Iran Nuclear Agreement

Dear Friends,

A deal has been reached among Iran, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, China, Germany and the United States to limit Iran's nuclear program.  I doubt that I will ever read the agreement, and even if I could or did I would not understand what I was reading or the implications.  Nevertheless I would like to know if it is a good deal worth supporting or not.  President Obama, of course, is saying it is a good deal and that it will keep Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.  As you know, I have no confidence in what President Obama says.  So how will I know.

I follow two approaches in this type of situation.  If they both lead to the same conclusion, I am satisfied that it is the right conclusion.  The first is rather simple.  Understand who is against the deal and what their alternative is.  In this case (as in all cases other than the TPP) the Republicans are virtually unanimous in their condemnation of the deal which the Obama Administration has made.  That is a good start to say that I should be for it, but the result from this approach is confirmed by two other factors.  First Prime Minister Netanyahu is adamantly opposed to the deal calling it an "historic mistake".  Second, neither the Republicans nor Prime Minister Netanyahu have a better approach.  As usual they will opt for war and violence over artful (and negotiated) diplomacy.  So as to my first approach.  I should support the deal.

My second approach is to try to find some independent thoughtful source to help me understand.  In this case I found two articles on the BBC website that were very understandable and made a very strong case for support of the deal.  The first article, entitled "Iran nuclear deal: Key details" (here), explains in plain English the key details of the deal which to me sound very reasonable.  The second article, entitled "Iran nuclear deal: A good deal, for now?" (here) makes a logical case for why this deal is a good one that should be supported.

So I thank Secretary Kerry and all of the negotiators on all sides for their hard work, long hours, perseverance and most of all creativity and stedfast belief that a deal could be reached.  The world is far better off with this deal than without it.  The second article ends with these paragraphs:

This agreement narrowly relates to Iran's nuclear programme. But the Iranian regime will not change overnight.
Its foreign policy entanglements in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza - many of which are seen as unhelpful by the West - will continue.
Many wonder if in the wake of this deal there should be further talks on the wider security problems of the region in which Iran is now such a central player.

We may only be taking baby steps, but they are in the right direction.  The successful negotiation of one deal, particularly a difficult one, can well lead to other successful negotiations and improved relations.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Hillary Clinton's Big Economic Speech

Dear Friends,

Yesterday Hillary Clinton gave what her campaign touted as being a major speech to lay out her economic agenda.  Since there was very little media coverage of the speech and not much on social media, I came to the conclusion that she did not really say anything new or exciting.  Nevertheless, I read her speech to see for myself what her economic agenda is.  You can read the transcript here.  My preliminary conclusion was correct - she said nothing new or exciting.

If one of her goals was to not anger her big Wall Street and big business donors, she undoubtedly accomplished that goal.  She came out for abolishing the carried interest loophole and for closing loopholes that encourage outsourcing jobs overseas and for actually going after white collar criminals.  She talked about fairness but proposed nothing about having the rich pay their fair share in taxes.  She likes the Buffett rule that CEOs should not have lower tax rates than their secretaries.  None of those things hits them hard in their pocketbooks (other than the carried interest loophole which hits fund managers directly).

She listed many great things that any person other than a right wing conservative would embrace like, paid family leave, earned sick leave, better wages, fair profit sharing, high quality affordable daycare, enhancing social security and fair pay and scheduling.  But she did not give any specifics about the details or how she would accomplish them or how they would be paid for.  We still have no idea what she thinks the minimum wage should be, or how long paid family leave should be and how much you should be paid on leave, or how you would be sure that all 4 year olds have access to high quality affordable preschool within the next ten years.

She addressed trade agreements with platitudes as well saying that we need them, but they need to provide jobs and higher wages.  She did not even mention the TPP (or any other trade agreement) by name or say whether it would pass her requirements.

She talked about establishing an infrastructure bank, but there were no details about how big it would be, how it would be funded, when it would be done and how the projects would be determined.  The same is true for her proposal that we encourage cleaner renewable energy and scientific and medical research.  The same is true for her proposal to improve schools and to make college truly affordable.

She mentioned several times that she would be providing more details in the months ahead, even this week in New Hampshire.  I do not understand why she doesn't tell us now what she is proposing and then spend her time convincing the American people to support her proposals.  She has had plenty of time to prepare.

She is apparently still wanting to use tax credits to encourage businesses to make investments that are good for America.  These programs are not new ideas nor are they particularly effective, unless you compare them to the idea of giving the rich more tax breaks to create jobs.

David Brooks wrote a typically smug, condescending and error ridden piece in The New York Times today (here) about Hillary Clinton's speech.  He mischaracterized the thrust of the speech and was unreasonably dismissive of the positive role that government should play in an economy that is good for all not just a few.  Nevertheless I think that his last several sentences actually reflect what Hillary Clinton was trying to accomplish with this speech.

But this agenda does pull off a neat trick. It will excite the progressive base without automatically alienating the rest of the country. Substantively she’s offered at least a coherent response to today’s economic conditions. Politically, she’s cleared the first hurdle in this campaign.

I, however, do not think that her speech will in fact excite the progressive base.  It certainly did not excite me.  It simply confirmed Secretary Clinton's unwillingness to be a leader.  Nor do I think that just because something excites the progressive base, it will alienate the rest of the country.  If the press and the pundits would stop using labels and talk about specific issues, they would find that the ideas and proposals that have been made by people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have great support among Americans.  I am not going to hold my breath for that to happen or for Secretary Clinton to actually take clear positions and lay out specifics of her agenda.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal