Why Can't Applebaum Simply Admit That She Favors A Full-Scale Invasion of Syria

I have heard an argument floated in relation to Syria that I find absurd: that we need to arm rebel factions to the point that they can imminently topple the Assad regime, and once that happens all of the parties can be brought to the bargaining table where they'll hammer out a lasting peace agreement. First, it's difficult to imagine the argument being made in a context in which the speaker hoped to preserve the government that is under threat. History tells us that defenders of the government will take the opposite position - that peace talks won't be possible until the traitors and terrorists lay down their arms. Second, that's not a context in which either side is likely to want to run to the bargaining table. The government in danger of being toppled has too much to lose, and the "rebel factions" that are poised to depose the government have little incentive to lay down their arms and accept a deal that keeps the threatened regime in place. Third, in a case like Syria's, there are many armed factions. You would not only have to convince every significant faction to join and maintain a ceasefire, you would have to broker a peace deal that they all found satisfactory, and that they all trusted to the point that they don't turn their guns on each other or insist upon carving the nation into territories under the control of various warlords.

Nonetheless, I was not surprised to see Ann Applebaum implicate that argument,

Back in June, the Group of Eight called for “urgent” peace talks. But there are no negotiations to speak of, in part because the Syrian rebels continue to hang on for Western military support that always seems to be just around the corner but never quite materializes.

The rebels are too weak, and too much in danger of losing, to engage in peace talks? Then why, dare I ask, does Applebaum suppose that turning the tables on the government will make Assad's regime rush to the negotiating table?

Applebaum's piece is snarky, first at Clinton for not acting quickly enough to intervene in Bosnia, and next at President Obama for not acting more quickly in Syria. Applebaum suggests that Presidents should not engage in rhetoric about foreign leaders needing to change their ways or resign unless they're willing to promptly back up those words with military force.

Two decades ago, five years ago and today, the source of the problem is the same: The president of the United States wishes to represent things — justice, fairness, international norms — that he cannot, or will not, or doesn’t know how to defend in practice. In the future, it would be far more just, and far less cruel, for the president, and the rest of us, simply to say nothing at all.

I am not convinced by Applebaum's suggestion that the world, upon hearing the President call for a foreign leader to step down, understands that to be a threat of invasion if the leader chooses to remain in power. I think her implication that a government should not make a statement on an undesirable foreign situation unless it is either prepared to take military action or immediately qualifies its comments, but we're not going to do anything about it, is just plain wrong. We can't criticize human rights in China unless we're prepared to invade? We can't press for the release of dissidents in Burma and call for free elections unless we're prepared to invade? Come on.

Applebaum argues that the President has threatened force in Syria, then backed away from the threat, then again threatened force.

For example, in August 2011 Obama declared: “For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.” To Syrians fighting on the ground, that may have sounded like a promise that U.S. military support, or at least substantial military aid, was imminent.

May have? It also may have sounded like the President was saying that it was time for President Assad to step aside, and it may well be that they were smart enough to figure out that there was no actual or implied threat of imminent military action.

This June, the White House authorized the CIA to begin arming some of the Syrian rebels. This sounded even more like a promise, but as of last week that aid also had yet to arrive.

Were Applebaum more honest, she would share the reasons for that delay as stated in her own source, the anything-but Obama Administration-friendly Wall Street Journal,

U.S. officials attribute the delay in providing small arms and munitions from the CIA weapons program to the difficulty of establishing secure delivery "pipelines" to prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands, in particular Jihadi militants also battling the Assad regime.

By virtue of her marriage, Applebaum has very close ties to the international diplomatic community, and certainly has many people in her virtual Rolodex from whom she could easily get a reality check on the Administration's concerns. If she believes that the officials are incorrect, she could present a cogent argument to that effect. The fact that Applebaum instead chooses to misrepresent the reason for the delay suggests that she's not trying to be balanced, or even accurate.

The president famously declared a year ago that the use of chemical weapons constituted a “red line” in Syria. But now that the red line has been crossed, the president has decided that he needs congressional support before he can respond. This is perfectly legitimate — but shouldn’t it have been obtained earlier, at the time the promise was made? Certainly the Syrian regime interpreted the president’s sudden and unexpected desire for congressional support as a “historic American retreat.” Its media gloated accordingly.

Okay... so it's "perfectly legitimate" for the President to go through Congress before launching a military action, but it also is honest for Syria's state-controlled media to characterize that legitimate action as a retreat? Which does Applebaum want - for the President to follow statutory law and the text of the Constitution, or to cast those trivialities aside to prevent a propaganda sheet in Syria from misrepresenting what it means to follow democratic process?

As for the notion that the President could have sought Congressional pre-approval for military action in the event of Syria's use of chemical weapons, that's true of pretty much anything the President says on foreign policy - but you can't take everything to Congress. Why does Applebaum believe Congress would have gone along with such a request, that Boehner and the Tea Party would be ready to give the President the discretion to initiate a military action based upon something that few at the time believed was likely to happen? Does she believe that the Republicans would have been more cooperative a year ago, when the use of chemical weapons was considered unlikely, than they are today when their use has been documented? If so, I would love to hear her explanation.

If you wanted to do so, you could read something sinister into these tactics. Perhaps, some unnamed officials suggested to the Wall Street Journal this week, these delays and sudden changes are intentional: Perhaps the administration’s point is to “tilt” the fighting away from Assad but to prevent an outright rebel victory — in other words, to prolong the war.

Unnamed officials? So we're talking about what... leaks within the White House, suggesting that the President is only following what Applebaum deems to be a legitimate course of action because he hopes to perpetuate the civil war? Let's turn back to the WSJ:

Many rebel commanders say the aim of U.S. policy in Syria appears to be a prolonged stalemate that would buy the U.S. and its allies more time to empower moderates and choose whom to support.

"The game is clear to all," said Qassem Saededdine, a spokesman for the U.S.-backed Free Syrian Army's Supreme Military Council. "When it comes to the interests of superpowers…the average Syrian comes last."

Some congressional officials said they were concerned the administration was edging closer to an approach privately advocated by Israel. Israeli officials have told their American counterparts they would be happy to see its enemies Iran, the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah and al Qaeda militants fight until they are weakened, giving moderate rebel forces a chance to play a bigger role in Syria's future.

