The Village

Far Too Easy

2005-04-25T07:17:00.000-07:00

Those clever folks at the RNC are at it again, trying to change reality (and their own past) by altering their jargon. Remember during the 2004 elections when President Bush was telling everyone who would listen that he wanted to privatize Social Security? Then, one day, the Republicans figured out that "privatizing" Social Security scared people, but "personalizing" it gave people warm fuzzies. They even went so far as to claim that media outlets that continued to say that the President wanted to privatize Social Security were guilty of liberal bias, even when the President himself has said exactly that a week prior.

On the way in to the office this morning, I caught NPR, of all networks, repeating the latest RNC spin point. While reporting on the possible elimination of the filibuster in the Senate, the correspondant told us that this "is what Democrats call 'The Nuclear Option...'"

Really? That's what the Democrats call it? That's interesting, because until last week, that's what the Republicans called it, too. In fact, Trent Lott coined the expression, and it's been in heavy ciruclation among Republicans for months. It was only when the pollsters and the focus groups tapped the RNC on the shoulder and pointed out that "nuclear" isn't a word that plays well in Peoria that the Republicans changed their jargon. Now, we're told, the Democrats call it "The Nuclear Option" while Republicans call it "The Constitutional Option."

Of course, we all can probably guess the real reason why it was changed from "Nuclear" to "Constitutional." It's so the President can pronounce it correctly...

Cheney the Prophet

2005-04-22T13:14:00.000-07:00

Prior to the war in Iraq, Dick Cheney opined that, as long as we won, no one would care why we went to war or what the cost would be.

This recent post on Republican Party Wankfest, in response to the most recent estimates of the cost of the war:

WAR COST USA OVER $300,000,000,000.00

So what?
We won.
If we'd lost, you'd have a reason to gripe.

Sigh.

Filters

2005-04-20T09:48:00.000-07:00

Ok, so we have an administration that:

1. Creates advertisements to push an agenda disguised as news programs and fails to disclose their true nature.

2. Pays columnists and pundits to push an agenda, with neither side disclosing the arrangement.

3. Scripts press conferences.

4. Allows a fake journalist from a fake news organization spun off from a real Republican PR organization to ask fake questions at real press conferences.

5. Holds fake "town hall" meetings with pre-screened audiences, pre-screened questions, and a casting department to ensure that people of the right races and genders are in the right spots for the TV cameras to see them. These invite-only press events are paid for with tax dollars.

So, when the President talked about taking his message directly to the people and bypassing what he called the "filters" of real news, what he seems to have meant was that he wanted journalists to forego journalism and instead function as propagandists.

A free press may be neccesary for a democracy to function, but it is damned inconvenient to almost all other forms of government.

Cruel and Unusual

2005-04-08T09:36:00.000-07:00

The United States will no longer execute juvenile offenders.

About damn time, if you ask me.

This isn't news-the Supreme Court made this decision a while back, but it still raises the hackles of the folks on the "kill the activist judges who ignore the Constitution!" side of things (thank you John Cornyn). "Where to these liberal activists get off changing the meaning of the sacred Constitution? Just because societal standards have changed, they think they can change the meaning of the law?"

Of course, it isn't really like that at all. The law is peppered with phrases that refer to societal norms. Indecency laws are a good example of this. What was considered indecent back in the day is now thought of as kind of prudish. We can debate the merits of this evolution at another time, but it's pointless to suggest that societies norms haven't changed. And, since the law refers to norm, then specific decisions made by the courts are subject to change over time. This isn't "legislating from the bench" as the Republicans would have you believe-this is how it has to be.

The concept of "cruel and unusual punishment" has changed, too. So, there's nothing terribly revolutionary about the Supreme Court deciding that executing juveniles falls into this category. In fact, the decision was long, long overdue. The very idea of certifying some individuals to stand trial as adults is an absurdity. For some reason, in no other instance can a person be considered an adult before a certain birthday, but if they commit a crime, they can suddenly become an adult so that we can punish them more harshly.

Look, I have no love for underage rapists and murderers, but this process is ridiculous. That's the reason it hasn't been applied more broadly. Can you be certified as an adult to drink in a bar before you're 21? Or to rent a car before you're 25? Or vote before you're 18? Hell, can someone accused of statutory rape get the "victim" certified as an adult ("she was a very mature 16, your honor!") and get the charges dropped?

Sheesh.

I can't believe something like this is even controversial. Seriously people.

Terri Schiavo, R.I.P.

2005-03-31T09:30:00.000-08:00

Ok, I'll admit, I haven't followed this case as obsessively as I probably should have. It struck me as a personal, not political, situation. Guess I was wrong about that.

Anyway, my take on it is that this was essentially a medical dispute. Schiavo's family did not agree with the doctor's assessment of Terri's condition. The doctors and the husband described it as hopeless, while the family felt that there was still some hope for recovery. Apparently there was no real questions about Terri's wishes-if the doctors were correct, then she didn't want to be kept alive. If the family was correct, then that is a different matter.

The courts found universally that the doctor's opinions were convincing. While I've seen rants calling for impeachment and loose talk about activist judges, most of the sober assessments I've read, from all over the political spectrum, have concluded that the courts acted correctly in considering the law. Terri's fate, while horrifyingly sad, is understandable in this light.

I'm disappointed that the Republicans felt they needed to politicize this issue. The grandstanding on this very private issue was not entirely unexpected, but it was unseemly and stank of opportunism and hypocrisy. For strong proponents of the death penalty to use the argument that 'if there's any doubt, you should always choose life' is shameless. For Tom DeLay to have likened this issue to the investigations concerning his fundraising is beyond shameless. For the President, who seldom can be bothered to leave his ranch in Texas, to fly back to Washington to sign the Schiavo law was revolting. He didn't need to come back to D.C. to do that, but he chose to do so for the grandstanding opportunity. But the worst thing is, I don't think there was ever any intention on the Republicans' part to "win," to actually "save" Terri Schiavo.

Look, if it had come down to it, the Governor could have ordered troops into the hospital and forceably reattached the tubes. That's going a little far, of course, but by all accounts, all parties were pretty sure how the legal wrangling would turn out. Keeping Terri alive might have been, long term, the worst that could have happened for the Republicans. Imagine, 15 years down the pike, Terri still in the same condition. Ugh. But, this was a safe issue to blow up into a firestorm because there was no chance of winning, it allowed the Republicans to look like they were on the side of a helpless woman being murdered by activist judges, and it deflected attention from far more serious problems.

The Terri Schiavo case was sad. The way the GOP tried to use it for political gain was disgusting.

