Organized crime in the Americas: A call to action

Key Points

• Transnational organized crime (TNOC), in some cases abetted by hostile and lawless regimes in Latin America, is a principal threat to US security; however, US officials have failed to respond effectively.
• A narcostate has emerged in Venezuela, but US diplomats have coddled the criminal regime in defiance of ongoing US investigations and in violation of the president’s explicit anti-TNOC strategy.
• The United States should use law-enforcement tools to expose and punish senior Latin American and Caribbean organized-crime conspirators, to rally support for the benefits of the rule of law, and to reinvigorate antidrug cooperation.

Read the PDF.

In March 2014, General Martin E. Dempsey, the outgoing chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, told an audience of midshipmen at the US Naval Academy that “transnational organized crime [TNOC] from our southern hemisphere” ranked with Russia, China, and al Qaeda among the principle national security threats confronting the United States.[1] Criminality that used to emanate from particular countries has metastasized, operating across national borders, weakening the rule of law in the Latin American region as a whole, and sowing mayhem in countries with institutions too weak to resist.

The reach and impact of organized crime in the Americas has grown more profound in recent decades, as criminal organizations have adopted the practices and technology of a globalized economy to build transnational networks. In Latin America, antidrug cooperation—characterized by the promising progress of the US-backed security and development strategy known as “Plan Colombia”—has been dismantled in the last decade. A cadre of anti-US regimes, inspired and financed by the late Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez, has effectively ended cooperation with US antidrug efforts. In some cases, these governments now aid, abet, or engage in narcotrafficking.

Just as antidrug cooperation is being undermined, criminal networks have grown stronger. Today, they are able to organize complicated conspiracies involving drug acquisition from suppliers in Colombia, transportation with the complicity of security officials in Venezuela, transit across porous borders in Central America, marketing and smuggling by criminals in Mexico, and money laundering in banks around the world. Terrorist groups such as the Colombian guerrillas and Hezbollah are profiting from many of these transactions.

To its credit, the Obama administration has produced a comprehensive anti-TNOC strategy.[2] However, the plan has not received the intense political support and resources required for an ambitious international law-enforcement campaign. Worse yet, in many cases in Latin America, US diplomats are not applying the Obama administration’s anti–organized crime strategy. For example, they have ignored the emergence of a narcostate in Venezuela; failed to impose sanctions that might have prevented criminality in Venezuela, El Salvador, and elsewhere; and stood by as Mexico’s new president reversed antidrug cooperation with the United States and let down his guard down at home.

President Barack Obama has ample opportunity to make significant strides against TNOC close to US borders by encouraging federal prosecutors to bring indictments against leaders of the Venezuelan narcostate; using executive orders to block and freeze the assets of corrupt officials and coconspirators; encouraging Mexico, Colombia, and other states to renew their commitment to international cooperation; and using public diplomacy to rally support for this international campaign.

The indictment of corrupt officials for their involvement in bribery schemes surrounding FIFA, the governing body of international soccer, won international acclaim for a team of US federal prosecutors in Brooklyn, New York.[3] Yet the damage done by TNOC—in human carnage and exploitation, public corruption, quality of life, and economic growth—far surpasses that caused by scheming FIFA officials. By opposing billion-dollar sociopaths, the United States can promote the rule of law by demonstrating its benefits to people besieged by crime.

Transnational Organized Crime: Definition and Response

According to a 2011 strategy document produced by the National Security Council (NSC):

Transnational organized crime refers to those self-perpetuating associations of individuals who operate transnationally for the purpose of obtaining power, influence, monetary and/or commercial gains, wholly or in part by illegal means. . . . Transnational organized criminals act conspiratorially in their criminal activities and possess certain characteristics, which may include, but are not limited to:

• . . . commit violence or other acts which are likely to intimidate; . . .
• . . . exploit differences between countries to further their objectives, enriching their organization, expanding its power, and/or avoiding detection/apprehension; . . .
• . . . attempt to gain influence in government, politics, and commerce; . . .
• . . . economic gain as their primary goal; . . . and
• . . . attempt to insulate both their leadership and membership from detection, sanction, and/or prosecution through their organizational structure.[4]

President Obama’s commentary included in that 2011 NSC strategy provided a straightforward description of how TNOC has emerged around the world, highlighting many of the dangerous characteristics found in Latin America and the Caribbean. The president committed his administration “to build, balance, and integrate tools of American power to combat transnational organized crime and related threats to our national security—and to urge our partners to do the same.”[5]

