More than seven years after the invasion of Iraq, its future remains highly uncertain.

Last week marked the euphemistic “end” of U.S. combat operations in the country; 50,000 American soldiers remain, and even more private contractors, many of whom will continue to train Iraqi security forces and provide logistical support.

Months after national elections, no government has been formed and no one knows when it will be. With Saddam executed and the intense civil war of 2005-06 having given way to a relatively more stable environment, Iraqis are no doubt freer than they have been in generations. They can openly criticize the government, there is a relatively free press, there is freedom of movement, and a nascent democracy has taken shape.

While these freedoms represent major milestones for an Arab nation in the Middle East, living standards for most Iraqis are worse than they were before the invasion. This is particularly shocking because it’s not as if Iraq was prosperous pre-2003; then, after more than a decade of UN sanctions, the country’s infrastructure was falling apart, oil production was low, and many basic necessities were difficult if not impossible to obtain.

But conditions have significantly deteriorated, even after hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars were invested to rebuild the country. Probably the best coverage of Iraqi life has come from MSNBC foreign correspondent Richard Engel, a frequent guest on the Rachel Maddow show. Engel has travelled widely throughout Iraq, and duly reported his findings. Even in the middle of summer, with daytime temperatures of 120 degrees or more, electricity is rarely available. When the power does come on, it often blows out appliances because of the power spikes. Even in rich neighborhoods, people may get power for only a couple of hours a day. The stagnation this produces, and its crippling effect on the Iraqi economy, cannot be overstated. More than any other statistic, the lack of power throughout the country testifies to a monumental failure; Iraq is a country, remember, with the world’s second largest oil reserves.

And while security has certainly improved since the darkest days of the war, last week’s sophisticated and coordinated attacks by Al Qaeda are a reminder that Iraq is still a violent state; large-scale attacks are likely to continue into the foreseeable future. Approximately 100,000 Iraqi civilians have already been killed, thousands more wounded, and millions displaced.

We are beginning to leave Iraq while it is a fragile and wounded nation, with an Al Qaeda presence that did not exist prior to the invasion. The Iraqis are freer today than they ever have been to determine their destiny, and there is hope that 10 or 20 years from now the country will be a prosperous secular democracy in the heart of the Middle East (as the neoconservative architects of the war dreamed it would be). But that dream is nowhere near reality. For the Iraqi people who have suffered and continue to suffer, this possible dream continues to be a real nightmare.

It is callous to view a conflict such as the Iraq War through a cost-benefit lens, even though all wars are conceived, prosecuted, and ultimately judged using such a metric. Was it worth it? Only the Iraqi people can really answer that question. Even then, there is no way to elicit the opinions of the dead. As in the case of other conflicts, time will provide a fuller perspective on what, by any objective standards, was an ill-conceived, terribly executed, tremendously costly, but perhaps ultimately “successful” war.

P.S. Here's what General Odierno had to say; definitely ambiguous as to whether things are better or worse.

Jason Scorse

One of the two existential threats to modern civilization (apart from catastrophic climate change and widespread ecosystem collapse) is the use of WMD by terrorist groups in a major city or population center. Even if the number of casualties was not exceptionally high, the panic that would ensue and the subsequent events that would transpire as governments did everything in their power to prevent another WMD attack, would fundamentally change the structure of society. Countries would likely become more isolated, freedoms would be curtailed, reprisals on multiple fronts would be undertaken, and the global economy would suffer a deep and prolonged recession. (Even another serious attack on the scale of 9/11, without the use of WMD could have similar, if not as dramatic, consequences).

For these reasons, it is understandable that counter-terrorism is one of the highest priorities for the U.S. and most other Western governments. The Obama Administration has been extremely aggressive in using Special Forces to track down, kill, and disrupt terrorist networks. This strategy is one that many people have advocated (including myself) as preferable to all-out war (a la Iraq and Afghanistan), where civilian casualties are much greater, the unintended consequences much murkier, and the costs, both in blood and treasure, extreme.

