The Commonwealth Blog
Thomas C. Hayes discussed "Reinventing Silicon Valley" in his January 30, 1993, speech to The Commonwealth Club of California?.
Walter S. Douglas spoke about "Mass Transportation for the Bay Area?" in his January 28, 1955, address to The Commonwealth Club of California.
By: Mehroz Baig
As someone who’s taken a fair share of science classes, I know that it can be difficult to tie the daily homework assignments of configuring compounds in chemistry or calculating velocity in physics to a broader world perspective. But that’s precisely what science does: it allows us to understand how our world works and use that understanding to shape how we can address global issues.
Science enables us to go to doctors and be treated for diseases, understand changing weather patterns and the influence of human beings on our environment, and send astronauts into space to walk on the moon, among many other things. Science has allowed us to explore our own terrain and that which is millions of miles away. And the most fascinating aspect of scientific discovery is that it keeps going—the potential to find more cures, explore more of our oceans and solar system, and solve the problems that we face today is never ending.
But it takes more than scientific ability to tackle the world’s most pressing concerns: it takes expertise and resources. That’s where Dr. Ed Lu comes into the picture. Lu, a former NASA astronaut who is the CEO and co-founder of the B612 Foundation, is on a mission to literally save the world. Dr. Lu spoke at the Commonwealth Club about his project to build an infrared telescope that can go out into space, detect asteroids and track them. His reason for taking on this project was because no one else was doing it. “Our current strategy for dealing with asteroid impacts is luck,” he said. “I think that’s unacceptable.”
Dr. Lu noted that as of today, we have the capability to stop asteroids from hitting the Earth, but without the technology in place to track and detect them as they get closer, we can’t do anything to stop them. He explained that once we know the location and speed of an asteroid, it’s fairly simple to ensure that it won’t hit: if we have about a decade’s notice of an impact between an asteroid and our planet, all we have to do is shift the asteroid’s trajectory by nudging it, by one millimeter per second, or as Dr. Lu put it, “the speed that an ant walks.”
This isn’t new territory. NASA’s Deep Impact mission in 2005 included hitting a comet. Though the objective for that mission was to gather more information about comets, the same technology can be applied to reorient asteroids. The only problem is that we have to know where they are. According to Dr. Lu, currently less than one percent of the asteroids in space are being tracked. That’s the problem he’s hoping to solve. Once information on asteroid location and speed is available, more can be done to prepare for their impending arrival. And all this happens over many years: Dr. Lu mentioned that if an asteroid were coming toward the Earth, we could have as much as a 10-year notice before its potential impact. That’s enough time to put together a mission to divert its path.
Dr. Lu is adamant that asteroid impacts are “the only global natural disaster that we know how to prevent.” And they’re going to continue happening. Most recently, as the world was celebrating entering a new year, a small asteroid named 2014 AA, was spotted close to the Earth and is thought to have made impact over the Atlantic Ocean. Dr. Lu noted in his talk that most of the Earth’s surface consists of oceans, so if an asteroid comes into the Earth’s atmosphere, it’s more likely that it will hit water. But can we really afford to take that risk? Dr. Lu doesn’t think so. His belief is, “Let’s not go the way of the dinosaurs because we didn’t bother looking.”
From the archives: Gail Cleland addressed The Commonwealth Club of California? regarding "Struggle for Democracy in Korea: U.S.A. v. U.S.S.R." on January 23, 1948. While in the U.S. Army, Cleland served as senior chaplain for "Southern Korea," as it was then known. He spoke to many groups about the comparative situations in the Soviet-occupied Northern Korea and the U.S.-occupied southern portion of the country.
By: Mehroz Baig
“It’s hard to imagine fallible human beings creating machines that are infallible,” Eric Schlosser said in reference to nuclear weapons. Schlosser is an investigative journalist and author of Fast Food Nation and, most recently, Command and Control, which examines nuclear risk. “Nuclear weapons are highly complicated machines and like all machines, they can go wrong,” he added.
Schlosser’s book documents some of the mishaps that have taken place in our history of owning and expanding our nuclear arsenal. However, as Schlosser admits and Walter Russell Mead in a review of his book in The New York Times points out, there hasn’t been a nation that has yet to face the consequences of an accidental nuclear disaster. Schlosser warned that the likelihood of an accident happening increases every day that there isn’t an accident. “I think we were lucky [that we haven’t had an accident], and there’s no guarantee that that luck will last,” he said.
Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund and author of Nuclear Nightmares: Securing the World Before It’s Too Late, joined Schlosser at the Commonwealth Club for a discussion recently on nuclear safety. He noted another argument for reducing our nuclear arsenal: the sheer cost of maintaining and updating nuclear weapons. A report by the Ploughshares Fund estimates that the United States will spend anywhere between $620 and $661 billion dollars on nuclear weapons in the next 10 years. And though it’s understandable that creating and maintaining nuclear weapons is costly, there is some questioning about where that money is going.
An article in Time magazine reported that in October 2013, the Pentagon requested approximately $10 billion in funding to update the country’s B61 bombs. However, we had already developed a more advanced version of the B61: the B83. The problem? The B83 is much too destructive. The article reported, “The B83, truth be told, is a city-destroyer. First detonated in 1984, its yield (adjustable, but about a megaton) is 75 times that of the ‘Little Boy’ that destroyed Hiroshima.” That means that it’s not very good at being a deterrent, one of the reasons why we keep nuclear weapons. The reason is that more than likely, our government wouldn’t use such a strong weapon against an enemy due to the much higher number of casualties and destruction it would cause because, it could be against international law. If the United States faced an attack and retaliated by obliterating a city, it would be in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the principle of proportionality, which requires attacks in armed conflict to take into account the destruction they would cause compared to the military advantage they yield.
Kennette Benedict, executive director and publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, makes another argument for reducing our nuclear arsenal: the increased ability to use diverted funds to strengthen the U.S. economy. In an article for the Bulletin, she notes, “The diversion of investment into military production leaves a society with fewer resources for housing, agriculture, and education,” and goes on to add, “public sector investment, as well as production in the civilian economy, are engines of long-term growth.” The money that would be saved from nuclear spending could indeed be put to good use elsewhere, to improve the myriad issues the United States is currently facing, including education, unemployment, and weakening infrastructure.
Complete denuclearization might be unrealistic, especially with other nations acquiring or working toward acquiring nuclear weapons. However, the argument that Schlosser, Cirincione, and Benedict make is that the thousands of nuclear weapons we currently possess are an unnecessary source of danger, not only physically but also economically. Cirincione noted that in order to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent, the United States only needs about 500 of them, not the estimated 7,700 we currently have. “Several hundred seems to be what many military and national security experts think will serve our deterrence needs,” he said during his discussion at the Commonwealth Club.
Mead agrees, noting in his review, “[Schlosser’s] core recommendation that the United States explore the possibilities of operating a minimal deterrent, the smallest number of nuclear weapons needed to prevent adversaries from contemplating a nuclear attack on us, may be the most hopeful direction in which we can look.” The United States is slowly moving in that direction, having signed the New START treaty with Russia, which aims to reduce the nuclear arsenals of both nations. The treaty’s duration is 10 years and reduces the number of weapons to 1,550. And though the president is working toward further reducing our nuclear arsenal along with that of Russia’s, we’ll have to wait to see how long it takes, and hope that the luck that’s kept a nuclear accident from happening up until now comes along for the ride.
We may not see forced labor explicitly in our day-to-day lives, but that illusion hides the reality that an estimated 20.9 million people are victims of forced labor globally, according to data from the International Labor Organization (ILO). Of the 20.9 million people exploited globally, 18.7 million, or 90 percent, “are exploited in the private economy, by individuals or enterprises,” the ILO reports. It is in this exploitation where we can be most culpable.
Supply chains for products are hard to keep track of, and if companies aren’t investing time, money, and energy in ensuring a clean supply chain, our consumerism continues to support labor exploitation. California’s Transparency in Supply Chains Act, passed in 2010, is a first-of-its-kind legislation that requires “retail sellers and manufacturers doing business in California and having $100 million or more in annual worldwide gross receipts [to] inform their consumers about what the company is doing to end human trafficking and slavery within their supply chains.” Know the Chain, a non-profit organization, aims to be “a resource to promote greater transparency and dialogue around issues of slavery in supply chains.” As such, they provide information on California’s law and a list of companies that have and have not posted disclosure statements in requirement of that law.
While companies are being asked to do their share, we can do ours by examining what we use and how much that can contribute to forced labor practices. An Oakland-based non-profit, Slavery Footprint, allows users to take a short quiz about their lifestyle (what they wear, eat, etc.) and calculates based on that information, how many slaves work for that individual. You can take the quiz online or use their mobile app. As The Huffington Post points out, the calculation may be a little skewed, but it does shed light on which of our habits contribute the most to slavery around the world.
Our ability to be aware and do something is a fact that Martina Vandenberg wants us to remember. Vandenberg, founder and president of The Human Trafficking Pro Bono Legal Center in Washington DC, spoke at The Commonwealth Club about facts and myths of human trafficking. She pointed out that slavery exists all around us. There have been recent cases of modern-day slavery, from women held in domestic servitude by diplomats just miles from the White House, to three women having been held for 30 years in Britain, including one woman who was believed to have been born in captivity.
That’s not all. People are held in slavery in almost every country in the world, and children are not immune. In many cases, due to a lack of financial resources and available credit, families may borrow money from other individuals with the intent of paying it back through labor. That’s how the conversation starts. However, once the person is indebted, a high interest rate ensures that the debt will never be paid back, and the person is bound to continue working as a slave indefinitely. That’s the story that Lisa Kristine encountered on her journey to India, Nepal and Ghana, for a project with Free the Slaves, an organization based out of Los Angeles. Kristine is a humanitarian photographer who captured portraits of men, women, and children enslaved in labor camps and sex trafficking in the countries she visited. She shared her work at The Commonwealth Club in November. She talked about people who work in brick kilns in India, often bringing their children with them, and the miners in Ghana who are forced to work in shafts hundreds of feet deep for up to three days at a time, or the men and women who pan for gold in mercury-tainted waters, often leading to disease and physical ailments.
Her portraits and stories bring a human face to slavery and remind us of its prevalence. According to the Global Slavery Index from the Walk Free Foundation, Mauritania has the highest prevalence of slavery today, with 140,000 – 160,000 enslaved individuals in a country of 3.8 million. In absolute numbers, India tops the list, with estimates ranging from 13.3 to 14.7 million enslaved people. The United States is estimated to have anywhere between 57,000 and 63,000 people in slavery. The report points out that factors that highly correlate with slavery are corruption, human development (such as levels of income and the availability of education and health care), GDP, and access to financial services. These factors are not surprising but they are also not the sole cause of slavery, because even the most developed of nations have some prevalence of slavery. For this reason, both Vandenberg and Kristine stress the importance of awareness among individuals—of what slavery is in today’s world, how it happens, and actions that we can take to reduce it, if not eliminate it. As much as eradicating slavery rests with institutions—governments that enforce their laws, corporations that check their supply chains—part of the onus lies on us. Our demand for products and services drives the supply and if we demand cleaner supply chains, fair and humane treatment of individuals, and understand that the cost may be a few extra dollars compared to a life lived in servitude, we may make a difference.
By: Mehroz Baig
“Perhaps the most important or notable finding of this panel is that it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture.” That’s the finding after a two-year investigation by a high-level panel that examined detainee treatment by the United States during the war on terror, in a report published earlier this year by The Constitution Project’s Task Force on Detainee Treatment. The report states that there was systematic use of torture and in many cases, it did not result in any useful information. The report also identifies the maneuvering that allowed torture to happen — the legalities of war, as noted in the Geneva Conventions, have already been outlined; definitions of conduct that is allowed and conduct that is illegal in international law have been hammered out. What has happened over the past 13 years, however, is the fudging of boundaries and the redefining of terms that allowed government officials to distinguish between abuse and torture, drawing a very fine line between what constitutes legal torture and what doesn’t. The report concludes that torture took place widely, that it was in fact illegal, and that it violated our ethical duties.
In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, there was uncertainty about the best way to proceed and the repercussions of any action by the U.S. on policy, military, and legal fronts. This was also new terrain — there wasn’t a clear, territorial enemy, but rather one classified as a non-state actor, and not much precedence for an attack against the United States on U.S. soil. The new circumstances allowed officials to create a plan of action on policy, tactics, and the U.S. approach toward its enemy. Rules were created, bent, and broken and in some cases, to avoid a broken rule, a new classification was invented to circumvent current law.
The report clearly states,
“The most important element may have been to declare that the Geneva Conventions, a venerable instrument for ensuring humane treatment in time of war, did not apply to Al-Qaeda and Taliban captives in Afghanistan or Guantánamo. The administration never specified what rules would apply instead.”
Other actions, such as classifying detainees as “enemy combatants,” allowed for military proceedings to overtake civilian proceedings. “By defining Guantanamo detainees as enemy combatants, the Bush administration cleared the way for some to be tried in newly created offshore military commissions rather than in civilian courts,” reported The Wall Street Journal. The creation of the military commissions was found to be unconstitutional in 2006 but military commissions were reinstated when Congress passed the Military Commissions Act. This was followed by a ruling giving the military commissions power to choose if each detainee classified as an “unlawful enemy combatant.” If so, he was not accorded any rights that a prisoner of war, under the Geneva Conventions, would receive. The Obama administration dropped the term “enemy combatant” in 2009, in a symbolic gesture to distance itself from the Bush administration — the Department of Justice under President Obama continued to argue for indefinite detention of Guantánamo inmates.
The report goes on to address the complicity of medical professionals in creating interrogation techniques that amounted to torture and not reporting any abuse. “After September 11, 2001, military psychologists and physicians were instructed that they were relieved of the obligation to comply with nonmilitary ethical principles, and in some cases their military roles were redefined as non-health-professional combatants.” The report notes that established professional conduct for medical professionals includes refraining from abusive conduct, participating in interrogations, or providing medical information to interrogators. Yet the policy and reclassification of doctors and psychologists as “non-health-professional combatants” allowed them to circumvent their ethical duties on paper through a very conservative adherence to the letter of the ethical standards.
Policy changes also took place elsewhere within the U.S. apparatus against terrorism. As the report points out, changes were made in the Army Field Manual that allowed previously negated interrogation techniques:
“For over 50 years, the Army Field Manual has been an invaluable document guiding American soldiers away from abusing prisoners, with its clear prohibitions on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture. However, the 2006 version deleted language that explicitly prohibited the use of sleep deprivation and stress positions, and its Appendix M authorizes an interrogation technique called “separation,” which could inflict significant physical and mental anguish on a detainee.”
The problem with these changes is that they did not happen in isolated incidents but in a cohesive manner that shields the government from accountability. There is evidence that torture occurred and yet when a victim of torture seeks justice, the judiciary cannot help him. The report is explicit in noting that the Convention Against Torture, to which the U.S. is a party, requires that nations have a legal system that allows victims of torture redress. However, “the United States has not complied with this requirement,” the report’s authors note, adding, “in large part because of the government’s repeated, successful invocation of the state-secrets privilege in lawsuits brought by torture victims.” The argument has been that the government cannot defend itself in such cases without revealing state secrets pertaining to national security, so the cases are dismissed.
“It’s a travesty that we’ve applied classification to [torture],” said Ambassador Thomas Pickering, one of the members of The Constitution Project’s Task Force, at a Commonwealth Club program in October. He added that the minimum requirement we face as a nation is to ensure that torture doesn’t happen again. He counts torture as “a serious and disturbing problem in our national history.”
However, it’s a slow move away from some of the terrible and illegal actions the U.S. government took, and continues to take, in its quest to hunt down terrorists. Even today, Guantánamo — a prison that has housed 779 suspected terrorists, including 15 children, one as young as 13 years old — remains open. Ambassador Pickering said, “I hope Guantánamo is closed shortly,” but added, “I don’t think it will happen.”
In her article, “The Tortured Body, the Photograph, and the U.S. War on Terror,” Julie Gerk Hernandez, a professor at the University of Cincinnati examined the violence that took place at Abu Ghraib, arguing that the torture that took place in Afghanistan is part of a “historical continuum of racialized violence.” She compared the photographs from Abu Ghraib to photos of lynchings in the post-Civil War years. “In both cases,” she says, “a group of people records — as a source of enjoyment, pride, and righteousness — another person’s experience of mind-numbing pain or the aftermath of such an experience (death), which individuals of the group inflict.” She further goes on to say in reference to one of the photos from Abu Ghraib, “What this picture suggests is that the sexual violence at Abu Ghraib stems from the same racialized hatred and fear that made lynching possible.”
If Hernandez is correct, the torture, ethical, and moral abuses are not simply part of an unprecedented situational context. And as such, they could easily happen again, given the right combination of zealousness, anger, hatred, and a defined “other” as the enemy. We’re not doing ourselves any favors if we don’t address this issue head-on and try to amend some of the mistakes we’ve made. Much of that involves transparency about what happened and accountability for it. Accountability comes in many forms, including allowing justice for victims of torture through recognition of what they’ve endured and compensation. But if we don’t take an introspective look at the policies and actions we’ve taken in the name of national security, actions that grossly violate our fundamental values, then we are leaving the door open for this to happen again. Public outrage on some of these issues has been short-lived, and we may face the same situation or worse yet again, if we decide not to look back.
By: Mehroz Baig
Even though 87 percent of all U.S. counties lack an abortion provider according to 2008 data, actions to restrict the access of abortion services continue steadily. In 2013 so far, state legislatures have introduced 321 anti-choice measures and enacted 46 of them, according to internal research by NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation. NARAL defines anti-choice broadly, including any measure that hinders a woman’s ability to exercise her reproductive rights.
In a panel discussion at The Commonwealth Club of California that addressed reproductive rights, Lisa Lindelef, a pro-choice activist and board member of NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, noted that the abortion conversation has moved to the state level. Lindelef added that the landmark Roe v. Wade decision from 1973 that seemed to enshrine a woman’s right to choose isn’t being attacked directly. Instead, the restrictions being enacted are attacking the infrastructure around access to legal abortion services. “What they are doing is chipping away incrementally around it,” she said. She noted that adding constraints like decreasing how early a woman can have a legal abortion, requiring ultrasounds, waiting periods, and counseling before gaining access to abortion services are all ways of undermining the right that Roe v. Wade outlined, without directly attacking that decision.
Last week, a federal judge ruled that the Texas law aimed at abortion clinics is unconstitutional. This is the same law that Texas Democratic state legislator Wendy Davis, who is now running for governor, filibustered against in June. The Texas attorney general filed an emergency appeal, and a federal appeals court reinstated most of the restrictions until the case is heard in January 2014.
Accessing abortion services has become restricted in some areas of the country. This interactive map from the The Daily Beast details how accessible clinics are and the restrictions imposed on women seeking abortions by geography.
Lindelef was joined by two other panelists: Fran Moreland Johns, author of Perilous Times: An Inside Look at Abortion Before – And After – Roe v. Wade, and Scotty McLennan, dean for religious life at Stanford University. Shanelle Matthews, communications strategist for ACLU Northern California, moderated the panel.
Fran Johns agreed with Lindelef about the possibility that current legislation could put Roe v. Wade in jeopardy. She added, “I would like never to see abortion happen again. But that’s not going to happen.” Johns’ book examines back-alley abortions before Roe v. Wade and looks at the difficulty women face in accessing abortion services today. “What we want is for abortion to be safe, legal, and rare,” added Lindelef.
Some areas of the country have been fairly progressive in their approach to ensuring that women have access to all reproductive services, including contraception and abortion. San Francisco even went a step further in 2011 by implementing an ordinance against crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), to prevent false advertising. CPCs often advertise themselves as counseling centers that provide women with information on pregnancy and abortion services. However, according to pro-choice advocates, they tend to have an anti-abortion stance and generally counsel women against accessing abortion services.
While similar laws in New York and Baltimore were struck down, San Francisco’s ordinance focused on false advertising and has been upheld. That has made San Francisco’s ordinance the first successful one of its kind in the nation. The ordinance was enacted to ensure that CPCs advertise accurate information about the services they provide, making it a consumer protection issue, argued the authors of the ordinance, Supervisor Malia Cohen and City Attorney Dennis Herrera.
Geography plays a role in the restrictions that are enacted. The Daily Beast’s analysis noted, “Often, the states with the fewest clinics also have more restrictions.” In those cases, not only are women physically unable to access abortion, but there are added restrictions — such as wait times and requirements of ultrasounds or in-person counseling — that make it more burdensome for them to do so. That is all in addition to the social pressures that accompany the issue. “I’ve spoken with women, especially very young women, who felt so intimidated or frightened by the protestors that they were worried about, or felt they could not do it,” said Fran Johns in an email. She’s referring to protests held by activists outside abortion clinics to dissuade women from getting abortions, a tactic now being exported outside the U.S.
Johns added, “It’s not so much an urban/rural issue as a state-by-state issue. But the saddest stories I heard were from women in rural or small-town areas who did not have the money, time, and resources to access a safe abortion.” Again, state legislation plays a big role in allowing women access to safe services. The New York Times reported in September that in the last three years, 54 clinics in 27 states have closed. And an interactive map from The Washington Post shows which states have introduced and enacted restrictions on abortions this year. According to this article, restrictive abortion legislation has been introduced in 32 states and enacted in nine states.
Decisions on these laws differ from state to state: though a judge in Ohio upheld that state’s law requiring doctors to follow FDA protocol in medical abortions, a similar regulation was deemed unconstitutional in Oklahoma and may be heard in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. As the article notes, “Supporters of the law say such procedures protect women. But the Oklahoma court concluded that it effectively bans medication abortions, which are used early in pregnancies, because doctors over the past decade have found the FDA protocol to be excessive or outdated.”
The legislative wrangling at the state level leaves women behind who need abortion for any number of reasons. Cases such as those of the Davises from Oklahoma, profiled in an MSNBC report, will continue. According to the article,
Earlier that month, at home in Oklahoma City, the Davises were told that the boy she was carrying had a severe brain malformation known as holoprosencephaly. It is rare, though possible, for such a fetus to survive to birth, but doctors told them that he would not reach his first birthday. “He would never walk, lift his head,” Jessica, 23, recalled in an interview…The lack of options sent them to Dallas, where protesters outside the clinic tried to hand Jessica a pair of baby socks. She told them to go to hell. She left the clinic with a death certificate, which she and Eric had asked for, and a footprint of the son they named Mark Gordon Scott Davis.
The funeral homes Jessica called for a “proper burial” laughed at her, or hung up “because I mentioned the word ‘termination,’” she said. The funeral homes told her she had an abortion. “I don’t look at it like that,” Jessica said. “I’m showing my son mercy.’
For those who cannot afford to go elsewhere for the procedure, the outcomes are less well known. One study conducted recently of women who wanted an abortion but were turned away shows increased negative consequences in their health and economic stability. However, this area can use more research, not only on the consequences of being turned away from an abortion for women, but also for the children who are subsequently born.
“It’s never an easy decision,” said Fran Johns, who herself had to obtain a secret and illegal abortion after being assaulted at her job, before Roe v. Wade made abortions legal.
And Lindelef cautioned, “Making this illegal is not going to make it go away. It will probably make it more frequent and less safe.”
By: Mehroz Baig
On Wednesday evening, the night of the vote in the Senate and the House that ended the government shutdown, The Commonwealth Club convened a town hall meeting to look at the past few weeks and answer questions about what the government shutdown did, what the votes in the House and Senate mean and what we can expect moving ahead. The panelists included Professor Alan Auerbach, a law professor at UC Berkeley and Dr. Tammy Frisby, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Below are some questions that our panelists addressed during the town hall.
How did we get here? What caused this rift in Congress?
Frisby: The debt ceiling conversation has never been an easy one. During most debt ceiling increases, the majority party takes a hit for approving an increase because the popular position is to not increase the ceiling. Our current House and Senate present a new configuration: we have a Democratic president, a Democratic majority Senate and a Republican majority House, so any possibility of the Senate helping the House through the debt ceiling discussion was no longer present. Additionally, with a Republican president, it may have been easier to persuade Republicans to approve the increase, but that wasn’t the case here either. In this case, Republicans were even less incentivized to increase the debt ceiling. Ms. Frisby further noted, “We got to this point because Congress – both parties – have not done their job in passing a budget.”
Does the debt ceiling matter?
Auerbach: “The debt ceiling makes no sense.” The government decides how much it will spend and what it will bring in through taxes. Both of these determine how much debt accumulates. So all the government has to do is pass spending and tax bills to keep the debt in check.
What are some of the consequences of the government shutdown?
Auerbach: We don’t have as secure of a position as we did before the shutdown, in terms of how the rest of the world sees us. We didn’t default this time but getting close to a default isn’t good either. Internally, our economy will slow down further. “An economy, which hasn’t been growing strongly since the recession, will grow even more slowly.” Auerbach went on to say that shutting down the government will cost us money. He noted that the furloughed workers who are returning to work will be paid retroactively, so they’re being paid for work they didn’t do; additionally, they have to manage all the backlog from the days when they couldn’t work. So not only did we have a loss in time, but also in productivity, which is an added cost.
What did the deal accomplish?
Frisby: “What the deal does not include are any substantial changes to the Affordable Care Act.” And that’s the reason why this started in the first place. The Republicans managed to stay at sequestered funding until Jan. 15, 2014. And “they added some legislative language that says that we need to have stricter income verification requirements for people receiving subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.”
Auerbach: There are long-term budget problems that we face that this discussion or the shutdown didn’t address. Our large underlying problem is that our taxes can’t pay for the benefits we’ve promised.
What happens next?
Frisby: The government is now reopened and they have funding until Jan. 15, 2014. The debt ceiling has been raised until February 7, 2014. So the debt ceiling discussion will happen again next year, when 2014 primaries will be in swing. This will become an election issue and voters will get to decide if they tolerate this. In the next election cycle, we’ll also see a real test for moderate, business-oriented Republicans: can they serve as a counterweight to the Tea Party/far-right GOP? We will also need to see how John Boehner feels after all this: if he feels burned by the Tea Party and the far-right GOP, he may be more inclined to produce more bipartisan results.