US Government - Homeland Security and Failure to Execute

Democracy has been said to be a messy process but sometimes it is amazing how ineffective government can be.

Following the 9/11 attacks the US government established a commission to analyze how the attacks were conducted and to make recommendations for changes that would help prevent future attacks. One threat identified was the ease of obtaining fraudulent ID which would make it difficult for the government to track persons of interest. Coordinated law enforcement databases, no fly lists and federal warrants are important tools used to protect the nation from bad actors which are made almost worthless if the bad guys can easily obtain fraudulent ID.  Consequently, Congress passed the Real ID Act in 2005 which established minimum requirements for the issuance of ID's by the states that would be acceptable at Federal facilities such as Federal offices or by Federally regulated institutions such as air lines and nuclear power plants. The Real ID Act stipulated minimum requirements for issuing ID's which included verifying the name and address of the applicant and minimum requirements for the physical ID's such as drivers' licenses to make them much more difficult to fake or modify.

Verified identifications with tamper proof IDs clearly make a lot of sense so you might find it surprising how much resistance to the requirements of the Act developed in a number of states. A number of states have argued that the Act is an unfunded mandate and too expensive (India's National ID project issued 600 million biometric ID's for verified applicants in about 4 years), is a violation of privacy rights and impinges on state rights (the ID's would only be required to access Federal facilities and services). I suspect that some states might also object due to the impact on undocumented aliens who would not be able to obtain or renew driver's licenses due to the requirement to document proof of citizenship or legal residency.

Almost 10 years after the passage of the Real ID Act, it was only in 2014 that Real ID compliant identification was required for access to nuclear power plants and restricted areas in federal facilities. Currently, Real ID compliant ID can only be required to board a federally regulated aircraft after DHS conducts a review which can not occur prior to 2016. DHS has delayed the implementation and is now estimating that Real ID compliant identification for boarding commercial aircraft will not be mandated before 2020 - more than 15 years after the passage of the Act and almost 20 years after 9/11.

On a related note, Congress enacted legislation in 1996 referred to as IIRAIRA which required a computerized tracking system for all persons entering and exiting the US.  The entry system has been partially implemented but there is currently no date established for implementation of the exit tracking system.

In both the case of IIRAIRA and the Real ID Act, there have been so many exceptions added over the years that I would question how effective the programs would be even if fully implemented.

It is frustrating to watch so many highly paid legislators and government officials execute so poorly. There is no excuse for the US government to execute so poorly.

The US Should Not Be Fighting ISIS

Any participation of the US in the battle against ISIS at this time much less the recently announced increase in troop levels is a mistake of monumental proportions. The stated goal of the US is to destroy ISIS which is not achievable in the current sectarian atmosphere of the Mid-East. Having the US take the lead will only frame the current fight against ISIS as a Western backed attack on Islam with the goal of securing oil supplies and will fan the sectarian flames and assist radical recruitment efforts.

To call the current organization a coalition is a misnomer unless you qualify the description as a coalition of the kicking and screaming. Egypt is willing to participate but wants the Sunni based Muslim Brotherhood which is supported by Saudi Arabia designated as a target of the coalition. Turkey is willing to participate but only if the Shia supported Assad regime is targeted by the coalition and apparently isn't willing to actively participate until ISIS significantly destroys the Kurds which Turkey views as an insurrectionist terrorist group. Iran is willing to participate but views Sunni Iraq as much of an enemy as ISIS. Saudi Arabia, which has the largest and best equipped military in the region, is only willing to participate as a cheer leader and doesn't want an active role for fear of radicalizing the conservative Sunni segments of their population. Saudi Arabia's only contribution so far has been to make some land available for training of the moderate Syrian rebels. Iraq demurs claiming that they don't have the ability to fight on their own at this time. The only thing that all of the players in the region seem to agree on is that they want the US to fix the problem. If there isn't common agreement on what the problem is then the effort will never lead to a solution.