But as this New York Times piece highlights, even these less intrusive counter-terrorism efforts that rely on targeted strikes carry with them many risks. For one, the number of countries that we are engaged in continues to grow, and now numbers in the teens, and it is sometimes difficult to know whether we are making things worse, since avoiding civilian casualties and killing the wrong targets is bound to occur. There are also serious legal issues about operating assassination teams in foreign countries, especially when the targets are American citizens (as is one of the most important targets in Yemen).

As citizens we have an obligation to be informed about the acts of war our government prosecutes, because ultimately the blood on the hands of our government is our responsibility. But in a world where so much counter-terrorism is secret (often for good reason), it is extremely difficult for the citizenry to have a solid understanding of all that is taking place in their name.

The bottom line is that there are no easy answers; there is a small minority of violent extremists who will go to great lengths to try to harm the U.S. and its interests. These men will not voluntarily give up, nor would they stop planning attacks if the U.S. all of sudden decided to leave the Middle East and Afghanistan, or if peace broke out between the Israelis and Palestinians. They need to be confronted and defeated, but the question is how, and at what cost.

Despite my lack of military knowledge, the targeted approach, which increasingly relies on unmanned drones and other sophisticated technology, still seems to be preferable to the alternatives. While I think much more work should be done to promote economic development and democracy in the Arab and Muslim world, this is a very long-term project. It is possible that Iraq and Afghanistan may ultimately prove to be models of democracy that will spur larger transformations that weaken the allure of terrorist ideology, but again, this is not only uncertain but only possible way off into the future.

I don’t envy the politicians who have to make the hard choices, because in the fight against terrorism in the 21st century, there are no good options, only bad and worse.

Jason Scorse

Cutting the federal deficit is a hot topic on Capitol Hill, and some kind of action seems certain. Congress is due to take up taxes for the first time in President Obama’s term (including the expiration of the Bush tax cuts), and a report from the president’s national debt commission is expected come December. Both bodies should take a hard look at ending a needless tax break; getting rid of it would raise billions, and make the Tax Code a touch fairer in the bargain.

This little-remarked giveaway is the write-off which the IRS allows every year for stock market losses: when net losses exceed gains, taxable income can be reduced by up to $3,000. This is “I-want-it-now” tax law, and it turns a private loss into a hurry-up claim on the public purse. With the deficit soaring, it richly deserves repeal.

The same as now, capital losses could be written off dollar-for-dollar against capital gains. The same as now, losses could be carried forward indefinitely until they were wiped out. What the repeal would disallow is writing off stock market losses against ordinary income (which, as we shall see, was poor policy in the first place).

Let’s quickly take a look at who gains from this special write-off, and who pays for it. Then let’s look at the hefty inflow to the Treasury if the write-off were written off for good.

Roughly half of all Americans own no stocks, so losses in the market offer no tax advantages to them. While it’s true that more people than ever do own stocks, most have their holdings in tax-sheltered retirement accounts; the write-off doesn’t help them, either. It turns out that the benefits flow entirely to a privileged minority: those well-off enough to have non-retirement investment portfolios. There’s no defense for a tax break so skewed toward the affluent, especially one as gratuitous as this.

And who picks up the tab? Like any other tax deduction, it’s paid for by taxpayers in the aggregate; in this case, the many pony up to benefit the few. Far better for the Treasury, and better for tax fairness, if Congress shows some spine and calls a halt.

The result would be an annual drop in tax expenditures (the revenue the government foregoes via the tax breaks it hands out), and a corresponding uptick in Treasury receipts. Year after year, the deficit would be that much less. Nobody can predict Wall Street’s ups and downs, or individual investors’ either, so the actual numbers could vary widely. All the same, the market’s slump in 2008 and the first half of this year have almost certainly front-loaded the benefits of a repeal.

Portfolio values sank by the hundreds of billions during the sell-off; year-end figures showed that investors took a total hit of $6.8 trillion in 2008. Of course not all the losses were realized, and stocks went on to rally sharply for most of 2009. But by mid-year 2010 the markets had once again soured, and the major indices were nowhere near their former levels. So while it’s impossible to know hard numbers, it’s a safe bet that on-the-books losses hover near a record high.

Which means it’s an opportune time to disallow writing off those losses against ordinary income. It serves no purpose, the money goes to people who scarcely need it, and it’s an annual drag on the Treasury; the sooner it’s repealed the better for the federal deficit.

