The ex-president's deal with the Taliban

Most of page 1 of the 4 page agreement 

Republicans are attacking Biden for withdrawing from Afghanistan. For example, they complain bitterly about things like a fixed withdrawal date and conditions on the ground not being right. If memory serves, republicans didn't complain about the ex-president's Hoot 10 (February 2020) agreement with the Taliban. What about that agreement is different from what Biden proposes in withdrawing by September 11, 2021? Inquiring minds want to know.  

The agreement appears to be at this link. Some points from it.

• The phrase, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban, appears about 50 times in the four page document, making it a significant portion of the whole thing. That negotiating coup for the US must have taken about 6 months to negotiate. Clearly, the ex-president's fingerprints are all over that master stroke.
• The agreement is dated February 29, 2020 which corresponds to Rajab 5, 1441 on the Hijri Lunar calendar and Hoot 10, 1398 on the Hijri Solar calendar. I'm partial to the Hoot 10, 1398 Solar calendar date myself. Hoot is the joyful month I do most of my shopping to restock my bomb shelter.
• The agreement specifies a latest date of US and foreign troop withdrawal: "The United States is committed to withdraw from Afghanistan all military forces of the United States, its allies, and Coalition partners, including all non-diplomatic civilian personnel, private security contractors, trainers, advisors, and supporting services personnel within fourteen (14) months following announcement of this agreement."  That means that May 1, 2021 or some date close to it is when the US gets out. Hm. That sounds like there is a fixed time for US and other foreign troop withdrawals. 
• As the withdrawal date nears, the US and allied troops will stand down: "The United States and its allies will refrain from the threat or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Afghanistan or intervening in its domestic affairs."
• Lots of Taliban prisoners might be released by the Afghanistan government and maybe some prisoners the Taliban hold will be released: "The United States is committed to start immediately to work with all relevant sides on a plan to expeditiously release combat and political prisoners as a confidence building measure with the coordination and approval of all relevant sides. Up to five thousand (5,000) prisoners of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban and up to one thousand (1,000) prisoners of the other side will be released by March 10, 2020, the first day of intra-Afghan negotiations, which corresponds to Rajab 15, 1441 on the Hijri Lunar calendar and Hoot 20, 1398 on the Hijri Solar calendar." Another masterpiece of the ex-president's jaw-dropping negotiating prowess is on display.

So what is the difference between the former president's Hoot 10 agreement and what Biden has unilaterally announced he will do? The main difference is clear, the Hoot 10 agreement was by the former president, a republican, and the current plan is by Biden, a democrat. Clearly, that is ample reason to savage Biden and damn him to eternal agony in a lake of fire, while praising the ex-president as God's chosen leader and world's best negotiator. 

The Biden plan allows about 3½ more months for a US presence, which is awful, no good, no bad, whatever. 

From the American point of view, conditions on the ground will suck on May 1, 2021 and on September 11, 2021, so that clearly makes Biden's plan far worse. Conversely, from the point of view of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban, conditions on the ground will be pretty darn good during all of 2021, with excellent prospects for conditions getting better after the US withdraws.

Clearly, the GOP has plenty of reasons to smear and slander Biden while bowing in awe-struck, dumb-struck obsequence before the most righteous Deity, his Royal Highness, the ex-president.

Drum beat in the background: The election was stolen!! Storm the Capitol!! Marjorie Greene says there will be blue lasers there for us to use to dispense righteous discipline against the Godless heathen hordes, and Ted Cruz approves.

The election was stolen!! Storm the Capitol!! Marjorie Greene says there will be blue lasers there for us to use to dispense righteous discipline against the Godless heathen hordes, and Ted Cruz approves.

The election was stolen!! Storm the Capitol!! Marjorie Greene says there will be blue lasers there for us to use to dispense righteous discipline against the Godless heathen hordes, and Ted Cruz approves.

The tax gap again: Latest estimate is $1 trillion/year

Tax gap again? Awww, jeez, yawn . . . . . CRASH . . Hey! Ouch! 

(sound of sleeping person falling off their chair onto the floor

and waking up in a transient state of pain and confusion)

OK, this is the last time I'll bring it up. (For now) I know it is a boring topic. I get it. Taxes -- boooorrringgg.

Two posts here in March 2021 focused on the tax gap (here and here). Short story shorter:

Size of tax gap (unpaid taxes each year):

IRS estimate about 10 years ago: ~$440 billion/year

Janet Yellen estimate last month: ~$600 billion/year

Germaine the Magnificent estimate last month: ~$700 billion/year

IRS commissioner Charles Rettig estimate a few weeks ago: ~$1 trillion/year (Tax cheat response to that: Yabba dabba dooo!!!)

Darned Germaine, he just can't get his numbers straight. Bad, bad Germaine. Go sit in the corner.

The New York Times writes:

The United States is losing approximately $1 trillion in unpaid taxes every year, Charles Rettig, the Internal Revenue Service commissioner, estimated on Tuesday, arguing that the agency lacks the resources to catch tax cheats.

The so-called tax gap has surged in the last decade. The last official estimate[1] from the I.R.S. was that an average of $441 billion per year went unpaid from 2011 to 2013. Most of the unpaid taxes are the result of evasion by the wealthy and large corporations, Mr. Rettig said.

So, when republicans whine and complain about the federal debt and horrible democratic spending, they are just full of bullshit.[2] Absolutely full of it. Hypocrite republicans in congress have been actively blocking funding for the IRS to enforce tax laws for decades. To date, their success in their 'I hate government' and 'taxes are theft' exercises have probably cost the Treasury at least about $10 trillion since 2000 and it will cost at least another ~$7.5 trillion (probably ~$10 trillion) by 2030 if nothing is done to fix the problem (assuming one sees and treats it as a problem -- not all people do, e.g., tax cheats, most or all congressional republicans and most other government and tax haters like most libertarians are).

Unless I'm mistaken, that's a lot of money.

Question: Am I mistaken?

Footnotes: 

1. I'm not sure the last IRS estimate was "official" in the sense of a detailed analysis like what was done in 2001 and 2006. The 2001 and 2006 data points were what I used to get my ~$700 billion/year tax gap estimate. My take of the ~$440 billion estimate from about 10 years ago was that it was intentionally underestimated to keep the GOP in congress from flying into another fit of irrational self-righteous rage directed at the IRS. This whole mess could be significantly worse than my estimate from 2000 until now.

2. A Washington Post opinion piece observes:

Why is this? Because Congress has starved the IRS of funds needed to patrol the increasingly complicated tax code it created. The IRS chief noted that the vast majority of the tax gap comes from uncollected (i.e., evaded) taxes on corporations and the rich. Think of it as an extra tax cut for corporate America and for the super-rich. (The Wall Street Journal cites “[t]he growth of cryptocurrencies and foreign-source income, as well as outside estimates that suggest a tax gap of $7.5 trillion over the next decade.”)

The notion that Republicans are friends of working-class Americans is laughable, given that they have been the ones to cut corporate and high-income individual rates, create new and arcane tax breaks ($74 billion was lost as a result of the 20 percent deduction for S corporations in the 2017 tax cuts), and deny the IRS the ability to collect from the rich.

Not sure it's laughable, but it is something that deserves to have a label(s) stuck to it, e.g., disgusting, incompetent, hypocritical, corrupt, really corrupt, profoundly corrupt, super duper pooper corrupt, etc.

A sad end game in Afghanistan is starting to take shape

A poor woman begging for food at a bakery in Kabul in 2019

Some comments from American officials suggest that the Taliban will not be able to return to power and America will continue to support the existing government with humanitarian and diplomatic support. The Afghan government is saying the same thing.

Such words of reassurance aren't remotely close to credible.

The New York Times writes:

KABUL, Afghanistan — Farzana Ahmadi watched as a neighbor in her village in northern Afghanistan was flogged by Taliban fighters last month. The crime: Her face was uncovered.

“Every woman should cover their eyes,” Ms. Ahmadi recalled one Taliban member saying. People silently watched as the beating dragged on.

Fear — even more potent than in years past — is gripping Afghans now that U.S. and NATO forces will depart the country in the coming months. They will leave behind a publicly triumphant Taliban, who many expect will seize more territory and reinstitute many of the same oppressive rules they enforced under their regime in the 1990s.