So while Syrian rebels are depicted as being frustrated that the White House is not simply arming everybody, but appears to be considering arming only those groups whose goals are not hostile to U.S. interests, something that is consistent with the facts, these unnamed "congressional officials" are imagining a secret conspiracy between the Obama Administration and Israel. One can hardly imagine why they don't want to attach their names to the accusation....

I'm curious, also, as to what it means to be a "congressional official". I know what a Member of Congress is. Their staff members aren't officials. I can see why Applebaum chose to say only "officials", but knowing the context I don't find the omission to be particularly honest.

If so, this administration is even more ruthlessly cynical than its critics have maintained, and Syrian conspiracy theorists are right on the mark.

Except the Syrian statement wasn't a conspiracy theory. The Syrian statement was sensible and consistent with the Obama Administration's statements on the provision of military aid - it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that the Obama Administration hopes to "empower moderates and choose whom to support". It was the unnamed congressional "officials" who were pushing the conspiracy theory and Applebaum herself who is choosing to treat it as a serious possibility.

But whether that is true hardly matters because the effect is the same:...

No, I think the truth does matter. First, I think it matters that columnists like Applebaum try to present the truth, rather than misrepresenting their sources and giving air to conspiracy theories before concluding that truth is irrelevant. Second, I think it does matter if the President's delay results from his taking care to avoid potentially turning Syria over to a government not far removed from the Taliban. To somebody who favors such an outcome that may constitute putting the interests of the average Syrian last, but for those who want Syria to have a more enlightened future the truth lies in the opposite direction.

As happened in Bosnia, American pontification, prevarication and postponement in Syria have preempted the policies of others and delayed negotiations. The civil war continues; with every month the devastation increases, the refugees multiply and the levels of political extremism rise. Back in June, the Group of Eight called for “urgent” peace talks.

Such alliteration. It's always fun when a columnist gets in touch with her inner Safire. What's missing is any explanation of how the Administration's failure to... I guess, invade Syria or at least indiscriminately arm its rebel factions without concern for their goals or whether weapons end up in the hands of terrorists... has preempted the polices of "others". Who are these "others", what are their "policies", and why are they sitting somewhere, invisible, silent, and unnamed, as Applebaum takes up their cause. I understand why Applebaum's "It's a conspiracy between Obama and Israel" officials don't want to be named, but this isn't the first season of Lost - who are these others?

The Group of Eight... That wold be Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the U.K., the E.U., and the United States. Of those eight, the U.S. is proposing military action, France has indicated that it won't act unless the U.S. first authorizes military action, the U.K. and Germany have voted against military action, Russia is protesting that Assad is innocent, the Prime Minister of Canada has stated that he has "no plans" for a direct military mission, Italy insists that any military action should be preceded by a U.N. mandate, and Japan is sitting on the fence pending a final U.S. decision. Which of those nations does Applebaum believe to be more hawkish than the U.S., and to have had its plans and hopes crushed by the fact that the U.S. is exercising caution and following constitutonal process?

I was curious, given the circumstances, to see what Poland had to say about the issue. Would Poland be a pillar of Applebaum-endorsed virtue, ready to do the most it could to punish the criminal Assad regime?

Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced last week that Poland will not be taking part in any military action in Syria, though Minister Sikorski said on Monday night that he has told US secretary of state John Kerry that, “Poland does not have the capability [to take part in a military strike] but understands the situation”.

As President Obama tries to win support from Congress for a military strike, Minister Sikorski said in an interview with the TVP public broadcaster: “In my judgement a chemical attack occurred, most likely by the Assad regime. The use of weapons of mass destruction against civilians, their own citizens, is unacceptable”.

“The use of chemical weapons in the twenty-first century sets a very dangerous precedent,” Sikorski said, adding that, "President Obama's decision to give more time to convince the US Congress gives a chance for Russia and China to change their positions.”

So the official position of Poland, as articulated by Applebaum's husband, is that (a) Assad probably used chemical weapons, and that is wholly unacceptable, (b) Poland won't contribute so much as a Zloty toward any military action, and (c) the Obama Administration is correct to go through Congress and the associated delay could help the world achieve a diplomatic solution?

Perhaps the Applebaum household is among those in which the spouses simply don't discuss politics.....

Mitt Romney's European Tour

The consensus appears to be that it's a good thing that "Americans don't care about foreign policy" because the world tour that Romney's backers were touting as how he would demonstrate his capacity and leadership to the world, and leave Obama green with jealousy, has turned into a seemingly endless series of unforced errors.

British political cartoonists don't seem at all inclined to give politicians the benefit of the doubt, and unflattering depictions are par for the course. But I think Steve Bell is pretty much capturing the European impression of Romney.

People tell me that Romney is a man of intelligence, although clearly not a man who thinks or understand a whit about foreign policy issues (or what it means to punch a clock, get his hands dirty, worry about being able to pay rent...). If I take their word for it, the inevitable conclusion is that Romney believes everybody else is a rube, that his supporters are not only too stupid to tell when he's lying, they'll cheer his every lie, defend his every misrepresentation, dismiss even the most obvious mistake. So far it's working, so there remains a significant possibility that Willard "Mitt for Brains" Romney will be keeping political cartoonists happy for a long time.

Mitt Romney, Champion of the Working Class

Once you wade past the right-wing talking points and demagoguery, which means roughly the first 2/3 of his column, Michael Gerson has some interesting (and terrible) advice for Mitt Romney: To admit that our nation has rigid social classes and terrible class mobility, and to paint himself as the person to bring about change. Gerson draws our attention "across the pond" to Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrat Party and Deputy Prime Minister under a coalition deal with the ruling Conservative Party.

Gerson appears to know little about the U.K., its class structure or its politics. British culture is full of class markers, from accents and dialects that give away your region of birth, and quite possibly also your social class, to a literal House of Lords, as distinguished from the House of Commons, a bloated entity filled with life-tenured appointees, resistant to reform. Yes, "The topic of class comes more naturally to British than to American politicians" because, when you talk about class in the U.K., nobody pretends that everybody in the nation is part of a vast "middle class" or reflexively accuses you of engaging in "class warfare".

Before teaming with the Conservative Party, Clegg was better positioned to claim to be the child of great fortune who wanted to help his fellow man by leading a party that claims to speak up for the common man. Since that time, to put it mildly, Clegg has struggled with issues of credibility. Gerson clearly believes that adopting Clegg's rhetoric would serve Romney better than it has served Clegg, but let's that Clegg presently has an 16% approval rating and a 75% disapproval rating. Clegg's speech isn't working for him because he burned up his credibility on these issues. Romney has none to begin with.