And everybody cares about cutting the deficit, right?

Gerald E. Scorse

Following up on last week’s post (about the need for the media to focus on issues and policy first, and political implications second), it occurred to me that one of the reasons this is unlikely to happen is because most journalists do not understand public policy very well. The reality is that policy is complicated and requires some level of training and/or experience to understand, and most journalists lack these qualifications.

I don’t have statistics, but a cursory examination of op-ed writers and journalists in the major newspapers indicates a dearth of individuals with degrees in economics or public policy. This is not to say that those without such degrees are by definition unqualified; nonetheless, the amount of misinformation, mistakes, and poor reasoning exhibited routinely in the traditional media severely undermines the accuracy of the reporting (Dean Baker’s “Beat the Press” blog is a great source that identifies the many errors commonly made in the traditional media about the most important domestic issues).

In addition to loads of misinformation, much reporting and commentary exhibits a profound ignorance of the power and interest group dynamics that lurk behind the daily pronouncements on policy and economic matters coming from various quarters. For instance, a common meme floating around lately claims that the reason new hires are slow is because businesses are concerned about regulatory uncertainty and tax increases; this has been promoted mainly by conservative economists and the Chamber of Commerce. Few reporters ever note that businesses want nothing more than less regulation and lower taxes, and that it is in their interest to try to convince policymakers and the public that this is what is needed to get greater economic growth (regardless of whether it’s true).

Similarly, many media personalities lack the knowledge to challenge politicians on TV when they make outrageous claims about tax cuts leading to increases in government revenue, or that the stimulus bill didn’t create jobs. In a media culture where image and personality are valued over knowledge, we are left with news outlets unequipped to challenge propaganda and spin.

There are of course notable exceptions, such as Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, who writes for the New York Times (and has to spend much of his time debunking pieces by other, uninformed Times writers, e.g., David Brooks), but these are few and far between.

Of course writing and reporting skills and crucial, but the media discourse would improve markedly if more people who had studied policy held top jobs, especially those who could explain complex issues in ways that ordinary citizens could comprehend. It’s too much to ask average Americans to understand the details of the tax code or health insurance economics, but not too much to ask those charged with informing the public to actually have the requisite training to do so.

This is another instance where the anti-intellectual and anti-elitist mindset in America is harming the country; experts should be sought out, not ignored, especially when it comes to the news.

Jason Scorse

The Shirley Sherrod case (in which a video was edited to make a USDA official appear racist, when she was not) is yet another episode of media chicanery and incompetence; for the better part of a week it distracted the country from policy debates that really matter. The rightwing hacks and enablers who routinely perpetrate these frauds got exactly what they wanted: the more time the country spends on sideshows, the less attention is paid to the real issues.

There’s a fair amount of introspection going on about what brought the media to the point where hatchet jobs from disreputable sources can hijack the news cycle (the Obama Administration itself fell victim, in a disgraceful way). Even many of the media’s most vocal defenders (e.g., Mark Halperin) admit that something is terribly wrong.

And there is.

But I doubt whether the media will learn the most important lesson. What ails them most is not that they fall victim now and them to a con artist; what ails them is the political paradigm through which they view virtually everything. The real trouble is that all news stories are instantly treated as Democrats v. Republicans and left v. right, always with a nod to where “centrists”, “moderates”, or “independents” lie.

This lens does more to distort than illuminate; politics should be secondary to the larger issues and ideas. America is facing tremendous challenges: a slow recovery with high unemployment, skyrocketing deficits, a health care crisis, two ongoing wars and terrorist threats, potentially catastrophic climate change and environmental degradation, and an illegal immigrant population that’s now over twelve million.

The media should focus on these issues, and offer the public the differing views on how to address them—the policies, regulations, and laws they would entail, and the potential pros and cons of the different approaches. Only after laying out the issues should politics enter the equation.

For example, on deficits, the two ways to address the issue are raising taxes or cutting spending. If the media outlined the different combinations of these strategies, and what they would mean for individual Americans, it would be a great service: people could form an opinion on the substance of the issues, ahead of the political implications. Of course, where the parties stand will ultimately be a big part of any policy story—but party stances should not top the discussion. The public needs to be educated and informed first, and then figure out which party is most closely aligned with their views.

The way the media currently works, everything is backwards. In print and on-air, writers and talking heads focus on the political battles before the substance is even close to clear. This confuses the public, which understandably reverts to simply following their ideological predispositions (which in turn further polarizes the nation, and dumbs-down the discourse).

When issues advance or stall in the political process, the media should make clear who is responsible. This will help voters clearly link policy outcomes to specific politicians. For example: when financial reform passes with next to no Republican support, headlines should make that clear; when unemployment benefits are blocked by the GOP, the headlines shouldn’t say “Congress fails to pass unemployment benefits extension”.

And please, no more discussions of how many Americans self-identify as “conservative” or “liberal”; these definitions are extremely vague and imprecise, and people often hold contradictory views on many topics that render these labels meaningless (i.e. wanting lower taxes but increased government spending, or increased personal freedom but the ability to restrict the rights of groups they don’t like).

The media has forgotten that political victories are ultimately meaningless and only policy victories matter. Social Security or tax cuts or gay rights matter because of their impact on people, not because they score points for one party or the other. Being fair and balanced doesn’t mean giving equal weight to both parties, it means describing objectively the costs and benefits of different policies and who stands to gain and lose. This crucial distinction has been lost in our media culture.

VoR prides itself on being a non-partisan forum, which may surprise some because of the strong stances I often take for the Democratic Party over the GOP. But if tomorrow the Republicans started representing just, fair, and reasonable policies, I would switch my allegiance in a heartbeat. Political labels mean nothing to me; they are important only with regards to policy goals.

If the media could finally recognize this, it would bring much greater clarity to the issues and lead to a much better-informed citizenry.

Jason Scorse

The death of climate change legislation this week provides more evidence of a completely broken political system. Not only is the threat from climate change real and growing; addressing the problem would have strengthened our economy and reduced the power of the world’s petrodictators. Climate change policy would have been a huge net positive for society, and it should have been a no-brainer.

But of course, some industries—notably oil and coal—would be harmed. Since they hold disproportionate political sway, these incredibly polluting industries were allowed to block progress. It is truly discouraging to the see the world’s greatest democracy beholden to the lowest common denominator.

The GOP is largely to blame: not one Republican Senator could be counted on to do the right thing (and remember that cap and trade was part of the McCain-Palin platform, but now even McCain is against it, as well as Lindsey Graham who worked with Kerry and Leiberman on a climate bill). Although comprehensive climate change legislation had already passed the House (again, with no Republican support), the new supermajority requirements of the Senate meant that at least some Republican support was necessary (especially since a few “centrist” Democrats from the oil and coal states were likely to vote “no” as well.)

But despite the obstructionism and small-mindedness of the Republicans, I place the majority of the blame on Obama. Why? Because he never made the case to the American people, never forced a true debate on the issue.

Obama’s greatest strength is that he can talk to the American people as adults, and level with us about the hard choices we face. But before the climate bill negotiations even began, he capitulated to the right by offering billions in federal loans for new nuclear plants and pledging to expand offshore oil drilling.

Later, faced with the disaster in the Gulf, Obama could have turned crisis into opportunity and made the case as to why finally—after decades of speeches and broken promises from Presidents as far back as Nixon—we had to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. He could have packaged this with American competitiveness and the need not to let China and Europe become the dominant players in the new alternative energy industries. He could’ve reminded us that most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, which supports extremists around the world and doesn’t even let women drive cars; he could’ve pointed out that Iran wouldn’t be funding a nuclear program if oil was $20 a barrel.

Instead, Obama and the Democrats caved. They didn’t force a vote to put people on record; they didn’t make the Republicans actually filibuster the bill; the threat was enough to make them fold. Most discouraging (and not confined to the climate bill) is how the Democrats have been unable to enforce party discipline on procedural votes; it’s one thing to resist party-line unanimity on legislative votes, but all Democrats should be required to let legislation come to the floor. It’s beyond me that Democrats who side with Republicans on filibusters go unpunished; loyalty on procedural votes seems to me an absolute minimum requirement for a political party.