Land of the Freerepublic.com

2005-03-30T11:24:00.000-08:00

Perhaps I take the Freepers too seriously, but they seem to be the cutting edge of where the Republican party is going (and that's not a compliment). Anyway, I'm sure you're aware of the George Bush "town hall meeting" tour pushing his Social Security plan/non-plan. I'm sure you're also aware that the visitors are all vetted by the local pubbie organization, and that the questioners are screen and their questions scripted. Just like you'd expect at a "town hall" meeting, right?

Anyway, at the Denver event, some folks who'd actually acquired tickets and been admitted to the venue were removed by what appeared to be Secret Service agents because their bumper stickers said "No more blood for oil." Seriously. Check out: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/29/113651/512

I guess the only things I find really disturbing about this is that these meetings are being billed as open discussions, and that our tax dollars are paying for them. I have no problem with privately funded PR events screening their guests, and, except for the privately funded part, that's what this is.

It's the reactions of the Freepers that I find a little scary (mind you, this is the same enclave that threatened violence in the streets if Al Gore had won the 2000 electoral vote but lost the popular vote, which, at the time, seemed possible). Here are a couple of Freeper reactions to the event in Denver:

let me guess what the bumper sticker looked like...hmm-m-m-m

DemocraticUnderground.com

...and, if so, these "citizens" if displaying such sedition should have not only been removed, but removed to join their buddies down in Gitmo!

and:

Why would anti-Bush libtards goto a Bush event unless they planned on disrupting it? Kicking out these fools was the right thing to do. They can protest outside all they want, but they shouldn't be allowed inside.

So...dissenting views should not be presented to the president? Granted, this isn't really a "town-hall" style give-and-take discussion, but...wow. Not only should dissenting views not be heard at these discussions, but anyone who holds these views ("libtards") ought to be locked up outside the country as though they are terrorists.

These people scare me. This isn't tongue in cheek. They mean it. How do you reason with people who regard you as a traitor if you don't agree with everything they believe?

That's not a rhetorical question. I really don't know, and wish I did.

Is reporting on Bush family hypocrisy redundant?

2005-03-24T11:24:00.000-08:00

``This new information raises serious concerns and warrants immediate action,'' Governor Bush said. ``If there's any uncertainty, we should err on the side of protecting her. We're exhausting all executive options and are continuing to work with the Florida legislature to save Terri's life.''

-Florida Governor Jeb Bush on Terri Shiavo (emphasis mine)

It's not a bad maxim. Of course, the irony of this coming from a man who is for the death penalty is probably lost.

State of the State

2005-03-24T08:33:00.000-08:00

Ok, let's do a little mythbusting on the whole Social Security debate, shall we?

Myth #1: Social Security is in a state of financial crisis.

Social Security currently runs an enormous surplus, a "trust fund", much of which has been borrowed by the government to pay for other programs. Social Security is, currently, very sound.

Myth #2: Social Security will be in a state of crisis in 2009 when the rate at which the trust fund is growing starts to decline.

This is a weird one, but I've heard it often enough that I had to include it. In 2009, Social Security will continue to run at a surplus, but not as large a surplus as in previous years. There is some concern that this will affect this general budget, since there will be less money available to borrow from the trust fund, but Social Security itself will not be affected.

Myth #3: Social Security will be in a state of crisis in 2012 when there is no more surplus and Social Security begins drawing on the trust fund.

Social Security is designed as a "pay-as-you-go" system-the money coming in and the money going out are supposed to balance. In the 80's, it became obvious that, when the baby boomers started to retire, there would be much more money going out than coming in. So, to prepare for this, they raised the Social Security taxes to create a trust fund that would balance this shortfall.

In other words, the surplus is an anomaly instituted specifically to deal with the retirement of the baby boomers. The trust fund was designed to stop growning about the time the baby boomers started retiring and be used to pay their benefits. It is extremely dishonest to refer to this process as a "crisis."

Myth #4: The trust find is an accounting fiction. It does not exist, and there is no money to pay benefits starting in 2012.

The trust fund exists in the form of treasury bonds. If the trust fund is fictional, all treasury bonds are equally fictional. Fortunately, treasury bonds are considered to be the single safest form of investment. It is also unconstitutional for the government to default on its debts. If the trust fund is a fiction, then we have much bigger problems than the continuing viability of Social Security.

Myth #5: The President and the Republicans have a plan to strengthen Social Security.

This is a myth on two levels. First, the President denies having a specific plan. This is convenient, because it allows him to dodge any criticisms of his plan. Except, of course, he's laid out ideas that sound very much like a plan and, until recently, the White House web site had a section on Social Security labelled "The President's Plan."

The other bit of misinformation is that the President's plan/non-plan would strengthen Social Security. Even the White House has admitted that the pla...er...principles or whatever we're calling it laid out by the President will do nothing to strengthen Social Security's long-term financial situation.

Myth #6: The Democrats have no plan to strengthen Social Security.

The Democrats have come forward with several plans, revolving around a mix of tax increases and benefit cuts, that would strengthen Social Security's financial outlook. Some of the plans would just be short term fixes (short term in this case being 50 years or so), some of them would be a permanent fix. No specific plan has reached the floor of Congress from either side.

Myth #7: Social Security will be bankrupt in 2052.

The trust fund will be exhausted and Social Security will only be able to pay 75-80% of the promised benefits in 2052. This is genuinely a cause of concern. Whether or not this constitutes a crisis is the key point here.

As I mentioned in the previous post, if there was no Social Security - income or outlays - in the federal budget, the entire government would be less than 70% funded by tax revenue. This figure does not include things like the cost of the war, as well as other non-war related projects that have been moved off the budgets and labelled as war-related expenses so that they do not make the budget even more embarrassing than it is.

The obvious question, then, is: "If Social Security being on 75% funded 50 years from now is a crisis, then what the hell would you call the current general budget?"

Myth #8: People would inevitably be better served by investing in the stock market than in Social Security.

The stock market has averaged higher returns than Social Security. That is an undeniable fact. It is likely, though not certain, that Americans would, as a whole, do better investing in the stock market than in Social Security.

But...there are a lot of "buts."

While the populace as a whole might do better in the stock market, many individuals unquestionably would not do better. Some of this is just a matter of timing. Some of it is luck. Some of it is investment knowlege. Remember that the current average rate of return is based on investments by people who know what they're doing, and in many cases, invest for a living. In other words, the average return we see now is the best case scenario. I'm not saying Americans are too dumb to invest their own money, but it's unlikely that the average non-professional investor will do as well as the pros.

Note, too, that the average American would be better of investing their money in the stock market than in car insurance. As a whole, the money invested in the market would exceed the amount paid in insurance claims. But the purpose of insurance isn't to make money-it's a hedge, using shared risk, against a catastrophe. Social Security is not an investment, it's insurance. It's a way of making sure that everyone has the minimum coverage in case their other retirement plans don't work out, sort of the way that everyone is required to have minimum liability coverage when they drive.

C:\>

2005-03-18T21:03:00.000-08:00

I just finished reading Neal Stephenson's In The Beginning...Was The Command Line, a useful essay on the curious way we look at operating systems. I learned a great deal, picked up some helpul insights, felt inspired to give Linux a spin (we'll see how that goes), and, best of all, enjoyed reading it.

As per usualy, though, I'm going to harp on the bit I didn't agree with. Stephenson is amused by and somewhat dismissive of the idea of prosecuting Microsoft under anti-trust statues. He correctly points out that the idea of having a monopoly on operating systems is logically ridiculous, particularly when superior operating systems are available free of charge. However, that really isn't the point. There's a legal definition of a monopoly based on market share, and Microsoft meets that criteria with ease.

Simply being a monopoly isn't enough to get you in legal trouble. You have to abuse your position as a monopoly to squelch competition in order to break the law. Honestly, I don't know whether or not Microsoft has broken the law, but there's no questioning the fact that they have pursued a strategy to eliminate competition wherever possible. Take, for example, their policy that, if a company is going to sell computers with a Microsoft OS, they have to buy a license for every computer they manufacture, whether or not that particular box will have a Microsoft OS. Let's say you plan on making 100 computers, selling 80 with Windows and 20 with BHSOS (Bob's Hypothetical Scenario Operating System). You have to purchase 100 licenses for Windows, in addition to whatever Bob is charging you.

There are many, many more examples. One of the favored strategies is bundle functionality that is being sold by a competator into their operating systems. This doesn't really make the functionality free to the user (you still have to buy the OS to get it), but it makes it marginally free. The user pretty much has to buy Windows anyway, and adding the other company's functionality to the OS destroys the market for the other company's software.

Again, I'm not arguing that Microsoft has broken the law. You can be a monopoly, in the legal sense, and not break the law. You can engage in anticompetative practices and not break the law. You only get into trouble when the two run together, and I really don't have an opinion about this. It is, however, a valid question.

And yes, more on Social Security soon. But, as a teaser, consider this:

Pro-privatization forces are claiming that Social Security is a looming crisis because, in 2052, it will only be 75% funded.

If there were no Social Security (which, remember, is running a surplus), the Bush budgets from the last two years would be only 68% funded. And that's without the cost of the war.

Back to the Front

2005-03-08T20:54:00.000-08:00

If you export something, you have less of it domestically.

If you export oil, you have less oil.
If you export wheat, you have less wheat.
If you export democracy...

Swift-boating the seniors

2005-02-23T10:00:00.000-08:00

Wow. Just when you think you've seen it all.

Here's the deal. The Powers That Be have determined that Social Security needs to be replaced by private accounts. However, this plan is not playing well with most Americans, and particularly with older Americans. The AARP is steadfastly against privatization. So, what do the Powers That Be do?

They hire the PR firm that handled the odious Swift Boat Veterans.

You remember the Swift Boat Veterans, right? A group of veterans who didn't actually serve with John Kerry, but spoke as though they did. They spread numerous self-contradictory stories and outright fabrications about Kerry's war career to cast doubt on his claims to heroism. Real slimy stuff.

So, you can probably guess the tenor of the initial work against the AARP. The chosen surrogate for the attacks is an organization called USANext, which purports to be a grass-roots movement opposed to the AARP's liberal agenda. Unlike the AARP, which receives most of its funds through member dues, USANext receives no money from their membership, which is a curious thing for a "grass-roots" organization. They receive almost all of their funding from pharmaceutical companies. That's going to change, of course. I can confidently predict that additional monies will be made available by the big brokerage houses who stand to benefit from privatizing Social Security.

If their first ad is any indication, this campaign is going to put the Swift Boat smears to shame...or, more shame, I guess. The ad has the headline "The REAL AARP Agenda." Beneath the headline, there's a picture of a soldier in fatigues on the left. The soldier has a big "X" through him. On the right, there's a picture of two men in tuxes (i.e. wedding attire) kissing each other. There's a big check mark over the two men.

That's right. The AARP is secretly an anti-troop, pro-gay-marriage front organization. I don't know if this is more offensive because of its content or because someone actually thinks we're dumb enough to buy into this. This ad was pulled within a day, but it provides a peek into the type of campaign we're going to be seeing. Dirty doesn't begin to describe it. The only thing that's missing is Jeff Gannon copying and pasting USANext press releases and putting his name on it.

I'll post the ad as soon as I can find it. Words (in this case, stolen from Josh Marshall) don't really begin to describe it. Or, they do, but it's still a damned funny (and scary) image.

No Social Security today

2005-02-10T13:12:00.000-08:00

If it's important enough for Virginia to spend time legislating this, it's important enough for me to mention it.

But really, what more is there to be said? One particular form of bad taste is now illegal in Virginia. Feel free to speculate as to what's next, because, frankly, I don't know that I have it in me. Reality is now dumber than my sense of humor. I give up.

Social Security for Dummies

2005-02-08T09:01:00.000-08:00

I promise this is the last I'll write about the subject for a while, but it seems there are people out there who still don't understand how this works. For example, let's take a look at this recent post from http://www.freerepublic.com :

This doesn't even take into consideration how the additional money invested in the stock market will encourage economic growth.

That is a major point in the program's favor. One I haven't heard anybody making.

Private accounts will create an enormous pool of new investment capital that should support immense long-term economic growth -- generating even more wealth. And, not coincidentally, even more tax revenue.

Private accounts may well end up eliminating the deficit...

It's in red, because, you know, red states and all.

Anyway, the reason you don't hear anyone make the point is that it's absolutely false. Let's simplify the discussion a little. Let's say that total government spending is $100, and also that the total amount of money available to invest in the stock market is also $100. With me so far?

Ok, so, when we privatize Social Security accounts, we take $10 from the government's income and invest it in the stock market. Now, instead of $100, we have $110 to invest in the market. Stocks boom! Mega-growth! Right?

Not so fast.

Government expenditures haven't changes, so they still need $100 to cover their outlay. They've only got $90 now. Where's that other $10 going to come from? They have to borrow it, which comes out of the investment pool available for stuff like the stock market. Worse, now, instead of simply collecting the tax revenue, they're having to pay interest on that money they borrow.

"Aha!" say the freepers. "Government spending won't stay constant! It'll shrink with the decreasing revenues because, um, it just will!"

Whatever. You see, the problem with this argument isn't that it is not true. If the government spends (that is to say, borrows) less money, there will be more available to invest. The problem is that this has no bearing on the SS discussion. If we were to cut government borrowing right now, without "reforming" SS, it would have exactly the same effect.

In short, thinking that privatizing Social Security would erase the deficit is not just wishful thinking, it shows a fundemental misunderstanding of how the system works. There are reasons to think that privatization could be a good thing, but given the lies and misinformation being used to sell the program, I'm highly, highly skeptical.

