Below is some weekend reading for you GPPers:

1. Internet Cop -Peter Suderman, Reason

A solution in search of a problem; Suderman profiles the Obama administration’s new head of the FCC with a focus on his role overseeing the Internet:

Julius Genachowski, the man hand-picked by President Barack Obama to chair the FCC, insists not. “I’ve been clear repeatedly that we’re not going to regulate the Internet,” he told The Wall Street Journal in February 2010. But his actions suggest otherwise. Since taking office in June 2009, Genachowski, a tech entrepreneur and former FCC counsel, has led the commission on an unprecedented quest for power over the Web’s network infrastructure, sparking a thunderous, confusing lobbying battle over who gets to control the Net.

2. Revolution in the Muslim World – George Freidman, Stratfor

Geopolitical strategist Freidman takes a stab at predicting how the uprisings in the Arab world may shake out:

If I were to guess at this point, I would guess that we are facing 1848. The Muslim world will not experience massive regime change as in 1989, but neither will the effects be as ephemeral as 1968. Like 1848, this revolution will fail to transform the Muslim world or even just the Arab world. But it will plant seeds that will germinate in the coming decades. I think those seeds will be democratic, but not necessarily liberal. In other words, the democracies that eventually arise will produce regimes that will take their bearings from their own culture, which means Islam.

3. California Dreaming About Texas Jobs -Steven Malanga, Real Clear Markets

Texas is growing, California isn’t. Malanga tries to explain why:

But every politician in California of either party ought to know that the answer to the state’s economic woes lies not in Texas, but in California. Job migration is a very sexy issue, and one blogger, relocation expert Joseph Vranich, is even keeping an online list of firms that have exited California. But migration makes up only a small part of the job gains or losses a state experiences. By contrast, job creation through expansion of businesses and the formation of new companies is far more responsible for job growth. California once knew how to create new jobs and new companies, and a few places in the state still do it fairly well. The answers to California’s woes lie in those places, not in Texas.

4. The Truth about Obama’s 2012 Budget – Veronique de Rugy, Reason

This one is a bit dated, but we should all remember that before Obama’s ‘fiscal policy’ speech last week, he put out a budget that has been so panned that he, well, had to make another one just a few months later:

Myth 1: Under President Barack Obama’s 2012 budget, we will “live within our means”.

Fact 1: Debt and spending will continue to grow and deficits will continue to persist under the president’s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request.

White House Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew claims that President Obama’s new budget calls for a “sustainable” deficit but the facts tell a different story. Despite a nominal commitment to fiscal reform, the president’s budget calls for $3.7 trillion in spending. That’s more spending than occurred in fiscal year 2010. This spending will result in a projected net deficit of $1.6 trillion, the highest level of deficit in U.S. history.

5. Understanding the S&P Report – Keith Hennessey

Economist Keith Hennessey explains S&P’s decision to downgrade the US fiscal outlook from ‘stable’ to ‘negative’ in layman’s terms:

Yesterday’s report by Standard & Poor’s on the U.S. government’s credit rating is driving headlines. You can learn a lot more from reading the primary source document than from news coverage of it.

Here is what S&P did:

On April 18, 2011, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services affirmed its ‘AAA’ long-term and ‘A-1+’ short-term sovereign credit ratings on the United States of America and revised its outlook on the long-term rating to negative from stable.

Happy Easter and have a good weekend.

For our third and final Question Time concerning the Libyan war, we turn our attention to the views of a so-called ‘Average Joe’. Our ‘Joe’ is no foreign policy expert or political junkie, but has been keeping an eye on the Middle East upheaval and the situation in Libya. His perspective on the issue should be enlightening as he likely represents many other ‘average’ Americans who are watching these events unfold on their television and computer screens. With the United States militarily attacking Qaddafi’s forces in Libya and many in this country questioning exactly why we are intervening (Rasmussen has only 45% supporting US military action) in the civil conflict, the views, aka support or lack there of, of average Americans will be integral in how the Obama administration proceeds. Enjoy.

1. Why do you think the Obama administration made the decision to join France and the UK to institute a no-fly zone and bomb Qaddafi’s forces in Libya? Do you support the decision? Why or why not?

Average Joe: I think that Obama finally decided to support France and UK because he didn’t have any alternative at this point, and was forced to make a decision finally.  It would be a major disgrace to not support our allies. Yes I support the decision, even tough I don’t think Obama has a real vision or strategy.  I think Libya is an example of a country whose leader will stop at nothing to restore order, and will slaughter anything that stands in the way.  Libya is also a real opportunity to keep the momentum going with regards to rebellion in other oppressive nations ( Syria, Bahrain, Iran etc). Also it’s important to be a nation that supports freedom throughout the world.

2. In Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Tunisia there are citizens voicing their opposition to the ruling class and leader(s) and refusing to let the status quo remain. What do you think of these recent uprisings throughout the Arab world? What will they lead to? How do you think they will affect the United States?

Average Joe: I think they are all corrupt nations and I’m glad to see the people starting to rise up against these monarchies and unjust societies.  I think this is only natural as we have seen this in Europe and our own history. It needs to happen. I’m not sure what it will lead to, just as America’s future was unclear in the beginning.

I’m optimistic though, most of the protesting and revolutions have had economic factors as a driving force – no jobs and no opportunity for the masses. I don’t think that any new oppressive or Islamist fanatical regimes could take over and provide the type of economic freedom necessary to satisfy these needs.  I also wouldn’t discount the importance of people remaining “connected” to the Internet and outside world. Something that was so important during the revolutions.  Basically, I don’t see these nations trading one dictator for another.  Once freedoms are established, it’s much harder to take them away.