The New York Times spoke to many Afghan women — members of civil society, politicians, journalists and others — about what comes next in their country, and they all said the same thing: Whatever happens will not bode well for them.

Whether the Taliban take back power by force or through a political agreement with the Afghan government, their influence will almost inevitably grow. In a country in which an end to nearly 40 years of conflict is nowhere in sight, many Afghans talk of an approaching civil war.

“All the time, women are the victims of men’s wars,” said Raihana Azad, a member of Afghanistan’s Parliament. “But they will be the victims of their peace, too.”

Over two decades, the United States spent more than $780 million to promote women’s rights in Afghanistan. The result is a generation who came of age in a period of hope for women’s equality.

Though progress has been uneven, girls and women now make up about 40 percent of students.

“I remember when Americans came and they said that they will not leave us alone, and that Afghanistan will be free of oppression, and will be free of war and women’s rights will be protected,” said Shahida Husain, an activist in Afghanistan’s southern Kandahar Province, where the Taliban first rose and now control large stretches of territory. “Now it looks like it was just slogans.”  

In Taliban-controlled areas, women’s education is extremely restricted, if not nonexistent. In some areas in the country’s east and west, the Taliban have opened schools to girls who can attend until they reach puberty, and in the north, tribal elders have negotiated to reopen some schools for girls, though subjects like social science are replaced with Islamic studies. Education centers are routinely the targets of attacks, and more than 1,000 schools have closed in recent years.

“It was my dream to work in a government office,” said Ms. Ahmadi, 27, who graduated from Kunduz University two years ago before moving to a Taliban-controlled village with her husband. “But I will take my dream to the grave.”  

Still, the Taliban’s harshly restrictive religious governing structure virtually ensures that the oppression of women is baked into whatever iteration of governance they bring.

The NYT points out that while the US was there, education, culture shifts, employment and health care accessibility have benefited some but not others. Especially in rural areas, where some of the war was the most brutal with civilians dead and livelihoods devastated. Rural women’s opinions are unclear but that is where about three-quarters of Afghanistan’s 34 million people live. Those people are generally unreachable because of geographical, technological and cultural constraints.

There could be an Afghan rural-urban divide that makes the toxic American variant look mild and benign. After 20 years, we still don't know what we need to know.

Questions: Was America's attempt to free Afghanistan of oppression and protect women's rights a mistake.? Will it lead to more harm than good once we are gone because the false hopes of girls and women will be crushed by Taliban force? What, if anything, can America do to at least partly atone for what we have wrought? Or, is there nothing for America to atone for, e.g., because our intentions were good but misguided or failed? 

What have we done? Why do our political leaders keep lying to us?

A police lieutenant saying farewell to her mother in 2019

For her Godless insolence, she will be a target in 2021, if she isn't already

The rot infecting the GOP is deepening

The ex-president is continuing to morally corrupt the already rotten GOP leadership. The Washington Post writes in an article entitled, Trump’s grip on GOP looms as support falters for independent probe of Capitol riot:

Congress’s pursuit of an independent investigation into the Jan. 6 insurrection is facing long odds, as bipartisan resolve to hold the perpetrators and instigators accountable erodes, and Republicans face sustained pressure to disavow that it was supporters of former president Donald Trump who attacked the U.S. Capitol.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced late last week that she had drafted a fresh proposal for an outside commission to examine what caused the deadly riot. But in a sign of how delicate the political climate has become, she has yet to share her recommendations with Republican leaders, who shot down her initial approach, labeling it too narrow in scope and too heavily weighted toward Democrats in composition.

“Compromise has been necessary,” Pelosi wrote in a letter to other Democrats, informing them she had begun to share her latest proposal with other Republicans in Congress. “It is my hope that we can reach agreement very soon.”

A spokesman for House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) declined to comment on a proposal that the leader had not yet seen, adding that “hopefully the speaker has addressed our basic concerns of equal representation and subpoena authority.”

Many rank-and-file Republicans have been forced to walk a political tightrope, as a majority still believe the election was stolen from Trump. The former president still wields outsize influence in the GOP, which is presently the minority party in Washington but is within striking distance of making a comeback in 2022 — if leaders can hold their ranks together.

The pressure to prioritize a political win over accountability for the former president kept the vast majority of Republicans in both the House and Senate from endorsing impeachment charges against Trump accusing him of inciting the riot. The discrepancy was especially apparent in the Senate, where several Republicans — including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — blamed Trump for the attack but refused to vote to convict him.  

“We have a real dilemma on our hands,” said Norm Ornstein, an emeritus scholar with the American Enterprise Institute and a longtime observer of Republican congressional dynamics. “The political imperative at this point is to discredit any investigation, to deny any ties either to Donald Trump or to the members of Congress . . . who either helped to plan the [riot] or helped to incite it.”  

In recent weeks, public hearings held by the House Judiciary and Armed Services committees have devolved into shouting matches, as GOP members accuse Democrats of ignoring threats from the far left, while Democrats accuse them of equivocating to distract from the fact that far-right extremists have become an active force in the Republican Party.

The ex-president is pressuring congressional republicans to put politics above defense of democracy and they are responding as he commands. That is cult fascism in action moving America closer and closer to the destruction of democracy and the hated rule of law. The only moral imperative for the republican leadership is winning power at all costs, including the death of democracy, law and respect for facts, truth and reason.

The GOP's Goal: Tear Biden Down

An article The Hill posted makes clear the goal of the fascist GOP (FGOP) to destroy Biden and make Americans hate him. Their goal is not be principled opposition that acts in good faith based on facts or sound reason. The FGOP is just loaded with ill-will, poison and partisan hate. The Hill writes:

Republicans are struggling to land attacks against President Biden as they grapple with how to win back power in Washington next year.

Biden is proving to be an elusive cipher for Republicans to successfully message against nearly 100 days into his administration, keeping a relatively low profile and refusing to engage in the day-to-day verbal sparring that has consumed Washington in recent years.

It presents a challenge that, GOP senators acknowledge, they aren’t hitting the mark on.

“We need to get better at it. I don't think sometimes our messaging is as sharp as it should be because a lot of the things they're doing are things that are popular—when you’re spending money, you’re popular,” Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the No. 2 Senate Republican, said about Republicans’ success in defining Biden.

Asked how his party was doing, Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) replied: “Poorly.”

“I don’t think we’ve done a very good job because he’s getting away with defining himself and rolling out this stuff that we’re borrowing every penny for it, and the public is buying it,” Braun said. “We’ve got to find ways to articulate and scuffle in a better way, and I don’t know that we’ve found that.”  

Republicans are betting that voters will ultimately turn against Biden’s trillion-dollar spending.

“His tone is moderate and he’s an affable person, he’s a likeable individual and a lot of us know him, have relationships with him and it’s probably harder to attack somebody who is relatable and likeable,” Thune said.

Well, there you have it. That Biden, the likeable guy, is doing things that are popular, including spending money. The FGOP knows all about that money and debt thing. That was the main point of their 2017 tax cut for rich people law that adds about $1 trillion/year to federal debt. The stench of FGOP hypocrisy. There's nothing quite like it.

And, when FGOP Senator Braun says the FGOP needs to find ways to articulate and scuffle in a better way, we all know what that means. More lies, slanders and crackpottery are coming your way real soon.

Politics Is Seeping Into Our Daily Life and Ruining Everything

 

Americans are choosing jobs, brands, and friends for partisan reasons, say researchers.

Is there anything that politics can't ruin? The answer, it appears, is a resounding "no" as partisan conflict creeps into all areas of American life. Our political affiliations, researchers say, obstruct friendships, influence our purchases, affect the positions we take on seemingly apolitical matters, and limit our job choices. As a result, many people are poorer, lonelier, and less healthy than they would otherwise be.

"Political polarization is having far-reaching impacts on American life, harming consumer welfare and creating challenges for people ranging from elected officials and policymakers to corporate executives and marketers," according to a new paper in the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing by researchers from Arizona State University, the University of Wyoming, and four other U.S. universities.

The researchers find that people's chosen political identities become self-reinforcing through associations with groups with shared beliefs. Our associations can even create a "group-specific shared reality" that makes it harder to relate to those with opposing views.

"[A]s society has become increasingly polarized, politicians' objectives diverge and their animosity toward the opposition grows, thereby reducing opportunity for compromise," the researchers warn. "Partisan incivility is a major reason for failed dialogue: Uncivil exchanges result in disagreement and greater polarization regardless of the evidence presented."

People's partisan identities influence the range of people with whom they are willing to have relationships, the brands they purchase, and the jobs they take. In an era of public health concerns, people often choose positions on matters such as vaccines or mask-wearing not based on a rational assessment of the issues, but on a plug-and-play adoption of their tribe's stances. This sort of politicized decision-making can stand in the way of rational choices and healthy connections.

"With political positions influencing decisions, people may sacrifice wages, lose out on jobs, make suboptimal purchases and disregard opportunities to save," the researchers note. "For example, research has found that employees accept lower wages to work for politically like-minded entities, and people may select higher-priced products or ones that offer less-functional value."

"Polarization has the potential to prevent neighbors or colleagues of opposing parties from developing friendships. This ultimately deprives individuals of intellectual diversity, among other things," they add.

The finding that everything is becoming politicized builds on a growing mountain of data. Even before political tensions hit their current fever pitch, a 2018 survey found that "Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of consumers around the world will buy or boycott a brand solely because of its position on a social or political issue" (the number for the U.S. was 59 percent). In 2020, a separate survey reported that "83% of Millennials find it important for the companies they buy from to align with their values."

That means that the price and utility of products and services are actually secondary considerations for many people, taking a back seat to companies' public posturing. Many business executives have risen to the challenge, advocating positions on gun control, immigration, and race relations, whether because they sense an opening to promote their opinions, or just a marketing opportunity. 

"These leaders hope that their political activism will help shape public opinion and potentially lead to lasting change, while simultaneously cementing their reputations as moral leaders and change agents," Christine Moorman wrote for Forbes. She noted that, as of 2018, most marketing experts considered this a bad move with the potential for alienating both customers and employees.

Since then, the trend has only intensified — especially after former President Trump's challenge to election results and in the wake of the January 6 riot at the Capitol. Recent events "accelerate a broader movement in business to address social and political issues" according to a January 15 piece in the Wall Street Journal.

This politicization of all things great and small is what another researcher referred to last summer as the "oil spill" model of mass opinion polarization.

"[W]hat if polarization is less like a fence getting taller over time and more like an oil spill that spreads from its source to gradually taint more and more previously 'apolitical' attitudes, opinions, and preferences?" Pennsylvania State University's Daniel DellaPosta asked in a study published in June 2020 in American Sociological Review. "[E]ven many initially apolitical lifestyle characteristics, from musical taste to belief in astrology, can become politicized as signals for deeper beliefs and preferences—a tendency most saliently captured in the popular image of the 'latte liberal'."

Americans, then, are increasingly making decisions along tribal political lines, potentially depriving themselves of rewarding friendships, better-paying jobs, well-reasoned judgments, and optimal goods and services. But by choosing beverages, beans, sports equipment, and employment according to tribal affiliation, they are also losing points of shared interest with people who disagree with them. The people they see in their neighborhoods, at concerts, and in their chosen restaurants likely share their views on hot-button issues, because those who disagree live, party, and shop elsewhere. That further reduces the opportunity for connections across partisan boundaries.

Worse, when the political tribes are so divorced from one another in terms of preferences and lifestyles, it becomes easier to target the "enemy" by going after their ways of life. With conservatives largely living in rural areas and exurbs, and liberals confining themselves to cities and suburbs, and the groupings having shrinking overlap in terms of their interests, it's pretty easy to hurt opponents by targeting pastimes and brands for boycotts, regulatory action, or legal restrictions.

"I think we're all aware of how political polarization has affected our elections and system of government, but the impacts go far beyond the political arena," comments Dave Sprott, dean of the University of Wyoming's College of Business and one of the authors of the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing paper. "Ultimately, polarization harms mental and physical health, financial welfare, relationships and societal interests through its impact on psychology, marketing and public policy outcomes."

There is nothing we can or should do about people's lifestyle choices, but we can give them less reason to fight. Making politics less important through reducing the ability of government to affect our lives has the potential to make us all healthier and happier.

https://reason.com/2021/02/17/politics-is-seeping-into-our-daily-life-and-ruining-everything/