Obviously, I’m frustrated. There is simply no excuse for a failure of this magnitude, especially without a fight. There was never any indication that Obama took this issue seriously enough to do what was necessary, and for this I will not forgive him.

But the fight goes on, and Obama and the Democrats still have time to make up for this colossal misstep. There are a number of steps that the EPA is likely to take next year that could significantly limit greenhouse gas emissions, and are also onerous enough that the oil and coal industries may actually prefer congressional action. In addition, there are a number of executive orders Obama could issue to increase energy efficiency throughout the economy—and, through government procurement of green energy, move the market in a new direction.

And who knows? Maybe the Democrats won’t lose too many seats in November, and will get a second wind on this issue. At this point, they have failed and there’s no good spin to put on it.

P.S. The NYT seems to largely agree with how I appropriate blame. On a positive note, Harry Reid spoke to the Netroots Convention and offered a glimmer of hope. And although unrelated to climate, this exchange was extremely moving and demonstrates why despite all of their shortcomings the Democrats are far superior to the GOP.

P.P.S. Krugman has a nice piece Monday on the issue and lays more of the blame on the consummate hypocrite John "country first" (cue the laugh track) McCain.

Jason Scorse

Predicting election outcomes is tricky, but economic conditions are highly correlated with how citizens ultimately vote. The formula is simple: the better the economy, the better for the incumbents; the worse the economic conditions, the worse the party in power fares. (James Carville summed it all up with his much-quoted phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid!”)

Given today’s high unemployment and low growth, the Republican Party should pile up huge gains in November. And they probably will if Republican leaders could just learn to keep their mouths shut. But they apparently can’t, and what’s been coming out almost daily provides what hope there is for Democrats.

Over the last few weeks Republican Congressmen have basically stated that the GOP’s priorities include:

1. Screwing over the working poor and the middle class by refusing to extend unemployment benefits, all the while claiming that the unemployed are lazy and undeserving;
2. Standing up for Wall Street and big corporations, even to the point of calling for a one-year moratorium on regulations (forget about health, safety and the environment, who cares?);
3. Standing up for the rich at every opportunity;
4. Pretending to care about the deficit (when it’s about money for the unemployed), but saying at the same time that deficits don’t matter (when it’s about extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich).

I think it’s safe to say that if elections were determined by actual policy prescriptions, the GOP would fail miserably; only a minority of Americans, perhaps even a small minority, support these views. So, despite the bad economic times, it’s worth asking why so many Americans will pull the lever for a party whose priorities are this perverse.

Part of the answer is because there are people for whom facts simply don’t matter; their worldview is shaped by the ravings of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the other purveyors of misinformation who dominate Fox News and talk radio. These people can never be swayed by reason. Ironically, the current bad economic conditions (even though Obama inherited them) only reinforce their belief that all Democrats are bad.

The good news is that the people who make up this minority will be quickly shrinking as a proportion of the electorate over the coming decades. Many are older and will simply die off, and many others are from a white working class that is also shrinking. No doubt there are younger Americans who are just as ignorant as the old-guard extremist fringe, but polls indicate that most are significantly more tolerant than their elders and at least moderately amenable to rational arguments.

So, as infuriating as it to watch the know-nothings dominate so much of our political discourse, I believe that what we’re experiencing is the last gasp of this vocal and vitriolic demographic. Granted, this final outpouring from the right-wing, epitomized by the Tea Party “movement”, may last a good while—but in relatively short order, it will fade into the dustbin of history. Our stagnant economy has probably bottomed out, and their appeal will naturally decline as employment, the housing market, and other economic markers begin to improve.

I am not claiming that American political discourse will ever become a bastion of reason based on honest policy discussions. On the other hand, I do think that what we are now witnessing represents our political nadir—that things are as bad as they’re going to get. Demographic trends and the inevitable march of social progress will prove too powerful for the right wing to withstand, and it will fracture and crumble.

Here’s hoping that this occurs as soon as possible.

P.S. Seems like Frank Rich is on the same page as me today. Good stuff.