Gerson found Clegg's speech to be substantive; I did not. The most substantive proposal I saw was for spending additional money on educational initiatives, principally for preschool education. Having cheap or free, high quality preschool is a valid policy position, which Clegg endorses, but "We'll spend more and get better results" is not.

Gerson explains his theory of how discussion of class mobility could help Romney,

As a governing matter, encouraging social mobility could eventually be a unifying, bipartisan goal. As a political matter, it would provide Romney a particular advantage. Obama’s message is now in full Labor Party mode: Soak the rich. But the smartest Republican response is not to defend the rich. It is to defend a fluid society in which everyone has the possibility of becoming richer.

Sure, Romney can talk about "promoting early-childhood education, high school completion, college attendance and graduation, parenting skills and wealth-building among the disadvantaged", but while Clegg was willing to put a $19 billion price tag on his initiatives, is Romney going to make a similarly sized proposal to back up his own? Adjusted for population, roughly $114 billion? I didn't think so.

Gerson complains that Labor's response to Clegg amounts to the position that "that leveling equality is more important than opportunity", sneering, "Along the way, Miliband delivered this trans-Atlantic taunt: 'If you want the American Dream — go to Finland.'" Except that statement is explicitly about income mobility - he was pointing out that nations such as Finland, which have less wealth inequality, also have more class mobility.

YouTube is already dripping with Romney quotes that would undermine the argument that he either understands or cares about social mobility. You want an alternative to college? Borrow $20 grand from your parents and start a business. You're unemployed? "I'm also unemployed." Also, as Gerson knows, Romney's tax plan slashes taxes for the rich, cuts benefits for the poor and middle class, and increases the deficit. Gerson wants Romney to become the new John Edwards, spokesmodel for those on the losing side of the "Two Americas"? And he thinks that would work?

What Caused the London Riots

David Cameron explains the riots in London and Manchester (and Birmingham, and Liverpool, and Bristol, and... Nottingham? I thought they had a Sheriff that made Arpaio look soft on crime):

For me the root cause of this mindless selfishness is the same thing I have spoken about for years: it is a complete lack of responsibility in parts of our society. People allowed to feel that the world owes them something, that their rights outweigh their responsibilities and that their actions do not have consequences. Well they do have consequences.

I personally would not have been so quick to blame the financial industry.

As With Deficits, Child Poverty is Now Important

Michael Gerson always seems to be late to the game. When his lord and master, G.W. Bush, was posting record deficits, all was well. When President Obama took office Gerson reinvented himself as a deficit hawk. Gerson is now suddenly concerned about child poverty and its effect on our society, but nary a mention of G.W. Let's see, how well did G.W. do on the issue of child poverty?

The number of U.S. children living in poverty increased in 2007 — continuing an upward trend dating back to 2000: In 2007, 13.3 million children were living in poverty, up from 11.6 million children in 2000. The percentage of children living in families with incomes below the poverty line has increased from 16.2 per- cent in 2000 to 18.0 percent in 2007. Thus, a large number of children — nearly one in five — are poor.

Taking a look at child poverty rates over time, going back to 1959, you see a rapid decline of child poverty until 1969, a leveling off at about 15% through 1976, a modest increase until 1980 (the recession under Jimmy Carter), and then... "Morning in America" was associated with a massive increase in the child poverty rate. The rate dropped slightly below 20% toward the end of Reagan's tenure, then went back up to the mid-20's under George H.W. Bush. The rate gradually declined under Clinton and, as the quote above suggests, consistently rose under G.W. Bush. The current, severe recession has increased the child poverty rate, from about 19% at the end of G.W.'s tenure to about 21% today, below the peaks that occurred under Reagan and at the end of George H.W. Bush's tenure, but well above what I expect most people would deem acceptable or healthy for our nation's future.

What is Gerson's simplistic take on this? He resorts to a "correlation is causation" argument, arguing,

If America had the same fraction of single-parent families as it had in 1970, the child poverty rate would be about 30 percent lower.

It's difficult to believe that Gerson was unaware that he was cherry-picking 1970 out of the five-year stretch between 1969 and 1974 when child poverty in this nation was atypically low. As you might expect, the decade of "free love" wasn't a high point for marriage: the number of children living in single parent families was 24% in 1960 and 46% in 1970 - so why was there a significant decline in child poverty over that period?

Please note, I don't want to diminish the importance of a stable family unit to child-rearing and poverty avoidance. But we shouldn't confuse a cause and effect, nor should we disregard the cyclical nature of poverty. When a girl becomes a mother with a partner who is unsuitable for marriage, uninterested in marriage, or both, she is set up for single parenthood, dropping out of high school or going no further in school, a work history (if any) that reflects her status as a parent of a preschooler, and in all likelihood subsequent relationships that similarly don't ripen into marriage. That may also be what was modeled for her by her extended family and within her peer group and community.

Gerson argues that it is "simplistic" to focus on "economic redistribution" as an answer to poverty. I'll concede the point he is trying to make, but at the same time point out that at least by definition if your society has enough wealth to go around you actually can eliminate poverty through income redistribution. The point he presumably is trying to make is that income redistribution won't actually solve poverty - you can mask or reduce it over the short-term, but if you withdraw the subsidies it will reappear. To argue otherwise would be simplistic, but arguably no more so than Gerson's suggestion that we could erase 30% of poverty by marrying off single mothers to unwilling suitors. Gerson quotes Brookings Institution researcers,

"Our research ... shows that if you want to avoid poverty and join the middle class in the United States, you need to complete high school (at a minimum), work full time and marry before you have children. If you do all three, your chances of being poor fall from 12 percent to 2 percent."

Gerson focuses on marriage, not completion of high school, perhaps because he understands that a teen mother who has not finished high school is significantly less likely to do so even if she's married and is exceptionally unlikely to have a full-time job. I wonder what issue he's trying to avoid mentioning.

Gerson's argument on "simplistic" approaches to poverty is itself simplistic.

Passing the tax compromise between President Obama and congressional Republicans would be a notable achievement - but mainly a negative one. It would avoid a contraction of the economy in January, when tax rates are scheduled to broadly rise. Deficit hawks are unhappy with another round of borrowed stimulus. But the first step in the recovery of economic health is the avoidance of self-inflicted wounds. On this commitment, at least, bipartisanship has returned.