The NSC strategy directs 56 “priority actions,” including enhancing US intelligence; protecting the US financial system; strengthening interdiction, investigations, and prosecutions; disrupting the drug trade; and building international cooperation.[6] Unfortunately, in each of these areas, the United States is losing ground close to home, and the damage done to US security and interests in its own hemisphere is overwhelming:

• With hostile intent, US foes in Latin America have undermined US security by building a political-criminal alliance to disrupt regional antidrug cooperation.
• They have put government agencies and resources and state-run commercial enterprises at the disposal of smuggling and money-laundering operations.
• Public officials and managers of parastatal companies have afforded criminal and terrorist organizations easy access to the US financial system by using government-controlled firms to mask unlawful transactions.
• Governments have sustained terrorism against sister republics by helping irregular armed groups produce and sell illicit drugs, launder profits, and obtain weapons.
• Corrupt officials have manipulated diplomacy and politics to support allies in other governments and to impair government and law-enforcement institutions.
• And, most important, these government-backed criminal networks have increased the flow of drugs and profits to strengthen and sustain their dangerous conspiracy.

If President Obama is serious about fighting TNOC, his administration can begin by acknowledging the interlocking, complex political challenges and security threats in the Americas and by committing US foreign policy and law enforcement to more robust, effective, and urgent countermeasures.

Read the full report.

Notes

1. Dempsey presented current threats as “2-2-2-1,” explaining, “Two heavyweights will influence our future strategy, Russia and China. Two middleweights, North Korea and Iran. Two networks, al-Qaida and transnational organized crime from our southern hemisphere. And one domain—cyber.” See Martin E. Dempsey, “Remarks at the Naval Academy to Class of 2014,” (speech, Annapolis, Maryland, March 26, 2014), http://ift.tt/1ORrlMR.
2. US National Security Council, Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime: Addressing Converging Threats to National Security, July 25, 2011, http://ift.tt/1DkQzfj.
3. “Twitter Reaction to the FIFA Indictments,” New York Times, May 27, 2015, http://ift.tt/1dx99LK.
4. US National Security Council, Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime.
5. Barack Obama, “Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime: Letter from the President,” July 19, 2011, http://ift.tt/1JyIxqh.
6. Ibid.

from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1JUlwtL

Not traditional jobs, but so what?

There are two parallel stories relating to the U.S. labor market today. The first is what I call the “traditional” labor market story, which relies on the official monthly employment data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Although unemployment has declined markedly over the past several years, these data still show worryingly high levels of underemployment, as exemplified by the large number of involuntary part-time workers, discouraged workers and workers who are long-term unemployed. This labor market slack has served as a drag on wage growth. The other story might be called the “gig economy” labor market story, which is likely largely missing from the official data, but which shows up all around us, in anecdotes about Uber and Lyft, fights against Airbnb, and stories about TaskRabbit in the media. In this article, I argue that this new economy is a largely positive development, a source of optimism, and perhaps represents an opportunity for people hurting in the traditional labor market to change their economic outcomes. Here’s why.

Search and Match

A large literature in economics studies outcomes in labor markets, such as the rate of unemployment and unemployment durations, using search and matching models. These models are built using a basic assumption: the more time and energy required to find a new job, the lower the likelihood that workers will match with good firms and earn good wages. During the recession, research suggests that the costs of finding a new job became really high, perhaps because too many workers were looking for a small number of similar jobs. The evidence shows that workers had difficulty moving from low-quality to high quality jobs, and as a result, workers either remained in low paying jobs or accepted new jobs at low wage firms. According to the latest BLS data, there are approximately 2 workers for every job opening, suggesting that workers are either not willing to work at the current job for the given wage, or firms cannot find the right workers for the job because of skill mismatches or because workers do not live in the regions where jobs are being created.

If the reason for persistent underemployment is high job search costs and skills mismatch, then the new economy seems to be finding solutions. One example is the peer-to-peer digital platforms, such as Uber, which allow drivers and riders to “find” each other easily. The search and matching costs of this market seem to be significantly low. After an initial screening, Uber drivers can simply download an app in order to access these “jobs”. The app allows drivers to decide when they want to offer their services and for what periods of time. This flexibility may explain the impressive increase in Uber driver partners from zero to 160,000 over the period 2012 to 2014.

An obvious reason that these matches are more easily formed is that the cost to the “employer” of providing the job opening is close to zero. “Employers” typically do not provide any material support to the worker such as a cab, office space or even a guaranteed wage and benefits.The employees are not typical employees since they are not working fixed hours for pre-decided wages. This explains why this economy is variously called the “sharing economy”, the “gig economy” or the “collaborative consumption” economy. Everyone is in it together.

