This isn’t the group for it but in all the talk about Afghanistan I think that the president and team should focus in on some basic realities about the war on terror. The families and soldiers who suffer are heart breaking. Nobody wants a longer Viet Nam. And even though it does not apply to me I will try to follow Sec Gates requests and not jump on one side too much…even though I have one. I feel for the fallen soldiers, I know many do not have a stomach for a long occupation of land and not strides made at beating terror. I also understand that the idea of 100,000 soldiers in a small country seems like conventional war strategy used in a war that is a non-conventional war/global police action against suicide gangs with multi-million dollar funding. I will not lean on which way you should go Mr. President. But I think that people on the right and left should remember that…..terrorists are insane (in the most important ways). Polls showing Americans are willing to stay in Afghanistan and possibly attack Iran to stop them from having nukes is a real sign that they see terrorist (and people who can support terrorists) as non logical, and extreme measures may be warranted in many people’s opinions. Remember who your enemy is, even before what it will take to stop them. They are well financed and highly intelligent people (at the top), but lack a moral compass that almost every religion or philosophy of man follows. That lack of a moral compass and the fact that there is no national headquarters makes not forgetting what the enemy is more important than the resources needed to defeat it, at least at first. I think the source of their strength is that their perception of things is opposite to the norm in some ways that it fosters a commitment we have not seen often in the civilian world. There is no treatment and no counseling for them, they can not be persuaded and they threaten civilians of most nations, without claiming a nation or headquarters as a home really, only the goal occupation is some cases. (Anarchists). Do we know that if we cut off the top people will new leaders emerge? Does the U.S. holding land that Al-queda does not need to blow up make sense? Is holding that land part of a plan to strike at headquarters and top people? Does 40000 more troops requires all to be on the front line; and if so, why, and if not, how will they accomplish non fighting objectives?
If your plan is positioned as clearly the best way to deal with that ‘insanity’ and what supports it, you can get a good decision and create a way to sell Americans on the fact that it’s good. They understand the ‘terrorist insane’ part. They will feel sympathy for fallen soldiers and a Viet nam repeat. But a fear of another mainland attack or some Clancy-movie drama will trump that sympathy most of the time. Americans are good people, but we do not all strive to be Gandhi. I know how this sounds and I don’t agree with it myself, but in reality a soldier in uniform dying in a far away land does not move Americans today the way a building blowing up in a downtown area does. Even though some may think that is heartless, they can not honestly argue the morality of it if the threat to American families is considered real.
Who in this war fits the profile of that ‘insane’ terrorist, and how can they get what they want because the terrorist are successful in maintaining the terror. I think that there is a fundamental difference between the behind-the-scenes guys who finances, find weapons, cover tracks of resources, etc; and the guys who live in mountains to fight ‘infidels’ and believe they will go to heaven by blowing up a public place with a bomb on their chest. The guys we’re fighting in the mountains in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not the guys that keep this operation a float and organized on a military level, to me. Whatever you do Mr. President, link your decision to the clear bureaucratic structure, economic resources, organized military assaults; as well as to the kids that could run into a train station with a bomb. You may want to combine strengthening any weakness in homeland security with the 2 headed problems with Terror.’ We will keep you safe, so we can effectively take the fight to them’ kind of message. Whatever strategy, link it to that sir. I’m a novas, but that’s what I think. First remember what the enemy and how to beat that enemy first. I think if you lose that focus, and it becomes more about what might be lost, you may approach this new kind of war/police action the same way.
Also, people in the media don’t keep the Taliban in the same level of importance as Al-queda it seems. Al-queda is insane; the Taliban wants some form of world presence where they can find it. The ‘insanity’ works for them unless the targets change. The Taliban seem to want a different world order and every G20 nation should really like the current one we have….I’ve heard some people separate them, I think your long term strategy should not. I’m not talking about what you should do, I’m saying what you do needs to show Americans that you can protect us from the ‘insanity’ and take the fight to those that support it.
Iran is tricky because the whole region is dependent on by the world for energy, in my opinion. I think the top people in Iran get their ‘balls’ from that fact more than anything else. Military action means price spikes in oil, possibly to a point of deeper economic hardship. Again energy independence in no longer a ‘tree hugger’ issue, it’s about national security. 9 11 was an attack on our financial HQ’s as well as governmental and military, even if just symbolic. Europe’s history of not really getting physical may not mean much to them, particularly when everybody keeps buying oil from them and their neighbors. Russia and China need to get more vocal but they can’t because ….they keep buying oil and other things or selling to Iran and their neighbors. Try to economically isolate them as well. The speeches of the President, Sarkozi and Brown where good, but they know China and Russia need their oil; all three presidents’ countries need oil from the region. I am a speculating amateur, but I think that opinion is shared by many. You may have better negotiations by creating a strong position for the US and allies in the long-term with other world powers that are not as vocally opposed to sanctions or more.
Can you work with those other world economic powers to supply Russia and China some or much of what Iran gives them? I believe China is working toward energy independence anyway, in time (long term) hopefully they will not need oil like they do now. I know that there is proof otherwise, but I think Russia is far more ‘capitalist’ than hard-line, power hunger old KGB. Still tough and not a place to mess with, which is why you may not see a lot of terror attacks there (they may suffer with the good and bad of not following due process in all things). But I think they understand that ‘insanity’ and what it can do, even if they don’t think Iran is there yet-they know Iran can give support to that insanity. Russia and China too will need stable markets and economies in other countries in order to maintain stability in their own economies. But if we can get China and Russia to ‘not need’ resources from Iran as much as they do now, it may be easier for them to make that stance of sanctions and even possibly action if need be. They too are victims to price spikes do to military actions, decisions to stop oil productions as protest etc. (I don’t thinks it’s impossible). Its pie in the sky maybe, but if all or most of the remaining economic powers can work together to supply those 2 countries or more what they usually get from Iran, Iran may have to question the legitimacy of the thinking of their government. I think the money the world pays them and the ties they have with some parts of the world is what they use to justify what they believe about international relations and behavior in my opinion. Yes this is all pie in the sky, idealist thinking. But I have not heard of how our side can get everyone else on our side economically, and not just with security concerns. Some G20’s aiding other G20’s when the whole world is ‘feeling it’ does cross some lines; but what if it could be done and lead to almost total UN Security Council support. Add with the understanding that some of your biggest economic partners will not need your resources if you challenge the international community more.
Also, it could force the Iranian government to show their people and the world, what does all of this get your people? Really, what is the goal and how does it make Iranians safer, wealthier, etc. Can he prove that what he is doing is for the long-term benefit of his people? From what I’ve seen from the election there, they have a lot of good people. Many of them who wish only to believe in their religion, work, support families, etc. I saw that we have more in common with them then I once thought. Why does he stand up to much of the world; and the part that could help bring more prosperity to his people? My prayers go out to them.
Energy independence people not in the white house, use this to point out that a clean energy economy for the world is not just about polar bears anymore. Iran’s and Israel’s problem could lead to higher oil and gasoline prices, right when we are suppose to see some improvement in the economy on a GDP level. There is an argument to be made; even though it may not be taken well by all….it is the truth. Also, keep the oil speculators in check. The price may need to go up if supply is limited, but this is not the time for them to make up for past loses in my opinion. I’m for making profits, but this may not be the time to push for everything.
The ‘we need job creation’ people may do well on TV with that given the reality of the situation we are in. But can they translate tax cuts into increase spending by consumers who still may fear future economic problems? Proponents of the ‘supply curve only’ approach have not yet shown that supply side increases economic growth in a time like now, when the mind set of the consumer is ‘lets what and see for a while before we spend what we can actually afford’.
There is a logical argument that a one tax break or tax credit does not cover the business expense of a new job, unless there is new demand to sustain that job. If job creation talk and strategy steps away from that thinking, I don’t think it gets you to the kind of long-term job creation the President is thinking about. It is a nice idea that may work in normal downturns. But is this, even as GDP may start to grow, a normal downturn on the way up? It should be logical that if low unemployment was linked to easy credit, poor regulation, and over spending by consumers in Jan 2008; low unemployment will not come back quickly unless you institute things that do not work for long term economic stability. “Where are the jobs?” rhetoric makes sense on the surface, but if pressed the right way to give answers- virtually no one can walk the average American from tax break ALONE, to a job being created and sustained over time.
Job creation plans for me should start with a ‘tactic’ to get the right participation, but HAS TO BE linked to a foundation that supplies demand and healthy ‘wealth-effect’. A tax credit or tax cut can be a strong ‘tactic’ that justifies hiring in the short-run for a business to get the benefit of the credit or cut. But if it is not followed by plans to give that employer demand that justifies production needs over the long-term, in this downturn that job may not be needed in the long term. That first time buyer tax credit that’s about to expire is good, but when it ends we may find that it was propping up the housing market (along with foreclosure pricing). Remember that currently the right can only cheer the ‘tactic’, because the ‘foundation’ requires some govt evolvement they can not be for. You may be able to turn the argument on them with strong examples. Why would an employer take a one time $10000 tax credit to hire a $50000 a year employee for the next 5 years plus, unless there is work need because of sales to justify his salary from year 2 going forward (for certain industries). Something like that which is linked to policy.
I would also suggest that your team look at a more specific use for the remaining stimulus money. First strategically, you may get information that shows you what areas of the economy are there furthest from what the old ‘normal’. Maybe consumer lending is stabilizing but commercial lending is not, for example. I talked to a far-right republican who knows his stuff (even though I disagree with him often). Extension of unemployment may have to happen. Extension of the first time home buyer tax credit thing should maybe happen as well. New homes force people to purchase things and we may find that the credit along with foreclosure sales might be propping up the housing market. I talked to a real estate developer that is finding it impossible to get small loans anywhere. So I guess my point is, consider changing the focus of the remaining stimulus to more concrete things. Maybe some of it can go to covering the cost of the housing tax credit. Maybe some to secure that certain lending that could take place normally (strong credit, valuable collateral, but the industry is too shaky to risk lending to right now). We know that there are some signs of stability, so it should be easier to focus on weak areas. I really believe that in 2010, much of that stimulus will show up on Ads, and you want to separate the white house from it (mainly because you should, I think it had too much to do with dems being out of power for a while).