Yet the deal also sparked an ideological argument on the nature of economic fairness. To some on the left, the refusal to raise taxes on the wealthy was a moral failure - a surrender to inequality. Conservatives generally countered that economic inequality is a matter of indifference, as long as the economy is growing. Both arguments are notable for their shallowness.

Gerson's concept of the "deficit hawk" seems to align with that of other "conservative" commentators - deficits only count if they're created by spending, not by tax cuts. No true deficit hawk would have looked at the idea of extending tax cuts for the rich at a cost of $70 billion per year and shrugged that off as irrelevant to the deficit. Nor would they shrug off the other tax cuts or the higher-than-expected estate tax cutoff and its lower-than expected rate. A deficit hawk would look at the Republican proposals to "balance the budget" and laugh. "How can anybody think you can balance the budget without painful budget cuts and significant tax increases? And the Republicans haven't proposed even one meaningful budget cut." But then, both students of history and serious deficit hawks know that the Republican Party is not even slightly concerned about deficits - they're something to complain about when a Democrat is in office, but should never interfere with a tax cut or the out-of-control spending of a Republican administration.

I'm not sure who, if anybody, is making the argument that Gerson attributes to the left, that "We need to raise taxes on the rich so that we can redistribute wealth," as the arguments I've seen have focused primarily upon the fact that the Republican approach will increase the budget deficit by almost a trillion dollars over the next decade. Sure, I've heard arguments that continued tax cuts for the wealthy aren't likely to stimulate the economy and thus that, if we take the Republican position that the $trillion doesn't matter, the money could be better directed at other priorities. But nobody of consequence is making the argument Gerson presents. (Gerson also leaps from the mythic "to some on the left" to "Progressives... seem[] happy to accept ideological leadership from a self-described democratic socialist[, Bernie Sanders]." Logic isn't his forté.)

Gerson proposes an approach to poverty that he claims is a "should be common ground for the center-left and center-right".

A mobility agenda might include measures to discourage teen pregnancy; increase the rewards for work; encourage wealth-building and entrepreneurship; reform preschool programs; improve infant and child health; increase teacher quality; and increase high school graduation rates and college attendance among the poor.

Here's something interesting, though - and although I've teased him for it I'm going to refer back to David Brooks and his magic marshmallows - the study Gerson uses as a basis for his article doesn't speak of quality high schools or college attendance - it speaks of completing high school, deferring childbirth, and holding a full-time job. That is, the underlying message is that a reduction in poverty is associated with learning how to complete things, learning responsibility, and deferring gratification. Improving schools and raising the rate of college attendance among qualified high school graduates is good for society, but for poverty reduction it's icing on the cake.

The largest fault with Gerson's list, of course, is that it's not a list of "center-left and center-right" ideas. It's principally a list of ideas from the political left that have largely been dismissed, ignored or subverted by the political right, including Gerson's former boss, George W. Bush. Yes, I understand that Gerson stuck that "school improvement" stuff in there as a monument to "No Child Left Behind" and the present push for improved inner city schools. But what was G.W.'s solution to teen pregnancy? Abstinence-only education and the undermining of family planning, both domestically and internationally. (Whoops.) What is the Republican response to initiatives to expand access to healthcare for struggling families? (Whoops.) What position typifies the Republican party on early childhood education in poor communities? (Cough.) While the criticism that Republicans only care about children until they're born is unfair, it's not without a kernel of truth. Even within the context of school reform, while G.W. seemed sincere in his desire to improve public education, the larger right-wing push seems animated by the opportunity to bash teachers unions.

Gerson's proposal to "increase the rewards for work" - how do you do that without redistributing wealth? The disincentive to work, after all, is that your public assistance will be reduced or eliminated based upon your income, so how do you increase rewards without creating a new subsidy? As for "encourag[ing] wealth-building and entrepreneurship", it would be nice if Gerson presented more than a sound bite. Maybe he pictures teen mothers making crocheted booties and selling them on Etsy?

All in all, if you want to put together and fund a comprehensive anti-poverty program, focused not on handouts but on improving poor communities with better support for family planning, families, access to health care, support for working parents, affordable, high-quality preschools, and support for helping kids - perhaps especially teen mothers - complete high school, you would be looking at programs and initiatives associated with the political left. The political right sounds more like Gerson - "All of that would be nice, but not if it means paying higher taxes. And spending on the poor? That's the one area where I'm serious about being a deficit hawk."

Gerson attempts to dabble in British politics, alluding to "the British Labor Party" as being socialist in the manner of Bernie Sanders, and suggesting that the true model for the Democratic Party is Nick Clegg and the (do you know this already) Social Democrats. Gerson's millimeter thick knowledge of British politics has apparently made him aware that Nick Clegg joined his party with the Conservatives in order to become part of the ruling coalition, and has backed severe budget cuts that are cutting back on the very types of programs Gerson just got through telling us were necessary to elevate families out of poverty. The standing of his party under its supporters is so low that it presently looks to be all-but wiped out in the next election.

Labour has risen about 10% in the last seven months by not being the Liberal Democrats. Converted into a House of Commons, these figures are sufficient to give Ed Miliband a majority of 18 whilst reducing the Liberal Democrats [from 57 seats] to just over 20 seats.

As a satirical "agony aunt" recently put it:

Dear Dr Mander

Earlier this year I decided to take a little break from front line politics and concentrate on writing. I have just published a brilliant and penetrating analysis of the crisis at the heart of globalised neo-liberal capitalism, including a visionary call for the recalibration of post-Keynsian orthodoxies to balance the efficiency gains of liberalised labour markets against the social consequences of asymmetric cross-border capital movements. It is, as I'm sure you can imagine, a real page-turner. Anyway, with this project out of the way, I'm ready to return to public life. I feel I have so much more to offer. But there don't seem to be as many opportunities around these days. How do you think my unique skills could best be deployed for the benefit of mankind?

G Brown

Dear Mr Brown

As I recall, when you were chancellor, agitating to become prime minister, you hinted that your leadership would mark a departure from the old politics of spin and that you would be guided by high principle. Once in office you stuck to the usual methods of shabby tactical manoeuvring, no one knew what you really stood for. Feint to the left, govern on the right; widely seen as unprincipled, failed leadership… Have you ever thought of becoming a Lib Dem?

As usual, whether by ignorance or by design, Gerson's advice to Democrats seems to amount to, "Load gun, aim at foot, pull trigger."