So how should we think of this new economy? Is it good or bad?

What’s Good?

According to a study of Uber conducted by Alan Krueger and Jonathan Hall of 607 drivers in December 2014, these individuals cited many reasons for their desire to be Uber drivers, but mainly they valued the flexibility and the ability to supplement family incomes. Sixty-six percent of drivers still had a full time job and eight percent had been unemployed prior to becoming Uber drivers. About 25 percent were actively looking for a full-time job and another 25 percent were looking for a part-time job. About 38 percent of people did this as their main job working more than 35 hours per week.
About 91 percent of drivers said that serving as an Uber driver helps them earn more income to better support the family, while 87 percent praised Uber’s flexibility and 74 percent said that income from driving with Uber can provide some stability while other sources of income can be unpredictable. Women drivers were more likely to mention flexibility as an important reason.
In another report for Airbnb, about 62 percent of Airbnb hosts in New York say that being able to provide this service helped them stay in their homes. Similar numbers were reported across different cities. Anecdotal evidence suggests that people using TaskRabbit who do two to three tasks a day can earn almost $3,500 a month. The full-time workers can earn as much as $6,000-$7,000 a month.

What’s Bad?

A problem often pointed out with this type of work is that workers don’t get a full package of benefits. So what will happen to these workers when they become unemployed or become temporarily or permanently disability? What about health insurance? There are two responses to this argument. First, the perfect should not be made the enemy of the good. Yes, an optimal outcome would be for the labor market recovery to be strong enough to allow these workers the chance to access full time well paying jobs. However, in this economy, too few people have that choice. Moreover, many people opt to use these jobs even when they have full-time jobs and many unemployed workers use Uber to supplement family incomes. While the situation is not ideal, the solution would not be to deprive workers of these jobs by mandating that employers provide all or nothing.

Second, should we even expect benefits to be tied to jobs? With the Affordable Care Act, workers can buy health insurance individually on exchanges instead of relying on it through their employer, which improves their ability to switch jobs. In addition, innovative technologies have made it easier for these 1099 employees to keep track of their taxes and set up tax withholdings automatically. According to Rachel Botsman, guilds like Peers.org and Freelancers Union are even creating ways for independent contractors to pool bargaining power to access discounted health insurance and telecom plans.

It is true that we don’t completely understand how and why these new markets work and it may be years before they get captured in official data. However, these new markets are clearly providing an important opportunity for workers to supplement their incomes at a time when the traditional labor market is still recovering from the Great Recession. Let’s not try to fix something that isn’t broken by enveloping the “gig economy” in political and regulatory battles. Our energies would be better spent finding innovative solutions for the economy we appear to understand.

from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1KBWTrA

Obama sees the light on job licenses

Areas where Republicans and Democrats can cooperate to advance the common good are few and far between these days, in case you haven’t noticed. So the White House deserves credit for issuing a new report that focuses on one such area: the reform of occupational-licensing laws that restrict job opportunities and raise prices.

Licensing requirements have grown a lot over the years. In the 1950s, fewer than 5 percent of jobs required licenses; by 2008, 29 percent did. Two-thirds of this growth, the White House report concludes, is the result of increased regulation (rather than of more people going into fields that already required licenses).

The report expresses no hostility in principle to licensing, which it regards as appropriate in many instances. Not many people think that governments should let anyone pass himself off as a doctor. But researchers have not often found that licensing requirements are effective at improving the quality of service. They have often found that they’re effective at raising prices, and reducing wages for the people they exclude. More restrictive requirements to become a nurse practitioner, for example, increase the price of a child’s medical exam by as much as 16 percent.

The report is especially helpful in calling attention to two issues. First, the enormous variety in state licensing requirements — more than 1,100 occupations are regulated in at least one state, but fewer than 60 are regulated in every state — hinders interstate mobility. That variation also suggests that a lot of the requirements (like those for fortune tellers, say) are unnecessary.

Second, the difficulties caused by these varying licensing requirements fall especially hard on certain groups. Members of military families may have to jump through new licensing hoops every time they move to a new state. Ex-cons may face restrictions on what licenses they can get, even when those restrictions don’t have any obviously good rationale. The laws can keep immigrants from doing work in which they were well-trained abroad.

Both liberals and conservatives should be concerned when regulations limit job opportunities like this — and increasingly, they are. Last year Congress held hearings to illuminate the issue. Some states have moved to deregulate certain job categories. The libertarian Cato Institute has listed occupational licensing as one of the most promising areas where left and right can work together to promote economic growth.

