Disallow Open (Season On) Primaries

Bernie Sanders wants all Democratic primaries to be open because he benefited from them. They are not fairer than closed primaries as he claims. It's just the opposite - they can allow avid opponents of the Democratic party to hijack their primaries by voting for the weakest candidate.

This may well be the reason that Bernie could win just one closed primary in Oregon. All his other victories only came from open or semi open primary states, or those holding caucuses. It can also explain Hillary's surprise loss in Michigan where polls showed her leading Bernie by double digits. Michigan as an open primary state could have enough of its Hillary hating Republicans (many calling themselves Independents) voting for Bernie as an easier to beat general election candidate.

Caucuses favor Bernie with his smaller but more passionate following for an entirely different reason. Caucuses suppress voter turnout because they make voting harder. They disallow early voting, have restrictive times for assembly, and take hours to complete instead of simply pulling a lever or marking choices on a sheet. They also lack secret balloting, creating peer pressure among the timid to go along with the vociferous "feel the Bern" supporters. As widely acknowledged in the media, if all caucuses had instead been primaries, Hillary would have won the nomination by even wider margins.

So Bernie is silent on converting Democratic state caucuses (that suppress voter participation much more than alleged by closed primaries) into primaries, even open ones. His hypocrisy here is matched by his about face on the role of  Superdelegates from whom he now seeks the Democratic nomination despite Hillary convincingly winning the popular vote.

Bernie justified his changed demand on the ground that he fared better than Hillary in some polls in a hypothetical general election match up with Republican opponents, including Donald Trump. Such polls have a similar flaw as the open primary elections - participants can deliberately mislead and distort results.

They can do this if they want to tarnish a strong candidate that they dislike. For example, Republicans who are polled can say truthfully that they will choose Trump over Hillary, but then lie on the next question, declaring they will vote for Bernie over Trump. This way they know that Bernie will look better than Hillary in the poll match ups, and weaken her standing. Bernie supporters can truthfully answer that they'd choose Bernie over Trump, but lie and say they'd choose Trump over Hillary just to make Bernie look better than her. Even a small minority of polled respondents engaging in this gamesmanship can easily skew the results, as seems to have happened.

You may wonder why all this is not brought up in media discussions and coverage, if manipulation in open primaries and polls is actually happening. While it is possible that some in the media and polling organizations are simply oblivious, I suspect most keep quiet because publicizing the fact can lead to even greater abuse. That is because many people who hadn't thought about it can then jump in and also engage in this behavior. Plus, it would cast more doubts on the authenticity and reliability of the polls and decreased interest in them would lose audiences, adversely affecting the media and the polling organizations.

Coming back to the design of presidential primaries, why would Bernie who is very unlikely to again contest as a Presidential candidate push for open primaries? I suspect because of how he'd like to be remembered and preserve the sense of outrage among his followers. His preferred narrative would be that he would have done much better had there been open primaries with better scope of voter participation. And that the present corrupt system in a way cheated him of his nomination. That's nonsense of course as he probably knows, but hey, his self importance can trump (pun intended) the facts.

Finally, the design of the primary elections is largely a matter for the individual states and not directly connected to the Democratic Convention, so he's barking up the wrong tree. I do think the state primaries system for Presidential elections should be reformed, through efforts directed at the right (state) quarters, but in a way contrary to what Bernie demands. There should be no caucuses and no open primaries anywhere, only closed primaries so long as voters are allowed two or three months ahead of an election to declare their party choice.

Good Times After High Crimes

The two murderous lifers who escaped from a maximum security upstate New York prison have expended massive resources towards their recapture. But even if this hadn't happened taxpayers spend up to $60,000 per high risk prisoner per year. Our sense of justice not to speak of our physical and economic well being would have been better served if these two had been executed for their crimes long ago. And since their guilt was never in doubt there was no chance of imposing the ultimate penalty on an innocent.

As of now 19 states have no capital punishment and it is very sparingly used in the rest. We are very easy on our most violent criminals in other ways as well. The worst offenders can lead pretty nice lives, have regular sex (one even impregnated four guards) and get good healthcare. I wrote about "Crime and (Low) Punishment" back in May 2007 and "Arming and Coddling Our Criminals" in July 2012.

According to Gallup Americans favor the death penalty 63% to 33% and yet more and more states are abolishing it. The reason elected political leaders are collectively going against popular will has something to do with the packaged set of political choices that voters face. I like the Democratic platform favoring choice on abortions, universal healthcare, legalizing marijuana, easing up on victim-less crimes like drug use and prostitution, environmental conservation, gay rights, gun control and more public spending on infrastructure and R&D. Yet the Democratic package comes with things a majority including me don't like: favoring strong unions that extract wages and benefits far above free market levels; ethnic quotas over meritocracy in the name of diversity and affirmative action; litigious malpractice and tort system; and yes, coddling vicious and violent criminals.

The same can be said on the flip side for Republicans. The primaries process makes it worse, since the more extreme elements have a bigger role in choosing and influencing candidates in each party than in the general election. Look what happened to the moderate Mitt Romney in 2012 - his forced rightward shift in the primaries made him unwinnable in the general election. To his credit Obama in the 2008 primaries came across as more liberal than he actually turned out to be, helping him topple Hillary. This time the centrist candidates like Hillary and Jeb Bush have a much better shot at winning their primaries, especially if partisan voters place more emphasis on who is winnable in the  general election.

But I digress. Is there a way to have popular preferences better reflected in laws and their implementation on the ground? I'd like more issues like capital punishment, gun control, legalizing marijuana and assisted suicide decided at the state level through referendums. This way voter intent is less likely to be hijacked by minority views bundled into each party's platform.

Pay More And Get (Much) More

The latest Congressional lawmakers caught in ethical and financial wrongdoing are Democratic Senator Bob Menendez and Republican (now ex) Rep. Aaron Schock. And sure, I feel anger and disgust. Only most of it is directed at the simpleminded public and an imbecilic media influencing it to keep our elected leaders ill paid and vulnerable to petty temptations.

Americans by and large accept our capitalist system where CEOs and other top officers of large companies are paid millions or tens of millions of dollars in salary. In the same way our annual federal budget of over $3.5 trillion is collectively controlled by a 100 Senators and 435 Representatives, or over $6 billion apiece. That's above the revenue threshold of $5 billion for a Fortune 500 company. Yet they're paid only $174,000 each with no raises since 2009.

This does not even count the millions of dollars they have to raise to fight elections - every 2 years for Representatives and 6 years for Senators. Unless they are very wealthy and prepared to use their own money they have to fund their campaigns by turning to deep pocketed donors who rarely give anything for free. And once lawmakers of modest means are taking help in cash or kind for their campaigns it's a small extra step accepting this for personal gain or pleasure.

Sen. Menendez' lengthy list of alleged transgressions sound relatively minor to me. He has a rich ophthalmologist friend of 20 years named Dr. Salomon Melgen who contributed over the years a total of $750,000 to various campaign funds helping Mr. Menendez. The Senator also used perks like private jet travel, hotel and villa stays paid for by Dr. Melgen. Mr. Menendez for his part pushed for favorable treatment of Dr. Melgen's cases involving billing disputes with CMS (Medicare), grant of visas to foreign girlfriends of Dr. Melgen on three occasions, and trying to further Dr. Melgen's financial interests by dissuading donations of monitoring equipment to ports by the Customs and Border Patrol.

Political leaders and officials frequently try to help or further the interests of their constituents, friends and relatives. My colleagues and I regularly fielded such calls when I was in the Indian government. Some matters were purely discretionary, i.e., the decision could have gone either way on merits. It is for the concerned agencies to decide whether to accommodate such requests or refuse because they clearly violate some rules or principles. Grant of a U.S. visa for example (as I know from the experiences of hundreds of Indians) often hinges on the whims of the consular officer who happens to be interviewing the applicant. So a Senator weighing in on behalf of a close friend's girlfriend(s) isn't a big deal.