With regard to Iraq, it would be a mistake to assume that Iraq will undertake political reform to include Iraq's Sunnis in government. Ibadi, Maliki's replacement, has a history of being just as anti-Sunni as Maliki and, given that Sadam's Sunni government killed some of his family members (brother and father I seem to recall), is likely to have an emotional bias against an inclusive government. If the US had been able to negotiate an acceptable Status of Forces agreement and been able to have left troops and trainers in Iraq it would not have made a difference to the current abilities of the Iraqi military. The military leadership is totally corrupt with leadership positions routinely bought and sold and equipment budgets routinely pocketed. I heard an interview with an Iraqi soldier who was in Mosul when ISIS attacked. What struck me was that the soldier said that he had just joined the military 10 days before the attack, an amount of time which would not have enabled any significant training. The current re-equipping and training of Iraq's military is not likely to do much more that pad the pockets of well placed Iraqi's

ISIS was not a threat to the US and to use this as a justification is hyperbole. Yes, ISIS is brutal and the terrors they are perpetrating on local populations is tragic but this by itself does not obligate the US to take the lead in military operations against ISIS. Boko Harim in Northern Nigeria is just as brutal as ISIS and more deadly but I haven't heard any calls to send US troops to Nigeria.

The US can win battles against ISIS but not a war, will only inflame hatred of the US in the region, lead to increased radicalization of large segments of local populations and provide an excuse for the local governments not to take responsibility. I'm not suggesting that the US should have no role under any circumstances. However, it might have been best if the US had outlined some principles, told the regional governments to get together and agree on a plan consistent with the US principles and then only after the regional governments had agreed with each other would the US join their coalition.

The current US effort in the Mid-East meets the definition of insanity which has been defined as as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I just feel profoundly sad that so many people of my generation are so willing to send so many outstanding, young individuals on such a dangerous and reckless quest. I understand that many voters for various reasons believe that the US taking the lead in confronting ISIS is the right thing to do but I really wish that the US leaders fashioned policies on a better understanding of history rather than voter polls.

ACA (Obamacare) Federal Marketplace - Expect Major Open Season Problems

The implementation of the Federal Marketplace web site used by roughly 5.5 million people to purchase health insurance in 2013 and early 2014 was plagued by problems. Open season during which people with existing exchange policies can view and change their insurance plans begins on 11/15/14. Additionally, eligible individuals who don't have existing medical policies can file applications and shop for new medical insurance.

I expect that most people assume that after the problems encountered with the implementation and after expending about $200 million to fix the problems and expand capacity that open season will go smoothly. However, it is likely that the Federal Marketplace open season web site performance will experience major problems and be more problematic than the implementation.

Due to concerns about the heartbleed virus, healthcare.gov reset all users' passwords in April 2014. Normally, a password reset would force a user to select a new password after they logged in with their existing password. What appears to have happened is that healthcare.gov disabled everyone's account.

I have tried to help several people access their accounts unsuccessfully. Using the "Forgot my password" option on the login screen does not work. I've have spent hours on the phone with the Marketplace help desk and they have, on multiple occasions, unlocked the accounts and emailed a temporary password which has not worked. All of the Marketplace agents have been very polite and very helpful but have not been able to resolve the issue and their documentation is incomplete and in many cases incorrect. As an example, after all efforts to resolve the problem failed they told me to create a new account using the same email address registered with the original account assuring me that the new account would be able to access the information in the old account. This didn't work with an error message advising me that you can not use the same email address for 2 accounts. Another agent told me to create a new account with a different email address and then, after logging in with the new credentials, to use the 'find my application' link which also did not work.

The bottom line is that when open season begins that there may be millions of people not able to access their accounts and the help desk will be buried with login problems.

Federal Safety Nets vs. state rights

I've found the Republican positions on the Affordable Care Act specifically and safety net programs in general to be confusing and inconsistent. Most or all Republican presidential contenders, depending on the issue, have claimed that programs such as Social Security, Medicaid or health care insurance should be run by the states rather than the federal government.

Firstly, I don't know how these programs could ever be managed by the states. In the case of social security, how would the situation where someone worked and paid into a retirement fund in several northern states be administered when the retiree moved to Florida upon their retirement? What would stop someone in one state from moving across the boarder into another state to take advantage of a more generous benefit? What would prevent a state which is required to have a balanced budget from promising benefits in the future that they couldn't afford.





In the case of social security, Romney deviates from the consensus and has stated that Social Security is a federal government responsibility while still claiming that health care should be a state responsibility. What is the difference.





Almost all Republican candidates believe that health care should be a state responsibility but support the continuation of Medicare which is a federal health care program. Why is there a difference. If the federal government can require that everyone with a paycheck contributes to the retirement health care program called Medicare then why is it unconstitutional to require that everyone buy pre-retirement health care insurance? In fact, everyone in the US already has medical insurance in that hospitals are required to provide life saving care regardless of whether the patient can pay. The only difference is that some people pay for their insurance and others don't. How can you argue that the commerce clause of the Constitution doesn't apply to a federal health care mandate when health care costs add perhaps $1,500 to the cost of every car made in Detroit when these cars are sold throughout the US and auto plants can be located in any state? Medicare for all would seem to be a major benefit to US manufacturers who are currently have high health care costs which drive up the price of their product which makes them less competitive compared to imports from countries which have national health care programs. If health care costs in each car produced represent a higher cost component than steel which is subject to the interstate commerce clause then why not a federal health care policy?