Jason Scorse

Inequality in America has been growing for decades, and now rivals the gaps last experienced in the “Gilded Age” of the 1920s. There are many reasons for this—tax policy, trade impacts, shifts in industrial production, technological innovation—but the most likely cause is education levels. As society has shifted towards an information economy, those with higher education are not only getting the jobs but making a lot more money.

Wages for blue collar workers have largely stagnated for decades, while wages for white collar workers have increased (although they too have been hit recently). Most striking are differences in unemployment rates. High school dropouts have an unemployment rate of 14.1% and those with a high school degree 10.8%, but those with a bachelor’s degree or higher only 4.4%. Not only is the unemployment rate for the least educated more than three times the rate for the college-educated; the 4.4% rate for the most-educated is essentially full-employment. Despite anecdotal tales of highly educated workers unable to find jobs, and receiving low wages, the reality is that almost everyone with a college degree who wants to work is employed.

For the least educated the opposite is true. Millions with little or no education are now out of work, often for long periods—and with little or no savings, they’re least able to afford more education. As their few skills atrophy and their confidence decreases, many of them will find it ever-harder to get jobs.

There are policies that can help remedy this situation, and the Obama Administration has taken some important steps. By reducing subsidies for private banks in the student loan industry, the government is saving tens of billions of dollars, interest rates are lower, repayment plans are less onerous, and grants have increased as well. As part of the stimulus bill, the federal government is investing billions in broadband connections so that people in some of the most remote parts of the U.S. will have the same access to information and services (including online education) that the rest of us have. In addition, by providing a new safety net for the uninsured, the new healthcare bill will decrease medical expenses and help free up resources for more investment in education.

Nonetheless, the sad fact remains that the education system in much of the country is horrible and getting worse. Rightwing ideologues continue to fight against science and inject the culture wars into the curriculum (Texas being the most obvious example). The least educated tend to be the most easily swayed by the demagogues on the right (e.g., Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin), who manipulate them for their personal enrichment; it’s also the least educated who are quickest to blame all sorts of imaginary enemies for their ills, from immigrants to secularists to socialists. And with social mobility decreasing in America, the children of the poor and the uneducated too often stay that way, creating a permanent underclass.

There are no easy answers, but education is ultimately the key. Anything that can be done to increase college attendance should be a priority. Apart from that, we can all do our part by keeping reason and rationality front and center. We need it to combat the forces in the world who will always try to manipulate uneducated minds in order to gain wealth and power.

Jason Scorse

Nancy Pelosi rarely directly criticizes the Senate, despite the fact that hundreds of pieces of legislation that she has passed in the House continue to languish without even a vote in the Senate. But the other day she made some of the strongest comments to date that the filibuster needs to be eliminated and majority rule brought back to the Senate chamber.

There is nothing in the Constitution that states that 60 votes are needed to pass legislation in the Senate; the filibuster is simply an artifact of rule changes that have been made over the past few decades. The Constitution does allow for new rules at the beginning of every session, so that only 50 senators (plus VP Joe Biden who would break a tie) could simply decide to eliminate the filibuster. This would allow the Democrats to pass much of the stalled legislation on energy policy, immigration, and jobs bills in 2011 and beyond.

In fact, even though the Democrats will likely end up with significantly fewer Senate seats in 2011 (perhaps 53-54), with only a majority threshold, it is likely they would actually be able to pass significantly more liberal policies than they have been able to so far. Even with 59 votes they have had to kowtow to the rightwing Democrats and Republicans such as Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Scott Brown to reach the 60-vote threshold.

Of course none of this will matter if the Democrats don’t hold onto the House of Representatives, which they do have a serious chance of losing. But if they can hang on, and then eliminate the filibuster, the second half of Obama’s first term could be extremely productive, even with significantly diminished majorities. No doubt, this will be the major topic of discussion in Democratic circles immediately after the midterm elections.

Without filibuster reform it is likely that the entire Congressional apparatus will grind to a halt, since the Republicans are intently on derailing everything Obama does in the run-up to the 2012 elections. They have proven demonstrably that they don’t care about the problems facing the country, and only want to regain power at any cost, no matter how much suffering they leave in their wake.

It will be very hard to get 50 Democrats to eliminate the filibuster, both because of the desire to cling to tradition, and also for fear that once the Republicans get the majority again they will wreak havoc with their new power. But with significant grassroots activism, I think their hesitation and fears can be overcome. Americans want Congress to govern and to address the problems of the day. Majority rule is simple to understand and as American as apple pie; it speaks to basic notions of fairness. With the filibuster abolished, the difference between the two parties would become even more pronounced, giving the American people an even starker choice with respect to public policy between the two major parties.

This is how it should be. Elections have consequences. Let the Republicans campaign on repealing healthcare, giving tax cuts to the rich, cutting entitlements, and increasing the military budget. If that’s what people want they can vote for it.

But right now majority rule is being thwarted by an extremist fringe in the Senate that won’t even let legislation come up for a vote. As frustrating as these past 18 months have been, if this leads to the elimination of the filibuster it will have been worth it.

Jason Scorse

Humanity is at a fascinating crossroads. We have the technology and the means to create a sustainable development path for the world economy; the question is whether we can make the transition before catastrophic climate change becomes certain, before the oceans are depleted, and before our legacy becomes so toxic that we are destined for generations of increased cancer and eventual species collapse.

On the positive side, the major transformational technology of the 21st century—electric vehicles—is about to take off. The two impediments to the widespread adoption of this technology, the cost and storage potential of the batteries, have both been overcome. The Nissan Leaf set to come out at the end of this year will cost in the low to mid-20s (after rebates) and the battery can hold a charge of 100 miles. The cost per mile is about 1/5 that of gasoline, meaning that the average driver in the U.S. will save approximately $1,000 in gas costs per year (while drivers in Europe will save double that much). With the promise of never having to go to the gas station again and zero point-source emissions, these cars are the future. I predict that more than 50% of all new cars sold in the U.S. by 2020 will be all-electric and 80-90% of all cars on the road in the U.S. will be all-electric by 2030. We are on the cusp of an automotive revolution.

It’s true that electric cars can only be as clean as the fuel that generates the electricity. All the same, the fact the electric motors are so much more efficient than combustion engines means they’ll produce less CO2 and other pollutants than gasoline engines even when they burn dirty fuels. Since the U.S. will increasingly get more of its electricity from natural gas, wind, solar, and even nuclear, the efficiency gains will be tremendous (despite the role that coal will continue to play in our energy mix). Our dependence on foreign oil will soon be a thing of the past, and the petro dictators in Iran and Saudi Arabia will have to find other ways to fuel their economies.

It is doubtful that the efficiency gains from electric vehicles will be enough to achieve the cuts in greenhouse gases necessary to stave off the worst effects of climate change, but they will move us in the right direction. At the same time, legislation in the U.S. is leaning increasingly towards regulation of the utilities sector; this is a helpful development, since electricity is the single greatest contributor to global warming and will only grow in importance as electric vehicles replace the combustion engine.

Other major technological advances on the horizon—in artificial intelligence, stem cells, biotech, nanotech, and computing power—are sure to usher in a new era of productivity which will dwarf that of the modern era. The future will be truly bright if only we can hang on long enough.

There are powerful negative forces that could dampen or even negate any advances. There’s the clear potential of catastrophic climate change; the state of the oceans is extremely troubling, with major species facing extinction, entire ecosystems in decline, and the toxic load so great that the entire ocean food chain may be irreparably poisoned. Add in the rates of tropical deforestation and concomitant species decline, the proliferation of toxic chemicals in our agricultural food supply, and the widespread use of toxic industrial chemicals, and we are truly in a race against time to clean up our act.

Whether we ultimately succeed will largely depend on whether the developing countries can skip the most destructive aspects of industrial progress and implement green technologies to satisfy the demands of billions of new consumers. It is not whether the poor in China, India, Brazil, and Nigeria are going to get cars, refrigerators, and blue jeans, but whether their economies will be based on 20th century models or 21st century green technologies (and whether the emerging markets will mimic the animal product-heavy Western diet or stick with a predominantly plant-based diet; the evidence so far is not encouraging). This is the great economic and environmental challenge that we face.

Jason Scorse