Thursday, May 31, 2012

The EU and Greece

The most recent edition of The Economist had a good amount to say about the future of Greece, the European Union and the Euro. Most of the coverage of Greece and the EU in the United States has been from the usual doom-and-gloom political statements from Republican presidential candidates about excessive government spending. While the charge may be true relative to the large size of the public sector in bailed out Greece, Portugal and Ireland, the crises in Europe requires a deeper and more nuanced review of the Union.

The EU, while united under one currency (The Euro) and a few policy authorities (Council of Ministers and European Council), is still a hodgepodge of countries of various sizes, cultures and political persuasions. From the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht to the current banking crises, many of the EU nations have taken fiscal governing  of such a large body with a less than adequate level of seriousness. That is, rules set out to avoid a crises of this nature took a back seat to the financial interests of some of the larger economies (France, Germany, etc). The article in the Economist highlights this problem with an anecdote about France's view of budget cuts:

 In 2002, Francis Met, newly installed as French Finance Minister dismissed commission requests for budget cuts to comply with the stability and growth pact by saying that "France has other priorities."


The article rightly states that the current finance minister under newly elected French president Francois Hollande would quickly lose his job if he were to dismiss EU fiscal responsibilities in the same manner. While some nations ignored the fiscal pacts of the Union, many still believed that a region united under one currency would facilitate political integration through fiscal unity and stave off a crises. But, as the article points out: They did not foresee that it [financial/political unity] would do so by throwing the continent into crises.

The EU is also facing a crises of democracy. Smaller countries with smaller economies (like Greece) are becoming less relevant in a growing Union. Once a country feels that their electorate and local issues are being ignored in favor of a Union controlled by the larger economies, a sense of resentment grows. When the fiscal crises in Greece came to a head, many in the country protested to the Austerity Measures because they believed that it was a problem that they did not create. Overspending by the Greek government after the conversion to the Euro that led to massive deficits and lack of a voice among bigger economies like Germany and France created a disconnect between the electorate of Greece and the wider Union.

The result of increased austerity measures has been political and financial turmoil. In elections, citizens increasingly voted for extremist candidates who opposed or favored a renegotiation of the terms of the Euro bailouts. In Greece, nearly 7% of the vote went to the ultra-right wing Golden Dawn Party, whose party platforms are anti-immigrant and anti-bailout. Their party symbol resembles the swastika. There was also no consensus candidate, which sent the election to a runoff, taking place on June 17th. In France, the Conservative party under incumbent Nicholas Sarkozy was ousted by the Socialist candidate Francois Hollande.

One major problem remains for the European Union: there is a disconnect between the larger and smaller economies, fostering disillusionment with the Union and individual country's national governments. Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel (Christian Democrats) has shown visible disappointment with the way that Greek government has managed it's finances. She is reluctant to continue using German banks to prop up failing economies. At the same time, voters within Greece have become weary of their technocratic governing coalition and have voted in droves alongside anti-immigrant, nationalistic parties on the right and left. Continued entrenchment by larger economies like Germany will only foster nationalism and hatred towards the Union, leading to a possible exit by Greece. Once this happens, any country with the same sentiment might use that precedent to also leave the Union.

There is a way out of this crises for the EU. Direct election of members of policy making bodies in the EU by member countries can bring more democratic power to smaller states. Currently, the leaders of the European Council and Council of Ministers are appointed by member states. But, the Union must provide an efficient, enforceable method to institute fiscal policies in order to reign in on indebted countries and stave off future crises. In this way, smaller countries get more say in the inner governance of the Union while larger economies prevent having to bail-out smaller economies. But, above all, it keeps the Union intact without having to face the international consequences of a bank run or an exit.

During the debate over the ratification of the U.S. constitution, larger states wanted representation in Congress based on population (Virginia Plan). Smaller southern states proposed equal representation, as they would be less relevant under the Virginia Plan (New Jersey Plan). Congress created a compromise (Connecticut Compromise) that created a bicameral legislature whereby the House of Representatives would be based on population and the Senate would have two members elected from each state.

The EU should take note of this idea, giving equal representation to smaller economies, while redefining their ultimate goal of unified stability and fiscal control.


Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Note About Orthodox Gathering in Brooklyn

Articles have been popping up all over the web about a recent gathering of 60,000 Orthodox Jews (40,000 men in Citi Field and 20,000 women in a nearby location). The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the internet and how it has and will affect the Orthodox Jewish Community.

A group of "counter-protesters" gathered across the street, rallying against the supposed unreported acts of child abuse and molestation. They believed that a gathering of the Orthodox Community to discuss the internet was not important when these disgusting acts were being perpetrated and not reported.

