Government transparancy enters the 21st century

From Daily Kos:

Americans had a hard time finding out where their hard-earned tax dollars went. Until 2 days ago.

Now, thanks to USAspending.gov, a site created by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 by Tom Coburn and Barack Obama, anyone can discover the pockets of federal dollars. The site tracks contracts, grants, earmarks, and loans.

Check out the website for some interesting data. The Kos diary found

7 examples (contracts with KBR/Halliburton, Tom Delay's pork, no bid contracts with defense contractors and even the government of Canada, spending on guided missiles, maintenance of dams, and stranger things including flags, perfumes, and hand tools).

and there is much more shady funding out there — in addition to a lot, and I mean a lot, of pork. Naturally, data sensitive to national security (or "national security") is not included on the site. (I sort-of blogged about the reality of a website to track government spending a bit over a year ago.)

All the US government's waste: the misspending of tax dollars

A few ways the American federal government wastes money that bother me:

Earmarks (a touchy, representative subject; aka pork);

Subsidies (especially when they're not needed or don't effectively help, including for some employers and parts of the agriculture sector, namely ethanol-related);

Faith-based initiatives (cannot see merits; not only does the idea ignore the fundamental principle of separation of church and state, but the initiatives can only help a certain group based on their religion; also helps Bush politically with Evangelical demographic).

While the US government cuts down on funding for scientific research, education, and consumer protection, it wastes money on things that only benefit special interests — e.g. corn farmers (subsidies) or Christian Evangelicals (faith-based initiatives). Ironically, some of the waste is a result of a lack of, say, good education, especially in the case of manufacturing industries affected by globalization getting federal funding and subsidies. In short, much of this waste is counterproductive and the money could be better spent on universally-helpful things like health and education.

To remain competitive, subsidies and tariffs (i.e. protectionism) are not the answer. They limit consumer choice, waste government funds, and inhibit the benefits of competition, such as better products. In addition, they are created largely to politically please special interest groups. All of the aforementioned wastes of taxpayer dollars do not help the nation as a whole, not do they help a large group of people in need — helping the general public and the needy should be the government's priority, not wasting money on special interests just to get a few more votes (which alienates the general public, I might add).

Encouraged research and development and public education are much better answers to the nation's economic problems than throwing tax dollars down the drain into failing industries — that money could be better spent on things that help the nation as a whole, in addition to those who need the help most. The money spent on failed or worthless causes could do great things, if the government — that includes the White House and Congress — wasn't interested most in pleasing the polarizing special interests and encouraging the negative cycle brought about by all this waste. Heck, if less money was spend on all this junk, taxes could be lowered, thus pleasing the fiscal conservatives. America and its moderate, progressive forces would win, and the backwards and unhelpful groups that much of this money is being given to would lose.

There is debate over whether special interests help or hurt America (see list of pros and cons). They do both. But the ones on K Street that corrupt the US government and contribute to the massive waste of money we see are the ones who need their influence to be lessened, for they hold far too much power and harm the nation's political and financial well-being, hurting progress in economic and social areas, and adding to the apathy felt by the American public. In one sense, special interests are a part of democracy. In another, they harm the principle of the government of the people by taking chunks of influence away from the people, often with lobbying money and perks.

Restrictions on lobbying, on pork-barrel legislation, and on unnecessary and only politically-motivated aid to businesses and industries are needed; transparency in government (spending) must be increased — or the corrupt win. What's more important, special interests or the public interest?

Security v. freedom

This month's poll (Aug 11 to Sept 11) asks whether you, if given a choice, would choose either security or freedom. In political quizzes, security and freedom are often metered as polar opposites: 'security' to the extreme is an authoritarian police state, the greatest 'freedom' is a sort of libertarian anarchy with neoliberal economic policies.

In other words, people choosing to die for freedom are choosing freedom over security. People willing to give up basic democratic rights for a dose of safety — real or imagined — are the kind of drones who are fine under a dictatorship (until they realize how bad it is — if they do — and the rest flows from there), or at least fine with the principles of one.

The people are sure to demand security. But it's the government's duty to insure freedom and not to entertain the more irrational wishes of the public and exploit their irrationalities for own power or wealth. Time and time again the general population chooses security over freedom, often after being coned by governing leaders; time and time again they regret that choice. Freedom's benefits are reaped over time, whereas security's effects are seen instantly: 'no new attacks' or 'attack stopped, but threat still there'; people are scared away from their own freedom.

Coincidentally, since the poll will end on the sixth anniversary of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks upon the United States, the limiting of freedom for the sake of security — and vice versa — will be something to think about all the more. The freedoms of people are often limited during wartime; following 9/11 the Bush administration, and other governments around the world, worked to curb certain liberties in the name of security. The abuse of power under the deceiving namesake of 'security' is yet another thing to think about: we've seen it under a rainbow of despots, from the Emperors of Ancient Rome to McCarthy in Cold War-era America.

Does one need security to allow freedom to flourish? Or is true security granted only when freedom exists? Can the two coexist — even in theory?

Also coming up in a little less than a month is the one year birthday of In Perspective.

The nature of pure government and the absolutes

Pure communism looks nice on paper, and works in theory, but not practice. Not only is that kind of equality impossible, it gives the supposed-to-be-government-less state too much power — and we all know how greedy people are with power. Big governments and free markets are not compatible with communism, but the former shows up when It also only works, so far, with small isolated groups.

Democracy, on the other hand, is not collectivized like communism and works best with less government power, bulk, and intervention and freer markets. Democracy works much better in practice than communism, but essentially guarantees that the people — or at least those who can vote — will only be absolutely equal in one aspect: the right to vote.

Pure democracy, like pure communism, also does not work well on a large scale and can be more easily overthrown in times of war (see Ancient Greece/Athens' time of pure and direct democracy). Pure libertarianism and anarchy are very impractical, for there will always be people who want to be in charge and will rise to the top. Just as it is not our nature to fully collectivize en masse, it is not our nature to have neither leader nor government. If you put a group of people with no knowledge whatsoever on a deserted island, you can easily bet that one or two or a limited number will vie for the leadership of the group. Maybe there will be a power struggle; maybe the group will split. No matter what there is no way each individual in that group would maintain their status as equals in terms of power.

It seems that with humans, the absolutes or pure governments — whether pure libertarianism (ie no government) or some form of ultra-authoritarianism (nearly absolute government) — can only exist on paper. Even when they are twisted in a way so those absolutes can exist in a semi-absolute manner, have their been any cases when a government supposedly providing pure 'freedom' (former example) or 'security' (latter example) worked well? No. Absolutes, like pures, are theoretical. And when there are attempts to implement them in real life — e.g. absolute good, absolute evil, pure communism — the end product is usually bad.

This is a post in this blog's Ideas about Democracy series. Next planned topic in the series: 'What's better, and more important in a democratic society and government in general, the individual or the group? Which should be served primarily and which is more rational in political matters'

Brown's cabinet shuffle

The new British prime minister, Gordon Brown, has named his cabinet today. The major changes include two different education secretaries, no deputy PM, and a mix of old and new people.

The commons leader is Harriet Harman, after being elected on 24 June to the position of deputy Labour Party leader; Alistair Darling is chancellor; the fairly young David Miliband will serve as foreign secretary (previously he was the environment minister); Jacqui Smith as home secretary; Alan Johnston for health (previously education); Jack Straw for justice (previously Commons leader; Hilary Benn for environment (previously development); and Des Browne will continue his job as defense minister in addition to a new role leading the Scotland office. There are a total of 22 in Brown's Cabinet.

This is a pretty major revamp, although some, including the fussy Liberal Democrats, have stated they view this as not enough change.

Miliband is not as supportive of Israel and America as Blair was; he also wants strong action to be taken on the issue of climate change. In addition, might his family's background play a role in how he serves in the Foreign Office?

David Miliband's Jewish background will be noted particularly in the Middle East.

Israel will welcome this - but equally it allows him the freedom to criticise Israel, as he has done, without being accused of anti-Semitism.

The biggest issue facing him will be Iraq, with three British soldiers killed there on the day of his appointment.

He is reckoned to be in favour of getting British troops out as soon as possible, consistent with Gordon Brown's declared policy of withdrawing when conditions allow.

Diplomats are wondering whether, as foreign secretary, he will become a blogger - recording his thoughts in an online weblog - as he was in the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

I liked the fact that he blogged. When officials not only show their human side but allow their constituents and others to chime in on their policy-related opinions, it assists the transparency and flow of a democracy. It also allows statements and announcements at a less official level than, say, press releases. Policymakers' blogging creates a more open, two-way line of communication between public and government. Miliband got much attention — both positive and negative — for his 'eDemocracy'.

Exit Blair, enter Brown

As scheduled, Gordon Brown has taken over as leader of the United Kingdom. He immediately promised change in British politics — a promise we can only hope he can keep (not just in rhetoric). He has already spoken with a number of world leaders; US President Bush said he's looking forward to "working closely" with Brown government — hopefully not nearly as closely as he worked with Blair. Brown is quite the intellectual, but he will have to make up for some of his weak points, especially in comparison to his charismatic predecessor.

Meanwhile, outgoing PM Tony Blair is to become a Middle East envoy for the Diplomatic Quartet consisting of the US, EU, UN, and Russia. Considering all the troubles of the Mid-East — Israel/Palestine, the growth of terrorism, Lebanon, Iraq's civil war, Iran's nuclear program — Blair has quite a job ahead of him. Just hours after he resigned as UK prime minister... I guess he cannot resist working with Bush on, um, helping the Middle East. The White House is sad the "special relationship" between leaders Bush and Blair has effectively come to a close. Funny how America mourns the lost of the British leader as the UK is, for the most part, glad he's leaving.

technorati tags: UK, britain, united+kingdom, politics, news, bush, blair, brown, gordon+brown, tony+blair, prime+minister, middle-east

Blair's last day

Tomorrow, 27 June, will be the day Gordon Brown takes office as the 52nd Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He will be asked by the Queen to form a government tomorrow. Brown is currently Blair's chancellor of the exchequer and fellow Labour MP, and has been so since Blair has been Britain's leader.

Blair handed over the party leadership to Brown a few days ago (24 June) following his promise at the Labour Party conference last fall he would step down as party leader and prime minister before the next conference. He announced his departure in May. Since the announcement there's been much analysis in retrospect of the 10 years Tony Blair, the current prime minister, has been in power.

Considering the important position he currently fills and the even more important one he will have tomorrow, relatively little is known of Gordon Brown. We know he was actually supposed to become prime minister if Labour won the 1997 election, which it did, but the charismatic Tony Blair ended up getting the gold. Brown has been waiting years for the top job — and less than 24 hours it will be his.

I personally am a bit excited not only because a change in leadership means a change in politics (i.e. more news coverage and more blog posts), but mainly due to the 'war on terror' and fiasco in Iraq Blair has lost his edge. His best accomplishments were helping the economy, reducing poverty, increasing education, lowering crime, continuing the good policies of his Conservative predecessor John Major on making peace in Northern Ireland and achieving that peace, including with the IRA, and helping the NHS — though that was one of his failures too. Blair's worst characteristics were his civil liberties-restricting anti-terror policies and following the necon Bush administration into Iraq.

Expect Brown to distance himself from George Bush. The White House will likely feel the sting of a very different relationship with its English-speaking ally across the Atlantic. However on Iraq Brown is expected to roughly maintain the status quo. A cautious person from what I've read, he will not want to run the risk of pulling UK troops out immediately and being blamed for making the conflict there worse. He has spoken much on Africa and poverty, being at the forefront of aid and debt initiatives.

Brown shares the general viewpoint of many fellow politicians on the threat of global warming — remember he was the one who commissioned the Stern report on the economic impact of climate change. He is a calculated, practical man and has shown to be tough on terrorism — is that good or bad? — and very interested in international affairs, such as the Darfur genocide in Sudan and the Israel-Palestine conflict. We can guess he'll be more 'liberal' than Blair foreign policy wise, but to what extent is not really known.

Here are some links useful for learning more about the PM-in-waiting:
Wikipedia article
BBC News article on his known foreign policy views
Prospect article (year-old) on Brown's foreign policy
Profile by The Economist
10 Downing Street (PM's office) homepage
Guardian Unlimited profile
BBC News profile

And here's some good news to start Brown off on a positive note tomorrow:

Britain's new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will take office this week with his Labour Party ahead of its Conservative rivals for the first time in eight months [i.e. since October], a [Ipsos-Mori] poll showed today.

The poll, in the Observer newspaper, put support for Labour at 39 per cent and the Conservatives at 36 per cent.

Forty per cent of voters believed Brown would make a more capable prime minister, compared to just 22 per cent who prefer his Conservative rival David Cameron.

Still, an early election might not be the best of ideas for Brown. Spring 2009 is the expected time of the next general election. The Conservatives have been doing well for a while now, and it's only recently that the political pendulum appears to have swung in the way of Labor. The Liberal Democrats seem to be proving more stubborn towards Brown than the Tories, demanding a snap election so that Brown can prove himself legitimate.

So who will Brown be governing with? Justice Minister Harriet Harman was elected deputy party leader on Sunday in a surprising win of 1% over Alan Johnston. From the BBC Question Time deputy leadership debate I watched, she seemed a reasonable candidate. She strongly disagrees with Blair's Iraq policies as well as his media spin — something both he and his American counterpart Bush have mastered. Even during the Blair-Brown transition has the government been accused of burying stories. Brown has expressed hopes for a cross-party cabinet, although a Lib Dem has already turned him down after being offered the position of N Ireland minister.

The will of the people

For the greater good, the government cannot not always follow the will of the people. This applies especially to topics requiring much education, which is why there are experts. The general public are neither experts and cannot come up with experts on every issue likely to come up in the spotlight nor are they the government they elect. The people elect politicians and that's why scholarly experts on a range of important topics exist. For example, if a majority of people in democratic country X wanted to invade country Y for no particular reason, if it is for the greater good the government can and probably should not follow the will of the people (unless the people decide by direct vote) and pay the consequences when the election comes around.

Thus:

refusal by the government to agree with the people on an issue is fine because the people elect the government [but see the irrational electorate]; the people should be as well-rounded, however, and educated on general subjects as to be able to make the right decision not only on electing the government but for public direct votes if they so arise;

the state should be at the mercy of its people when election time comes, but should act in the greater good of the nation and even the world when appropriate — it's their job, not the general public's, to act on these kinds of things with the political power given to them by the people.

I know it sounds like an idea that doesn't mix well with the principles of a liberal representative democracy, but the people don't always know best. However, since we are not talking about direct democracy, that is not an issue. They should be educated enough [see voter education], however, to vote for people who will make the correct, educated decision. In addition, when a public vote on an issue or referendum comes up the government should try to educate the people on said issue in a manner not partisan and of an objective educational nature. The politicians should not have to cave into public opinion on a specialized issue, like that relating to stem cells, let's say, but they might do so to help their political standing, especially if they are standing for reelection.

