U.S. Congress

Foreign policy is a fast-paced business. Despite the fact that at least someone in the Obama Administration is actually celebrating the art of indecision, you can save the world with snap judgments if you know what you're doing.  I know what I'm doing. 

To demonstrate I will now solve some of the biggest foreign policy problems confronting some of the world's most important newsmakers in a matter of just a few seconds each. (I will also solve a few lower-grade domestic problems as well.) If you are an important figure on the international stage, just look for your name below. Next to it will be the advice you need in a couple of quick sentences. If you are not a world leader but know one, please feel free to forward this to them.

To Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan of the Pakistani Muslim League: If you don't like the provisions of the U.S. aid package, keep it to yourself. Your complaints are precisely how we know the deal has been constructed properly. (Hint: Turn back the Americans who are offering aid and you'll end up with those who want to make all future deliveries by drone.)

To President Barack Obama: If you think that George's war (that'd be Iraq) is likely to look better than yours (Afghanistan) in five years -- and that'd be my bet right now -- then you really do need to listen to the people calling for a change in strategy.

To Manuel Zelaya: Fair or not, your five minutes are just about up...unless you choose to start dating Kate Gosselin. (And if that is Plan B, I have to say, I'd stay locked in the basement of the Brazilian Embassy, too.)

To Kim Jong-Il: You tell Wen Jiabao you want one-on-one talks with the United States to establish peaceful ties as a prelude to returning to the nuclear arms negotiating table? No problem. Two steps: First, ask for them. Second, realize Michael Jackson wrote "The Man(iac) in the Mirror" for you. As in the "how many shrinks does it take to change a lightbulb?" joke, the punchline is that it's you who've really got to want to change.

To Jon Corzine: You don't get re-elected governor of New Jersey by attacking fat people. I have a two word clue for you on this front: Tony Soprano.

To Silvio Berlusconi:  Are you the one that's tanned now or is that just a red face? The ruling by the Italian Supreme Court stripping you of immunity from prosecution just because you are Prime Minister certainly seems likely to put a hitch in your mambo Italiano. With three trials going on that involve you or your holdings, you might want to start planning your post government career. (I know your wife has some interesting ideas for what to do with you ... or parts of you.)

To Donald Tusk: As Poland's Prime Minister dealing with a corruption scandal, you have learned some important truths: gambling always produces losers (in your case, the three ministers who have been forced out of your government for corruption) and you can't beat the house (even if you try by suggesting you'll fire the anti-corruption official who blew the whistle on your cabinet) ... especially if the house is run by the two who stole that stole the moon and you don't fit in with their plans. 

To Robert Mugabe: You say you want better ties with the U.S.? Well, you're going to need a long rope... Kim Jong-Il has a better shot at restored relations with the United States ... by a lot. Frankly, so does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Frankly, so too does Rufus T. Firefly. Dictator, purge thyself.

To David Letterman: Ok, so far there's no rumors of foreign affairs in this story. But my advice to you is: continue doing just what you're doing. The openness is working...on the ratings...and on what's left of your image.  Silvio, you randy slimebag you, pay attention. Old men apparently can screw around with younger women if they are charmingly self-deprecating about it, not political leaders and not you. 

To Mazen Abdul Jawad:  You may have been condemned to 1,000 lashes in Saudi Arabia for discussing your (kinda gross) sex life on a tv talk show.   Here in America (see above), the same thing would actually get you your own talk show.  Time to consider relocating...almost anyplace else.  And speaking of Saudi outrages...

To Mohammed S. Al Sabban: If, as head of the Saudi delegation to the global climate talks, you are actually as reported going around saying if measures are taken to reduce world dependency on oil that the planet should offer aid to Saudi Arabia ... then get used to the idea that you are going to replace the woman who buried her husband in a rented suit as the living embodiment of laughable chutzpah.

To David Axelrod: Stay out of camera shot in photos about major foreign policy decisions. You're the president's right hand guy. He needs you: You have the "mind-meld" thing going, offer invaluable advice and by all reports are actually a good guy. Which is why what neither the president nor you need are the uncharitable whispers that you are out-Roving Rove in terms of day-to-day influence over administration operations. (Oh and to Karl Rove, re: your WSJ article that the GOP is winning the health care debate: There's a reason you guys are out. Wrong again. See the CBO report. The Obama-Baucus bill is getting closer and closer to being a done deal.)

AFP/Getty Images

It used to be that the Chairman of the Fed was regularly referred to as the most powerful man in the world. This was back in the day of Alan Greenspan and, at the time, it seemed it was in spite of the fact that people seldom understood what he was saying. Subsequently, we learned it was precisely because of the fact that we didn't understand what he was saying. And then, subsequent to that, we also learned ... largely because he had the good grace to admit it ... that he himself didn't understand what he was talking about.

The downward spiral of Greenspan from philosopher king of the global economy to mere mortal caught his successor, Ben Bernanke, in its vortex. He was handed an economy in which the doors and wheels were coming off as we drove and nothing like the power he needed to deal with it. Indeed, as the current crisis unfolded we saw that the Fed chair was not the most powerful job in the world, that title was reserved for current or former ceos of Goldman Sachs. This must be so because for a while people wanted to fire Bernanke after one term in office primarily because he had inherited a mess whereas when you screw up the global economy as the current or former ceo of Goldman Sachs, people want to help bail you out or make you Treasury Secretary or both. 

I kid. It is highly unlikely any ceo of Goldman Sachs is Treasury Secretary again for quite some time. Possibly years. 

And Bernanke did earn some of the flack he got initially, largely because he was swept along in the groupthink of Washington economic honchos, buying into the "leave it to the markets" regulatory philosophy that got us into the mess we faced for far too long. But when it became clear that approach not only did not work but that real change was needed, the quiet academic stepped up and became perhaps the leading dependable voice of reasonable change. That's why there is a consensus emerging today that Bernanke, who against all odds seems to be restoring the notion of Fed Chairman as Washington's most trusted economic oracle, should be reappointed when his term in office ends. Steven Pearlstein, in a typically thoughtful piece in today's Washington Post, gets on this bandwagon and adds a few suggestions as to how to modify the Fed (as well as an absolutely justified endorsement of David Wessel's terrific new book on the economic crisis called, "In Fed We Trust.")

The growing momentum of this bandwagon has put in doubt the once conventional wisdom that Larry Summers had accepted the reins of the National Economic Council as an interim step on his way to the Fed chairmanship. But Summers has done such a good job elevating the National Economic Council to unprecedented prominence in the day-to-day operations of the White House and has so effectively earned the president's trust, that it is now almost certainly better for all concerned (including those of us out here in tax-payer land) that he stay right where he is. If there was ever a situation that called for the president to have a strong economic quarterback at his immediate side in the White House, it is this one and in Summers, Bernanke, and Geithner, Obama has got a first-rate team that has the number one criteria you need for success in each of their respective jobs -- the trust of the president.

Now, as readers of this blog know, I don't think every move they have made is perfect. I am disappointed by the speed of regulatory reform here in the United States and internationally. I think they have not done enough to address some of the underlying causes of the crisis such as the creation of massive pockets of risk in the global economy related to the development of opaque derivatives markets. I think they have cut deals with Wall Street that are too sweet for the bankers. I think they have spent too much, bought into ideas (like tax cuts) in the stimulus that amounted to political pandering and they sure haven't given the president the kind of clear guidance he needs on how to sell the health reforms that are perhaps the economic reforms we most urgently require.

That said, their job was first to stop the bleeding and to stabilize the patient. It was no easy task and what they did in terms of swift and sweeping intervention, while imperfect ... almost necessarily imperfect given the speed at which they were operating ... has seemed to work. I still fear a second dip of the recession ... the "W" rather than the "V" shaped recovery. But today's papers show Germany and France creeping out of recession. Japan may too. Economists (a group with limited credibility at the moment, I must admit) seem to think we are at least plateauing here in the United States too. So I think it is fair that this team get credit for their efforts. 

Frankly, I hope that the initial success they seem to have achieved emboldens them. If anything they have seemed too deferential to the Congress and to Wall Street and once stability seems assured aggressive measures to rein in the budget deficit, further strengthen regulatory oversight and strengthen international regulatory mechanisms will be called for with the same urgency that stimulus measures were called for earlier this year. 

We have seen the dangers of too much deference to the markets, of regulatory indifference, of not believing that government could or should play a significant role in protecting our national interests by identifying and mitigating market risks with broader macro or social consequences. I hope the president makes the early decision to keep everyone where they are so that they can focus on the next wave of reforms that are so urgently needed.

(And to be clear, does the above actually suggest that I want a bigger role for governments in market regulation, stronger global governance mechanisms, tax increases if we need them in addition to substantial spending cuts and that I am a fundamental believer that government also needs to play a much expanded role in ensuring sustainable health care...which optimally would be through a single-payer system that is not even on the table at the moment ... and preserving the environment ... ideally through a simple, straightforward and substantial carbon tax? Yes, it does. Start rolling out your labels if you would like, but if the recent crisis has taught us anything it is that we can't afford the reflexive rejection of government solutions where they are needed ... rather we need to rise to the challenge of figuring out how to make governments more effective in these critical roles that only they can play.)

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Quick, somebody explain to the president that a deal and an accomplishment are two different things. The future of his presidency depends on it.

"Health reform at any cost" inevitably will produce an outcome we can ill-afford. The same is true for "a climate bill at any cost" or "engagement at any cost" or "withdrawal from Iraq at any cost." The mentality that you can spin the dross of a lousy deal into political gold or at least the currency of reelection is the single greatest risk facing the Obama administration at this point.

