Blog Archives

A Stimulus By Any Other Name…

This opinion column was published in the Main Line Times and the Delco Times on December 16, 2010.

*Correction — In my column, I mistakenly referred to the stimulus package passed in February 2009 as the “2008 stimulus bill.” This has been corrected in this blog post. Sorry.

On Dec. 6 President Obama gave a speech on the temporary, bipartisan agreement reached over the Bush tax cuts and unemployment benefits. He described the compromise as one that “will spur our private sector to create millions of new jobs and add momentum that our economy badly needs.” Read: stimulus. Make no mistake, the compromise package is just that. ’s “Free Exchange” blog notes that it contains a one-year cut in the Social Security payroll tax ($120 billion) and allows businesses to write off all investment expenses ($200 billion).

This is in addition to extending unemployment benefits, which is a politically easy way to provide stimulus funds. Such benefits are generally pumped right back into the economy as the unemployed spend on necessities. Extending them could also, somewhat paradoxically, be cheaper than not. Many people apply for Social Security Disability Insurance when unemployment runs out, and people on SSDI are less likely to return to the work force.

And then there’s the most famous part of the package – the Bush tax cuts. While there was some debate over whether the wealthiest Americans would keep their cuts or not, the safest decision was eventually made. Although it worsens the immediate deficit, temporarily sustaining all the cuts avoids the mistake FDR made in 1937 when fiscal tightening (that is, tax increases and spending decreases) plunged a recovering economy back into recession. Of course, tightening will be needed in the medium run (hence the temporary nature of the extension), but for now legislators have been able to shunt aside that argument.

In light of these facts, it is interesting that nowhere in President Obama’s speech is specific mention of the term “stimulus.” Of course this is understandable given the much-maligned reputation the word has (wrongly) earned over the past two years. Many Americans feel as if the 2009* stimulus bill was an exercise in wasted money despite the fact that a full third of it went to tax cuts and credits. Let us then begin the re-education process. Stimulus by any other name is still stimulus.


Beck Check: Coolidge and Harding

Glenn Beck spent a portion of his February 9 show discussing the presidencies of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. I was interested in his talking points, so I decided to run some fact-checking. Here’s the results.

“Coolidge and Harding decreased the real per capita federal expenditures – the size of the government – from $170 per year in 1920 to $70 in 1924. These policies, along with fostering the mentality of self-reliance – the opposite of what the progressives had been preaching in the previous 20 years and the opposite of what progressives teach now. They’re not saying ‘be self-reliant’, they’re saying ‘too big to fail, you can’t make it without the government’s safety nets.’ Stand on your own two feet, America!”

This statement, like many Beck make, is a bit misleading. In the interest of time, we will limit our discussion to his comments regarding Harding, Coolidge, and their economic policies. Were they really the antithesis of the preceding years’ progressivism?

President Calvin Coolidge

We’ll start with the value of this statement ‘on its face’. Did Coolidge and Harding decrease the real per capita federal expenditures from $170 per year in 1920 to $70 in 1924? Yes and no.

Now, I’m not entirely sure what source Beck used, but one of my main sources in researching his claim was a Cato Institute publication by Randall Holcombe titled: “The Growth of the Federal Government in the 1920s.” The Cato Institute is a libertarian think-thank that describes its mission as “to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace.“ I assumed that because of Cato’s reputation (UPenn gave it excellent rankings in its 2010 ranking of think-tanks, including a #2 spot in the area of Domestic Economic Policy) and its advocation of limited government (a position with which Mr. Beck would likely concur), that the research of the Cato Institute would be a fairly noncontroversial in fact-checking Beck.

First, let’s define “Real Per Capita Federal Expenditures.” Federal expenditure per capita is how much money the federal government is spending per person. That is, it is the total federal government spending divided by the population. When we define this as “Real,” it simply means we’re adjusting for inflation. Because of inflation, comparing the dollar amounts of one year to another is an unequal comparison. Thus, the amounts need to be converted in order to nullify the effects of inflation and see how much the amount really increased or decreased.

