Detailed Abstractions

Late last week, Michael F. Cannon @ Cato released a study entitled, Yes, Mr. President A Free Market Can Fix Health Care in response to a challenge made by President Obama in March 2009:

“If there is a way of getting this done where we’re driving down costs and people are getting health insurance at an affordable rate, and have choice of doctor, have flexibility in terms of their plans, and we could do that entirely through the market, I’d be happy to do it that way.”

This is very much a presumption based question, like “When did you stop beating your wife?”  It holds within an assumption the only plausible answer is one which uses the power of the government to control the market, and by extension individual citizens, with complete skepticism about any power of the free market.

While this seems to be the default assumption of many of my fellow citizens these days, I don’t know that I’ll ever understand how an objective look at market success versus an objective look at governmental success would lead one to believe the government is capable of much more than simple, repetitive tasks.

Having said that and even knowing the Democratic leadership and the White House is likely to ignore the answer, Mr. Cannon presents a pretty convincing case about a market solution (@Cato).  He explains:

how Congress can remove the impediments that currently prevent markets from doing so:

Whole thing here.

If you’re anything like me, you too are getting nauseous about the “public option” in the health care debate.  One day it exists, the next day it will never exist.  The day after, it’s required…

Well, apparently legislators might have a compromise to pass a bill including an “opt-out public option” (@theHill.com):

Democratic senators continued to remain bullish on the chances of creating a government-run public option as part of health reform….

…Schumer echoed the calls of several senators who this week said that Democratic negotiators has garned the 60 votes necessary to invoke closure on the measure. Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) last week put it in even stronger terms, saying that Reid had 60 votes for a “robust” public option.

…According to Schumer, Reid “is leaning strongly” toward including a provision that would allow states to opt out of public health insurance if they want to keep private insurers.

Schumer added that the liberal senators are “able to live with” an opt-out public option under which states could decline to participate in a public program….

So there we are;  in a compromise between moderate and liberal Democrats only, a public option seems likely.  Not only has the White House and Democratic leadership dropped any pretense of working across the isle, but people at large seem unwilling to question the claims of their leaders.

One suc spurious claim, is that this option will result in increasing competition:

…”We need some competition for the insurance companies,” Schumer said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” A government-run insurance plan would “have to play by the same rules as the insurance companies and it would negotiate rates with the providers,” Schumer said. Having a public option would bring competition to states that only have one or two insurance providers, Schumer said….

Proponents everywhere continue to take this stance, even though a public option is logically inconsistent with their stated goal of increase competition.

If Mr. Schumer and others truly wanted to add some competition for insurance companies, adding a new company would not be necessary.  In deed, removing the laws the disallow selling of insurance over state lines doesn’t cost the tax payers one single dime, yet increases competition dramatically, both in the total number of competitors and the speed at which they can begin competing.    Additionally, given the benefits a public option will have over its private competitors, this isn’t really competition.

As Michael Tanner wrote over @ Cato, this support for a public option isn’t likely what it seems (@Cato):

Cognitive dissonance is defined as holding two completely contradictory ideas at the same time.

That seems to be the case with the American public, with a new poll showing rising support for a so-called public option in health care, even as the public continues to oppose greater government control over the health care system….

All in all though, the Democrats hands seem to be very strong hand right now with recent polls showing 57% of the country expressing approval of a public option.   With uninformed voters, an uninformed and uninformative press, and politicians more worried about winning than engaging in honest debates, this compromise might soon become law.

That’s freedom for you – as unfortunate as it seems, whether most people truly understand what the public option entails is irrelevant.  So long as they are willing to approve things they know little about and skip any hard work necessary to critically analyze the problem and various solutions, this new government boondoggle will just continue going forward.

This morning, news outlets everywhere carried recent news out of the Treasury Department.  The Pay Czar, who is certainly living up to the moniker Czar, announced today (WallStreetJournal):

The U.S. pay czar will cut in half the average compensation for 175 employees at firms receiving large sums of government aid, with the vast majority of salaries coming in under $500,000, according to people familiar with the government’s plans.

As expected, the biggest cut will be to salaries, which will drop by 90% on average. Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury Department’s special master for compensation, also intends to demand a host of corporate governance changes at those firms….

Even without bothering with the fact that the government is not in any position to understand what kind of compensation any single employee should have, this is still a radical and arbitrary move that if continued can work to destabilize the economy.

Beyond that, this decision is an anathema to a free society breaking not only the contract rights of ordinary citizens, but also violating all individuals by pushing a blatant ex  post facto punishment.

In a free society, within reason, individuals should be able to contract for any reason they want.  In this case, you have employees who have privately contracted with their employers for certain remuneration based upon their perceived worth to the company.

I say perceived work, because obviously not all hiring decisions work out for the company even if the employee does very well at their job.  Personality conflicts, culture conflicts, and even performance problems are some of the reasons why a new hire might not work out as expected.  Unless specifically stated in the employment contract, even in these cases the employer’s general resource is firing, not taking back pay.

Adding to this is the simple, real, true fact that this is by its very nature an ex post facto punishment for perceived mismanagement.  It has been a legal tradition for centuries, a that passing laws, which retroactively punish people, is against a free in democratic society.

In fact it’s in the US Constitution and universally recognized by a number of treaties including Universal Declaration of Human Rights and American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (from Wiki):

…no person be held guilty of any criminal law that did not exist at the time of offence nor suffer any penalty heavier than what existed at the time of offense. It does however permit application of either domestic or international law….

To be fair, there are some uses for ex post facto laws which have been recognized by our supreme court including allowing for Congress to grant administrative agencies the ability to do just this thing.  So legally speaking, this might be ok, however to anyone who proposes to value freedom, it should be obvious that even allowing administrative agencies this power was a massive failure of all branches of the government.  They are supposed to protect our freedoms, not remove them one at a time.

Either way – it’s intuitive that both contract rights & ex post facto laws are required for a free society.  If the government can interfere at will in private contracts and retroactively punish you for perceived wrongdoings, you have no ability to make relevant decisions for your life as you have no ability to be secure that those decisions will continue to hold true.

This insecurity is what creates instability in most third world countries today.  This lack of basic economic & legal foundation is what continues to plague most of the planet and yet we seem to be moving on the same path.

A week ago or so, a Democratic non-profit held a focus group of GOP members & Independents (here).  Among other interesting things they found, they noted how the GOP members opposed the President because they felt he was attempting to fundamentally move away from our founding principles.

They went further to note how this differed from Independents “underscoring the extreme disconnect of the conservative Republican base voters”.

I will say this move is absolute proof that the GOP members have it right.  If the administration allows this travesty, it is without a doubt a complete move away from not only our founding principles, but away from freedom in general.

Is it just me or does Vice President Joe Biden actually appear to be a non-member of the White House staff?

I could be seeing patterns where they don’t exist, but it seems that each time Mr. Biden opens his mouth, the WH either ignores it completely or attempts to restate it.

Remember  the swine flu thing? (at NPR):

“I would tell members of my family — and I have — that I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now,” Vice President Joe Biden said today as he made the rounds of the morning TV news shows. “It’s not just going into Mexico. If you’re any place in a confined aircraft and one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft.”…

Followed shortly thereafter by WH clarification (LA Times):

…”I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say,” said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs….

Later in the day, Gibbs was pressed about the discrepancy between Biden’s original words and the White House’s.

“I understand what he said. I’m telling you what he meant to say,” Gibbs said…

After proving his immense knowledge of swine flu, he went on to call Russia a crumbling system (@ Washington Times):

…Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was forced Sunday to correct publicly Mr. Biden’s characterization of Russia as a crumbling country, a description that infuriated Russian officials and contradicted President Obama’s efforts to “reset” relations with the world power….

Just like that one crazy uncle, he’s the comedic gift that keeps on giving.  This week, as the White House has pushed hard to show how the stimulus has worked, Mr. Biden started using words like “depression” (@ ABC News):

In recent weeks, Vice President Joe Biden has said that the U.S. economy has been in what he calls “a great recession” and has stressed that it is not a depression, echoing the general consensus of the nation’s economists.

But today the vice president took some liberty with the economic terms to illustrate the continuing struggles of the unemployed in the United States.

For the millions of Americans without a job, “it’s a depression,” Biden said….

In fact, not only does Biden seem to misrepresent the curent administration’s positions, he isn’t even internally consistent (ABC News):

…Just two weeks ago, Biden said that he calls the current state of the economy “the great recession” because it’s “the single worst economic circumstance” the United States has been in, “short of a depression.”

On Oct. 2, Biden said that “fears of a depression have been replaced by forecasts of recovery” and on Sept. 3 Biden said that “instead of talking about the beginning of a depression, we’re talking about the end of a recession eight months after taking office.”…

Now it’s true that some statements made by VPs are seemingly stupid only because the VP is being pushed to say things the President can ‘t.  This is especially true during campaigns, but also during any actual administration.

Either way – I’m truly torn.  On the one hand, I honestly hope Mr. Biden starts getting invited to WH briefings in order to reduce his perceived idiocy on the world stage.  On the other hand – almost every time he talks, I get a good laugh.

In news that shouldn’t be necessary, but probably is, a Democratic group ran a focus group to see if racism was involved in the conservative opposition to President Obama’s policies (@Politico.com):

Racism is not a factor driving conservative opposition to President Barack Obama, according to the results of focus groups conducted by Democracy Corps, a Democratic organization, released on Friday….

It’s amazing they had to study that specifically as if studying the fact thirsty humans like water, but it’s a very good thing it was done and publicly reported.

Of course are this  is a political focus group, they continue:

…Nevertheless, members of the conservative base of the GOP said they believe the president is pursuing a “secret agenda” designed to push the country toward socialism.

“This is a pretty dominant view in the Republican Party,” said Democratic strategist James Carville, who worked on the report.

Rather than attributing their dislike of Obama to race, participants in the focus groups, which were a project of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, said that their disaffection was borne out of a sense that the president was orchestrating an effort to steer the country away from its “founding principles.”…

Notice how they seemingly conflate “socialism” with moving away from “founding principles”, but overall they are stating what most knew – the opposition is honestly and truly focused on ideas.

But it can’t stop there.  It goes on to say things like the GOP wants Mr. Obama to fail, which differs from Independents in that the GOP seems to have an ethical imperative to prevent the move away from the founding principles.   Because of this, the report states:

…“On virtually every point of discussion around President Obama and the major issues facing our country, these two audiences simply saw the world in fundamentally different ways — underscoring the extreme disconnect of the conservative Republican base voters,” the report’s authors wrote….

The idea there is an extreme disconnect is an interesting conclusion, but it’s not presented by any facts in the report. This doesn’t mean this conclusion is false, but from the data they are allowing us to see, it doesn’t prove it true.  In fact, over 1/2 the country is against the current health care reforms being pushed by the White House which seems to contradict their conclusion on at least one topic.

Additionally the comparison they are using between GOP voters and Independents seems week.  Not only do I need to understand more about the the specifics in relationship to answers & questions to properly analyze, but also need to understand what they define as “Independent” as self-described Independent voters aren’t a monolithic organization which can be easily used to make an easy comparison.

Not only that, but my understanding from political insiders, there aren’t near as many independent voters as there are people who tell us they are independent.  Most independents vote like everyone else.  They follow a pretty tight party line vote on their representatives because one party is closer to their beliefs than the other.   They might be more likely to switch, but they are almost as consistent as party members.

& honestly, being consistent shouldn’t be a true issue.  A true “independent” would seem to be a description of a wishy-washy kind of way of dealing with politics in general.  I’ll grant for those truly in this category, it’s much easier to watch the winds blow and point yourself in that appropriate direction than to honestly question the philosophical underpinnings of any administration or policy and stick to your beliefs, but it shouldn’t be held up as some standard of centric thought.

When talking to some of these people one gets the idea that they are simply conflict avoidant.  That some have a strange belief that having a specific philosophy only ends with a close-minded person incapable of compromise.

It’s the opposite though – having a philosophy doesn’t mean you have to be dogmatic in every single thing.  It does mean you have to work for logically consistent beliefs which agree with your values.  It also means, that if new facts are shown to prove one of your beliefs incorrect, you have to honestly rethink that position. & most importantly it means, you hold not only your opposition to those standards, but also your leaders.

With our society today however, it’s seems many of us are more comfortable simply saying “I’m for X and against Y, regardless of inconsistencies” than they are in doing the work required to build a true foundation of beliefs from which to work from.

What they miss, is that they have a philosophy by their very actions.  Observers will view others’ actions & decisions over time and can make true statements as to their basic set of beliefs, consistent or not.

The question therefore isn’t, what philosophy will I have, but will that philosophy be contained within a consistent framework based upon my values and views on morality, or will that philosophy only be based upon prevailing thoughts?

But I digress – there is still great news in the report.  The fact the Democratic leadership is learning what most of us already understood can only help current public debates.

Over time I’ve come to the conclusion that where news entities fail miserably is in their analysis with international politics.  Most pundits, writers, journalists, etc, seem to be able to semi-grasp domestic policies, albeit still in the usual, overly simplistic, fits-to-the-narrative type of way, but lose all rationality with respect to international affairs.

Interestingly enough, I think their failures in both domestic & international analysis stem from the same basic cause, oversimplification.  But it would seem that the degree to which it effects each type of analysis differs due to the lack of incentives private interests have in resolving inaccurate reports on international issues.

Thinking about the counter thought to international policy, domestic policy, we see incentives existing to resolve press inaccuracies.  For instance, if the press pushes inaccurate opinions and analysis which oversimplifies a given topic, a special interest group or two, plus at least one political party, and finally non-profits everywhere will try to enlighten by showing the fallacy of the common narrative.

This is because people rightfully see domestic issues as more directly impacting their lives.  The corollary is that our politicians, our leaders, our special interests, and our non-profits tend to focus where we as a society focus.

The problem that can stem from this seems intuitive – inaccurate press on international issues should be held as highly suspect, but get printed without much serious disagreement.   Since very little counters popular wisdom, this gives the press a power to change opinions and as well as spread myths.

This leads to all kinds of odd conclusions, with large swaths of people all over the planet prone to believe in things without substantial proof nor any degree of rational logic.

For instance believing that western countries are somehow to blame for poor countries with constant internal strife and corrupt governments which inefficiencies and lack of resources.  Or said another way, people all over believe in a zero sum game.  This is true not only in the international sense, but also when dealing with immigration and free trade issues.

Mistaken assumptions such as zero-sum games also lead to beliefs about what one thinks a President can actually do, versus what reality tends to dictate what will actually be done.  This leads to politicians making believable, yet highly impossible claims about given international situations.  This has been done to all recent Presidents, including President Obama when pulling a missile defense shield out of Poland & Czechoslovakia was made to appear as a rash decision amounting to abandoning our allies, when in fact it wasn’t a bad decision when concluding what options were open and what were the greatest threats to our security and security in the region (wrote about it here, though Mr. Obama went and said it had nothing to do with Russia… which was just amazing… wrote about that here).

It leads to pundits everywhere snidely remarking how this action wasn’t “tough” or that action was going to anger others because it was “unilateral”.  With little recourse, journalists  print all sorts of things without taking into any account the actual framework through which any given action action was taken, under what circumstances, with what available options, or really they just leave out anything resembling actual analysis.

Unfortunately, it seems no organization is immune.  A recent piece published in the Economist titled  Even greater expectations discussing the idiotic Nobel Prize Committee decision, is a far cry from the analysis for which the Economist is known.

They rightfully begin with the question the world was asking, “Is it premature to give Barack Obama the Nobel peace prize, less than a year into his presidency?”, but delve quickly into non-international events dressed up to seem as if change had already happened:

…Most broadly, he has sought to engage with opponents, saying that America would “extend a hand, if you unclench your fist”, for example to those who were earlier dismissed as an “axis of evil”. Somewhat to the discomfort of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had bolstered his domestic support by vilifying America as an aggressor, Mr Obama has proposed holding talks about nuclear affairs, removing a precondition that Iran first abandon enrichment of uranium. Mr Obama made withdrawal of American forces from Iraq one of the main pledges of his election campaign and has since overseen a slightly quicker run down of troops than was envisaged by Mr Bush. Towards North Korea, too, Mr Obama has dangled the prospect of bilateral talks and closer engagement.

Regarding Russia Mr Obama has developed a policy of notably warmer ties, dubbed “hitting the reset button”. Relations had become especially frosty towards the end of Mr Bush’s presidency when war broke out between Georgia, an ally of America, and Russia…

Continuing with this as reasoning:

…Yet Mr Obama’s main achievement is a change of tone in foreign policy. A speech given in Egypt in June was an eloquent call for a new understanding between America and Islam. It was designed both to assure Muslims, now thought to number 1.6 billion around the world, that America is not set on a crusade. Similarly it was intended to convey to any Americans (and others) who believe in the notion of a “clash of civilisations” that friendly ties between religions is eminently possible.

Similarly, American policy towards small and repressive regimes, ranging from Myanmar to Cuba, has shifted in mood, if not yet substance, by offering the prospect of engagement if governments demonstrate progress towards democracy…

Which to date has not only done absolutely nothing to help international cooperation, but has made our interests tougher to protect.  In nearly every UN Conference on whatever, for instance the G-20 dealing with the economic crisis, the US asks for a lot of cooperation and everyone goes their separate ways.

In some ways this is to be completely understood.  American solutions for economic issues will differ from that of Germany or the UK.  Even though the same basic problem afflicts most countries during the global recession,  their banking industries are setup with much different regulations, making the solutions for one country not necessarily compare to another country.  The separate policies might even be attempting the exact same “type” of solution, for instance increasing capital requirements, but under different systems any one specific solutions will affect different countries differently.

When it comes to reaching our hand out to those regimes, we see that North Korea, Russia, and Iran have been openly hostile to any US intents.  Iran’s deadline of October the 1st to fess up or face sanctions has come and gone, even while it was precipitated by Iran admitting to an additional enrichment facility.

And all this, including that all important warming of US-Russian relations, Russia has stated publicly the will continue to trade with Iran, meaning they will back them, if the UN, lead by the US impose stricter sanctions against Iran.

Now these situations are fluid to some extent, especially between cautious friends such as US-Russia and most of the controversial moves taken by Iran & North Korea would likely have happened to test any new US President’s resolve.

The issue is that by glossing over the realities we end up believing in myths.  Think about all that talk about “unilateral” action as if it’s a huge negative due to the controversy surrounding the last semi-unilateral decision to be made, without understanding that this is exactly as we should expect it.

No country should do something the US requests if they know in the end the analysis states otherwise.  On the international stage, Europeans, Cechs, Persians, Africians, indeed every person deserves the same representation we deserve – for their representatives to look out for their interests.

Now this can and does lead to all kinds of international policies from all different governments that appear wrong or unseemly when in truth it’s a playing field for which no one actor controls the rules which leads to countries making decisions that seem antithetical to their stated morals or goals.

It also allows one country to look at another as particularly egregious, regardless of their country’s current international policies.   It should be obvious that while beating up on your own politicians on domestic policy makes sense, doing so on the international stage is just beating yourself up.  Even if well-deserved, it’s easier to beat up on other country’s policies than it is to self reflect.

In some ways, national feeling probably affects this as well.  When most countries populations have enough information to dislike a number of other countries, going against that grain can be seen as being unpatriotic.  You certainly wouldn’t see a major political figure like Tony Blair coming to the US to air Britain’s dirty laundry or Putin to do the same in the US against Russia.

It also allows for journalists to paint country X with any brush they choose.  This helps some countries as the press will like some allies, but can obviously hurts or diminish countries for which popular sentiment doesn’t exist.

In the end, what it does is allow for a type of international superiority by enhancing nationalistic feelings.  When only reviewing other countries’ by hand picking policies, self-selecting cultural attributes, last recent controversy, crazy politicians, one can get the opinion of their general greatness over all those “other” people.

Lastly, and in my opinion, the most unfortunate consequence of this misinformation, is our inability to actually analyze international issues.  In between these simplistic news stories real trade-offs on the international stage are being made and constantly simplified.  From a high-level view the policy might appear to be utterly wrong, but in reality  might not be so.  It might simply be the least bad of all the bad options.  & it might really be the policy itself which is wrong.

For real analysis however, historical context, actions taken versus realistic options available, trends, and a number of other data points are required.  Without honest sourced information cost/benefit analysis simply isn’t possible.

President Obama, among other distinguished guests, got together at the UN for a conference on Climate change.

This pressing issue, that Mr. Obama cares so much about – that issue which his party fights for daily was so important, that his words must have been strong and firm on our commitment to the environment, right? (here):

…”I have been in office for just nine months, though some days it seems a lot longer. I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted I believe in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences, and outpaced by our problems. But they are also rooted in the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change.

“I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.”…

Ok – so unilateral action in our interests are different from other unilateral actions other countries make how?  And should we care why?

I know, this again will make me be seen as heartless and I do understand that we have to act in a way that is semi-consistent with international laws, but it’s not our job nor is it our responsibility.  I would like to think that when despots are killing their own citizens, we can act unilaterally if we wish.

Please understand; I’m not for an expansion of foreign entanglements mind you, I’m only saying that when something is a just cause and others are unwilling to do anything, then unilateral action is the moral response.

But, he did go on to say that he wouldn’t apologize for defending the nation’s interests.  So there’s that… but this as well:

…”We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. Speeches alone will not solve our problems. It will take persistent action. So for those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions that we have taken in just nine months.

“On my first day in office, I prohibited — without exception or equivocation — the use of torture by the United States of America. I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example.  “…

Maybe the President is out the loop or something, but GITMO remains open, and without knowing the specific interrogation techniques which are now being allowed, “not allowing torture” is a joke.  I think it’s obvious that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney didn’t believe they were “allowing torture”, but maybe he meant something else – like;

“I started a committee to look into closing GITMO, but I still support the Patriot Act, sending prisoners to other nations who torture, and really, most of my predecessors policies, with the exception of the committee and DOJ investigation.”

But this is politics, so he continues:

…”We have set a clear and focused goal: to work with all members of this body to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies — a network that has killed thousands of people of many faiths and nations, and that plotted to blow up this very building. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we — and many nations here — are helping those governments develop the capacity to take the lead in this effort, while working to advance opportunity and security for their people.”…

Where’s Iraq?  Oh, here:

…”In Iraq, we are responsibly ending a war. We have removed American combat brigades from Iraqi cities, and set a deadline of next August to remove all of our combat brigades from Iraqi territory. And I have made clear that we will help Iraqis transition to full responsibility for their future, and keep our commitment to remove all American troops by the end of 2011.:…

Well, that’s not really true.  We’re pulling back troops and have a date to leave, but the Iraqi government can ask us to stay and we would likely oblige… but even without that, does this match the campaign promise?

Hmmm….:

…On Tuesday, Obama introduced the “Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007,” which calls for a goal of all U.S. troops to leave Iraq by March 31, 2008, in a phased redeployment worked out with military commanders….

It’s almost becoming too easy to poke holes in damn near anything he says, but remember first and foremost that this was a UN Conference on Climate Change.

To be fair, he did get there.  Out of roughly 1000 words spoke, he spent 46 words on climate change.  For an administration that recently published a report described as this:

…The report describes in vivid detail how our urban infrastructure will be placed in peril from intense hurricanes and storm surges, how heat waves, poor air quality, and insects will increase, and how a rapidly intensifying climate change will make it difficult for both society and the natural resources we possess to adapt….

His discussion on the world stage leaves a lot to be desired.

For real climate change discussions and solutions: I highly recommend the Copenhagen Consensus.

I wrote last week about Mr. Obama’s decision to forgo plans to put ballistic missile defense systems in Poland.  At that time, I considered the Republican talking points to be more than excessive.

Sound bites about  appeasing Russia and abandoning our allies was disingenuous considering all the known facts.

As seems typical with this President however, is that each time I agree, he does something so stupid as to defy rational thought:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama sharply dismisses criticism that Russian opposition influenced his decision to scrap a European missile defense system, calling it merely a bonus if the leaders of Russia end up “a little less paranoid” about the U.S.

“My task here was not to negotiate with the Russians,” Obama told CBS’ “Face the Nation” in an interview for broadcast Sunday. “The Russians don’t make determinations about what our defense posture is.”…

This seems extremely hard to believe and if you analyze the situation while taking the President’s words at face value, you’re only left with one looming question, “If not for Russia, then why?”

Mr. Obama’s current position:

…In its place will be a different missile-defense plan relying on a network of sensors and interceptor missiles based at sea, on land and in the air. Obama says that adapts to the most pressing threat from Iran to U.S. troops and allies in Europe, potential attacks by short- and medium-range missiles….

Which, according to the CBO, will be more expensive and make us less safe overall.  From the report:

• Defense of Europe. All of the alternatives CBO considered would provide defense of most of Europe roughly equivalent to the defense provided by MDA’s proposal against most types of ballistic missiles that Iran is thought to have developed or could develop in the future. Because the alternatives CBO considered would locate interceptors closer to Iran than MDA’s planned system, they would generally provide more extensive defense of southeastern Europe than would MDA’s proposal. Moreover, because they would be composed of mobile or transportable components, deploying the alternative systems would not require building permanent facilities—including missile silos—at European sites.

• Extended defense of the United States. A second goal of MDA’s proposed European system is to give the United States an extra layer of defense against potential Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles. CBO’s analysis indicates that by 2012 systems already in place at two bases in the United States would protect more than 99 percent of the U.S. population from this threat. MDA’s proposed European system would extend defensive coverage to the other 1 percent of the U.S. population. It would also provide redundant defense from a third interceptor site for all of the continental United States, giving system operators more flexibility by creating an opportunity to launch a second interceptor from the United States, if necessary. None of the alternatives considered by CBO provide as much additional defense of the United States.

• Costs. For roughly the same cost as MDA’s European system—a total of about $9 billion to $14 billion over 20 years—the United States could deploy either of the ground-based alternatives. The ship-based alternative would cost almost twice as much as MDA’s proposal—a total of about $18 billion to $26 billion over 20 years—largely because CBO assumed that the Navy would need to buy additional ships to operate it.

• Availability. The alternatives that CBO examined might not be available as early as MDA’s proposed European system.

So again Mr. President – if this wasn’t to sooth relations with Russia and the alternative path you’ve chosen is both more expensive and makes us less safe – then why?