Broder's Bizarre Budgetary Bipartisanship

David Broder, commenting on the U.K. government's emphasis on balancing its budget, shares this gem:

Britain's budget deficit, now 11.4 percent of the size of its overall economy, is not that much larger than the United States' -- 8.9 percent -- but the debate has been similar in both countries.

Seriously, Broder believes that there's no significant difference between a budget deficit that's 11.4% of GDP and one that's 8.9% of GDP? In terms of the U.S. economy that difference translates into almost $170 billion dollars. Pocket change?

It is also important to look at the current U.S. budget deficit in the context of the recession. As Paul Krugman has pointed out, the issue is not so much that government spending is rising beyond the norm, but that government revenues have plummeted. That has exaggerated the size of the deficit, but in a much less alarming manner than if tax revenues had been sustained:

Government spending has continued to rise more or less on its pre-crisis trend. Revenue has plunged, because the economy is deeply depressed.

Broder would apparently have us believe that he has no appreciable understanding of the difference in the social safety net between the U.K. and the U.S., that he has no understanding of the nature and extent of the economic crisis in the U.K. and how dependent the U.K. had become on its bloated financial sector, and that he has no understanding of the difference between the U.K.'s parliamentary system of government and our own system. I suspect that he has more knowledge than his arguments suggest.

My British friends tell me that it is only because of the two-party coalition that Cameron can take these risks. If he were dependent only on a minority Conservative Party, the risk of a public meltdown -- similar to what is happening in France -- would be too great.

It works like this: If you have a parliamentary majority you can pass your legislation on a majority vote. If you do not, certain key votes such as a budget can trigger a "no confidence" vote initiated by the opposition parties, and if you lose that vote your government falls. Thus a minority government is weak, and must work with opposition parties to avoid losing no confidence votes. The parties prefer majority governments, where they can often ignore the opposition parties' complaints and demands. But a strong coalition can put them into a similar position. As long as the coalition holds, the government cannot fall to a no confidence vote.

Broder is thus correct that the coalition government between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats allows P.M. David Cameron to push legislation and budget cuts that would be "risky" were he leading a minority government. But he ignores the fact that this is far from Cameron's ideal. What he would much prefer is to have a majority government, not a coalition government, and thereby to be able to do what he wants without cutting deals with or making concessions to the Liberal Democrats.

To the extent that we would look for a "similar breakthrough" in the U.S. system, it would not be the two parties joining hands and acting as a massive coalition. It would be... politicians "crossing the aisle" or the Independents in the Senate choosing to caucus with the Democrats such that they obtain or maintain a majority. Funny, Broder doesn't recognize that as a "similar breakthrough". Another thing that would bring us closer to the parliamentary system Broder seems to idealize would be the elimination of the filibuster.

So what does Broder pretend would be similar to a parliamentary coalition government? Um... no surprise.

If Republicans emerge next month with sufficient leverage in the House and Senate to approach Obama with a proposition, they could insist that he "do a Cameron" when it comes to federal spending: a radical rollback now in the welfare state in return for a two-year truce on such policy questions as repeal of the health-care law.

Did you catch that? If the Republicans win the House and gain votes in the Senate, Broder wants the President to accept from them the promise that they won't do something that they cannot do - pass a repeal of health care reform that would fail in the Senate or, if by some miracle it did not, be vetoed - in return for having the Democrats agree to "a radical rollback... in the welfare state", meaning "slash Medicare and Social Security". It's not entirely clear to me how you would simultaneously preserve healthcare reform while slashing Medicare, but I don't think Broder's primary concern here is consistency.

Even better, there's good reason to believe that the talk of repealing healthcare reform is nothing more than that - talk. The Republicans won't want to repeal the popular elements of the reform bill, but they're tied inexorably to the components that are unpopular.

You want to kill the individual mandate? Then you have to return to having people denied health insurance over their pre-existing conditions. You want to defund Medicaid expansion? You'll not only remove coverage from millions of working class Americans, you'll put a serious financial burden on the states, "red states" included. You want to reverse the Medicare cuts? Not only will you make David Broder cry (what good is bipartisanship, after all, if you increase Medicare spending) but you'll deprive other reforms of necessary funding. You want to restore the Medicare prescription benefit "donut hole"? It might make Broder happy but it will cost you at the polls. You want to repeal the entire bill despite the sacrifice of reforms that are at least in part necessary, popular or both? You'll increase the projected budget deficit.

So not only is Broder asking for massive concessions from the Democrats based upon their promise not to do something that they cannot do, the hollowness of the proposed gesture runs much deeper. And all the Democrats have to give up in return for the usual nothing are the party's biggest achievements over the past century. What a deal.

At the same time there's no reason to doubt that the Republicans could join with the Democrats to effect some tweaks and modifications of Social Security to improve its long-term fiscal health. Broder has been around more than long enough to know that's happened in the past - tweak the tax rate, tweak the age of eligibility, and voila. So really, if the idea is to balance the budget and preserve the long-term viability of Social Security, it's a no-brainer.

Medicare is much more complicated, and as previously alluded the reform bill includes provisions that are meant to help make Medicare more cost-effective, reduce waste and improve care. Yes, it's possible and necessary to continue in that direction, but do you have any sense that the Republican Party is going to emerge from this election and tell the "Keep Your Government Hands Off My Medicare" faction, ginned up by Republican lies about "death panels", that they're cutting Medicare? Seriously - which party was responsible for the last massive, unfunded expansion of Medicare? Surely Broder knows.

Broder is probably right, that freed of the obligation to take responsibility for the cuts - "It's what the President asked of us" - the Republicans might go along with slashing Medicare. But there would not be even the slightest hint of "bipartisanship" involved. It would be a colossally stupid, self-desctructive act by the Democrats. This is one of the reasons we're trying to balance the budget with "commissions" instead of legislation - neither party wants to be responsible for Medicare cuts and, Broder's wishes having been duly noted, as they cannot find a way to vote for significant cuts without serious ramifications at the polls, they're looking for an approach that let's them pretend that "no one is to blame" - that the cuts sort of, somehow happened on their own.

What about the items on the President's agenda that he couldn't get past Republican filibusters and self-serving Blue Dogs and a certain independent? A carbon tax? Immigration reform? Why doesn't Broder imagine President Obama requesting Republican cooperation on those issues, where their support would make a genuine and necessary difference, as opposed to having them provide a meaningless concession? (Yes, that's a rhetorical question. Here's another: Would Broder be on board with a plan that rolled the programs included in his conception of the U.S. welfare state "back" to the level that will exist in the U.K. after the current round of reforms?)