To observers from around the world, this is one among many reasons why the current health care debate in the United States is so vitally important to watch. Other reasons are:

• America's broken health care system is bankrupting our economy and rendering American businesses deeply uncompetitive. Unless it is fixed, it more than any other single factor will drag down the U.S. economy and undercut American power. (To put it in perspective, America's unfunded retirement health care liability amounts to somewhere between 3 and 6 times America's current fiscal deficit depending on which estimates you believe.)

• The political horse-trading currently going on over health care are already starting to have a big impact on other pending legislative initiatives from climate to trade. (See for example the ethanol tariff deal that was cut or note that the centrists who are key on the health deal are also the key obstacles to progress on some aspects of a climate bill.)

• The shrill and purely unconstructive response of the Republican Party to this health care reform effort is seen by some of them as a potential rallying point for a badly wounded politically party. That is a sign of just how weak they are. Because while this issue regularly ranks high on the list of American concerns as a party the Republicans have had absolutely nothing constructive to say on this issue during this entire debate...or during the eight years of the Bush administration. Every time a Republican leader opens their mouth on these issues and lists another problem they have without offering an alternative approach they further underscore their intellectual bankruptcy.

• That Obama's health care reform efforts are floundering despite such facing pathetic opposition from the Republicans might suggest weakness on the part of the president. I would say it more accurately reflects too much reliance on his part on the undistinguished Democratic "leadership" on the Hill and effective opposition not from Republicans but from entrenched interests in the health care industry.

On this last point, let me add two things.

First, I am in Las Vegas at the moment. (More on that tomorrow. Seriously, I can explain everything.) On the TV periodically are ads for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's reelection. The notion that the majority leader of the Senate of the United States happens to represent a state dominated by the one of the sleaziest and most corrupt cities in the history of the planet really speaks volumes. That the Senate has picked as a leader a "nice guy" whose actual mastery of the Senate is roughly akin to a munchkin riding bareback on a brontosaurus explains loads about why Obama was wrong to punt to depend on his former Hill colleagues to shape a bill that still ... this far into the debate ... lacks any intellectual core, any principles around which it is to be built. (Reminder: the bill needs to be seen by the American people as improving the quality of our health care system, cutting costs and ensuring universal coverage. Those are the basics.)

Second, it's hard not to be in Las Vegas and think about corruption and moral decay. That's what the city sells (and why we should hope to the heavens that what happens in Vegas actually stays in Vegas). It is such a repulsive monument to tasteless venality that I visit it every so often as a kind of public service -- so you don't have to go yourselves. Ok. I'm not such a saint. I also go here because it is the only place in the world I feel not only comparatively virtuous but also elegant and thin. In fact, last night walking out of a show (the truly lousy "Jersey Boys" ... a subject about which I know something) I felt like I was trapped in some nightmarish Francisco Botero painting of the running of the bulls in Pamplona. Costumes by Old Navy.

Anyway, the point is that as bad as Las Vegas is, it is only the second most corrupt city in America. Read Robert Reich's Salon piece on Obama's deal with the drug companies to understand just the latest outrage in this respect. Or read Frank Rich's excellent piece in the NY Times, "Is Obama Punking Us?" (Note to observers from outside the United States: note that these are critiques from Obama's base, the left.) The fact is that there will be no good deals in Washington, no meaningful reform, until there is real campaign finance reform in America. Barack Obama talked tough about lobbyists and punished a few by keeping them out of his administration.  But he has done absolutely nothing to limit the real forces that are corrupting the U.S. system ... the flow of cash from Big Pharma or insurance companies or on other matters from Wall Street or unions.

So the combination of unclear marching orders from the White House, weak leadership from Dems on the Hill, shrill negativism from Republicans and a corrupt political system has produced a muddled health reform bill when we need a strong one. While we are right to be frustrated and appalled we should not be surprised. The same will almost inevitably follow with climate. The same will almost inevitably follow with every bill until we fix what is really broken in Washington.

But on another level, if the administration continues to send the message that it is so eager to check the boxes on some check list of deliverables that it will buy into the illusion of progress rather than fighting for the real thing we are likely to see engagement for the sake of engagement (watch Hillary Clinton try to talk herself around this issue with Fareed Zakaria from his show this weekend...you could tell it was tough for her) or withdrawals from warzones that mask heightening risks in those places (Iraq) and new ones (AfPak). Or rather, we're already seeing these things. 

From health care to climate to Iran to half a dozen other policies in the Middle East we are seeing dangerous compromises and worrisome caveats and complications. And since some of these have nothing to do with the money politics of Washington we have to conclude that they are linked to and revealing of the still evolving character of the administration.

This should be a warning sign for them as well as for us. It carries an important message: The most important achievements of this administration may come from the deals it is willing to walk away from. Only through these can it send a message that it actually has principles and the integrity that is a prerequisite of real leadership.

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

As indicated late last week by the first half of my foreign policy report card, President Obama has put a first class team in place to manage his international agenda and so far they are working well together.   But what about the policies themselves?  It's early yet, of course, but it's worth asking-where have they made their mark and what kind of marks is that likely to get them.

Remaking the American Brand, Grade: A

Job one was slamming the door on the George Bush Era then locking it, boarding it up, doing a "Cask of Amontillado" brick wall on top of that, and then depositing the whole thing in Yucca Mountain for safe keeping.  Related to this was getting out there, introducing Michelle, and letting intelligence, charm and competence tell the story. My belief is most of the world wants to like America so this task was not quite as hard as some had made out (which makes Bush's alienation of the planet all that much more of an accomplishment), but Obama has shined as the new front man for the "new, improved" good old USA. 

North Korea, Grade: B

Oh, right. As if I am stupid enough to evaluate the North Korea policy in the wake of Bill Clinton's historic visit... Well, actually the outcome was easy enough to predict; Clinton wouldn't have gone if the release of the two journalists weren't a pretty sure thing. The North Koreans wouldn't have accepted him if they didn't think it was time to take a little breather (as we periodically do) from all the heavy breathing. But the long-term issues will remain. Clinton himself once said nuclear weapons were North Korea's only cash crop and so they will likely keep playing the game we're used to. Frankly, if Clinton hadn't gone, I think I would have given a D on this front because they have been toying with us on the nuclear issue and our multilateral efforts have been ineffective. Also our policy has been virtually identical to Bush's.  Or maybe I would have given the administration a "C" because I enjoyed Hillary's mudslinging with the Dear Leader a few weeks ago. It was lousy diplomacy but had a higher truth content and more comic content than such exchanges usually do. (Come to think of it, I wonder how our former president and Kim Jong Il handled the "funny lady" who looks like a "pensioner going shopping" comments at dinner tonight?  And however they handled it, if only we could have gotten a glimpse of the "Annie Hall" subtitles that would have revealed what they were really thinking.")

Iran, Grade: C+

The big plus in the current team's policy re: Iran is clearly the move toward engagement. The big negative is clearly the move toward engagement.  They cancel each other out which is why I give them a "C." Engaging with Iran is the right thing to do. This is a country with the greatest possibility of leading the Middle East toward democracy and integration with the west.  It is sophisticated, cosmopolitan and too diverse to pigeonhole just because the views of a few leaders are crazed. (We in the United States should have learned this lesson from how we wanted to be treated when W was at the helm.) But as has been said here before, engagement is a tactic -- not a policy objective. We were so eager to achieve it that we were late in condemning the unrest in the streets in Tehran. And I fear that the success or failure of engagement in Iran will be seen as so central to the President's ultimate foreign policy grade that we may be too accepting of the promises of a regime with almost two decades of history of breaking promises. I give the plus because I think Hillary Clinton leads a group of tough-minded policymakers in the administration on this issue and I think there is still a decent chance we may get the best of both worlds: engagement and the ability to respect ourselves the next morning. 

Israel and Palestinian Territories, Grade: B

As discussed here earlier, we may be on the verge of a historically bad patch in the U.S.-Israel relationship. The United States feels the need to get tough just as an Israeli administration comes in that is inclined to defend the indefensible (which is the expansion of settlements). But frankly, only through such toughness will the United States be able to be an effective intermediary in defusing this chronic crisis.

Also: the administration has been hugely more engaged on this front than their predecessors... which is a big plus. But we have to ask: when push comes to shove, will the administration be as tough with the Palestinians as will be necessary? Will a perhaps too soft stance on Iran create a deeper rift with an Israel with legitimate security concerns regarding a nuclear Iran? My guess is we will make some progress on this front in the next three years...more than at any time since the Clinton days. But now that we have established that we recognized what needed to be changed...we need to prove that we recognize what also needs to be preserved in our relationship with Israel. 

Afghanistan and Pakistan, Grade: D

This is the "Be Careful What You Wish For, War." The administration framed this as the good war during the campaign and now it has become theirs. This is where their military management skills will be tested. This is where their geopolitical mastery will be tested. And, I believe, this is where they will start to fail those tests ... not because they won't be working the issues as hard as possible or putting their best people on the problem. Rather it is because ancient ethnic divisions, geography, religious politics and history make victory ... victory of any sort ... almost impossible. The best we can hope for is to get some bad guys and get out, hand the problems over to locals and forge a partnership with the other great powers in the region, notably India and China to contain the spillage from a place that is likely to be an open wound on the world for decades to come.

Iraq, Grade: B-

Look, Obama was elected to get us out of here and that's what he's doing.  Having said that, watch closely as to what happens as we leave. My sense is a combination of government incompetence and corruption and the intractability of local problems is likely to produce festering unrest that keeps 50,000 or so U.S. troops in this country for...well, maybe not John McCain's 100 years...but a long time. (Which was the point McCain was inartfully trying to make, I think.) And if you want to start a betting pool, I say the over-under on an independent Kurdistan is 2020 and I'll take the under. 

BRICs-Russia: C, China: A-, India: A-, Brazil: B-

The Obama team has made a great contribution by recognizing the rightful place of these emerging powers within whatever organization ultimately succeeds the G8. But the policies with each country have been a mixed bag. The most important of the relationships by far is with China...it's the most important bilateral relationship in the world by far.  Obama has put in place a terrific ambassador, early meetings have gone pretty well and most importantly, the clear message has been sent about the centrality of the relationship. If the Chinese are beating us up a bit on economics well, turn about is fair play...and an important dimension of a relationship among equals. While the Indians gave Hillary a hard time on climate, her trip and the up-coming meeting in Washington with PM Singh suggest this relationship too is entering a new era. The U.S.-India relationship has never been more vital to us or to them ... that's a good thing. So far the relationship with the Russians has left everyone a little uneasy. I happen to think that's roughly how we should feel about the Russians, but it is hard to say the relationship is in especially good shape and we are cutting them a little too much slack. (Did you notice the Russian-Iranian naval exercises a few days ago?)  Lula and Obama have a natural affinity and we are also sending a great ambassador to Brazil but the cave to Sen. Grassley on the ethanol tariff takes away something the Brazilians wanted a lot. So, the future of that relationship will really depend on what the U.S. does to help Brazil claim a larger role on the international stage.

Europe, Grade: B

The Euros started out loving Barack. But the administration dragged its feet on European proposals for major global regulatory reform in finance and the Euros dragged their feet on upgrading their help for the United States in AfPak. It's going to get worse if the "special relationship" we have with the U.K. ... which has been crucial in managing our other relationships in the region ... is damaged because, as seems likely, the next British PM is a guy, David Cameron, who the Obama team is going to have a tough time getting along with. It's going to get worse still if our budget constraints start having us cut back further on our international military activities and more pressure will be applied to Europe to step up. But so far so good on this front and it seems likely that given strong working relationships at the highest level with France and Germany, things should be fine. (Although it's quite a thought: the U.S. could be closer to Sarkozy's France than to Cameron's U.K.)

Latin America, Grade: C

Face it, the U.S. only cares about Latin America when it has to. So far, Obama and company have given Mexico good attention and although the security situation in that country remains unsettled and that could lead to a likely resurgence of a PRI that may be harder for Obama to deal with, it is hard to imagine any U.S. administration handling the relationship better.  There has been slight movement on Cuba. I mark the administration down a whole grade on this point since there should have been major movement on Cuba-the removal of a policy that is so bad I really hate to speak its name.  Sin embargo, even worse are likely to be the consequences of our hesitant policy toward Hugo Chavez. Read the recent NY Times article on what Venezuela has been doing with the FARC in Colombia. Chavez may be a tinpot crackpot but he is working to undermine democracies in the region like Colombia ... and of course, Venezuela ... even as he continues to proclaim his democratic legitimacy. This is a place where the clown show in Trinidad is going to look worse and worse as engagement with this truly bad actor is quickly ruled out.

Africa, Grade: B

So far the administration has made the case that it wants to do more for this relationship. Now, of course, it actually has to do more. Thus far, the issues of the region have gotten precious little bandwidth and the failure to put in place someone to run U.S. A.I.D. hasn't help. So...good message but the proof is in the pudding. (Also, the over-under on the next time we send U.S. troops to Africa is 2015. I'll take the under. In other words: a dangerous policy mistake to watch is under-estimating the geopolitical importance of Africa going forward.)

Multilateralism, Grade: C

High marks are earned for starting to mothball the G8 in favor of the G20.  Low marks for sluggish and limited trade policy, likelihood of a punt in Copenhagen, very limited results at most summits, failing NPT and no good successor in sight, and not very effective use of the UN to date.  (Though that could change I do have a lot of faith in Susan Rice to change it.)

So, there you are. Ruminate. Admire. Cast aspersions. I can take it. Where I am right now Washington seems far far away and I am finding new clarity. (Or possibly suffering from oxygen deprivation.)

Middle: Joe Raedle/Getty Images; Top Right, clockwise: Joe Raedle/Getty Images, Mark Wilson/Getty Images, JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images, KNS/AFP/Getty Images, David Silverman/Getty Images, ALI AL-SAADI/AFP/Getty Images

Word came through late yesterday that as anticipated here the White House caved to Senator Grassley, providing assurances America would not be lifting its tariff on Brazilian ethanol anytime soon.

As interesting to me was that the Renewable Fuels Association, which is not like many things in Washington what its name suggests and does not support all renewable fuels just those produced by its members, saw fit to issue a press release going after me and Andrew Sullivan who graciously picked up some of what I had written on our corndog friends. They accused me of being an international consultant (true) who has worked closely with Brazil (also true). It helps to work with different parts of the world to actually know what's going on in them. In fact they characterized me as a Brazil nut. This hurt. Because I actually am not a big fan of Brazil nuts. They then went on to say that there are, despite my assertion to the contrary, credible experts who think corn makes a shred of sense. They listed a number of reasons why corn would make sense -- if you were just interested in using a feedstock that is already being produced for which we already have fancy subsidy programs that comes from states with a lot of political clout, for example. They also erroneously suggest that Sullivan and I implied (which we did not) that corn only comes from Iowa. In fact, I for one, know corn comes from lots of other places including Hollywood and Washington flackeries. But perhaps my language was not precise enough. 

So let's toss the ball right back at them. Please find a credible expert who believes that corn is the best possible feedstock from which to make ethanol or that corn is actually a more efficient source of energy than other feedstocks like sugarcane or likely next generation feedstocks. Once you've done that we can move on to the idea that subsidizing an industry with an unsustainable model is in the U.S. national interest or that having U.S. consumer pay more for fuel in the current economic environment is a good idea or that protectionism is really the answer. Or better yet, perhaps we can move the discussion on to why the U.S. continues to lavish subsidies on the ag business that distort world trade and, very often, primarily offer a payday to corporate farms and well-to-do larger farmers. 

I'm not sure what bugs me more-that Congressman Eric Cantor's Washington Post op-ed today "Obama's 32 Czars" plagiarizes a piece I wrote months ago or that it was a bozo like Cantor who felt compelled to plagiarize me.

No. I know. It's the latter.

OK, I'll admit it, whenever I see an article that picks up on something that I've written here days, weeks, or months before, I glow with a kind of smug self-satisfaction that would be odious in anyone else. (The smugness of others is repellant. One's own smugness is just like a warm hug that we deserved but never got.) For example, this week's New York Times ran an op-ed discussing deteriorating Israeli attitudes toward Barack Obama and citing a June Jerusalem Post poll, I was quietly pleased that I got there almost two weeks before. It happens every so often. It makes up for the ridiculously low stipends ... it's more like a transit allowance or beer money actually ... that FP pays its bloggers.

But Cantor's piece crossed a line. Not only did he rehash an idea that was first broached in my April 16th post "It's official: Obama creates more czars than the Romanovs" but he did something worse: he stole the punch line. Lift an idea from one of my pieces and I feel influential. Zei gesund, I say, which is Yiddish for "It's OK, I know that in the policy community imitation is often the sincerest form of thinking." But snatch a joke and you've crossed a line. 

Now if my post was only on some backwater Web site, I'd just write it up to a misunderstanding. But first of all, FP is no backwater site. Why just yesterday a guy in an elevator mentioned it to me ... and ... and um, and then there's my mother, who every few days sends an email saying "nice blog...but stop beating up on that nice Joe Biden..." But more importantly, the "More czars than the Romanovs" piece got picked up widely across the web and even led to an appearance by yours truly on the Fox Television -- which is known to be the main intellectual teat at which Eric Cantor suckles.

So he … or rather the 22-year-old staffer who actually wrote the piece … should have known better. I mean yes, in my post which is now apparently so classic that it has passed out of copyright protection, I said that Obama had "passed the Romanov dynasty in the production of czars" and Cantor built his entire piece around the line "the administration has more czars than imperial Russia." While this is not a verbatim lift, the DNA is mine. I'm the father. And while Cantor may use the "sampling" defense that was pioneered by his intellectual predecessor Vanilla Ice during his precedent-setting "Ice, Ice Baby" controversy, let's call a spade a fucking shovel here folks. Dude stole my wry worldview.

Worse still, Cantor stole the idea and then misinterpreted it. He used the now practically immortal concept ... which will be soon be known in literature as the Romanov gambit or better, the Rothkopf gambit, which would be a nice twist given how the Romanov's treated my shtetl-dwelling relatives a few decades back ... to argue that by having so many czars, Obama was pre-empting the power of Congress. While given their current shenanigans the term "power of Congress" seems destined to join the long list of Washington oxymorons (also covered here in an earlier blog posting... but when I cite myself it's not plagiarism, it's just narcissism), Cantor fails to recognize that having lots of czars actually diminishes the power of Obama. It makes it hard to get things done and it inevitably creates turf wars between officials who once had the mandate to do what the czars are supposed to and the czars themselves. Sometimes it even creates jealousy between czars who seek greater territory. 