Simply Put

2005-02-04T10:50:00.000-08:00

If the President's Social Security proposal is such a wonderful idea, then why is he lying about it and the current state of the system?

I'm tired of this subject, but I'm fascinated at the same time. In some ways, this is more audacious than invading Iraq under false pretenses. And that, my friends, is saying something.

A "spitting-coffee-all-over-the keyboard" moment

2005-02-03T09:18:00.000-08:00

''Our children's retirement security is more important than partisan politics."
--George W. Bush during last night's State of the Union address

"Norquist made his case that the current majority of investors are Republicans and therefore privatizing social security and making all of Americans investors will naturally make more people Republicans. According to Norquist, the privatization of social security will have the added benefit of protecting corporations as well, because the public will view Democrat’s attacks on corporations as hurting their personal retirement futures. "

From People for the American Way's summary of a Grover Norquist speech.

On this one, I agree with the President. This is too important for partisan politics. Ergo, the President's proposal to privatize Social Security must be defeated.

Speak of things that make me spit my beverage of choice all over the poor laptop, did anyone happen to catch the White House's response to the Armstrong Williams et. al. pundit-payola scandal? Scott McClellan, bless his heart, said that paying pundits was wrong and that the President's proposals should be able to stand on their own merit.

Since when?

This is an administration that has somehow managed to dwarf Bill Clinton's legendary spending on pollsters. They've purchased punditry to push their views. They've invented all manners of fake crisis to try to scare people into going along with whatever the cause du jour might be (tort reform, social security, invading other countries that aren't really a threat to us...you get the idea). When they roll out the budgets to the press, they only present the parts that make it look like the deficit will be cut. When the real budget is released several days later, it's old news.

I would love for the President to try to present his ideas in an un-spun fashion. He claims that there's a liberal "filter" in the media, which is absurd. His proposals sink under the weight of things like "facts" and "math." As soon as his proposals pass muster with those two, then perhaps I'll start listening about this liberal filter he complains about.

They beat me to it

2005-02-01T07:04:00.000-08:00

The Washington Post presented this article on a subject I'd been planning to write about today: the attempt by the administration to end the two-party system.

Sound paranoid? Humor me and consider the following:

1. Tort Reform - Understand, first, that the whole idea behind the current tort reform is inconsistent with conservatism. While it's being pitched as a swipe at those eeeeevil trial lawyers, tort reform takes power out of the hands of judges and, more importantly, juries. That's a funny thing for conservatives to want-to take power away from citizens (juries) and legislate the types of damage awards that may be awarded. What tort reform does accomplish is it takes money away from these trial lawyers (and people damaged by irresponsible acts) and keeps it in the hands of large corporations. Suddenly, the reason for the urgency behind tort reform becomes clear: it takes money out of the hands of people who traditionally support Democrats and puts it in the hands of people who support Republicans. This isn't an ideological imperative, just a political one.

2. The War on Terror - Republicans currently have the upper hand on security and defense issues, at least in the public eye. While it is legitimate to argue whether or not this should be so, there's no arguing the premise. In this light, the war on "terror" is a brilliant piece of PR. You can no more have a real war against "terror" than you can have a war against "poverty" or "drugs" or whatever. However, thanks to 9/11, the Republicans and their spin machine have a metaphorical war that gives them "real" war status and has no endpoint. The President can't declare victory in the war on terror, but why would hewant to? Wartime benefits the Republicans and they can keep this one going forever.

3. Social Security Privatization - I can't top Grover Norquist on this one. Read the Washington Post article. One of the overt goals of Social Security Privatization is to make all Americans investors in the stock market, making them lifelong Republicans. They aren't even trying to hide it anymore. Now, is that neccesarily a bad thing? I'm reminded of the charitable work that cigarette companies do. They spend untold amounts of money to peddle a product that produces enormous profits at a huge cost to society. However, they also donate enough money to charities that those charities would be crippled without the tobacco money. So, if you go after the cig companies, you wind up hurting those dependent charities. I think that's how SS privatization will work-as people grow dependent on the market, it will be impossible to attack those companies on which they're dependent. How can you sue Unamed Car Company for making cars that kill people when your retirement depends on Unamed Car Company's stock price?

I'll grant that the last one, Social Security privatization, is at least consistent with conservative values. But, taken as a whole, these programs are clearly an overt attempt to permanently hamstring the Democratic party and ensure a permanent Republican majority.

Just thought someone should say it.

A serious question

2005-01-24T15:03:00.000-08:00

Thomas Sowell,
in a recent column, had this to add to the Social Security debate:

If we are serious, we can compare one alternative to another, instead of comparing one alternative to perfection. What is different with the private retirement accounts that the President is proposing, compared to the Social Security system as it exists now?

The biggest difference seems to get the least attention: With private accounts, money is invested in the economy, creating additional wealth, from which pensions can be paid. With Social Security, the money is spent as soon as it gets to Washington.

No no no no no no no no no no.

This is just plain wrong, either out of ignorance or a willful attempt to deceive. The money earmarked for Social Security does get used by the government, that much is true. However, switching to private accounts won't change the government's spending. To make up for the lost revenue from the SS taxes, the government will have to issue bonds to borrow the money. Doing this will take exactly as much money OUT of the economy as the private retirement accounts will put into it. It is a zero-sum game.

Now, some people might argue that the government would cut spending if the SS funds were no longer available. It could, but the key point here is that the government could cut spending anyway. That is a matter which is completely unrelated to the Social Security debate.

Now, my "serious question": Do we really want people who are this bad at math in charge of setting economic policy?

Have we reached the limit yet?

2005-01-20T08:28:00.000-08:00

I've been having trouble finding a good subject lately. The whole Social Security scam, while certainly worthy of discourse, is really too simple to spend to warrant too much explanation. The President is lying. There is no crisis. End of story.

Ever since 9/11, most of us instantly recognized that the label "terrorist" would soon be applied to anyone that opposed the Party Line (and we know which party that would be) in an irrational attempt to link things that are unrelated. The facile illogic of these associations are obvious, but that hasn't stopped their use. To date, in my opinion, the most egregious misuse of the word "terrorist" was when it was applied to environmentalists.

We have a new winner.

The president of the Florida Senate, Tom Lee, has uncovered a new, previously unsuspected, hive of terrorist activity: the
the Florida Marlins baseball team.

No, seriously.

Bubba, I hate to tell you this, but what you are experiencing right now is not "terrorism", per se, but unfettered capitalism in its post-competative stage. Isn't that what your party is all about? Isn't it all about laissez-faire and funneling public money into private hands? I guess it sucks when it's your public money into someone else's private hands, though.

Mr. Lee, you are now experiencing exactly what it feels like to be on the receiving end of what your party stands for. Have a nice day.