Update: More on the British budget cuts:

In a bid to streamline its armed forces and help reduce its daunting levels of national debt, the British government on Tuesday announced plans to cut its military personnel by 10 percent, scrap 40 percent of the army’s artillery and tanks, withdraw all of its troops from Germany within 10 years, and cut 25,000 civilian jobs in its Defense Ministry.

Can we expect Broder to push for similar budget cuts here, or doesn't that fit his notions of "bipartisanship"?

You Can Have Your Spending Cuts and Eat Them Too

Following the recent election in the U.K., the governing coalition has set about trying to address the U.K.'s structural deficit. In association with that, they've proposed massive cuts in government spending and massive reductions in the government payroll. Cynics suggest that the government is grabbing onto the current economic crisis as an excuse to continue the policies of the Thatcher Administration and to undermine public programs that the Conservative Party has long hoped to scale back or privatize. But you don't have to be cynical to recognize that a structural deficit is not a good thing - even when granting that a government's budget deficits are not the same thing as a household's spending more money than it earns, year after year, a government should strive for a budget that can be balanced.

The fact that the government is able to create a relatively short-term, albeit painful, path out of its "structural" deficits suggests that the problem is not as "structural" as they would have the public believe. Fundamentally, the issue is whether it would be better public policy on the whole to raise taxes or to cut spending, and to recognize that the two aren't mutually exclusive. By claiming a structural problem and a necessity of action, the ruling coalition avoids having to engage in debate over public policy.

But there's another question, specifically whether the timing is right for budget austerity. Paul Krugman argues that it's not:

There have been widespread claims that deficit-cutting actually reduces unemployment because it reassures consumers and businesses; but multiple studies of historical record, including one by the International Monetary Fund, have shown that this claim has no basis in reality.

No widespread fad ever passes, however, without leaving some fashion victims in its wake. In this case, the victims are the people of Britain, who have the misfortune to be ruled by a government that took office at the height of the austerity fad and won’t admit that it was wrong.

If the cynics are correct, the government won't admit that it was wrong because they're exploiting the crisis as a reason to implement unpopular policies, perhaps while silently accepting that the cuts could make things worse. But at the same time, as Krugman acknowledges, "there’s no question that Britain will eventually need to balance its books with spending cuts and tax increases."

So here's the thing: It is possible to debate public policy and engage in long-term planning, even when the economy is weak. It is possible to start to implement a restructuring or budget cutting process in certain areas of the economy, even when the economy is weak. And it's possible to do all of that while continuing a deficit and engaging in stimulus spending out of recognition that it could help the nation emerge from its economic difficulties. If you do all three, the public will understand your budget cuts and priorities, you should eliminate some inefficiencies and make it easier to balance the budget when the crisis passes, but you can still use government spending to help stimulate the economy.

As Krugman notes, the actual economic picture in the U.K. along with the government's rhetoric lends considerable support to the views of the cynics. If that interpretation is correct, I doubt that the government will embrace a program of spending that suggests that the U.K. can continue to afford significant short-term deficits, even if that's what's best for the country, because then they would have to engage in a public policy debate about the budget items they're cutting, explain their priorities, and explain why cuts can't be smaller or can't be deferred. But a responsible government can simultaneously tackle a structural deficit and make cuts in a variety of public spending programs while running larger-than-usual deficits and engaging in stimulus spending.

Where Can I Find Employers Offering Pensions?

In a rather silly tribute to what she sees as a British love of austerity, Anne Applebaum lectures,

Hardly anyone in America is talking about cuts in Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, for example, the biggest budgetary items (even though "private" pensions now look a lot safer, even when taking stock market fluctuations into account, than those who will depend entirely on a bankrupt federal budget 20 years hence).

Where exactly can I find a job that offers me a private pension? A secure one, that is. (Given her faith in private pensions, would Applebaum eliminate the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation as unnecessary?) Seriously, what country does she live in because... oh yeah, that's right, it isn't this one.

If Applebaum lived in this country, perhaps she would have noticed that Social Security cuts are very much on the table, and that the discussion recently made headlines in rather colorful terms. Medicaid benefits have been slashed across the country. Sure, Medicare reform is difficult, although the Obama Administration should get credit for going after Medicare Advantage subsidies; but when Applebaum comments, "In Britain, by contrast, everything is on the table: pensions, housing benefits, disability payments, tax breaks" it's interesting to note that her list of "everything" does not include cuts for the NHS - the budget has been "ring fenced" with some shifts in spending and plans to limit future growth. Sound familiar?

What is interesting about Applebaum's list is that she's principally rattling off benefits for the poor. She should recall from the 1990's that "welfare reform" is both popular and easy. She should be aware that Britain offer significantly more generous social support than the U.S., and that's unlikely to change even after the cuts are made.

Yes, wartime rationing had an effect on the nation, and I remember my grandmother's cupboard overflowing with boxes of sugar cubes - she was not going to go through another war without having sugar for her tea. But really, no, other than the handwriting on the wall being much more obvious, I don't sense that the British are slashing the budget because they want to show of their stiff upper lips and whatnot. If they loved austerity as much as Applebaum suggests, how does she imagine they got into their present financial crisis?

The 1% Solution

With statistics like these, there should be no ticker tape parades for the U.K.'s drug warriors:

A success rate of 1%. In what area of public life would we accept that? Last year, Professor Neil McKeganey of the University of Glasgow, one of the most respected academics in Britain, established that the authorities seize just 1% of the heroin that enters Scotland in any one year. He sees no reason to think this would be any different for the nation as a whole.

Drug agencies like to brag about how they've intercepted record amounts of drugs, but if you look behind the statistic you typically find that the success rate hasn't changed - it's just that more drugs are finding they way into the country.

About That Value Added Tax (VAT) Idea....

In response to the right-wing push for a VAT, I commented,

Taxes tend to work like leaky faucets. It's really easy to turn them up, but really hard to turn them off. The uber-wealthy thought that they had lobbied their way out of estate taxes, but it turns out not to be so easy. Although exceptions occur, particularly where the wealthy and powerful are concerned, once a tax is implemented its natural tendency is to go up.

