From the Wire (brief):

Here are some articles that caught my eye today.  Since this is the weekend no major commentary.  

CIA and Pentagon planners now worried there is a chance that Mexico may implode (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101215537).  Squad sized (normally about 10 soldiers) units of Mexican soldiers and police are being captured, killed, and tortured by drug cartel fighters.  Experts say that Mexican local police are not up to containing the violence (as they are often involved or too scared to do anything).  

Old people support the G.O.P. more than young people (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/weekinreview/01connelly.html?_r=1).  Who would have thought?

Great... my county can no longer afford to prosecute "minor" crimes like DUI and is planning to lay off 75 sheriff's deputies (http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_11804041?source=rss).

1/10 of working age Californians are jobless (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-jobs28-2009feb28,0,3811550.story).

S.F. Chronicle in deep financial trouble (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29390116/).

S&P at its lowest in 12 years.  Dow a tick above 7,000 (http://www.google.com/finance?hl=en&tab=we).  

Even Warren isn't doing too well lately...  Berkshire profits fall (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aO.dAwhtKlAw&refer=home).

CA has another water shortage.  Arnold declares statewide drought (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/27/MN8H166JE1.DTL&type=news).

Barry--US out of Iraq by 2010 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/27/national/a100535S07.DTL&type=politics).

From the Wire:

Obama Budget--More Money to Financials:

President Obama's budget request has been released (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9ZpGFQikqp4&refer=home). President Obama proposes that spending be increased 33% to $3.94 trillion. Mr. Obama's budget also calls for a $1.75 trillion dollar deficit. Mr. Obama proposes raising new tax revenue as a means to help pay for his increases. The Obama proposal suggests raising the top two marginal income tax rates to 39.6 percent and 36 percent, limiting itemized tax deductions, and increasing taxes on capital gains to 20 percent from the current 15 percent. We are in the midst of a "slowing" of the economy so according to a prominent school of economic thought increased government spending is a good way to support the economy. No comment in this trying times. I am no economics expert so I don't have any substantive insight.

But I do have a comment on one major piece of the proposed budget. Mr. Obama's budget also requests $750 billion contingency bailout fund for the financial industry! There are two major reasons this disturbs me: 1) The economics of these bailouts--can we afford them? Another 3/4 of a trillion dollars for Wall Street? Hasn't the government (and the American taxpayer) already bailed them out? Where is this money coming from? How will we pay for it? 2) The vast amounts of money being handed over to the executive with little or no oversight is very disturbing. I am suspicious of federal agencies for both legal and efficiency reasons... We are already trusting appointed administrative agency heads with unprecedented amounts of money. We are already trusting agencies to manage the entire financial system with little oversight or transparency. Another $3/4 trillion? Wow.

Oh, don't forget $634 billion down payment for universal healthcare.

President's budget plan will cut deficet in half by the end of his (first?) 4 year term(http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/budget/index.html).

Update:

CNN: Wolf asking, "What's wrong with those who can afford it paying a little more?"

Republicans respond: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/26/AR2009022602822.html?hpid=topnews. "This is really big government," said Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), the ranking GOP member of the House Budget Committee. He is right--bailouts, universal healthcare, and increased taxation.

Obama AG Holder calls for "just a few gun related changes":

Attorney General Holder wants to make a couple little changes to current gun laws. He claims that Heller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) permits, "closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent," (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=6960824&page=2). Mr. Holder than links an U.S. weapons laws to reducing violent crime in Mexico (violence in Mexico gets its own little entry below).

The Supreme Court's recent interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in Heller recognizes an individual citizen's right to bear arms subject to what Justice Scalia calls, "reasonable restrictions." Reasonable restrictions can mean many things to many people. Reasonable gun laws are in the interest of everyone and are certainly within the police powers of the state (although I do have concerns as to whether the federal government has the power to regulate guns under the Commerce Clause). Too often gun regulations become ineffective feel good measures which do not actually increase safety and penalize legal gun owners.

I suspect the A.G. and I have very different ideas as to what constitutes a reasonable gun law, but we do agree that reform is needed. The 2nd Amendment speaks of a "well regulated" militia. Mr. Scalia's opinion solidifies the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms--the legal right to own and use a gun--but the Court's opinion leaves open the question of what reasonable restrictions consists of. Another question left unanswered is what standard of constitutional review should be used when examining gun laws which are purported to violate the 2nd Amendment (standards of review are the lenses with which the Court a legal issue, it uses them to deciding what level of scrutiny to apply to a law might to violate the Constitution).

My answer to these questions is below (I'm a hypocrite, it is unlikely my regime could only pass Constitutional muster without the Commerce Clause power I disparaged above):

1) federal firearms law explicitly preempts state law. The standard of review should be "intermediate scrutiny," (as used in Craig v. Boren, 429 US 190 (1976)). The Court would decide if the law or regulation involves an important governmental interests that are furthered by substantially related means.

2) instant federal background checks for any firearms purchase anywhere in the U.S. utilizing the existing background check system. All sales must take place at a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) who shall conduct the instant background check. No sales to felons, crazy people, those with violent misdemeanor convictions, or mental illness. Must show state or federally issues ID, and be a citizen or legal alien.

3) Allow purchase of any shotgun, rifle, or non-assault rifle by anyone meeting the above criteria. Require a handgun safety certificate for any pistol or revolver purchases along with a ten day wait for those who do not have a Concealed carry/Assault rifle permit (described below). Certificate would involve a (brief) basic safety and legal test and safe-handling demonstration and would be valid for a determined number of years (this idea is loosely based on CA's system http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/hscinfo.php).

4) Concealed carry/Assault rifle permit: must meet all the qualifications of #2, and complete a mandatory safety, legal, and safe firearm handling class, a safety test, fingerprinting/biometric scanning, and be issued a tamper proof, biometric federally permit which includes this data and the holder's place of residence. The holder would then be able to purchase so-called assault rifles (i.e. semi-automatic, high capacity rifles, under .50 caliber, military style etc) and (almost) any handgun for concealed carry. All assault rifles and pistols to be concealed carried must be registered in a federal database which includes make, model, caliber, serial number, and other pertinent data. Concealed carry permit must be carried at all times when carrying or transporting a registered weapon in public.

5) Machine Gun permit/manufacturer's permit: high fee, all requirements as previously mentioned. Longer waiting period pending ATF approval and more extensive background check. Cities, counties, and states may elect to forbid machine guns permits in their jurisdiction.

Update:

Already causing problems for moderate Dems from right-leaning states (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11792204).

Pelosi satisfied with current laws?

"No, but I think on that score, one good place to start would be to enforce the laws that are on the books right now. And I think the evidence points this out, that the Bush Administration was not enforcing law. So let's start with enforcing the law that we have now."
(http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/02/26/1812279.aspx)

Drug War on the Border:

Here in the U.S. the "War on Drugs" is largely a metaphor for a law enforcement and rehabilitation operation. In Mexico there is truly a war being fought; a war between drug cartels (and the judges, police, and soldiers they control) and the Mexican federal government. Mexican government estimates claim that 7,337 people have been killed in the violence since 2007. The Mexican federal government has responded by deploying 45,000 soldiers and 5,000 federal police in 18 Mexican states. Government officials, judges, and police officers are frequently ambushed and killed by well armed assassins. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-drugwar28-2008dec28,0,6322674.story).

So far people have been slow to realize the international nature of these gangs and how they coordinate activities throughout Latin America and the United States.

The U.S. is starting to take notice of the violence as it begins to spread throughout the country. Recently the Justice Department announced the conclusion of a 21 month investigation into a the Sinaloa Drug Cartel (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-mexico-drug-cartel26-2009feb26,0,6751427.story?track=rss). The acting Administrator of the D.E.A. claimed that over 700 people were arrested, more than $59 million in illegal drug proceeds and large amounts of narcotics (including more than 24,000 pounds of cocaine, 1,200 pounds of methamphetamine and 1.3 million ecstasy pills. Authorities also seized more than $6.5 million in other assets, 149 vehicles, three aircraft, three maritime vessels and 169 weapons). He claims that this operation caused the cartel around $1 billion in revenue losses.

Mexican drug cartel activities have been identified as far afield as Anchorage, Alaska. "Elements of the Juarez cartel were identified in at least 44 cities from West Texas to Minneapolis. Gulf cartel affiliates were operating in at least 43 cities from South Texas to Buffalo, N.Y. And the Tijuana cartel, active in at least 20 U.S. cities, is extending its network from San Diego to Seattle and Anchorage," (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-cartels16-2008nov16,0,986275.story)."The Drug Enforcement Administration told Congress two years ago that it believed Mexican-based trafficking organizations “now have command and control over the drug trade and are starting to show the hallmarks of organized crime, such as organizing into distinct cells with subordinate cells that operate throughout the United States,” (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-cartels16-2008nov16,0,986275.story). There are reports of rogue factions of Mexican cartels operating from bases in San Diego with satellite operations drug in Kansas City and the Midwest raising funds to fight against rivals in Tijuana, Mexico. Murders, abductions, and robberies connected to cartel activity have become common place in the Southwest (and are increasing in other regions).