In recent years, such cooperation has proven possible on low-profile issues that don’t engage the passions and identities of large groups of voters. Criminal-justice reform became a bipartisan cause, for example, after crime rates and public concern about crime dropped. Occupational-licensing reform is this kind of issue. If this cause goes anywhere, most of the action will take place at the state level — but the Obama administration will deserve credit for giving it a boost.

from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1eDBuji

On the B-List for a Reason

There are many candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. I counted 16 of them if we include only those featured regularly in national polls (and another former governor joined the fray today). That’s a pretty big number, especially if you want all of them to participate in the same debate on the same stage.

Fox News and CNN, hosts of the first two Republican primary debates, have decided to divide the field into two groups. This basically means that a group of 10 gets to be in the A-list debate, while the others are relegated to a separate, earlier debate.

(Let us not forget that there are dozens and dozens of declared candidates! Let’s dedicate a moment to Michael Bickelmeyer from Ohio, who advocates for an orbital weapons platform called “A Gift for Children.” This weapon system would, if I understand correctly, magnify outer atmosphere sunrays by having them pass through a series of magnification lens systems to produce lethal beams that can be used to combat terrorists and drug traffickers or even to eliminate entire countries. It is unlikely that Bickelmeyer will be allowed to elaborate on this proposal in any of the nationally televised debates this cycle, not even in the B-list debates.)

You can read the rest of the article at the U.S. News & World Report. It will be available here on August 6, 2015.

from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1gqxfJL

China responsible for cyberattack on United Airlines

Remember the news on July 8^th  that a “computer glitch” mysteriously grounded all United Airlines flights? This on the exact same day that another “computer glitch” mysteriously forced the New York Stock Exchange to halt trading for nearly four hours.

The United Airlines timetable is pictured in Newark International Airport, New Jersey July 8, 2015. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz

Coincidence, we were told.  Nothing to see here.

NYSE president Thomas Farley blamed the shut down on “a configuration issue.” United blamed a “router issue” which had “degraded network connectivity for various applications, causing this morning’s operational disruption.”

All on the same day.

Well, now news emerges that the same Chinese hackers who stole data on 21 million Americans from the Office of Personnel Management are also behind a previously unreported breach at — you guessed it –United Airlines, the same airline whose flights were mysteriously grounded a few weeks ago. Bloomberg reports:

United, the world’s second-largest airline, detected an incursion into its computer systems in May or early June, said several people familiar with the probe. According to three of these people, investigators working with the carrier have linked the attack to a group of China-backed hackers they say are behind several other large heists — including the theft of security-clearance records from the US Office of Personnel Management and medical data from health insurer Anthem Inc.

The previously unreported United breach raises the possibility that the hackers now have data on the movements of millions of Americans, adding airlines to a growing list of strategic US industries and institutions that have been compromised. Among the cache of data stolen from United are manifests — which include information on flights’ passengers, origins and destinations — according to one person familiar with the carrier’s investigation.

It’s increasingly clear, security experts say, that China’s intelligence apparatus is amassing a vast database. Files stolen from the federal personnel office by this one China-based group could allow the hackers to identify Americans who work in defense and intelligence, including those on the payrolls of contractors. US officials believe the group has links to the Chinese government, people familiar with the matter have said.

So United detected in May or June that its customer and flight records had been stolen but failed to notify its customers – and then did not share this information after its computer network mysteriously shut down and grounded flights, blaming it instead on a computer glitch. Does anyone seriously think that this Chinese breach of United’s computer systems and the subsequent “router issue” grounding all United flights are unrelated? Indeed, the Bloomberg story notes:

The timing of the United breach also raises questions about whether it’s linked to computer faults that stranded thousands of the airline’s passengers in two incidents over the past couple of months. Two additional people close to the probe, who like the others asked not to be identified when discussing the investigation, say the carrier has found no connection between the hack and a July 8 systems failure that halted flights for two hours. They didn’t rule out a possible, tangential connection to an outage on June 2.

Tangential? Sure. If you think that these two events are unrelated – or that the shutdown of the NYSE and United Airlines on the same day are unrelated – you probably believe gullible is not a word in the dictionary too.

The scope of this Chinese cyberattack on America is growing larger by the day. And still the Obama administration has not responded at all. We know that China has stolen personal information on tens of millions of Americans – an unprecedented attack that, in and of itself, requires a decisive response. If China were also responsible for grounding a major US airline and shutting down the New York Stock Exchange, those would be acts of war. Our failure to retaliate will send a signal to the world that America can be hacked and attacked with impunity.

from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1DSHLy5

5 questions every presidential candidate should answer: China’s military occupation of the South China Sea edition

China’s seizure of seven islets and reefs in the South China Sea, and its ongoing conversion of these features into military installations, complete with evolving port facilities and a 10,000-foot runway, makes clear that this territorial seizure is of far greater significance than media coverage and administration comments would suggest. In fact, China’s actions have military, economic, diplomatic and energy components, each of which is of great importance to the United States, its regional allies and partners, and every nation whose seaborne commerce traverses the South China Sea.

