President Barack Obama shakes hands with Chinese President Hu Jintao in November during their bilateral meeting in Seoul ahead of the start of the G20 summit. (TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images/Newscom)
A Chinese menu for President Hu Jintao's visit to the US
The Chinese often speak in numbers, as in the "four pillars of destiny," Mao's "five-anti" campaign, or the Three Gorges Dam. (That was the Three-Examples List.)
In this spirit, here is the Four Things to Watch For list to help anyone who might be watching the Jan. 18-21 visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to the United States (notice they also all start with "B" – which also helps in remembering them):
1. Bonding buddies: How cozy have President Obama and President Hu become after their many summits? Personal relations matter in diplomacy, even more so as these two giant countries try not to clash with each other. Will they smile at each other, stand close, share intimacies? First names, perhaps? (Or is it last names, in China?)
2. Big protocol oops: Hu's last official visit in 2006 was marred by at least two incidents. An interpreter mistakenly announced the Chinese national anthem as that of the "Republic of China," the official name of Taiwan. Then, in a White House press conference, a Chinese dissident raised a flag of protest. Similar mistakes this time would force Hu to lose face as he prepares to leave office next year.
3. Bearing gifts: In Chinese tradition, Hu will likely come bearing gifts. He already gave one: a promise of closer military-to-military ties made during the recent visit to China by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Gifts during Hu's visit may simply be the dozens of business contracts expected to be signed with American firms on his trip to Chicago. Why is that such a gift? Well, Obama is looking for job creation, right? And by the way, China needs to deflect criticism in Congress about its currency manipulation and export subsidies.
4. Bring it home: The closing moments of such state visits usually include a joint press conference and a joint statement. Will the two men have more agreements than disagreements – on North Korea, currency, Taiwan, climate change, security issues, etc.? Or no joint statement at all (unlikely)? How will Hu handle questions from the troublesome American press? Will Obama (the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate) embarrass his guest by mentioning jailed dissident Liu Xiaobo (the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize laureate)?
There, see how numbering things makes its easy to get a handle on important stuff? Maybe this state visit by Hu will be as simple as 1-2-3.
US Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas Donohue speaks during a press conference on the state of American business at the Chamber of Commerce in Washington on Jan. 11. (UPI/Kevin Dietsch/Newscom)
The clout and cover of Tom Donohue
It's pointing out the obvious perhaps, but what's notable about America's No. 1 lobbyist for business – Thomas Donohue, CEO of the US Chamber of Commerce – is that he's not a politician.
This is particularly useful right now because the country faces tough economic and budget choices that could scare off political action. Unlike a pol, Mr. Donohue doesn't need to watch his backside or worry about the next election. Now, when the government has pretty much run out of stimulative options for the economy and is depending on the private sector to revive jobs, Donohue has maximum clout. He can use it to provide cover for those in Washington who need to make difficult policy decisions.
Plain-spoken and fair-minded, Donohue talked about several of the tough choices ahead in his annual "State of American Business" address this morning. (The headline: He predicts 3.2 percent growth for the year; 2.4 to 2.6 million new jobs – more bullish than many forecasts but a prediction that's also loaded with caveats, such as rising oil prices.)
In two areas in particular, he can provide a much needed push to Congress and the White House. One is rebuilding America's infrastructure. The other is cutting its federal deficits and debt. Note how both of these involve significant, painful costs: one is in build-out (investing in roads, rail, air, and so on); the other is in build-down (cutting government spending, i.e. services, which the public is sure to find painful).
The country loses its competitive edge when it can't move goods and services, either physically or electronically. And yet lawmakers don't want to spend the money on infrastructure. They keep delaying important pieces of legislation, like reauthorizing the highway bill, because of the price tag. But this means states can't plan. It means projects don't get done. Jobs aren't created.
No politician wants to hear this, but Donohue is willing to say it: User fees that fund these projects – such as the federal gas tax that hasn't been adjusted since 1993 – must be raised. If the government finally commits to a higher, steady source of funding, the private sector will be willing to join in on projects. But nothing will happen if Washington just keeps extending current funding a few months at a time, afraid to ask users to pay their fair share.