As the following chart from the Holcombe paper shows, total real per capita federal expenditures in 1920 was $390.98. In 1924, that total was $194.85.

Quite a decrease.

Much of this decrease had to do with World War I. Federal expenditures increase largely during wartime in order to fund the war, and then subside once the war is over, because the military is no longer in need of large funding to sustain the war effort. In order to try to account for this, there is a second column in the table above. This one tries to subtract defense expenditures from the total. This is where Beck, it appears, is getting his numbers. According to this table, the 1920 federal expenditures per capita, minus defense, were $170.15, and those in 1924 were $70.36. Again, a nice decrease.

It would seem, then, that Beck’s statement is somewhat true. Of course, he is discounting a large part of the federal budget, but (and this is purely conjecture based on what I have seen of Beck’s opinions), he may feel that this discounting is justified as national defense is a necessary expenditure, and he would possibly want to limit his discussion to the federal government’s expenditures of which he disapproves.

Either way you look at the numbers, however, there is a nice decrease in federal expenditures. So Beck seems justified either way.

Holcombe, though, contends that the table suggests “there are war-related expenditures in the government budget even after subtracting defense, veterans, and interest expenditures. This makes it apparent that one cannot accept nonwar expenditures as unrelated to the war.” Although the table attempts to extricate total expenditures from military spending, there is still at least somewhat of a relationship between the two.

But let us overlook this for a moment and continue on with Beck’s statement. Let us assume that Coolidge and Harding were largely responsible for the decrease in real per capita federal expenditures, and not the end of World War I (a large leap). Even if this were true, Coolidge and Harding still did not reach the pre-war levels of real per capita federal expenditures — levels that occurred during the Progressive Era. In 1916, before the war began, the total was $83.60, as compared to Coolidge and Harding’s $194.85 in 1924.

Also, Beck comments only on 1920 to 1924, which should seem odd considering the Harding-Coolidge years actually stretched to 1929. Beck fails to mention that real per capita federal expenditures minus defense (the numbers from the second column that he cites during his show) actually rose after 1924. In 1929, at the end of the Harding-Coolidge run, the total expenditures minus defense had risen to  $89.30. Not a large increase, but much bigger than the total minus defense for 1916, which was $22.75. The total expenditures until 1929 actually continued to decline until 1927, as the table shows, and then increased, reaching $195.41 in 1929.

Holcombe says that:

“From 1924 to 1929, before Depression-related expenditures would have found their way into the budget, nonmilitary expenditures increased by 27 percent, all during the Coolidge administration. If we take the decline in expenditures up through 1924 as a winding down of the war effort, there appears to be a considerable underlying growth in federal expenditures through the 1920s–growth worth examining more closely. What at first appears to be a relatively stable level of federal expenditures in the 1920s actually is substantial underlying growth, masked by a decline in war-related expenditures.”

Yet, Holcombe says, “It would be misleading to try to judge the growth of the federal government in the 1920s only by looking at aggregate expenditures.” With this, we go beyond Beck, who leaves the discussion simply at expenditures. Holcombe notes several areas in which the government grew under Coolidge and Harding –

  • the creation of government-owned corporations (which began prior to Coolidge and Harding, but did not stop during their terms)
  • the expansion of federal aid to states
  • expansion in the role of the post office and the salaries of its workers (“postal deficits in the 1920s were caused by the expansion of postal services and the provision of many services without charge or considerably below cost.”)
  • expanding the enforcement of prohibition (for instance, Coolidge created the Bureau of Prohibition)
  • aid to the agriculture industry (“Whether evaluated financially or with regard to programs, the 1920s saw considerable government growth in the agricultural industry, and laid the foundation for more federal involvement that was to follow in the New Deal.”)
  • antitrust action

Below is an excerpt regarding antitrust action during the Harding-Coolidge years:

Expenditures are the easiest measure of the size of government, but tell only a part of the story of government growth. Government regulation also has a substantial impact, but is harder to measure.[23] Starting with the Sherman Act in 1890, the federal government began its antitrust activity to try to limit the economic power of businesses. Only 22 cases were brought before 1905, but the pace started picking up later in that decade, which saw 39 cases brought between 1905 and 1909. From 1910 to 1919, a total of 134 cases were brought, showing increasing antitrust enforcement. But there was little slowdown in the 1920s, which saw a total of 125 cases. [24] As Thomas McCraw (1984: 145) notes, “By the 1920s antitrust had become a permanent part of American economic and political life.” One might anticipate, after an increase in cases, that firms would be more cautious in their activities to avoid antitrust cases being brought against them. But McCraw (1984: 146) further notes that in the 1920s a large proportion of antitrust cases were brought against firms that were not normally regarded as being highly concentrated. Antitrust enforcement in the 1920s was vigorous and increasingly broad in scope.

I highly suggest you read the entire Holcombe paper, but those are essentially the points in the paper that I found related to Beck’s statement. I was also surprised by how well Holcombe seems to sum up the refutation of Beck’s claims. I’ll let Holcombe’s words speak for themselves:

Normalcy, in the Harding-Coolidge sense, meant peace and prosperity, but it also meant a continuation of the principles of Progressivism, which enabled the Republican party to retain the support of its Progressive element. Despite the popular view of the 1920s as a retreat from Progressivism, by any measure government was more firmly entrenched as a part of the American economy in 1925 than in 1915, and was continuing to grow. Harding and Coolidge were viewed as pro-business, [10] and there may be a tendency to equate this pro-business sentiment as anti-Progressivism. [11] The advance of Progressivism may have been slower than before the war or during the New Deal, but a slower advance is not a retreat. [12]

Late economist Herbert Stein (Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under Presidents Nixon and Ford and a member of the board of contributors for the Wall Street Journal) also wrote of Coolidge’s economic policies in his excellent book “Presidential Economics: The Making of Economic Policy from Roosevelt to Clinton.” His conclusions regarding the Coolidge years (on page 28) also run contrary to Beck’s claims:

But if we use as a test of conservatism the degree of government intervention in the economy, the Coolidge administration was not conservative compared to its predecessors. Coolidge presided over a New Era, and the era was new not only in the height of the stock market; it was also new in the economic role of the government, and part of the confidence in the future of the American economy was so strong in the Coolidge days was confidence in the cooperative policy of government. When Coolidge said that the business of America is business he did not mean that the business of government is to leave business alone. He meant that it is the business of government to help business. That was even more positively the idea of his activist Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover. Coolidge did not undo the interventionist measures of the Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson regimes. At the end of his term the federal budget was larger than in the time of, say, William Howard Taft. He reduced income tax rates, but we still had an income tax, which we hadn’t fifteen years earlier. Perhaps most important, his term was a period of increasing acceptance of the responsibility of the Federal Reserve to help stabilize the economy.

The Coolidge and Harding years, it seems, were not the years of limited government and abandonment of progressivism that Beck says they were. He may have had a few numbers correct (though he failed to properly identify them), but his implications are not entirely borne out by the facts.

(Beck goes on to describe the “Roaring Twenties,” and describes them as “arguably the most prosperous 8 years this country has ever seen.” A discussion of Beck’s “Roaring Twenties” description and how that decade compares to other economic expansions in American history (post-WWII boom and the 80s/90s, for instance) is the topic for a blog entry found here.)


What You Need to Know About the House Health Care Bill

The House of Representatives passed their version of the health care reform bill last night. But what does it all mean? The media coverage on the issue has been decidedly mixed. I’ll try to boil down for you the most important points on the House bill.

The first thing I should probably spend some time on is clarification. With all this debate over the validity of so-called “Obamacare”, many people may not realize that there are various versions of health care reforms bills floating around, and that none of them were authored by Obama (hence the irony of the name “Obamacare”).