 

A Los Angeles-class, fast attack submarine USS Hampton moors alongside the submarine tender USS Frank Cable in Hong Kong waters May 17, 2011, on its way to deployment to the Western Pacific. REUTERS/Vincent Yu/Pool

Here are the five questions that every presidential candidate should be asked about US military engagement in the region:

1) What is the significance of the South China Sea to the US, its regional allies, and to China?

It is difficult to overstate the importance of the South China Sea to all nations concerned. One of America’s vital national interests is the ability to transit and trade in international waters and the other international commons. Nowhere is that interest more at stake than in the South China Sea, which encompasses an area about twice the size of Alaska, and which is a critical transit region for all of our regional allies, trading partners,  and, of course, for the US.

The economy of every nation in the region depends on the unimpeded flow of commerce through this body of water.  The volume of that commerce is enormous: about one-half of all ship-borne commerce when measured in gross tonnage, one-third when measured in monetary value. Approximately $1.2 trillion in US trade flows through the SCS annually. If any one nation were to control it, it would become a military and commercial chokepoint. China is positioning itself to possess that capability.

2) What significance do you place on China’s seizure of terrain features in the SCS and their ongoing conversion of those feature into military installations?

China’s seizure of these terrain features, and their ongoing conversion, operates on multiple levels: military, economic, energy, diplomatic, domestic politics. It’s a brilliant move, both offensively and defensively – like a skillfully executed move in chess – as it looks both outward and inward towards Taiwan.

China first occupied Mischief Reef in the South China Sea 20 years ago. They’ve observed that three American presidents spanning nearly six terms have done nothing more than object rhetorically.  And now they’re converting those fabricated islands into military installations.

Following Lenin’s dictum of the bayonet – to probe with the bayonet, to withdraw when you encounter steel, to continue when you encounter weakness — Xi Jinping is probing.  He is sizing up his American counterpart, while President Obama, his political priorities elsewhere, continues to avoid the matter.  Not only do these men abide by different rules. They’re playing entirely different games.

While these islets are very small – about three square miles total in area – their possession potentially affords Beijing profound influence over regional shipping lanes.  As the PACOM commander, Admiral Harry Harris, recently stated, there is already a 10,000-foot runway, revetments to protect fighter aircraft, and evolving port facilities.  Given these facts, it remains to be seen how many platforms and capabilities they forward-base.  Do they plan a second round of seizures?  Will President Obama respond in some meaningful way, if at all?

China’s seizure and militarization of these features is a direct challenge to America’s post-WWII policy of managing the commons, a policy which accrues commercial and security benefits to all nations, mainland China included. In addition, China is clearly repudiating the norm-based international system, via which nations relate to each other according to rules, rather than relative power and use of force.

In this light, China’s rulers are saying that territorial expansion is about reordering the international system with China at its center.  It’s also about regime survival: the Chinese Communist Party bases its legitimacy in part on its claims of reasserting China’s traditional status as the Middle Kingdom in Asia.

3) What are your views on the security component of President Obama’s rebalancing to Asia, sometimes known as the Pacific Pivot?

The president’s stated policy at least modestly acknowledges the need to increase our force levels in the Western Pacific. However, in comparison with China’s naval program and its overall military expansion, the numbers on the US side are entirely inadequate. The Administration proposes to have 67 ships assigned in the Western Pacific by 2020. This will be but a small fraction of the PLAN fleet we’ll see by the end of the decade.

America’s military capabilities are a major component of its overall ability to shape events around the world. As events in the South China Sea show, without possessing these capabilities in sufficient capacity, the efficacy of America’s diplomacy and economic power is substantially reduced.

While passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is an important step towards improved regional cooperation and sustained American economic competitiveness, the president’s insistence on holding defense spending hostage to his domesticagenda undercuts US efforts to retain the needed level of influence in the region. Maintaining a sufficient naval force in the Western Pacific simply isn’t a priority for the president, or Congress either.

4) How do you understand the scope of China’s military expansion and modernization, particularly its naval buildup?

China’s military expansion and modernization is comprehensive in nature:  naval power, ballistic missiles, a growing land- and sea-based nuclear forces, demonstrated anti-satellite capabilities that will in short order be capable of destroying our satellites in every orbital regime, and demonstrated and powerful cyber capabilities.  For the sake of brevity, let’s focus on their naval program.

