What Are Our Priorities?

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

I don’t know about you, but I’m already counting the days to two dates: Opening Day for Major League Baseball; and New Year’s Eve. I want to escape into my box scores, and then escape this year all together. The first quarter is not even completed, and yet this year already has presented us with more consequential events and decisions than we normally face over a decade.

Unfortunately, history doesn’t allow any of us to escape the time in which we live, so we need to face these events and decisions, and establish priorities. As I am watching events unfold, though, I see few people willing to take the reigns and focus seriously on setting these priorities. Even many of our Republican leaders seem to be flailing at the symptoms of our illness, rather than focusing on a proper treatment plan.

My guess is that anyone of you could come up with your own list of problems, but I believe that the three great issues of 2011 so far are our national debt; unrest throughout the Middle East; and the devastation of Japan. If we don’t make the right choices in addressing these issues this year, the consequences could create problems for the U.S. for at least a generation. So, I will deal with these in the order of importance that I see:

Our National Debt

When I say “National Debt”, I don’t just mean the debt owed by our federal government—I mean all public and private debt. Let’s take a look at of some numbers that I have gathered from multiple sources, including numbers recently compiled for Dick Morris, and by Americans For Prosperity:

• It is estimated that the total value of assets in the U.S. exceeds the total value of liabilities by about $25 trillion;

• U.S. national Gross Domestic Product—GDP—is between $14 and $15 trillion;

• Total federal-government debt is now over $14 trillion, grows at a rate of over $5 billion per day, and, over the last two years, has grown at a rate 27 times faster than over our entire history from 1789 to 2009;

• Annual federal-government expenditures exceed revenue by about $1.3 trillion;

• The State of Texas is dealing with a shortfall for the current fiscal year of $3 to $5 billion;

• The Texas Legislature also is grappling with a projected difference between what would be needed to continue state government’s current activities and projected revenue over the next two years of around $20 billion, which does not include future liabilities for outstanding bonds or unfunded pensions; and

• The total bond debt owed by just Harris County exceeds $3.4 billion, and the total bond debt owed by my local school district—Clear Creek ISD—is $1.077 billion, for an aggregate debt per Harris County resident within CCISD from just these two governmental agencies of $30,452.43 (which is more if you also live inside a municipality that is in debt).

On top of these numbers, the total private debt owed by U.S. citizens is estimated to range between $50 and $57 trillion—3 to 4 times GDP, and more than double the net worth of the country as a whole. Moreover, the price of most commodities have skyrocketed, as have unemployment and the money supply over the last two years, while average personal income has stayed flat or declined in real terms. As for the examples of local figures, these numbers don’t include the billions owed in short-term operating debt, long-term bond debt, and unfunded pension liabilities by local governments, special purpose entities (sports and convention authorities, port authorities, and transit authorities), and school districts.

Regardless of what the Paul Krugman’s of the world may say, this path is unsustainable. Unlike the 1930s, when our nation was the world’s largest creditor and held the greatest reserve of gold and other public and private assets, and could afford to incur more public debt to finance a public recovery, or unlike the 1950s when our economic wealth and industrial capacity could finance the Interstate Highway system and NASA, the U.S. in 2011 simply doesn’t have the wealth, or wealth-generating capacity to cover a continued growth in debt—or to maintain debt on this scale. We could tax the “super rich” up to their last penny, and, even if they didn’t flee to another country, the amount we would obtain would not cover more than a few months of the debt we are incurring.

We can no longer run government (including our schools), let alone our own households and business, in a “business as usual” manner. On the one hand, cuts to budgets and to social programs, no matter how draconian, will not be enough to address the problems we face; and raising the federal debt ceiling may seem prudent within the halls of the Capitol, but it is simply cowardice. On the other hand, Texas, like most states, has constitutional obligations, including the education of its 4 million students; while the federal government has constitutional obligations, including providing for our common defense—and we just can’t stop meeting these obligations.

Instead, we must stop incurring debt; we must re-structure salary, benefit and pension obligations of public workers to bring them in line with the private sector; we must set priorities for each level of government based on their core, constitutional responsibilities; we must zero-base budget for those priorities; and then we must agree on a fair system of taxation to pay for those priorities. We must find innovative private and local solutions for problems now managed by state and federal bureaucrats—innovations that will involve citizens and the private sector, including private foundations, service organizations and churches. State and federal governments can have a coordinating role to match the right people and organization to the needs of their communities, but these governments should not create, administer or pay for the resulting programs.

What is most needed, though, are leaders who will take the risk to stop this fiscal madness and set the new priorities we need. Some are emerging, like the new Governors in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and New Jersey. As leaders like these emerge in Washington, Austin, and locally, they will have a loyal ally and foot soldier in me.

The Middle East

In early February, I wrote a post with some thoughts about the emerging uprisings across the Middle East, which are largely confined right now to the Arab countries in North Africa and on the Arabian Peninsula. At that time, I wrote the following:

…we need to find a way to be on the side of the dreams of people of this region for freedom, education, and opportunity, rather than being perceived as siding with their monarchs or their extremists. We can not impose freedom, education, and opportunity like we tried in Iraq, and like foreign powers tried, to one degree or another, for centuries. Instead, we need to find a way through a mixture of trade, engagement, and security to help the people of that region build their own future.

Not long after that I wrote another post, in which I supported renewal of the Patriot Act. Some people who read that post could not square my thinking in the first post, and my thinking about limited government, with my support for renewal of the Patriot Act. With the opening of a third-front in Libya, in what now appears to be a never-ending military mission in the Middle East, I want to explain how I square these positions.

I believe very strongly that when our country has decided to go to war, and when Congress has authorized the Commander-in-Chief to prosecute the war with a clear instruction, Congress has the duty to provide the Commander-in-Chief with the means to fight that war effectively. Obviously, those means must be tempered and balanced by our commitment to civil liberties for our citizens, but, as Justice Robert Jackson observed many decades ago, our Constitution is not a “suicide pact.” A war-time balance normally calls for sacrifices that would not be tolerated in peacetime. I believe that the Patriot Act has given the President—both Bush and Obama—measured and balanced means to carry out the clear instructions in the war authorization following 9/11, especially in light of the 21st Century technology of communication and travel used by an enemy that wears no uniform and represents no single government.

However, my support for giving the President the means to carry out his orders contained in the war declaration, does not mean that I necessarily support a continuation of the war in all its current facets; and it certainly does not mean that I support an extension of our military footprint in the Middle East.

• First, we can’t afford continuing this fight in the manner we are fighting it (remember, that the National Debt would be my first priority).

• Second, even though the Arab League asked the West to intervene in Libya, many of those same Arab leaders are killing freedom protesters in their own streets. Those protesters must be asking, “who’s side are we really on?” At some point, we must ask this hard question ourselves before we start shooting off more missiles.

• Third, although the world will be far better off without Gadhafi and his sons (just as it is now with Hussein and his sons), is it really in our national interest to intervene in this civil war (and if it is, why did we wait until the rebel cause was almost lost to intervene)?

• Fourth, if this is a proper, limited fight for the West or Europe, couldn’t we leave this to France, Britain and the Arab League to fight, just as Eisenhower left it to France, Britain and Israel to fight the Suez War in the 1950s? Sixty-six years after the end of World War II, do we have to join every battle that our allies feel the need to fight?

We can and should at least discuss these issues, even if we end up disagreeing about them. In the end, we simply can not hope to fix all of the tribal, political and religious problems in the Middle East—many of which we simply don’t understand—with a gun. Again, what is most needed, are leaders who will take the risk to stop and think, and to set new, realistic priorities for our dealings with the people of the Middle East.

Japan

Words still can’t convey the horrible tragedy that has struck the people of Japan. On top of a second decade of economic stagnation, a governmental debt that is 200% of GDP, and the lowest birth rate in the industrialized world—all of which have been slowly eating away at the vitality of Japan—now comes this Apocalyptic series of catastrophes. All any one of us can do at this point is to pray for the Japanese people, and to provide as much support as we can in the months and years ahead.

Although it may seem cold-hearted to discuss this right now, our leaders must start thinking about an Asia without a vibrant Japan for the foreseeable future. This predicament will impact our diplomatic, economic and military policies in the region for years to come, and will immediately impact the balance of power on the Korean Peninsula and with China. Because of our indebtedness, and Japan’s indebtedness, Japan can not re-build with just our help, as it did after World War II. In fact, Japan will need and be able to depend on Chinese support, more than it will be able to depend on our support, and that will change the entire balance of power and alliances in the region. We must begin re-shaping our strategic thinking to be ready for this new reality.

And it is on this last topic—China—that I will end this post. Looking across the first three months of this year, the big winner of 2011 so far is China. Whether it is our debt and the continued stagnation across the U.S. and Europe, the uprisings within the oil-producing states of the Middle East, or the fortuitous emasculation of our strongest ally in Asia and the third largest economy in the world, China now is holding all of the economic and strategic cards—just as we did on the eve of World War II. Historically, China has never sought conquests beyond Asia, but, historically, it has never had the economic and strategic interests it now has on every continent—nor the economic and military strength it now enjoys. We must prepare ourselves for increasing diplomatic, economic and military competition and tension with China for years to come.

The best way to prepare for this competition is to face our National Debt and fix it, to change our approach to the Middle East, and to prepare for a new strategic reality in Asia.

Renew the PATRIOT Act—all of it, now

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

Although many Americans are understandably weary of war after over 9 years of armed conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and against terrorist cells here at home and throughout the world, we need to remember that those of us, who have not served in combat (or who have not had loved ones serving in combat) during these years since we were attacked on 9/11, have had to sacrifice relatively little—other than inconveniences when we travel by air.

