Bad Bargains, Moral Bankruptcy and Negotiating with Blackmailers

Even though it's now pretty much a done deal and much of the relevant ground I've been over before, I'd like to comment a little on the tax plan that President Obama and the Republican leadership came up with. There are two major questions here. One is whether the deal in of itself is a good one; the second is whether it would have been better to have no deal at all than to have the one we ended up with. The answer to the first question, taking both the good and bad parts of the plan into consideration, is no. The answer to the second question is maybe, depending at least in part on how the passage of the tax plan ultimately affects several other key measures.

The centerpiece of the tax plan is the two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts. As I have said before, there is no sense in extending the tax cuts for earners in the highest income bracket. They don't need the money, most of them won't spend it anyway but will save it (meaning it won't stimulate the economy), and allowing them to continue to pay lower taxes increase the budget deficit by a large amount (far more than many of the programs the conservatives want to cut). The assertion that higher taxes would hurt many small businesses is wrong, as few fall into this category (and many that do are law partnerships, private medical clinics and so forth), and in any case if a small business has a need for an additional employee, they aren't going to refrain from hiring one just because they are paying slightly more in taxes. The Republican refrain that no one should have their taxes raised in a recession is just a nonsensical sound bite, one which attempts to imply, aside from the questionable economic arguments mentioned above, that everyone is suffering equally and we don't want to see anyone hurt by more taxes, like someone who makes half a million dollars a year is really going to suffer because they have to pay twenty thousand dollars more in taxes. It's also worth reiterating that even had tax rates for the highest income bracket gone up, they would have still been under 40% (as compared to the current rate of a little over 35%), which is not very high compared either to other countries or past tax rates in the US.

However, as bad as the Republican insistence on lower tax rates for the relatively well-off is, this isn't the worst part of the tax plan. That "honor" has to go to the estate tax. The estate tax had also been cut temporarily, but without this bill it would have gone back to the old rate, which if I recall the numbers correctly was 55% on estates of more than US$1 million. But the Republicans insisted on cutting it drastically, making the rate 35% on individual estates of US$5 million, or US$10 million for married couples. This will benefit a very tiny percentage of Americans, and it won't even be the people who actually earned the money, but their heirs. I know if I was going to inherit $US2 million I wouldn't complain if I had to give up half of it. Sure, a million dollars may not be what it once was, but it's still a pretty decent sum, especially if you don't have to earn it yourself. So why on Earth should we do this tiny percentage of wealthy people's children a favor when it'll add substantially to the deficit? It's absurd. This once again shows that the Republicans really are the party of the rich, or at least of the selfish rich (quite a few wealthy people have said they should pay higher taxes, whether income or estate taxes).

Then there was the temporary payroll tax cut. Obama apparently supported this idea as a stimulus measure that would benefit a much wider segment of the population than the Republicans' cuts for the rich, but it has its problems too. The payroll tax pays for Social Security, which for the time being is in the black. But having made the cut, there is a danger the Republicans will try to make it permanent (by once again crying tax increase if the Democrats try to allow it to go back to the original rate, just as they've done this year with the income tax rates). If that happens, Social Security will not remain solvent for nearly as long as it would have, and the Republicans will have an excuse to try to cut or privatize it (when the best way to boost Social Security in the long term is to increase the payroll tax -- not by raising the rates, but by raising the ceiling, since it is currently only taken out of the first US$100,000 in salary). If this doesn't happen, fine. But if it does, the payroll tax cut will also turn out to be a big negative.

Perhaps the only significant positive in the deal is the extension of unemployment benefits. Allowing them to expire would leave a lot of people with no income at all, and despite right wing assertions to the contrary, most of them are not just freeloaders who won't go out and look for work (though of course there are some people like that), as most businesses simply aren't hiring. Giving those out of work some money to spend will also stimulate the economy (more than lower taxes for a few wealthy people will), besides allowing them to put food on the table.

I seem to recall that there are also a few tax incentives for alternative energy and things of that sort in the bill, though I don't know the specifics. If so, that's a good thing. But given its bad parts, I can't say that the deal sounds like a good one overall. If there were no other considerations, I'd say it'd be better to let everyone's taxes go back to the old rates, which at least would cut the deficit by a large amount (or rather keep it from getting bigger, as past budget projections have assumed that all the cuts would expire). It's worth noting that keeping income tax rates the same won't stimulate the economy either, as people aren't getting more money, just keeping the same amount as before. The only substantial stimulus will be from the payroll tax cut and the extension of unemployment benefits.

As I stated earlier, given that this deal was overall more bad than good, does that mean Obama and the Democrats would have been better off rejecting it in its entirety? If the only things at stake were what the tax plan itself covered, I would have said yes. I would certainly prefer not to sacrifice those who are living on unemployment benefits (as I implied in the previous paragraph, letting taxes go back to the old rates for everybody would not necessarily be a bad thing), but considering the long term problems that this deal may cause, problems that will eventually affect everyone, that might have been the better choice if they were the only people to be sacrificed to the Republicans' intransigence. But aside from blocking any tax deal that didn't favor the wealthy, the Republicans -- even the few supposedly more moderate ones -- had pledged to block all legislation in the Senate until the tax plan was passed. This meant that a number of very important measures were in danger of not getting through. When I started writing this just after the tax deal was passed, it was still not certain which of them would make it. Now votes have been taken on two of them, with a third due to voted on any time now.

The first of these measures was the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell". This was something that should have been done a long time ago, and with the Pentagon having completed a study showing that repeal shouldn't cause any major problems, there was no longer any excuse for waiting, especially since the law would probably get overturned in the courts sooner rather than later. Nevertheless, there was still substantial Republican opposition, led by the increasingly erratic John McCain (even those who are disappointed in Obama's performance should be happy McCain didn't end up as US President), even though he once said he'd support repeal if the military leadership was in favor (apparently he has decided since that even if a majority of the military leadership, including the very top officials, are in favor, that isn't good enough; the entire leadership has to approve). But even worse, if the Republicans had continued to block all measures because of a lack of an agreement on taxes, repeal would have depended on the next Congress, where it would probably have failed. So one positive of the tax agreement was that a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" has now been approved.

The second major measure was the Dream Act. This would have provided a path to citizenship for young people who were brought to the US illegally by their parents when they were children if they went to college or joined the military. To put this into perspective, many of these people were toddlers or preschoolers when they came to the US, so they have no memory of any other home. Some of them were not even aware until they were nearly grown that they weren't American citizens. And yet the vast majority of Republicans voted against this bill. One idiotic member of the House from Texas (Barton, if I recall correctly) made some statement about not "rewarding criminals". Only someone too stupid to understand the type of situation the bill covered, or, more likely, someone completely morally bankrupt, without the least shred of decency, could call someone who was brought to the US (the vast majority of them had no choice in the matter) as a child -- and as I said, in many cases at an age where they weren't even aware of what was happening -- a "criminal". Even calling their parents "criminals", while technically accurate, is a sign of perverted moral sense, as it seeks to put people who are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their families in the same category as murderers and rapists (not much different from 19th century England, where a father could be hung for stealing a loaf of bread for his children -- as if such a person was the same as a criminal who committed robbery and assault out of pure greed). But to call the children "criminals" is beyond disgusting.

Yet, unbelievably, the Dream Act didn't pass (actually it won a clear majority, but as usual, its Republican opponents were filibustering it, and there weren't quite enough votes to overcome the filibuster). Frankly, in my opinion, this is worse than if "don't ask, don't tell" hadn't been repealed. Gays in the military were being deprived of their careers, which is bad enough, but the young people covered by the Dream Act are in danger of losing their homes and getting deported to countries that in many cases they have little or no memory of. This is a terrible injustice, and Obama's agreeing to a bad bargain on taxes didn't avert it. So that's one more strike against the tax deal.

The third major measure is the ratification of the New START treaty with Russia. Again, there is no reason not to pass this and many reasons to do so, not least of which is without ratification, there will no longer be an arms control agreement between the world's biggest nuclear powers. The agreement that has been signed is by pretty universal consensus among experts and US military leaders, a good one from the US's perspective. In a misguided attempt to win over Republican opponents, Obama even agreed to spend more on upgrading the US's nuclear arsenal (once again, when it comes to things like this, the deficit doesn't seem to matter to the Republicans). One laughable complaint is that under the treaty the US will have to cut more than the Russians, because it has more weapons to begin with. That's like a situation where two people are pointing guns at each other, and the one with ten shots on his gun (as compared to, say, seven for the other guy) is reluctant to agree that both reduce the number of bullets they have loaded to four each. Both sides can still kill each other many times over, so who cares? In any case, this seems to have a good chance of passing, which would be a point in favor of the tax plan which cleared the way for it.