Rep. Schock's excesses are more trivial still, though his donors claim they were swindled by his "campaign full of corruption and lies about his integrity." He splurged taxpayer or campaign funds on doing up his office like in Downton Abbey, some duty free shopping, a couple of non-official trips by private jet, and taking his staff / interns for a New York trip and a Katy Perry concert. The cumulative excess tab was well under $200,000, and there was no "bribe multiplier." By that I mean that taxpayer or donor loss is no higher than Mr. Schock's benefit, unlike in bribes where the loss to government (or briber's gain) is far higher than the payoff to the public official. (That's the whole point of paying a bribe - getting back much more than your "investment.")

These lapses by the two lawmakers are microscopic as compared to failure of all in Congress on the truly big issues. Take healthcare expenses, which nationally run to $3 trillion annually with almost half in public funds. This is about $9,000 per capita, over twice as much as in peer developed countries, and yet Americans on average get less care and suffer worse outcomes.  We can bring down our prices to West Europe levels without compromising quality through straightforward steps I outlined back in March 2011. We don't because lawmakers instead heed and protect the health insurer, provider and affiliated lobbies. This costs us $1.5 trillion extra, or a sellout of nearly $3 billion annually per Congress member. Another example: low tax rates for hedge fund managers (who overall don't produce anything useful, and typically through their seldom detected shenanigans like insider trading, hurt ordinary investors.)

I see three takeaways. First, let us mainly judge our lawmakers and leaders on how they promote and protect our national interests on which we spend billions and trillions of dollars, and cut them some slack on travel and office expenses. Second, let us be enlightened enough to pay them salaries and allowances commensurate with their responsibilities that have at least partial parity with those in the private sector. This will make them less vulnerable to petty corruption and not so easily bought out for small favors. (That's why you rarely see CEOs of S&P 500 companies engage in petty corruption, not because of their superior morality.) And third, let us have true campaign finance reform and publicly funded elections so that our lawmakers need to depend less on special interests.

About the last it is heartening that Hillary Clinton after announcing her 2016 Presidential bid spelled out campaign finance reform as one of the four main tenets of her campaign. It will be great if President Obama (who as outgoing President will be seen as having no axe to grind) strongly pitches for much higher salaries for Congress members, federal and state heads, as they're all underpaid. Even Republican lawmakers and Governors who oppose Mr. Obama will appreciate this as their espousing this themselves is seen and derided in the shallow media as being self-serving. And I'd certainly like to see the new President champion this, perhaps as an adjunct to campaign finance reform.

So how much is a fair salary? I'd point to "clean" Singapore's example where top officials and administrators are paid in the seven figures, and their prime minister is the highest paid worldwide. Illustratively, a large and rich country like U.S.A. can pay its President $5 million annually, Congress members $2 million, about the same for state governors, adjusted for state size, and significant raises for most states' legislators. They should also be paid very decent pensions, while being barred from holding future "influence" jobs such as of lobbyists where they interact with former colleagues and staffers. All this may cost an extra $4 billion or so annually but think of how it will improve the stewardship of our $4 trillion federal budget, and similarly of state funds.

Myopic thinking fanned by an asinine media that is behind the poor pay of our public leaders is not just a problem in U.S.A.  Back in an Aug. 2007 post I had reacted to chain emails sent by otherwise educated and intelligent friends about how overpaid Indian Members of Parliament are swallowing up our national resources. Then in May 2009 I wrote on the misplaced outrage at some pathetically small expenses by British Members of Parliament.

So no, we're not alone in our thinking. But I just hope Americans can like Singapore be more progressive and enlightened in paying our public representatives better, and reaping the rewards in the form of much better and cleaner governance.

We're All Fair And Balanced In Our Own Eyes

Non-Republicans laugh at the Fox News Channel's describing itself as "Fair & Balanced" and this slogan is the butt of endless Jon Stewart digs on The Daily Show.  But its hardcore audience laps up  the Fox News fare as gospel truth (an appropriately applicable term for this viewer demographic) and sees no irony.

Most of the world including many Muslims regard the Al-Qaeda and the Taliban as destructive and fanatical operatives that are a blight to civilized society.  Yet these militants think of themselves as soldier-saints of Allah setting out to right society. 

Israeli rightwing nationalists feel it's entirely justified and reasonable for them to expand Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.  And Iranian hardliners feel the same way about denying Israel's right to exist.

We all tend to see our own viewpoint as being right and those deviating from it - even if it's an overwhelming majority - as being wrong.  In her 2008 "Buried Prejudice: the Bigot in Your Brain" in Scientific American, Siri Carpenter describes how reported facts are filtered by our biases that are often shored up by self-interest.  "We are pre-disposed to ascribe superior characteristics to the groups to which we belong, and to exaggerate differences between our own groups and outsiders."  She goes on to quote studies showing that "many of our implicit associations about social groups form before we are old enough to consider them rationally... full fledged implicit racial bias emerges by age six - and never retreats."  This may also apply to religious bias.

This brings me again to my ongoing discussions about Muslims, with relatives and friends in India who are highly intelligent, fair minded and decent, even if we've different perspectives.  Some exchanges have been triggered by blog posts and popular forwarded emails I get from them.  They talk about secular politicians pandering to Indian Muslims, the destructive role of Islam and its meager contributions to humanity (measured by Nobel Prizes awarded to Muslims), etc.  Some others in my circle have been privately reacting to my June 27 post "Treating Our Indian Muslims Right".  Three examples below illustrate my disagreements with them:

a) An email doing the rounds glorifies Nathuram Godse, the Hindu assassin of Mahatma Gandhi, reproducing his supposed speech at his trial where he talks of Gandhi working against Hindus and favoring Muslims.  Those who forward it generally preface it with a disclaimer like "I don't agree with what Godse did or all he says, but he does have a point."  I personally am repelled at the killer of Gandhi, a disgrace to their Hindu community, sought to be partially rehabilitated through half rationalizations in this manner.  You'll find this Godse speech and reenactments all over on Google and on YouTube.  In viewer comments, Hindu zealots hailing Godse's murder of Gandhi outnumber those who deplore this by ten to one or worse.  At least this shows that bigotry abounds in all religions, and "pacifist" and "all-embracing" Hinduism isn't different in this aspect.

b) Some of my friends and relatives proclaim that "secular" in India means being "pro-Muslim" and reverse discriminating against Hindus in order to garner Muslim votes en bloc. A friend in his blog uses the phrase "secular fundamentalists" to describe secular politicians. He says that "secular" in their dictionary means being contemptuous of their own (Hindu) religion and being obsessed with that of another minority, the Muslims.  I pointed out that the Muslim vote bank (14.5% of the population) is much smaller than the Hindu vote bank (80% of population) that would be put off by such a bias.  The friend countered that Hindus are too fragmented and turn out in smaller percentages, so wooing Muslims this way still makes sense to these politicians. 

Well, UP is India's most populous state where the Muzaffarnagar Hindu-Muslim riots recently occurred. I see from UP 2012 election results that the winning Samajwadi Party got 34% of the votes, and secular BSP and Congress got 24% and 12% respectively.  In other words the secular parties combined had about 70% of the vote, and given that Muslims comprise 18% of UP's population, the other 52% of their supporters have to be primarily Hindus. You'd hardly expect such support from Hindus for a party that discriminated against them. In any case it's much easier to cast lots with a dominant majority and stronger side.  While corruption, inefficiency and infighting may justifiably sink them, we should at least credit secular parties with  fair-mindedness and courage for trying to level the field for minorities.

c) An otherwise saintly elder relative in India echoed a sentiment in our circle when he said, "If you see Muslims on TV they are so aggressive (while seeking rights and denouncing oppression).  Can Hindus raise their voice in Pakistan and other Muslim countries?"  I on the contrary expect Muslims to freely express their justified indignation at being targeted in riots on account of their religion.  Moreover, I'd hate to see Muslims in India treated the way less tolerant countries treat their minorities, including Hindus.  That's what makes India's secularism and inclusiveness so much better than the ethos in those other countries.

