Sunday, July 02, 2006
Osama – Really Lucky or Really Smart?
It's clear that Osama Bin Laden set in motion a chain of events that devastated America, perhaps irreparably. As a direct result of 9/11, the Bush administration, using patriotism like a race card, launched a pre-emptive war in Iraq that ultimately will cost us trillions and already has devastated our armed forces. It will take generations for us to recover economically and our troop strength likely could not be brought to pre-war levels without reinstituting the selective service system. And while we are trying to recover, China, India and other nations will move forward. Our stature in the world likely peaked in 2001 and one can make the case, as Pat Buchanan does quite eloquently in his book, "Where the Right Went Wrong," that we now are a society in decline.
On the surface, Bin Laden just got lucky. He successfully planned a despicable terrorist act and, after that, events just happened. Nobody could have predicted the ultimate outcome of 9/11. Or could they have? And if they could have, is it wise for us to “stay the course?”
It seems not at all beyond the realm of possibility that everything that's happened since 9/11 was foreseeable and, in fact, intended by Bin Laden.
To begin with, the thought processes of the Bush Administration were out there for all to see. Project for a New American Century, or PNAC, was formed in 1997 by a group that is identical to the power structure in the Bush administration. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, and others all were founding members of PNAC. PNAC openly advocated the invasion of Iraq. On PNAC’s website, its research and position papers not only set forth in detail why its member believed it critical that we invade Iraq, but suggested that the American public would not support the “transformation of the American military” until a "Pearl Harbor type event" occurred.
So, by simply surfing the net, Bin Laden easily could have anticipated that if he could cause a Pearl Harbor type event, Bush very likely would invade Iraq, or otherwise embark upon the reckless course advocated by PNAC. But would he have known how devastating the invasion of Iraq would prove to be for America, or did he just get lucky in that regard? Again, it's quite possible that Bin Laden could have intended the ultimate result. All he would have needed would be a decent knowledge of Iraqi society and world history.
Here's the outcome our Vice President himself predicted if we invaded Iraq:
"I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to deep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a president to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq." Dick Cheney, the Washington Institute's Soref Symposium, April 29, 1991.
Those were the words of the more level headed Dick Cheney that existed during the Bush 41 administration, not the power-drunk Dick Cheney with whom we are more familiar. But even though Cheney's words somehow were lost on Cheney himself, they demonstrate how readily predictable the outcome of the invasion of Iraq truly was.
It seems that if Dick Cheney himself understood what likely would happen if we invaded Iraq, Osama Bin Laden certainly did. After all, Bin Laden was in a far better position to understand the Muslim culture, including the inherent instability of Sunni-Shiite relations. And, just like Americans understand American politics and American society better than Europeans and Asians do, Bin Laden and his followers knew and understood Middle East politics and the Arab mentality far better than we do. So, again, it doesn't seem far fetched to believe that Bin Laden understood well the likely outcome of an American invasion of Iraq and intended to place us in the quagmire we now find ourselves.
From this point, there's only one more step to take.
Shortly after we invaded Iraq, Pat Buchanan wrote "Where the Right Went Wrong," in which he explained how all empires ultimately peak, then decline. Buchanan explained the decline of Britain and Germany, once the pre-eminent world powers, as a result of World Wars I and II. America rose to power in the twentieth century in large part by avoiding the devastating losses in those wars that other countries incurred. But, according to Buchanan, just as Britain and Germany spent themselves in World Wars I and II, America is in the process of spending itself on wars today. The invasion of Iraq, Buchanan posited, was the turning point for America, marking the beginning of the decline of America’s stature in the world.
Buchanan’s book was not available in 2001, but the information and logic on which Buchanan relied was. Thus, Bin Laden easily could have anticipated the devastating impact of another war on America. He may not have anticipated how badly we would blunder in conducting the Iraq war, and how spot on the Buchanan logic would prove to be, but he easily could have reached the same conclusions Buchanan reached regarding an American invasion of Iraq.
