We here at USDemocrazy are not exactly history experts (too short of an attention span), but we were pretty sure that the Cold War was over. But then yesterday there was all of this news circling around about Russia and nuclear weapons and treaties and stuff.

So, we began to wonder — did we get sucked into some kind of “Back to the Future” plot?

Turns out no. (Would have been fun.) Actually, as we know, nuclear weapons are still a huge deal in foreign policy post-Cold War, and so the U.S. and Russia’s nuclear relations are getting more lip service over the past few days.

Basically, the United States and Russia have reached an agreement that would reduce their nuclear arsenals and would replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991 (START), which expired last year. Exciting!

The New York Times outlines the parameters for us, saying that this agreement…

would require both sides to reduce their warheads and launchers by more than one-quarter. The agreement is the most significant accomplishment so far for Mr. Obama’s policy of trying to “reset” relations with Russia. It is intended to pave the way for another more far-reaching round of reductions later in his term.

And according to the Washington Post, the numbers of nuclear weapons that will magically disappear into thin air will be reduced by a few hundred. They also cite a statistic that explains that the U.S. and Russia possess about 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons. That’s a lotta bombs, folks.

It’s been a big week for Obama and Congress, and this is just one more thing to pile on to their plates. You’ll remember that Congress has to ratify all treaties that the President negotiates. Gotta love the synergy!

But that’s not all in terms of what’s up for nuclear policy in the U.S…. Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic explains what’s next on the agenda…

If March was health care care month, then April … will be nuclear month — the administration plans to release its Nuclear Posture Review, hold a nuclear security summit in Washington, the Senate plans to begin debate on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and preparations begin for a major review of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Obama campaigned on getting rid of nuclear weapons production and proposing BIG reductions in capabilities (as you can see in the video below), so why is he falling short of that goal within this particular treaty? Well, the same NYT article from before says it’s a trust-building tactic.

Think about it: if you were Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, would you just say, “Sure, Barack! I trust that you’ll get rid of all of your nukes! So we will too! No problem!”

We didn’t think so.

For all the work Obama is doing to build trust through negotiations and talks with his Russian counterpart, some people (like Fly and Schmitt at Foreign Policy) believe that Obama might not be taking the right approach to relations with Russia by basing them off his personal relationship with Medvedev.

The authors claim that this is what G.W. Bush did with then-president and now-prime minister Vladimir Putin, and that didn’t turn out so pretty.

Why don’t they want such ties to Medvedev to run U.S.-Russia policy? Well…

In fact, [Medvedev's] seemingly well-meaning comments about arms control or Iran have often been overshadowed by more bellicose moves from Putin, as happened last week. The obvious point is that Putin is still calling the shots and will likely continue doing so as he plots a return to the Russian presidency in 2012.

So, maybe the foreign policy advisers to Obama know more about who to trust, because clearly we don’t! Either way, this is an important step in nuclear arms control for the world, and that shouldn’t be diminished.

What are you thinking about nuclear weapons in the modern age? Got questions about U.S.-Russia relations? Engage us in the comments section!

Thanks to Wikicommons.

We at US Democrazy were excited to hear about a serious grilling going on in Washington yesterday (although less so once we found out they had run out of potato salad).

We were also disappointed to learn there was no burgers or ribs and instead the menu featured the head of Toyota car company and The Federal Reserve.

Akio Toyota and Ben Bernanke were grilled by congressional committees. Here is a look at yesterday’s BBQ (Brake issue & Bernanke Question).

Toyota Troubles

Over the past couple of months Toyota has been facing a rough road after braking and uncontrollable acceleration problems forced the recall of millions of cars beginning in November of last year.

Well the problems with Toyota have gotten to the point that the US Congress is demanding answers.

To attempt to answer Congress’s questions the CEO of Toyota, Akio Toyoda, came before congress yesterday and had this (among other things) to say:

All the Toyota vehicles bear my name. For me, when the cars are damaged, it is as though I am as well. I, more than anyone, wish for Toyota’s cars to be safe, and for our customers to feel safe when they use our vehicles.

