad set of moral values leading to a bad set of economic decisions and a bad case of foaming-at-the-mouth to cover up the numbers. When you're logically and morally inconsistent, the numbers have a habit of not adding up.

The Sea Dog, or The Ducking Fog

The ducking fog!
Flits on the shore,
The nub of the rose
Pains his trooping.

The ducking fog!
Locks his keg.
Disguised as mere duck,
Proud of stinging clench.

The ducking fog!
Marks at the boon,
Nicks his leathers,
Buckles his sum.

Plot A: A pirate smuggler comes ashore, struggles through a rose garden and a barnyard, leaves his rum, and cuts his hands to grab some treasure that he secretes in his coat and his belt.

Plot B: I really date my hog sometimes.

The Old Testament God of Peace?

This is rough-hewn for now but thoughts have been percolating for a while and I wrote some of them down earlier. I'd like to particularly thank Gary Holt and other friends from the Bible study group at work for leading me through some of the learning that's gone into these ideas.

A lot of people have pointed out at different times that "the Old Testament God is brutal and vengeful", and it's very easy to find evidence that may be used to support this. Several times in Judges "God" apparently orders the execution of entire populations; in Genesis God's angels mete this out to Sodom and Gomorrah; and in the flood story God himself decides to put all mankind to death. Every one of us would condemn anything like this as genocide today. This is in no way unusual among stories that have come down to us from the late bronze and iron ages - consider the Iliad, Mabinogion, Viking Sagas, most any national founding myths.

What I think is emphasized much too little is that this is only part of what we see of God in the writings that have come to form the Torah / Tanakh / Old Testament. We also see a tender and peaceful God, which in many ways is much more foundational.

The story of Jacob is particularly curious among national myths. He's a relatively normal guy who by faith, sheer hard work and a certain amount of hook-and-crook builds the best life he can for his family. Compare with Romulus, Theseus, King Arthur, George Washington? (Of course, this is one of the reasons why Benjamin Franklin is my favorite American hero of all time!)

The story of David is particularly curious among dynastic founding myths. Yes, he's a great military leader, but this is always a side issue compared with his joy in the Lord and what God has done for him. He is generous, magnanimous, conflict-avoiding and forgiving whenever he can be (and when he's not, in the story of Uriah, he's deeply shocked at himself and penitent). David is a very deliberate contrast with Saul, Gideon, Samson, and the other Judges - they are all jolly efficient at destroying their enemies, but there is a very clear message that David and David's line deserves the reader's loyalty because of his faith and his goodness from God that shines from within. His whole story even begins with everyone saying "it can't be this one, look at him!" and Samuel saying "you only see the outside, God sees within".

All Biblical scholars to my knowledge - Jewish, Christian, conservative, liberal, etc - at least agree that the most important parts of the canon were compiled and edited some centuries after the events depicted. The editors probably had to include the blood and guts and destruction of enemies because any national myth without blood and guts and destruction of enemies was unthinkable at the time. (It's still largely unthinkable today, look at all the monuments and movies we have about war leaders.) But among ancient founding stories, the editors were clearly not content with just this, victory in war is not the purpose of Deuteronomic histories, it's the shallow and often frowned-upon starting point.

So the editors of the canon clearly and deliberately chose to highlight the stories of people like Jacob and David. What do we think was so important for them to communicate?

New Song: Which Side Are You On?

Yesterday while putting away the laundry I found myself humming a new song. Here are the lyrics.

***

When Gore said to Bush, "This will cost us!", Which side were you on?
When he said "Your tax cuts are reckless!", Which side were you on?

Oh Lord! Don't forget now! Which side were you on?
Oh Lord! We're in debt now! Which side were you on?

When Bush said, "The rich need more money!", Which side were you on?
When he said, "There'll be jobs a plenty!", Which side were you on?

Oh Lord! Please remember! Which side were you on?
And don't forget come next November! Which side were you on?

When Bush said "Send troops to the desert!", Which side were you on?
When he said "Old Saddam's the worst hurt!", Which side were you on?

Oh Lord! Don't forget now! Which side were you on?
Oh Lord! We're in debt now! Which side were you on?