People elect politicians, politicians consult experts and make decisions, people re-elect or un-elect those politicians on the comparative and overall measure of their performance, etc. Alternatively, in the case of a public referendum, which are usually either local or deal with multi-national issues (like EU peoples voting on the 2005 constitution), the people decide on the issue in a more direct manner and the elected officials respond to the result of the vote.

In the end, direct democracy is usually fit only for local community governments or for large state/national issues. (In a sense, as a federal nation with a legislative direct democratic popular initiative and referendum system alongside the bicameral parliament in addition to the executive and judicial branches of government, Switzerland is an unusual modern exception.) It may be employed to let the people decide the fate of a nation, region, or province/state/governate, or local area, but for run-of-the-mill and even advanced governmental issues a more established but representative liberal democratic system works better to prevent poor decisions by the public. After all, politicians come and go as they are elected and unelected, but the electorate is there to stay, unless authoritarian rule is established — and even then the people would hold some form of collective power.

This is a post in this blog's Ideas about Democracy series.

A voter intelligence test, and other thoughts on democracy

This post is part of my new blog post series, Ideas about Democracy.

Since I am likely to raise more questions than I answer in this post, let me just throw some out before hand...
Would education for voters be found against democracy — the right to vote — or for it? Would it help or hurt? It would allow voters to make educated decisions, thus helping themselves, their government, and the system. On the other hand the education could run the possibility of being politically-charged by whomever is in power; plus might it impede with the central 'one man, one vote' pillar of democratic voting? We don't let children (people under 18, or various other ages) vote, isn't that blocking democracy as much as voter education would? There are plenty of under-18s more educated on the issues and who is running in an election or what's on the ballot than those who can vote. How do we measure who can and cannot vote? Could the voter intelligence test, if created, become the next poll tax? Could it be a tool easily manipulated by politicians against their enemies, or to help themselves? How could the change in the voting system come about? I'm sure new and future voters would be OK with it, but couldn't current voters feel oppressed in one way or another? Could the campaign for voter education turn into one of those blind-patriotism kind of programs? Could the campaign result in a nasty political battle taking the attention away from real, pressing political issues?

Although I support the democratic system of government as the finest and most efficient form of government in this modern age, I do have a problem with the stupidity of the masses. One of the fundamental flaws of a democratic society is the voters.

How best can we solve the problem of voter (in)education? Much of the solution is simple: education in history, civics, politics, etc., which is why American schools, for example, should teach politics — comparative, theoretical, United States, and overall historical — in secondary school especially. Here are an outline of some of the steps I've thought of so far:

education on government open to the public;

socio-economic and politics (practical and otherwise), and civics, classes in middle and high schools;

higher literacy rate and government-sponsored ads encouraging political education and voting;

a limit and non-partisan regulation of political advertisements (France has a good system on things like this, as some do other Western European countries like the UK).

A mandatory voter education course and voter intelligence test combined are perhaps the most extreme steps, and are probably best perused by theoretical means to find other aids to educating the public.

A more educated public — especially on politically-relevant topics — not only aids the political system and government, as I mentioned above, but also helps prepare people for the real world, especially in the case of secondary school students. Education is essential to working towards better politicians and keeping the economy running strong.

Democracy or secularism? Can Turkey have both?

While the US is having trouble with its president, Turkey’s been having presidential troubles of its own, so to speak. The vote in parliament nearly one week ago to elect a president has been annulled as the candidate did not reach the required majority, in part because he was of an Islamist party. Because of these problems, the leading Turkish party, AK, wants early elections on 22 July.

You might think the latest developments in Turkey are confusing. Well you’re not alone. See here for The Guardian's Q&A guide for a point by point explanation.

Turkey has worked hard to retain the secular legacy of its first and most famous modern leader, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Many times the military has intervened to ensure that secularism, and this is a major test for Turkey's democracy. The outcome of this string of events may indeed also change when and if Turkey can (rightfully) join the European Union. Some consider Turkey a part of Asia and the Middle East, but more include Turkey among European countries. Turkey is a long-time western ally and a member of NATO.

I both wish for secular governance and a democratic, non-military led administration in Turkey or anywhere else. The question is, which is a greater evil: military intervention every time the army sees fit, or moderate Islamic rule? The ardent secularists are afraid of political control by religious parties; the Islamic parties, and the ardent Turkish democrats, are wary of military intervention.

A view of executive power, 145 years ago

The following are extracts from the book Executive Power, by B. R. Curtis. The book was published in 1862 and I was lucky enough to get my hands on a copy the last time I was in Washington DC.

From the preface:

Extract from President Lincoln’s proclamation of September 22, 1862. … "Understand I raise no objection against it on legal or constitutional or legal grounds; for, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, in time of war, I suppose I have a right to take any measure which may be best to subdue the enemy." — President Lincoln to the Chicago Delegation.

