Brookings Institution and Hoover Institution to Merge

On April 1, the heads of the Brookings and Hoover Institutions announced plans to merge effective September 1, 2013.  The new institution will be known as BHI.  All Hoover Senior Fellows will become concurrent Brookings Senior Fellows and vice-versa.  Brookings Fellows will also receive courtesy appointments in Stanford departments.

The merger represent a win-win for both institutions.  Hoover fellows will have ready access to liberal-leaning politicians while Brookings fellows will have ready access to conservative-leaning politicians.  Donors of both institutions have signaled their intention to double contributions to the new BHI.

Trustees of Brookings and Stanford unanimously endorsed the merger.  President Obama and Speaker Boehner sent a congratulatory note, looking forward to receiving public policy research based on non-partisan analysis that provides solutions to issues facing the U.S. at home and abroad.

Each institution will retain a high degree of autonomy for one or two years as the merger proceeds.  Thereafter, it is anticipated that the two will become one.  Currents heads of each institution will rotate leadership on an annual basis until a new director is appointed to administer all operations.

Several think tanks of the left and right have jointly announced their intent to sue in federal court to block the merger on the grounds that BHI would enjoy monopoly power over high quality policy research.  Trustees of both Hoover and Brookings are confident the merger will be upheld. The Supreme Court has hinted that it appreciates the new centrist spirit of the merger that will enable scholars in both institutions to help resolve important social, economic, and political problems confronting the United States.

More details of the merger will be announced in coming months.

What's the Difference Between Chief Justice John Roberts Decision on Obamacare as a "Tax" and European Leaders forcing Cyprus to Tax Depositors?

If the Supreme Court Rules that Something is a Tax, Then the Federal government Has the Power to Take the Money.

Europe Failed to Learn from Chairman Mao Zedong

"A Single Spark [confiscating Cypriot deposits] Can Start a Prairie Fire."

President Obama's Drones

Are the equivalent of the old English Star Chamber, which was abolished by The Habeas Corpus Act 1640 enacted by Parliament.

Eliminating Gender Imbalances in One Year in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

The U.S. Department of Education reported data on bachelor's degrees by academic discipline and sex of the graduation students of the college class of 2011.

The share of females in mathematics and statistics was 43.1%, in physical sciences and science technologies, 40.2%; computer and information sciences, 17.6%; and engineering, 17.6%.  In absolute numbers, male degrees in STEM fields outnumbered female by 96,203, with the largest gap of 61,083 in engineering.

Where can 96,203 female students interested and qualified to earn degrees in STEM be found?  Easy, in Asia.  U.S. universities with departments in STEM can invite interested female students in leading universities in China, Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and India to apply for admission.  Offering tuition waivers with part-time work for room and board should enable 96,203 females to gain entrance into STEM departments in U.S. universities next fall.

The likely immigration reform legislation will grant holders of graduate degrees "green cards" to work and live in the U.S.  The diligent study habits of Asian females should enable most of them to earn STEM Ph.D. degrees and thus repay the U.S. with their productive skills.

This approach is far easier and quicker than trying to persuade 96,203 more U.S. resident females to earn STEM degrees.  And, if the number of places expands to accommodate increased female enrollment without reducing enrollment of qualified males, the U.S. will receive the benefits of an additional 95,000-100,000 high-tech graduates every year.

(HT:  Mark J. Perry)

Tallying Up the Costs of U.S. Military Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan

President Obama has indicated that U.S. active combat operations in Afghanistan will end in 2013, joining the cessation in Iraq.  This is a good time to weigh the costs of the two wars launched by President George W. Bush in Iraq in 2003 and Afghanistan in 2001 with what has been achieved.

The Brookings Institution has published a monthly index of statistics for Iraq and Afghanistan.  Here are the costs in lives, wounded, and money:

Iraq:

U.S. fatalities March 2003 to December 2011:  4487  (hostile 3526, non-hostile 961)

U.S. wounded:  31,000+

U.S. Government Budget Authority (DOD, DOS, VA):  $823.2 billion

Afghanistan:

U.S. fatalities  October 2001 to December 2012:  2160  (hostile 1741, non-hostile 176)

U.S. wounded:  18,109

U.S. Government budget authority (DOD, DOS, VA):  $557.1 billion

VA budget represents annual authority that does not take into account subsequent long-term care.

What are the consequences of U.S. military operations?

Iraq:

The overthrow of Saddam Hussein has replaced Sunni domination  of a unified Iraq with a Shia political majority that is increasingly in conflict with the Sunni minority.  The Kurds, for their part, want an autonomous, preferably independent, homeland of their own.  Over half of the 1.4 million Christians residing in Iraq in 2003 are estimated to have left the country.  Iraq has not evolved into a stable, peaceful, multicultural democratic country.

Afghanistan:

The overthrow of the Taliban has resulted in an uncertain future in which Afghanistan President Hamid Kazai and U.S. President Barack Obama have agreed that the Afghan government should enter into peace talks with the Taliban.  Some analysts fear that the Taliban will be able to overthrow the Karzai government and resume power once the remaining U.S. combat forces are withdrawn in 2013.

Once again, Thoughtful Ideas urges all those in the U.S. government along with those in the broader policy community concerned with foreign policy and the decision to go to war in ethnically divided countries should, indeed must, read Politics in Plural Societies:  A Theory of Democratic Instability.  The notion that the U.S. government can build stable democracies in the short span of a decade in a region beset with centuries of tribal, ethnic, and religious conflict epitomizes the word "chutzpah."

Supply Side Economics--Then and Now

The original focus of Supple Side Economics was on bringing down the top marginal tax rate of income tax to improve incentives to work, save, and invest.

Now the focus is on bringing down every rate but the top one.  Even Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform praises Republicans for their willingness to agree to a rise in the Top Marginal Rate from 35% to 39.6% (actually higher due to phaseouts of personal exemptions and itemized deductions) because the fiscal cliff deal made permanent all other rates but the top one.

Never mind how much higher the now permanent rates are than the the two rates of 15% and 28% of President Reagan, and even the addition of the 31% rate of President George H.W. Bush.

Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio?