AnnotatedOpinions.com

The White House is talking about levying a tax or fee on large banks to recover the $120 billion it spent to bail out the financial system. That is a good place to start, but it shouldn’t stop there. President Obama and Congress should also impose a windfall tax on the huge bonuses that bailed-out bankers plan to pay themselves over the next few weeks.  

This is an issue of fairness and sound public policy. The Treasury needs the money. A fee may also get banks and bankers to rethink the way they do business — something the much-promised, far-too-delayed and increasingly watered-down financial regulatory reform effort is unlikely to do. A permanent tax or fee imposed on the nation’s largest banks could reduce future risks by discouraging big banks from getting even bigger. . .  

A levy on these financial giants would help by putting a brake on this consolidation — making the largest banks somewhat less profitable and steering investment and other resources into smaller banks, which, if they failed, wouldn’t take the rest of us with them. . .  

[AO: The New York Times is correct. The Treasury needs the $120 billion spent bailing out the financial system. The Times is also correct to support taxing large banks because they were the beneficiaries of the $120 billion. However, the remedy offered by the Times, bank fees coupled with taxes on bonuses, go beyond what is necessary to recoup the $120 billion. For one, the tax on bonuses is totally unnecessary if the government’s only goal is to recover spent money. By adjusting the fee amount, the government can recover the entire $120 billion without having to resort to taxing bonuses. This is a desirable approach because the bailout funds supported the banks, not individuals who work there specifically. If bonuses are taxed, the pain will be distributed unfairly so that individuals who earned the highest bonus will pay more to refund the $120 billion though there is no reason to suggest why they should be disproportionately affected.  

The Times notes with approval that a tax on big banks could help make those banks less profitable. However, any such tax must be carefully designed. If the tax is too high, it could push some of the struggling banks back into the position they were in immediately prior to the bailout.   

The government does not need to tax employee bonuses to recoup the bailout funds. If the government taxes banks only, the banks can decide how to shift those costs to employees rather than the government doing so through a tax on bonuses. ]

PUTTING COLD hard cash in the hands of students as an incentive to stay in school could go a long way toward solving . . . chronic dropout problem. . .  

. . . many middle class youths already operate on a rewards system that is linked to school attendance and performance. It’s called allowance. And those young people who don’t receive a regular stipend at least have a decent chance of hitting up their parents for the price of a movie and McDonald’s. . .   

[AO: Although the Boston Globe makes a strong argument, there are two problems that it fails to address. The first problem is that often the reasons kids don’t stay in school are complex and go well beyond simply not wanting to be in the classroom. As long as those reasons exist, the program is unlikely to be successful.   

Secondly, even assuming providing financial payments to kids can make them stay in school, there are alternatives to just handing out checks. The globe identifies one: creation of after-school jobs that help potential dropouts to develop “self-awareness’’ and “aspirations.’’ However, the Globe suggests that this is not a viable alternative because Neil Sullivan and Boston Private Industry Council, the nonprofit that Sullivan heads, can only find jobs for about a quarter of the kids. But this is where the “alternatives” come in. At the very least, rather than paying kids to show up to class, why not partner with private companies who are willing to hire the kids with the agreement that communities will subsidize their employment. This will enable communities to help even more kids as the total amount available will be increased by the portion of their salaries contributed by employers. Employers will also be more interested in participating in such programs because they can hire employees at lower cost.  

These two issues should be considered seriously before major investment in the types of programs the Globe seem to endorse.]

PRESIDENT OBAMA made a bow toward transparency yesterday when he described how he intended to correct the security lapses that enabled Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day with explosives sown into his underwear. . .  

. . . the near-miss on Christmas Day also highlights the need to streamline the overlapping bureaucracies that were tasked with monitoring terrorist threats after Sept. 11, 2001.  

. . . a more basic structural change is needed: to reestablish the links between collectors of intelligence and analysts that were severed in 2004, when the government moved most of its analysts into the Counter Terrorism Center. . . there is too little direct communication between the agents on the ground and those analyzing their reports.  