Donohue talks frankly about reducing deficits and debt, too. It can't be done by nibbling around the edges. Anything that excludes reforming entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security) "is doomed to fail," he said today. As experience shows, though, entitlement reform is a third rail in politics. Touch it, and you're zapped.
But Donohue must be as specific with solutions here as he is in other areas. He would do Congress and the White House a big favor by touching the third rail with them, not just pointing them to it.
California Gov. Jerry Brown starts his first full day in office Jan. 4 by walking to the Capitol with his wife, Anne Gust Brown, in Sacramento. Out in front is Sutter, a Welsh corgi dog that is living with the Browns on a trial basis. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)
Five reasons why California Gov. Jerry Brown should keep the corgi dog
To adopt or not to adopt – is it even a question?
California Gov. Jerry Brown and his wife Anne are considering making a Welsh corgi named Sutter a permanent member of the first family in Sacramento. Their former dog, a lab called Dharma, passed away last year. The corgi actually belongs to Governor Brown’s sister, but she’s moving to Chicago, sans Sutter, and now the cinnamon-colored pooch is padding around with the Browns on a trial run.
The advantages of corgis are many, but here are five from this former corgi owner:
1. Corgis are herders, which will come in handy as the governor tries to corral notoriously late lawmakers during the budget season and drive them to a timely agreement. The critters may be short (half-a-dog high, two-dogs long), but they know how to nip at the heels.
2. In an age of globalization, a corgi adds international panache to a household. It’s hard for Californians to think beyond their state (it has everything, after all). But these are the favorite canines of Britain’s Queen Elizabeth, who has a passel of them at her palace. Look for them in movies about the royals: The King’s Speech (now in theaters) and The Queen (2006).
3. Corgis will make even your enemies your friends. No one can resist the fox-face of a corgi, even perfect strangers. I was once walking our little guy, Chester, when a woman pulled up in a great big Cadillac. The window on the passenger side slid down, and the blond-headed driver leaned over: “Ooh, ooh, that dog is so cute!” The window slid up, and the Cadillac moved on.
4. On those tough days when nothing is going right, a corgi will always be there for you. Trying to close a $28 billion deficit? Sutter will sense this, and come lie at the governor’s feet or put a paw on his knee.
5. No scent of scandal with a corgi. These dogs have a sweet fur (and personality to match) such that when you pet them, your hand comes away clean – no dog smell.
6. Corgis are smart, and the governor will sound smart when he answers the eternal question about what breed he has: Pembroke or Cardigan? The correct answer is Pembroke (the Pemmies have no tail; the Cardigans do).
You may have noticed I've offered more than five reasons. I couldn't help myself. Just watch, the Browns won't be able to resist either.
New House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R) of Virginia (center), has proposed a new legislative calendar to make lawmakers' time in session more efficient and productive. But critics see the makings of a do-nothing Congress. (Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Newscom )
Will the 112th Congress work hard -- or hardly work?
Would you like to earn a week's vacation for every two weeks you work? If so, you should run for Congress. According to the restructured legislative calendar that new House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R) of Virginia has set, House lawmakers in Washington will generally stay in session for two consecutive weeks, then get a week off.
To be sure, few members will head to the beach. Between fundraisers, town-hall meetings, and constituent services, they tend to work at least as hard out of session as they do in it. Still, the new calendar has plenty of critics.
Do-nothing Congress?
"It's hard to imagine why nothing gets done in Washington," scoffed blogger Barbara Morrill at the liberal Daily Kos website. Even some conservatives are upset. Freshman tea party member Allen West (R) of Florida complained that the calendar doesn't square with voter priorities.
"As we know, Congress needs to work to create jobs, reduce the deficit, strengthen our economy, limit the size of government, and contend with a plethora of national security issues," Rep. West wrote in a letter to Rep. Cantor. "How are we to do that when, among other things, we start off being in session only ten days the entire month of January?"
Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring challenged the premise of West's criticism: "More days in session has always resulted in bigger, more intrusive government, not more production. What matters is who's in charge and the process put in place, not the number of days in session," said Mr. Dayspring, according to a report in The Hill.
Technically, the House schedule is fairly consistent with years past. Members will be in session 123 days, compared to an average of 126 days that first sessions of Congress worked between 1993 and 2010. It's the number of weeks that is dropping significantly, 11 percent – a bid to force Congress to be more efficient while in Washington.
Would you like to see members of Congress work in Washington for longer stretches of time? Or is this a case where less is more?
California vs. Texas
Before you answer, consider the range of state legislative workloads.
In most states, being a legislator is truly a part-time job. In Arkansas, for example, lawmakers will be in session from only Jan. 10 to March 10. Last year, they got paid just $15,362, plus a small per diem and mileage credit when in session. Texas legislators, meanwhile, earn just $7,200 annually and meet only once every two years – one of just four states that hold biennial sessions.
Seventy years ago, the opposite was true: Only four states met every year. "But as state budgets became more complicated and the federal government pushed more responsibilities onto the states, particularly in the 1960s and '70s, most legislatures switched to annual sessions, according to Brian Weberg, an official with the legislatures conference," The New York Times reported recently. That trend has resulted in the country's biggest states – like Pennsylvania, New York, and California – employing full-time lawmakers. Legislators in California make $95,000 a year.
RELATED: Will Congress's tea party class go native in Washington?
California's fiscal problems are immense, so it's tempting to conclude that more time in session correlates to bigger budget problems. There may be some connection between session time and state spending: "part-time" Texas has the lowest per capita spending rate in the country. But Texas lawmakers are also struggling to plug a $25 billion budget shortfall. Meanwhile, states as diverse as Connecticut, Virginia, Montana, Kentucky, and North Dakota are expecting budget surpluses.
One safe conclusion seems to be that the quality – not the quantity – of time lawmakers spend in session matters most. And that, it turns out, is how Eric Cantor himself defended his schedule. Republicans he said, will stress "quality over quantity." We'll know by February if he's right.
Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum, File)
The season for second chances
The White House has confirmed that President Obama recently made a call to Jeffrey Lurie, the owner of the Philadelphia Eagles football team. That much isn't too surprising. The President is a huge sports fan and Philadelphia, which plays on national television tonight against the Minnesota Vikings, is looking like a Super Bowl contender.
The president may have talked about the new energy-saving moves at the Eagle's stadium (2,500 solar panels, 80 wind turbines, and a biodiesel generator that will make Lincoln Financial Field energy self-sufficient). Or perhaps about whether quarterback Michael Vick should beat out New England's Tom Brady in the competition to be named the NFL's Most Valuable Player. They might have talked about any number of things.
But what caught the attention of sports journalist Peter King was Obama's mention of Vick's recent past. The Philadelphia quarterback served nearly two years in jail for running a dog-fighting ring and earned the disgust of dog lovers for abusing and killing dogs in his care.
"[The Eagles owner] told me that the president was passionate about the fact that it’s rarely a level playing field for prisoners once they leave jail," said Peter King, who appears on NBC Sports and has a column in Sports Illustrated. "And he said the message was, what the Eagles had done with Vick was important for society ... giving him a second chance.”
Vick has expressed regret for his actions, claiming he simply didn't know any better at the time but now understands why what he did was wrong. To the surprise of many he's playing the best football of his career and once again spotlighting the question of whether a convicted felon should have been allowed to return to his pro football career.
Most prisoners who have served their time don't have the fame and marketable skills of a Michael Vick. They face a tough road returning to a society which is likely to shun them. While Vick's situation is in many ways unusual, it can provide a moment to remember that giving second chances is an integral part of the American spirit.
South Korean protesters shout slogans during a rally denouncing Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan's remarks on a possible dispatch of Japan's Self-Defense Forces to the Korean Peninsula in case of contingencies, in front of Japanese embassy in Seoul, South Korea, Tuesday, Dec. 14, 2010. (AP Photo/ Lee Jin-man)
Japan and South Korea as allies someday?
Can Japan and South Korea ever be military partners, even allies?
Each nation is a democracy. They are already allies individually with the United States. Each trains with the American military separately in joint naval exercises.
Most of all they are close neighbors in the tough neighbor of Northeast Asia that includes North Korea, China, and Russia. The threat of North Korea someday launching a nuclear-tipped missile toward either country should have had the effect of drawing Japan and South Korea closer.
But as much as the United States wants the two countries to cozy up, history has long kept them apart.
Imperial Japan’s colonization of a then-unified Korea in the early 20th century remains a strong memory among Koreans. The two also claim two small islands in the sea between them (the “East Sea” to Korea, the “Sea of Japan” to Japan).
As a small country surrounded by big ones (or a “shrimp among whales,” as Koreans say), South Korea believes it is best to be remain close to the benign giant across the Pacific, America.
Still, Japan and South Korea are increasing their cultural exchanges and commercial ties. Their scholars have even tried to write a joint history of their painful past. Japan has more or less apologized for the past suffering it inflicted on Koreans. And for the first time, South Korea sent military observers to the Japan-US military exercises in December.
With North Korea becoming more aggressive – killing South Korean civilians for the first time since the 1950-53 Korean War – the time seems ripe for a three-way military drill with the US, Japan, and South Korea. This month, however, Japan – perhaps wary of showing its military strength in Asia – declined a US invitation to join a South Korean-American naval drill.
For the US, Northeast Asia is laden with as much strategic complexity as South Asia’s messy triangle of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Convincing groups of nations that, for many good reasons, they should get along, is not an easy task, even in the face of a common enemy like North Korea or violent jihadists. The usual suspects – nationalism, racism, economic competition, past aggression – get in the way of better relations.
But how long can the US afford to be a benefactor, protector, and often a mediator in many parts of Asia?
If any nations should start preparing for the day that the US reduces its global role, they should be Japan and South Korea. They best start now.
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivers a speech in Istanbul, Turkey, on Dec. 23. (MUSTAFA OZER/AFP/Getty Images/Newscom)
Iran ends fuel and food subsidies -- and my easy access to saffron
An Iranian friend of mine living in America has been a good source for the most luxurious spice of all – Persian saffron.
But no more.
A combination of economic sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program and Tehran's end to government subsidies on fuel and food has meant the easy export of inexpensive saffron will become more difficult. I’ll need to start cooking with less-tasty saffron from Spain or elsewhere.
But my food preferences hardly matter compared to the current events in Iran that may reshape the Middle East. The end of subsidies this week could be the most jarring political event there since street riots after the rigged 2009 elections.
The price of bread has tripled since Sunday. Truckers are on strike over fuel prices that have risen nearly twenty-fold. Security forces have fanned out in major cities to quell any protests. Longer term, a general hike in prices will speed up inflation, eroding incomes – as well as Iran’s negotiating power with the West over its nuclear ambitions.
The government could no longer afford the nearly $100 billion in subsidies, especially after a fourth round of United Nations sanctions were imposed in recent months. Gasoline has become scare, as Iran – despite being the fourth largest oil exporter – has seen fewer nations and companies willing to do business with it.
No wonder Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Turkey this week in large part to find out if that neighbor might buck the sanctions and allow more trade.
Mr. Ahmadinejad’s own political fortunes might actually be helped by the end of subsidies. He’s taking credit for the government's cash payments of $20 to $150 a month now being given the poorest families to defray the higher costs of basics.
But the regime itself – especially the powerful mullahs above the president – will continue to lose whatever legitimacy they have left after the last election and after the killing of innocent protesters by security forces.
The few foreign journalists allowed to report in Iran are critical to letting the outside world know about the economic pressures on the regime. Iran plans to resume talks with the West at the end of January.