Pp 24-27:

The framers of the Constitution thought it wise that the powers of the commander-in-chief of the military forces of the United States should be placed in the hands of the chief civil magistrate.
…
But all the powers of the President are executive merely. He cannot make a law. He cannot repeal one. He can only execute the laws. He can neither make, nor suspend, nor alter them. He cannot even make an article of war. He may govern the army, either by general or special orders, but only in subordination to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the articles of war enacted by the legislative power.

The time has certainly come when the people of the United States must understand, and must apply those great rules of civil liberty… If they fail to understand and apply them, if they fail to hold every branch of their government steadily to them, who can imagine what is to come out of this great and desperate struggle.

Are the great principles of free government to be used and consumed as means of war? Are we not wise enough and strong enough to carry on this war to a successful military end, without submitting to the loss of any one great principle of liberty. We are strong enough. We are wise enough, if the people and their servants will but understand and observe the just limits of military power.

What, then, are those limits? They are these. There is military law; there is martial law. Military law is that systems of laws enacted by the legislative power for the government of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia when called into the actual service of the United States. It has no control whatever over any person or any property of any citizen.
…
But there is also Martial law. What is this? It is the will of a military commander, operating without any restraint, save his judgment, upon the lives, upon the property, upon the entire social and individual condition of all over whom this law extends. But, under the Constitution of the United States, over whom does such law extend?

Will any one be bold enough to say, in view of the history of our ancestors and ourselves, that the President of the United States can extend such law as that over the entire country, or over any defined geographical part thereof, … save in connection with some particular military operations which he is carrying on there? Since Charles I. lost his head, there has been no king in England who could make such law, in that realm. And where is there to be found, in our history, or our constitutions, either State or national, any warrant for saying, that a President of the United States has been empowered by the Constitution to extend martial law over the whole country, and to subject thereby to his military power, every right of every citizen? He has no such authority.

In time of war, a military commander, whether he be the commander-in-chief, or one of his subordinates, must possess and exercise powers both over the persons and the property of citizens which do not exist in times of peace. But he possesses and exercises such powers, not in spite of the Constitution and laws of the United States, or in derogation from their authority, but in virtue thereof and in strict subordination thereto.

The author goes on to say, on page 28, that the military authority that commander holds is restricted to the actual battlefield, the site of war, and not the entire legal territory.

P 29:

He is not the military commander of the citizens of the United States, but of its soldiers.

P 33 (out of 34):

Let the people be right, and no President can long be wrong; nor can he effect any fatal mischief if he should be.

Almost 150 years after the writing of this book, the contents are all the more relevant. The United States faces as unreal a 'war' now as it faced a real and necessary one then. That is, the US is supposedly in a war against terrorism today; it was in a real civil war in the mid-1800s.

Even in a civil war, as the author states, the president is not all-powerful in the ways of law. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq do not include fighting on American soil or against the United States itself (most other wars have). The "war on terrorism" is even less of a reason for the president to extend his military war powers — which are far from unconditional — onto the people of the United States.

President George W. Bush has shown he does not care what the people of the United States think, unless it has a real political effect on him. Since he is a lame duck and cannot be reelected, Bush has no reason to listen other than to look better in the history books. Bush has himself stated that history will judge him well — a statement many people, myself included, view as utter idiocy.

The broad, overreaching powers of the Bush administration are disturbing, with things like the warrantless wiretapping issue, detention and rendition of untried noncitizens, and other civil liberty-harming areas of the 'war on terror'.

No president, whether a Lincoln, a Truman, or a Bush, is legally supreme. The current president seems to think otherwise with his White House's unfettered expansionist view of presidential authority, and the Bush administration's constant overriding of the checks and balances that the Congress and Supreme Court provide. Bush and Cheney believe in the unitary executive. What is written in the law books is often very different from what actually happens. The US Constitution is a 'just a piece of paper' after all.


Song stuck in my head right now: Flathead by The Fratellis

Swedish transparancy and the public's right to know

I thought this was an interesting area of the Constitution of Sweden.

From the Swedish government site on the Freedom of the Press Act:

Chapter 2. On the public nature of official documents

Art. 1. Every Swedish citizen shall be entitled to have free access to official documents, in order to encourage the free exchange of opinion and the availability of comprehensive information.

Art. 2. The right of access to official documents may be restricted only if restriction is necessary having regard to
1. the security of the Realm or its relations with another state or an international organisation;
2. the central fiscal, monetary or currency policy of the Realm;
3. the inspection, control or other supervisory activities of a public authority;
4. the interest of preventing or prosecuting crime;
5. the economic interest of the public institutions;
6. the protection of the personal or economic circumstances of private subjects;
7. the preservation of animal or plant species.

Any restriction of the right of access to official documents shall be scrupulously specified in a provision of a special act of law, or, if this is deemed more appropriate in a particular case, in another act of law to which the special act refers. With authority in such a provision, the Government may however issue more detailed provisions for its application in a statutory instrument.

The Act was passed in 1766, but included true freedom (i.e. full capability to criticize government) in 1810.