More on Social Security

2005-01-06T09:06:00.000-08:00

What a great subject, right?

Ok, I'm not going to go into detail at this point. This is largely due to the fact that, while the President has made a lot of promises, he's carefully avoided any mention of specifics (even maintining that reporters were trying to "trick" him by getting him to say what his plan was). What I would like to point out is this:

There's an obvious compromise that I'm sure will be brought up at some point. The biggest problem facing the Republicans is the fact that the personal accounts that they're proposing aren't guaranteed, unlike Social Security. At some point, surely, a moderate from one side of the aisle or the other will stand up and say "Hey, what if we give people the opportunity to invest their money, but guarantee use the government to guarantee a certain return! It's the best of both worlds!"

Don't buy it.

The Bush family has made a career of funnelling public money into a few private hands. For those of you who don't remember the S&L crisis, let me recap it. VP George H.W. Bush was in charge of "deregulating" the S&L industry. This deregulation took the form of doubling the size of loans that the government would guarantee and at the same time removing all federal oversight over how those loans were made. Imagine an insurance company doubling their coverage and getting rid of their underwriters, letting the brokers sell to any and everyone. To say that this system invited abuse would be a gross understatement. The clever folks in the industry, most of them in Texas, many with Bush family connections, two of them actual sons of the V.P. (Neil and Jeb), quickly figured out that they could loan wads of cash to their friends, their friends would default on the loan, and the government would just cut the S&L a check.

If anyone can explain to me how a federally-guaranteed privitized SS scheme would be different, I'm all ears.

Stingy

2004-12-30T09:47:00.000-08:00

Jan Egeland, the U.N. emergency relief coordinator, has come under fire for allegedly calling the U.S. "stingy" in their tsunami relief aid. The statement that has drawn the Righteous Ire of the Right is:

"If, actually, the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of the gross national income, I think that is stingy, really," he said. "I don't think that is very generous."

I think it's worth noting that the U.S. is not singled out or even mentioned by name, and he's referring to annual foreign assistance, not the tsunami relief effort. So, the indignation is based on misreading what he said, but let's consider the charge. This is from a Library of Congress report from April, 2004:

"The 0.2 percent of U.S. gross national product represented by foreign aid obligations the past two years, however, is among the smallest amounts in the last half-century. The United States is the largest international economic aid donor in dollar terms but is the smallest contributor among the major donor governments when calculated as a percent of gross national income."

The U.N. has a target of 0.7, which only a few countries actually (the Scandinavian republics) actually meet. Still, the U.S. is the largest single donor of foreign aid, as the offended folks on the talk shows are right-wing blogs will let you know. So, in fact, we're the most generous folks in the world!

Let's use a parable that should be near and dear to the hearts of the folks who have their dander up over this alleged slight. There's a hypothetical church, and the congregation includes all sorts of folks: rich, poor, etc. The collection plate goes around so everyone can do their tithing. The church, in this case, recommends a donation of 7% of your income. Times are tight and only a few people actually give 7%, but everyone gives something. Then, the plate comes around to the wealthiest member of the congregation, and he tosses in 2%, the lowest percentage of anyone in the church, even though it's the largest amount because he's much richer than anyone else. If you were one of the 7%-ers, or even anyone who made less and donated a higher percentage (which would be everyone), I don't think calling the richest guy on the block "stingy" would be out of line, would you?

FYI

2004-12-29T09:33:00.000-08:00

If it isn't 100% guaranteed, it isn't Social Security.

Ergo, plans to "privatize" Social Security aren't efforts to reform SS, but to eliminate it.

Epiphany

2004-12-26T10:19:00.000-08:00

I don't think anyone really believes that anarchy is a good way to govern a society. As Larry Niven has pointed out on numerous occassions, anarchy is probably the least stable form of government. It sounds good to just let everyone do their own thing, but as soon as two people figure out that they can combine to take a third person's stuff, anarchy collapses in a heap.

It occurred to me this morning that laissez-faire free market capitalism is the economic equivalent of anarchy. It's all good and well as long as everyone is competing against everyone else, but as soon as two people realize that it's cheaper for them to work together instead of competing, the whole game changes.

Both laissez-faire and anarchy sound good, but they both deny any mechanisms that would mitigate abuse. Neither of them work because neither of them survive in their "ideal" form for any significant amount of time.

I wonder what it would take to turn this into a meme, to start referring to free market Adam Smith economics as "economic anarchy." It strikes me as fairly powerful and, even better, very accurate.

Wait and See

2004-12-21T13:39:00.000-08:00

I don't want to Swift Boat this and start shouting about allegations that can easily be disproven, but if this turns out to be what it claims to be, then this could be the beginning of the end. We'll see. The link between the Presidential order and the actual torture of prisoners clearly exists, but how many links are in that chain (that is to say, how directly the order was responsible for the torture) remains to be seen.

Veteran of the Culture Wars

2004-12-21T09:01:00.000-08:00

Stop calling George W. Bush stupid.

Seriously, just stop it.

I have no clue as to whether or not he is stupid. My guess is that he's naive and lazy, but not particularly dim-witted. I could be wrong. But I digress. Here's the deal:

Calling George W. Bush stupid is helping the Republican cause.

How come poor, middle-American people who are in traditionally liberal areas are now voting solidly Republican? Because the Republican PR machine has successfully created the "two Americas" divide based entirely on culture and ignoring economic class.

It's a brilliant sleight of hand, isn't it? The Republicans are "one of us" because drink beer and drive trucks and go to church. Democrats, on the other hand, have been cast as latte-drinking, Volvo driving free-thinkers. Most importantly, Democrats are intellectuals, which has somehow become a bad thing.

Calling W. stupid reinforces the image of ivory-tower "intellectuals" looking down on "ordinary Americans," and it reinforces the image of W. as one of the "ordinary Americans."

It's absurd, of course, but it's powerful. Intellectuals are somehow responsible for the trash culture that whip the middle-American conservatives into a frenzy. Not the people who are actually in power. For the last thirty years, Republicans have been in charge of the media and the government, and yet there remains this furious backlass against the intellectuals who are supposedly calling the shots.

More on this later, but on a positive note, let me leave you with this. The middle-American conservatives, the ones who are motivated by primarily social and cultural issues but hate the government and all of those liberal regulations don't have any real affiliation with the pro-business big money conservatives, and I think perhaps a wedge could be driven. The middle-American conservatives hate all the filth that the media spew, they hate the trashiness of television. If you meet one of them, ask them how it is they expect to clean up the media by removing public oversight over its content?

Alanis would approve

2004-12-20T10:29:00.000-08:00

Anyone who drives an oversized SUV without a need to do so and also has one of those magnetic ribbons professing support for our troops might want to pause for a moment and consider the irony of their position.

Ivan and Alyosha

2004-12-16T07:16:00.000-08:00

Is it just me, or does the fact that Laura Bush's favorite passage in all of literature is
"The Grand Inquisitor" from The Brothers Karamazov seem a little chilling? It isn't that I disagree with her. Far from it-I think "The Grand Inquisitor" is the most amazing chapter from an altogether amazing novel. It's the contest that disturbs me. It goes somewhere beyond irony and moves into the realm of "just a bit creepy."

For those of you unfamiliar with the novel, let me briefly recap Dostoevsky with the caveat that I will do it no justice. Jesus returns to the world in the middle of the Spanish Inquisition. He is promptly arrested and will surely be executed. This is not because of a lack of recognition, but because the Church has discarded the teachings of Christ as being too difficult for humanity. Instead of asking people to freely come to Christ's teachings, the religion taught by the Church is one of obedience to authority. The Church has embraced the temptations Christ rejected in the wilderness, specifically the temptation of worldly political power and the temptation to lead your flock through mysticism. People, according to the Church, don't want the kind of free will that Christ offered. They want to be told what to do, to have a system of morality that is mechanistic, and for the Church to be both their temporal as well as spiritual leader.

It's actually written as a condemnation of the Catholic Church, but it wouldn't be a stretch to fit it to modern evangelism. It wouldn't even be a stretch to suggest that the ideas of this fictional version of the Spanish Inquisition have taken root in the United States government.

Perhaps the evangelicals are right and the Rapture is nigh, but it's not entirely clear which side they'll be on when it comes.

Realpolitik

2004-12-02T06:56:00.000-08:00

"Finally, Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic -- namely, that the war is all about us. As the Muslims see it, everything about the war is -- for Americans -- really no more than an extension of American domestic politics and its great game. This perception is of course necessarily heightened by election-year atmospherics, but nonetheless sustains their impression that when Americans talk to Muslims they are really just talking to themselves."

Believe it or not, that is taken directly from a report produced by the Pentagon.

The entire report may be read here (big PDF file).

Exile on K Street

2004-12-01T08:45:00.000-08:00

It turns out that having control of all three branches of government isn't enough. Republicans in Congress have sent the message that if your industry includes Democrats among its lobbyists, you can pretty much count on being shut out on Capitol Hill. Hollywood had the gall to appoint a Democrat to lead it's lobbying effort (huge shock, eh?), and the industry was given the cold shoulder in the appropriations bill. Representative Jim McCrery (R-La.) had the following commentary (lifted from the Washington Post):

"...it's a good idea to have someone who can communicate with those who are in power...i]t's a consideration that any organization hiring a lobbyist should take into account."

Kind of makes you miss the good old days when they bothered to veil their threats, huh? Actually, the esteemed Mr. DeLay from Texas has been far less subtle-he's said flat out that Democratic lobbyists will be completely ignored, and has advised other Republicans to follow suit. As he eloquently put it, "If you want to play in our revolution, you have to live by our rules."

So that's the way it's going to be. Anyone who bet that the Republicans were going to "reach out" to the Democrats during Bush's second term might want to pay up now. Unless the bet was "reach out with a cattle prod."

Ballad of the Sin Eater

2004-11-30T07:25:00.000-08:00

I've been saying for a long time that it is asinine to suggest that terrorists "hate us for our freedom." Seriously-think about it. A potential terrorist, let's call him Bubba to avoid any racist overtones, is sitting in a mud hut and comes to a decision: "All of my problems are the result of the Americans and their freedom. I cannot bear to live in a world where Americans are free to assemble and vote and drink weak, gassy beer! I would rather be a human bomb than to live one more minute in such a world."

Please.

My contention has been that the whole "they hate us for our freedom" schtick is strictly marketing. It's an old drill-pick the thing that a group is most proud of, then contend that their enemies hate them for exactly that reason. You probably saw it in the campaign this year when the Bush people claimed that liberals hated Bush for his moral clarity (ahem). I doubt if this sort of rhetoric actually persuades anyone, but it does serve to energize the not-so-bright elements of our society.

It's a clever formulation once you allow yourself to buy into it. It removes any responsibility on the part of the victims, by which I mean that there were no actions on the part of the United States that served to inspire terrorist activity-it's simply that the terrorists hate freedom. The problem is that it isn't a realistic look at the situation and, as such, it discourages realistic approaches to the problem.

There are times I'm afraid that the people in charge of the war on terrorism have this same fantasy outlook, so I'm relieved to see
this pop up in the CSM. Remember this and keep it close to your heart: the terrorists don't hate us for our freedom, they hate us for what we've done.

That, in itself, is not a condemnation of American policy. The fact that terrorists hate us for it is hardly an indication that a policy is wrong. But we can't even begin to fight this war unless we understand what's really happening. So, there is one glimmer of hope. Our leaders aren't stupid, they're just liars.

I know I feel a lot better.

The Way Things Ought To Be

2004-11-29T07:43:00.000-08:00

Just a few modest proposals.

1. The latest tort reform scam sets damage limts at $250,000 for "pain and suffering." This essentially sets a dollar value on human life, which is important if you're trying to budget for your highly profitable but somewhat dangerous new drug. Fine-I don't know the real cash value of human life (and I'm not comfortable trying to calculate it), but let's go with $250,000. I propose that, if this tort reform passes, we also pass legislation that makes any crime involving $250,000 in theft or destruction of property or fraud or whatever a crime equivalent to murder. I love this idea. Especially in states with the death penalty.

2. The President still wants to open up restricted areas of Alaska for oil drilling "to reduce our dependency on foreign oil." He's somehow looped this into the war on terror, although his rationalization escapes me. Ok, we'll go with it, on one condition: if the drilling in Alaska fails to eliminate our foreign oil imports, the shortfall will have to be made up through conservation measures. That is to say, if we're importing 30 million barrels of oil a day, and Alaska provides 20 million (which it won't, btw), then the 10 million shortfall will have to be made up through tougher fuel economy measures and other means of conservation.

3. SUV's. Ugliest acronym we've ever come up with. They're dangerous, they ride like ass, and they gobble fuel like nobody's business. Why do so many people buy them? Because they look cool. No, really. Nobody takes the damn things off road. All they are is big minivans. So, here's the plan: eliminate the SUV designation and force them to be labelled as "minivans." Since their primary appeal is that they don't have the minivan stigma, this could have catostrophic effects on SUV sales. Also, by classifying them as minivans, we can also remove their exemption from CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) rules.

