SUNDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2010 GEORGEF.WILL


A remedy for beggar states


T


he nation’smenu of crises caused by governmen- talmalpracticemay sooninclude states coming to Congress as mendicants, seeking relief from the


consequencesof theirchoices.Congress shouldforestall this by passing a bill with a bland title but explosive potential. Principal author of the Public Employee Pension


Transparency Act is Rep. Devin Nunes, a Republican fromCalifornia, where about 80 cents of every govern- ment dollar goes for government employees’ pay and benefits.Hisbillwoulddefinethescaleof theproblemof underfunded state and local government pensions and wouldnotify statesnot toapproachCongress likeOliver Twists,holding outporridgebowls andasking formore. Corporate pension funds are heavily regulated, in-


cludingpre-fundingrequirements.Afederalagency, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., copes with insolvent ones. By requiring transparency, the government gave the private sector an incentive to move to defined contributions from defined-benefit plans, which are nowprimarily luxuries enjoyedbypublic employees. Less candor, realismand pre-funding are required of


state andmunicipal governments regarding their pen- sion plans. Nunes’s bill would require themto disclose the size of their pension liabilities — and the often- dreamy assumptions behind the calculations.Noncom- pliant governments would be ineligible for issuing bonds exempt fromfederal taxation. Furthermore, the billwouldstipulatethat stateandlocalgovernmentsare entirely responsible for their pension obligations and the federal governmentwillprovideno bailouts. Nunes’s bill would not traduce any state’s sovereign-


ty: Eachwould retain the right not to comply, choosing to forfeit access to the federally subsidized borrowing that facilitatedtheir slide into trouble. Those troubles are big. A study by Northwestern


University’s Kellogg School of Management calculates the combined underfunding of pensions in the all municipalities at $574 billion. States have an estimated $3.3 trillioninunfundedpensionliabilities. Nunes says that 10 states will exhaust their pension


money by 2020, andall but eight stateswill by 2030. States’ troubles are becoming bigger. Hitherto, local


governments have acquired infusions of funds from federal budget earmarks, which are now forbidden. Furthermore, states are suffering “ARRA hangover” — withdrawal fromthe AmericanRecovery andReinvest- ment Act, a.k.a. the 2009 stimulus. With about $150 billion for state and local governments, it raised the federalportionofstatebudgetsfromaboutaquartertoa third. Also, in 2009 and 2010, states and localities borrowedalmost$200billionthroughtheARRA’sBuild AmericaBondsprogram,underwhichWashingtonpays 35 percent of the interest costs.Republicans, inanother victory over the president in negotiations on extending the Bush tax rates, extinguished that program, which they say primarily produced more public-sector em- ployees. There are legal provisions for municipalities to de-


clare bankruptcy. Some have done so. As many as 200 are expected to default on debt next year. There are, however,nobankruptcyprovisionsforstates.Somewho favorprovidingsuchprovisions say statesare “toobigto fail,” and under bankruptcy, judges could rewrite union contracts or give states powers to do so, thereby reduc- ingexistingpensionobligations.Unfortunately,govern- ment-administered bankruptcy of governments might be even more unseemly than Washington’s political twisting of the bankruptcy process on behalf ofGeneral Motors and Chrysler, including the use of TARP funds supposedly restrictedfor “financial institutions.” Oliver Twist did not choose his fate. California, New


York and Illinois — three states whose conditions are especiallyparlous—did.AndinNovember,eachof these deep-blue states elected Democratic governors behold- entopublic employeeunions. San Francisco is spending $400 million a year on


public employees’ pensions, up from $175 million in 2005. In November, San Franciscans voted on Proposi- tion B, which would have required city employees to contribute up to 10 percent of their salaries to their pensionplans,andtopayhalf thehealth-carepremiums of their dependents.MichaelMoritz, a venture capital- ist, says: “A typical San Francisco resident with one dependent pays $953 amonth for health care,while the typical city employeepays less than$10.” San Francisco voters defeated Proposition B. If they


now experience a self-inflicted budgetary earthquake, thereisnonationalobligationtoamelioratethedisaster they, likemany other cities andstates,have chosen. People seeking backdoor bailouts hope that the


fourth branch of government, a.k.a. Ben Bernanke,will declare an emergency power for the Federal Reserve to buy municipal bonds to lower localities’ borrowing costs. This political act might mitigate one crisis by creating a larger one — the Fed’s forfeiture of its independence.