Despite Mr. Toyota’s apologies, some felt that he was saying too little, too late.  Representative Marcy Kaptur, a Democrat from Ohio, commented on Toyoda’s testimony, saying:

I do not think it reflects sufficient remorse for those who have died

Of course Toyota’s pain is other car manufactures gains.  Both Ford and GM are offering incentives to buyers who trade in their Toyota.

Chairman Chat

With all of the craziness happening in the US economy, Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has been a busy man.

The Semi-annual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress yesterday was just one more thing on his huge” to do” pile.

Ben said quite a bit (and answered some crazy questions) but here are some of the most interesting things he said.

On the economic outlook as a whole:

Private final demand does seem to be growing at a moderate pace, buoyed in part by a general improvement in financial conditions.

On unemployment:

Of particular concern, because of its long-term implications for workers’ skills and wages, is the increasing incidence of long-term unemployment

On bank health:

the closure of most of the special lending facilities earlier this month, are in response to the improved functioning of financial markets, which has reduced the need for extraordinary assistance from the Federal Reserve.

On bank regulatory reform:

the Federal Reserve is committed to doing all that can be done to ensure that our economy is never again devastated by a financial collapse. We look forward to working with the Congress to develop effective and comprehensive reform of the financial regulatory framework.

Time for your Questions

Now that you’ve heard some of what Congress has been asking Mr. Toyoda and Mr. Bernanke perhaps you have some questions of your own you’d like to ask.

Well post them up.  We may not have the answers but someone out there probably does (rumor has it Bernanke is a big fan of US Democrazy).

Reigning champions of the Mobile World Cup, South Korea takes the title of fastest texters.

Who’s got the big bucks? Check out Congress men of money.

Are Democrats scared to play rough?

Now that you’ve grown to appreciate USDemocrazy’s thoughtful and insightful predictions for 2010 (what, you don’t agree?!), we hope you’re looking forward to the elections coming up this year.

All of the recent banter over health care and President Obama’s performance in office is raising a question… which party will be victorious in 2010?

Some such people spoke out on The McLaughlin Group on Sunday.  ’Political oblivion’ is discussed in no uncertain terms in the video above.

You can find what the panelists thought on other topics of yearly importance, including the most original thinker and the worst politician of 2009, here.

The McLaughlin Group, for those of you not always tuned into PBS (we saw it while waiting for Sesame Street to come on this week) is a public affairs round-table show with big-mouthed panelists and some fun debates. Not everyone is enthralled with their styling of arguing debating, as shown in this video below:

And speaking of elections and debates and all that, a certain bespectacled brunette who used to run Alaska got a little smiley when someone asked if she’d find herself on a ticket with Glenn Beck, beloved by some, hated by many others, in the next presidential election:

And to sample Mr. Beck, here’s what he wants Americans to demand from their Congresspeople come election-time 2010:

Are we ready for all this electoral madness?! It’s never too soon to be thinking about it!

Peter Orszag, who heads the Office of Management and Budget

We are told nothing in life is free, (except the useless advice given to us by our editors). With this in mind, we at USDemocrazy regularly set out to find websites that have real value.

With all the talk of billions of dollars being spent by the government… we wanted to find out how something of real value (our money) is being spent.

We located some important folks in Washington who help watch and manage the money madness. Here is what we found:

U.S. National Debt Clock is a site which calculates present government expenditures continually.

The Office of Management and Budget is a federal agency under the President tasked with evaluating the costs of proposed legislation.

The Congressional Budget Office is a resource utilized by Congress for approximating the costs of existing programs, as well as those incurred under bills before the Senate or House of Representatives.

Within either house of Congress there are legislative committees tasked with not only determining costs, but finding ways to finance expenditures. These are the United States House Committee of Appropriations and the United States Senate Committee on the Budget.

Thanks to the Austin Chronicle

We here at USDemocrazy are always looking for new ways to drown out the constant blather of our bothersome editors.

One way we like to do this is by watching movies. We will watch anything to blot out their presence.

Take Orson Welles’ film Citizen Kane . It is generally regarded as a cinematic classic. Some may find it a bore, but it beats our editors any day of the week!

The film does explore an interesting theme:  citizens who seek higher office without the formal support of an established political party.

Also interesting is there are three significant U.S. political races in 2009 that feature “Citizen Kane-style” candidacies who fit in the “outsider” category.