The Affordable Care Act was poor policy beacuse of the policy details but not because a federal health care policy is unconstitutional and not because it should be handled at the state level.

Death and Living

Having been involved in several memorials following a death in the family, I became curious about how different people respond to the loss of someone close. I noticed that those who were more religious seem to have a more difficult time dealing with the loss than the less devout. This was curious since I assumed that a christian who believed in an after life would find it easier to deal with the loss expecting to be reunited with the departed in the near future. For a christian, death is just a different stage of life rather than a definite end as it would be for an atheist.

One observation that may explain the difference is that it appears that chrisitans may have a crisis of faith caused by the death of someone close at a time when their faith would be expected to comfort them. It was common to hear christians question why such a good person was taken now rather than later or why the departed was put through such a painful experience. Christians believe that death and living are guided by some master plan defined by their faith so the death was planned and required by their deity - there is someone/something to blame. Atheists see no mater plan and accept that death is just part of life, that in a universe which is 13 billion years old that passing this year or next is inconsequential and that biology, physics and probability dictate the eventual demise of everything that lives.

The bottom line is that it appears that a christian has to deal with two simultaneous blows - the passing of a loved one and a crisis of faith while an atheist only has to deal with one.

US Public Debt Reporting Out of Balance

Recent headlines report that the US public debt is approaching the congressionally mandated ceiling of $14.29b and that unless the debt ceiling is increased, the US will default on its debts and the government will be forced to shutdown. Unlike corporate America which reports its financial health using net debt, government accounts are reported in terms of gross debt. Perhaps this approach is preferred due to the fact that a firm where liabilities exceeded assets would be technically bankrupt. According to Economy Watch, US public net debt at the end of 2010 was $9.5t and is forecast to be $11.03t at the end of 2011 based on the current federal budget which is significantly less than the $14.3t public debt reported in the headlines. Net debt is defined as gross debt minus financial assets which include gold, foreign currency reserves, securities and other holdings but does not include non financial assets such as buildings and roads. Although the annual budget deficits contributed significantly to an increase in US public debt, a large percentage of the US public debt increase since 2008 was used to purchase financial assets of distressed US financial institutions through TARP and to purchase US Treasury securities as part of the quantitative easing programs. As of 6/15/2011, the Federal Reserve held $1.58t of US Treasury securities which is an increase of $793b from one year earlier. US public debt can be reduced by selling financial assets on the balance sheet without any change in the annual budget deficit. In the year to 6/15/2011, US public debt declined by $204b at the Federal Reserve from what it would otherwise have been through the sale of mortgage backed securities. Although an orderly sale of US financial assets over time would be required in order to avoid tanking the asset prices, the US government can finance operations for an extended period of time through the sale of financial assets without an increase in the debt ceiling. Although there may be good reasons not to sell assets in the short term such as the desire to maintain high levels of liquidity in financial markets and to avoid depressing equity prices, slightly depressed equity prices and lower levels of liquidity would be preferable to a US government default. Although the cookie jar is far from full, there are still more cookies left than the headlines suggest.

PM Netanyahu's Speech to Congress

I just watched Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech to a joint session of Congress (5/24/2011) and was surprised that the commentators after the speech said that there was nothing new and that this was a political speech. I think that Netanyahu's speech was pivotal.

Essentially, Netanyahu defined the settlement that Israel would accept and essentially told Obama to not waste time negotiating - here is the settlement and you can take it or leave it. Furthermore, the support that Netanyahu received from the US Senators and Congressman was essentially a message to the president that he, Netanyahu, and not Obama controlled the US Congress on the issue of Israel.

The settlement that Netanyahu presented would never be accepted by the Palestinians. The key points were that Palestinians would only have the right of return to Palestine and not to Israel (essentially conceded previously), that Jerusalem would remain undivided and under the control of Israel, that Palestine would be demilitarized and that Israel would retain a military presence in an Independent Palestine and along the Jordan River.

Netanyahu essentially stated that an independent Palestine would be an occupied territory with borders defined by the Israelis. Bottom line is that this independent Palestine would not be any different from the occupied Palestine that currently exists.