Of course, being "truly" fair and balanced should be just one of the major factors for voters everywhere, including Indians.  Given the widespread corruption, stifling bureaucracy and ineptness that permeates the present Congress government in India, I'd agree with its detractors that it should be replaced.  The clear frontrunner to lead a new Indian government is Narendra Modi of the BJP, the Hindu-centric opposition party.  Modi has developed a solid record and reputation as an able and incorruptible administrator as Chief Minister of Gujarat State which has made remarkable progress in his 12 year tenure. Widespread accusations of his involvement in the deadly 2002 anti-Muslim riots have never been proved and he has protested his innocence and made numerous overtures and reassurances to Muslims recently.  So I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and cautiously favor his election, especially if other alternatives like the well regarded Nitish Kumar of Bihar are not nationally viable. But unlike Modi's BJP supporters, my choice would be based purely on economic and administrative grounds, and in spite of, not because of his RSS / Hindutva roots.








 

Voter, Blame (Or Pat) Thyself

Cynicism pays.  Mitt Romney doesn't seem to be hurting from switching positions in the blink of an eye to whatever his audience of the moment wants to hear.  All his "then and now" video excerpts  played by Jon Stewart in the Daily Show and by other media haven't stopped his upward momentum in popularity.  With two weeks to go before elections he's pulled even with (or even slightly surpassed) Obama in national polls.  Pundits on average have Romney's chances of winning the election improving from less than one in four a month ago to almost even now (though NerdWallet still has him only at 29% today.)

And then we have India where corruption, the role of money in politics, inefficiency and populism has severely affected economic growth. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with a clean image is called an underachiever by Time in its July 16 issue for failing to check corruption around him, and to stick his neck out for reforms.  With a few notable exceptions it looks like elected leaders of whatever party or political platform are on the take.

Looking at India and the US as examples, are the virtues of democracy as great as they're cracked up to be?

"Even the worst democracy is better than the best of dictatorship." Thus said then Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani of Pakistan in Feb. 2010 and I've heard this sagely intoned in our polite circles in India for decades. 

Really? Will average Chinese citizens trade places with their Indian counterparts, including the growth rates over the past quarter century that have made the Chinese thrice as rich?  A June 21, 2011 article in Business Insider lists the most economically successful dictators of the past century, and generally left their people a lot better off than before.  England's golden age was in the 16th century when Queen Elizabeth I reigned (1558-1603) wielding absolute power, seeding the idea of benevolent despotism. 

Still, the odds favor democracies.

Corruption and misuse of power can flourish in any political system, but democratic checks and balances like a free press and independent judiciary can better restrict the most egregious behavior.  An Oct. 26, 2012, NY Times story describes $2.7 billion of wealth amassed by the once humble family of Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao.  Compare this to Robert Vadra, Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law and Priyanka's husband whose wealth grew in 3 years from $100,000 to "just" $60 million.  And consider that Robert Vadra's alleged misdeeds are being widely reported and criticized by Indian media, while a tight lid is kept in China on any adverse news about its leaders.

Democracy has another thing going for it - people choose their leaders and hence are responsible for their own plight.  Chance still plays a role, of course.  Two prime ministers, Narasimha Rao who started economic reforms and his successor from the opposing party A.B. Vajpayee, were better than expected, and India thrived.  Mr. Manmohan Singh isn't terrible but he fell short of his high promise.  In US recent history Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush probably represent the opposite ends of the performance spectrum.  

Still, in past presidencies and the coming general elections of Nov. 6, US citizens decide on their leaders, for better or for worse.  There's no one else to blame or congratulate for that choice, whether it's made with eyes wide open, or out of ignorance.  Does there have to be a lot of the latter for the Republicans to win?  After all Republican stances on important issues like taxes, health care coverage and the social safety net are less favorable to the middle class (and the poor of course) than Democratic ones.  In the NY Times on Oct. 24 Nicholas Kristof describes how Obama's economic policies trump Romney's.  Instead of USA's steady if modest recovery under Obama, Europe style austerity measures favored by Romney and Republicans would have led to Europe style economic crisis.  Yet Republicans can only clinch elections with substantial middle class backing.

Election propaganda and voter ignorance of course play a role, but more complex factors may matter more.  Man does not live on bread alone, and factors beyond material and physical benefits may turn the scales to explain why many in the middle class identify with Republicans. 

Are Romney supporters oblivious of his duplicity, especially the 95% who lose out in Republican intent to "broaden the tax base" while lowering taxes for the richest? Some are, though many more may simply overlook it because his party's platform is closer to their disposition on social values, religious zeal, immigration and racial issues, etc. 

In a few days we'll know who and what wins out.  And with the US being a great democracy our voters will get to live with their choices.

Arming And Coddling Our Criminals

Democrats and Republicans both provide comfort and help to our violent offenders. 

The Democrats (actually the Liberals who closely identify with them) have made jail terms shorter and more pleasant for felons.  They've had the death penalty abolished in 17 states and Washington, D.C., and cheered its erosion in the remaining 33.  The 12 killed and 58 injured by James Holmes in a Colorado movie theater have created headlines and the guilt or deliberate intent of the shooter is never in doubt.  Yet an insanity defense is almost certain and it will be many years if ever before this guy gets the ultimate punishment.  Something he would have dodged with certainty if he had chosen the "right" state - one of those 17 merciful ones - to stage his crimes.

Still, violent criminals everywhere should be heartened by the overall statistics.  There are about 14,000 murders committed in the US every year, and only about 43 of the guilty are eventually executed.  So the odds are very good that killers even if they're caught will spend their lives in prisons with decent food, stay, entertainment and health benefits, thanks to liberals' efforts and court directives by progressive judges.  Not to mention the opportunity to bask in media publicity and star in shows like "Lockup Raw."

About two thirds of our murders are committed with use of firearms.  And this is where the NRA backed Republicans are key to ensuring that our criminals are well supplied.  Some precautions like background checks are rendered meaningless when you can avoid them in gun shows.  But as remarkable is letting assault weapons like AK 47s or hand guns with high round magazines be owned for self-protection under the 2nd Amendment.  There have been ample studies like this one of Feb. 2010 in News Medical about how guns in homes do far more harm than good to the owners themselves, leave alone other victims.  Mere facts can't compete of course with the NRA's "Founding Fathers" rhetoric. If it was valid 200 years ago (when slavery and subservience of women was also the norm) many Americans think that alone is a good enough reason to continue such practices. 

There were several media laments about how Obama uttered platitudes but did nothing substantial after the Colorado massacre to force gun control.  But this close to elections I don't blame him.  A large chunk of independents or undecideds can be turned off by such a measure, and those who favor it may be upset, but they'll never switch to Romney.  And conversely, the same may hold though to a much smaller extent for Romney to stick to the NRA playbook. 

After the elections there should be a serious overhaul.  In September 2009 I suggested key changes to our criminal justice system, though these may shock Liberals as well as those on the hard right.  An articulate and astute President supported by some key Congressional leaders with similar qualities from both parties could make this happen.  They can win broad acceptance and acclaim from the "non-fringe" populace, and find alternative sources of campaign funding and support to replace some they'll lose from their extreme base.  See how many of these proposed changes you agree with.

We Are Gullible And Easily Manipulated

The title of this post is my understanding in plain words of the essence of behavioral economics, particularly as applied to politics and public discourse.  A series of studies have validated this view that people often don't realize what's (fairly obviously) in their best interest and hence undermine it.

It explains for example, why more Americans disapprove rather than approve of the 2009 health reforms (inadequate and marred by compromise as they were) that overall better their lot.  Or how so many Americans fall for Tea Party tax ideals that basically favor the top 1% at the expense of the 95% (even if not all the 99%.)

Now The Economist in its March 24, 2012 article "Nudge, Nudge, Think, Think" describes how forces for public good can use behavioral economics to manipulate people back to collectively bettering their lot. The article informs how the two authors of "Nudge" are helping governments and socio-political campaigns. Cass Sunstein, has been recruited by Barack Obama to the White House. Richard Thaler has been advising policymakers in several countries including Denmark, France and, above all, Britain, where David Cameron has established a Behavioural Insights Team, nicknamed the Nudge Unit.

Prof. Richard Thaler has since my University of Chicago days in the 1990s been engaged in a vigorous and running though largely good-natured debate with his "efficient markets" colleagues.  The latter who dominated our University's financial ideas say that investors as a whole make completely rational decisions based on their self-interest. Can there be irrational investors who pay more or sell securities for less than what they're worth according to publicly available information?  Sure.  But according to efficient markets theory there are enough rational counter parties to benefit from their stupidity to drive the prices back to the "correct" level.

The University to its credit brought in Thaler and others to enrich its diversity of economic ideas instead of stacking its faculty ranks with just its renowned efficient market theorists.  Thaler's thinking has increasingly gained traction in academic, financial, social and political circles.

Behavioral economics is of course a double edged sword and special interests have been using it to dupe people into supporting their causes even at the expense of the general populace.  Now genuine reformers in politics and government can harness the concepts to swing the pendulum back towards gaining popular approval for the best public interests.

On Anna, Manmohan and Sonia

I rarely talk about Indian politics because (a) I'm not close enough to them, and (b) with their complexity it can become a never-ending discussion (even more so than in the US.)  But I was drawn into some exchanges recently.

It started out simply enough with college pal "OK" posting a simple query on my Facebook wall about Sonia Gandhi coming to the US for medical treatment.  Why not get treated in India, "OK" asked, if the hospitals there are so good as to attract Western medical travellers?

My response to him was picked up on by some other of my high school and college friends and devolved into a semi-serious back and forth of riffs and political jabs.  Most comments were not too sympathetic to Sonia and her circle, and seem interesting enough to share below:

The Hindu : News / National : Sonia undergoes successful surgery www.thehindu.com

Congress president Sonia Gandhi was on Friday recovering in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of a US hospital where she underwent successful surgery for an undisclosed ailment.

Me: I'd guess on two good reasons (for coming to the US), (a) for cancer or non-standard treatment where the top US institutions like Sloan Kettering are the best, and/or (b) to maintain privacy/secrecy. 
-

OK: I suppose (b) is impossible in India!
-

IB: So she has cancer?

-

PD: How can she have cancer when she is the cancer?
-

SS:  From attending functions in Bangladesh to sudden serious ailment to US to surgery to recovery.... rubbish, say many. It was a sudden dash to the US to salvage .... before Jan Lokpal became a reality. If anyone is really so ill as to have to dash off to a foreign country for emergency operation, the only son and the only daughter will not be smiling half way thru India, attending public / political functions, rallies etc.., In Any normal family, the kids will definitely like to be by the mother's side, not on the other side of the globe. POINT TO PONDER...
-

Me: You guys are so rough on this fine lady... :-)
-

PD: The fine lady is so rough on us. 
-

IB: Sandip define "fine"? it has many meanings.
-

OK: Yes. Did Sandip mean meter-maid? 
-

Me:  Good jabs there. My poor Sonia. Quoting Shakespeare, "You blocks, you stones, you cruel men of Rome" - I mean India. :-)
-

SS: Not on "SCHINDLER'S LIST", but on "SWINDLERS LIST".... how can you sympathize with such types, Sandip? Besides, anyone "fine" would be a total misfit for politics. The person has to be all and anything but "fine". If you mean a "fine scourge and all and everything unprintable", for most politicians, that would be more apt. Agree or disagree? 
-

Me:  Disagree. :-) I haven't seen evidence of her own personal dishonesty. Indians have been voting for splinter groups and regional parties so Manmohan and Sonia types are perhaps forced to form questionable alliances and are too weak to control corruption. In this milieu I doubt their opponents are, or can do better. That said, I'm admittedly quite removed from Indian politics. :-) 
-

IB: Sandip, you quoted: "You blocks, you stones, you cruel men of Rome" -- but from what I remember it went like: "You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things"---
-

OK:  IB, I noticed that too but I let it pass as Sandip speaks from the heart not from memory! :) Or perhaps he did not want to call us "worse than senseless things", being our kind friend? It's not that we love Sonia less...
-

And so it went, showing I've erudite friends and most aren't fans of the Gandhi dynasty or current leadership under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.  

I also get many emails forwarded by friends in rapturous praise of Anna Hazare, the 74 year old social-political activist that his admirers liken to Mahatma Gandhi.  Anna has gone on fasts unto death to demand that a super authority (Lokpal) be set up in India that can investigate for corruption and remove anyone in public office that it finds guilty including the Prime Minister and judges of the Indian Supreme Court.  

When I call my father-in-law in Pune he marvels at Anna's immense popularity and asks what I think of him and how the Indian government should respond. I half jokingly suggest that the government should let him starve himself to death so they can move on to more substantive issues.  

To my mind rampant corruption in India is not for want of more legal institutions or of more checks and balances.  We may already have too many that gum up the process of decision making.  The problem is that all of these may be corrupt and require pay-offs.  So having one more like a Lokpal with oversight of India's highest elected offices and consequent ability to blackmail such leadership may add to India's problems instead of solving them. 
-

Bose, one of my gym buddies who recently returned from a trip to India talked of the vast "new money", the related corruption in politics as well as the huge Anna Hazare following he witnessed at first hand.  On his perceptions about Anna's core supporters he drily remarked that they're probably seeking power to get their turn at the money till.
-

As I said in my Facebook exchange, India's problems appear to be compounded by its narrowly focused and ill informed voters failing to elect and give strong majorities to good leaders of national stature.  Such voters are swayed more by parochial and caste considerations that lead to fragmented parties and shaky alliances with elected representatives looking for quick payoffs in exchange for their support.  
-

The solution may lie in an electorate exercising better judgement and a resurgence of nationalistic parties.  Or India may be better suited to a different democratic system like a directly elected US style President (only stronger, though chances of this happening are almost nil and we're seeing its downsides in the US gridlock, too.)  But an appointed Lokpal who can remove the elected Prime Minister and judges of India's top court as the Hazare folks demand hardly seems to be the answer.

Obama: Centrist or Weakling?

President Obama made most of the concessions to Republicans and Tea Party hardliners that have led to the debt ceiling deal that averted a US default. He gave way to most demands of the Tea Party faction of the Republicans - deep spending cuts and no revenue increases by raising taxes or closing tax loopholes for the rich. The Democrats had little choice but to go along or else crash the US economy.

But they are not happy.  In his Aug. 1 NYTimes column "The President Surrenders" Paul Krugman scathingly explains why Obama's capitulation is a catastrophe in both economic and political terms.  Joe Nocera in his companion "The Tea Party's War on America" talks of this group and the Republicans taking the country hostage and being rewarded with near-complete capitulation by Obama.  Even William McGurn in the right wing WSJ today calls the accord a "conservative victory" and a "striking achievement." 

