Why Deficits Are Bad for Growth

Much ado has been made of federal deficit and long-term debt as of late, with plenty of political jawing and posturing to go around. While the interest on debts payments will comprise larger and larger portions of the fiscal budget in the coming years, growing federal deficits contribute to repressed economic investment. While the linkage may not be obvious, with a little bit of algebra, we can deduce a negative relationship between the yearly federal deficit and investment.


You may be familiar with Gross Domestic Product, or GDP as it is referred to in short. It is a statistic that serves to measure the overall size of national economies. For reference, U.S. GDP currently stands just shy of $15 trillion, which is almost triple that of the People's Republic of China, the world's second largest economy. While many may be familiar with GDP, fewer understand how it is calculated. The simplest equation for calculating GDP is as follows:


GDP = Personal Consumption + Domestic Investment + Government Spending + Net Exports


Personal consumption represents everything purchased by households as a final sale. The reason it counts final sales to end consumers only is so that no material is double-counted. Domestic investment is any business expense made to increase future production. Government spending counts everything from local governments all the way up to the federal level, but excludes transfers such as Social Security. Net exports represents U.S. exports minus imports, which was -$380 billion in 2009. This trade deficit is driven largely by the country's dependence on foreign oil.

Now that we know what is tracked is national production, the next thing we need to do is find out where all that money is going. Think about your own paycheck for a moment. Where does it all go? Likely a portion is already taken out for taxes before it hits your hands. After that, you pay your bills, buy your groceries and maybe spend a little on yourself or your family. That covers the consumption avenue for your hard-earned money. What about the rest? Anything left over will end up in the bank, as savings. All personal and business incomes, as represented by our national GDP, can thus be set as equal to the nation's taxes, consumption, and savings. We must also add government transfers payments such as Social Security and Medicare as income. The formula then, looks like this:


Incomes = Expenditures

GDP + Transfers = Consumption + Savings + Taxes



Now we can substitute that formula for GDP that we covered earlier into the equation:



(Consumption + Investment + Gov't + Exports) + Transfers = Consumption + Savings + Taxes



Now since we are interested in finding out what Investment is equal to, we set out to algebraically isolate it. This is achieved easiest by just subtracting everything else on the income side of the equation. We are left with the following:



Investment = Savings + Taxes - Gov't - Transfers - Net Exports



Now we have a simple equation for what contributes to investment and growth in our national economy. Now it may seem counter intuitive that higher taxes yield more investment, but consider the three sources of investment: individuals and corporations, foreign investment, and our own government. Taxes are the government's source of income, and thus it's primary avenue for investment. But what of the original argument, that the federal deficit harms investment? Well, the federal budget is in the investment equation. Do you see it?



Investment = Savings + (Taxes - Gov't - Transfers) - Net Exports



Now we can make the investment equation even easier.



Investment = Savings + Government Savings - Net Exports



Voila! We have successfully boiled down a pair of economic equations into a simple expression of where investment comes from: savings, government investment, and foreign investment (which is what a trade deficit represents). Now what can we do with this knowledge? At the least, we can see that each of these three components affect investment and thus economic growth. The more savings we accrue, the more we have to invest. The more government accrues in budget surpluses, the more it has to invest. The more we borrow from abroad, the more we can invest.


However, when any of these start to dip, we must increase the others, or suffer a decrease in investment. So at a time when Americans are hard-pressed to increase their savings, and the government is running record deficits, we have had to turn to borrowing foreign money to keep investment up. The problem with relying on foreign investment, instead of government surplus, is in the interest payments on foreign loans. Interest payments become part of future government spending obligation, further ballooning future government deficits. This becomes a gradual cycle that continues to grow government deficits and increases dependence on foreign borrowing for growth.

In his State of the Union address, the President restated his desire to reign in the federal deficit. Deficit spending in the United States has already resulted in a debt that clears 60% of our GDP. Which means, it would take 60% of everything this country is capable of producing in a year just to pay off our debt. Under our current path, it would take two full years of production, or 200% GDP, by 2038. In order for the American economy to sustain growth, the growing yearly deficits have to be brought under control, and ideally morphed into surpluses under which investment can blossom with the combined assets of our savings and foreign investment. The Fiscal Commission outlined several reform recommendations to address the ballooning deficits and the looming fiscal crisis. There are real solutions, but it will require real policy decisions. The kind that are politically difficult. Will anyone step up?

Election '09: Three Races That Mean More Than A Little

Granted, it's an off election year. No federal elections to be had. There's no election fervor or television coverege over a year long. But you should still vote. Exercising democracy's greatest boon is the most patriotic thing you can do, and you get to do it once a year. As you vote, in the spirit of November, be thankful that you have the opportunity to cast a vote, and to do so without risk to your person.

Public service announcement aside, this year's election does have 3 critical races that will say a lot about the political climate of the country.

We'll start in in my home state of Virginia, where, in 2008, President Obama won by more than 200,000 votes. This is a state that pundits everywhere claimed was trending to be a new Democrat stronghold. While the state did go blue in 2008, the governor's race in 2009 will serve as a litmus test for states "on the fence." The Republican, Bob McDonnell, and the Democrat, Creigh Deeds, have faced each other before. In 2006, the two squared off for Virginia Attorney General, which McDonnell won by a measly 200 votes. Now they vy for the top job in the state that went blue in a big way last year (6 of the 11 U.S. Representatives are now Democrats, as well as both Senators).

Despite backing from the President, including campaign appearances this week, Deeds has fallen far behind McDonnell. Consecutive polls show him behind by double digits. A victory for McDonnell seems very likely at this point, but why? Here's a list of the reasons I see for the way the numbers are polling out:

1. Republicans are energized. The GOP has a candidate that appeals to both ends of its spectrum, as well as a majority of Virginia independents. Many upset with Obama policies are powering the grass roots movement.
2. Democrats aren't. With Obama in office, the energy of the base just isn't there. Deeds is in a tough spot with this lack of support, the more he appears likely to lose, the less people will actually turn out to vote for him.
3. Campaigning. When the Post broke the story on McDonnell's less than flattering master's thesis, Deeds jumped all over it. For a while it worked, and he pulled with 4 or 5 percentage points. Instead of pressing McDonnell on other issues however, Deeds stuck to his gun and the result is a campaign that Virginians view as negative. Combine that with Deeds' waffling on camera and McDonnell's collected cool in answering (or not) tough questions, and you can see why Deeds is behind.

The Politix train now moves north, to the tumultuous state of New Jersey. Rife with economic troubles and government corruption, New Jersey is playing host to an unusually close governor's race. In one of the bluest states in the union, Republican challenger Chris Christie held a sizable lead in the polls over troubled incumbent Jon Corzine, a Democrat. Many felt that a Republican challenging for New Jersey is a significant indicator of the nation's political mood, and it is. However, Christie's lead is gone. Recent polls show the two in a dead heat. How has this happened in a race where the incumbant has never once polled higher than 45%?

1. Beat 'em when you're down. In politics, when you're losing, it is often effective to get nasty. That's exactly what Corzine has done, hitting Christie hard on ties to Bush, interest on a loan to a friend, even his weight (Christie is a big guy). It's been working, eliminating Christie's double-digit lead. Christie entered the race as the "rout out corruption" figure, but Corzine has tarnished him enough that the has lost that edge. Christie, to his fault, hasn't pushed Corzine on the issues.

2. Third party spoiler. Chris Daggett, an independent, is making his case for the governorship. He has been allowed to debate the other two, and according to most anaylists, has outperformed them. Because of New Jersey's stauch liberalism, most of Daggett's support is bleeding off of Christie. Many Democrats unhappy with Corzine would rather vote for Daggett than the Republican alternative.

While Daggett is a long shot to win on election day, I'm betting on the odds that he will contribute to Corzine's re-election. It's a shame that most independent candidates serve as nothing more than spoilers for the Dems or GOP on the ticket (a la Perot and Nader). Independents can often be the best option for an electorate, but are doomed to obscurity by our two-party system and partisan thinking of the party-registered.

One independent who has been successful is Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City. He is seeking his third term, which required new legislation from New Yorkers to allow him to run again, and he will likely win. The more impactful race in this election, however, is further upstate.

In New York 23, a district that has never elected a Democrat for Representative, has a very close three-way special election that is garnering plenty of attention. Democrat Bill Owens, Republican Dede Scozzafava, and Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman are tussling for the open seat. The imporatnce of this race dwells on the right side of the camp. Scozzafava is a moderate Republican, something the party would like to see more of if intends to do better nationally. However, many conservatives, unhappy with her liberal leanings, have stood behind Doug Hoffman, a walking definition of a values politician. Republicans on the national stage have lined up to endorse him (the names are too obvious to bother to mention).

One glaring ommission is Newt Gingrich, who supports Scozzafava, stating, "You can win with a center-right majority in this country like we did with Reagan and again with the Contract with America. You can't win with an extreme right or an extreme left in this country." I find the comment odd given Gingrich's recent past of posturing in the media, prepping for a possible 2012 run, but he's spot on. In a year of what I would consider unhealthy levels of ultra-conservative activism, I would anticipate a Hoffman win spelling a hard right turn for national Republicans. At the going rate, conservatives will succeed in pushing out moderates from the GOP "big tent." The result will be a smaller Republican Party and more national defeats.

Harvey Milk's Day

Like millions of its citizens, the United States is having a crisis of sexual identity. The country's sexual culture, like most nations, has historically been largely repressive. As America matures, the bonds of sexual repression are loosened. But it is a slow process. This is especially true for acceptance of the GLBTQ subculture.

In 1786, Pennsylvania became the first of the 13 colonies to lessen the penalty for sodomy. If you are thinking to yourself that some archaic laws against sodomy in colonial America were probably pretty stiff, you're absolutely right. Death. Until it was lessened to a paltry 10 years in prison, the punishment for sodomy was execution. South Carolina, a particularly sore spot in American civil rights history, did not remove the death penalty for sodomy until 1873, nearly one hundred years later.

Today's battle for equal rights for sexual minorities has progressed in many ways, but we aren't there quite yet. A small headline caught my eye today, pointing out a bill in California that would make May 22 "Harvey Milk Day," a statewide day of "significance" that would be celebrated, but not as a holiday. Can you hear the feathers begin to ruffle on the social conservatives as the thought hits them? I can. I can also anticipate the squawking that inevitably follows. 'We won't have a gay holiday,' they'll say, right before invoking the thought of children learning about homosexuality in schools. Which is a shame, because I'm willing to bet that most kids who have written essays about Martin Luther King Jr. and Susan B. Anthony have never heard of Harvey Milk, the Stonewall riots, or Mathew Shepard.

Eager not to disappoint me, a group called SaveCalifornia.com has stepped up to bash the bill and its proponents. Its news release, despicably titled "SB 572 Making schoolchildren honor the notorious Harvey Milk and his 'LGBT' agenda passes California Legislature," is rife with hyperbole, hateful rhetoric, and generally misleading notions. I confess to have not read the full release myself. I was too sickened to finish.

The bill deserves Governor Schwarzenegger's stamp of approval. Here's to hoping he does not defer it as he did to a similar bill last year. Harvey Milk was an inspirational leader to a minority with few figureheads--it was and is risky for those with power to come out, as Milk's martyrdom proved. He worked diligently and progressively for GLBTQ rights. After three failed bids, he was the first openly gay man elected to office in California, as a San Francisco supervisor. He fought against Proposition 6, which would have mandated that all gay teachers and state workers be fired. Fear and hatred almost passed this bill that President Ronald Reagan felt infringed on individual rights.

Conservatives should be following the suit of Reagan, their modern-day icon, and continue to protect individual liberty and defend the rights of our GLBTQ brothers and sisters. However, social conservatism too often falls into the shadow of Dan White, the "family values" man that put 5 hollow-tip bullets into Harvey Milk after killing the S.F. mayor, a supporter of Milk and the gay community. The unrelated desire to preserve the heterosexual family unit drives many Americans to fear, detest, repress, harass, and assault sexual minorities, and in so doing, deny them equal protection under the laws of the United States.



Milk's legacy is an important for those who struggle with their own sexual identity. President Obama, although dubiously silent on gay rights, recognized Milk's importance to civil rights, posthumously granting him the Presidential Medal of Freedom last month. The film "Milk" was released late in 2008, starring a brilliant Sean Penn as Harvey. Eloquently empathetic, the film brought to life a civil rights story left out of history lessons.

If you have a chance to read Milk's Hope Speech, you should. I'll end this article with the hope that May 22, 2010 will be the first Harvey Milk Day in California and this, an excerpt from the screenplay of the recent film:

"I ask this... If there should be an assassination, I would hope that five, ten, one hundred, a thousand would rise. I would like to see every gay lawyer, every gay architect come out - - If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door... And that's all. I ask for the movement to continue. Because it's not about personal gain, not about ego, not about power... it's about the "us's" out there. Not only gays, but the Blacks, the Asians, the disabled, the seniors, the us's. Without hope, the us's give up - I know you cannot live on hope alone, but without it, life is not worth living. So you, and you, and you... You gotta give em' hope... you gotta give em' hope."

An All-Star Pitch

The Midsummer Classic of America's pastime is tonight in the heartland. There are few things more poetic. The much debated "this once counts" approach to the All-Star game aside, it should prove to be a great night for baseball in St. Louis. In an effort to promote community service, President Obama will be tossing the first pitch at the game. He will be the first president to do so since Gerald Ford did it in the 1976 All-Star game. In addition, he'll be in the FOX booth at some point during the game to provide commentary and will appear with all the living presidents in a pre-game video. As I wrote in my undergraduate thesis, there is no other sport that connects so deeply with American heart and history than baseball, and tonight should prove to further strengthen that bond.


President Obama's enthusiasm for sports, just as everything else about him, is well reported. From his bowling score of 37 during last year's campaign, nationally televised March Madness bracket, correct pick of the Lakers, and oft-cited general infatuation with watching and playing basketball, the public has come to understand that the president is a sporty guy. He may have snubbed his hometown Blackhawks during their unlikely playoff surge by confessing his adoration for Alexander Ovechkin, but the guy can't be a big fan of every sport, right? But tonight's appearance, amid the glitz and gaiety of sports, comes at an apex for the President's administration. While still in the positives for approval rating, his numbers are dipping, now at 57% approval, 32% disapproval, according to a CBS poll. The same poll shows a disillusioned American public is losing faith in his economic policy; he now holds only a +4% approval margin on his handling of the economy, an 18% drop from just one month ago. Only 21% belive that the stimulus package has had a positive impact on the country and a slightly smaller percentage believe it has actually made it worse.

In addition, American political ideology is shifting toward the right, according to Gallup. For those who discount the Republican party, for all its problems, a quick resurgence is not out of the ballpark, so to speak. Play ball!

Reconstruction 2009 - The Republicans

The night of November 4, 2008 was a long one for the Republican party. Months after that drubbing, many important questions still linger for the Republicans, chief among them is: what now? Every week the news is rife with reports on Republican in-fighting and Democrats' portrayal of their opponents as idea-less, the "party of no." Democrats and the press are all too eager to label the likes of Cheney, Rush, Ingraham, and Gingrich as the leaders of the Republican Party, all of which are all too eager to accept that label. The GOP is confronted with a great dilemma. Do they march to the beat of the far-right conservatives, step for step? Do they attempt to drown out the far-right, potentially alienating (and I don't mean make them into immigrants) a large portion of their grass-roots base? Do they force a schism and take the "big-tent" of the party to new frontiers with bold ideas that encompass multiple views? Do they drown out Rush and Cheney, or do they kick out Meghan McCain and Colin Powell? Is there room in the party for all them, should there be? These are all weighty questions, and will take a few election cycles before they can be settled.

Eric Cantor took a step in the right direction with the creation of the National Council for a New America a few weeks ago. The newly formed group is extending an invite for an open conversation about the direction America should be going, and how best Republicans can help get us there. When Rush verbally assaulted the effort as an attempt to compromise what he sees as core Republican values, it seemed as though this new group would have a chance to change the party. However, the lineup of panel experts is dubiously filled faces of the staunch establishment. Jeb Bush, no matter his personal accolades and through no fault of his own, taints the panel with his family name. The last thing any new party image needs is a Bush at the forefront. John McCain, while perfect for adding to a conversation about party reform, came to represent the same ole' GOP during the national election, although I didn't believe for a second he was just another far right Republican. Sarah Palin, his running mate, was embraced warmly by the far right, and lampooned by everyone else. Mitt Romney and Bobby Jindel, with past and future oval office hopes, fail to bring anything new to the discussion, sticking to many of the same talking points from the last year. Haley Barbour, governor of Mississippi provides a good face for fiscal conservatism, but is that enough? So will this group that pledges to have town-hall discussions be able to reshape the party by any measurable degree? My hunch is no.

Any progress in ideas and policy are being blocked by social conservatives that are uncompromising in a changing American society. If the Republican Party wants a resurgence, it needs to get back to basics, which, believe it or not, are not moral issues. Smaller government, lower taxes, less discretionary spending, protecting individual rights, protecting state sovereignty are all tenets of conservatism. Those interests are vastly more attractive to Reagan Democrats, independents and moderates than the subliminal intolerance social conservatism has come to represent. To attract the minorities, women, and younger voters that the party sorely needs, it will have to adapt to become more Libertarian. Many in the GOP have an unyielding pro-life stance that is irresponsible to affected families, and is a leading cause for their lack of female supporters. Harsh rhetoric on immigrants drives many minorities to the Democrats. Anti-gay agendas keep the young, who are far more tolerant of homosexuality than preceding generations, disinterested in the GOP. As the party of protecting individual rights and liberties from the abuses of government (thus the reasoning behind keeping it smaller), the GOP should be progressive in incorporating immigrants legally into our society, protecting women's rights, and championing the civil rights issue that is homosexual rights.

One of the GOP's last remaining vestiges of hope in rebuilding a positive image that the American people will clamor for is McCain. Not John, but Meghan. Providing a voice for moderate conservatives, she has made it her personal mission to attempt to free up her party from its extremist power base.

In this short clip of an interview with Larry King, McCain demonstrates what a positive future for the GOP could look like. A young, smart, independent-minded woman acting as a voice for Republicans that touts support for gay marriage among other social issues. She remains pro-life on a personal level, but does not begrudge those who are pro-choice, nor does she see such issues as core policy agendas. Although many social conservatives may disagree with her on many accounts, to disparage her and suggest she leave the party only shows the public that the GOP isn't ready to change and likely won't anytime soon. If Republicans hope to be an attractive alternative to President Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress in 2010 and 2012, they had best bring more attractive policies to the table.

Arlen Specter: Exit Stage Left

On a news day that included fears of a swine flu pandemic and the fallout of a low-flying government 747 in New York City, it was Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania who topped the headlines. He formally announced Tuesday that he is leaving the Republican Party to become a Democrat. The impact of Specter's decision is both immediate and weighty, the ripples of which will extend into 2010. The substitution of Specter's (R) to a (D) brings the Democrats to 59 Senators, a mere vote away from a filibuster-proof majority that will assure them swift policy decisions. That single vote, by the way, will inevitably arrive in the form of Al Franken out of Minnesota. Though Franken is not technically seated yet, it is pretty clear that former Senator Norm Coleman is not going to win the seat through litigation. At some point in the coming months the Democrats, including Arlen Specter, will have limitless control of the United States government.

The Republicans, at first shocked by the sudden decision, feel betrayed. Perhaps rightfully so. The move leaves Republicans with no recourse against the legislative agenda of President Obama and the Democrats. Already vastly outnumbered in the House, Republicans are not even invited to the table on developing major legislation such as the Stimulus Plan. With the Democrats on the cusp of a supermajority in the Senate, the Republicans will no longer be able to use filibustering as a legislative tool. Is having one party in total control such a good thing for American democracy? Certainly not, as it discourages healthy debate and policy compromises. Specter himself noted the importance of the 41 Republicans in the Senate just last month, calling them "an important asset to the American people."





So why, after 28 years of being a Republican, did Specter switch now?
In his official statement he stated, "As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party." This is valid reasoning for his exodus: the Republican Party is struggling with identity and the hard-right conservatives tend to be more... vociferous as they vie to steer the course of the party's future. However, is Specter really so ideologically distant from his former peers to warrant changing lanes? I suspect that in large part, Specter's decision has to do with his own political future. Waning Republican support for the Senator in his home state due to his vote for President Obama's stimulus package had many polls predicting his defeat in the primary for his seat next year. Will Specter receive a Democrat challenger now that he has switched? He very well may, but don't be surprised if an unchallenged primary bid was part of a bargain to come to the Democrats.

Some may hail him, others spit at the sound of his name. For myself, I believe it would have been more ideologically prudent to become an Independent, though his re-election bid would likely not pan out as Senator Lieberman's did. His disagreements with Republicans would be more palpable if it did not appear he had his own skin in mind. In addition, he will serve the remainder of his term, which was earned through the campaign dollars of Pennsylvania Republicans and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, in opposition to those interests. I have no qualms with any elected official changing parties either direction--I would even prefer they become Independents--so long as they do so at the end of a term or at the start of a campaign. When voters are disenfranchised, to a degree, by the representative they sent to office, then the waters get a bit muddy. Next year the voters of Pennsylvania will get their chance to weigh in on Specter's change of heart. It should be interesting to find out what they say.

Trials and Tribulations: Torture in the Spotlight

The topic of my inaugural post is a tough one. The major headlines this week are not about government spending, failing companies, drug violence along our borders, or even the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This would come as a relief were they not filled instead with stories about torture of terror suspects in the Bush administration.

The first part of the debate is whether or not varying methods used by the CIA are considered torture or enhanced interrogation techniques, which I shall dub "EIT" as a throwback to that other dubious, three-letter justification for the invasion of Iraq. A majority of Americans view the EITs in question as torture, and I agree. However, that is the American opinion now, and we weren't privy to the decision-making then. The definition of these interrogation methods is central to the argument and is essentially where the problem began. Loose guidelines for what defines torture, which is illegal in the United States, gave Bush administration officials and lawyers the wiggle room that they needed in order to approve techniques like water-boarding, wall-slamming, extended sleep deprivation, and phobia exploitation. Before you start painting "War Criminals" signs, plan your protest route, and decide who's bringing the coffee and donuts, remember that Bush's administration was hell-bent on protecting the lives and sovereign soil of our country. You could argue that that qualifies them as "hell-bound" but I would generally diagree if you asserted they should be jail-bound. To prevent future manipulation of the mid-April-thunder-shower grey that surrounds interrogating terror suspects, I suggest the CIA form a review board made up of intelligence officials, phsycologists, human rights academics, and Congressional representation to determine which methods are viable for information extraction, and which go too far.

Defining the EITs as torture aside, the second part of the debate is whether or not to prosecute those in the Bush administration who legitimized those methods. The blame game falls into three different tiers of accountability. The first is the ground level operatives who carried out the EITs, presumably in good faith of the legality of their work. That legality brings us to the second tier: the lawyers who affirmed for the former president and his staff the legal justification of torture. They are also accountable for the authoring of the now infamous legal memos, released by President Obama's administration. The final and highest tier, of course, runs to high-level government officials that approved the use of EITs, up to and including National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, and even President Bush. It is almost unanimously agreed upon that the ground-level tier be exempt from prosecution, excepting the usual extremist opinions. It is actions of the lawyers and administration officials that are up for debate.

The interest in investigation varies; polls indicate that Americans are split on whether the Justice Department, under new Attorney General Eric Holder, should pursue legal action against the previous administration. On one side, there are anti-Bush activists that are pushing for investigation and prosecution. Whether or not those for investigation want justice or political vengeance will depend on the individual. On the other side, there are also many that view prosecution of one administration by its successor as an uneccessary and potentially dangerous precedent. I think Senator John McCain of Arizona, a victim of years of torture himself, speaks to the situation very well.



So should the Bush era strategies for interrogating terror suspects be dragged further into the light, or shooed under the rug? Investigation should continue into the details so that we can ensure the same errors are not made in the future. However, I do think transparency of the treatment of terror detainees has to be complete. If we learn of the details of how we obtained information, Americans also deserve to know what came of information. By some accounts, information obtained through EITs prevented the Library Tower, the tallest building in Los Angeles, from being struck by a "Second Wave" plot. Whether this is true or not has yet to be revealed, but at the risk of alienating any readership in my first post, I have to agree with Cheney's call to reveal memos that he says proves that lives were saved. I don't mean to say that anything justifies torturing, but it is in the interest of full disclosure. Mistakes were made in the zealous protection of Americans against terror. In a way, torture is a parallel to Iraq. The Bush administration acted on an impulse to keep Americans safe. In hindsight, invading Iraq may not have been the best choice and torturing terror suspects diminishes our values and global standing. But hindsight is 20/20 and its time for us to move on and assure our government is more transparent going forward.