[AO: The intelligence failures that led to the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack in Detroit should never again be allowed to occur. To that end, the Boston Globe suggests that a basic structural change needed to forestall similar failures in the future is to increase communication between intelligence analysts and gatherers. As a means of effecting this suggestion, the Globe recommends reorganizing the intelligence community to eliminate excessive bureaucracy.  

But it is not clear that excessive bureaucracy was the cause of the intelligence failure. It is also not clear why increasing communication between intelligence gatherers and analysts, beyond current levels of communication, is necessary. Unfortunately, the Globe provides no answers. It doesn’t explain why an intelligence information gatherer can’t convey all necessary and useful information to an analyst without direct personal communications with the analyst.  

The conclusion of the White House intelligence review seems correct: a reorganization of the intelligence or broader counterterrorism community is not required to address future similar intelligence failures.  

The other changes endorsed by President Obama, such as sharing of databases, will do much to increase security and prevent future terrorist attacks. Reorganizing the intelligence community for the purposes suggested by the Globe will not. ]

A recent Rasmussen poll suggests that an alarming number of Americans believe scientists have falsified their data to sell global warming to the public. . .   

Why is there so much confusion about whether the planet is warming? We believe a big part of the problem centers on the use of earth surface temperature data as a direct measure of warming. . .  

One doesn’t need to measure thousands of temperatures to find conclusive evidence that the planet is warming. The earth does the averaging for us. Many physical and biological characteristics show that the earth is warming and has been for decades. . .  

In order to convince a skeptical public that global change is real, scientists and funding agencies need to invest more in field measurements and monitoring rather than computer modeled predictions. . .  

[AO: Alas, if only it was that straightforward. Unfortunately, one of the main reasons global warming skeptics don’t believe in global warming is that they refuse to believe in it unless it can be completely and conclusively proven. Since they refuse to accept any available evidence as conclusive proof of global warming, they reject it.  

In a way, they are like those who smoked cigarettes for years knowing that cigarettes “could” cause cancer but because they lacked specific evidence that cigarettes “did” cause cancer, they saw no reason to change their smoking habit. Unfortunately for many such persons, the evidence they were willing to accept came too late.  

Recognizing that as long as global warming is not completely and conclusively proven significant numbers of people will continue to be skeptical of it, perhaps the best approach may be to address the source of people’s skepticism directly, rather than generating more evidence in support of global warming that is unlikely to be seen as conclusive by skeptics. ]

Democrats Chris Dodd, Byron Dorgan and Bill Ritter announced Wednesday that yes, they can get out of politics before the voters ride them out.  

They won’t seek re-election. The sudden departure of a couple of senators from Connecticut and North Dakota and a governor from Colorado doesn’t necessarily spell doom for the Democrats, but it’s pretty clear what’s going on. There’s a great unease about the direction of the country and discontent about its political leadership. . .  

You don’t see a recognition from national leaders that people have lost confidence in their direction and their tactics.  

What you do see: Democratic leaders hellbent on hammering out a final version of this unpopular health care legislation in secret. . .  

[AO: The Chicago Tribune would have you believe that voters want to throw Democrats out of office due to what “Democratic leaders” at the national level are doing. This seems plausible. It’s possible even though it requires one to jettison the belief that voters vote for individual senators on their record. Alas, that’s where things falls apart.  

See, let’s take Senator Dodd as the counter example to the Tribune’s argument. Dodd is one Democrat who has decided to step down. According to the Tribune’s argument, Dodd has had to step down because, at least in significant part, of fears voters have about the direction of the country. But the problem with this line of argument, especially in the case of Dodd, is that voters are likely to replace him with another Democrat, allowing “Democratic leaders” at the national level to continue doing what they are doing.   

Somehow, it seems impossible to square this reality with the Tribune’s claims. Moreover, the fact that six republican senators have already announced their retirement makes this impossible task even more so.]

A year ago this month, the air over American liberalism was thick with champagne corks. Barack Obama the newly elected president was poised to be inaugurated, and he in turn would inaugurate the long-prophesized new progressive era. A year later, the champagne corks are hardly flying, and if this is to be morning in America for American liberalism, it seems to have come with a pretty nasty hangover. . .  

In 2008, liberals had more reason to hope. . . A little more than a year later, we surely have been hoing leftward. But it already seems as if the American people are sick of it. The 2009 off-year elections might not have been a repudiation of Obama, but they were definitely not an embrace of Obamaism. Meanwhile, by nearly 2 to 1, Americans say the country is on the wrong track. . . .   

[AO: We agree with the opinion’s writer, Jonah Goldberg: over the last year or so, there has been no giant leftward shift in U.S. politics. But the statistics he quote should be placed in context.  

Goldberg’s claim is that Americans are sick of Democrats. He marshals polling data to support that point. He insinuates that Americans want to put an end to Democratic control of government. But does the data really support this? Let’s take a look.  

Goldberg states that “by nearly 2 to 1, Americans say the country is on the wrong track.” This statement is based in part on an average of polls by RealClearPolitics.com. One of the polls showing the highest number of Americans saying the country is headed in the wrong direction is NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll. That poll shows that only 33% of Americans agree that the country is headed in the right direction (55% agreed that the country is on the wrong track. 10% said “mixed” and 2% responded “unsure”). After noting that, according to the poll, 55%, not 66% as some might be tempted to assume, of Americans agree that the country is headed in the wrong direction, the next questions that come up are (1) “is this unusual” and (2) “who do these people think are responsible.”   

The NBC/Walls Street Journal Polling data goes back to 1999. The data shows that excluding the Obama effect, a huge jump between January 2009 and February 2009, when the number of Americans agreeing that the country was headed in the right direction increased from 26% to 41%, the last time more than 33% of Americans agreed that the country was headed in the right direction was January 2005. That’s right, January 2005. In other years, during most of the booming years of the last decades, more Americans thought the country was headed in the wrong direction than do now, a time when we are still recovering from a very significant recession.  

The poll also has something to say about who respondents blame for the country’s problems. 47% of respondents approved of the job that Barack Obama is doing as president (46% disapproved). 43% want next year’s congressional elections to produce a Democrat-controlled Congress (41% favored a Republican controlled Congress).  

These polling numbers are close. There is no reason for complacency by Republicans or Democrats. However, the thrust of Goldberg’s argument, especially when considered in light of the data showing that slightly more Americans approve of the job Obama is doing and want Democrats to retain control of Congress, is not supported by the polling data. ]

“I don’t think that this is the Obama administration’s fault. This is the way bureaucracies work or don’t work.”

Ah, I see. Even though it was President Barack Obama’s Transportation Security Administration, Department of Homeland Security, CIA and State Department that the Christmas Day terrorist penetrated. . .  

This interesting rationalization was offered by Washington Post op-ed columnist Ruth Marcus on ABC’s Dec. 27 “This Week” program . . . 

“Brownie,” of course, was Michael Brown, the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency who received Bush’s accolades in the first days of the Hurricane Katrina recovery, but then resigned as the chief scapegoat. Still, that didn’t save Bush from years of ridicule and finger-pointing. No liberals suggested that the Katrina failures in New Orleans were the result of bureaucracies being bureaucracies. . .

[AO: There is a difference between Michael Brown’s actions regarding Hurricane Katrina and the TSA, Homeland Security, CIA and State Department’s collective inaction that resulted in the Christmas Day terrorist incident. In the former, Brown was criticized because he, in his individual capacity, took steps that made things worse. In the latter, the agencies can and should be criticized for failure to make things better (i.e. failure to improve national security). However,
these are not comparable reasons for criticisms because of the act/omission difference and because one involves an individual's actions while the other involves actions by many individuals across different government agencies.  