Scary stuff... Barbarians at the gate?

Update: The Senate is now interested in Mexican drug violence; "Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the State Department said (http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN26266392).

Financial Markets and Precious Metals Markets Down (again):

http://www.google.com/finance?hl=en&tab=we

http://www.kitco.com/market/

My prediction? Dow to 6700 and Gold to $1000+ per oz.

Obama Trimming the Military-Industrial Complex Budget?

Higher Pentagon spending? Kinda (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/02/obama-administr.html#more). Due to less supplemental spending (i.e. not on official defense budget) there is a slight decrease from Bush years; although official defense budget is slightly higher.

Meanwhile, Defense Tech is blogging about the debate on whether or not the military needs two new next-generation fighter jets (http://defensetech.org/). If policy makers decide that we only need one the question will be whether to cut the $137.5 million F-22 Raptor or the $83 million Joint Strike Fighter. It will become a "quality or quantity" type debate.

I think that the military is one area where we need to re-evaluate our spending priorities... Next generation fighters, helicopters, ships, rifles, and armored vehicles (all on the table right now) might not be prudent investments while funding is needed to fight a decidedly boots-on-the-ground conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan... How about more transport planes, trucks, and helicopters (or measures to take care of our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and veterans)? Certainly not as sexy as new weapons systems.

More defense pork here (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004707.html#comments)?

Update: CNN/Wolf is now reporting on the F-22/JSF debate.

Mr. Jindal

I find something about Governor Jindal to be quite unsettling.  Watching his response to President Obama's speech earlier this week, I began to notice some disturbing assertions.

First of all, I found Jindal's claims about passing tax cuts in Louisiana to be dubious at best.  He claimed that, "[t]o create jobs for our citizens, we cut taxes six times . . . . Republicans and Democrats put aside their differences.  We worked to make sure our people could keep more of what they earn.  If it can be done in Baton Rouge, surely it can be done in Washington, D.C." 

Here is what I heard: "Louisiana Democrats set aside their differences to pass our Republican agenda."  I fail to see how there is any compromise when one party caves to the other party's ideology.  

Much has also been made of this quote from the Governor in his discussion of the stimulus: ". . . $140 million for something called volcano monitoring.  Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C."  I love that the Governor of one of the states hardest hit by natural disasters can have such a cavalier attitude about these types of things.  I doubt we'll ever hear Mr. Jindal decry federal spending on hurricane monitoring.  Yet I can't recall the last time a hurricane incinerated a region's population. . . Perhaps that isn't fair - volcanoes don't erupt that often.  But, then again, if one were going to erupt tomorrow, and we could save thousands of lives by being prepared, wouldn't our duty to protect human life make this monitoring imperative?  Maybe I just don't understand a 100% pro-life voting record.  Or maybe Governor Jindal is impervious to lava.

Text of Governor Jindal's Response.  

Piyush "Bobby" Jindal

Mr. Jindal has been touted as the new face of the Republican Party after 8 years of George Bush and some (painful) months of McCain/Palin. Jindal, the son of immigrants from India, gave the GOP response to President Obama's speech to Congress.

There is ample commentary about Jindal's performance throughout the media; reviews have been mixed at best.

What struck me was the focus of Jindal's speech was surprisingly similar to the message of the Republican Party here in California--control spending, lower taxes. I keep hearing sentiment that the Republican Party is in danger of becoming the party of old white people and Southerners. It appears the Republican Party (or a faction of it) throughout the nation is re-focusing on Lincoln and Regan... in political and policy terms on appealing to minorities and women (i.e. less old white people) as well as advocating smaller government and lower taxes (instead of divisive moral issues or illegal immigration which play well in the South). This is the message that the party has been pushing in Calfiornia since at least the 1970s and was at the heart of the recent budget "issues" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008-2009_California_budget_crisis).

Conspicuously absent were national security and moralist (read Christian) messages... also surprising was the admission of mistakes...

Do I buy it? Of course not.

Then There Were Two...

As Aetius explicated, this blog provides political, social, economic and legal commentary on the state of California, and the United States as a whole.  However, a one sided critique of the system provides no balance and insufficient insight into the condition and character of the American populace.  So, to safeguard against the pitfalls of a unitary view, this blog will offer two perspectives on our society.  A further protection comes from the nature of the authors themselves: we are not partisan hacks clinging to party lines.  Slapping together a liberal and conservative does not guarantee fairness or balance.  Considering the current political climate, such an arrangement would more likely result in a talking-points shouting match than a productive discussion of relevant issues.  Furthermore, we shall not be tied to popular political issues or viewpoints.  We will strive to maintain an open forum - a marketplace of good ideas and constructive criticism.  