Of course one big problem with judging the merits of Obama's deal with the Republicans by the success or failure of other measures is that essentially the Republicans (who ironically criticize anyone who negotiates with "terrorists") are being rewarded for committing blackmail. Like other such situations, such as kidnappings for ransom, whether or not it is ever wise to give in is debatable. However, if Obama was going to submit to Republican blackmail, he should at least have fought for a better deal. Either he should have gotten a better tax deal, or he should have asked for a commitment from the Republican leadership not to support filibusters on any of the above three measures. As it turns out, at least one and quite possibly two of them will pass anyway, but considering the importance of the one that didn't, and the fact that even those that did pass might well not have, a bargain with the Republicans that didn't include such a commitment was not a good deal. Some say the mere ability of Obama and the Republicans to come to an agreement on anything is a positive development is a good thing, and there is something to that argument. But if all their agreements favor the Republicans this much, it might be just as well to not to make one in the first place. If the arms treaty is ratified, that combined with the end of "don't ask, don't tell" might just barely make the whole thing worthwhile, but not by a large margin. We'll have to hope Obama learns to bargain harder once the new, more right-wing Congress comes in.

What I've Been Reading – 2010, Part 5

As I've gone through quite a few books since I last talked about what I've been reading, this time I'm only going to talk briefly about each book. I'm also skipping over some short stories and non-fiction I've read in the same period, even though much of it was good (e.g., Greg Egan's hard sci-fi short stories).

Fear of Flying by Erica Jong
This novel focusing on the theme of female sexual desire was a huge seller when it came out. It was notable for being the first well-known novel by a woman to talk about sex from the female perspective (books like Lady Chatterley's Lover and Fanny Hill were of course written by men). As one might expect, sex is the dominant topic, though a lot of it is fantasies. While there is a fair amount of actual sex, there isn't as much as one might think (there's probably at least as much – certainly more variety – in Dhalgren, which is not mainly about sex) and as Erica Jong herself points out in the forward, it's usually somewhat disappointing. The novel also briefly touches on a theme of Flaubert's Madame Bovary, namely the difficulty people have in conveying their real feelings with words. Another interesting point is that the narrator's life has many points in common with Erica Jong's own, making the novel semi-autobiographical.

Fanny Hill by John Cleland
Reading Fear of Flying reminded me that I had a copy of John Cleland's Fanny Hill or Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure that I had glanced at but not actually read, so I decided to read through it. This 19th century work is famous (okay, infamous) for its graphic depictions of sex, and its reputation in this regard is fairly well justified, though of course there are much more graphic descriptions out there nowadays. There is of course a lot of sex, though interestingly Fanny Hill is really more of a mistress to successive men than a sex worker who receives many customers. In certain ways Cleland succeeds in showing a certain sympathy for his female protagonist, at least for his time, though in other ways his work reflects a purely male and sometimes sexist perspective. Also, despite depicting positively, or at least not particularly negatively, a wide variety of sexual practices, including lesbian sex, group sex, and sado-masochism, there is an extremely venomous attack on gay male sex, reflecting the extreme homophobia of the times.

More Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser stories by Fritz Leiber
The last two collections of stories of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Swords and Ice Magic and The Knight and Knave of Swords, are notable for being somewhat bleaker than previous stories (both Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser undergo significant suffering), being set mostly away from the city of Lankhmar (the main setting for many previous stories) and containing a few explicit depictions of sex (though sex was always clearly a major motivation for the characters, it wasn't explicitly depicted in earlier books – there was supposedly a sex scene in The Swords of Lankhmar which the publisher asked Leiber to cut out). Otherwise the stories are as entertaining as always.

Beggars in Spain by Nancy Kress
A futuristic science fiction novel in which geneticists have found a way to modify the genes of embryos so that the children they grow into do not need sleep and become super-intelligent partly as a result. The obvious superiority of the Sleepless causes resentment and hatred among the rest of the population (the Sleepers), resulting in conflicts and eventually causing many of the Sleepless to flee to a separate sanctuary they have created, at first on Earth but later in near-Earth orbital space. The main theme of the novel is the question of balance between the rights of the individual and their obligations to the society, or, as Kress explained it, between an Ayn Rand-type philosophy (which she said she ultimately found to be neither workable nor morally admirable, a sentiment I completely agree with) and the more communal societies depicted by Ursula LeGuin. Though I'm dubious about certain parts of the premise (I don't think eliminating the need for sleep would have such a dramatic effect on people) and I disagree with the arguments against secession made in the last part of the novel, the novel is interesting and the point that Americans in particular often resent intelligence, if perhaps slightly exaggerated, is nevertheless well taken.

Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll
Only slightly less famous than its predecessor Alice in Wonderland, this cleverly told tale includes Carroll's famous poem "Jabberwocky" and a tale which is structured like an elaborate game of chess.

Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut
This is another brilliantly cynical novel from Kurt Vonnegut. Vonnegut's style is unique and quite different from what I normally prefer, but he does it very well. It helps, of course, that I share a lot of his cynicism. I especially appreciate his mockery of things like patriotism, capitalism, and the type of history taught in schools. However, despite his liberal outlook, Vonnegut is not at all politically correct (not that that problematic term even existed at the time), so some liberals might have trouble with him as well (not me, however). Like a few of the other Vonnegut novels I've read, it's also metafictional, not only in that Kilgore Trout, one of the main characters (and a recurring character in a number of Vonnegut's novels), is a science fiction writer, but because Vonnegut himself appears in the novel.

Iron Council by China Mieville
This is the third of China Mieville's fantasy novels set in the fictional world of Bas-Lag. The most prominent power in Bas-Lag is the city of New Crobuzon, a huge, cosmopolitan and oppressive place a little like a more deadly fantasy version of Charles Dickens' London (Mieville's Bas-Lag novels are often characterized as steampunk, reflecting the type of technology prevalent in them). New Crobuzon was the setting of the first Bas-Lag novel, Perdido Street Station, and much of Iron Council is also set there (the second novel, The Scar, is set elsewhere, but New Crobuzon still plays a major role). The government of New Crobuzon, though supposedly a parliamentary democracy, is ruthless and authoritarian, and much of this novel focuses on resistance to it from dissident elements inside and outside the city, once again resembling somewhat the struggle of 19th century laboring classes against unfeeling bosses and rulers, including the major divisions among the dissident groups themselves, though here the authorities are more powerful and sinister (Mieville calls his world "an early industrial capitalist world of a fairly grubby, police statey kind"). While most of the main characters are human, Mieville's world contains a fantastic array of strange and often unpleasant creatures, though some are friendly or at least able to interact peacefully with humans (indeed, one of the main characters in Perdido Street Station is a khepri, a being with a human body but a head that resembles a giant insect). Even among the latter, there are some of extremely unusual appearance, thanks to New Crobuzon's punishment factories, which remake convicted criminals in bizarre and often unpleasant ways, such as making them part machine, attaching useless appendages to them, and so forth. The resulting creatures, called Remade, are looked down and discriminated against by everyone else, even the lower classes. There is also plenty of magic (here called thaumaturgy), which often takes nastily destructive forms. Another point that shouldn't really be worthy of note but still is somewhat unusual in much literature today is that two of the the main protagonists are gay (actually bisexual in one case), though this probably shouldn't surprise readers of the first book, in which the two chief protagonists are in a relationship which, though heterosexual, is even less conventional, as one is human and the other is khepri. I highly recommend the Bas-Lag novels, though with the caveat that Mieville doesn't seem to believe in truly happy endings; at best, the worst evils may be averted and some of the protagonists may survive after having won an incomplete victory over the various forces of evil.

