Anthony Shadid: The Fresh Air Interviews

On the Arab Spring

Reflections on the Iraq War

Individual v. Indirect Government Dependency

The NYT has some great stuff up today about how Americans are dependent on government.  

1. "Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It"
2. Interactive map
3. Graphs

The article, maps, and graphs focus on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Income Support, Unemployment Insurance, and Vet Benefits.  What the article misses (and I know this was not their objective) is all of the other ways that people are indirectly dependent on government resources--primarily in the various forms of corporate welfare that permeate government distribution (farm subsidies, oil subsidies, highway subsidies, bank bailouts, etc.).  

I point this out for two reasons. First, if we managed to add these indirect government benefits to the map I suspect we would find that the map flattens out--that is, the areas where individuals are not terribly reliant on direct government benefits may also be the areas where companies (and by extension, their employees) are benefiting from government support.  Second, one of the things not being talked about in the Republican small government conversation is the vast network of indirect government benefits that permeate American economic life. While small government advocates do bring up the bank bailouts, you rarely hear them talking about all the other ways that people are indirectly dependent on government.  Talk to anybody on Capitol Hill about making major reforms to the farm subsidy system and you will quickly realize what the real third-rail of American politics is.  This is, of course, on purpose. Many small-government advocates rely heavily on these benefits and would regret them becoming a serious component of the small government conversation.  

This is not say that corporate welfare is necessarily bad.  My own thought is that corporate welfare ought to be the subject of the same sort of scrutiny that individual government benefits are subject to.  Anybody out there that does not think that Medicare requires serious reform (in order to just stay solvent, let alone become a "better" program) is not looking at the facts. The same can be said of energy subsidies and bank subsidies. We need government to incentivize clean fuel productions and to make sure that when banks screw up--even when their actions have been terribly (even, potentially, criminally) misguided--the whole economic system does not collapse.  I just wish we were having an honest conversation about it.  

from the NYT

In defense of Newt.

Newt Gingrich has come under a lot of criticism for his recent comments about a moon colony.  He has been made fun of by Jon Stewart and spoofed on Saturday Night Live (both funny). Listen… I am not a Republican and I am not particularly fond of Newt Gingrich but the criticism of him on this is misguided.  I am reminded of a scene from an episode of West Wing where Sam argues for why America should invest in going to Mars (Episode 31: Galileo).  Sam (Aaron Sorkin) is right: space is what is next, we are explorers, this is what we do.  Going to the moon would mean investing in American universities, aeronautics companies, and manufactures; it would inspire kids to care more about math and science; and a colony on the moon would almost certainly rally the country around something not related to war (banish the thought!) like little else in recent memory.  There is plenty to be critical of Newt Gingrich about, exploring the universe just isn't on my list.

State and Local Austerity Measures

Jared Bernstein on state and local cutbacks and their consequences:

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/what-a-drag/

Good Reads: January 14, 2012 Edition

DeParle (NYT): Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs

Krugman (NYT): Nobody Understands Debt

Stevenson (Slate): The Greatest Paper Map of US You Will Ever See

Nocera (NYT): The College Sports Cartel (and his follow-up pieces: Let's Start Paying College Athletes, NCAA's 'Justice' System and More NCAA 'Justice')