There is a difference between a Bill Clinton type centrist who compromises and someone who is reluctant to take a stand, and when forced to do so repeatedly backs away to become the appeaser in chief. Emboldened by their successful brinksmanship Republicans are likely to take Obama's (abject) pliability for granted in future negotiations on key issues.  That said, I've a couple of additional observations:

•  The US government may not be "of the people" or "for the people" in the sense that the Administration and Congress are adequately acting in the interests of the populace, rather than key special interests. That's why approval rates for Obama are at 45% and of Congress at an all time low of 14% according to the latest CNN/ORC poll. But the US government is still "by the people."  Voters put Obama in office in 2008 (particularly those supporting him against Hillary in the primary) and elected many Tea Partiers in 2010.  So at least Americans are fully responsible for the state of their national economy and polity, unlike people living in countries with repressive regimes.

• As a corollary to the above the US won't get political accountability if the voters remain befuddled about who's responsible for their plight.  Despite the Tea Party and Republicans plunging the nation into a contrived debt crisis an ABC poll today shows Americans lashing out at both parties.  68% and 67% of them disapprove of Republicans and Democrats respectively.  Paul Krugman partly ascribes this to the media, deriding its false sense of balance in his July 28 NYTimes column for tending to blame both sides equally no matter who's actually at fault.  Still, there's enough information out there for Americans to judge their leaders and vote in their own best interest, but many don't. Take the Tea Party that vehemently opposes tax increases even for households making over $250,000 a year.  It should logically attract only the 2% of Americans who are above this threshold, yet over 20% belong to this group.

• Obama's actions may have weakened Democrats and given away too much of the store for average Americans, but they haven't affected his own re-election chances.  To Democrats and a majority of independents he'll likely be the lesser of two evils when faced with a Republican nominee elected by an increasingly radicalized GOP.  There's also no viable Democratic primary challenger or a third candidate (like NY mayor Michael Bloomberg) on the horizon yet.  So to the GOP rhetoric about making Obama a one term President and the above ABC poll showing him at par nationally and behind Mitt Romney in the key state of Pennsylvania, time will tell. But I'd place my odds on seeing him in office, with or without a spine, till 2016.

Justice Or Lynching Of DSK?

Anita's frail and gentle 80 year old uncle living by himself in Pune (India) is deathly afraid of changing his maid who has been giving him grief.  He cites many accounts of maids falsely alleging sexual assault by (even elderly) male employers when there were disputes or in revenge for perceived grievances.  He also quoted news of a rising trend of women in ones and twos hitching rides with unsuspecting male motorists and then demanding cash and valuables failing which they'd raise an alarm about attempted molestation.

Many years ago during my own IAS training, Mr. M.K. Kaw, one of our illustrious senior officials cautioned: "If you have a woman in your office make sure there's a third person around."  I took that advice to heart and repeated it to others, including a mid level forest official many years later when I was inquiring into a sexual harassment complaint against him by one of his female employees.  He was lucky to be cleared because of inconsistencies in her statements and evidence of her involvement with his enemies in influential circles.

It's the same in the US.  For example rape accusations were made up and vigorously pursued against three Duke lacrosse players in 2006.  And some may recall the media circus around the 1991 rape trial and acquittal of JFK's nephew, William Kennedy Smith.

We hear much about how difficult it can be for a rape victim to press charges, and how the proceedings questioning her and going into her own background can hurt her twice.  That needs to be balanced with the way improper handling can severely and irreversibly damage the falsely accused even if he is eventually cleared.

I have long had issues with the US justice system per my Sept. 3, '09 post, which coddles convicted criminals while paying lip service to presumption of innocence and needlessly humiliating the accused.  This brings me to the sexual assault charges against IMF (ex-)chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) who's hardly a sympathetic figure. He's widely known to be a womanizer and philanderer, though he may be in an open marriage - his wife has gone to great lengths to bail him out and to support him.  More disturbing is his supposedly consensual affair three years ago with a subordinate and former IMF economist that could involve sexual harassment. While DSK got off then with a reprimand I agree with the view that this made him unsuitable to head the IMF.

But considering just the current allegations there's little doubt that the accusing hotel maid performed a sex act on him - the DNA evidence confirms this and the defense has not denied it.  The key question is whether he forced himself on her or was the act consensual. Polls show a little over half the Americans believe the former while a majority of the French believe the latter (and that DSK was set up by his opponents as he was likely to become the next French President.)

I am with the French and skeptical of the sexual assault allegations.  Here's why:

•  DSK is a 5'7" flabby, pasty 62 year old who looks like he'd be bested by a younger woman in a physical struggle, leave alone being able to corner, subdue and force himself upon her.  And remain aroused through all this. 
• Young women have teeth. DSK had no weapons to cow the maid into complying with oral sex.  She could have interrupted proceedings while inflicting serious damage by biting down hard.  Wouldn't DSK be aware of this risk and be deterred by it?
• DSK has a reputation for seduction, but this is very different from a rapist physically forcing himself on a woman. DSK is rich enough to pay for sex which is what I suspect was the deal that day (or so he thought.)  If so, he still has a problem telling the truth and facing criminal consequences of abetting prostitution.  I favor decriminalizing the world's oldest profession as long as it does not involve minors, coercion or trafficking, but that's not how the law stands in New York.
• The police cite DSK's previous conduct including hitting on other staff and inviting two receptionists to his room the previous evening for a drink as supporting "proof" of his criminal state of mind.  But the implications can be just the opposite.  If the staff shared their experience with others, it would be widely known that he was seeking out women, and give his enemies a good way to set him up.
• The maid should not have had this room on her cleaning list because  DSK was supposed to check out that day.  Hotels have routine systems in place that flag rooms for cleaning only after the guest has left.  So did the hotel make a mistake, or was she not supposed to enter in the first place?  Another curious coincidence is that she was not supposed to be working on that floor, but volunteered to do so in place of an absent colleague.
• The maid further seems to have ignored protocol by not knocking loudly and repeatedly before entering the suite.  By her account she then went deep enough into the suite before noticing it was occupied as to be prevented from leaving when DSK emerged naked from the bathroom.  

The police and prosecutors aware of all this should have been cautious in their approach.  I'd imagine they at least had the maid take a polygraph (lie detector) test to satisfy themselves even though it's inadmissible in court.

We saw the police parading DSK in handcuffs in media glare in a humiliating "perp walk" that is banned in Europe and even by a Supreme Court order in a developing country like India.  Worse, the initial judge Melissa Jackson abused her discretion in denying DSK bail because he is a flight risk.  Is her action stemming from sheer stupidity or pomposity combined with an ego kick at bringing down an international leader and reveling in media attention?

What age are she and the police living in?  With DSK wearing an electronic ankle monitor, under police guard and surveillance, and his passport seized, how did they find the prospect of DSK pulling a Houdini and escaping realistic?  I think this judge is a disgrace and unfit to hold office.  A superior court eventually granted DSK bail with home confinement but I wish there was a system in place for immediate appeal or review of the first judge's decision so DSK wasn't sent to Riker's Island jail in the first place.

Even if DSK is acquitted of sexual assault (and I'd lay the odds on that despite a lot of noise to the contrary) the damage is already done.  He's already had to resign from the IMF and a future presidential bid looks dead.

The solace we can take is that in his case two wrongs may have made a right.  His romp with his subordinate in the IMF in 2008 should have cost him his IMF job, but didn't, and the latest allegations should not have severely damaged him until they were proved, but did.

Union Bashing - Good Or Bad?

How do I perceive unions, particularly public employee unions?

My childhood memories are of the already slow and congested life in Calcutta (now Kolkata) coming to a halt during general strikes called "bandhs" that occurred all too often.  On the good days workers would take time off after their lunch break to stage demonstrations in support of "worker rights" that meant more pay, less work, and more additions to already bloated payrolls.

We then moved to the scenic hill station of Darjeeling (of tea fame) with little union activity where I spent my middle and high school years.  But union activity and strikes were much in fashion when I entered college at the University of Delhi.  Most colleges in our 110,000 strong University used to be closed for a couple of weeks a year due to strikes by students and non-teaching staff (called "karamcharies".)