Here are the details of the House version of the bill: (a good source of information are the NYTimes, and an NPR podcast entitled Health Care Legislation Deconstructed)

How the House Bill Expands Coverage to Uninsured Americans

  • Projected to cover 96% of legal residents under age 65.
  • Provides subsidies for individuals up to 400% of the federal poverty level $88,000 for a family of 4)
  • Expands Medicaid to 150% of federal poverty level ($16,000 for an individual; $33,000 for a family of 4)
  • No denial of coverage or higher premiums due to pre-existing conditions

How the House Bill Effects Businesses

  • Most employers will be required to provide health care for employees or pay a penalty of up to 8% of payroll.
  • Businesses up to $500,000 in payroll a year are exempt.
  • Penalties are phased in for businesses from $500,000 to $750,000
  • Small businesses are provided with tax credits to help them purchase health care

The House Bill’s Public Option

  • No state opt-out
  • Negotiated Rates — the public plan will talk to hospitals, doctors, and health care providers to negotiate a state-level payment rate

Costs of the House Bill

  • Gross Cost $1.1 trillion over ten years.
  • However, the Net Cost is $894 billion because of revenue raisers.
  • Revenue will come from surcharge on high income earners (taxes on individuals that earn above $500,000, or on couples that earn above $1 million  – projected to raise $460 billion)
  • Penalties for businesses who don’t provide health care (up to 8% of payroll)
  • Penalties for individuals who don’t buy health care (2.5% of income — but can apply for hardship waivers if can’t afford)
  • Medicaid/Medicare cuts
  • Corporate taxes/ fees

Health Insurance Exchange

  • The Exchange is essentially a marketplace where people can go to shop for health insurance. Currently, with our employer-based system, you can only really choose from the plan(s) your employer offers. Going out and buying your own insurance is expensive and messy. The Exchange creates a market of insurances options and allows you to choose which plan you want, allowing market forces to take their toll — the better plans will thrive and the uncompetitive ones will die.
  • Would begin in 2013.

Lobbyists’ Role in the Bill

  • Why was there no large-scale campaign launched against this reform by insurance industries, drug companies, and the like? Because this time around, they were brought into the fold. Yet, with lobbyists winning, the biggest loser stands to be — in many instances — the consumer. The pharmaceutical industry has lobbied for amendments, like one that would grant 12-year exclusivity to biologics, instead of 5. Read the article in TIME for more on that, but basically, it means that instead of allowing generics onto the market after a shorter waiting period (say, 5 years), it will now take 12 years for this to happen, when concerning biologics, which is rapidly growing. The downside to this is that generics help control costs by offering similar solutions for much less money. Essentially, this monopolizes the market for 12 years for each new biologic.

There was a Republican alternative to the House Bill, which included:

  • No public option
  • Individual mandate
  • State high risk pools
  • Not having language barring pre-existing conditions
  • Businesses can combine resources and buy health insurance across state lines
  • Reforms to control costs


The 2009 Election Voter Guide

In this blog post, I’ll list all of the candidates on the Philadelphia ballot and which ones the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Daily News are endorsing, respectively.

Each candidate’s name (in this blog) will link to his or her website.

The Committee of Seventy has a lot of good information on the candidates, including links, and also good information on the seats for which they are vying.

Here are the candidates:

PA Supreme Court Justice (1 Seat)

District Attorney (1 Seat)

City Controller (1 Seat)

PA Superior Court (4 Seats)

Commonwealth Court Judge (2 Seats)

7 Seats are available for Court of Common Pleas Judge, and there are only 7 candidates, so I will not list them (follow the link if you want to know more)

4 Seats are available for Municipal Court Judge, and there are only 4 candidates, so I will not list them (follow the link if you want to know more)

PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER ENDORSEMENTS

  • PA Supreme Court – Joan Orie Melvin (R)
  • District Attorney — Seth Williams (D)
  • City Controller — Al Schmidt (R)
  • PA Superior Court – Judy Olson (R)
    Robert Colville (D)
    Anne Lazarus (D)
    Teresa Sarmina (D)
  • PA Commonwealth Court — Linda Judson (D)
    Kevin Brobson (R)

DAILY NEWS ENDORSEMENTS

  • District Attorney — Seth Williams (D)
  • City Controller – Alan Butkovitz (D)

Follow some links, read up, get out and vote! Polling places open 7am – 8pm.