Put another way, no one blamed Michael Brown for the hurricane. He was blamed for his actions. To make a comparable criticism of the Obama administration regarding the Christmas Day terrorist incident, one must blame the administration, not for the terrorist plot, but for the various agencies failure to do enough. In other words, this is exactly what Washington Post op-ed columnist Ruth Marcus said on ABC's Dec. 27 "This Week."]

Despite a first year filled with divisions, denunciations and impassioned polarization, it’s not too late for Barack Obama to formulate the bipartisan foreign policy that he promised as a presidential candidate and that Americans say they crave. To do so, he should take inspiration from the best-received speech of his presidency, resist the unbecoming temptation of blaming bad news on his predecessor, and emulate the triumphant example of a long-ago Republican president. . .  

In the remainder of his term, Barack Obama can deliver more of the concord his campaign promised if he avoids self-defeating bitterness toward his predecessor, rejects grand, unattainable international schemes and, in the soft-spoken Eisenhower tradition, reconnects with the pragmatic, conservative disposition of the American people.  

[AO: Michael Medved, the writer of this opinion in USA Today, is correct. If President Obama stops highlighting Bush-era mistakes, gives up on achieving any significant international agreements, and becomes a conservative, he can achieve unity. Unfortunately, it will be a unity between Obama and conservatives, not liberals and conservatives, because Obama will have become a conservative.]

In March 2000, Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was interviewed in a federal prison for a segment of CBS’s “60 Minutes.”  . . . A lot of people didn’t like what he had to say. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft was one of them. Calling the segment “an irresponsible glamorization of a culture of violence,” he ordered a blanket ban on interviews with federal death row inmates. . .   

That rule is being challenged by another condemned prisoner who was housed near McVeigh in the Terre Haute, Ind., federal prison. David Paul Hammer was serving a 1,200-year sentence for kidnapping, murder, escape and assorted other crimes . . .  

Hammer’s lawsuit challenging the ban on interviews was rejected by a federal court and by the 7th U.S. Court of Appeals. His appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is being supported by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 23 news organizations, including Tribune Co., which owns the Chicago Tribune.  

The reporters’ group argues that prison interviews provide important checks on the system, shining light on how inmates are treated and how tax dollars are spent. . .  

The ban on interviews fails two tests established in earlier cases. First, the government can’t restrict an inmate’s free speech rights unless there’s an alternate avenue for uncensored communication. Second, any such rule must be backed by a legitimate criminal justice objective, such as the need to protect other inmates or prison employees. . .   

[AO: Based on the two tests established in early U.S. Supreme Court cases, it appears that, as described by the Chicago Tribune’s Editorial Board, the rule will be upheld (ruled valid) if the government can show that even if it restricts an inmate’s free speech rights and the inmate has no alternate avenue for uncensored communication, the government has a legitimate criminal justice objective. Let’s assume the government has no legitimate criminal justice objective for the blanket prohibition on interviews with federal death row inmates for our discussion here.  

The Tribune states that “the government can't restrict an inmate's free speech rights unless there's an alternate avenue for uncensored communication.” But what qualifies as an alternative avenue for uncensored communication? Relatedly, what are the purposes of these communications?   

The Tribune mentions inmate treatment and use of tax dollars. But here’s the rub. An inmate’s chief advocate for fair treatment in prison, the individual an inmate should probably first contact regarding the issues the Tribune highlights is the inmate’s lawyer. In other words, federal death row inmates have an alternate avenue for communication as required by the first part of the two element test that the Tribune describes.   

Inmates who would rather not communicate through their lawyer can just as well communicate through any other person who comes to visit. That is because death row inmates, generally, have visitation rights. The only prohibition seems to be that those visitors can’t be reporters carrying interviewing equipment. Indeed, what the rule does is not prohibit speech as much as it prohibits speech that potentially “glamorize[e] [] a culture of violence.”]