We never should underestimate the enemy. While it’s easy to write off 9/11 as a despicable terrorist act, it is more productive to acknowledge how savvy Bin Laden may have been and how, by electing Bush and Cheney in 2000, we may have given Bin Laden an opening he could drive a truck through. Once Bush and Cheney were elected, Bin Laden very well could have realized that all he need do was create a Pearl Harbor type event, and Bush and Cheney would take it from there. When evaluating whether to “stay the course” as Bush and Cheney urge us to do, we ought to keep this in mind.
It's clear that Osama Bin Laden set in motion a chain of events that devastated America, perhaps irreparably. As a direct result of 9/11, the Bush administration, using patriotism like a race card, launched a pre-emptive war in Iraq that ultimately will cost us trillions and already has devastated our armed forces. It will take generations for us to recover economically and our troop strength likely could not be brought to pre-war levels without reinstituting the selective service system. And while we are trying to recover, China, India and other nations will move forward. Our stature in the world likely peaked in 2001 and one can make the case, as Pat Buchanan does quite eloquently in his book, "Where the Right Went Wrong," that we now are a society in decline.
On the surface, Bin Laden just got lucky. He successfully planned a despicable terrorist act and, after that, events just happened. Nobody could have predicted the ultimate outcome of 9/11. Or could they have? And if they could have, is it wise for us to “stay the course?”
It seems not at all beyond the realm of possibility that everything that's happened since 9/11 was foreseeable and, in fact, intended by Bin Laden.
To begin with, the thought processes of the Bush Administration were out there for all to see. Project for a New American Century, or PNAC, was formed in 1997 by a group that is identical to the power structure in the Bush administration. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, and others all were founding members of PNAC. PNAC openly advocated the invasion of Iraq. On PNAC’s website, its research and position papers not only set forth in detail why its member believed it critical that we invade Iraq, but suggested that the American public would not support the “transformation of the American military” until a "Pearl Harbor type event" occurred.
So, by simply surfing the net, Bin Laden easily could have anticipated that if he could cause a Pearl Harbor type event, Bush very likely would invade Iraq, or otherwise embark upon the reckless course advocated by PNAC. But would he have known how devastating the invasion of Iraq would prove to be for America, or did he just get lucky in that regard? Again, it's quite possible that Bin Laden could have intended the ultimate result. All he would have needed would be a decent knowledge of Iraqi society and world history.
Here's the outcome our Vice President himself predicted if we invaded Iraq:
"I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to deep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a president to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq." Dick Cheney, the Washington Institute's Soref Symposium, April 29, 1991.
Those were the words of the more level headed Dick Cheney that existed during the Bush 41 administration, not the power-drunk Dick Cheney with whom we are more familiar. But even though Cheney's words somehow were lost on Cheney himself, they demonstrate how readily predictable the outcome of the invasion of Iraq truly was.
It seems that if Dick Cheney himself understood what likely would happen if we invaded Iraq, Osama Bin Laden certainly did. After all, Bin Laden was in a far better position to understand the Muslim culture, including the inherent instability of Sunni-Shiite relations. And, just like Americans understand American politics and American society better than Europeans and Asians do, Bin Laden and his followers knew and understood Middle East politics and the Arab mentality far better than we do. So, again, it doesn't seem far fetched to believe that Bin Laden understood well the likely outcome of an American invasion of Iraq and intended to place us in the quagmire we now find ourselves.
From this point, there's only one more step to take.
Shortly after we invaded Iraq, Pat Buchanan wrote "Where the Right Went Wrong," in which he explained how all empires ultimately peak, then decline. Buchanan explained the decline of Britain and Germany, once the pre-eminent world powers, as a result of World Wars I and II. America rose to power in the twentieth century in large part by avoiding the devastating losses in those wars that other countries incurred. But, according to Buchanan, just as Britain and Germany spent themselves in World Wars I and II, America is in the process of spending itself on wars today. The invasion of Iraq, Buchanan posited, was the turning point for America, marking the beginning of the decline of America’s stature in the world.
