Think Tanked

Sunday Talk Shows: 5/30/10

Think tankers on the Sunday talk shows:

CNN's GPS with Fareed Zakaria: Bill Gates, co-chair, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator for the Financial Times; Richard Haas, PhD, president of the Council on Foreign Relations; Chrystia Freeland, Global Editor-in-Chief for Reuters.

Catch the full Sunday line-up at FishbowlDC.

Brookings: Analyzing North Korea's Agenda

Heritage's Carafano on the National Security Strategy

Heritage Foundation director of foreign policy studies, James Carafano, does not have the most flattering view of the Obama administration's National Security Strategy. Carafano says there are three parts to the strategy: "anything but Bush," substitute soft power for hard power, and ...

Part Three of the strategy is living in the world of wishful thinking. It emphasizes engagement and cooperation. But the strategy has no strategy for when the other side chooses not to cooperate as in the case of Iran. The US opted to engage Iran. Iran opted to make parodies about US foreign policy.

Hope is not a strategy…but it is the Obama national security strategy.

White House vs. CAP on Teacher Layoffs

On the opinion page of the Washington Post today, Christina Romer, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, argues against the mass teacher layoffs expected this year.

Such layoffs are terrible for teachers, for communities and, most important, for students. For the families directly affected, layoffs mean not only lost wages but often lost homes and postponed dreams. Because unemployed teachers have to cut back on spending, local businesses and overall economic activity suffer. And the costs of decreased learning time and support for students will be felt not just in the next year or two but will reduce our productivity for decades to come.

[...]

Furthermore, by preventing layoffs, we would save on unemployment insurance payments, food stamps and COBRA subsidies for health insurance, and we would maintain tax revenue. Accounting for these savings, the actual cost of the program is likely to be 20 to 40 percent below the sticker price -- perhaps even lower when one considers the spillover effects of maintaining employment. And the country will recoup much of the cost in coming years, as a better-educated workforce leads to higher tax revenue and less reliance on the social safety net.

Romer's reasoning is certainly sound, but that doesn't mean reason will win out. By most accounts, the layoffs are inevitable.

Two weeks ago, I posted about a proposal from Matt Miller of the Center for American Progress, who argues that the way to go is buyouts--not layoffs.

This takes a little explaining. The coming teacher firings are doubly disastrous because labor contracts and state laws require that most layoffs be done on the basis of seniority -- that is, newer teachers get the ax first. The trouble with this "last-in, first-out" rule is that layoffs are made with no concern for whether the teachers in question are any good. Yet in many big districts, huge efforts have been made in recent years to hire talented young teachers via programs such as Teach for America and the New Teacher Project to work with the nation's neediest children. With one awful stroke, these layoffs could eviscerate years of such recruiting, giving poor kids the shaft once again.

Read the rest of Miller's idea in his Washington Post op-ed.

Wexler: Congress to Think Tank to...Ambassador to Israel?

Laura Rozen at POLITICO is reporting that former Representative Robert Wexler may well become the next U.S. ambassador to Israel after his stint at a Middle East-centered think tank.

Wexler, a strong pro-Israel ally for the Obama White House going back to the 2008 presidential campaign, has become an even more frequent presence in the White House and Foggy Bottom since resigning his House seat in January to become president of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, a revived Washington think tank named after its benefactor, the Slim-Fast-heir turned Middle East peace evangelist/philanthropist.

No shortage of questions here. Rozen's on top of most of them.

CNAS Experts on Obama's National Security Strategy

Just a bit ago, the Center for a New American Security offered a collection of statements from their expert staff on the newly released National Security Strategy from the Obama Administration.

Most of the CNAS assessments were quite glowing the administration's vision, but a couple were critical.

From Tom Ricks:

The proof of the National Security Strategy will be in the execution, which rarely rises to the level of the prose in the report.  Generally these documents prove to be lists of aspirations rather than genuine strategies that state who we are, what we want to do, how we want to do it, and what resources we will use to do it.

From Andrew Exum:

Considering the financial crisis from which our country is still emerging, I am surprised there is not more in the National Security Strategy about the environment of scarcity in which the United States now operates. Strategy is, in part, about setting goals, prioritizing those goals, and matching resources to each goal. Aside from the section about spending tax-payer money wisely - which seems more about reducing fraud, waste and abuse than anything else - there seems to be little acknowledgment that the United States might not be able to pursue all of our national security goals as vigorously as we might like in part due to spending constraints. I'm still trying to understand how the acknowledgment that the United States must address its deficit to ensure our future security squares with a bold statement like 'the United States of America will continue to underwrite global security.' That is an especially bold claim considering the fact that this document seems to consider security to include not just physical security but economic security, food security, medical security and addressing problems of governance and reducing poverty outside America's borders. This document leaves me unsure of what the administration's true priorities are heading into the rest of its term in office.

Check out the full range of CNAS comments here.

AEI's John Yoo Follows Up on His NYT Op-Ed

Yesterday I posted on John Yoo's op-ed in the New York Times on the Kagan nomination.

In case it wasn't clear what he was arguing, here's a post he wrote on the AEI blog:

Somehow I snuck onto the editorial page of the New York Times today. My piece argues that Elena Kagan is no friend of the presidency, as her supporters claim, but instead believes that Congress can significantly limit the executive’s powers. A close reading of her academic work shows that she believes that the Constitution gives the president no authority to remove subordinate officials—which is the primary tool used by chief executives to impose some semblance of rationality on the activities of our vast administrative state. If Kagan thinks that the Constitution’s grant of the “executive power” of the United States does not include the small power of firing wayward bureaucrats, she won’t think that it gives presidents powers of more importance, such as targeting, detaining, interrogating, or trying terrorists (without the permission of Congress, that is).

Clinton to Unveil National Security Plan at Brookings

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will address the Brookings Institution today on the Obama Administration's new national security strategy--a plan that reportedly combines economic strength, diplomacy and military power.

In this Brookings talk, Clinton will be kicking off a series of presentations coming out of the administration on the national security plan.

From a media release:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will participate in a conversation with Brookings Institution President Strobe Talbott at Brookings on Thursday, May 27 at 1:30 p.m. They will discuss the major points of the Obama Administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS), including preventing nuclear proliferation, terrorism and al Qaeda, use of military force, development and diplomacy. Secretary Clinton will take questions from the audience.

And Josh Rogin at The Cable has obtained the 52-page document.

CAP on Taxpayer Subsidies for Oil Companies

Heritage Blog: Slow Down on Don't Ask, Don't Tell!

Chuck Donovan, Senior Research Fellow in The Heritage Foundation's DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, is arguing for a slowdown on repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. 

Calling the new movement on Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal announced this week a "new liberal power grab," Donovan is convinced it's all politics that will detrimental to the troops.

This crass political maneuver is an affront to the men and women in the military whose opinions matter, because they will be most affected by any change in the law. Regardless of what one thinks of full repeal—whatever it might mean in practice—lawmakers should wait until the ongoing survey of service personnel is completed and analyzed. Any legislative action now is premature, and a thumbing of the nose at the military.

The sleight-of-hand at work is the notion that since everyone already understands what repeal of the current law means, Congress might as well just repeal the law now. However, since the issues at stake involve not just neutral characteristics like race or national origin, but rather responses to a whole set of behaviors that may affect everything from military family policy to religious liberty, repeal of the military service eligibility law could take any number of forms. The range of implications is profound, from core issues of national security and military readiness, to recruitment and retention, to conduct standards and unit cohesion.

Instead, a debate should answer 10 questions Donovan lays out. Here are some of them:

3. What would be the impact of repeal on retention policies and results and recruitment policies and results?

4. What would be the impact of a full repeal on particular operational issues (e.g., fraternization, submarine service, field deployment, special forces, etc.)?

8. What would be the impact on service chaplains and counselors who may have specific denominational or personal views on the illicitness of same-sex conduct and same-sex relationships? Could they face punitive, administrative or remedial measures (e.g., sensitivity training) that impact their ability to perform their professional roles or infringe on their right to hold and express certain moral or religious views?

9. If military personnel express disagreement with changes to policy approving of homosexuality, how will that affect their careers?

10. Will homosexuality be considered a protected class for promotion or advancement purposes? Will the new law require that promotion boards include precept language requiring the promotion of homosexuals?