Most areas of the Swedish Constitution have been around a long time. The sections governing openness to the public has faced reforms on the specificity of the documents available (i.e. no major state secrets within a certain period of time) and have been liberalized, but not restricted, in recent times. The method allowing Swedes to access what their government does and writes looks to be like a liberal, constitutionalized version of the United States' Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which is relatively recent in real terms (when it was first put into place, requests were much more restricted even than they are now) and can be impotent at times, even for documents that should no longer be deemed confidential.

Many other democratic countries have similar tools for governmental transparency to the public. Although I am no expert on the issue, from what I've read Sweden's open government-public relationship remains the most fair to the people. It is also the oldest.

In a world where terrorism is used as an excuse for exercising political power and, thus, keeping vital information from the people — circumventing a true democratic republican system — it is nice to see there are still countries that keep open. Those, such as Britain and especially the US, who have opted out from as much democratic openness than they used to offer before the 'war on terror' (though during the Cold War things were even worse in the US), still maintain their democratic systems.


If anyone is interested in taking action on freedom of expression in their country or another, there is a great Amnesty International campaign called Irrepressible. Irrepressible, which I have a button for on the lower area of the right sidebar, deals with modern political censorship.

Not all of us are lucky enough to live in places like Sweden where there is a right to free expression; and the ability to have our own government answer to us, its people.

Historic day for UK?

In a very surprising move, members of the UK House of Commons have voted to change the system by which the Parliament has been structured for ages. However, the vote is not final. It proposes a change in the House of Lords, which is currently filled with unelected peers. Even though it is technically the upper body, like the Queen its power is very limited. The vote was 305 to 267.

The Guardian:

MPs tonight voted in favour of a fully elected House of Lords, in a historic move towards reforming and democratising the upper chamber.

In a series of votes, the Commons also voted for an 80% elected Lords, and rejected all other options.

Although the vote is purely advisory, it gives huge momentum to reformers in all three parties wanting to see an elected second chamber.

Jack Straw, the leader of the Commons, called it a "historic step forward", although he only favoured a 50/50 split between elected and appointed members.

The Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, called it a "truly historic occasion" and a "famous victory for progressive opinion both in parliament and in the country".

The prime minister, Tony Blair, voted for the 50/50 option, Downing Street later confirmed.

It will now be up to the government to decide whether to accommodate the wishes of the Commons in a bill to reform the Lords.

Peers will themselves vote on the same options next week.

MPs faced several votes on various options for the future of the upper chamber, with differing proportions of elected to appointed members on offer.

It’s hard to believe that a nation with such a standing on democratic tradition and reform can still the posses the antiquity of the unelected, monarchal system. It bothers me not that the figurehead and technical head of state of Great Britain is a monarch; what does trouble me, however, is that the House of Lords — at the risk of sounding blunt — still exists in such an undemocratic form. Though the previous Lords’ Act of 2000 did much to bring the Upper House of British Parliament out of the dark ages, and acts before that also accomplished much, what is keeping the British government from demolishing the hereditary and appointed constructs of Lords, not to mention the Church of England’s seats. It may be too hard a move to remove the ceremonial figurehead of the Crown, but the House of Lords’ large uselessness, redundancy, and hereditary peer aspects are unacceptable — would it hurt England’s government or tourist revenues if those parts were removed?

The Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 also played a role in cutting the power of the Lord Chancellor and, thus, the House of Lords as a whole. 2008 will see a new area of British government form: the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom will then be the highest judicial body. What will that do to the Law Lords? Come 2008 the House of Lords will serve only the purpose of giving large political campaign financiers peerage (cash for peerage scandal). Not only will it be undemocratic, it will be redundant, serving only for debate on policy, (thankfully) not action on it. The executive branch of Britain is Her Majesty’s Government, though the queen really has no power. The executive contains the Prime Minister — right now Tony Blair — and his or her cabinet as well as governmental departments similar to that of the United States’ executive branch.

I understand that the elected House of Commons is more powerful, and is ultimately where governmental power lies, and some aspects of the House of Lords, such as the judicial area where judges, Law Lords, are appointed to the House of Lords like in the United States Supreme Court, are fine, but the legislative part with its traditionalist ties is not. One might think of the House of Commons as the real parliament of the UK, and many democratic legislatures are based off of it.

Even in a country such as the US with a non-parliamentary system, the House of Representatives closely resembles the House of Commons — both have representatives elected from local districts and a subset power structure within the legislative body. With the exception of the highest appeals court, the British justice system is independent from the legislative and executive branches; many governments have this same structure as English law, novel in its time, spread.

1689 brought the monarch’s real power to a virtual halt (emphasis on virtual, it took a little while until it became more than words on a sheet of paper, remember the power-limiting Magna Carta in 1215?). Though the Crown is theoretically in charge of all three branches of British governance, that’s obviously not a reality. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, ironically without a constitution, with a parliamentary system of government. I am in favor of a parliamentary system; though I am torn between a presidential system like that of France and the basically just-parliamentary system of the UK.