I argued that the big picture goal by right-wing advocates involves tax cuts for corporations and the rich, with the difference made up for by a regressive tax that hits the poor and targets the middle class. So let's turn to news from across the pond:

The Schroder forecast was this: whichever party got into power in May, Labour or Tory, would jack up VAT from 17.5% to 19%. Which may just sound like a bunch of numbers (heavens, it is a bunch of numbers) – but economists don't normally put their necks on the block like this, for fear of getting them chopped off.

Does that give you a sense of how high a VAT tax can go, once the money stops flowing? Once implemented, what do you think the odds are that the government will ever back away from a VAT as an ongoing revenue stream?

The author of the piece admits that a VAT "cannot be called progressive" (mainly because it's unambiguously regressive), but defends the tax on the basis that "it is not the most regressive tax I can think of" - identifying VAT exemptions for food and children's clothing as making it less regressive than it might otherwise be, but without actually identifying a tax that is more regressive. The author then argues that because the rich have a lot more money to spend than the poor, "looked at by spending, a rise hurts the richest most". All those poor little rich boys....

It would be interesting, by the author's thesis, to crunch the numbers a different way - would the poor be better off if the exemptions were eliminated and the VAT reached food and children's clothes? It would make the tax, on its face, more regressive - but would it increase the tax burden on the poor to the same degree as the predicted increase "to as much as 20%"? If not, given the author's argument that the rich buy more stuff - certainly, on the whole, more expensive children's clothing and food - he might even be able to argue that "looked at by spending" the elimination of those exemptions is progressive.

Yes, with a VAT we can not only look forward to higher taxes, and VAT increases as a source of revenue that's perhaps the least offensive to the nation's wealthy interests, we can look forward to analysts turning cartwheels to explain how later increases are fair because the rich have so much more money to spend than the poor.

The Limited Virtues of Teen Parenting

A couple of months ago, I read an argument in favor of teen parenting - not just the parenting part, but with the notion that society should unblinkingly subsidize teen mothers. The author starts out with a description of her own pregnancy, and how much she looked forward to being a mother - because, as you know, assuming that everybody else's experience is exactly the same as yours is the next-best thing to following the scientific method. She next conflates the disinterest of teen mothers she has encountered with learning how to parent with there being "something enviably instinctive about the mothering skills of those I met":

Their kids meant everything to them: at six months they were having their ears pierced, by one they had their own TV. There was no angst about, "Am I doing this right?". No textbook consulted, and on the whole, apart from what their mums advised them, no authority revered. A new pregnancy, however many children already lived in the house and whether there was a man around or not, was almost always a cause for celebration. And in the end, these mothers ended up teaching me. Like how to share your bedroom with five kids and not get wound up. Like how to rely on no one but yourself. No bloke was ever worth trusting, I was told; they were just useful for one thing, sex. These young women had an important job to do. They were bringing up the next generation. They were mums.

It gets better - why do a difficult job to make money and support yourself, maybe even getting an education, when you can simply have a baby and get a government check? As if having a family and supporting your family are incompatible concepts.

I couldn't agree more. Motherhood engendered responsibility. When we talk about teenage mothers not having aspirations, what are we talking about? Working in a chip shop? A cleaning job? Are we saying those are more noble, more "aspirational" pursuits than motherhood

As you can see, it's the people who disagree with the author who are the ones being judgmental, by thinking that it's not beneath somebody to work in fast food or housecleaning during their teen years while they lay a foundation, even get the education necessary, for a better life. It's not at all judgmental to sneer at entry level jobs as being beneath people who have not yet developed the skills or gained the education that will lead to better jobs.

But it gets even better....

When I was pregnant I decided to give a dinner for all the pregnant girls of Corby who were under 16. It was fun. We compared our bumps, ridiculed our partners, told each other anecdotes about bad sex. All had got pregnant "accidentally on purpose", and not because they had no aspirations but because they had: being a mother, living in their own flat, and being paid pocket money by the state to do so. None felt that real life was passing them by: they had each other for company. It would be a laugh. They'd have pushchair races. They'd take sandwiches and eat them in the park together. They all loved kids. Kids were the best company of all, they said. I was impressed.

Teenagers getting pregnant "accidentally on purpose", with a life plan of going on the dole, and with no deeper thoughts about parenting than "I love kids" or "It will be a laugh"? This impressed the author?

The author then describes how having three children in relatively rapid succession wore her down - how parenting was hard work. How she was competitive with other parents, particularly with her first child. How whatever control she had over her life after she had her first child was gone by the time she had her third. How resentful she became (and still appears to be) over friends who, without children, traveled, "were being artists or training for the professions", "were in restaurants with potential lovers", and didn't have any interest in her parenting stories. How her husband had to travel a lot, leaving her alone, without a similar "cool" peer group to the group of teen mothers she met on council estates (public housing). So in her twenties she was completely ill-equipped to be a parent, and yet she wants us to believe that impoverished teenagers can naturally parent in a way that she, with money and education, and resources she chooses to elide from her self-pitying summary, could not.

She closes with an example of the "natural" parenting she is talking about:

A few years later, I became, for a brief while, a truant officer. I was persuaded by every single family I interviewed that school was a waste of time. The mum would argue, 'My lad's just not happy at school. He's bullied. He finds lessons boring. He doesn't concentrate and then the teacher shouts at him. I just don't see the point of school, when you can be at home."

And I would say: "But don't you have aspirations for your child? Don't you want him to grow up and be a brain surgeon?"

And the mum would say: "What I want is for my child to be happy. And being happy with a little is better than being unhappy, isn't it?..."

And a few years after that (or maybe not) the little truant would knock up one of the "cool" teenage girls, "accidentally on purpose", who would simultaneously describe him as unreliable, untrustworthy, and useful only for sex. And those who had sons would persuade her that all that matters is being happy... with no education, no prospects, and a scattering of children being raised by mothers who want nothing more than their children to be "happy" even as their daughters come to view their sons as human detritus? Meanwhile, their fourteen year old daughters are so gratful for being raised by such a "cool" mother that they can't wait to get pregnant "accidentally on purpose" so they can get out of the home? Boy, this does sound enviable.

