Congratulations!

[BrightNoon]

Recently, some scholars have discovered a previously unknown clause in the U.S. constitution, which allows for the election of a dictator in times of extreme peril, as was the practice in the Roman Republic. You have been elected dictator!

What will you do?


Here is Dictator Brightnoon's program:

1. gradually withdraw from Iraq; send any required forces to Afghanistan; send the remainder home.

2. dramatically increase the number of border patrol agents and the number of port inspectors; provide more scanning equipment etc.

3. begin repairing and improving national infrastructure: roads, bridges, dams, power grids, canals, aqueducts, etc.

4. eliminate Medicaid and federal welfare; reduce benefits for Medicare, SS and reduce expenditures for HUD and other such programs to such an extent that the budget is balanced (excluding the massive recent costs of the rescue package).

5. establish one commission to investigate the state of current economic regulation; another the state of federal subsidies; another the tax code and the possibility of instituting a flat tax; another the best way in which to phase out SS and Medicare entirely.

6. Initiate no new spending which is not offset by equal reductions in spending elsewhere, unless in the case of a real war, of course.

7. Eliminate the Federal Reserve and reestablish the gold or bimetallic standard.

[sarek]

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

Recently, some scholars have discovered a previously unknown clause in the U.S. constitution, which allows for the election of a dictator in times of extreme peril, as was the practice in the Roman Republic. You have been elected dictator!

There is more than one parallel between the US and ancient Rome

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

1. gradually withdraw from Iraq; send any required forces to Afghanistan; send the remainder home.

Iraq needs to be handled with care. Bush stabbed the patient in the belly, now Obama needs to sow him up properly before leaving the operating room. Otherwise you'll end up with an infection spreading across the Islamic world.

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

2. dramatically increase the number of border patrol agents and the number of port inspectors; provide more scanning equipment etc.

What do you expect a Dutchman to say about that? The only reason our drugs problem is still manageable is because we don't make it a problem.

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

3. begin repairing and improving national infrastructure: roads, bridges, dams, power grids, canals, aqueducts, etc.

Never a bad idea in and off itself, but under the circumstances both too expensive and too Keynesian in nature.

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

4. eliminate Medicaid and federal welfare; reduce benefits for Medicare, SS and reduce expenditures for HUD and other such programs to such an extent that the budget is balanced (excluding the massive recent costs of the rescue package).

Did you say eliminate? And leave the hapless victims of the crisis to their fates?

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

5. establish one commission to investigate the state of current economic regulation; another the state of federal subsidies; another the tax code and the possibility of instituting a flat tax; another the best way in which to phase out SS and Medicare entirely.

Apart from the last one, very good initiatives.

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

6. Initiate no new spending which is not offset by equal reductions in spending elsewhere, unless in the case of a real war, of course.

That makes plain sense. It's what Dutch governments have been doing for the last sixty years.

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

7. Eliminate the Federal Reserve and reestablish the gold or bimetallic standard.

I doubt present mondial economic realities can support that idea.

[BrightNoon]

Sarek:

When I suggested increasing the number of border patrol agents, ports inspectors and scannig machines, the idea wasn't to reduce drug trafficing. On the contrary, I think all drugs should be legalized. My point was about terrorism. This relates to the Iraq war. If troops are withdrawn and demobilized, some of the money saved can be used to do something that actually enhances national security. I understand you point about the dangers of leaving Iraq prematurely, but frankly, I think there will never be a stable government in Iraq unless it is antagnostic to the U.S. and probably aligned with Iran, with which, as I'm sure you know, the majority of the Iraqis have close ethnic, religious and, increasingly, political ties. There is argument ot made that Iran currently has more influence in Iraq than the U.S. Therefore, an artifical withdrawl plan, based on the absolute neccessity of reducing deficits, needs to be implemented.

Infrastructure:
Maintaing national infrastructure is one of the few legitmate purposes of the federal government. There is nothing keynesian about it; it would create jobs in construction and all the industries assosciated with it; what the plan would not do is encourage more consumer spending, on credit no less, which has been the keynesian policy of the government for decades.

Social Programs:
As a dutchman, I suppose you feel that these are appropriate roles for the government; i myself do not. However, regardless of one's ideology, it is a fact that these are responsible for most of the deficit and and will be absoltely unsustainable in the future. It is estimated that to meet future obligations for SS, Medicare and Medicaid alone, which comprise almost half the budget this year, the U.S. economy would have to grow at a rate above 10% for the next 75 years! That is not possible. We have grown at about 2% for the last several, and those numbers are extremely questionable because of the government underestimation of inflation. IJNn reality, excluding the expansion caused by the taking on of new debt, the U.S. economy has alost certainly contracted in recent years. The sooner we escape this mostrosity, the less painful it will be. The only reason I make a distinction between SS and Medicare on the one hand, and welfare and medicaid on the othe,r is that the older people who rely on the former have no ability to work and save the money to support themselves; it seems unfair to drop their benefits which they have already paid for to some extent. However, if SS and medicare were gradually phased out, so that no new people enter the system as payers or receivers, all is well. Of course, for this to happen, there has to be a more balanced budget, as obviously revenues will drop and the money wil have to come from elsewhere.

Finally, the gold standard:
Your right that in the current economic crisis, the effect of changing the monetary policy would be disastrous; governments would be forced to stop printing money to 'solve' the credit problems and stimulate spending. However, that will not work, that will make the problem worse. The Fed and the other central banks will fail; they cannot continue to inflate the bubble ad infinitum. When it does eventually burst, wouldn't it be better to have a real currency and at least not have to worry as much about inflation?

By the way, Amsterdam...magnificent, always wanted to go.

[sarek]

You brought up some valid points here. Much of it is indeed a matter of ideology. It just remains to be seen what will actually happen.

I doubt increased security measures will ever eliminate all possibility of attack. Fredrick the Great of Germany already said 'wer alles defendieren will der defendiert gar nichts'. He, who tries to defend all, defends nothing at all.

Sometimes you need to be proactive, not reactive. And not all proactive solutions need be military solutions.
Iran is a case in point. The Iranian(or should we rather say Persian) people are in actuality a highly developed and culturally extremely rich people. They are not born as religious fanatics.
They can be reasoned with, assuming their current leadership is not kept in power by providing them with a scary external enemy.

And yes, Amsterdam is a very beautiful city. By american standards it is not that big, but its overflowing with its rich cultural heritage.

[BrightNoon]

Sarek, I wasn't going for a full foreign policy. I was trying to deal more with the allocation of resources: namely, away from offensive and counterproductive war toward improved domestic security. Frankly, I'm not afraid of terrorists at all, but spending a little on something that might help intercept an attack is better than spending alot on something which is sure to anger America's enemies yet more. That's all. Obviously, diplomacy will be needed.

[sarek]

To that view I can wholeheartedly agree.
Antagonism can be a very expensive game to play, and if we can break out of that mould fewer resources will be wasted.