ESSAY: The Importance of Trust in National Security: So Hard to Earn, So Easy to Lose

ESSAY: The Importance of Trust in National Security: So Hard to Earn, So Easy to Lose

-Christopher Carroll

It has been a busy couple of months for anyone who follows national security policy. This week has been no different. Yesterday, in a press conference, President Obama announced his plans to reform the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs, opening the door for further scrutiny of the NSA’s practices. This follows a whirlwind of recent surveillance and security debates, starting with Edward Snowden’s disclosures and culminating with this week’s closure of 19 American embassies and diplomatic outposts. That whirlwind has gotten our politicians and citizens to finally start asking the right question: How much surveillance and security do we need and what are we willing to give up for it? The answer lies in how President Obama will gain the trust of those he governs.

****

On Tuesday, the State Department closed 19 embassies, including those in Yemen, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Libya, and ordered that all non-essential, non-emergency personnel be removed from Yemen. The order came following American intelligence suggested that Ayman al Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s successor, and Nasir al-Wahishi, the leader of AQAP and a man believed to have been recently promoted to the second highest ranking official in the global organization, were planning a major attack.

The closure of the embassies has had mixed reception. House Homeland Security Committee chairman Michael McCaul (R-Tx.) called it a “very smart call” while Rep. Dutch Ruppersburger said it was based on a “very credible” threat, “based on intelligence.” Meanwhile, Yemeni Foreign Minister Abu-Bakr worried that the closures of U.S embassies was handing terrorists victories. NBC analyst and former director of the National Counterterrorism Center  Michael Lieter, criticized the State Department as well, claiming the threat is overblown “hyperbole,” coming from “reckless commentators or ill-informed or ill-spoken Hill folks,” said Leiter.

****

Regardless of whether or not the threat was appropriately responded to, the fact remains that American intelligence gathering practices have again been brought to the foreground.

American surveillance practices are by no means unique in the world. French newspaper Le Monde has reported has reported that the French DGSE has been collecting “meta-data” similar to the NSA’s PRISM program. Others, including former NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker, allege that European nationals are more likely to be watched by their own government than Americans are from theirs.

Obama’s speech marks just the latest turn of events. The Snowden disclosures and subsequent uproar that followed it, along with the criticism of the administration’s alarming prosecution of “leakers,” has forced the President to address the intelligence and security issue head on.

The President intends to make the nation’s surveillance policies more transparent. He proposed creating a public advocate, or ombudsman, charged with providing a barrier to any unnecessary erosion of privacy rights and the tightening of what is allowed by section 215 of the Patriot Act. These steps, he hopes, will help provide both Americans and the entire world with the ability to have “confidence in these programs. The American people need to have confidence in them,” said President Obama, as does “leadership around the world.” Will President Obama be able to gain that trust?

****

It will be very interesting to see whether these new proposals are effective and if they are even implemented at all. Some lawmakers, including Rep. Peter King (R – N.Y.) feel that the proposals are incredibly dangerous and, in the words of Rep. King, are “a monumental failure in presidential wartime leadership and responsibility.”

Transparency is always good in a democracy. The more transparent a program, the easier it is for both the implementers of the program and those affected by it know what is allowed and expected of them.  As was seen this week in As seen this week in Yemen, the world is more dangerous now than ever before. Like a snake in long grass, enemies and terrorists can strike unseen with incredible precision and power. The Atlantic Ocean is no longer the barrier that it was in 1772 or even 1942. There are now countless ways for a small group of individuals to wreak havoc on an entire nation half a world away. Though we outspend the entire world on defense, we are no safer than we were at any other time in our nation’s history. What are we willing to do to defend ourselves?

The President should be applauded for acknowledging the controversy surrounding these programs and for his desire to make them as transparent as possible. However, he and his administration must do a better job of communicating to the nation and the world what these programs accomplish. We need to know what has been done and, without compromising national secrets, how they have been done for one simple reason: trust. .

Trust is a trait that is impossibly difficult to attain and ridiculously easy to lose. The hyper-polarized nature of today’s politics and the unprecedented low-regard the nation has for Congress will not help President Obama gain trust, nor will the President’s poor policy communication skills, his inability to seem like one of the people or his lack of military service prior to his Presidency. Nevertheless, he must find a way to gain it so as to put the surveillance problems in his Presidency behind him. If Reagan, FDR or Eisenhower told the country that these programs were vital, the country would believe him and would stop asking questions. Obama needs to find a way to earn that trust.