The Red Queen by Margaret Drabble
Margaret Drabble's The Red Queen is a mix of historical and modern fiction, with a dash of metafiction thrown in. The first half of the book is narrated by Lady Hyegyong, an actual historical figure who was born in 18th century Korea. As a child, she was selected to be the bride of the Crown Prince, and she survived intrigues, scandals, and the execution of her husband at the hand of his own father to see her son and grandson take the throne. She wrote four memoirs of her life, which I unfortunately haven't read (in fact I hadn't heard of her before – I must confess that I know less of Korea's history than I do of most other countries in the region), but which sound fascinating. In The Red Queen, however, she is relating her fictional fifth memoir in modern times, even though (as she mentions several times) she is long dead. Thus she mixes her narrative of her youth with very modern interpretations of the events. The second part of the book focuses on the woman that Lady Hyegyong calls her "ghostly envoy", the modern doctor who is in a sense possessed by her, having become fascinated after reading a translation of her memoirs while on the way to Seoul for a conference (a fascination shared by Drabble herself, who in a sense is Lady Hyegyong's real "ghostly envoy"). This part of the book obviously doesn't contain events to compare with those in Lady Hyegyong's life, but nevertheless there is one fairly dramatic and unexpected (despite some foreshadowing) occurrence towards the end. Interestingly, both the protagonists consider themselves to be rationalists and thus not big believers in the supernatural, and yet one is dead and the other is watched over not only by the first but also by guardian spirits. Despite this supernatural element, the book focuses more on psychology and human relations as well as Korean culture, making it very much a modern novel. Drabble herself makes an appearance in the last few pages of this unusual but very readable book.

The Stand by Stephen King
The Stand is one of Stephen King's longest and most epic novels, though it is not as massive as his Dark Tower series (actually the only other work by him I've read). The basic premise of the book is similar to that of George Stewart's Earth Abides, in which a plague wipes out most of humanity (and apparently King has said Stewart's book was an inspiration), though they take the idea in completely different directions. Though the first part of the book reads like post-apocalyptic science fiction, the supernatural soon makes an appearance (unsurprising, given that it's Stephen King), and the book becomes an epic struggle between good and evil (King was also inspired by The Lord of the Rings, a big influence on both this book and the Dark Tower books). This makes it a bit hard to characterize in terms of genre; it is sci-fi, horror and fantasy all in one. The horror elements come mainly from the very unpleasant symptoms of the superflu early in the book, the massive number of corpses scattered around in the subsequent part, and the diabolically nasty antagonist in the last half, but they are not overwhelming, so the book is enjoyable enough for those who aren't big fans of horror (like me). Having read this and the Dark Tower series, I can tell that King listens to a lot of classic rock, as a number of different songs are referenced in both works and one of the protagonists in this one is a R&B-influenced rock singer; he's a fan of Richard Adams and Watership Down, which is mentioned in both works; he often uses his home state of Maine as a setting (parts of both works take place there, though relatively brief parts overall); and he likes creating links between his various works (there are a number of connections not only between these two books but also with other novels he's written). In some ways the book hangs together better than the Dark Tower, which is a bit unwieldy in places, though even here there are certain inconsistencies and implausible moments (the former perhaps increased by King's frequent revisions – in the paperback edition that I read, the date of the story was changed somewhat from that in the original edition). But it is certainly an entertaining read, and it is understandable that, as King notes in his forward to the revised edition of the first Dark Tower novel, The Stand is the favorite of many of his readers, with only the Dark Tower rivaling it in the passionate devotion of its fans.

Congratulations to Liu Xiaobo (and a comment on WikiLeaks)

As most people who follow the news should be aware, this year's Nobel Peace Prize is being awarded to Chinese democracy activist Liu Xiaobo, who is currently being imprisoned by his government. China's hysterical reaction to the award simply helps prove to everyone with sense that they are still an oppressive authoritarian regime. They call Liu a criminal, when everyone knows his "crime" was only to openly call for a more open and democratic society. They put his wife and other relatives and friends under house arrest and prevent a long list of dissidents and relatives of dissidents from leaving the country in an effort to ensure that none of them can go to the award ceremony to accept the prize on Liu's behalf. This has only ensured that this will be the first time since Nazi Germany prevented 1935 recipient Carl von Ossietzky from traveling to accept the prize that the prize will not actually be given out at the ceremony. In other words, China has just ensured that they will be compared to the Nazis -- not entirely inappropriate in this case.

