Ten days ago, the citizens of Iran went to the polls and vote in the presidential election. While there were multiple candidates on the ballot, two figures were viewed as the main choice. The incumbent, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was facing a tough battle from Hossein Moussavi following years of economic strife and a severe drop in international standing. While Moussavi wasn’t too different from Ahmadinejad in domestic policy, he was seen as a much-needed change to improve relations with the international community.

The polls opened, and millions of voters came out across the country to voice their opinion. So many in fact, that the polls were held open for a few additional hours to ensure everyone had a chance to cast their ballot. From this point, the joy of voting suddenly hit a snag. For starters, the millions of ballots were counted in only a matter of three hours, which seems odd for an election that had to be extended due to the overwhelming turnout. Added to this problem was the conflicting election results leaked to the media. Both men claimed victory by winning at least 60% of the vote. (It was noted today that there were voting discrepancies in 50 of the largest cities in Iran, though that only accounted for 3 Million votes.)

The confusion over the election, and feeling of voter fraud drew millions of Moussavi supporters and reformists into the streets across the nation, shouting their discontent and carrying signs that read “Where is my vote” in English. These protests have been met with police lines trying to deter the activists then increased violence when the Basij (the militia) started to beat - and in some cases, kill - the protesters. One of the victims has been identified as Neda Agha-Soltan, a young woman who was engaged to be married. Much like the unknown student who was crushed by a tank in Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, Neda has become the face of the deadly oppression the government can impose upon those challenging their authority.

So the question becomes, “What action should the United States take?” There are two schools of thought. The first is a strong, up-front condemnation of violence and force used against the protesters. In 1981, President Reagan addressed the violence and force used against the public uprising in Poland by challenging the government directly. He said:

The men who rule them and their totalitarian allies fear the very freedom that the Polish people cherish. They have answered the stirrings of liberty with brute force, killings, mass arrests, and the setting up of concentration camps. Lech Walesa and other Solidarity leaders are imprisoned, their fate unknown. Factories, mines, universities, and homes have been assaulted.

…

I urge the Polish Government and its allies to consider the consequences of their actions. How can they possibly justify using naked force to crush a people who ask for nothing more than the right to lead their own lives in freedom and dignity? Brute force may intimidate, but it cannot form the basis of an enduring society, and the ailing Polish economy cannot be rebuilt with terror tactics.

The other school of thought is to take a softer approach, hoping not to antagonize a government that already despises the United States and spinning any statement as an attempt to label the protests as interference by the West. President Obama has said:

Obviously all of us have been watching the news from Iran. And I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football — or discussions with the United States.

Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence that I’ve been seeing on television. I think that the democratic process — free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they’re, rightfully, troubled.

With two distinctly different approaches, leaving one to ask which action is correct? That is rather hard to say, as the variables are different. While I believe Obama should strike a slightly more forceful tone and standing up for the rights of people to protest without fear of violence, I don’t think directly challenging the Iranian leadership is the right idea. And while I personally believe the United Nations has turned into a rather worthless organization when it comes to standing up to human rights under oppressive governments, I think Obama should be actively pursing an international resolution calling for an end of violence towards the protesters. That way, it shows that the world supports those rallying in the streets without directly challenging the leadership of the nation.

When all is said and done, will these protests matter? As stated earlier, there isn’t a glaring difference on the issues between Moussavi and Ahmadinejad. However, we might be surprised if the protesters are successful in overturning the election. Moussavi has been the face of the reformist movement during the rallies, and might change his positions to match those of the public. While the President answers to the Ayatollah, a President backed by a powerful populist movement (especially women) might be able to force the Supreme Leader to initiate change in favor of basic human rights for all within Iran.

Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that these current protests will lead to a complete collapse of the existing government power structure, meaning the ruling class will remain. However, with a series of gradual changes in domestic policy and rights, long-term changes are possible. Till that day comes, it is my hope that no other protester will meet the face of Neda - Iran’s “Angel of Freedom.”