The President bviously must do so without compromising the safety of our diplomats, soldiers or citizens. A public advocate is a good start and must be a person who is not only skeptical of the NSA in general but is also selected in a fashion that bestows public trust upon him or her. This will likely mean finding a person who dislikes both Congress and the President and is skeptical of government oversight and military power. Maybe this person is a former Supreme Court Justice. Maybe this person is nationally respected journalist.

Whomever is picked, maybe by finding the right person to protect the people, the President will gain the respect and trust of the people. Only then will he be able to tell those he governs that they can be safe in today’s dangerous world while retaining total privacy. Only then will he be able to tell the people they can have their cake and eat it too. Whether or not it is true won’t really matter.

ESSAY: Home of the Brave, the Free, and the Invisible: how Detroit, pensions and new graduates are connected

Essay: Home of the Brave, the Free, and the Invisible: How Detroit, Pensions and New Graduates are Connected

 -Christopher Carroll

Last week, Detroit filed for bankruptcy. This was by no means a sudden disaster. The city has been going bankrupt for decades.  It wasn’t until now that the nation woke up to it. Americans working in the public sector are now acknowledging that their pensions are not guaranteed. Like a heart attack brought on by years of poor diet and exercise, Detroit has suddenly shown us that years of poor policy and neglect have taken their toll on us all.

Detroit has been mismanaged for years and the decline in the automotive industry has crippled the city beyond repair. However, the entry of foreign automobile companies with operations outside Detroit was not the only major problem. The city’s inability to effectively manage public pension funds was crippling.

 

The state estimates that Detroit’s defined-benefit pension and health care plans, which are based upon the service time of a public employee and that employee’s final salary, are about 73% funded. However, as was noted on July 27th by the Economist, that may be a very optimistic number, with the real number possibly being as low as 48%. While making promises to state employees, state and city governments were simultaneously failing to devote enough money to cover the commitments.

This problem is not unique to Detroit, or even Michigan. The difference between Illinois’ funded and unfunded pension commitments is equal to 241% of the state’s tax revenue, by far the worst in the country. The shortfall in Connecticut is the second worst, representing nearly 190% of tax revenue and Kentucky, New Jersey, Hawaii, Louisiana, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Maryland all have pension gaps at, or exceeding, 100% of tax revenue.

Courtesy of the Economist: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21582282-pensioners-are-pushing-many-cities-and-states-towards-financial-crisis-who-pays-bill

Detroit’s problems could be coming to a city near you. Some estimates place the total pension deficit in the United States at 17% of GDP. Terrifyingly, that does not even include the deficits in programs for healthcare provided by local and city governments (deficits which shockingly manage to eclipse those of the public pension system). Clearly, the issue is of national importance. The future of both our young and old generations are at risk.

Edward Siedle, former SEC attorney and financial watchdog, explains that “75% of Americans nearing retirement in 2010 had less than $30,000 in their retirement accounts.” This is bad news, as current lifestyles in America are shockingly different to those of 40, 50 and 60 years ago. Americans are living longer than ever before. Medical advances and dietary and exercise awareness have meant that the average life expectancy in America is just over 78 and a half years, putting economic stress on an old fashioned pension system.

To make up for longer life expectancies and modern lifestyles, our pension system must be reformed. Doing so is imperative for our economy and for the 20 year olds just now entering the jobs market, struggling to stay above water on student debt, treading water while they miss their economic primes.

****

Politicians and the public must seriously engage questions regarding the way pensions are funded and executed. We must seriously discuss raising the retirement age. It is no longer strange for a man or women to work through their sixties. Additionally, we must address the way pension funds are protected. As Chris Tobe of Forbes Magazine explains here (link#2), private companies, and many non-profit organization pension programs are insured by the “Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) and regulated by the Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), which operates under the law known as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).” However, local and state governments fail to allow the Federal Government to insure their pension programs. This has made them easier to leave unfunded and left the beneficiaries of those programs susceptible to retirement ruin.

Americans rely on their pensions. Making promises without following through and funding them is morally reprehensible if not altogether criminal. Not only are the people who have seen their promised pensions disappear overnight suffer, but so do their recently (or soon to be recently) graduated children. This has real repercussions today and in the future, especially in a fragile economy. It is possible that the slow economic growth seen over the past 4 years will in the near future seem like break-neck speed.