Also I must stress that the ‘foundation’ should lead to an eventual exit strategy for government plans. Markets and industries can not rely on government support to make profit; it goes against the nature of ‘the money multiplier’ in my opinion. After looking at things and doing some research that I can, it appears that we want government to support some things until the consumer can get working and start spending more, but in a healthy way. But we don’t want business welfare. I’m not a fan of welfare, but at least if given to citizens most goes into the normal economy. Business welfare programs-consistent money into industries from government spending and specific tax credits- can lead to a recycling of the same dollars, instead of creation of new dollars.
You’re not trying to create temp jobs, Mr. President. That’s why education is a priority, because the new jobs require strong education. That’s also why we have to get health care cost down, so that people can spend more on things that add value to the American experience. Rising health care only means you pay more to stay alive and/or healthy, but not to improve, expand or enjoy your life. You’re the first president in the 24hours news cycle that includes blogs, emails, and internet. You may have to push back on things that have traction. But even the ‘push back’ needs to lead back to that clear message that almost anyone can understand. The right has the luxury of simplicity, less government more freedom…. Easy to understand. You have complex problems and solutions, not your fault. But I believe all of it can be brought back to a philosophy and message of E=MCsqaured for health care, energy, the economy.
Energy independence is still the best ‘foundation’ in my opinion, because it does not exist and has not be made so efficient overtime that it can afford to not take on new employees in bad times (as an industry). Its road map may be unclear right now, especially in distribution of energy. Cap and trade makes sense from an environment standpoint; but as a normal American, I can not see how I can use it to lower my energy cost. There should be enough information from R&D and engineering in these companies to give Americans a picture of this new clean energy economy. What kind of cars? What will the filling stations be like? Will you need filling stations, and if you don’t what will homes have to be like to refuel these vehicles? Can Bobcats or large factories run on clean energy, and can someone show us these machines or prototypes? You don’t have to give names of companies, but they should be able to show us what there are ‘going for’ in terms of prototypes and was to distribute this energy. In my opinion, a lot of ease will come if people can see that this new economy is not science fiction, but around the corner like next year’s model of car.
In the future you may want to consider making part-time work more accessible to benefits like savings, 401k plans, college savings plans. Better tax breaks for companies that pay for college. Also maybe seeing if businesses can get more access to paychecks for layaway plans, loan and mortgage payments, etc. The fact that a payment comes from a paycheck could justify someone as a better credit risk. That could mean millions of purchases and services that did not exist before, coming to people that would normal not get them on part-time salaries. Also the future may force less than 40hrs-a -week jobs to be more of a norm in America. You may want to brace us for that or not, but it is possible. But access to some benefits like these could help lessen the pain of making less. Also it may make people value those jobs more than people tend to now. Again, this may not be the time to talk about it in those terms. Maybe state it as ‘in tough times, when people are working less- the admin wants to add more security to you temporary situation as well. That’s why we are instituting modified 401k’s, college saving plans, credit union and bank accounts through part time jobs’. It may be the norm and a needed way to get into the careers of the future, but the politics of saying it wrong can look like your punting to most people.
And the CBO gave you something to work with I think. Can it be arranged with a public option or well constructed co-ops (I think multi-state, regional ones)? Price from GA sounded like he had some good ideas, but there is a certain number you’re going to need in premium payers to make a public option, co-op, or anything else cover the # of people you want to cover and maintain any kind of budget expectations in the long-term. But remind the left that even if you can not plant your flag of liberal principles upon it, a win is win. And a foundation that gives coverage to millions more with much of what you want is still better than what we have now. Lead them as well Mr. President, they will need you in 2010, more than you will need them in 2012.
Choose your direction on these things and bring all 3 issues back to job creation and job stability-jobs that do not become obsolete or move away so quickly. Why focus on health care now with 9.8% unemployment?-we want the job you will get to remain available for you 10 years after you get it, lowering health care cost helps insure that also part of the current unemployment problem and a larger part of any future unemployment problems will come back to the fact that American businesses can not afford to pay these premium prices. Dealing with health care now is a cheaper way of deal with those premiums and allowing American businesses to keep hiring now and in the future’… something like that but better…(smile).
I will have to focus for a while (no I’m serious this time) and get some personal stuff done. Yes, a check for taxes in on the way. Give them hell, Mr. President. Glad to see Plouffe back again. No one has had to deal with all of this in this modern world, keep your head about you Sir. The republicans are starting to separate the crazies from the right, that’s the sign that they have a message and plan for 2010. You and your team will need to lead the agenda more than guiding the eventual positive process. You may be doing it, but it may not come across that way. Keep up the good work Sir. Give him hell….even Truman could not do it any better in these times and circumstances…But Truman is still my favorite (smile).