A problem with democratizing the House of Lords is there is (thankfully) no federal system in the UK. I think having a portion of Lords elected and some appointed because of their specializations, and not because they are part of the Church or their father was a peer, would be the best and most likely route.

technorati tags: government, house+of+commons, house+of+lords, lords, UK, united+kingdom, britain, british+politics, politics, news

Guinea's rule of martial law ended

The African country of Guinea has been under martial law for 11 days now. The parliament has refused to renew the state of emergency.

President Lansana Conte had asked parliament to renew martial law until a general strike is called off.

President Conte imposed the emergency following weeks of violent street protests against his leadership.

Trade unions have welcomed the vote but said they intend to continue their crippling general strike until a new prime minister is found.

The martial law measures had imposed a curfew and gave the military sweeping powers to search and arrest.

It remains unknown — to me at least — whether it is the government and army or the violent protesters who are causing the turmoil. As far as the union-government conflict goes: are the unions too power-hungry or is the government too repressive and not representative enough of the workers' rights? For the most part it sounds as if the president is painfully corrupt. He personally released too friends convicted of embezzling millions in public funds, among other actions that sent normal Guineans over the edge.

Guinea, like many other post-colonial African nations, is attempting a change from an authoritarian-type republic to an open democracy. The question that ultimately remains, for Guinea and others, is how that change will come, and whether it will just send the country backwards into more conflict or repressiveness. Power to the people, or continued instability in the name of stability and the sake of traditional power?

technorati tags: guinea, africa, news, politics

Unbalancing the budget

Bush calls this cutting and balancing the federal budget? By lessening the over-inflated big government spending, I think not. No doubt the Iraq war dominates the budget, but still...

Washington Post:

President Bush sent to Congress a $2.9 trillion budget plan that would dramatically increase military spending -- including an extra $245 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- but squeeze federal health care programs and most domestic agencies to achieve his goal of eliminating the deficit by 2012.

The proposal seeks to make permanent the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, costing the Treasury an additional $374 billion over five years. And it would slice nearly $96 billion over five years from Medicare and Medicaid, the government's health care programs for the poor and the elderly. The proposal would also cut spending at eight federal agencies -- including the education, environment and interior departments -- to below fiscal 2006 levels.

Bush said his budget proposal "shows we can balance the budget in five years without raising taxes." The budget is "realistic, it's achievable and it's got good reforms in it," he said.

Credit: Washington Post

The projected five-year cost of extending Bush's tax cuts comes on top of $1.1 trillion that the cuts have already cost since 2001.

The proposed budget asks Congress for nearly $100 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal 2007 -- on top of $70 billion already provided -- and $145 billion for fiscal 2008, which begins Oct. 1. For fiscal 2009, there is a forecast of $50 billion, with no funding projections beyond that year.

I think it is pretty easy to 'balance the budget' if you cut a chunk of spending out. Too bad that chunk had to be important. It's funny that this is the president calling on Congress to be responsible with the budget. These tax cuts have been worthless, helped people who really don't need the financial help, and are overall a horrible way of gaining political capital when people are so gloomy over the economy anyways. One small group of unemployed people can make more of a poltical difference than a large group of political apathetics (of whom there are far too many in the US).

Decreasing domestic spending and important programs like those in the health care sector and social security is certainly not a wise move on behalf of this militaristic White House. This is a trend that has continued ever since this president took office — and he seems to be proud of it. What I find amazing is that the American people have OKed Bush's large defense spending and lack of attention to domestic issues, even those relating to national security (on the domesitc front)! May I point out that the Democrat's win last November was not only — contrary to many accounts — because of Iraq, but the economy, of all things, was a huge factor in what party people voted for according to exit polls. Going further this shows that not only do the vast majority of politicians vote by party lines, but even the people they represent, the voting population, do. There is also the issue of the US economy not actually being as bad as many seem to think. I have doubts over whether the Dems would have won if people had not voted for their individual candidate, judging them on their merits, and not what party they were of. I guess that's what happens in a two party system more than in a system allowing farer political representation for groups and even ideologies.

For more on President Bush's FY 2008 budget, see the US government's OMB website. Keep in mind everything from Bush's "war on terror" spending to his social security policy to his education cop-out stance.

Update: One hope for government spending transparency lies in the upcoming creation of a website that allows the public to see where their tax dollars are going. It'll be fun to call politicians — whomever they may be — on their rhetoric about the budget and spending. Of course it will also be frustrating to see Bush isn't lying too much about the earmarking Congress does, not that he doesn't prohibit pork barrel spending (he wants the people to believe that he is doing the opposite of what he is actually doing!).

technorati tags: bush, 2008, budget, fiscal+year+2008+budget, OMB, government, united+states, politics, white+house, democrats, spending, economy, news

Bush tries to take hold of federal bureaucracy

New York Times story:

President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.

This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats.

This executive order — another controversial and questionable one — looks like it will create a public relations and communications monopoly for Bush. He will be 'the decider' in what is published by the government, increasing control over an already bulging federal bureaucracy. While it may act as a positive regulator, it has the negative effects of increasing the power and control of an administration that has already shown itself as having poor policies, making bad decisions, and not being representative of the people. Balkinization:

It no accident that these revisions occur following the Republican loss of Congress in 2006; both Congress and the President have varying degrees of influence over the bureaucracy; the Administration, faced with a Congress of the opposite party, is trying to ensure that its influence remains stronger. But it is likely that these changes would have occurred even if the Republicans retained Congress, because these changes are part of a longer trend of Presidents finding ever new ways of asserting control over the federal bureaucracy, and, more to the point, they mesh well with Bush's big government conservatism.

