Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.’ Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. ‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’ ‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I got’ ‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’ ‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’ The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

The new program is described as a defensive system that could shoot down enemy aircraft and rockets.  According to Chavez: “We’re going to have a tremendous air-defense system, and with with missiles capable of reaching 200 kilometers,” Chavez said during a televised speech on Friday at a military academy in Caracas.

At the same time Chavez announced that Venezuela would also spend more than $561 million for factories to build AK-103 assault rifles as well as other munitions and detonators.  This is on top of the 2.7 billion that Chavez spent last year to purchase 24 Sukhoi fighters and 53 helicopters as well as 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles from Russia.  Chavez has also his expressed desire to collaborate with and purchase arms from Iran.

Mr. Chavez does this at a time when his nation has been experiencing South America’s highest inflation rate (17%) and he has been dealing with this looming disaster not by reducing his spending…which is evidenced by his new plan to dump large sums of money into the Venezuelan “defenses”…or by raising interest rates… his answer is inducing price controls.  These artificial prices are having a devastating effect on the Venezuelan economy and most importantly heavily affecting the poorest amongst them.

Since 2003, Chavez has used price controls as an attempt to tame the rising inflation.  He has frozen prices on food stuffs like rice and meat and has recently capped the prices of telephone and electricity rates as well as put controls on some 45 different construction materials.  His efforts have had devastating effects on the economy as shortages of all types are being found around the country…staples like rice and milk are rarely found on grocerystore shelves and a number of construction projects have screeched to a halt because of a shortage of materials. 

Another unwanted effect of the price controls is that they are creating and expanding the ”informal” sector in Venezuela where staples can be found for many times their worth at unregulated street markets.  Many farmers are avoiding selling their products to legitimate stores and are selling meats and crops on the streets becuase with the controls on the prices they end up losing money on what they produce…so, in effect, Mr. Chavez has created a black market in his nation where only the rich are nourished.

Also, Manufacturers, concerned that Chavez will deepen state involvement in the economy, have reduced spending on new plant and equipment to the point that central bank figures show that nongovernment investment equals no more than 4 percent of gross domestic product, the lowest among the 10 biggest economies in Latin America.

Many businesses are reluctant to expand production because of a lack of guarantees from the government on the protection of private property. Chavez has seized rural estates and factories that the government deems to be unproductive, including some assets of Lorenzo Mendoza, one of the wealthiest men in Venezuela, and of the food maker H.J. Heinz. (I wonder how Ted Kennedy will explain working with Chavez to his Comrades Teresa Heinz and her wife John Kerry?)

Foreign investors sold $778 million more in Venezuelan assets than they bought in the first nine months of 2006, according to the central bank. A decade ago, in the same period, they added $5.9 billion more than they disposed of.

Hugo Chavez, much like his hero and comrade Fidel Castro did for over half a decade in Cuba, is perpetually beating the war drum in preparation for an enemy that doesn’t exist while his fellow countrymen go hungry.  Chavez has been masterful at focusing Venezuela’s attention on national pride and world importance while he is actively stripping his country of its democratic legacy and its citizens of the most basic rights and liberties.  The only thing that kept the aspirations of Fidel Castro… to transform his self from a national to an international despot…was his hands were tied economically…the same is not true for Mr. Chavez…he is sitting on top of the world’s fifth largest reserve of oil.

Stay tuned…

Written by Matthew Willette

The Old Left Pulls a Crazy Ivan

In countries like Venezuela, Bolivia and, recently, Ecuador the old left has made quite a noticeable and dangerous transformation. These governing regimes are now primarily authoritarian and appear to have evolved out of traditional Latin American populism; however, their agendas and actions suggest they have fused tradition with cherry-picked elements of nationalism, socialism and fascism. These regimes aim to consolidate political power through open defiance of democratic principles and institutions; they call for state control of natural resources, the nationalization of major industries and aim to mobilize nationalist sentiment by decrying the evils of the US and the neo-liberal economic model. They aim to repress political and economic freedom, further stifle dissent and actively work to tear down the remaining vestiges of liberty. This new left, born out of the legacy of the old, represents a radical neo-fascist shift in Latin American governance. They grasp for ever more power through a style of personalism based on figures like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa: the radical populists and new-age caudillos.

Venezuela

Hugo Chavez has recently called for, and has been given, the ability to rule by decree for the next 18 months. One of his actions will likely be to abolish Presidential term limits which will make way for him to become “President” for life.

Chavez has undermined and destroyed the legitimacy and independence of the Venezuelan Supreme Court by forcing those not loyal to him to resign, expanding the number of Justices to diminish their influence while packing the court with his own appointees.

He has already nationalized most of the electrical, telecommunications and petroleum industrial infrastructure, expropriated “unused” land and has announced an end to the autonomy of the Venezuelan Central Bank.

Mr. Chavez has repeatedly denounced US policy while openly courting relationships with both Syria and Iran. He aims to create military alliances with those that oppose US influence throughout the world. Ultimately, he aspires to unite Latin America, through his “Bolivarian Revolution”, in an effort to oppose US hegemony.

Bolivia

President Evo Morales and his party, Movimeiento al Socialismo (MAS), have been actively working to create an Indigenous government and society through imposing an Andean culture throughout Bolivia. It is their aim to institute governmental culturalism within an entirely racist vision for the future.

Morales has already signed legislation that would expropriate large swaths of “unproductive” lands from wealthy families as well as, in effect, nationalize the tin and natural gas industries through a new framework of corporate taxes and royalties paid to the state.

Mr. Morales and MAS have pressured the Constituent Assembly to pass a law that would require only a simple majority to amend the Constitution and has announced plans to replace the Bolivian Senate with a “popular” form of assembly. He has also spoken of his aspirations to rule by decree.

MAS and Morales are already using “citizen militias” to oust recently elected opposition governors in the wealthier and whiter southern Departments as well as to stifle political dissent and cultural tolerance. These groups use Gestapo-style tactics similar to those used in Germany under the Nazis, and more recently, under Castro in Cuba and, now, Chavez in Venezuela.

Ecuador

Recently elected President Rafael Correa announced that he would call for a Constituent Assembly in order to change the Ecuadorian Constitution.  After firing over half of the elected Congress and replacing them with loyalists…Mr. Correa got his wish. Now, he will choose those to fill the seats of the Assembly that will rewrite the Constitiuon.  Mr. Correa is likely to include sweeping new powers allowing him to fulfill his authoritarian desires.  He is following the lead of his comrades Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales.

Mr. Correa has said that he is leading a “citizen’s revolution” against neo-liberalism and that Ecuador’s foreign debt is illegitimate. Many believe that Correa is planning to use the Argentine default model as an example of how to turn his economy around. He has vowed to cut ties with the IMF and the World Bank unless his debt load is lowered by half.  Suprisingly after announcing that Ecuador would not make its first installment on an IMF loan…it was paid…in cash.  It seems that Mr. Chavez is doing more than partnering with Correa and is buying allies much like he has done with Kirchner in Argentina.

Correa has rejected a free trade deal with the US and has said that he will not renew the lease with the US for Manta Air Base when it comes up for renewal in 2009. This base is reported to be responsible for 60 percent of all U.S. drug interdiction in the eastern Pacific.

The Other Left Hangs a Right

While this past election cycle has produced, or in some cases reaffirmed, figures like Chavez and Correa, it has also signaled the emergence of another type or style of leftist in Latin America: the neo-moderate left. This new left appears to be much more pragmatic in its policies than previous Latin American leftists as they have shifted to the right on certain issues while social spending and poverty reduction remain near the top of their national agendas. These regimes, like those of Chile and Peru, are, on the whole, supporters of free markets, free trade policy and are committed to consolidating and preserving democratic institutions. They might, at times, denounce US actions or partner with those who have chosen an adversarial relationship with the US; however, their commitment to democratic and, mostly, neo-liberal market practices and principles make them more of an ally than an adversary.

Chile

The recent election of Michelle Bachelet, part of the governing Concertation coalition, has signaled that Chile will follow, more or less, the policies that have made it Latin America’s most successful economy for the past 16 years. Chile has also been known as having the most solid and consolidated democratic institutions in the Region.

In 2003, The US and Chile signed a free trade agreement and, as a result, trade has doubled between the two nations since its signing.

President Bachelet, despite being the leader of the Socialist Party in Chile, has committed herself and her nation to protecting private industry and property while strengthening international trade ties. Chile has recently signed trade deals with China and Colombia.

Bachelet has increased attention to the needs of the poor by promising further spending on welfare programs; however, the Bachelet Administration has committed itself to continue the practice of a structurally built-in fiscal surplus of 1% (of GDP) into the national budget.

Peru

Alan Garcia, recently elected President, has welcomed the signing of a US-Peru Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and is currently seeking deals with Canada, the EU and China.

Garcia has committed Peru to cooperate with the US on the eradication of coca growing and has promised action aimed at limiting his nation’s growing, production and exportation of coca and cocaine.

Mr. Garcia has promised new and innovative social programs to help his countries’ poor while a commitment to neo-liberal fiscal policy and increases in export commodity prices produced 6.6% growth in 2006.

He has railed against Hugo Chavez and his petro-diplomacy as Chavez funneled huge sums of money into Garcia’s hard-left opponent (Ollanta Humala) in the recent Peruvian election. Since the election, tensions have cooled; however, Chavez is no friend of Garcia.

It is imperative that U.S. policy-makers understand the fundamental differences between these two leftist camps and approach them accordingly. The old Cold War labels of simply left and right no longer apply in Latin America and are applied to ones peril. One type of leftist the US can, and should, work with. The other has placed itself in an adversarial position. To pressure and challenge the ideals of the neo-caudillo left and to encourage and support the new moderate left, the President and Congress should:

Put pressure on the Organization of American States (OAS) to enforce the 2001 Inter-American Democratic Charter. The President and Congress should urge the OAS to intervene where democratic institutions are being threatened in the Region. This should be an effort to sustain the development and consolidation of democratic institutions and to prevent the further erosion of liberties and democratic foundations.Article 3 of the Charter states: “…Essential elements of representative democracy include…the pluralistic system of political parties and organizations, and the separation of powers and independence of the branches of government.”Article 4 states: “…freedom of expression and of the press are essential components of the exercise of democracy.” Events unfolding in OAS member nations such as Venezuela and Bolivia run contrary to the language and intent of the Charter.

Develop further cooperative efforts with right-of-center and moderate leftists in the Region. To counter authoritarian movements and the rhetoric from nations like Venezuela and Bolivia, US policy makers should continue to welcome and strengthen cooperative initiatives. Counter-narcotics collaboration and Free Trade Agreements (FTA) are examples of working relationships that stress rule of law, free market principles and the support for and the consolidation of democratic institutions. The US should continue collaborative efforts such as:Brazil is working closely with US officials to attempt to revive the stalled Doha round and it is expected that the U.S. and Brazil will sign an accord, within a year, which would promote technology-sharing and encourage more Latin American neighbors to become bio-fuel producers and consumers.The US and Colombia have worked closely, for years, on an initiative called Plan Colombia. This collaborative effort aims to achieve peace, strengthen democracy, and deal with the drug problem in Colombia.

Congress should renew the President’s Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). The President’s ability to negotiate trade deals is set to expire on June 30^th, 2007. Congress should swiftly renew the President’s ability to negotiate trade deals as they are one of the most effective tools we have to encourage the development of democratic institutions and the commitment to free market practices. Negotiating free trade agreements without TPA sets them up for failure before they even begin as TPA forces an up or down vote on the language without amendment.Congress Should Swiftly Approve Pending FTA’s with Colombia, Peru and Ecaudor.  These three Latin american nations have chosen to ally themselves with Washington in at least they are embracing freer trade and free markets.  Democrats in congress should not further block these agreements based on domestic political maneuvering and pandering to the protectionist base.  Failing to approve these FTA’s will only send a dangerous message that the U.S. cannot be trusted as a partner even on the one thing that it has been pressing for in latin america and around the world: free trade.

Conclusion

Leaders like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa are actively orchestrating the ongoing erosion of democratic institutions, the wanton expropriation of private lands, the extreme divergence from free market principles and the quenching of their thirst for totalitarian power. If left to their own devices, these men, once gone from power, will leave in their wake a wide swath of poverty and repression on a scale that will have created numerous deficient and backward nations throughout the region. It is imperative that a proactive stance toward these regimes be formed into a cohesive foreign and economic policy that will limit their influence and destructive ability. It is equally important that the US continue to build lasting working-relationships with those nations that share a commitment to democratic institutions, respect for the rule of law and belief in the liberating nature of the free market. Realizing that the old rules of left and right no longer apply is crucial to an informed and successful foreign policy toward Latin America.

Written by Matthew Willette

Even the most optimistic observer remains highly skeptical of this call for a renewed engagement as Washington tends to have the attention span of a 3 year old.  The U.S. has traditionally tended to limit involvement in the region to democracy promotion, drug eradication and free trade; but, now with a Democrat controlled Congress it appears that Latin America will not only not see renewed engagement as the rise of radical populists like Hugo Chavez threatens to plunge the region into a new “lost decade” but will now see a protectionist trade policy arise out of the U.S. based simply on domestic political pandering.  For months, Peru, Panama and Colombia have been begging the U.S. Congress to approve their repective free trade agreeements but Congress has balked and threatens to permanently stall based on what has been described as “labor and environmental concerns”. In reality, Democrats are posturing and pandering to the populists and protectionists (both domestic and international) that are demanding action to combat the effects of free trade.  In fact, here is what free trade has done for the U.S.-Latin American relationship so far.

According to the Oppenheimer Report in The Miami Herald:

The newly released U.S. Commerce Department trade figures for 2006 show that Latin American countries that have free-trade agreements with Washington have substantially increased their exports to the U.S. market. The United States, in turn, has increased its exports to most of its regional trade partners at a somewhat slower but respectable pace.

Consider the latest figure

–Since the United States signed a free-trade deal with Mexico, Mexican exports to the United States have risen from $40 billion in 1993 to $198 billion in 2006, a nearly 400 percent increase. Conversely, U.S. exports to Mexico over the same period have risen from $41.5 billion to $134.1 billion, a 223 percent increase.

–Since the United States signed a free-trade deal with Chile, Chile’s exports to the United States went up from $4.7 billion in 2004 to $9.5 billion in 2006, a 104 percent increase. Conversely, U.S. exports to Chile went up from $3.6 billion to $6.8 billion, an 88 percent increase.

–Since the United States signed a free-trade deal with five Central American countries and the Dominican Republic, overall exports from the so-called CAFTA-DR countries to the United States went up from $18.1 billion in 2005 to $18.6 billion in 2006, a 2.8 percent increase. Conversely, U.S. exports to CAFTA-DR countries went up from $16.9 billion to $19.6 billion, a 16.1 percent increase.  While it is too early to completely judge the effects of the newly signed free trade deal and that only 4 countries have ratified it…growth is still growth. 

The current threats and attempts to stall negotiated and agreed-upon free trade agreements with Peru, Colombia and Panama by Democrats Charlie Rangel (Chairman House Ways and Means) and Sander Levin ( Head of Ways and means Subcommittee on Trade) smacks of protectionism, domestic political maneuvering and pandering to the unions and the environmentalists. They want trade pacts to guarantee enforcement standards set by the U.N’s International labor Organization (ILO) which are currently in conflict with U.S. labor regulations.  Through attempting to enforce these ILO provisions Democrats are demanding that Latin Americans enforce laws that the U.S. will not agree to and appear to punishing these countries for the fact that U.S. law does not “live-up-to” the standards they call for. Thankfully these regulations would never fly here at home…even with a Democrat controlled House and Congress because many realize that it is the flexible U.S. labor laws that have kept the U.S. economy prosperous, innovative and with half the unemployment rate of the European Union for years.

Another miscalculation that Democrats have made by demanding that Latin American nations should be forced to follow ILO labor standards is the fact that much of Latin America’s economy is informal.  Large chunks of the economy produce and survive by evading governmental rules and taxes. According to Alvaro Vagas Llosa at the Independent Institute : 

One way to help Latin Americans transit from the informal to the formal economy is to create incentives for legalization through free trade.  Numerous Peruvian companies have become formal in recent years because export opportunities to the United States have made it profitable for them to legalize their activities.  Opening trade is one way to ensure that the enforcement of rules one day becomes a reality.  Making universal enforcement of ethereal laws a precondition for free trade in Latin America amounts to putting the cart before the horse. 

The recent rise of radical populist figures like the authoritarian Marxist Hugo Chavez and his proteges Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador show that Latin America is once again on the political and economic roller coaster ride that it seems to have been on for decades.  The extreme oscillation from left to right has left the region largely passed over by the gradual prosperity of most of the world and has failed to bring the regions 200 million-plus destitute out of the ranks of the poor. 

Peru, Panama and Colombia are attempting to reach out to the U.S. to get off the roller coaster and begin the process of building stable and lasting institutions.  They are attempting to stand up to Chavez and his ilk and are putting their faith in the knowledge that freedom will provide the greatest results.  If Congress attempts to include language about new labor standards or environmental protection–or worse yet– fails to ratify the pending free trade agreements with Colombia, Peru and Panama they threaten to send a dangerous message to the region:  That the U.S cannot be trusted as a reliable partner even in the one issue that it has been pressing in Latin America and around the world for years: free trade.   

Written by Matthew Willette       

As a result, a number of experts and policy-makers have been engaged in forecasting the path a post-Fidel Cuba might follow as they suggest ways in which U.S. policy toward Havana should be transformed.  Specifically, some speculate as to the particular political and economic course a second Castro regime will initiate and how this “fresh” path will affect change on the island. Calls have been made for a radical change in U.S. policy toward Cuba based on the premise that the mere demise of Fidel Castro will be the sole catalyst needed for deep reform in Havana.  The underlying conjecture in this line of thinking is that Cuba led by “Fidel light” (Raul Castro) will, of its own accord, choose a track that allows for a measured democratic transition, more political freedoms for the Cuban masses and introduce a calculated, Chinese-style, socialist-market economy-eventually leading to Cuba joining the community of democracies.

Cuban Reality

The unforgiving reality is that a smooth transition of power has already been implemented from Fidel to Raul and a half-dozen loyalists that were previously managing the tyrannical regime under his watch for decades.  This is the same inner-circle that has had a hand in depriving the Cuban people of the most basic liberties for generations and in the management of a stifling economic policy that has left the Cuban people destitute for over half-a-century.  Moreover, these are the very individuals that benefit from the status quo in Cuba as they reap the profits off exports, tourism and virtually all other economic activity.  The booming Cuban tourism industry is why in 2006 Forbes estimated Fidel Castro’s wealth at nearly $900 million dollars while his fellow countrymen lack some of the most basic provisions.

It has become painfully clear that Cuba is in no way being readied for a democratic or economic transition as those now with more control continue to reap the spoils of tyranny.  In fact, according to the 2006 report prepared by the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba” the regime in Havana is actively and unquestionably attempting to insulate itself from the consequences of Fidel Castro’s incapacitation, death or ouster.”  Furthermore, the current regime in Havana is “working with like-minded governments, particularly Venezuela, to build a network of political and financial support designed to forestall any external pressure to change.”

Who is Raul Castro?

While Fidel was giving his notorious long-winded rhetoretical rants against the U.S. and the West in general, Raul was running Cuba’s economy into the ground; he spearheaded a Communist trade policy, brutalized the Cuban “justice” system, ran the political police and its Cuban version of gulags and directly controlled and profited from Cuba’s tourism industry.  It is clear that Raul represents the ideology and repression of the old-guard of Communism as much as-and possibly more than-his brother Fidel does.  Raul is a dogmatic ideologue who has gone to great efforts to convince the U.S. that he is a moderate and a reformer…much like his comrade Andropov did in the U.S.S.R. decades ago.

Despite reports that Raul is showing real signs of moderation through urging University students to “debate fearlessly” or through public communiques to U.S. officials demanding to meet at the negotiating table, hundreds of political prisoners remain behind bars, journalists still fear retaliation for attempting to report unfiltered news and the average Cuban is still deprived of the most basic liberties.  Raul Castro has given a number of public speeches doting over Cuba’s Communist Party as the “new” regime continues to harden its edges and is feverishly working to forestall any opportunity for a genuine democratic transition.

The Way Forward

In order to affect change on the island, Congress and the President must approach a second Castro regime with skepticism and a measured approach.  U.S. policy must aim to continue to maintain pressure on the regime while focusing efforts on those on the island deperate for change and a renewed deference to the Cuban identity.  Authentic and measurable reforms are still possible; however any approach that fails be retain a quid pro quo policy will only enhance and ensure a brutal Castro regime for years to come.  To affect change In Havana the President and Congress should:

• Resist efforts to lift the travel-ban or end embargo prematurely.  Congress should reject all efforts to completely lift the travel ban or the embargo based solely on failed notions about this “new” regime.  Contrary to the common perception, an increase in the amount of tourism dollars to Cuba, under the present regime and political and economic conditions will only create wealth for the Castro brothers and will not go into the hands of the Cuban people.  Cuba’s resorts and their infrastructures are controlled and run by the regime and the recent increase in tourism has only alleviated shortage problems that had forced the regime to the brink of cracking.  Allowing Americans to travel to Cuba will only prop up the regime for that much longer and will accomplish nothing the the way of making lives better for so many hopeless and desperate Cubans.
• Increase family reunification allowances to twice per year.  In 2004, the Bush Administration changed the travel allowances for Cuban-Americans to visit family on the island from one visit per year to one visit every three years.  As an effort to increase family contacts and as a way to provide more information to those thirsty for uncensored news caught in the stranglehold of the Castro regime, travel for the purpose of family reunification should be allowed twice a year in this transitory period so as to feed the desire of many Cubans have for outside information.  Many of these family members will bring much needed medicine and supplies to the island and will refrain from spending money in areas that will directly add to the likelihood of the continuance of the regime.
• Express a quid pro quo policy stance toward the new regime.  While it is unlikely that Raul Castro will loosen the regime’s stranglehold on the Cuban people and their economy, U.S. policy-makers can encourage reform, now and in the future, by setting out a firm and clear quid pro quo policy stance.  The initial goals on the island would be to see free and fair elections, a release of political prisoners, allowing for private bussiness and the ultimate recognition of a free press and private property.  Congress and the President could offer an increase in the sugar quota of a change in the structure of the embargo for each measurable reform.  It would be unwise to simply repeal these bargaining chips that the U.S. has in return for less than authentic and, more importantly, measurable reform.

Any authentic reform in Cuba will entail the recognition of the fact that it is precisely the politically-paralyzed society along with the authoritarian tactics and the Communist Party apparatus that has ensured hopelessness and despair on the island for so many generations.  U.S. policy toward a second Castro regime must be measured and deliberative and must focus efforts and resources toward democrats on the island so that someday Cuba might enjoy the freedom and prosperity that has escaped it for so long.  A smart and measured policy just might ensure that one day Cuba will truly be free; however, drastic and uninformed changes in this policy just might ensure a brutal Castro regime for years to come.

Written by Matthew Willette