Checking the Facts on Glenn Beck’s “Arguing With Idiots”

Glenn Beck’s recent “Arguing With Idiots” video (made to promote his book by the same title) promotes itself as “truth for those who care to look” (in its opening theme song). But how much ‘truth’ does it actually contain? First, give the video a view.

Done? Good. Let’s break down the all of the claims into individual chunks and see which hold water.

  • Claim: “In 2006, the top 1 percent paid almost 40% of the country’s income taxes.”
    Status: True, but misleading.

Why is it misleading? Let’s see. The same set of data Beck uses also lists the top 1 percent’s share of the entire country’s wealth at a whopping 22.06 percent, more than a fifth of the entire country’s income. The reason for the discrepancy between high income earners paying a higher percentage of all income taxes is the progressive nature of the income tax system (higher tax brackets are taxed at higher levels). This is the inequity that Beck is railing against.

But two things stand out. The first is simply an observation that Beck’s argument, stripped of the national income share numbers as context, distort how the numbers are viewed. Consider this: even had the numbers been more in line with percentage of national income earned, it still would have sounded lopsided. Imagine that the numbers for 2006 had been that “1 percent paid 20 percent of the country’s income taxes.” This would actually be less than fair, given that the top 1 percent earned 22.06 percent of national income — yet it sounds lopsided.

The other point that stands out is that these numbers distort perceptions of tax contributions by only including the income tax. There are various kinds of taxes that Americans face, at each level of government (local, state, and federal). By picking a particularly progressive tax, Beck is able to manipulate the data to say what he wants.

If I wanted to make the case that American taxes are regressive (that is, the lower your income, the higher a percentage of your income is paid to taxes), I could do so quite easily through Mr. Beck’s strategy. By focusing only on the payroll tax, I could demonstrate that, since this particular tax is capped above a certain amount, it affects low income earners more than high income earners. Indeed, the effective tax rate for Social Insurance Taxes (payroll taxes) is 8.5 percent for the lowest fifth of Americans, but only 1.6 percent for the top 1 percent. Those aren’t shares, they’re tax rates. See how easy that was to cherry-pick data to make a point?

This this New York Times blog blog post has a good breakdown of the payroll tax:

Officially known as a “contribution,” the Social Security tax brings in almost as much revenue as the individual income tax, and is catching up. By June 2009, annual revenues for the payroll tax collections had reached almost 90 percent of individual income tax collections.

The Social Security part of the payroll tax is about 12 percent of the first $106,800 of employee earnings in a year. The Medicare part is about 3 percent of all payroll earnings (regardless of whether and how much employees make over $106,800).

As a result, people earning over $106,800 pay a lesser percentage of their earnings in payroll taxes than do people earning less than $106,800.

The highest-earning third of United States households pay more individual income tax than payroll tax. But the other two-thirds are paying more payroll tax than income tax.

Higher earners are still responsible for a disproportionate fraction of total taxes, but their share becomes less disproportionate as payroll taxes grow and individual income taxes shrink

The only way to get an accurate picture of the distribution of tax burdens across American society is to consider national income share compared to total tax burden, not only the income tax. So how much of total tax burden do the richest Americans shoulder? Well, according to this New York Times blog, which cites the liberal organization “Citizens for Tax Justice“:

 in 2008 the share of total federal, state and local taxes paid by each income group was relatively close to the share of income that that group brings in, at least as compared to  comparable 2006 numbers for effective federal tax rates:

(Horizontal axis shows the income group. Taxes include all federal, state and local taxes (personal and corporate income, payroll, property, sales, excise, estate, etc.). Incomes include cash income, employer-paid FICA taxes and corporate profits net of taxable dividends.)

So, this chart attempts to balance all taxes (not just federal) that the various income groups paid against the share of the total income each group holds. Does the top 1% pay more, according to this chart? A bit, yes, but it is much more comparable to their income share than Beck’s focus on the income tax would have you believe. Why is this? Well, basically, because although federal taxes are mostly progressive (with some exceptions), state and local taxes are often regressive.

From a New York Times blog:

State and local taxes tend to be more regressive if they rely more heavily on sales and excise taxes, do not have a broad-based personal income tax, or have a personal income tax that is structured in a less progressive way (e.g., a flat-rate income tax).