She never takes a step back to ask herself if the principal goal in getting pregnant "accidentally on purposes" is "living in their own flat, and being paid pocket money by the state to do so", perhaps it might be better for everybody involved to set aside her own fantasies of how "cool" these teenagers are, their fantasies of how fun and easy parenting would be, and simply directly subsidize their move to independence. Heaven forbid we present a choice that's more stark, such as, "Get pregnant, and your choices are to continue to live at home until the age of 18, or if that's not possible to live in a group home setting where you will continue your education, learn how to parent, and be supervised in your activities until you're 18." (The problem with that last idea, of course, is that in the short-term it's more expensive than saying, "Okay, here's an apartment of your own and a government check.")

I know that there are teen parents who step up to the plate, who effectively give up their childhood to do right for their own children. But sorry, a young teen who gets pregnant on purpose with the idea that she'll cast off the father and raise her child on welfare is unlikely to fall into that category - and a father who's passive about being cast aside doesn't even come close.

A much more conservative, albeit at times misguided, take on things from another author:

I visit many schools and Sure Start centres. I meet women of my age (47) who are now great-grandmothers. These women have never had jobs; have multiple children by multiple men – none of whom have ever contributed to their children's upkeep, welfare or moral guidance. They have lived on benefits because grandma did and mother did. These young girls see nothing wrong in this lifestyle and that it is their right to live like this. No one else is telling them that they shouldn't.

I visited a Sure Start centre¹ a couple of weeks ago where there were six 16-year-old girls with one-year-old babies. Three were pregnant again, none by the same boy, and they saw nothing wrong in this "lifestyle choice". They did not see anything wrong in claiming benefits and were adamant that they did not want the boys who impregnated them having anything to do with their first-born as they were now with the latest partner. It is so sad to see this and their attitudes are astounding.

I largely concur. The previous editorial's perspectives having been duly considered, there's nothing "cool" about any of that. I think, though, that it's a misperception that these teen pregnancies are principally based upon the past choices of parents and grandparents - the modeling plays a role, but I think the previous editorial made a valid point that these are in many ways economic decisions. The author also shares an implausible statistic:

I then went to a Catholic primary school that, five years ago, said around 90% of its children were living with two parents; that had now changed to 60% who were living with single parents.

Sorry, even if I thought the anecdote were relevant to the topic, I simply don't believe that such a transformation occurred over the past five years.

Now we enter the realm of hard choices:

We have to tell these girls that it is unacceptable to get pregnant outside of a stable relationship unless they can support themselves, that the taxpayer cannot afford to keep them and that they have to train to work when they leave school.

Okay, let's assume we tell them all of that, and they get pregnant anyway? I've previously described a tougher response than "give them their own apartment", but I am skeptical that the government is going to invest in supervised, structured communal housing for teen mothers. Those who stay home will see more money come into the home, and those who are kicked out have to live somewhere.

Wait, did I say "Those who stay home will see more money come into the home"? Why is that? Why not simply maintain support at the prior level, as if no new child came into the home? After all, if these families had jobs, they wouldn't get an increase in their wages merely for having another baby. Alas, there's no easy answer to this one. If you don't give additional benefits when another child enters the household of a welfare recipient, you "punish the children". And if you do, you subsidize the expansion of a family that cannot support itself, and arguably create a context where the mothers at issue benefit from either choosing to again become pregnant, or being indifferent to that outcome.

Sorry, telling these mothers, "We can't afford to keep doing this," or "You need to get a job so you can support yourself before you have children" will only work if it's true. You can say whatever you want, but nothing will change as long as the government checks keep coming. Further, in those countries where there are no government subsidies, where each new child literally does take food off of the table for everybody else in the family, it's hardly the case that impoverished people defer or opt against having children - in fact, their birth rates may be substantially higher. I wish there were easy answers to this, but there are not.

They have to be given more sex education (it is not compulsory, despite the myth, and this should start at puberty, not five years old) and offered more contraception.

That argument qualifies as silly. Sex education at age five is "good touch, bad touch" - anybody who gets upset at children being taught such concepts really should defer discussion of sex education to people who are either more informed or more comfortable with sex. Sex education preceding puberty often includes valuable information about puberty that a lot of children do not otherwise get from their parents. It may be better that a young girl learn about menarche from her mother, but I think most will agree that it shouldn't be a surprise - in retrospect, even Carrie's mom probably agrees. Also, what... we're going to assume that all kids mature at exactly the same rate? Or is it that we're going to single out kids who mature faster or slower, so that nobody learns about sex before puberty. That won't stigmatize anybody....

It is only by talking openly about marriage, sex, relationships and responsibility that we can change this. It will take a generation, but we have no choice.

By all means, let's start the dialog... but please, not with the illusion that it will transform society, let alone do so inside of a generation.

The second editorial was inspired by an essay by J.K. Rowling in which she describes how, thrust into single parenthood, she was able to make ends meet with the help of some not particularly generous government benefits, while she struggled to better herself, qualified as a teacher, and wrote 1-1/2 novels. Quite reasonably, she describes how the benefits helped her get past a difficult post-divorce period, how she resented being demonized by politicians for being a "single mother" during that time of struggle, and the silliness of the British Conservative Party's notion of a tiny tax credit that is supposed to encourage marriage.

Rowling explains how Britain's social safety net has factored in, as she's become wealthy beyond her wildest dreams:

I chose to remain a domiciled taxpayer for a couple of reasons. The main one was that I wanted my children to grow up where I grew up, to have proper roots in a culture as old and magnificent as Britain’s; to be citizens,² with everything that implies, of a real country, not free-floating ex-pats, living in the limbo of some tax haven and associating only with the children of similarly greedy tax exiles.

A second reason, however, was that I am indebted to the British welfare state; the very one that Mr Cameron would like to replace with charity handouts. When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major’s Government, was there to break the fall. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that it would have been contemptible to scarper for the West Indies at the first sniff of a seven-figure royalty cheque. This, if you like, is my notion of patriotism.

Save for becoming a billionaire author, my mother had a post-divorce period not too different from Rowling's. That's actually the historic story of most "welfare recipients" - about three years of benefits following a divorce or crisis, then they're back on their feet, having theme parks built based upon... again reaching a point where they can support themselves and their families. I'm with Rowling - that's a good thing. The hard part is to translate welfare as a short-term solution into communities where it is an acceptable lifestyle choice.

--------

1. Quoting Rowling, Sure Start centres are "service centres where families with children under 5 can receive integrated service and information." She adds, "Unless you have previously grappled with the separate agencies involved in housing, education and childcare, you might not be able to appreciate what a great innovation these centres are."

2. Subjects, actually. But there's little practical difference, I suppose.