4. School vouchers. The voucher system, as its been presented, is an abomination. This is because the voucher has cash value. It sounds fair-give everyone a $2000 education voucher to "spend" at whatever school they want. Of course, the cost of a year of education tends to be more than the $2000 voucher, meaning that the poor folk are still going to be going to public schools. The people who'll benefit from this are the people who are already sending their kids to private schools. They'll get a $2000 refund for something they're already doing. Even if the voucher was worth more money, you still have the problem that not all schools cost the same. The wealthier folks, who will be able to add money to the amount of the voucher, will be able to send their kids to the better (and now de facto segregated) schools, while the less wealthy will only be able to send their kids to schools that cost the amount of the voucher or less. So, here's the plan: The voucher will be worth 1 year of education, regardless of what the school charges. When the school redeems the voucher with the government, there will be a set dollar amount, but in order for the school to be able to accept vouchers, that voucher has to cover all the costs of attending that school for a year for the student. If the school is exclusive and expensive and doesn't want to accept vouchers, fine, leave them out of it. But, no discounts for people who are sending their kids to those schools.

Genius, no?

Ok, more on tort reform later when I'm in a better mood.

Duke of Earle

2004-11-23T10:15:00.000-08:00

Apparently, my view of Tom DeLay's recent activity is far from unique. Austin DA Ronnie Earle, the man who's prosecuting cases against a few of DeLay's associates for breaking fundraising laws, had this to say about DeLay:

"There is no limit to what you can do if you have the power to change the rules."

I think I said something very similar just a few days ago. Anyway, Earle's entire op-ed piece can be read here, and it's a pretty decent bit of work. So far, he doesn't seem like he's going to let DeLay intimidate him. We'll see. It is refreshing to see people going after the Republicans on moral grounds, isn't it?

Das Kapitalism

2004-11-22T16:38:00.000-08:00

Let me start off by saying I'm not against capitalism. It's a useful, realistic system that relies on that most reliable of human traits: greed. I say that without judgement-I'm not the least bit concerned with whether or not greed is good, I'm just stating that, if you're counting on anything to motivaate people, greed is probably your best bet.

That said, unfettered capitalism is a monstrosity.

The mistake people make is in thinking that capitalism is about competition. Competition is a good thing. It's got a good sound to it. It's very democratic. It's a dream for consumers, since producers who compete against each other are motivated to offer more and/or charge less to give themselves an edge over other producers.

Which is, off course, why producers hate competition. They very quickly learn that they can make more money by cooperating than by competing. There is where the fetters come in. One of the most important tasks of government in a capitalist society is to make sure the competitors keep competing.

Let's use a particularly distasteful analogy. There's an attractive young lady who is being courted by two gents of class and disctinction. The young lady's position is quite advantageous, is it not? The two gentlemen must offer the lady more and more, and ask for less and less in return to gain her favor. Huzzah.

That is, until the two gentlemen tire of this game and realize that, rather than beat each other bloody or promising to build the young lady fairy castles on the Rhine, they can work together, hold her down and have their way with her and there's not a damned thing she can do about it.

That, my friends, is unfettered capitalism.

Hammer to Fall?

2004-11-18T08:56:00.000-08:00

Not likely.

We've just seen why it's going to be so difficult to dislodge Tom DeLay. He plays hard, he plays dirty, and he isn't afraid to move into territory where he could be at risk of breaking the law. Why not? Because he knows he can change the rules when he needs to.

The new Tom DeLay rule is not some groundbreaking work of ad hoc rulemaking-it's the latest in a very clear pattern. Remember that DeLay was the driving force behind getting Texas to redistrict six years before they were scheduled to do so. Remember, too, that DeLay doesn't really have any legal say in the redistricting proccess-that's a matter for the state legislature. Not that it mattered to The Hammer-he wanted the rules changed so he changed them.

This isn't a very promising start to the Next Four Years. A lot of the focus will be on President Bush, and rightfully so, but DeLay is a much more forceful leader, with bigger balls, more chutzpah, and a much more realistic agenda (mind you, putting a golf course on the moon may be more realistic than democratizing the Middle East). DeLay's vision is nothing more or less than ensuring a Republican monopoly on power in this country. Can he do it? I don't know, but I wouldn't bet against him at this point.

Given the move towards Soviet-style politics where loyalty to the party is more important than service to the country or individual beliefs, it's more than a little bit ironic that one of the more trenchant evaluations of the DeLay affair can be found in Pravda. First, here's what the Republicans are saying about it:

Trent Franks (R-AZ) (on why the rule was changed): "In my sincere opinion, it [the possible indictment of DeLay] only provoked the timing. When you look at the rule, it is an outrageous rule."

Denny Hassert (R-IL): the DeLay rule is "fair and equitable." voting for the DeLay rule "a good decision."

Henry Bonilla (R-TX): DeLay rule "takes power away from any crackpot partisan district attorney who may want to indict" House leadership. Note: Partisan DA Ronnie Earle has prosecuted 12 Democrats and 4 Republicans during his run.

Kevin Brady (R-TX): DeLay rule is "a recognition that the rules of politics have changed. The courts and judges and prosecutors are all now part of what used to be the voter's decision. We're in an ugly world." Note: In Texas, judges and DA's are elected officials, which means they're part of the voter's decisions as well.

And finally, Pravda: "The controversy surrounding DeLay does not seem to have dented his considerable power. He is credited with helping the Republicans increase their majority in the House in this month's elections and many Republican lawmakers feel indebted to him for his fundraising prowess."

(the quotes shamelessly stolen from Joshua Marshall's
Talking Points Memo.)

A Quick One

2004-11-16T15:26:00.000-08:00

It's very simple to control large groups of people. All you have to do is:

1. Constantly tell them that they have it better than anyone else, and

2. Constantly tell them that everyone else is trying to take "it" away from them.

Keeping those two rules in mind makes watching the news a lot more interesting. You could probably even make a drinking game out of it, although in that case, I wouldn't recommend watching Fox.

Kremlin Watching

2004-11-16T08:03:00.000-08:00

Some folks may not remember the grand old days of the cold war when U.S. intelligence tried to discern the ebb and flow of power within the Communist party in the Soviet Union by "Kremlin watching." Since the Communists were a very closed and paranoid group who exercised exceptional media discipline, it was difficult to learn anything about the internal workings of the party through traditional outlets. So, the U.S. started making note of seating arrangements within the Kremlin, as well as who talked with who, and even arrival and departure times from Politburo meetings.

Which brings us to the cabinet shakeup currently going on in Washington. The key departures are those of Ashcroft and Powell, two men who, on the surface, seem to have very little in common. What can we guess of the currents within the Bush White House based on these resignations and the probably appointments of Gonzales and Rice to fill their posts?

Ashcroft was an ideologue with a definite agenda. He was extremely zealous in his pursuit of, well, whatever he happened to be in pursuit of at the time. He wasn't aftraid to embelish to make a point, and he seemed to share the President's unwavering certainty in the rightness of his own path.

Powell, on the other hand, was openly suspicious of both ideologies and agendas. He was often the voice of caution within the administration. He was passionate about maintaining his own personal integrity and rarely made a claim that couldn't be backed up by multiple sources.