So, when including state/local taxes (which vary according to area — some states do have progressive tax systems while others have a flat tax rate), total tax rates are generally in line with total tax burden.

And, as noted above, some federal taxes are still regressive, most notably the Social Security tax (payroll tax). Also, although high-earners pay less of their income in Social Security payroll taxes, they often make out better in Social Security than lower-income workers. From “Putting Our House In Order: A Guide to Social Security and Health Care Reform” by George Shultz (a former Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, and a Secretary of the Treasury under Nixon) and John Shoven:

Social Security discourages long careers because its system, which is designed to help low-income Americans, winds up helping high-income workers who have short careers. An individual who earns just above the minimum wage over the span of a long career will be correctly identified by the Social Security system as having low lifetime earnings. However, an individual with relatively high earnings per year over a short career span would also qualify as a low average earner by Social Security calculations. This inconsistency occurs because Social Security figures out average earnings on the basis of the highest thirty-five years of earnings, which would include zeros for those years in which an individual had no earnings.

So high-income earners get to retire years ahead of low-income earners, and still receive the benefits, though since they are not working anymore, they’ve stopped contributing to the workforce. Whether or not this is fair or unfair, you’d expect to hear healthy debate about the issue. But you don’t. And why is that? Because it is easier to cherry-pick data about income tax distribution in order to rile people up about ‘unfair’ tax burdens.

  • Claim: “The top 50% of earners paid 97% of the entire income tax bill.”
     Status: True, but misleading, for the same reasons outlined above. Also, the same data Beck cites also states that the top 50%’s share of the income is 87.49%.
  • Claim: The middle class only paid 3% of the tax burden.
     Status: False.

First, we need to define what the middle class is. It’s kind of an amorphous term, so stick with me. FactCheck.org gives a lengthy discussion of what the middle class may be. Take a look:

 It’s possible to come up with a definition of what constitutes “middle income,” but it will depend on how large a slice of the middle one prefers. If we look at U.S. Census Bureau statistics, which divide household income into quintiles, we could say that the “middle” quintile, or 20 percent, might be the “middle” class. In 2006, the average income for households in that middle group was $48,561 and the upper limit was $60,224. But we could just as reasonably use another Census figure, median family income. In 2006, the median – or “middle” – income for a family of four was $70,354. Half of all four-person families made more; half made less…

But others could have different definitions. Baker interviewed a man who earned about $100,000 a year and a woman who made $35,000, both of whom said they were middle class.

Public opinion polls show how slippery the term can be. An Oct. 2007 poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Harvard School of Public Health and National Public Radio asked 1,527 adults what income level makes a family of four middle class. About 60 percent said a family earning $50,000 or $60,000 fit that description. But 42 percent answered an income of $40,000 and 48 percent said $80,000 were both middle class…

Republic candidate Mitt Romney…defines “middle class” as anyone with an adjusted gross income of under $200,000…

Here, you can see a thinker from the conservative Heritage Foundation arguing that people with $250,000 incomes aren’t wealthy. Does that make them middle class?

So there’s a lot of debate on who, exactly is middle class. The site notes that politicians often change the term to fit their needs. Because of this, and because $200,000 seems a bit high, let’s bypass Mr. Romney’s definition. In fact, let’s give Mr. Beck the benefit of the doubt. Let’s find the lowest number there, and we’ll use that to define the floor of middle class. $35,000 looks like the lowest number up there to me. We’ll use that as the floor. So, in our definition, you need to make above $35,000 to be middle class.

Well, according to the data Beck uses, the top 50% (that non-middle class portion he’s talking about that pays 97% of America’s taxes) begins at $31,987. Which is below one of the lower figures we used to define middle class. Needless to say its much below some of the other proposed figures up there (notably those of Mitt Romney and the Heritage Foundation).

Now let’s take a look at tax brackets. If you make $31,987 or up and are filing singly, you’re either in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% tax bracket. That’s right, out of the 6 tax brackets, you could be in 4 of them, depending on how much you make.