Month on month the war drums a-holler! Which side were you on?
The Euro climbed, and down went the dollar! Which side were you on?

Oh Lord! Please remember! Which side were you on?
And don't forget come next November! Which side were you on?

When they said "We'll pay for war later!", Which side were you on?
When they said "Our patr'otism's greater!", Which side were you on?

Oh Lord! Don't forget now! Which side were you on?
Oh Lord! We're in debt now! Which side were you on?

Now I hear "We can't afford schools now!", Which side are you on?
When the rich take poor folks for fools now, Which side are you on?

Oh Lord! Please remember! Which side are you on?
And don't forget come next November! Which side are you on?

***

A bit more backstory is on my little music site.

Yes, I've given in to polarization, on some levels at least. Or I've given in to pointing out the existing polarization as I see it, which is perhaps not much different. There is too much of a pattern of hypocrisy to avoid comment, and yes, I prefer spending money on schools to bombs.

Comments welcome. Particularly contrary comments that might give me any chance to see things differently. So no, I don't mean "But you've got to see that now Obama's in office deficits are really bad because the government is evil, right?". I mean something that gives a decent argument as to why debts for tax-breaks for the wealthy and foreign wars were worthwhile, but debts for education and healthcare are totally immoral.

Please contribute your favo[u]rite Americanisms here!

There's a challenge below - please post comments with words and phrases that, unlike rock'n'roll, haven't made it to Britain yet!

The BBC just produced a reader-contributed list of most noted Americanisms. Dismal stuff - "take away" is correct and "take out" makes me want to faint without a scrap of a reason, film is better than movie because it's the language of Beowulf, and "gotten", with its couple of dozen appearances in the King James Bible and at least a handful in Shakespeare, is a cringeworthy American neologism. The Economist, bless its heart, has already published a scholarly debunking of many of these Anti-Americanisms.

Come on, folks, let's do something more fun! Britain's done really well from the New World in terms of music, entertainment, and crazy oversized consumer goods. Calling a movie after the film that used to be in the projector, or shortening refrigerator to fridge, these things just don't upset us here in the New World, and if the folks back in Blightly decided to call a big-ass TV a big-arse TV or even a big-bum TV, well, that would make us smile not grimace. And every time American music gets exported to the British Isles, it comes back with interest - we could fill a book with the wealth of blues and rock'n'roll guitar licks that have become cornerstones of British popular culture and returned to America as big hits. We couldn't be happier to share, we benefit enormously, e pluribus unum and all that.

But if the blokes and blokesses back in Blighty think modern British English is complete enough for Chaucer so it's complete enough for anyone, we should help them out. Many many of my friends and nearly all of my family have one time or another lived on both sides of the Atlantic. We know that sometimes there's a perfect word for something in Britain and there just isn't in the New World, and sometimes it's the other way round.

So please, all you transatlantic travelers out there, lend a hand! Instead of listing 50 words and phrases we hate without reason, let's try to gather a list of words and phrases we enjoy in North America that they might enjoy back in Britain, if only they knew! Just post them as comments below for now, email me if you have trouble, and in the unlikely event that this gets popular I'll try to find a more sustainable structure.

I'll start with a few to get the ball rolling and will add more as I think of them. Please please, if you think of anything send it in!

On Becoming a US Citizen

I was asked to speak at the swearing in ceremony, on April 29th 2011 in PIttsburgh, Penssylvania, at which 51 of us became American Citizens. After thanking the judge, the attorney, and all who work for the court and the immigration service who had helped us along the way, this is what I said:

At Jewish Passovers, it is traditional for a young member of the family to ask “Why is this day special?”, whereupon one of the grandparents tells the moving story of a nation’s founding, a nation’s freedom. Every year on our own Independence Day (also my daughter Elinor’s birthday), I find myself wishing that we had the same tradition: amid the pleasures of a good meal, a cold beer, and the anticipation of fireworks, to stop and ask “Why is this day special?”