The University karamcharies earned about 50% more than their counterparts in the private sector.  Our college education was publicly funded and nearly free and few of us were aware of what exactly were the demands of the striking students.  To most it seemed a way to avoid classes and inject a little excitement by clashing with authorities.  Our own St. Stephen's College with 1000+ students was one of the very few (of the nearly 100 colleges and departments comprising the University) that refused to take part in any strikes.  So police would be posted outside our gates to guard against trouble by outside strikers who resented our non-involvement.

Years later after joining the IAS I was on the other side, with my fair share of handling public union negotiations, agitations and strikes.  One of my later stints was as Municipal Commissioner (city manager) of Shimla city that had one of the most militant public unions.  They would strike or disrupt services about twice a year in spite of the Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA) that made these jail-able offenses.  That's because ESMA was never invoked, or action under it was rapidly withdrawn as a precondition for any settlement.  Of our 1100 employees, we had over 600 sanitation workers as part of previous concessions to the union though we needed no more than 400.  Their pay and benefits were double of those in the private sector.

Early in my Shimla MC tenure the union went on strike and their staff threw buckets of human feces in my office in appreciation of my engaging temporary replacements to keep the city going.  It took me and my team almost a year to draw up contingency plans and train home guards to distribute water and run other facilities in case of future stoppages.  In a subsequent strike, I used these preparations to maintain services, deployed armed police to guard our strategic installations against sabotage and invoked ESMA to penalize strikers and restore normalcy. It was the first time this had happened in the (then) 120 year history of Shimla, and put a stop to labor troubles for the next three years.

 By then I had come to the "capitalist" US and expected things to be very different here, but there are commonalities.  Political leaders here also tend to make deals with public unions to smooth their own tenure even while giving away long term benefits that devastate budgets down the road.  Then there are the illegal strikes disrupting essential services that are barred by US laws (also all too often failed to be invoked by the authorities).  For example the New York transit strike of 2005 disrupted life for millions and violated the Taylor Law (similar to ESMA) but the violators received a mere slap on the wrist.  Then there are the airline pilots unions who get around strike bans by staging mass sick-outs.  Employees avoiding duty by falsely claiming to be sick can be fired, and the management can easily require medical testing by an independent board in such circumstances, yet this abuse is taken in stride.

Even in the broader philosophical context one can question the value and social contributions of unions.  Collective bargaining had a big and useful role to play in the old days when a few large and powerful employers could collude to keep wages and benefits artificially low.  Or when a race to the bottom (in costs) could cause unsafe conditions or extreme hardship in the absence of public safety laws.

But most or all of this is now inapplicable since mechanisms are in place for protecting workers through anti-trust laws, OSHA, the Minimum Wage Act and the like.  It is these laws that ensured a five day work week, stopped child labor and promoted worker safety much more than the unions, contrary to claims by film maker Michael Moore on Stephen Colbert on his March 29 show, or by union leader Richard Trumka in a WSJ Op-Ed on March 4.

Almost by definition so long as there is no employer collusion or monopoly, union activity is an attempt to secure wages and benefits over and above the free market level.  In the latter the workers are free to go (or be wooed away) to where they get the best compensation for their services, according to their perceived worth.  Instead, collective bargaining can look a lot like collective blackmail, as when workers at the GM plant making engine transmissions threaten or go on strike bringing most production to a halt.  No wonder US manufacturers want to diversify production globally to make them less vulnerable, and it's not just to go to where labor costs are lowest. 

So yes, I'm not a fan of unions nor view them as net contributors to public welfare, as their raising of US labor costs has contributed at least partially to the current level of unemployment.  There are some pro-union laws and practices that beg for change.  For example, see how the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is trying to force Boeing to locate its Dreamliner assembly plant in heavily unionized Washington State, instead of in South Carolina.  In 2008 Boeing workers in Washington went on a 58 day strike that cost Boeing $1.8 billion.  So Boeing management understandably wanted to instal new plants in less unionized and more business friendly locations.  The NLRB interpreted this as illegal retaliation against union activity.  The WSJ in its April 21 Opinion pages rightly deplores NLRB's sandbagging of Boeing and calls for a change in such a system.

And what of Republican efforts to restrict bargaining by public unions on matters other than their salaries, or do away with compulsory contributions by workers to their union funds?  In principle I find little wrong with that.  We already know that politicians are not mindful of future liabilities that their concessions to unions can impose on future administrations.  That's a big reason why our states and local governments are in budgetary crises.  As far as union contributions go, why should workers be forced to contribute if they don't want to?  That's the situation in the "right to work" states in the South that employers find more attractive, and such forced contributions did not commonly exist even in more socialist countries like India.

On the other hand I'm perfectly fine with the unions launching concerted drives to mobilize public opinion against Republican union busters, and trying to recall elected representatives as they are doing in Wisconsin.  Besides, Governor Scott Walker and his fellow Republicans in Wisconsin have been quite weaselly in their actions.  For instance, they have specifically exempted police and firefighter unions from the new restrictions, apparently because these union members traditionally lean Republican.  These uniformed personnel that are vital to maintaining security and safety should be specifically barred from union activity, as they are, even in India, let alone favored with special exemptions.

Indiana and Ohio states under Republican leadership have also moved to curb the scope of collective bargaining by public employees.  But they have sought a more uniform implementation without picking any favorites, so their actions are fairer and a better blueprint for change than those of Walker & Co. in Wisconsin.

Landmark Half-Measures

This is just the latest of the Obama (and Congress) half-measures that have been widely labeled as "historic", "unprecedented" and "landmark".  I'm referring to the Financial Reforms Bill signed into law on July 21st.

It started with the $800B economic stimulus package of Feb. '09 that Paul Krugman warned even at the negotiation stage as being very inadequate,and reiterating these concerns after Congressional agreement. His fears of a stalled recovery have been realized.  Next we had the Afghanistan surge of troops, but with delays and declaration of a withdrawal starting in July 2011 - signaling intentions to embolden the enemy though leaving some leeway.  Then of course there's the health care overhaul of Mar. '10 but without even the public option, leave alone the far more appealing and cost effective "Medicare for all" (aka "single payer") push.

Which brings me back to the financial reforms law.  It is huge and complex, yet leaves almost all the important safeguards against a meltdown to be put in place through subsequent regulations by government agencies.  That's great for bankers and their lobbyists who can get all the loop holes and escape clauses inserted while working with regulators.  If they can win over hundreds of lawmakers, why not a few dozen regulators behind closed doors?  Krugman points to further timidity by the Obama team - they are even dithering over nominating an obviously great fit like Elizabeth Warren to head the new consumer financial protection agency.

But that's not all.  Regulations can be changed by successive administrations, without further legislative oversight.  That means that even if the present crop of  regulators do their job well and insert the right checks and balances, all this can be undone by a future Bush clone who assumes the Presidency.  Knowing this, even the Republicans beholden to bankers and supporting them may not be quite so upset with the new law.  And as seen in the current crisis, it can take many years for the negative consequences of lax oversight to surface, while banks can start to profit almost immediately.

This means that a future regime that loosens regulations that unfairly helps banks can benefit from their patronage.  Yet such an administration can quite possibly escape (or at least get the benefit of the doubt for) the blame for planting the time bomb that causes a financial disaster on a successor's watch.  

Other instances of the Obama and the Congressional Democrats collectively lacking courage are in enacting effective energy legislation, and perhaps immigration reform.  In energy we couldn't even have the weak cap and trade system passed, leave alone a stiff gasoline tax that can fund alternative fuel development as espoused by Thomas Friedman for years.