Twenty years ago, China’s Navy was capable of little more than coastal defense.  By 2020, its navy will number between 325-350 vessels, nearly all of them modern and multi-mission capable.  By the end of the decade, the ratio of American to Chinese vessels will work out to approximately five PLAN vessels for every one US Navy vessel.

China’s naval expansion is not without historical peacetime precedent.  Over the past century, we’ve seen military expansions on this scale at least twice.  The first was the expansion of the Imperial German Navy in the years preceding WWI.  Fortunately, the British Royal Navy under the leadership of then First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, was determined not to allow Germany to achieve naval parity either quantitatively or technologically.  The second example was the growth of the Imperial Japanese Navy in the 1930s.

5) What should the correct US South China Sea policy look like?

The military component of America’s rebalance must be driven by an honest assessment of the threat and of needed capabilities when considered alongside allied and partner forces in the region.

To protect its interests in the South China Sea, the United States must maintain sufficient forward presence to convey American commitment.  The size and configuration of that forward-based fleet must also respond to the expansion of potential adversaries.  Finally, the remainder of the fleet must be of sufficient size and maintained at a sufficient level of readiness to reinforce in the Western Pacific and elsewhere if ordered to do so.  The United States is quietly failing on all counts.

The US Navy, under funding levels mandated by the Budget Control Act, will shrink to between 240-260 ships over the next several years.  It is important to understand that, at any given time, only about one third of the fleet is deployed.  That means 80-90 ships will be available for global duty.  Of that number, 67 are to be assigned in the Western Pacific by 2020, with the remainder of the fleet weeks away given transit times.

The administration’s planned assignment of 67 ships will be wholly inadequate to support American policy in the region.  Numbers matter. At some point, if it hasn’t already, the military balance will shift towards the Chinese.

The short answer is that the US must substantially increase its shipbuilding budget and encourage our allies to do likewise. The exact plan can be debated, but it should include the Virginia-class submarine and high-end surface combatants; the idea of deploying a number of ASCM-equipped corvettes is also attractive.

Finally, the expansion of US naval forces in the Western Pacific mustn’t come at the expense of our already-deficient presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf/Indian Ocean.

from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1gqxfJC

AEI Foreign Policy: Experts, highlights, and headlines

Foreign policy scholars

Danielle Pletka Senior Vice President, Foreign & Defense Policy Studies Research areas: Terrorism, Middle East, Iran, South Asia

 

Michael Auslin Resident Scholar & Director, Japan Studies Research areas: Japan, US-Japanese relations, Asian maritime security

 

Dan Blumenthal Resident Fellow Research areas: China, Taiwan, East Asia, US-China relations

 

Sadanand Dhume Resident Fellow Research areas: S. Asian security, Political economy, Business, Radical Islam in S. Asia, India & Pakistan

 

Frederick W. Kagan Christopher DeMuth Chair & Dir., Critical Threats Project Research areas: National security, US military, Afghanistan & Iraq

 

Michael Mazza Research Fellow Research areas: US Asia-Pacific defense policy, Cross-strait relations, Chinese military

 

Michael Rubin Resident Scholar Research areas: Iran, Syria, Middle East regional politics, Turkey, the Kurds, the Persian Gulf

 

Marc Thiessen Fellow Research areas:  Counterterrorism issues, American presidential leadership

 

John Yoo Visiting Scholar Research areas: International law, Constitutional law

 

Leon Aron Resident Scholar & Director, Russian Studies Research areas: Russia, US-Russian relations

 

J. Matthew McInnis Resident Fellow Research areas: Iranian strategy, Intelligence policy

 

John Bolton Senior Fellow Research areas: Foreign policy, International organizations

 

Nicholas Eberstadt Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy Research areas: Poverty, Demographics, Entitlements, North/South Korea

 

Roger F. Noriega Visiting Fellow Research areas: The Caribbean, Latin America, Canada

 

Derek Scissors Resident Scholar Research areas: US-China economic relations, Chinese investment, international finance (Asia)

 

Paul Wolfowitz Scholar Research areas: Public-private partnerships, Entrepreneurship, Development issues, Africa

 

Katherine Zimmerman Research Fellow & Sr. Analyst, Critical Threats Project Research areas: Jihadist organizations, terrorism

 

Dalibor Rohac Research Fellow Research areas: European Union, US-EU relations, European political and economic trends

Headlines and Highlights

Putinology
Leon Aron, The American Interest
Putin’s strategic direction may be traced by marking the evolution of domestic imperatives—economic, ideological, political—that have molded his behavior and will almost certainly continue to do so.