Will it be weaker or stronger? It depends on how Iranians cope with the skyrocketing prices for bread and energy.
Iran's turmoil has definitely weakened me. I’ll now be shopping for saffron, just not the best kind.
Democratic Sen. John Kerry (left) and Republican Sen. Richard Lugar (right) on Dec. 21, when it became clear that the Senate had the votes to ratify the START arms control agreement. "This would not have happened without bipartisanship," Senator Kerry told reporters that day. (Credit: mv2/ZUMA Press/Newscom)
New START treaty: Sen. Kerry as statesman
In 2004, what Sen. John Kerry wanted most was to become president of the United States. In 2008, after the election of Barack Obama, he wanted to become secretary of state. In this December week of 2010, the senator from Massachusetts has proven his statesmanship and value to the country without ever having had a crack at those two other jobs.
It took a full-court press from the White House to get the Senate to ratify the "new START" nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia today. But it also took much behind-the-scenes work from Democrat Kerry, who has exhibited the diplomacy, patience, and attention to detail of a skilled statesman.
As nuclear arms agreements go, this is a relatively minor one. It follows on previous arms-control treaties by reducing the strategic nuclear weapons of Russia and the US by about 30 percent. Its greatest value is that it restores monitoring of each country's nuclear arsenals, which lapsed with last year's expiration of the previous treaty. Delay or defeat would have jeopardized the warming in US-Russia relations and a host of related national security issues.
Ratification should have been fairly quick since its signing last April. The treaty accumulated a stack of bipartisan endorsements from America's security community. But as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry found himself shepherding this treaty through the valley of the shadow of death.
As Kerry said, he couldn't have done it without the bipartisan support of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected, senior senator. Indeed, bipartisanship played a major and welcome role here, with Kerry talking often with the treaty's chief opponent, Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona. Though still opposed to the treaty, today Senator Kyl acknowledged satisfaction with the outcome of negotiations: more money for modernization of the remaining nuclear arsenal, for instance, and written White House commitment to move forward on missile defense.
Those were substantive complaints that Kerry strove to address, but he also skillfully deflected political incoming missiles. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, for instance, complained that debate was being rushed. Kerry pointed out that the treaty had been delayed at the request of Republicans and that more time was being devoted to this debate than earlier, more complicated treaties. His finger-tip knowledge of the details and history of arms control helped him push back Republican attempts to delay ratification and renegotiate with Russia.
Six years ago, when Kerry lost the presidency, his colleague from Massachusetts, the late Ted Kennedy, urged him to refocus his energy on the Senate. "Being president is not the only way to make a contribution," Mr. Kennedy told Kerry.
What seemed like an uncertain outcome just a week or so ago, has ended with a 71-26 ratification in which 13 Republicans broke from their leadership and backed the treaty. National interest won out over politics. That is indeed a contribution, especially in this political climate.
President Obama signs the health-care law March 23, 2010, as Democratic members of Congress and others watch. (KEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/Newscom)
Obamacare's mandate to buy insurance: Is it an eat-your-broccoli sort of thing?
A court judge need not be as dull as vegetables.
Take US District Judge Roger Vinson of Florida. During a hearing Thursday on whether the Obama health-care law should be able to force people to buy insurance, he wondered aloud if such laws might someday also order people to eat a vegetable everyday in order not to become a health burden on fellow citizen.
“If [the federal government] decided everybody needs to eat broccoli because broccoli makes us healthy, they could mandate that everybody has to eat broccoli each week?” he told lawyers defending the Affordable Care Act, which was passed last spring.
He also challenged another basic premise of the law – that everyone without health insurance would inevitable use the medical system without paying the cost.
Judge Vinson cited his own case of shelling out money for the cost of his first son’s birth at a hospital.
“I think it worked out to be $100 a pound,” he said.
Such humor and everyday language is quite rare in legal decisions. Let’s hope his final ruling on the health-care law is as clear and commonsensical as his courtroom utterances.