My take even on Obama "victories" is generally of his doing a lot when cornered into having to act, yet without doing enough.  It's almost like trying to save half the patient.  And it's not a question of being a centrist, but being ineffective.  I believe his taking the lead and acting more vigorously and decisively on contentious issues would help rather than hurt the Democrats in the 2010 mid-term elections.  It would not only rally his disheartened Democratic base, but also win the respect of more independents. 

But some initiatives did work well.  The response to the H1N1 "swine" flu epidemic was good overall, and overestimating the demand for the swine flu shots and the resultant oversupply was much better than if they'd underestimated it.  On the gulf oil spill the Obama team could have acted faster and forced more skimmers to be mobilized, including those from other oil companies.  But it did force BP to pay into a $20 billion fund despite Republican condemnation and appointed Kenneth Feinberg to administer compensation (with luck speedily and impartially) from it.   

Hopefully they can build more upon these types of successes in the time to come.

The (Lack Of?) Mind Of The Voter

Both Democrats and Republicans have die hard core constituencies. They each average almost a third of the voters, with the proportions varying in Blue and Red states, and rarely stray from their party. Both parties can rely on these bases, so long as they to turn out to vote.

In Republican Scott Brown's surprise victory over Martha Coakley for the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat it was the swing of independent voters towards Brown that made the difference. This was unexpected in a solidly Democratic constituency when most voters knew about the high stakes involved in giving Republicans the 41st "filibuster enabling" Senate vote.

What led to this voter behavior? Pundits talk about dissatisfaction with the economy and lack of jobs, anger at a do-nothing government (even though Republicans as a block were largely responsible) and anxiety over "bad" health reforms. I've this to add:

• Trivials can matter a lot. Scott was out there campaigning vigorously. He was in front of the cameras. He is telegenic. Martha was lax. She celebrated her Christmas at home and shunned "standing in the cold" at Fenway Park. She flubbed with some silly sports comments. She took voters for granted. So they punished her.

• Do not underestimate voters - part 1. That is, underestimate their ability to make wrong judgments or outright mistakes. Americans re-elected George Bush in 2004. I supported Joe Lieberman in 2006. Democrats chose Obama over Hillary in 2008 (okay, I couldn't resist this cheap shot.) They do that - just take it in stride.
• Do not underestimate voters - part 2. That is, underestimate their ability to blame the wrong people. The economic and jobs debacle was created in GWB's time (with some roots going as far as in Clinton's time.) AIG was bailed out along with Wall Street players with 100% coverage of counterparty commitment also during the Republican era. Obama's administration and Congress opted for too small and misdirected a stimulus package despite Paul Krugman's early and repeated warnings because of solid Republican (and some Blue Dog) obstruction. Ditto for the long and torturous evolution of the convoluted health reforms bill. But voter anger is rewarding the bad guys.
• But there are hopeful lessons, including from elsewhere. In India voters are often ignorant and seem irrational. Convicted murderers, bandits and thugs have been elected as Members of Parliament. In some states corrupt and inept governments are successively elected for decades at a stretch. Voters frequently are driven by very narrow considerations (like caste) that don't reflect their larger interests and longer term preferences. But in the last election last year even they seem to have rewarded the Manmohan Singh / Sonia Gandhi Congress government for trying to do the right thing. People are the same. If Indian voters with a 66% literacy rate and under 1.5% of US per capita income can ultimately "get it", then why not US voters?

So it's good for the Obama administration to read the Massachusetts outcome to adjust strategy and message as Bob Herbert suggests in his NYT OpEd today. But they shouldn't be spooked away from bold policy initiatives. Obama said as much in his State of the Union speech today, and we'll know soon enough how much he means it.

Another Look At Howard Dean

I was underwhelmed by Howard Dean's Democratic Presidential bid in 2004. Even before the Iowa primary and his much publicised "scream" (a total non-factor for me) Dean was my fourth preference, behind Wesley Clark, John Edwards and John Kerry, in that order.

I had paid inadequate attention to what Dean had to say and thought he leaned too far left on some issues at that time. But as 2008 rolled along I was impressed by his articulation of Democratic values and even-keeled stance as DNC chairman during the Hillary - Obama primary slug fest. And now he's been making direct, succinct and insightful comments in TV news shows on health reforms, including on the issue of the public option that he strongly supports.

In the Morning Joe program on MSNBC he offered this very interesting perspective on death panels and why Obama seemed to be backing away from the public option ahead of a Senate vote. He said this was a way to get a bill past the Senate with 60 votes when Democrat senators like Ben Nelson and Kent Conrad are sabotaging the public option provision. This provision can then be re-introduced through a "reconciliation process" with the House of Representatives bill that then needs only 50 votes to pass. If that's truly what Obama has in mind then I won't be so hasty in judging him.

Others have also noticed how Dean is such an effective voice for health reforms and for batting down misinformation by opponents. Here is a YouTube clip by a group called The Young Turks showing how Dean counters three arguments against key reform provisions. The commentator wonders why Dean isn't the Health and Human Services Secretary. Now that he's done being DNC chairman I hope he gets to assume another high public office. And yes, if I could revisit 2004 he'd be my top choice among those presidential candidates.

Misplaced Outrage - The UK Scandal That Isn't

So what do you think about the UK's MP expenses scandal that has forced the resignation of Speaker Michael Martin and several Ministers and MPs? The media reports talk of public outrage about these excesses and one poll shows the effect on UK voters. 63% have not been swayed by all this coverage and it won't change their voting preference, but a whopping 27% say that it has.

I think this whole controversy is deplorable, and a commentary on the quality of our media coverage. In an August 2007 post I disagreed with criticism of what we pay our lawmakers. I am strongly of the view that we should pay our apex lawmakers well, considering the enormous responsibilities and the public trust we place upon them.

That's not only fair but also expedient, as it will insulate them somewhat from the petty blandishments (like sports event tickets, rides on private jets, or stays in vacation homes of people seeking favors.) This won't prevent misdeeds by the heavily corrupt, but at least give the fundamentally decent lawmakers (hopefully the majority) the financial cushion to better follow their conscience. I'd also like to reduce the dependence of candidates to Congress (or Parliament in the case of UK or India) on special interests for raising funds for elections. This can be achieved, for example, by providing them public funding to contest elections, with the amount depending on their poll performance.

So how much should we pay them? I'd say $1 - $2 million a year to US members of Congress, and about 1 million GBP annually to UK MPs. For UK's 646 MPs it will work out to about 1 billion GBP including associate expenses, a drop in the bucket as compared to the UK central budget of 600 billion GBP. In the current MP scandal the total amount claimed by all MPs put together was 92 million GBP, not all of it improper. Given UK's population of 61M, that's less than 2 pounds per capita.

So yes, I consider this whole scandal to be a storm in a tea cup. And I know of no opinion leader or journalist of standing who has had the sense - or the courage - to pronounce it as such.

Choice of Palin has Sealed McCain's Fate

To turn an old saying around, it's far better (for Obama) to have a foolish opponent than a wise friend. And McCain has totally obliged.

Forget GWB's abysmal ratings. Forget the economy. Forget the Iraq war. Till the end of the Democratic Convention McCain still had a more than even chance of occupying the White House. His biggest card was the split among the Democrats, and Hillary supporters just wanting an excuse to vote for him.

Basic politico-economic theory and conventional wisdom both required him to veer to the center. Any of the speculated VP choices would have been fine - Tom Ridge, Joe Lieberman, even Mitt Romney and just may be Tim Pawlenty, as they all had their respective strengths.

A stance that would dilute the pro-life message, raise the prospect of restoring taxes for the ultra-rich, call for more regulation and expanded healthcare would turn off the hardcore right, but not enough to withdraw or switch support, when they see Obama as the alternative. Yet McCain could this way pick up a lot of the disgruntled Hillariites, and the undecided and independent voters.

But then he went ahead and picked Sarah Palin. What was he thinking? That just because she has the right plumbing (as a Hillary supporter put it to me) she'd get the Hillary women to back the ticket?

In addition to her obvious lack of experience she's so far to the right as to be almost a caricature of the ideology that's distateful to Democrats and most independents. McCain seemed smugly happy about the surprise he had pulled off, and about her almost rapturous reception by the hardcore right. "Trust McCain to shake things up" said a lackey on TV as Sarah's introduction started just ahead of the Republican Convention. But you need to shake things up when your outlook is bleak and the current course seems to be failing, and not when you have so many strong cards in your suit.

There are of course many other deficiencies in his campaign. When the economy is the number one concern you don't see a single economist of repute among his advisers. Ditto on other issues. The negative ads are horribly conceived and destroy his clean guy image without getting an effective message across. But these blunders I think pale in comparison to Palin (pun intended.)

The end result is obvious now, with McCain trailing Obama by 8 points nationally just six days before election day. Hillary supporters and independents have been shocked back into Obama's camp, and talk of voting against Obama out of spite has all but evaporated. I had anticipated this as my comments of September 1st and September 15 (when McCain was still doing well in the polls) on my August 1st post show. To a large extent McCain's choice of Palin is indicative of the quality of his decision-making as President. The maverick has turned ultra conservative, which I see as an act of misplaced expediency and even cowardice. McCain is paying the price and has only himself to thank for it.

I'm guessing Obama is silently but ardently thanking him too.

Offshore Drilling And Poor Journalism

I often wonder at the failure of these US multi-billion news agencies to address the most basic questions that arise from the very news that they cover. Here is an example.

For the past couple of months we've heard arguments flying back and forth about lifting the ban offshore drilling around the US. Given the skyrocketing crude prices and that we're not going to avoid importing oil 10, 20 or 30 years out, I'm now all for it. Safety and pollution concerns are now very low, and we don't have the same wildlife refuge conservation considerations in offshore drilling as in ANWR.

The Democratic leadership (till recently including Obama) have opposed lifting the ban. They say that it won't help in the short term, and that oil companies have plenty of offshore areas that they can use first.

The first argument is silly - does it mean Congress and government should only limit itself to the most short-term measures? But the second argument about idle leases merits serious consideration, and no news agency that I know has asked the oil companies or Republicans to respond to this specific point, and then reported upon it. Instead the election coverage on energy issues by the likes of CNN is an endless blather of cross-talk among candidates, their surrogates and political pundits.

One place where I found a partial rebuttal to this "use idle leases first" argument is on this QandO blog. In short it says that leases take a very long time to work, are held up by many procedural steps, and require a lot of capital investment that is costly or hard to come by. It's only a partial rebuttal because it doesn't fully answer the question: if the oil companies have their hands so full that they can't get through these existing leases, then where will they find the capacity to explore the new areas?

Still, at least this little blog tries to answer this most obvious of questions. That's a lot more than has been done by the large and sophisticated media outlets.

All is not lost. Some new programs with welcome depth are coming on air. My favorite is CNN's Fareed Zakaria's GPS (Global Public Square) that started a few weeks ago and covers central global and foreign issues.

Does A President Need Principles?

A good thing about the upcoming elections is that either presidential candidate will be a huge improvement over Bush. The race is surprisingly close at this point, given Obama's highly successful foreign tour, favorable press coverage and inspiring speeches as compared to McCain's gaffes and senior moments. Many more voters view Democrats favorably as compared to Republicans. Obama is an inspirational speaker with quick wit and charm. He is also highly intelligent and organized.

Yet according to CNN's "Poll of Polls" today Obama is at 47% to McCain's 44% with 9% undecided. What gives?

One reason McCain is so close may be that he is still widely thought of as decent and principled despite his share of flip-flops. The Washington Post today carried a long article about how emotion and ambition have always guided McCain's behavior. But even such negative coverage may only humanize him and not tarnish his overall standing with voters.

Obama appeals to the idealism of his enthusiastic supporters with his message of change and hope. Yet in his life there seems little or nothing of principle he's done, or made sacrifices, that compromised his own interests.

Then there have been his rapid switches on issues after winning the Democratic nomination. These move him to the center or even into Republican territory, like his wooing of evangelicals and decrying a Supreme Court ruling against the death penalty in non-homicidal cases.

Such tactics while smart help shape perceptions. Half the voters (myself included) think Obama will do or say whatever gets him elected or furthers his personal interests. But even assuming that is true, how much does it matter? It largely depends on what the candidate hopes to achieve by becoming President.

The significance of being the first black / minority President shouldn't be lost on Obama. Here is his chance to go down in history as a great leader with path-breaking accomplishments. If that's his objective then his actions and decisions driven by pure self-interest will largely converge with what is good for the country. He will surround himself with good people, and take decisions on their merits in the national interest to secure his legacy.

Companies seek the smartest and most capable CEOs who are not necessarily nice guys. The system of compensation, rewards (and punishments in case of wrongdoing) tries to align the CEOs' self-interest with that of the companies.

This private company analogy can apply to Obama even if his incentives for being a good President are different. So while Obama has his core following of wide-eyed admirers it will be interesting to see how the preferences of the more skeptical swing voters unfold in the coming months.

McCain's Strategy: Stupid Or Ultra Smart?

At first I thought John McCain has lost it. But now I'm not so sure. I'm referring to his behavior and policy stances after securing the Republican nomination, and particularly after Barack Obama became the official Democratic nominee.

Every veteran of two party politics should know about the "race to the center" strategy. This is also formally taught in introductory game theory courses in the economics department of the University of Chicago, where Obama's advisor Austan Goolsbee is a professor.

The theory here is for mercenary politicians to take more extreme right or left positions during the primaries to win support of their respective bases, and then each moves to the center to try to win most voters in the general election. By "mercenary politicians" is meant those who are simply focused on winning, and untethered to internal commitments or prior promises.

Obama has all this down pat. That's why you saw him gallop towards supporting the death penalty even for some non-homicidal crimes; courting evangelicals; qualifying troop withdrawal commitments in Iraq; lecturing blacks on personal responsibility; and so on. He may ease off the pace of transition a bit because of left-wing reactions, but his base is pretty much in the bag and you know where he's heading. Even Jesse Jackson's much publicised private diatribe against Obama actually helps drive some undecided whites into Obama's fold.

But what about McCain? He seems firmly stuck on the right of even where he has been in the past several years on issues ranging from (a lack of) women's reproductive rights to taxes to healthcare coverage. Moreover, he flubs his speeches and country names, and is the anti-thesis of Obama's eloquence. He's well behind Obama in the opinion polls. So he seems to be following a really dumb and ineffective game plan, right?

That's possible, but there's an alternative explanation. After all McCain has some of Karl Rove's closest associates advising him. Obama is a formidable opponent but one thing that can work for McCain is Hillary's disaffected supporters who can either vote McCain or not vote at all.

Obama can heal the divisions simply by taking on Hillary as his running mate, and though I had my doubts it looks like she's amenable to this. The only thing is, with all the bitterness during the primaries process, he's apt to choose her only if he feels he needs her. But what if he were confident that he could win without her? Then he'll choose someone else, and that's the only way for McCain to beat him.

If that's the calculation then McCain should let Obama get substantially ahead in the polls till Obama chooses his running mate, someone other than Hillary. Only after that should McCain turn to more centrist themes and go full throttle in his campaign. His earlier rightist stance will endear him to the Republican base who contribute to his campaign. This base will also be more understanding of his late shift to the middle if he's lagging in the polls and "has" to adjust positions to catch up with Obama. Also, McCain's tepid campaign style and listless speeches earlier on will lower expectations, which will make it easier for him to beat them in the all-important debates and final run-up to the elections.

So back to the question: Are McCain and his team being absurdly foolish or brilliantly clever? Their subsequent actions, say after the Democratic convention, may supply the answer. At this time it is hard to tell.