20-something year olds are leaving school drowning in student loan debt to find an anemic jobs market. These students will, for years, be saving every penny just to pay off the loans that for many will seem never ending. Add a poor paying job to the already heavy chains of student debts and rather than saving money, building strong credit and growing an economic profile through their 20s and 30s, these young people will instead be postponing the usual economic development typical of people their age. By the time they reach their late 30s and 40s, instead of starting a family, buying a home, car, new appliances and golf clubs, they will only have begun to develop their financial egg. Rather than experiencing their economic primes, 40-something year olds will be just beginning their economic journey. This spells trouble for economic recovery. Add the financial liability of caring for your parents? That spells economic disaster.

If pensions across the country do not provide what people are expecting, the elderly in our community will not only be forced into the margins of our society, but they will be forced, economically, to rely upon their children, the same children who didn’t begin to develop their economic egg until they were 40. These children, currently 20-somethings and younger, may never experience their own economic prime, resulting in the creation of an economically invisible generation. The weights of student debt, poor jobs markets and parents made financially reliant due to vanished pension promises will prove too much to bear. Generation Invisible will find itself constantly fighting against the tide, struggling to stay above water and never able to reach paradise island.

This is a vast, complicated and nuanced issue. There is no quick fix. But the first step to addressing it could be to address poorly funded pension systems across the country. We must stop the negligent treatment of our soon to be retirees. To treat them well is to treat all generations well. But if we continue to allow poor policy, corrupt politicians and neglect to plague our pension systems, America will become the home of the brave, the free, and the invisible.

Essay: Harry Reid’s Nuclear Option – Good for the Nominees but Bad for the Senate

Essay: Harry Reid’s Nuclear Option – Good for the Nominees, but Bad for the Senate

The Senate is tossing and turning. Members are forced to weather the rough, churning waters left in the wake of the newfound battle between Majority Leader Harry Reid (D. – Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R. – Ky.). The Senate’s inability to pass legislation and refusal to confirm qualified candidates nominated to important government positions and judicial seats has resulted in a public battle between politicians who until recently have always shown respect and deference toward each other. While making interesting reading and watching, it only serves as a distraction. The turmoil only muddies the waters on an important question: Should the Senate change filibuster rules?

Official portrait of United States Senator (R-KY) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The relationship between the two has steadily crumbled during recent months. Reid’s recent threat of a “nuclear option” has led to McConnell’s mistrust of his counterpart, believing that he is not going to honor the agreements the two came to in 2011 and 2012 to protect the traditional role of the filibuster. This feeling has recently been exasperated by the Minority Leader’s perception that Reid, and his Super PAC, are trying to influence his re-election in Kentucky. Reid has said he knows nothing about his Super PACS actions nor should he. But the claims, if true, would constitute a breach of the traditional behavior between opposing Senate leaders.

Sen. Reid, meanwhile, is clearly fed up with McConnell’s and the GOP’s refusal to hold confirmation votes on nominees resulting in Ried’s “nuclear” threats and anger at what he sees as McConnell’s refusal to honor a filibuster agreement the two reached early this year. His “vows” to limit the filibuster have boiled over into public combat recently, following McConnell’s warning that Reid would be remembered as the “worst” Senate leader “ever” if filibuster rules were changed by a majority vote.

****

Drowning Out What Matters

Between fighting about confirmations and the filibuster, a lack of trust between the two leaders, and anger over public remarks and re-election involvement, it is little wonder that real discussion about the pros and cons of changing the filibuster have been drowned out.

The filibuster has long been an effective and important tool to protect the minority in government. It can be used to delay legislation and ensure that the views of a small group of senators are heard. Throughout American history, politicians have used it to great effect, and today, the traditional filibuster (as opposed to the silent variety), is an extremely effective way to voice opposition, especially passionate moralistic opposition, to a proposed bill of act.

The filibuster can be an effective tool, able to draw national attention to an issue, boost the recognition of a politician to the national stage, or simply delay an inevitable vote long enough to force additional debate in the public and on the Hill.

Most recently Sen Bernie Sanders (I – Vt.) drew national attention from media and sympathy from voters with his 8 hr. and 37 minutes filibuster of a proposed agreement between a tax cut deal between the President and Republican leadership. Similarly, Senator Rand Paul’s extraordinary 13 hour filibuster, calling attention to the American Government’s use of drones over American soil, brought him strong public support on social media and a resulting bump in national popularity.