The most absurd thing though has been China's efforts to prevent other nations from attending the award ceremony. The majority of those invited (44 out of 65) have ignored China's threats and blandishments and official accepted invitations, but a number of countries have actually gone along (of course China, having no compunctions about telling outright lies in the interest of propaganda, claims that "the vast majority" of nations will not attend. Most of the 18 countries other than China that have said they are not attending are other authoritarian states, though there are one or two exceptions, such as the Philippines. Of course some countries had excuses which seemingly are unrelated to China, but one has to be dubious about them (if I were a Filipino, for instance, I would be strongly criticizing my government's kowtowing to China, no matter what lame excuse they offer).

It is also interesting to note that China seems genuinely incapable of believing that a prominent group like the Nobel committee could act independently of the government of the country where it is based (Norway). This is further evidence of their blinkered authoritarian mindset. Just because they make sure that any significant groups in China are under the control of the government, or at least unable to act publicly in a way blatantly contrary to its policies, they assume that the situation must be the same in all countries. Even if a group seems completely independent of the government, they assume the government must control it behind the scenes, because that's what they do with Chinese "non-governmental" organizations and such. Therefore, they persist in blaming the Norwegian government for the Nobel committee's selection, even though the government was not involved (though they no doubt agree with it, if they are sensible).

A few people may point to the irony that as Liu is being awarded the Nobel, many democratic governments are relentlessly pursuing Julian Assange and WikiLeaks for what many argue is an exercise of free speech. There is indeed a certain degree of irony here, but aside from the fact that bad behavior by some nations does not in the remotest degree excuse similar or worse behavior by others, there are certain differences between Liu and Assange. Many of the attacks on Assange do indeed strike me as illegitimate persecution (as for claiming he is the equivalent of people like Osama bin Laden, that is beyond ridiculous), and WikiLeaks has done much that is good (they won an award from Amnesty International for exposing extrajudicial killings in Kenya). The way governments have tried to block WikiLeaks and many companies have cut ties to it (often under government pressure) before it or Assange have been convicted of any crime also violates due process. I have seen little evidence that anyone has come to any physical harm because of WikiLeaks' release of classified US cables or other documents, and in many ways the US has been asking for something like this to happen by classifying huge numbers of documents as secret even when they don't need to be, and giving huge numbers of people top security clearance, as pointed out in this article and this one.

However, I have mixed feelings about the publication of communications which, if not private in the usual sense (if close to a million people are allowed to access them, they aren’t all that private), are nevertheless sensitive in certain ways, and could potentially cause harm, if only in the form of hurt feelings (not entirely insignificant when we are talking about foreign leaders). For one thing, foreign officials who are mentioned by name candidly speaking about their own or other governments are much less likely to speak honestly to US officials in the future. WikiLeaks, with the help of some of the mainstream media it works with, has made an effort to redact the names of many sources and agents, but some critics claim they haven't done a sufficient job and have exposed some people. It's true that they offered to cooperate with the US government in making redactions, but were refused. Nevertheless, it is better to err on the side of caution in a case like this, and it's not clear that WikiLeaks has done so. Then there's the excuse given for Assange's arrest, namely the sexual assault he is accused of in Sweden. I haven't heard enough of the supposed details to know what to make of this, but it seems the sex may have been consensual and there was no force involved, though he is accused of refusing to use a condom when asked to do so, which, while not as bad as what most people think of as sexual assault, is still not good (if it is true). In a nutshell, there is some room for argument about the morality of Assange's actions, while there is nothing remotely immoral about Liu's, not to mention the degree of repression in Liu's case, extending even to his family members and friends, is greater, at least at this point.

Finally, no matter how hypocritical Western governments may be sometimes, that is absolutely no excuse for China and similar regimes to behave even worse. For a country like China to point to abuses or human rights violations committed by Western democracies whenever its human rights record is criticized is like someone saying "See, you beat your dog, so it's okay for me to beat my children." In the end, China's treatment of people like Liu Xiaobo is indefensible, no matter how they try to change the subject. We can only hope that one day those in charge will realize that they can't control their people's minds completely. Perhaps the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo will help bring that day closer.