We haven’t been subject to a draft. We haven’t had to buy war bonds or pay a surtax to fund the war. We haven’t had to serve on local draft boards or civil defense teams. We haven’t been asked to turn our homes into boarding houses for soldiers and sailors awaiting deployment. We haven’t had tires, gasoline or groceries rationed, or had to turn in metal for industrial use. We haven’t been subject to movies and radio programs that were required to carry pro-war content in every film or broadcast. We haven’t been subject to blackouts, curfews, or air-raid drills. We haven’t been threatened with arrest for speaking against the war, or against either the Bush or Obama Administrations. We haven’t had our civil liberties suspended. We haven’t been gathered and placed in detention camps because our last names sounded Arabic.

In short, we’ve had it pretty easy while our country has been defended these last 9 years, compared to the sacrifices imposed on earlier generations of Americans during wartime. In the meantime, the defense and intelligence apparatus that we built with our tax dollars after World War II has worked night and day to keep us safe against an army that wore no uniform and knew no boundary. Added to that defense after 9/11 were additional authorizations to conduct wartime surveillance and searches, which were contained in a statute known as the PATRIOT Act.

Thankfully, a solid majority of the U.S. House of Representatives understood that we are still at war, and that there is still a need to conduct the wartime surveillance and searches authorized by that act. Those representatives voted yesterday to fully reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. Unfortunately, a surprising number of Republicans voted against reauthorization, so now the bill will have to come before the House under rules that will allow for amendments, and many Republicans intend to offer or support amendments that will dilute or remove key provisions of the Act.

Although the implementation of such authority to wiretap or search personal conversations and conduct carries the risk of making mistakes that could embarrass or harass innocent individuals—and I am sure mistakes have been made—it is a testament to the professional work of the men and women in our defense, intelligence and homeland security establishment, that few if any of us have been, or know anyone who has been, subject to surveillance or search under this Act. In fact, the lawsuits that have been brought against the Act have been brought by people who thought they could have been, or could be searched or wiretapped, but who had no proof that they had been. This is a far different experience from those who, during past conflicts, really had their liberties trampled through arrests, mass suspension of civil liberties, or mass detentions.

However, there are those who say that it doesn’t matter how professionally the authority has been exercised, because any compromise of liberty—no matter how theoretical or attenuated, and regardless of the existence of a war—is indefensible. These people then love to spout the following quote in support of their position that the Founders would never agree to such limits on their liberties:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Those who use this quote in this way are just plain wrong. In fact, the circumstances that led to the making of that statement show it was never intended to address this type of issue.

This quote appeared in the preface to a work published in London by Benjamin Franklin in 1759, for the purpose of educating members of Parliament and other political leaders about the need to support the defense of the colonies against the French and their Native American allies during the Seven Years’ War (what we often refer to as “the French and Indian War”). Although the quote is often attributed to Franklin, its actual authorship is unclear, because it comes from a letter prepared in 1755 by the colonial Assembly of Pennsylvania and addressed to the colonial Governor.

In 1755, the colonists that had settled western Pennsylvania had come under constant attack from French forces, and the local tribes aligned with the French. The colonists' situation had become dire, so they asked for money from the colonial government to fund the purchase of arms for themselves, or to pay for arming local tribes that were loyal to the British, in order to defend their homes and settlements against further attack. The Assembly did not have the resources for such an expenditure, so it prepared the letter to the Governor, in which the Assembly asked the Governor to obtain funding from the Penn family for the defensive arms.

Remember that Pennsylvania contained a large number of Quakers and others who opposed armed conflict. Among these groups, opposition to such funding quickly arose. They advocated that peace could be achieved through negotiation and trade with the Native American tribes loyal to the French, rather than through armed aggression.

The sentence contained in the Assembly’s letter was meant as a derisive response to the pacifist. It was intended to challenge the notion that the survival of the liberty of the colonists could be allowed to hinge on the success of appeasing the enemy tribes. In fact, the proper way to read the quote would be to reconstruct it as follows:

Those who would buy temporary safety, and avoid defending their liberty, by appeasing the enemy, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Understood in this way, the statement by the Assembly is a declaration for the essential right or “liberty” of self-defense—individually and collectively—in a time of war. It is consistent with the position taken by Lincoln, FDR, and George W. Bush when our country has come under attack. Moreover, it is consistent with the swift, if not more extreme measures the Washington and Adams Administrations took in the face of potential civil war and war with France—and they were Founding Fathers. The statement does not defend neutering the ability of the country to defend itself, so some of us can rest at night believing that our phone calls to Europe, or our public library accounts, are secure from government surveillance to stop a wartime attack.

Just as I’ve said in prior posts that we need to grow-up and take responsibility for our selves and our communities if we are ever to dig ourselves out of the domestic whole we are in, we need to grow-up and realize that we are still at war. War requires sacrifice and a commitment to defend yourself, your neighbor and your country. That sacrifice and commitment means that sometimes you will need to take actions that would not be necessary or tolerated in peace time. If you are not willing to defend yourself, your neighbor or your nation in this way, then you deserve neither the liberty nor the safety you crave.

To those Representatives who voted to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, and to those who support them, I say “thank you, and keep up the fight.” To those who oppose reauthorization to protect an international phone call or library check-out you might make someday, I say “grow-up, and thank your lucky stars that our parents and grandparents weren’t this selfish.”