Related articles:
Powerline - “A Word From Ronald Reagan”
The New York Times - “Both Sides Claim Victory in Presidential Election in Iran”
Cafe Sentido - “Rivals Ahmedinajad & Mousavi Both Declare Victory in Iran Election”
Hurriyet Daily News - “Status quo likely victor in Iran vote”
America Blog - “Secret document declares Mousavi winner”
Progress Politics - “President Obama regarding Iran Election Situation”

I have talked about the problems of PAYGO in the past, and why the concept is flawed. However, President Obama doesn’t seem to read my comments. So let me apologize in advance for repeating myself, but people need to understand what the politicians are talking about when PAYGO is mentioned.

PAYGO, or pay-as-you-go, is a concept of matching each dollar of spending with each dollar of income. This is typically the way you and I live our lives and manage our expenses. By living within our means, we avoid issues like bankruptcy, foreclosure, and so on. Additionally, when we are faced with periods of no income, we have set aside funds in savings to cover our needs. So why would this be a bad thing on the national level?

Say that you just had a decrease in your income due to the current economy. You are proactive and start to trim discretionary spending to make ends meet. As time continues to pass with that reduced income, you start tapping into your savings to cover your mandatory expenses, such as your car, your home, and groceries. But after a while, your savings runs dry, requiring you to use your credit card or seek a loan from the bank.

This tapping of credit is the role of the government during a down economy. When the economy is strong, the government collects large sums in tax revenues that fund our national programs. In an economy like we have now, when the revenue streams are slashed, the “Federal Credit Card” pops out to inject money into the economy to maintain necessary programs while covering the shortfalls that the individual states might be facing.

Under PAYGO, the ability for the Federal Government to practice debt spending is severely limited. In past incarnations of PAYGO and similar legislation, debt spending could only be allowed in cases of emergency spending. We can all accept that some of the increased spending over the past year would qualify as “emergency spending,” so that would be acceptable under PAYGO. However, much of the “stimulus” spending would not.

For Congress to approve spending on the projects under the “stimulus bill” using PAYGO rules, funding would have to be taken away from other non-mandatory spending items. There is a lot of waste in the government, but would there be enough to offset the difference of the stimulus bill? And in a down economy as bad as this one, when it is likely that tax revenues will continue to drop, could Congress afford to cover the mandatory spending items, such as entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare?

Social Security highlights another problem with PAYGO. Entitlement spending continues to increase, meaning that even in years of economic prosperity, it is likely that the government would have to increase taxes just to cover the difference in entitlement expenses from the prior year. Tax increases is what we can expect since, with the announcement of PAYGO by President Obama today, he also called for passing national healthcare reform. This reform is going to increase the entitlement liability on the government. Without being able to keep cutting non-mandatory spending items, tax increases is the only likely action that could be taken.

I am all for fiscal responsibility on the part of the government. In my view, we could easily cut 15% of the current non-emergency federal spending since they cover projects that serve no real national interest or could be funded by state and/or private financing. But even if Congress were to make these cuts before implementing PAYGO, I would still be against it.

Until Congress can reform Social Security to make it a program that is self-sufficient or eliminate it, PAYGO will only put a financial crunch on the federal budget or on the taxpayers’ wallet. Additionally, any implementation of PAYGO should include or be preceded by the revamping of our IRS. If we abolish the existing tiered tax bracket system and a code book full of unnecessary deductions and replace it with a simple flat tax program, Congress would be able to easily adjust the tax rate up or down each year based upon revenue receipts. These adjustments would be easier for the taxpayer to conceptualize and they can adjust their spending as needed.

PAYGO is the opposite of what our nation needs. The federal government should be spending more in lean years and less in robust years, just as our credit card activity would reflect in our own lives. PAYGO rules would limit our nations’ ability to adjust to the ever-changing economy to meet the needs of the nation. The intent might be noble, but intent rarely aligns with reality.

An interesting sound bite came out this week during a BBC interview. President Obama says Iran has a legitimate right to pursue nuclear power for their country. The following is a brief exchange between Obama and the interviewer:

Interviewer: A couple former members of the international security council actually suggests that you should go further and that Iran should be regarded in the same way as Japan. In another words nuclear reprocessing should be accepted but monitored by the international agency. Is that remotely possible?