georgewill@washpost.com DAVIDIGNATIUS Some foreign policy spine F


or a world that feared (and in some cases, cheered) the prospect of American decline, this holiday season has been bracing. It showed that


despiteU.S. political and economic difficulties, Presi- dent Obama is still able to rally support at home and abroadfor a strong foreignpolicy. Obama’s Christmas-week legislative successes


cappedatwo-monthperiodinwhichhisforeignpolicy team strengthened key alliances, from East Asia to NATO. After Obama’s humbling in the November elections,worldleadersweretalkinginstagewhispers about theerosionofAmericanpower,andofObamaas a weak and inattentive president. Those worries ha- ven’t disappeared, but they are allayed by his recent successes. The foreign policy challenges of the past two


months were also the first test of the new national security adviser, TomDonilon. True to his reputation asapolitical “Mr.Fix-It,”hewas low-key, tothepointof near-invisibility—andhe’llneedtopresentastronger public face to succeed inthat job.But he rana smooth and seamless policy process, without the competing voices that have sometimes been heard over the past two years. Donilon’s advantage, it appears, is thathe ismaster


of the house at the National Security Council. His predecessor, Gen. Jim Jones, also tried to run an orderlyprocess,buthehadtolookoverhis shoulderat RahmEmanuel, the formerWhiteHouse chief of staff who operated in a sort of prime ministerial role. EmanueloftenusedDonilon(whowasJones’sdeputy) as his personal foreign policy operative, which con- fusedlines of responsibility. “What we have now is a tightly aligned, single


process for foreign policy,” a senior White House official said when asked what difference the depar- tures ofEmanuel andJoneshadmade. What has been notable about the recent foreign


policymoves is that theyhave allowedObama toshow some backbone, a quality that Europeans, in particu- lar, feared wasmissing. This firmness has been espe- cially evident incontingencyplans forNorthKorea. TheWhiteHouse cites eight specific foreign policy


gains over the past two months. The list begins with thepresident’s triptoIndiainNovember,whenhewas still reelingfromtheDemocrats’midtermdefeat.That cast anaura of failure over the trip,but inretrospect it looks a bit more positive: In New Delhi, Obama managed to strengthen tieswith Indiawithout upset- tingPakistan, aneat trick. Next came South Korea. Although Obama was


drubbed for not getting a free-trade deal before his arrival,his refusal tomake last-minute concessions to Seoulmade the final deal reached inDecembermuch better, andwonitbipartisansupport. It’s arguably the most important free-tradepact sinceNAFTA. A third success was the Lisbon summit in late


November.Thiswas thecrowningdiplomaticachieve- ment of the late RichardHolbrooke,whomanaged to coaxNATOto support a 2014 timetable for transition in Afghanistan. This bolstered the allies and helped fuzzObama’sJuly2011dateforbeginningwithdrawal, whichwas perhaps his biggest foreign policy blunder —undercuttinghis troop surge evenashe announced it a year ago.


THE PLUM LINE


Excerpts fromGreg Sargent’s blog on domestic politics and debate on theHill: voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line


The other things Congress did


As we turn out the lights on the 111th Congress,


it’s now obvious it was one of the most productive in decades. Health-care reform, Wall Street reform, the ratification of New START and the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”will define this Congress in the history books. But there are a host of other, lesser-noticed congres-


sional accomplishments that under normal circum- stances would be getting a whole lot more attention — stillmore testament to howsuccessful this Congress has really been. Things that we would normally be talking about


include the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which reversed a Supreme Court decision limiting the ability of women to sue over salary discrimination. There’s the far-reach- ing credit card reform measure putting a halt to unfair and deceptive industry practices. There’s the landmark legislation that greatly expanded the Food and Drug Administration’s authority to regulate the manufactur- ing and marketing of tobacco products. There’s the measure that vastly expanded federal aid to college


Fostering a free Azerbaijan T


BY PETER VAN PRAAGH


en years ago this month, a young American civilianworking for democracy in Azerbaijanwas brutallymurdered in the former Soviet republic’s


capital. The stabbing of John Alvis raised little public attention. A decade later, his death remains a crime deemed unsolved by the FBI. John Alvis, a 36-year-old from Texas, was the


representative of the International Republican Insti- tute in Baku.Heworked closelywithme, inmy capacity as representative of the National Democratic Institute, to bring about democratic political reform of the autocratic government of Heydar Aliyev, a former member of the Soviet Politburo. Our close cooperation showed that Republicans and Democrats can work together toward a worthy common cause. John’s murder also tragically underlined the risks


civilians take in defending and promoting democracy in countries whose dictators move quickly to discour- age and, if necessary, end any such efforts. Azerbaijan has registered no political progress in the


past 10 years. John’smurder came less than four weeks after a suspect election in 2000. Another terrible election took place on Nov. 7 of this year, as Ilham Aliyev, the current president, consolidated the power of his late father. Until thatmost recent electoral fraud, a small — and harmless — number of opposition parties had been allowed representation in parliament. Now theAzeri legislaturewill not have even a singlemember of any opposition party. Some Western policymakers argue that political liberalization in Azerbaijan is beside the point. More