Russia and China fuel Asia’s other ‘Great Game’
Michael Auslin, Nikkei Asian Review
Relations between Russia and China, even over economic ties that should benefit both, will be tense at the best of times.

5 questions every presidential candidate should answer: US-Israel/Palestine relations edition
Danielle Pletka, AEIdeas
It will fall to the next president to repair ties with Israel and to address the lingering challenge of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

The secret to Kalam’s popularity
Sadanand Dhume, The Wall Street Journal
As India’s 11th president, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam arguably left a deeper mark on the public imagination than virtually any of his predecessors.

Congress should fact-check the Kurds
Michael Rubin, AEIdeas
If aid is given to the Kurds, a similar quantity should be supplied directly to the YPG. That is, of course, if the White House and Pentagon actually wish to defeat the Islamic State.

China responsible for cyberattack on United Airlines
Marc Thiessen, AEIdeas
Our failure to retaliate against Chinese attacks will send a signal to the world that America can be hacked and attacked with impunity.

Why Obama’s executive action on Iran does not violate the law
John Yoo, National Review Online
Critics of the Iran deal should save their strength when it comes to the Constitution.

Can Mexico’s president recover? 
Roger F. Noriega, Felipe Trigos, Real Clear World
Already besieged by  corruption scandals, security crises, and the slow but steady unraveling of his structural reforms, the escape of El Chapo may have been the coup de grace to the president’s ability to govern.

Latest media appearances from our foreign policy scholars

from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/11UiKGO

AEI Defense Policy: Experts, highlights, and headlines

Defense scholars

Thomas Donnelly Co-Director, Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies Research areas: Defense, National security

 

Mackenzie Eaglen Resident Fellow Research areas: Military readiness, Defense budget, Military personnel, Defense industrial base

 

Phillip Lohaus Research Fellow Research areas: US and foreign intelligence [capabilities], Middle Eastern and South Asian insurgencies

 

Roger I. Zakheim Research Fellow Research areas: National security legal issues, Impact of Congress on defense

Gary Schmitt Co-Director, Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies Research areas: Intelligence, Europe, National security, American citizenship

 

William Inglee Visiting Fellow Research areas: Building partner capacity, Business of defense, National security policy

 

Jim Talent Senior Fellow, Director, National Security 2020 Project Research areas: Congress, US-China security relations

Headlines and Highlights

Defense bill at an impasse, but a solution is within reach
Jim Talent, Mackenzie Eaglen, The Hill
The Senate’s plan to pair moderate TRICARE co-pay increases with flexible military retirement should move forward.

The real danger of political correctness
Thomas Donnelly, Strategika
The widening gap in civil-military relations is almost entirely due to changes on the civilian side of the equation. The more the plague of political correctness divides the rest of us into ever-smaller tribes, the more the military tribe will see itself as unique and—dangerously—uniquely virtuous.

The intelligence community should build public trust, not just transparency
Phillip Lohaus, Overt Action
What’s driving calls for greater transparency isn’t ill will toward intelligence professionals or even curiosity: rather, it’s a lack of trust.

5 questions every presidential candidate should answer: US military edition
Mackenzie Eaglen, AEIdeas
The next president will make choices about the US military that will define American hard power for much of the 21st century.

Lassitude in the legislature on Iran
Thomas Donnelly, The Hoover Institution
Congress’s unwillingness to stand up to the administration on the Iran nuclear deal continues its retreat from a serious role in US strategy making. Legislators need to summon the energy and will to challenge this deal before it is too late.

Latest video clips from AEI defense experts

from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1w4Woem

Medicare and Medicaid turn 50

On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law. Fifty years later, Medicare and Medicaid have grown to become the largest health insurance programs in the country, with Medicaid insuring over 70 million people and Medicare insuring over 54 million. What will it take to ensure the long-term stability of Medicare and Medicaid? And how can policymakers improve access and quality of care? AEI health experts weigh in:

Former Congressional Budge Office official Joe Antos:

Medicare is a critically important health financing program for seniors and disabled persons that is in critical condition. Last week’s trustees report says the Part A trust fund will run short of funds in 2030. But that is only part of the story. To keep Medicare fully funded, the total cost (including premiums and payroll taxes) over 75 years is $55 trillion. There are also fewer workers to pay for Medicare in the future. In 2000, there were 4.7 workers per retiree. By 2030, there will be 2.7. That means higher taxes, lower benefits, and less access to care unless major reforms are made.