But, conversely, the filibuster can cripple Senate action and grind even ordinary measures to a halt. Washington has been inculcated by this type of problem, with “silent holds” acting as filibusters in the absence of cloture. Famously, judicial seats are left unfilled (as of April, the NY Times was reporting that 10% of federal district and circuit court seats were empty) and no bill, no matter how seemingly uncontentious, can pass without a supermajority.

But what is the right thing to do? Should Sen. Harry Reid force through a change in the rules, or should the Senate try to amend the use of the filibuster without going so far as to kill it all together with a simple majority vote? The repercussions of such a “nuclear option” are vast, subtle and difficult.

****

The Nuclear Option: Danger, Danger Will Robinson!

Harry Reid’s “nuclear option” is dangerously extreme. As explained by Jonathan Weissman and Jeremy Peters of the NYTimes, “the majority leader, through a simple majority vote, would put new limits on the minority party’s ability to filibuster presidential nominees. Ordinarily changes to the rules of the Senate require a two-thirds majority; Democrats hold 54 seats.”

This option cannot be taken lightly as it may destroy many of the differences between the House and Senate, could undermine protection of the minority (regardless of party) and throw an important, oft-used traditional political tool into the trash heap.

It certainly is true that the Senate needs to vote on appointees to the various seats and positions that have for so long gone unfilled. It certainly is true that the filibuster has been misused over the last three presidential terms. But the misbehavior has not been saved for one party, faction or group of politicians. Democrats and Republicans alike have used the filibuster to their benefit, stalling and in some cases stopping bills disliked by the minority.

Aside from removing the ability of many lesser known or less powerful Senators a chance to voice exactly why they will not allow a nomination, scrapping the current filibuster system risks compromising the Senate on a fundamental level. Trashing this old tradition would obfuscate some of the uniqueness that makes the Senate the body we know today. Removing this system, especially in a “nuclear option” Harry Reid led manner, risks removing the trust and compromising nature of the Senate, making it simply another version of the House of Representatives. Senator Harry Reid cannot let that happen.

Washington, by all accounts, is broken. Legislation, regardless of how popular is rarely passed. Laws, regardless of how needed, are rarely written. Confirmations, regardless of how qualified the candidate, rarely take place. But, the Senate still manages to occasionally do it’s job, find compromise and attempt to govern the nation. By pushing through his nuclear option, Reid risks alienating both traditionalists, politicos and the Minority party, risking the very culture that makes the Senate more effective than the House.

****

Majority Leader Reid is right to be unhappy, annoyed and furious with the GOP and Minority Leader McConnell. Their actions recently, especially regarding confirmations, have been obstructionist to say the least. But by pushing through a “nuclear option” Sen. Reid will likely gain the 7 confirmations he is angling for at the expense of  the Senate’s culture, future credibility and the likelihood of future legislating. The Senate, in today’s Washington climate, has been a truly unique body, able to fail to find compromise most of the time, not all the time.

Harry Reid would do well to remember that the long term future of the Senate is more important than the short term prospects of Obama’s nominations. Rather than resorting to such a drastic rules change, Leader Reid should look to find a way to amend the current system. Maybe there is a way to make the “silent hold” practice truly impossible. In 2012, Democratic Senators signed a petition to agree to stop silent holds and filibusters, but it is time for this to be truly impossible. This would force Senators to publicly acknowledge their actions. Maybe there is a way to, with a simple majority, allow a confirmation process to start, but allow filibusters to take place during that process. This would allow the public to hear why a particular Senator doesn’t want an individual to gain a particular position, rather than hide behind the leadership and prevent the process from beginning at all.

If Senator Reid he uses a “nuclear option,” he will risk selling the farm to save his corn. The Senate would likely confirm important nominees, but would be crippled, robbed of a traditional process and a unique culture of compromise.

Essay: It’s Time to Change the Abortion Discussion

Essay: It’s Time to Change the Abortion Discussion – New laws by Republican legislatures is making it clear that our national discourse is all wrong.

-Christopher Carroll

Marking just the latest episode in a line of Republican legislation meant to target abortion, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed a new, heavily restrictive, abortion bill into law on Friday.  This new legislation, and the spate of Republican abortion legislation nationwide, is doing damage to the rights and health of women while compromising the relationship between patient and doctor.  Legislators and our national discussion is focusing on the symptoms of a problem, rather than addressing the causes.

The bill, which goes into effect today, forces women to undergo an ultrasound before getting an abortion and requires any doctor who administers abortions to have admission privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic.This will likely result in the closure of both the Planned Parenthood Appelton clinic and the Affiliated Medical Services Milwaukee clinic due to an inability to satisfy the admission privileges requirement of the law.