Some of what Beck says is true. Some is not. But pretty much all of it is misleading.


Ann Coulter Wrong On Iranian Protests

The other say on Hannity’s show, Anne Coulter said:

“George Bush helps the Iranians. They saw fellow Muslims living in freedom and democracy in Iraq, and that’s what inspired this.”

Now let’s take a look at this.

Here are some of the actual reasons for the protests:

  • Obviously, the outcome (many irregularities were found in the voting) — From the Tehran Bureau, “They’re protesting because the government thought it could make fools of them. All this was a play, it was a movie. It wasn’t real. It was a charade. People are hopeless and depressed because they were played with, not because Mousavi lost.”
  • Frustration over the worsening economy and unemployment, despite high oil revenues.
  • The “Marriage Crisis” — tied into the economy, basically “It refers to the rising number of young people of marrying age who cannot afford to marry or are choosing not to tie the knot.” It was another factor that served to alienate Iran’s young population from the government.
  • Anger at Ahmadinejad’s poor global image and the poor image of Iran as a “terrorist nation”

Also, directly opposing Coulter’s claim that George Bush is to thank for all the protests in Iran is the opinion of Iranians. Here’s one (from an article entitled “I speak for Mousavi. And Iran.” nonetheless!):

“Now the Americans have Obama and we have our version of Bush. We need an Obama who can find solutions for Iran’s problems.”

I’ll go with Mohsen Makhmalbaf (the author of that article) over Ann Coulter on this one.

Coulter also said:

“Curiously, this idea that the protesters would suddenly decide ‘oh no we’re going to stop protesting’ if Obama put in a kind word for them”.

I have not seen anyone making this claim. What she seems to be referring to is the idea that any policy statements from the US Government towards Iran will be utilized by the Iranian government to as propaganda to fight the protesters by saying: “Look, foreign forces like the US are inciting this rebellion”. Not only is it true, but it’s already started happening with the Iranian government blaming the CIA and the US and other foreign media.

On the media point, it should be noted that in Iran, media is government run, so there may or may not be the perception in Iran that by the US media running stories about the Iranian protests, it is actually the US government functioning through the media.


Observation: Broad Street, Election Night.

An observation I wrote the night of the 2008 Election, at Temple. Printed in the next week’s “Main Line Times”:

            Cheering, hugging, honking.  I was getting ready for the run to City Hall when I realized something – we won the World Series last week. Of course, in the streets now, no one would be able to tell the difference. Crowds of screaming people emerging from houses, some with alcohol, embracing each other in the middle of Broad Street while hapless officers resigned themselves to the sidewalk to watch the screaming mob yell “We won!” and enjoy the fireworks that were inevitable to follow. Last time I had remarked to a friend, “Isn’t it amazing how this kind of thing only happens with sports teams?” Or – at least – used to. This time around, there were no Phillies jerseys, only Obama ones.

            It was there, in the wet night wearing “I Believe In Harvey Dent” tee shirt in support of a fictional character, that the absurdity of the situation rushed over me. What was I doing? Fifty-six elections and, somehow, this was the one that would change the course of history? What does “We won” even mean? What defines “We? Am I one of them? I’d sure hate not to be. Was I really witnessing the election of a political figure, or was this something else entirely?

            Just as the Phillies had become the city of Philadelphia’s warriors, defeating the enemy horde in great and awesome battle, so had Barack Obama become our glorious and triumphant leader. But the story of the Phillies (for now) ends there, swept into the anonymity of the off-season. For Obama, it begins right here on the streets of Philadelphia, and similar cities across America, with the near-deification of a political figure.

It has no longer become an issue of whether Obama would make a good president, but rather what the reaction will be like when people realize that he is not Superman, only Clark Kent. That there is no magic wand that will suddenly end the financial crisis, the war in Iraq, and eliminate institutionalized racism.  There are no quick fixes to these most prominent issues that have plagued both the Democratic and Republican campaigns. There is only a long healing process that will last more than four years. Once the American people begin to realize this, they can work toward supporting a President instead of expecting a savior. To believe otherwise is to set oneself up for a fall of epic proportions.