That law, of course, is a serious matter. It aims to provide universal health care coverage. But nearly half the states are challenging it, notably the so-called “individual mandate” that would impose a fine against the non-poor, non-elderly and others who don’t purchase private health insurance, starting in 2014.
Judge Vinson questions whether Congress can regulate inactivity, or a person’s decision not to buy insurance. If that were the case, what couldn’t be regulated?
“It would be a giant leap for the Supreme Court to say a decision to buy or not to buy is tantamount to activity,” he said.
“In the broadest sense every decision we make is economic. The decision to marry. The decision to keep a job or not has an economic effect,” he added.
The issue of the mandate has now come before four federal judges. Two of them, appointed by Republican presidents, are against it (assuming this judge rules the way he clearly hinted). The two others, appointed by Democratic presidents, let it be. One or more of these cases will probably go before the Supreme Court soon.
If the mandate is ruled illegal, the health-care law would need a major revamping to find a new source of funds for universal coverage.
Judge Vinson promises to make his decision quickly. He might even strike down the whole law if he cites the mandate as unconstitutional and an affront to individual liberty.
A Greek pensioner shouts slogans during a protest in Athens Dec. 15. Demonstrators clashed with riot police in protests against new austerity measures by the debt-hit Greek government. The austerity measures were demanded by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund in exchange for loans. (AFP PHOTO / Kostas Tsironis/Newscom)
EU opens the door to citizen petitions for new laws
Californians, they’re not. But the citizens of Europe will soon have the opportunity to catch the California spirit and offer up signature-driven initiatives that could eventually become European law.
This week the European Parliament approved the European Citizens’ Initiative, which allows members of the public for the first time to directly suggest Europe-wide laws.
Anything that makes the government of the 27-nation European Union more accessible to citizens is a good thing.
I lived as a reporter in Germany for five years and I still have trouble keeping all those EU institutions straight. But it isn't just me. “Brussels” – shorthand for the EU, because it’s based in the Belgian capital – also feels distant and impenetrable to many Europeans. In 2005, French and Dutch voters sunk an effort to create a new EU "constitution." They deemed it "elitist," among other things.
The initiative idea can help close that gap. Under the provisions approved this week, it will take a million citizens from at least a quarter of the EU member states to get a proposal going.
But it won’t be like the ballot proposition process that Americans are familiar with. A European initiative would have to first be submitted to the European Commission – the executive arm of the EU. It is the Commission that has the power to actually propose legislation. The Commission may choose to submit the citizen petition as legislation, or it may choose not to.
It could, for instance, follow up in some other way, or ask for a feasibility study, or decide not to take any action because the petition doesn't fit with EU values or violates EU treaties. And of course, the citizen petitions can only be in areas that are within the Commission’s Europe-wide purview, though that covers a lot of ground, including the environment, trade, transportation, consumer protection, health, social welfare, justice, and development aid.
You can expect some pretty dicey issues to come up through this process. Some being talked about now are initiatives concerning genetically modified organisms, artificial addition of vitamins to food, a tax on financial transactions, and animal welfare.
Most Europeans generally view the EU favorably – 68 percent, according to this year's Transatlantic Trends survey. But specifics make them angry, such as austerity measures demanded by the EU in debt-hit member nations.
My worry is that citizens will get discouraged by the initiative process, though “Brussels” has tried to streamline it. Still, supporters say that initiative organizers will at least get a guaranteed response and explanation from the Commission within three months, and also be able to present their initiative at a public hearing at the European Parliament.
At a minimum, this is a chance for more public participation in Europe-wide debates.
Supporters also point out that this is the first official transnational instrument of participatory democracy in world history. In layman’s terms, that’s having citizens propose laws across countries. Truly experimental, and another step in the evolution of the EU, whose member countries are still learning how to keep their sovereignty and share some of it at the same time.
Previous
Become part of the Monitor community
36K on Facebook | 12K on Twitter | 2,250 on YouTube