Cantor argues that putting authority in the hands of people who aren't vetted by Congress undercuts vital checks and balances. First, there is the small fact that there are roughly 4,000 political appointees in the executive branch and "only" 1,100 of these require Senate approval. Second, there is the fact that this number of 1,100 would almost certainly be seen by the framers of the Constitution as grotesquely bloated and evidence of a congressional power grab. Third, many of the most influential positions in the U.S. government do not require congressional approval (the national security advisor and the head of the National Economic Council come to mind but there are scores of other such vital positions) precisely because the chief executive is entitled to some prerogative in choosing his advisors.  And finally, look how screwed up the congressional approval process is. As noted earlier this week in my post on Senator Grassley, the right individual senators have arrogated to block approval of presidential nominees is regularly abused for wholly self-serving, shallow, special-interest driven (which is to say, typical for Congress) reasons.

Given that he is this wrong on so many levels, you have to ask where does Cantor's sense of entitlement to appropriate my joke come from? Well, first of course, if you spent all your time standing next to John Boehner, you'd feel pretty special too. (Listen to Boehner. He makes George W. Bush sound like Blaise Pascal by comparison.) But at a more basic level, appropriating ... recklessly, without regard for right or consequence ... is what members of Congress do. And when they don't have the resources they need, their natural impulse is to borrow them. 

So, perhaps he can't help himself. As a result, I forgive you Eric Cantor. If you need more ideas, feel free to graze here. In fact, I encourage it. It'll almost certainly contribute to your political evolution and help you fulfill your destiny to be the bottom half of the Romney for president ticket in 2012. But please, give credit where it's due ... and even if you can't do that, try to get your analysis right. Plagiarism is one thing ... but making me feel partially responsible for your tortured misinterpretations of the facts is just too much to bear.

Update: Glenn Thrush of Politico has followed up on this story. He says he has found evidence that David Brooks said something about Obama and czars and Russia on the Charlie Rose Show a couple of months before my FP post on the subject. In my defense, I don't watch Charlie Rose because a.) I have no trouble falling asleep and don't require outside assistance and b.) I prefer Chelsea Handler.

Also, there is a big distinction between Brooks comment and mine because while he said "there are more czars than in the history of Russia", this was just a wild assertion. And at the time he made it was not actually true. I counted. My piece was based on a careful review of Romanov family tree. In fact, I limited myself to Romanovs. So while he made a colorful statement, I was reporting real (or at least amusingly contrived) news: the Obama administration had actually moved into the lead. And while this is no place to debate whether or not to include Grand Princes of Moscow or the Rurik Dynasty in our list, there is a bigger point: Cantor lifted the line. And I at least deserve a thank-you note. And if he wants to send one to David Brooks too, that's fine with me.

Update No. 2:

Glenn Thrush, doing some really good leg work for Politico, has discovered that prior even to my article noting the appointment that nudged Obama into the lead in the czarist league tables over the Romanovs … and prior to David Brooks apparently even earlier observation that Obama had more czars than Russia…other people had also made the connection between Russia and czars. In fact, rather improbably, he has someone making the observation even prior to Obama taking office as president which, I would argue, undermines the point somewhat. In fact, the article he is citing was from the Winter Palace Daily Dictat and is dated 1915. In it, a reporter with the unlikely name of Thrushovsky wrote, "You hear a lot of whining these days about Nicholas II this and Alexandra that and how little Anastasia beat up a serf on her elementary school playground. There's all this talk about how we have had so many czars and that's the root of the current blini shortage. Well, it’s very easy for me to imagine a time when even in America they will appoint czars to take care of every little problem in that backwards wasteland and they'll end up with more than us and we’ll look back on all our wonderful Faberge eggs and infrequent yet colorful pogroms and say, 'those were the days.'"

I'm unable to read the original Russian so I can't vouch for the authenticity of the quote. But I get the point. I was not the first person to make the connection between czars and Russia. However, I was the person to officially note the moment Obama moved ahead of the Romanovs. (No hyperbole for me, boys and girls. Not ever. I'm the least hyperbolic man America has ever seen.) And secondly, while I cling to that slim distinction to maintain my contribution to this important … if apparently beaten to death … metaphor, I think it can safely be said that Eric Cantor is way at the end of the line. And, as was the more important point of my playful little diatribe yesterday, Cantor came to all the wrong conclusions about the problems caused by Obama's czarism. (Although one has to note his press secretary, commenting on this major issue in Politico, handled it with considerable grace and humor … as did Thrush.) So I say zei gesund to all of them.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Senator Charles Grassley, one of the six power brokers featured in the New York Times story today on the inner circle of senators who are shaping health care legislation, may not be one of the three Blue Dog Democrats on the group, but that doesn't stop the Iowa Republican from being pretty dogged when it comes to his own pet issues.

According to today's Congress Daily, the Finance Committee's ranking member has slammed the brakes on the confirmation of Thomas Shannon to be ambassador to Brazil. His reason? He seeks what is euphemistically called a "clarification" of Shannon's confirmation hearing statement that eliminating the tariff on ethanol imports would be "beneficial." Of course, by "clarification" the Senator means a complete reversal slammed down Shannon's gullet by administration higher ups.

In letters to Secretary Clinton and USTR Kirk Grassley wrote:

A clear signal of the President's stance on this issue would decrease the possibility of confusion in America's heartland and in Brazil regarding the ethanol tariff if Mr. Shannon were confirmed as Ambassador to that country."

Since Shannon, most recently U.S. assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs and by consensus the most talented and successful individual to hold that office in at least two decades, is one of America's very best diplomats he will of course, be far too circumspect to offer Grassley the "clarification" he deserves.

Let me try however. U.S. ethanol tariffs are indefensible on any level, yet another example of the system of agricultural welfare that has burgeoned in the United States thanks to that good old fashioned combination of backroom and checkbook politics that make America great. There is not a single credible analyst of biofuels (which is to say one that is not paid for by or affiliated with American agriculture) who thinks that corn ethanol makes a hint of sense. It is hopelessly inefficient and with every new development regarding next generation biofuels only grows more so. Brazilian sugar cane ethanol, the main target of the tariffs, is produced as much as eight times more efficiently. As such, it offers a cheaper, more abundant, more environmentally friendly alternative to American consumers at a time when one would have thought that concerns about reducing dependence on foreign oil and combating climate change would be at the forefront of our concerns.

But once again, America's electoral system rears its ugly head. So long as presidential campaigns begin in Iowa, Iowans like Grassley will use the system to put the interest of their state's three million citizens and the most vocal special interests within their midst like the corn lobby, ahead of the three hundred million or so of the rest of us. Further, in so doing, Grassley seeks to preserve yet another dimension of America's system of farm protection and subsidies that costs tax payers tens of billions each year, forces food prices higher (according to the likes of Nobel Prize winner Joe Stiglitz) and is the single biggest distortionary factor in the world trading system. I understand why he is doing it. It's just a shame he can. The system allowing individual senators to hold up presidential nominations is regularly abused and needs to be reconsidered.

It is now July and the Obama administration does not have its own ambassador in Brasilia, capital of one the rising powers that is most important to us in the world. The guy who is there now, Bush's appointee Cliff Sobel, is widely regarded by Brazilians (and anyone else who is paying attention) as a joke whereas Shannon is seen as the crème de la crème of the U.S. diplomatic service and is a nominee viewed with great enthusiasm by the Lula administration. The Shannon pick said "Brazil is important."  Grassley's move says "all politics is local." 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out given that Grassley is so important to the prospects for health care reform. Grassley, who is as canny as they come in the Senate, knows the hand he holds and is betting he can get the Obama team to commit to keeping the tariffs as part of the wheeling and dealing associated with health care. I wouldn't bet against him.

As they say around state fair time in Des Moines, "ain't nothing like a corn dog."

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

One of the big issues swirling around the current health care debate is whether or not Congress will be able to take action (on what specific legislation no one is sure) before the August congressional recess. Which got me to thinking. Which, as usual, can only lead to trouble.

Just why is it that in the middle of the greatest economic crisis since before Alan Greenspan learned to count that the honorable men and women of the United States Congress think that they should be taking time off? It's a crisis, people! Times like these call for extraordinary measures. We know because that's what the members of Congress keep telling us. The times are so extraordinary that they justify spending trillions of dollars, of casting fiscal responsibility to the wind, of taking over major chunks of American industry, of rethinking the regulatory structure of all of global finance...but apparently not extraordinary enough to motivate members of Congress to keep working a couple extra weeks a year.

Americans have fewer days of paid leave or paid vacation than the citizens of any other OECD country. In fact, we get about a third of what they get in France. What's more Americans tend to be so committed to work (or possibly feel they need to work so hard) that they leave something like a million and a half years worth of unused vacation time on the table every year. 

But Congress has schedule breaks in their annual calendar totaling around 10 weeks. Depending on the year, four to five weeks alone at the end of the summer. This might work just fine for the Asemblee nationale but we are quite a distance from the Palais Bourbon...and from the time when part time work did the trick in Washington.

While there's a case to be made that representatives should spend time with the people they are representing, the reality is that given modern technology and modern congressional agendas, most of the time they are with people they are talking not listening and most of the feedback they get comes via email, phone messages or snail mail. And again, these are unusual times, I'm not saying that they shouldn't get to be back in the districts more when they have taken care of the people's business in Washington. But they haven't done that yet, have they?

The 50 million Americans without healthcare can't put their medical needs on hold. The economy needs fixes now, not later. Congress should spend this August getting reacquainted with one of America's top tourist destinations: Washington, DC.

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images