Obama: I think that the key is to initiate a process that is meaningful, that is rigorous between not only the United States and Iran bilaterally but also continuing with the five-plus-one discussions in a way that is constructive. Without going into specifics, what I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations. On the other hand, the international community has a very real interest in preventing a nuclear arms race in the region.

To get an understanding of the energy concerns facing Iran, especially in this oil and natural gas-rich nation, all we need to do is take a close look at her economy. Most of the wealth for this nation comes from the exporting of her natural resources, primarily oil and natural gas. Consumption of these resources would decrease how much it could export since Iran is a member of OPEC.

The oil cartel artificially manipulates oil prices by controlling how many barrels of oil the member-nations produce. Two of OPEC’s members (Iran and Venezuela) are highly dependent upon the high price of and the demand for oil to cover their national programs. Failure to maximize those two components of the equation means Iran cannot meet the financial needs of her citizens, and in turn hurts the faith in the government. As such, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is facing a tough re-election right now due in part to the drop in oil revenue.

An Iran with nuclear power isn’t a foreign concept to the United States. In fact, the United States helped Iran with the development of their first nuclear power plant in Tehran in 1967. After signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968, the United States, France, and West Germany helped Iran expand their nuclear power production, with Iranian nuclear engineers being trained through Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But when the Islamic Revolution occurred in 1979, many of the power plant projects with the help from the West were left incomplete or were never started. Following the Iran-Iraq war, where many of the power plant projects were damaged or destroyed, Iran sought the help from the West to restart the nuclear program. However, the United States blocked these efforts, so Iran turned to China and Russia for assistance.

The problem with Iran is “trust.” How can we trust a country that took our state officials prisoner for over a year, or threaten on of our closest allies with total destruction? With the fear of Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon to threaten the region, or possibly export the technology to other nations or terrorists that might possess the will to use it, could we ever trust the country to develop the technology on their own?

The interviewer gave us a hint as to one possible way to allow Iran develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes without the fear of the program being used to create nuclear weapons. In Japan, the government has adopted a strict policy known as the Three Principles. These principles are non-possession, non-production, and non-introduction of nuclear weapons in the country. Japan was able to hold to these principles with the help of the United States. With North Korea and China within striking distance of the island nation, Japan signed a treaty with the United States to provide a nuclear deterrent (or “shield”) over the nation.

Does Iran need a nuclear shield to protect herself from her neighbors? The only country with nuclear weapons that might be forced to use them is Israel (an ally of the U.S.), and they would only use them if attacked. The next closest nation that could pose a military threat would be Iraq, but with U.S. forces stationed there and overseeing the training and development of the military and government, it is unlikely that Iraq would attack anyone. So a shield wouldn’t be something Iran would be interested in. However, economic development is something that the nation is lacking.

If we were to enter into an “economic shield” with Iran, we might be able to convince Iran to adopt Japan’s Three Principles. The question then would be “How do we make sure Iran abides by them?” Unlike Japan, who was still suffering from the scars of two atomic weapons being dropped on their cities, Iran does not have a strong populist distaste for nuclear weapons. We would have to develop some sort of agreement that: 1) limits the type of nuclear power plants developed, 2) restricts the handling of nuclear material to the US or other non-Iranian entity, and 3) bars any sale/import of plutonium to Iran.

If - and that is a big “if” - President Obama can develop such a plan and get the international community and Iran to agree to it, he could easily change the dynamics of the region (as well as win reelection). Now if only he would encourage additional domestic nuclear power development here in the United States. Iran isn’t the only country facing an economic and energy crisis.

Related articles:
KXMC TV - “Obama: Iran Has A ‘Right’ To Go Nuclear”
The Washington Post - “Obama says Iran’s energy concern legitimate”
The Huffington Post - “Obama’s Iran Policy More Likely To End Nuclear Proliferation”
Hot Air - “Obama: Oil-rich nation’s nuclear-power aspirations ‘legitimate’”
The Weekly Standard - “Statement of the Day”
Anti-War - “Obama: Iran May Have Rights to Civilian Nuclear Power”
Payvand’s Iran News - “Iran’s Nuclear Program. Part I: Its History”
MSNBC - “Production cuts unlikely after OPEC meeting”