Heading for Our Own Demise... hopefully not, but I'm not too confident about it

Air-Sea Battle.  It’s everywhere you see defense news these days.  I happen to believe it’s merely a new way for the greater military-industrial complex to continue their own corporate strategy of developing a technology – or in the case of the F-35, just partly developing it – and then convincing the government it needs to have it just because it’s cutting edge, regardless of whether or not we actually need it (don’t worry; we’ll develop a strategy to accommodate it).  However, the little paranoid guy in me also believes, intentionally or not, it’s leading us toward a national defeat against what is now our greatest adversary.

We will never go head-to-head in a battle with China, or at least not for a very long time.  Direct confrontation is not China’s way, as any reader of Sun-Tzu knows.  Instead, they will seek to defeat us by subtlety and by proxy.  If it was possible to have a bug in the Peoples Liberation Army’s strategy shop, I think we’d find Chinese strategists likely approve of the new Air-Sea Battle (ASB) concept.  Knowing that in reality neither country could ever effectively project enough power across the Pacific to successfully defeat the other (sans use of nuclear weapons), while publicly decrying our ASB efforts, they’re likely smug in the knowledge they’re doing to us exactly what we did to the Soviets:  bankrupting them through defense acquisitions.  China’s working on a 5^th generation fighter?  We need squadrons of them now, whether or not the technology is proven, and whether or not China’s will actually be operational.  China purchased an aircraft carrier (which is unlikely to be a fully functional credible threat for many years)?  We need to beef up our Pacific forces now, even though one carrier isn’t an actual threat when compared to China’s anti-ship missile development (but it’s good enough to justify spending money!).

However, this time the U.S. is in even worse shape than the old USSR was in the 70s and 80s:  had the Soviets been able to recognize what was happening, with the reins of power so tightly held in just a few fists, their efforts could have been realigned.  In the case of the U.S., even if people much smarter than I decide to agree with me, politics, lobbyists and corporations will ensure that the hydra’s heads continue to disagree on which direction to go, with the body frequently ending up going in a completely irrelevant direction just so none of the heads get the upper hand.

China will continue to drain our resources further and seek to defeat us by proxy in various areas of the globe.  Rather than confront us directly, the militaries of smaller nations where China has made economic and diplomatic inroads will be employed to confront neighboring nations where the U.S. has built up influence.  As is our way, we won’t stand for this, and will likely send troops in (again) to quash the invaders, losing our own citizens and further squandering our treasure while China sits back and continues to conduct their orchestrated ballet.

With all the factors involved and the unpredictably of global events that seem to derail the best-laid plans of any nation, China may not win, but I fear we may lose.

It's too early to start seriously considering any Presidential candidates, but this guy caught my eye...

I get really sick of all the early campaigning out there, over a year before the election.  I generally make a point to deliberately not follow any of it until just a few months before I vote, and even then I have to admit my primary source of election coverage is The Daily Show.  However, I must admit that former Utah governor John Huntsman has stepped out  of the line of clones twice now and gotten my attention.  I fully admit I haven't looked him up on other issues, but he's worth looking into further, methinks.

The first time he blipped on my radar was this well-written article by Huntsman himself at http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/22/opinion/huntsman-foreign-policy/index.html?eref=rss_politics&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+Politics%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher.   Every other candidate from both parties has been addressing how our defense establishment can "do more with less," but aside from Ron Paul's occasional good suggestion (immediately followed by that usual Ron Paul thing of starting with a good idea and then spinning around and diving off the deep end of reality), I've heard of no other candidate addressing whether we should keep doing that "more" part (it was also a sign of hope that here's a Republican candidate writing an OpEd piece for a left-leaning news source instead of trying to "yes-man" the audience at Fox News).

Huntsman is the first calling for an all-out reassessment of our strategy, and limitations on where and when we should get involved.  Huntsman hits the other candidates and current Administration with a face shot by stating "First, they let resources drive strategy, rather than using strategy to drive force structure and capabilities. Second, they fail to fundamentally alter our defense posture -- so any short-term savings will be quickly erased."  The first item I've been screaming about publicly and privately for years now, and with both points Huntsman take a huge - but integrity-laden - risk in threatening the defense industry.  Even as an Independent he's almost got my vote on that alone (if a registered Independent could vote in the Florida [my home of record] primaries).

He does seem to imply backing of the China-direct-threat Air-Sea Battle philosophy that I vehemently disagree with, as if either we or China are ever going to lift our forces en masse across the Pacific to go head to head with each other, and I also disagree with his criticism of the President sending an advisory and training force to Africa; foreign military assistance and building partnerships is one thing the U.S. does very well that costs little in treasure or lives - but I'm willing to set those on the back burner (for now) in light of largely agreeing with many of his other suggestions.

The second time I noticed him was making a fool of himself on Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update.  I respect people who are willing to do that, because no one should always take themselves seriously, and that rule goes double for politicians.  I thought his sucking up to Seth Myer was brilliant.  Even if he didn't write it himself, I was still impressed with his willingness to play along.  As long as he doesn't go overboard making self-deprecating comedy appearances, implying or revealing that it's all a PR gimmick, it gives me hope that he's actually human, and perhaps even a nice guy instead of some arrogant uptight entitled-feeling prick thinking he's doing everyone else a favor by being there.  The first time I ever actually, consciously wait for someone to carry my bags for me or plate my food, I hope I realize that I no longer belong wherever I am, and I also hope I duck before either my wife or one of my friends smacks me hard in the back of the head a' la Mark Harmon on NCIS.

I think I'm going to be doing a little more research on Mr Huntsman, and at some point I'll post on whether my instincts held up or mea culpa if I was wrong.  Sadly, I don't think he'll make the final cut due to his questioning the status quo and that he isn't just another political clone telling everyone what they want to hear, but I really wish he would have a strong chance; the status quo damn well needs questioning.  I'll close with one of the final statement in his OpEd that I also very much agree with:  "being the best is not simply a function of spending the most."  More to come from me on Mr Huntsman, and I honestly hope there's more to come from him.

What’s the Structure of the New American Dream?

Related to the previous post on millionaire households, I'll refer to an article that was pointed out to me in response.  From NPR:  Why the Haves Have So Much (source:  http://www.npr.org/2011/10/29/141816778/why-the-haves-have-so-much?sc=fb&cc=fp).  This article opens up a huge can of worms for America by discussing how we've become a "winner take all" society.  Decades ago, starting a business and growing it to success and market dominance took decades, and even then there was rooms for others.  The example cited in the NPR article is tax preparation:  in the last century, there were millions (no number cited, so perhaps I exaggerate) of local accountants doing peoples' taxes for them.  Then larger corporations like H&R Block and Jackson Hewitt began leaving the major urban centers and branch out, opening up shops in smaller locales.  Still though, there was room for mom and pop back-room businesses.  However, enter the internet age, and Turbotax.  People who once went to their local accounts could now effectively and efficiently do their taxes at home.  One company put potentially thousands of smaller ones out of business, and put a huge crimp in the income of the rest.

I like the example I came up with even better:  Netflix!  Back in the 80's, we'd go down to our local mini-mart, gas station or supermarket to rent a VHS tape for the night (and woe to those who didn't get it back first thing the next morning and face an additional day's charges!).  There were also independent video stores to be found every few blocks.  In the 90s and early 00s, Blockbuster and Hollywood Video popped up and expanded, but there was still enough market for the mini-marts to keep movies on their shelves and the independents afloat.  However, Netflix came along and Hollywood Video is gone, Blockbuster is floundering (no discussion here of Netflix's recent troubles, thanks), and unless it's an adult-themed shop, independent video outlets no longer exist at all.

So here's the dilemma:  is the American way - starting at the bottom and working your way up to riches and success - no longer admired?  Is it no longer valued?  When starting from scratch - in your basement with an idea for a web-based business - and working your way to success can now mean putting thousands out of work in our internet-based society, does that make you an American success story, or worthy of vilification?   How do we need to adapt to this new construct?  Is it an argument for Socialism, or are we doomed to split into a permanent structure of haves and have-nots, except for the occasional person who has the good-idea fairy visit them and manages to claw their way out of the masses?

It's a fascinating puzzle, and I'm not sure what it will look like when it's finished.  Heck, I'm not even sure we have all the pieces in the box, and that scares me.  But we still have to try.  It would make a heck of a thesis for an economics or sociology grad student.

The 99% Seems to Actually be the 93-95%, and Falling...

So before we get into the meat of this and I have people reading the first few lines and dismissing me outright, I need to point out that I do support the idea behind OccupyWallSt (as long as Wall St doesn't turn into Vancouver), and support free speech and freedom of assembly.  I believe our nation is in a fiscally precarious position, that the national debt is actually our #1 national security issue right now, and that promoting the creation of jobs is a key issue in turning that around.  However, in our world, especially through the media, it seems the way to "win" or at least get the most attention is by making everything seem to be the most extreme, worst-case scenario possible, and I don't play that game.

Today's blather is based on an article I saw this morning:  "US States with the Most Millionaires- 2011" (source:  http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/113718/states-most-millionaires-cnbc).  Phoenix Marketing International released a study showing "the overall number of millionaire households in the U.S. has increased nationwide for the second time in two years. In 2011, there were 5.94 million millionaire households, compared with 5.56 million households a year earlier, an increase of approximately 6.8 percent. Nearly every U.S. state saw an increase in its total number of millionaires, adding thousands of households to millionaire status."  The article also mapped out how, for the top ten states with the most millionaires, 6-7% of the total number of households in those states were millionaires.  Think about it - there are a lot of wealthy households out there, and probably a lot more that are below the millionaire line but doing really well too.

There's a lot data there, and a lot of implication too (which I wish I could get more data for, to confirm or refute).  If the number of millionaire households across the US grew by half a million in just one year, there's an implication that households with a value less than that grew as well.  If this could be confirmed, the overall inference one could draw is that the US economy is not as in bad a shape as it's being portrayed, at least for the individual American.

Are there huge problems?  Of course, especially for the 10% or so that are unemployed, and I stand by my assertion of our debt being our largest security issue.  However, if you have a job, overall it seems like a significant portion of the nation, while tightening belts a little, is doing okay.  And I'm not even going to go off (too far) on a tangental rant on how people are showing how coddled they are by demanding the government bring jobs to them, rather than going to where the jobs are.

I do feel that the corporate pay structure is way out of whack, but it's up to the people that own the companies - the investors - to fix that, as unlikely I think that is to happen.  Not the government.  Because if the government tries to start regulating CEO pay, then we've failed as a nation and have started going down the route of China and the Soviet Union, and in the end even more will be suffering than now.

For most military, DADT repeal is less "WTF?", more YAWN

So both the left and right newsies are all a-Twitter (it would be a better pun if I actually had a Twitter account, I suppose) about Tues, 20 Sep as the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  There are a few Congressfolk putting in last-ditch efforts to stop or delay it, while in other places (including here in Colorado) there are coming-out parties planned, with attendance by local and state reps and possibly even higher-level folks showing up.  It's a BIG DEAL.

And that's true - it is a big deal in some ways, but it seems both sides have way overblown ideas of what's going to happen in the military come Wednesday.  The right seems to think  troops will be prancing around in pink g-strings and wearing rainbow flags instead of the U.S. one.  The left seems to think.... well, actually, they seem to think the same thing - that gay troops will embrace their new-found freedom and should exercise their right to flaunt and yell "yoo-hoo sweetie, here I am!" to their Colonels and Generals.  The only difference between the two sides seems to be that the right thinks gay rape attacks will be epidemic in the barracks showers, and the left thinks the rest of the military - clearly made up entirely of radical right-wing homophobes - is going to try to lynch all the gay members.

I don't think much of anything is going to change, frankly.  Yes, there will be some people distinctly unhappy with it, as I saw in the DADT training, and a small few may separate, but most of us, gay and straight, really only care about if the person you're working with is competent, and if you can trust them to have your back (no pun intended there; I simply couldn't come up with a better phrase that didn't have gay innuendo).  I've served... well, heck, everyone who's in or has ever been in the military has served with homosexuals, eaten lunch with them, and yes, showered at the gym with them already.  And frankly, while some folks undoubtedly have managed to camouflage their closet doors well, I know quite a number of gays in the military.  I've never asked and they've never told specifically, so we could both avoid that little legal trap, but I've known, and they've known I've known, and guess what? - they know I don't give a shit.

If you're good at your job, do it, and I can trust you, and you feel the same way, it doesn't matter.  And while, as I mentioned above, there will undoubtedly be some straight military who are obviously opposed to the coming-out and will push the regs to the limit making that clear, I'm sure there will be a few gay folks coming out who do the same thing, and to them as well I say "get over yourself."  You're gay.  Great.  I DO think it's a great societal step that you don't have to hide it any more, but if you're going to flaunt it, I mentally put you in the same camp as those so vocally opposing you:  you're more caught up in yourself than doing the mission, so refocus or get out.

Black, white, male, female, gay, straight, short, tall, left-handed, right-handed... when it comes down to it, everyone's pretty much the same; people are just too caught up in themselves and in trying to impose their own morals, values and beliefs on everyone else to notice that your [insert adjective describing someone different from you] neighbor watches the same tv shows, follows the same sports teams, and shops at the same places you do.  I don't care what color you are, what plumbing you have down below or what gender you're attracted to.  Just do your job, I'll do mine, we'll have each others' back and hopefully get through this huge mess (and the term applies to both being deployed downrange or working in the bureaucratic SNAFU that is an HQ) alive. 

Tiring of Retirement Rants

There's been much discussion throughout the military over the past few weeks on the proposed reworking of retirement benefits to help balance the budget.  Unfortunately, like everything else in the nation that's been notionally targeted for budget cuts, we all seem to have Not In My Backyard (NIMBy) syndrome.  Yes yes, of course cuts are needed, but don't take them from me!  Bullshit.  I, for one, am willing to accept cuts as long as I'm not the ONLY one getting cut.  I think everyone needs to give up something, especially since if everyone was willing to give up a little, I think (without benefit of being an economist, but I'd love to hear from one on the below ideas) we could heartily attack the budget crisis with harming anyone.  And yes, I believe it is a crisis.  I believe the national debt is a key national security issue, but it's not being addressed as one.

So on the all the talk about cutting or reducing or reworking military retirements:  quite frankly I'm not worried.  Sure, there's talk of reducing retirements to 40% or even less for those currently on active duty, but I don't think it will fly.  It's not politically viable; any member of Congress who votes to affect the retirement of someone who's already been serving for 12, 15 or 18 years knows they'll immediately lose most of their military support in the next election.  If a sitting member of Congress with a military base in their district voted this course of action, anyone stepping in to the next round of elections would just have to say they'd work to restore the retirements and they'd suck up all the military votes in that district.  So changes to retirement for folks newly joining the military?  Sure, definitely possible, even likely.  Changes to those serving a lesser amount time... say, less than 10 years in service?  Possible, since they have a good deal of time to plan and play catch-up.  But changing the retirement benefits of someone who's within a few years of retirement?  Don't think it's gonna happen.

However, I acknowledge that financially, we're in quite a pickle, and one that continues to float toward the bottom of the pickle barrel (is there a bottom?  Insolvency perhaps?).  What to do?  I favor the peanut butter spread mentioned in the first chapter.  There are now, I think, less than one million active duty military members, and most of those won't be doing the full 20 years to retirement.  This leaves a relatively (relatively in the tens of thousands arena, as a rough estimate [it's Saturday morning; no, I haven't researched anything yet!]) of people whose retirement benefits Congress is considering pillaging 5, 10 or 20 percent from.  Yet, there are, per the American Military Retirees Association website (okay, I did SOME research), around two million military retirees in the U.S.  My proposal is cut ALL personal military retirement benefit accounts - past, present and future - by two percent.  There are some people who would have trouble dealing with a two percent cut in their benefits, but I feel that number would be extremely small.  For most, it would be nearly unnoticeable.  And, in the small, unscientific and very informal discussions I've brought up around the office with the active duty and retired members there, they were all willing to make that sacrifice toward a solvent nation.

But wait, there's more!  If the President and Congress say that everyone must do their part, why limit it to the military?  The National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association represents "some five million federal workers, retirees, spouses and their survivors."  The Washington Post's Federal Eye column (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/09/how_many_federal_workers_are_t.html) lists 2.65 million federal workers out there, leaving over two million federal retirees to contribute their two percent.  And before anyone starts bitching, yes, I absolutely believe that Congress needs to give up their two percent, along with some of the more ridiculous retirement perks too.  Numbers-wise, Congress is a drop in the bucket, but (1) those drops add up and (2) I'm a big believer in leadership by example.  I also think that my spreading the two-percent across as large a population as possible, it would prevent a slippery-slope possibility that could come from targeting, say, just the military.

I would LOVE for an economist, statistician, accountant or some econ graduate student to do an analysis of my proposal to see if it's actually valid.  Yes, I fully expect the military and federal retiree associations (and Congress) will have a hissy fit over this content (NIMBy again), but somehow I think many of their members would see differently.  After all, these people gave their careers sacrificing for their country, and they're being asked to do it again, but on a much, much smaller level for 99% of them.  I'm willing to part with a fraction of my retirement to contribute my part; are you?

Bitching about Campaigning

In my best Seinfeld-style voice, "all this campaigning and spending of money on campaigning and being too busy campaigning to do your actual job.... what's up with that?"

Okay, as distasteful as I find Presidential campaigning, I can understand it... to a point.  And if it's your first time running for a position, yeah, I get that too... you have to be able to tell people your views and you don't have a track record to stand on.  But if you're the incumbent for most other local elected offices, from Mayor to State Rep to Congressional Rep or Senator, if you're doing your job right, you shouldn't have to campaign at all.

With the prevalence of technology today, if you have even a halfway-decent public affairs (PA) person, your constituents should be fully aware of exactly what you've been doing and why.  Your PA rep should have you doing Tweets a couple of times a week, updating a Facebook page and your official site, and at least once or twice a month getting a story on something you're working on in the news.  If you really are doing your job and not just dicking around, the public should know exactly what you've been up for the past term, and therefore whether or not you're a slacker and if they should bother to vote for you.  Not to mention with everyone having a certain level of Google-Fu and total access to your entire history, what can you really tell them that they can't get on their own, unless you're just trying to blow smoke up their asses?

For that matter, why would a sitting President even bother campaigning for re-election?  The President's in the news EVERY DAY.  The entire world knows exactly what the President's been up to, their successes and failures.  So why do a bus tour touting your wares?  They're already out there for the world to see.

So, to the entire current crop of incumbent elected politicians:  a decent skilled PA rep is a lot less costly to the public than all these b.s. campaign trips.  Stop talking about what you could do for us in your next term and get your asses to work NOW.  And if you do, and you're good at it (or even if you're not that good at it but show a decent amount of integrity, honesty and vision in the position), you'll probably get my vote.