The media response ranged from subtle understanding to sympathy to complete ignorance. A piece by Paul Miller at The Verge fell into the latter category. Paul describes his confusion over why members of the Orthodox Community attending the rally were reluctant to speak to him. This theme characterizes a major shortcoming of this article - lack of perspective. Paul is not a member of the Orthodox Community and only knows what most outside of the community understand - they keep to themselves. While he does admit that he is definitely out of his element and is ignorant to the nuances of the community, his lack of understanding makes his conclusion seriously flawed.

The most egregious part about the article is when he brings up the idea (not his idea) that limiting the internet in the Ultra-Orthodox community is akin to the internet controls in China and North Korea. The point of the gathering was to discuss the internet and how it has affected the lives of the community. The rally was closer to a family discussing a new obstacle than a synod of the powerful in an oppressive regime. His claim that limiting information in a so-called "information age" is hypocritical is a generalization. Again, the purpose of the rally was to discuss the internet and it's affects on the traditions of the community.

Then, there are the protesters. The purpose of their protest was seriously flawed. A gathering to discuss the affects of the internet on the Orthodox Community and allegations of sexual abuse are not intertwined. The proliferation and cover-up of molestation is a problem that must be addressed. But, the restrictions that the community wants to put on the internet for IT'S MEMBERS has nothing to do with these allegations. So, their protest is irrelevant.

The reason I specifically picked on Paul Miller was because his article is a good example of a misguided, outside perspective. While, he goes into details about his experience and admits that his outsider status limits his ability to gain credible information, less detailed articles (or more user-friendly, depending on your attention span) claim that the community thinks the internet is evil.

It may seem to outsiders that the Orthodox shun modernity and try to live much like the Amish. It is true that the Ultra-Orthodox and the Amish have a lot in common (they even met up in Brooklyn a couple times). While some in the insular community reject the internet because of their beliefs, many look to integrate it into their religious lives. They turn off their phones for Shabbat, unplug the ethernet cable or wireless router and actively restrict what they deem inappropriate for their children.

For a nice, and short, debunking of myths about Orthodox women and the community from an Orthodox Jew, click HERE.

A couple notes for context: When I say "Orthodox" or "Ultra-Orthodox," I mean it to be all-encompassing. There are various sects of Orthodox, some of which are much stricter than others.While I defend the purpose of this rally against attacks by outsiders who lack perspective, I do not agree with a lot of the doctrines of the Orthodox Community regarding the rejection and treatment of Jews of non-Orthodox status.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

TEA Party 2012: Reality Bites

The TEA Party is a hodgepodge of conservative activists who support a range of ideologies from pro-life guerrilla warfare against Planned Parenthood to legalization of marijuana and everything in between. Their ranks waffle between purist libertarians and social conservatives. One of the many goals of the TEA Party was to "change" spending in Washington and make it leaner and more efficient, the latter description being a nice way of saying complete obliteration of all social services.

In 2010, they decided to vote with their feet and mobilized candidates all over the country to challenge mainstream party congressmen and congresswomen. Establishment Republican Senators like Bob Bennett (UT) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) were defeated in their respective primaries by TEA Party backed insurgent candidates (Murkowski won back her seat in a rousing write-in campaign). Veteran Democrat Representatives like Jim Oberstar (17 terms from Michigan) were defeated by unknown and inexperienced TEA Party backed candidates.

Then...their legislative champions failed.

In the ensuing debates in Congress over the debt, taxes, the War in Afghanistan, the War in Iraq, abortion and women's rights, the Congress did not improve. Intransigent lawmakers, taken hostage by their own selfishness slowed the pace of government to the speed only seen on a plate tectonic scale. Traditionally bipartisan issues were bathed in partisan rhetoric and riders, left to be killed on the Senate floor. Budgets to fund essential government services were loaded with non-germane amendments, which elicited veto threats from the President and an assurance of no-progress from a divided Senate. Speak of the House John Boehner was constantly forced to cow-tow to a far right extremist ideology before supporting or rejecting even the most basic bills.

Now that the 2012, elections are approaching, the TEA party is once again geared up for a fight. While many of their freshman allies in Congress are not up for a vote, they will invariably try to challenge Washington insiders and establishment candidates.

Here are some numbers for the TEA Party: 

Congressional Approval rating 10/04/2010: 20.5%
Congressional Approval rating 04/19/2012:  14%

It is my hope that the TEA Party will be forced to face reality in 2012. The reality is that their extremism will only hurt the party and alienate veteran lawmakers who have spent most of their political lives drafting keystone legislation that changes how America treats its environment, economy and citizens. This reality has already taken its toll, as many veteran lawmakers are deciding to leave Congress in 2012. Centrists like Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) look at the partisanship and the lack of progress as a reason to jump ship.

The worst side of the TEA Party and the extreme rightward shift of the Republican Party is demonization of political experience. Someone who understands the dynamics of Congress, like a Ted Kennedy or a Orrin Hatch, will become anomalies. They have been replaced with the inexperience dunce who can only make progress by screaming the loudest and complaining the most.