However if Islamic extremists do take power via democratic elections, so be it.  At least then we will have clarity on where things stand in that part of the world.

Any other ‘Average Joe’s’ out there that would like to comment?

President Obama has had to walk a fine diplomatic line in America’s dealings with the various uprisings throughout North Africa and the Middle East the past month or so. The governments of Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, and Bahrain are all strong US allies and their fall would cause numerous headaches for American interests and foreign policies. Libya, on the other hand, does not really fit into this category. Its government leader, Muammar Qaddafi, has been a thorn in the US’s side for decades and has American blood on his hands. Even after giving up his nuclear program to the Bush administration, the Qaddafi regime has on many occasions, including in the past several days, rhetorically stick his thumb in America’s eye.

President Obama has been slow to speak out against and act against the Qaddafi regime at a time when its domestic legitimacy could not be lower. Qaddafi is right now hiring mercenaries to kill and suppress his own people. What does the US have to lose by speaking out and working with the rest of the civilized world (including the Arab League) to bring about his quick demise? Not much.

I would like to highlight two critiques of the Obama administration’s lack of action against Qaddafi from two left-liberal publications. First, Leon Wieseltier in the New Republic…

They are fighting authoritarianism, but he is fighting imperialism. Who in their right mind believes that this change does represent the work of the United States or any foreign power? To be sure, there are conspiracy theorists in the region who are not in their right mind, and will hold such an anti-American view; but this anti-Americanism is not an empirical matter. They will hate us whatever we do. I do not see a Middle East rising up in anger at the prospect of American intervention. I see an American president with a paralyzing fear that it will. In those Middle Eastern streets and squares that have endured the pangs of democratization, the complaint has been not that the United States has intervened, but that the United States has not intervened. The awful irony is that Obama is more haunted by the history of American foreign policy in the Middle East than are many people in the Middle East, who look to him for support in their genuinely epochal struggle against the social death in which their tyrannies have imprisoned them. He worries about the repetition of an old paradigm. They are in the midst of a new paradigm. He does not want to be Bush. They want him to be Obama; or what Obama was supposed to be.

And now Christopher Hitchens in Slate…

The Obama administration also behaves as if the weight of the United States in world affairs is approximately the same as that of Switzerland. We await developments. We urge caution, even restraint. We hope for the formation of an international consensus. And, just as there is something despicable about the way in which Swiss bankers change horses, so there is something contemptible about the way in which Washington has been affecting—and perhaps helping to bring about—American impotence. Except that, whereas at least the Swiss have the excuse of cynicism, American policy manages to be both cynical and naive.

This has been especially evident in the case of Libya. For weeks, the administration dithered over Egypt and calibrated its actions to the lowest and slowest common denominators, on the grounds that it was difficult to deal with a rancid old friend and ally who had outlived his usefulness. But then it became the turn of Muammar Qaddafi—an all-round stinking nuisance and moreover a long-term enemy—and the dithering began all over again. Until Wednesday Feb. 23, when the president made a few anodyne remarks that condemned “violence” in general but failed to cite Qaddafi in particular—every important statesman and stateswoman in the world had been heard from, with the exception of Obama. And his silence was hardly worth breaking. Echoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who had managed a few words of her own, he stressed only that the need was for a unanimous international opinion, as if in the absence of complete unity nothing could be done, or even attempted. This would hand an automatic veto to any of Qaddafi’s remaining allies. It also underscored the impression that the opinion of the United States was no more worth hearing than that of, say, Switzerland. Secretary Clinton was then dispatched to no other destination than Geneva, where she will meet with the U.N. Human Rights Council—an absurd body that is already hopelessly tainted with Qaddafi’s membership.

It’s hard to throw a virtual rock nowadays at any foreign affairs publication and not find statements of the demise or fall of American power. In many ways, these are accurate statements as American economic power is falling in proportion to some of the rising economies around the world (although it is still top dog by a fair amount). But how about in terms of military, ideological, and political power? I would argue that in these spheres the United States maintains unparalleled influence when compared to other present great powers. The current uprisings in the Middle East showcase the continual relevance of American power, especially compared to its great power competitors. Daniel Blumenthal of Shadow Government notes that….

The unrest in the Middle East reveals, then, two important facts about China. First, talk of its impending global leadership is greatly exaggerated. Second, we should adequately prepare for China’s day of reckoning as well. A tired United States may wish someone else would help manage the global order; wishing is not going to make it happen.

In what ways are the citizens protesting/revolting, present autocrats, and hopeful future leaders of Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Libya, etc. courting the approval/help of China? None, that I can see. What is China saying about these movements in the Middle East? Next to nothing. China seems only concerned as to how these protests might spread to their mainland or oil prices. When you are afraid of your own people, how can you spread your influence around the globe in an effective, all encompassing manner? China does indeed hold great power and influence in today’s international environment, but the events of the Middle East the past few months should give pause to those who say the American moment has passed.

That being said, the events in the demonstrations and revolutions occurring in North Africa, the Arab world, and Iran also demonstrate the limits of American power. I mean, President Obama hosted now former President Mubarak at the White House just a couple months before he was sent to the dust bin of history. The US was not only shown to be caught off guard by the Egyptian revolution, but in many ways, powerless to affect its outcome.

Nevertheless, when trouble arises around the globe, whether it be government’s falling, democracy rising, or pirates rampaging, most eyes invariably look toward America.