Along with my co-author, I hope this blog can be a chronicle of the American renaissance.  However, my desire to see a recovery does not mean that I view the world with rose-tinted glasses.  We have chosen the fall of Rome as the framing for this discussion for good reason.  Idealism is great, but reality tends to triumph.  The backdrop of a burning Rome provides a constant reminder that a society - no matter its wealth, power or influence - is never truly safe.  Even giants may stumble.  And when they do, all those below had better be prepared.  

I would also like to encourage heavy participation from all comers.  Leave a comment with your thoughts.  And feel free to email lengthier diatribes to us.  Anything worthwhile will be shared with all.  

Why the “last Roman” and "While Rome Burned"?
by: Flavius Aëtius

There are many reasons given for the fall of the Roman Empire—constant invasions, barbarization of the army and empire, the rise of coordinated external enemies, slavery and an unwillingness for the Roman citizen to innovate or labor, collapse of the economy and a reduction in tax base, failure to continue expanding the empire, governmental posts as a path to profit instead of a civic obligation, regional and other faction, along many others. These explanations all have merit but are symptoms of a larger problem of decadence in late Roman society.

Current commentators point to parallel signs of American decay—failed foreign military adventures, crumbling infrastructure, an increasingly under educated population, illegal immigration, partisan bickering, massive and inefficient deficit spending on entitlement programs, ignorance and apathy of the electorate, a host of economic problems including a house/lending/finance/currency crisis, inappropriate influence over policy-makers by special interests, a failing manufacturing industry, new economic and military powers, governmental standstill and a legion of other major issues.

My belief is that the single greatest cause of deterioration and the eventual fall of the Roman Empire was the bitter partisan fighting for political power among Roman leaders. General, prefect, senator, and common citizen were all involved in the bitter and violent struggles for political power—engaging in declared and undeclared civil war during the frequent power vacuums in government. The massive amounts of capitol expended in the attempt to win and hold power at any cost drained and weakened the empire until it was no longer able to support itself or defend the vital border areas of the empire. This weakness allowed the symptoms identified by the numerous commentators develop and develop into recurring systemic issues.

America has a similar problem. Politicians (along with individual citizens and corporations) on both sides of the aisle are all too willing to expend vast amounts of capital of all types in a never-ending quest to gain and keep political and economic power at any cost. Unlike their Roman predecessors today’s political aspirants do not typically seek to take and power by force of arms but instead see political dispute, pork, increased spending, and meddling with government agencies as the way to gain and maintain political power and influence. This power at any cost seems to be prevalent in both societies. Contrary to common belief this problem is not a Republican or Democratic problem, but has become an American problem.

In both Rome and modern (post-modern?) America individual advantage triumphs over the common good. A state has finite resources available to it. A society as rich as the United States or the Roman Empire has vast resources from which it can draw; but there have a natural limit to what can be sustained in the long-term.

The constant battles among political factions bled Rome dry, draining the empire of irreplaceable capital and human skills painstakingly built over centuries. Likewise, in the United States, the political parties, regions, and individual leaders all tend to follow a basic path to political power—increased and unwise taxation and spending along with a ruthlessness “whatever it takes” mentality.

In both cases too many citizens forgot that being a Roman or American citizen does not only include a set of rights but also a set of obligations. If we ignore or forget these obligations are rights will soon cease to exist. Like the idealized Rome there is an idealized America. The ideal of America is contained in our founding documents such as the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the various Amendments. We ignore these ideals at our peril.

Both Rome and America look back to mythical founders, while flawed, who considered the common good to be one and the same as the individual good. While these leaders never quite meet our greatest expectations, in some ways they transcend their historical reality and become symbols of these ideals.

We, like the Romans, turned our backs on these ideals and have mistaken flawed individual advantage for the greatest good. The virtuous Romans and previous generations of Americans understood without a strong, stable society one’s life is robbed of much of its meaning and richness. For this reason I write as the “last Roman” or perhaps more properly the “last American”; much like the historical Flavius Aëtius naively fighting a battle in a war that was lost long ago for an ideal only hazily remembered.

This blog aims to frankly discuss the crisis we are facing here in America. Many times during its history Rome seemed on the brink of collapse only to reconsolidate and recover. My hope is to see and chart America’s similar recovery from an increasing decadence. My fear is that the taking of the pseudonym of Flavius Aëtius is all to appropriate an identity to assume while aiming to observe and comment on Rome Burning.

We welcome and encourage comments on the state of America and almost any other political, legal, economic, or social commentary you might have.