students that ultimately passed as part of health reform. More recently, there are the food safety bill and the measure granting health benefits to Sept. 11 responders. And two women were confirmed to the Supreme Court, one of thema Latina—a historic accomplishment. Under normal circumstances, these alone would


have constituted significant achievements. The larger story here is that if you add these


accomplishments to the more visible ones, it becomes clear that, evenmore than has commonly been thought, Congress has expanded government’s reach as a defend- er of themiddle class and the poor. For all the justifiable criticism of health reform and Wall Street regulations for not going far enough — and all the talk about the coming battle to repeal them — the bottom line is that the sum total of this Congress’s major and minor achievements have produced an expansion of govern- ment’s role in society that will be very hard to undo. “Taken together, the smaller accomplishments may


have an impact on society that rivals the main accomplishments, and they have all bolstered govern- ment’s role as a protector of the public interest,” says congressional scholar Norman J. Ornstein. So, onemore tip of the hat to the 111th Congress and


its leadership.


KLMNO


EZ RE


A27


My remarks to Nixon, in context


BY HENRY A. KISSINGER F


or someone who lost in the Holo- caust many members of my imme- diate family and a large proportion


of those with whom I grew up, it is hurtful to see an out-of-context remark being taken so contrary to its intentions and to my convictions, which were profoundly shaped by these events. Ref- erences to gas chambers have no place in political discourse, and I am sorry I made that remark 37 years ago. In his Dec. 21 op-ed column [“Beyond


Kissinger’s realism”] Michael Gerson used comments I made during a one- minute conversation with Richard Nix- on to drawa contrast between themoral insensitivity of the so-called foreign policy realists and the broader humanis- tic view of their critics. As a general subject, this is beyond the scope of an op-ed comment. In this specific case, further reflection might counsel a limit to righteousness. Context matters. Gerson presents the


JASON REED/REUTERS


President Obama with India’s President Pratibha Patil at a state dinner inNewDelhi last month.


TheDecemberAf-Pakreview, thefourthitemonthe


list, followed on the Lisbon frame. Obama’s achieve- mentherewas toavoidapotentialpolitical landmine. AWhiteHouseaidehadexplainedthat thepresident’s goal was “fine-tuning, not changing the channel.” He bought some timewith a bland status-quo document that spoke of progress but called it “fragile and reversible.” ThencamethethreebigtheatricaleventsinDecem-


ber: the formation of an Iraqi government; the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”; and ratification of the New START treaty with Russia. In all three, Obama suc- ceeded by working closely with his diplomatic and military advisers, especiallyAdm.MikeMullen, chair- manof the JointChiefs of Staff. Finally, and least noticed, was the test with North


Korea.Whilesayinglittleinpublic, theadministration mobilized for the possibility of war if North Korea continueditsprovocations.ObamacautionedChinese President Hu Jintao in a phone call three weeks ago that because North Korea is a nuclear nation, its recklessness threatens the United States. The White House thinks the Chinese got the message — and warnedPyongyang. Sadly, the president’s biggest disaster was with his


signature issue, Israeli-Palestinian peace.Obamawas undone partly by his growing political weakness. I suspect that a stronger but still quixotic Obama will remount thathorsenext year. davidignatius@washpost.com


issue of Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union in the 1970s as if it had been an abstract debate between those who relied on a relaxation of tensions and advocates of ideological confronta- tion, inwhich the realistswerewilling to sacrifice Jewish emigration on the altar of detente. The opposite is true. That emigration existed at all was due to the actions of “realists” in theWhite House. Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union had never been put forward by any administration as a formal Ameri- can position, not because of moral insensitivity but because intense crises imposed other priorities. In 1969, we introduced it into the presidential chan- nel as a humanitarian issue because we judged that a foreign policy confronta- tion would lead to rejection and an increase of tensions with the Soviets. As a result, Jewish emigration rose from 700 a year in 1969 to near 40,000 in 1972. The total in Nixon’s first term was more than 100,000. We also submitted, with some success, several hundred hardship cases at regular intervals. To maintain this flow by quiet diplomacy, we never used these figures for political purposes. The issue became public because of


the success of our Middle East policy when Egypt evicted Soviet advisers. To restore its relations with Cairo, the SovietUnion put a tax on Jewish emigra- tion. There was no Jackson-Vanik Amendment until therewas a successful emigration effort. Sen. Henry Jackson, for whom I had,