Ultrasound A 12 weeks 3 days 001 (Photo credit: Amanda’s Adventures)

The Wisconsin bill was signed with very little fanfare or publicity, seemingly buried by Gov. Walker within 17 other signed measures he signed on a long 4th of July weekend. This attempt to avoid press scrutiny and public repercussions reflects the volatility of the subject and the political danger it presents.

Nationwide, the GOP has felt that pushing anti-abortion, or “pro-life,” legislation at the state level is the best way to address the issue post Roe v. Wade, and given the Supreme Court’s recent treatment of “letter of the law” legislation and the emphasis placed on State power and sovereignty, they are likely correct.

***

Arkansas and Alabama have both recently seen new abortion legislation blocked by federal judges while the constitutionality of the laws is litigated. The Arkansas bill, the most restrictive in the nation when it was passed in May, banned most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy and the Alabama law, which was signed by Gov. Bentley in April, requires that that physicians providing abortive procedures have admitting privileges in a local hospital.

In North Dakota, Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed abortion legislation in April that bans the procedure after 6 weeks of pregnancy, (before many women know they are pregnant) making the state the most restrictive in the country.

While Wisconsin, Arkansas, Alabama and North Dakota have newly signed laws in place, the issue is being debated in the public eye in State Houses and newsrooms across the country.

New national scrutiny has been focused on Texas and Gov. Rick Perry following Senator Wendy Davis’ marathon filibuster to stop Texas House Bill 2, a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks, require that they be performed at ambulatory surgical centers and mandate that providers have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. Currently, only 5 of 30 clinics in Texas would pass these requirements.

***

The GOP is pushing these laws, all of which pass in exceptionally strong GOP states, under the pretext of helping women. The ultrasound requirement in Wisconsin is meant to improve “a woman’s ability to make an informed choice that will protect her physical and mental health now and in the future,” said Tom Evenson, a spokesman for Gov. Walker. Meanwhile the “admitting privileges” requirements are meant to make the procedure safer, and, as Gov. Bentley explains, provide “appropriate standards of care.” Both of these concerns are valid and compelling, but the methods and goals of the GOP are questionable.

Roe v Wade (Photo credit: Chris Wieland)

Women, and men, should have a strong understanding of the risks and repercussions of every medical decision, abortions included. However, this is not the job of the government, Gov. Walker, Republicans, or politicians in any state or community; it is the job of the patient and doctor. Dictating what procedures should be done, regardless of whether or not a trained physician deems them necessary, is an extreme example of government oversight. It is a short step from compelling ultrasounds to compelling more permanent medical procedures.

The safety of patients, on the other hand, is a concern of society and government. Both State and Federal governments mandate countless safety requirements in all aspects of our lives, from food regulation and water sanitation, to housing requirements, transportation standards and health care. The Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit NGO, released a report in 2012 claiming that 42,000 women die in the “developing world” each year as a result of unsafe abortions. These deaths are preventable and are a result of poor treatment and, most importantly, an absence of medical options and help. While the United States is not a developing country, the point is well taken: when people don’t have access to medical care, they resort to unsafe and unregulated means of treatment.

Userpage icon for pro-choice (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The legislation that is repeatedly pushed by Republican governors, senators and congressmen, in effect, exacerbates the problem. Their legislation, while laboring under the pretext of making abortions safer, will make abortion services unavailable to thousands of women across the country. The void that this type of legislation leaves in it’s wake is at best misguided and at worst irresponsible.

The legality of abortion is an immensely complicated issue, invoking passion, anger and misunderstanding in those on both sides of the debate. The issue encompasses debate over contraceptives, poverty, health, social equality, sexual equality, age requirements and morals. In the end, nobody likes abortion and nobody wants children to be aborted. Nobody wants a mother to be put in the position where she must choose between a potential life of a child and her own well being. But public debate has been backwards.

Society has become obsessed with the act of aborting, rather than the factors that lead to it becoming necessary.  Instead, lets address why pregnancies are being aborted. Let’s address the education of our children and young adults. Let’s address the destructive repercussions of social inequality and economic polarity. Let’s address the childcare and parenting practices in our country. Our society should be about social activism, not social restriction. Our society should be one in which a woman’s life includes the ability to access safe abortion when faced with the unenviable and incredibly difficult decision to prevent the creation of a new life. Governor Walker and his cohorts should have no place in these decisions and our society shouldn’t let them.