Buchanan’s book was not available in 2001, but the information and logic on which Buchanan relied was. Thus, Bin Laden easily could have anticipated the devastating impact of another war on America. He may not have anticipated how badly we would blunder in conducting the Iraq war, and how spot on the Buchanan logic would prove to be, but he easily could have reached the same conclusions Buchanan reached regarding an American invasion of Iraq.
We never should underestimate the enemy. While it’s easy to write off 9/11 as a despicable terrorist act, it is more productive to acknowledge how savvy Bin Laden may have been and how, by electing Bush and Cheney in 2000, we may have given Bin Laden an opening he could drive a truck through. Once Bush and Cheney were elected, Bin Laden very well could have realized that all he need do was create a Pearl Harbor type event, and Bush and Cheney would take it from there. When evaluating whether to “stay the course” as Bush and Cheney urge us to do, we ought to keep this in mind.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
March 12, 2006
Let's Be the Champions of Real Tax Code Simplification
In his Op-Ed piece today in the New York Times, Adam Cohen claims that "Crashing the Gates" is dead on in its criticism of the democrat establishment, but short on policy initiatives. I'm only halfway through the book, so I don't know if Cohen's criticism is accurate. Even if it is accurate, it may not be appropriate, as a discussion of policy seems somewhat beyond the scope (and purpose) of the book, at least based on what I've read so far. But Cohen's suggestion that we increase our focus on ideas is nonetheless a good one. So, in this post, I'll put in my two cents. Since my area of expertise is tax law, and since not many progressives have chosen tax law as a career path, I'll start there.
We liberals usually are depicted by the right as "pro-tax" or "tax and spend" or "anti-business" by the right. We need to blunt those charges, without abandoning our challenge of the Bush's reverse Robin Hood, steal from the poor to help the top 1%, tax cut program. I believe this requires a multi-pronged approach. One prong obviously should be a common sense discussion of the effect of Bush tax cuts on the deficit and our long-term economic security. Another prong should be proposals to simplify the tax code in a meaningful way. There are opportunities here to work with business interests, thereby softening the resistance of business to our attack on tax cuts for the ultra-rich.
Here are two areas where we can make sense, not offend our constituents, and debunk the myth that we are anti-business. They're a little technical, so bear with me.
Tax Professionals Relief Provisions. The tax code contains many provisions that I refer to as tax professionals relief provisions. If taxpayers spend the money to hire high-priced tax professionals, they can obtain a result not available without that help. Essentially, the tax code imposes a tax on these taxpayers, but the tax goes to the tax professionals, not the public fisc. Here's an example: Under the "like-kind exchange" rules, real property owners can transfer their investment from one property to another and defer the tax on the appreciation in the first property until the second property is sold. This policy is worthwhile. Without it, more real property owners would hold on to real property they have no intention of putting to good use simply to avoid the imposition of a tax on the unrealized gains. Here's the problem: In order to qualify for the relief, the property owner must structure the transition from one property to the other as an "exchange," as defined by the Treasury Regulations. This is almost always doable, but requires the assistance of tax lawyers, accountants and "qualified intermediaries," which generally take the form of affiliates to title insurance companies. The law here easily could be simplified to provide that a real property owner may avoid the recognition of otherwise taxable gain if he reinvests the proceeds of the sale within a specified period of time. The result would be the same as the result under current law, but would avoid the fees paid to the army of tax lawyers, accountants and "qualified intermediaries" that make billions off the today's unnecessarily complex law.