Thus, we thought it would be fun to share the websites of these significant independents.

First on our list is New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who is seeking reelection as an independent.  Bloomberg is a curious political beast. He has been a member of both major U.S. parties during different points in his life.

Next on our list is a candidate for governor of New Jersey.  Independent candidate Chris Daggett has landed big endorsements in his state. This race has more themes than an episode of ‘The Sopranos’. Daggett’s emergence will likely add fuel already fiery contest.

The rise of independents is not just a US phenomenon. In recent elections in Afghanistan the independent presidential candidate Abdullah Abdullah, has surprisingly forced a runoff for the nations top job.

Even in small islands in the Pacific Independents are making noise. In the Northern Mariana Islands a third party, the Covenant Party, is seeking a second consecutive term as governor under the leadership of Benigno Fitial .

More information on these and other curious candidacies can be found on the Independent Political Report website.

If you are disillusioned with politics in Washington, we at USDemocrazy sympathize. It seems that folks in Congress today are less interested in good governing than with grinding gridlock.

But NO!!! WE could be wrong!!!! (this is not a new experience for us).

There are some who dare to tackle the stagnant status quo.

Enter Alan Grayson, a Democrat representing Florida’s 8th District in the House of Representatives.

This outspoken freshman congressman has been making a name for himself in the past few weeks.

First he gained attention for his strong take on the health care debate. He challenged the opponents of change, suggesting the Republican healthcare plan was

Don’t get sick… but if you do, die quickly.

Strong words from a rookie, but in the ensuing hoopla Grayson refused to apologize. He said he was only sorry for the tens of thousands of people that die each year due to a lack of health care.

Grayson has been not afraid to take on other powerful Washington titans.

He has ruffled feathers in his own party by lambasting his democratic colleagues for their foot-dragging.

He then grilled the Big Boys at the Federal Reserve for a lack of transparency in its lending practices.

Grayson says $4,000 for each man, woman, and child in the United States (that means you) has been lent by our government to banks and other institutions. He thinks we should know where it went and who’s got it.( see video below)

Not every one will agrees with Grayson’s politics, still it’s absolutely refreshing to see someone in Congress who is not afraid to challenge the norms, powerful institutions, and his peers to make legitimate change.

Let us know if you see others, Democrat or Republican who are shaking things up in America today.

What is the surest way to make a healthy person sick? 

ANSWER:

Ask them about their health care.

Yes folks, health care is back the news… and this time it isn’t about swine flu! Er… we mean H1N1 virus…)

Just this week,  President Obama met with business leaders in health care to talk about trimming their mega-huge budgets.

The health care community is acknowledging their mega-huge problem  and, as the Washington Post says, are:

Volunteering to “do our part” to tackle runaway health costs, leading groups in the health-care industry have offered to squeeze $2 trillion in savings from projected increases over the next decade, White House officials said yesterday.

So we’re all on the same playing field, right? Congressman Patrick Kennedy from Rhode Island posted on the Huffington Post, that:

The recent outbreak of the swine flu serves as a stark reminder about the need for comprehensive health care reform in this country. Every citizen in this country should have access to affordable, high quality health care.

Affordable, high quality health care!  Who can argue with that?!?  How do we get it!?!

That’s where the arguing starts… 

Janet Adamy at the Wall Street Journal gives her thoughts here on one option, taxing health care to sustain health care:

The idea of taxing employee health-care benefits to raise money for an overhaul of the health system is gaining strength in Congress, although it drew criticism from Barack Obama when he was campaigning for president.

The NYTimes released their editorial on the situation. They say there is a middle of the road plan, and that’s letting the government toss its hat into the health care plan system:

It should be possible to design a system in which public and private plans could compete without destroying the private coverage that most Americans have and for the most part want to keep. 

One thing is for sure. What we’ve got now just isn’t going to cut it in the long run.

Former Clinton budget adviser Matt Miller, referring to the talks between President Obama and health care businesses, weighs in over at the Daily Beast:

Even if this goal were achieved over the next decade, America’s health-care system would still be radically inefficient compared other advanced nations.

So, what is the path ahead for health care? The path will be about as straightforward as the Burma Road (pictured below for all you history enthusiasts).

But where will it lead?  Have any ideas?