and continue to have, high regard, sought to remove the tax with his amendment. We thought the continua- tion of our previous approach of quiet diplomacy was the wiser course. But the issue became intense only when, the tax having been removed by our previous methods of quiet diplomacy, the Jack- son-Vanik Amendment was institution- alized. The conversation at issue arose not as


a policy statement byme but in response to a request by the president that I should appeal to Sens. Jacob Javits and Jackson and explain why we thought their approach unwise.My answer tried to sum up that context in a kind of shorthand that,when read 37 years later, is undoubtedly offensive. It was ad- dressed to a president who had commit- ted himself to that issue and had never used it for political purpose to preserve its humanitarian framework. The comment to Nixon that emigra-


tion was not a subject of foreign policy has to be seen in that context. The conversation should also be un-


critical than democracy, they say, is a reliable partner for transit routes to Afghanistan and access to Azerbai- jan’s oil and gas wealth. The Aliyev family depends on this long-held viewand rewards itsWestern partners by saying plainly that Azerbaijan does not care what the United States and Europe think about its democracy and human rights record. But Azerbaijan does care. The Aliyevs know better


than anyone that there will be popular uprisings in Baku if they choose to build a closer relationship with Moscow. Still, three U.S. administrations have been gullible enough to believe the story that American influence and potential leverage in Azerbaijan are limited.AndmanyAzeris arewell on theirway to giving up hope that the United States will use its considerable influence to ensure that civil society is not wholly crushed. In fact, instead of waiting for political pressure on


theAliyev regime fromtheWest,more andmoreAzeris, about 90 percent of whom are Shiite Muslim, are looking toward religion and to Iran, which borders Azerbaijan to the south, as a potential remedy. This is not the way that things have to be — and far


from the outcome that appeared likely given the political situation 10 years ago. In late 2000, as Americanswere recounting ballots in Florida, John and Iwere looking forward to a progressive Azerbaijan that would help to pull Iran towardmodern political reform. The Azeri political scene was still diverse then, and most Azeris were still optimistic that formal indepen- dence fromMoscowwouldmean closer ties to theWest. That, in turn, was expected to help influence the millions of ethnic Azeris in Iran press for greater openness in their own country.We did not predictwhat


unfortunately transpired — an Islamist Iran influenc- ing Azerbaijan, in addition to its other neighbors. The good news today is that there is clear evidence of


American influence in Azerbaijan. When the State Department declared that lastmonth’s elections didnot meet international standards, Aliyev’s office immedi- ately began asking Westerners what the United States meant. Unable to understand the obvious message of the statement, Aliyev concluded that Washington was making a request in code and promptly released two young democracy bloggers who had been jailed for more than a year. Instead of rewarding Azerbaijan’s corrupt leadership


for releasing activists who should never have been imprisoned and letting authorities off the hook for again undermining Azeris’ confidence in the United States and its democratic allies, theUnited States needs to push Azerbaijan hard, now, to do more to protect independent civil society and to get on the path toward honest political representation. John and I cooperated with democratic Azeris who


were demoralized after the fraudulent 2000 elections but who were committed, nonetheless, to continue a struggle tomove their country forward. For his efforts, John was murdered in his home in Baku. At a time whenmany inWashington are speaking about the need to bridge the partisan divide, perhaps Democrats and Republicans can consider specific strategies for work- ing together to support democracy in the parts of the world where courageous people continue to risk their lives to defend it.


The writer is a senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.


derstood as having occurred within 15 minutes of a meeting between Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir that was attended also, and only, by myself and Israeli Ambassador Yitzhak Rabin. That meeting agreed on military deliveries (especially airplanes), a peace process via theWhite House, a negotiat- ing position and steps to encourage Egypt to leave its alliancewith the Soviet Union. It was to preserve that strategy that Nixon asked me to call the two senators. Events proved our judgment correct.


Jewish emigration fell to about a third of its previous high, not to be resumed at substantial levels for 20 years, as Gerson admits. That was during the collapse of the Soviet Union. Gerson ascribes the collapse of the


Soviet Union in part to the Jackson-Van- ik Amendment. The amendment played no significant role inwhat resulted from imperial overstretch, incompetent eco- nomicmanagement and the determined resistance of a succession of presidents from both parties, culminating in the Reagan period. Gerson sneers at detente as if itwere a


kind of moral abdication. Memories are short. The conversation under discus- sion occurred on March 1, 1973. The Vietnam War had just ended; prisoners had not yet returned. An effective global strategy was in


placewith the opening to China, a broad dialogue with the Soviet Union, and major progress in Egypt and on emigra- tion. It was to preserve that policy that the conversation in the Oval Office took place, and it is in that context that it must be viewed.


The writer was secretary of state from1973 to 1977.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156