The Favoring of Bequests Over Lifetime Gifts. The estate and gift tax code was modified in 2001 in a way that favors bequests and other transfers at death over lifetime gifts. This doesn't make sense, for two reasons. First, when property passes at death, the unrecognized gain goes untaxed, but when property passes by lifetime gift, the unrecognized gain ultimately is taxed when the property is sold by the recipient of the gift. Second, by encouraging taxpayers to hold property until death, we cause the property not to be put to its best use, as would be the case if the property were transferred to an owner who was not holding the property for the sole purpose of avoiding tax.
I've only scratched the surface. There are countless other ways where we can simplify the tax code in a way that is revenue neutral, but also in a way that improves the fluidity of the economy and reduces the "tax" flowing to an unnecessary army of tax professionals, whose talents could be put to far better use.
Let's Be the Champions of Real Tax Code Simplification
In his Op-Ed piece today in the New York Times, Adam Cohen claims that "Crashing the Gates" is dead on in its criticism of the democrat establishment, but short on policy initiatives. I'm only halfway through the book, so I don't know if Cohen's criticism is accurate. Even if it is accurate, it may not be appropriate, as a discussion of policy seems somewhat beyond the scope (and purpose) of the book, at least based on what I've read so far. But Cohen's suggestion that we increase our focus on ideas is nonetheless a good one. So, in this post, I'll put in my two cents. Since my area of expertise is tax law, and since not many progressives have chosen tax law as a career path, I'll start there.
We liberals usually are depicted by the right as "pro-tax" or "tax and spend" or "anti-business" by the right. We need to blunt those charges, without abandoning our challenge of the Bush's reverse Robin Hood, steal from the poor to help the top 1%, tax cut program. I believe this requires a multi-pronged approach. One prong obviously should be a common sense discussion of the effect of Bush tax cuts on the deficit and our long-term economic security. Another prong should be proposals to simplify the tax code in a meaningful way. There are opportunities here to work with business interests, thereby softening the resistance of business to our attack on tax cuts for the ultra-rich.
Here are two areas where we can make sense, not offend our constituents, and debunk the myth that we are anti-business. They're a little technical, so bear with me.
Tax Professionals Relief Provisions. The tax code contains many provisions that I refer to as tax professionals relief provisions. If taxpayers spend the money to hire high-priced tax professionals, they can obtain a result not available without that help. Essentially, the tax code imposes a tax on these taxpayers, but the tax goes to the tax professionals, not the public fisc. Here's an example: Under the "like-kind exchange" rules, real property owners can transfer their investment from one property to another and defer the tax on the appreciation in the first property until the second property is sold. This policy is worthwhile. Without it, more real property owners would hold on to real property they have no intention of putting to good use simply to avoid the imposition of a tax on the unrealized gains. Here's the problem: In order to qualify for the relief, the property owner must structure the transition from one property to the other as an "exchange," as defined by the Treasury Regulations. This is almost always doable, but requires the assistance of tax lawyers, accountants and "qualified intermediaries," which generally take the form of affiliates to title insurance companies. The law here easily could be simplified to provide that a real property owner may avoid the recognition of otherwise taxable gain if he reinvests the proceeds of the sale within a specified period of time. The result would be the same as the result under current law, but would avoid the fees paid to the army of tax lawyers, accountants and "qualified intermediaries" that make billions off the today's unnecessarily complex law.
The Favoring of Bequests Over Lifetime Gifts. The estate and gift tax code was modified in 2001 in a way that favors bequests and other transfers at death over lifetime gifts. This doesn't make sense, for two reasons. First, when property passes at death, the unrecognized gain goes untaxed, but when property passes by lifetime gift, the unrecognized gain ultimately is taxed when the property is sold by the recipient of the gift. Second, by encouraging taxpayers to hold property until death, we cause the property not to be put to its best use, as would be the case if the property were transferred to an owner who was not holding the property for the sole purpose of avoiding tax.
I've only scratched the surface. There are countless other ways where we can simplify the tax code in a way that is revenue neutral, but also in a way that improves the fluidity of the economy and reduces the "tax" flowing to an unnecessary army of tax professionals, whose talents could be put to far better use.