If you’re British in America, you have a special advantage here - every year on Independence Day you can’t avoid the question! And so it was for me, on my first Independence Day here, and every year: and it is a wonderful and moving journey. Schoolchildren in England are usually taught something about the French and Russian Revolutions, but not the American Revolution. It is never mentioned in political or social history, and in military history, American Independence is skated over in shuffling embarrassment, something of a hiccup in an otherwise clean slate from King Alfred to Francis Drake, to Nelson to Churchill. Coming to America, Britons have to learn afresh and question themselves.

The American Revolution was about much much more than whether people on one side of the Atlantic should govern people on another. The Revolution took the best of English and European traditions: Magna Carta, the Religious Settlement under Elizabeth, the French Enlightenment and the Rights of Man, and made something real, practical, resilient, sustainable, something we could implement as the cornerstone of freedom. Government of the people, by the people, for the people: however imperfect we the people are, it is our way to the Creator’s endowment of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The American Revolution did not end in chaos or dictatorship. It cannot be placed in one period of history, the student can not finish the chapter and move on. It led to a new law, the Constitution, which governs each of us as individuals, but is itself governed by the people as a whole. It is part of a great campaign of the rights of humanity spanning centuries: that freedom cannot be restricted by religion or color, that voting cannot be restricted by wealth or gender. The Revolution spread, winning converts who made it their own. After two generations, in 1832, Britain passed its own reform act, so that, as in the USA, representation in government was based on population, not on ancient privilege. In 1867, Canada moved peacefully to its own democratic independence. People throughout every continent have thrown off old overlords and forge their own destinies: France, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Japan, India, Australia, Brazil, South Africa, a daring, growing list that would have amazed our founding fathers. And with events in the Middle East, the reach of freedom may even be spreading further than any of us would have imagined only a few months ago.

Every nation is unique, every people brings its own insight and value to the world table. But we believe there is a unifying theme to all humanity: that we all share rights including Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. These rights, though divinely endowed, are for many people today as distant as the dreams that must have sustained the American Revolutionaries through some of their bitter, doubtful winters. To this day, it is a hope for all people, a natural birthright, worth the devotion of a lifetime.

To this, I too dedicate myself. I am here today not because my story is inspiring: I am here because America’s story is inspiring. I am honored, I am grateful, to take part. Thank you all.

Talked with the Governor of Pennsylvania!

Earlier today I got to have a good and very direct chat with Governor Corbett.

He was visiting Google Pittsburgh, there wasn't an organized "question and answer" session, but I hoped that if I positioned myself between the photo ops and the cafeteria he might just bump into me and say hello, which is precisely what happened.

We were very friendly and polite to each other, but nonetheless traded opinions on some tough issues. In particular, I wanted him to know that his statement "I don't think anyone here wants to pay any more in taxes" does not speak for me, and I know many other Googlers who it doesn't speak for. If more money in taxation is required for good schools for our children, then we'll pay it. People who work for Google are choosing between many options in many parts of the world, so if Pennsylvania is competing for tech talent (as the Governor emphasized), the state needs to be aware that we care about issues like education.

Of course, the Governor didn't say "Wow, you're right, I should change the budget proposals". But he did listen. We both agreed that Google employees are privileged and not-your-average-citizen. He did talk about longer term options for paying for schools and universities, voucher systems and choice. He recognizes that long-term, we need better education, it builds stronger communities, lower crime, more prosperous societies. And (something I haven't heard so much in the public speeches) he emphasized that the stop-gap budget he had to come out with in 6 weeks is not his long-term vision for Pennsylvania: longer term we need to have a much more strategic and visionary approach.

There is much we disagree on, and I'll still be surprised if we come to agree enough about his concrete proposals for me to vote for him next time. But we were both receptive and respectful, and I very much appreciated his taking the time to talk with me. He said "watch this space, we're not always going to be in crisis mode", and I will certainly watch it carefully, look at subsequent budget proposals, and consider his record and manifesto carefully if he stands for reelection.

I really appreciate opportunities like this. There might be a few jobs where you get to talk to your State Governor in person, but I bet I have one of the only jobs where you get to talk to your State Governor dressed in shorts and sandals and nobody thinks it's at all unusual!