Former Office of Management and Budget official James Capretta:

Medicare is already far, far larger than it was ever expected to be when it was launched. In 1970, program expenditures were only 0.6 percent of GDP. By 2014, they were 3.5 percent of GDP. And in the alternative scenario put together by the actuaries, program spending will be well above 6 percent of GDP by 2050 … If nothing is done, budgetary pressure will build, and then, during the predicable crisis that will eventually ensue, a push will be made for a massive tax hike.

Former Joint Economic Committee official Tom Miller:

Enthusiastic boosters of Medicare may view the massive expansion in health spending due to Medicare as a historic legacy worth saluting on its fiftieth anniversary. It certainly has relieved much suffering, extended lives, and protected the financial resources of millions of seniors. If you value health care highly and believe we haven’t reached a point of diminishing returns at the margins of its highest spending levels, light up some more birthday candles and look forward to more decades of such growth.

But the more elusive calculation involves balancing the most visible gains claimed by Medicare advocates against the less visible offsetting costs Medicare also produced. They include medical inflation that caused health care spending to consistently outpace growth of the overall economy for most of the years since the program’s introduction (with the exception of a few recent years).

Attorney and practicing surgeon Joel Zinberg:

There are serious doubts about the long term financial health of both programs. The Medicare Trust fund is predicted to be exhausted by 2030, with Medicare enrollment continuing to expand as the population ages. Medicaid is bankrupting many states (the failure of many states to expand Medicaid under the ACA was due in part to reluctance to take on additional Medicaid financial obligations). There are also doubts about the quality of care Medicaid patients receive and whether poor provider payments limit Medicaid patients access to care. It is clear that both programs need overhaul in order to survive.

If you’d like to arrange an interview with an AEI health policy expert, please contact mediaservices@aei.org or 202.862.5829.

from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1Mw3cML

AEI Health: Experts, highlights, and headlines

Health scholars

Joseph Antos Wilson H. Taylor Scholar Research areas: Federal budget policy, Health care policy and financing, ACA

 

Scott Gottlieb Resident Fellow Research areas: Trends in medicine, FDA policies, Medical technology development, CMS policies

 

Sally Satel Resident Scholar Research areas: Political trends in Medicine, Mental health/Transplant/ Domestic drug policy

 

Ramesh Ponnuru Visiting Fellow Research areas: Conservatives and health care policy

 

Tomas J. Philipson Visiting Scholar Research areas: Economics of pharmaceuticals, Health care trends

James C. Capretta Visiting Fellow Research areas: Market-based alternatives to the ACA

 

Thomas P. Miller Resident Scholar Research areas: Market-based alternatives to the ACA, Health insurance regulation

 

Roger Bate Visiting Scholar Research areas: international environmental and health agreements, Counterfeit pharmaceuticals

 

Thomas Peter Stossel Visiting Scholar Research areas: Medical innovation, Health care and health care policy

 

Joel M. Zinberg Visiting Scholar Research areas: Health policy, Health care reform, Practice of medicine, ACA

Headlines and Highlights

Mammograms are a mixed bag
Joel M. Zinberg, US News & World Report
Breast cancer screening early and often, no matter how well-intentioned, is costly and counterproductive. Finding every last cancer, no matter how small or innocuous, does not save lives and subjects many women to unnecessary treatment.

Absent strong action, Medicare goes the way of Greece
Joseph Antos, Real Clear Markets
Unless we take strong action, Medicare might go the way of Greece.

Medicare at 50
James C. Capretta, National Review Online
Medicare as it stands is unsustainable. How can we fix it for future generations?

Kicking the habit
Sally Satel, The Wall Street Journal
If addiction is a brain disease, addicts are mad, sick and defective. If it’s a failure of will, users are bad, immoral and weak.

The California child vaccination mandates and the everlasting cycle of infectious diseases
Tomas J. Philipson, Forbes
Understanding the economic incentives driving infectious diseases and governing the impact of policies that aim to control them is of immense importance to global health.

Pharmaceuticals and pharmaphobes
Thomas Peter Stossel, Drug Topics
If FDA’s thorough review indicates that a treatment safely promises potential benefits, the agency can approve its use before decisive evidence exists. Grandstanding by “pharmaphobes” should not jeopardize this sensible compromise.

Nuns are Obamacare’s latest victim
Ramesh Ponnuru, Bloomberg View
A group of Catholic nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor, wants relief from the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that it offer contraceptive coverage to its employees. The nuns lost a court case this week — and everyone who cares about religious freedom should be troubled by the reasons why.

Latest media appearances from our health scholars

from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1w4Wum2