Critics may assume that the use of political appointees as gatekeepers is consistent with the Administration's "war on science." There may be something to that, but here is a better way to look at it. Scientific expertise is a source of authority for the bureaucracy; it justifies its independent judgment. Such independent judgment is precisely what Presidents seek to curb in asserting control over the bureaucracy. There is no one way to do this, of course.
...
Critics often charge that the Bush Administration does not care much about policy debate, only about politics. The Bush Administration's distinctive solution to the conflict between the President and the bureaucracy reflects this larger tendency.

Bush is trying to take hold of the bureaucracy — and use it to his advantage.

In some ways this executive order is comparable to the actually good decision of bringing all the United States intelligence agencies under the control of an 'intelligence czar' — a middle man between the agencies and the White House. This order, however, allows the Bush administration to have control over regulation. It also mixes in [bad] politics where it ought not be mixed: in things like science. As the Times article says, the order highlights Bush's tour de force to the new Democratically-lead Congress; this executive order accompanies statements by the president that his plan for Iraq will be acted on no matter what Congress says or does.

It is all about making sure all areas of the federal government are in agreement, or look as if they are. Whether it's a NASA report on the threat of global warming or a State Department dossier critical of Bush's poor foreign policy, this White House looks like it wants to crush any and all criticism of and dissent to its policies. From their viewpoint, they might as well start with the areas of the government Bush has control over. At the same time, the directive allows Bush to enjoy popularity among groups which benefit from the new rules, namely businesses; donors to Bush.
[NYT:]

Business groups welcomed the executive order, saying it had the potential to reduce what they saw as the burden of federal regulations. This burden is of great concern to many groups, including small businesses, that have given strong political and financial backing to Mr. Bush.

Consumer, labor and environmental groups denounced the executive order, saying it gave too much control to the White House and would hinder agencies’ efforts to protect the public.

technorati tags: bush, politics, george+w+bush, white+house, united+states, federal, government, executive+order

My status; "Is the Swede a Human Being"

I finished Kite Runner and I am working on a blog post series — and eventually ebook — called How to Talk to a Closed-Minded Person (If You Must). I will be taking a short holiday the end of next week (Thanksgiving time, in the US); I can't guarantee I will be blogging then.

Here is an interesting International Herald Tribune article — talking about the book Is the Swede a Human Being? — on how Sweden's socialist-like welfare system (as talked about in this post) may actually make Swedes more individualized than those in a different governmental system (e.g. that of the United States).

Ever since the idea of nations and nationality gained serious popularity in the 18th and 19th centuries, peoples across the world have asked themselves that most basic of questions: Who are we? For Swedes, the answer has, for the last 50 years, included some kind of notion of collectivist semi-socialism, with their country the epitome of a high- tax, strong-state, cradle-to-grave welfare society.

But that self-image is being turned on its head. A recently published and widely discussed book, provocatively titled "Is the Swede a Human Being?" ("Ar svensken manniska?"), contends that Swedes are the opposite of collectivists: they are deeply individualistic.

As the authors point out, American individualism is more a matter of anti-statism than this Swedish striving for intrapersonal independence).

But the book's conclusion is that, in the end, the Swedish project has been surprisingly successful. As for the question posed in the title, the answer is: Yes, the Swede is a human being.

technorati tags: sweden, welfare+system, socialism, individualism, usa, united+states, swede, is+the+swede+a+human+being, ideology, governmental+system, government, personal, kite+runner, blog, blogging, blogger, weblog, in+perspective, clearthought, international+herald+tribune, book

Election reform, another push

We need election reform in the US (hat-tip to AMERICAblog):

Last week's elections had many examples of voting problems -- none more glaring than the serious issues in Florida's 13th Congressional District with 18,000+ not showing up. There is legislation to address the problem and it already has enough support to pass in the House. The Democrats should include this bill (HR 550) in the first 100 hours plan, or at least the 2nd 100 hours. Let the GOP be on the wrong side of clean elections if they don't like it...

I think there needs to be reform not only on the technical areas of an election, but much of the system — from districting to the electoral college to voting machines to campaign finance — need needs to be revamped and, if possible, replaced, or, in the case of the technical issue of voting machines, reverted. I know for a fact that former President Jimmy Carter has called for the abolishment of the electoral college. My view is that the head of state should be directly elected, the lower house also directly elected (ironically the lower house often ends up being more powerful), and the upper house being indirectly elected. Either that system or one similar to that of France: directly elect them all. Since the US Congress is not fashioned in a true upper/lower house fashion (because of its non-royal/monarchical origins), that may be the way to go.

technorati tags: americablog, news, politics, usa, united+states, florida, democrats, house, congress, current+events, election, elections, election+reform