So, what's the common thread here? Powell's departure is no surprise and almost certainly a relief to both the President and the General. Ashcroft is more of an eyebrow-raiser, as his profile in the administration was high and there weren't any published report of his clashing with the President.

What Ashcroft was, however, was his own man. He held his own views and was something of a loose cannon in front of a microphone. Like Powell, he actually had an existence outside of the Bush administration. Herein lies the commonality, and in this light, the appointments of Rice and Gonzales make all the sense in the world.

Neither Gonzales nor Rice are known for strongly-held ideological ideas, nor, for that matter, much of anything. Rice hasn't been especially effective in her current post, but what she has been is loyal. She's been second only to Cheney in her ability to stick to the party line and say some outlandishly untrue things with a straight face. Gonzales is a long-time Bush associate who has a gift for telling the President what he wants to hear-for example, that the Geneva Convention doesn't have to apply to prisoners if we don't want it to.

Both Gonzales and Rice are personally close to the President, and that surely factored into the decision. But, the important thing is that they are both entirely creatures of the President-they don't have any "base" of support outside of the White House, and they can both be counted on to be loyal to the President above all else.

So, that's my very long-winded way of saying: I think what we're seeing is the purge of people who have loyalties outside of the White House and who will say things that aren't "on-message." Backing this up is the nature of the pogrom currently being conducted at the CIA. The people who are being rooted out are not the ones who got the intelligence wrong nor the ones who allowed bad intelligence to be used for political purposes. They're getting rid of the "leakers," the people who will tell the press (which means "you and me") something that isn't in the President's playbook.

Get used to this new style of Kremlin watching. It could be the only way to get unscripted information about what's really going on in the U.S. government.

Uncloudy Day

2004-11-10T08:26:00.000-08:00

It's hardly a secret that, during the last four years, information about what the U.S. government is up to has been more difficult to obtain. It has been official policy to deny FOIA requents whenever a justification can be manufactured. The makeup of the Vice-President's energy task for who actually wrote the legislation remains a state secret. Information disappears daily from government web sites, or, worse, it changes as inconvenient facts are scrubbed so that they better suit the administration reality. We have secret, no-bid contracts going to large, well-connected contractors. These contracts may not be the least bit shady, but the problem is, we'll never know. We have key party functionaries (Tom DeLay, et. al.) who actually fought to ensure that the electronic voting machines would not have a paper trail for audit purposes. The list is nigh endless.

That's the obvious stuff, but the more insidious way of keeping the public in the dark is the extraordinary media discipline the party exercises. This is one and only one reality that will be presented to the media, and therefore the public. Party members step out of line at their own peril, as Arlen Specter discovered. There is no dissent, there are no whistle-blowers, nothing. The party (and I am always tempted to write it as "The Party") has one, united face and any information that does not support its positions simply disappears.

The dangers of this sort of party discipline are far greater when that party is in complete control of the government. The traditional checks and balances are moot, since loyalty to the party is greater than any other responsibility (again, recall the recent episode with Mr. Specter). Tom DeLay has already said that Congress' job is to pass the President's agenda. I doubt this is the way that our over-revered Founding Fathers imagined the system working.

What this presents, I suspect, is an opportunity for the Party in Opposition to make some gains with some so-called "red state" voters. Not all of them, of course, as voters for whom abortion and gay rights are determining issues are not every going to switch sides. But this segment of the population also has a deep suspicion of Big Government and hates it when Washington tries to tell them what to do.

The current administration is about as "Big Government" as you can get. They're autocratic, authoritarian (in the sense that they believe authority should not be questioned), and monolithic. They have been quite open in their contempt for transparency, which, when pushed, provokes a "what are they trying to hide" response from many voters.

The reason that the Party in Opposition couldn't press the issue is that they aren't set up to take advantage of it. Many of their candidates eat at the same trough as their foes and have skeletons in the closet. Perhaps they aren't as guilty, but they are stained nonetheless. If John Kerry wouldn't release his own military records, how could he press his opponent on that issue?

Many pundits have laughed off the notion that the results of the 2004 indicate that the Democrats need to radically retool their party. They are wrong. 2004 was a fulcrum of sorts. The current verison of the Republican party has it's roots in carefully organized local action going back to the early 70's. It took the Republicans thirty years to get where they are, and they now have the opportunity to re-write the rules in such a way that they will be much more difficult to unseat. The Democrats haven't even started the rebuilding process-they're not even as far along at he Republicans were 30 years ago.

My none-too-humble suggestion is to aim where the Republicans are most vulnerable: integrity. The Democrats can be the party of honesty, intergrity, transparency, of government you can trust. Lord knows that's a space that has been vacated by both sides, so there's ample room to fill it. It won't be easy, because the near complete control of the media by the administration will make it easy for them to magnify missteps, but ultimately, if you have nothing to hide, they have nothing to expose.

How's that for an optimistic plan? And to think people call me cynical...

Lest we forget

2004-11-08T08:09:00.000-08:00

Did you know that, until recently, there was a law requiring that the federal government couldn't cut taxes without having a means to pay for those cuts? That law was passed back in the days of fiscal responsibility (the Clinton/Gingrich era), when balancing the budget was briefly en vogue and both parties were willing to work together to make it happen.

Since I refer to the law in the past tense, you have probably already guessed that this law is no long in effect. Remember that tax cuts have been Mr. Bush's mantra from day one. They've been his knee-jerk response to every stimulus. Economy doing well? We need tax cuts! Economy doing poorly? We need tax cuts! Terrorist attack stalls commerce? We need tax cuts! We're in an expensive war and occupation? We need tax cuts!

It probably comes as no surprise that anyone so obsessed with cutting taxes would find it inconvenient to have to explain how he's going to pay for those cuts. Taxes go to pay for things, remember. Sure, they go for expensive congressional junkets and $100 screwdrivers and all those other symbols of government wastefulness. But they also go to pay for roads, schools, indigent care, and lots of other things. A responsible budget would detail what would have to be cut in order to balance the tax cuts. More important than being responsible, it would be honest.

Remember how this administration stormed into Washington in 2001, promising greater accountability and transparency in government? This is just another example of how empty that promise was. More on this tomorrow...

Surreal Times

2004-11-05T09:45:00.000-08:00

Know this: it is a dead lock that, in the last two presidential elections, the wrong candidate was declared the winner. This cannot be disputed by anyone who has studied the evidence.

How can this be so?

It's simple: a small but significant percentage of votes are "spoiled" in every election. The primary reason for this is inferior voting equipment. If spoiled votes were evenly distributed between the candidates, this would not be a major concern. Obviously, this is not the case. Poor and minority voters have their votes spoiled far more often than affluent white voters. Thus, the spoiled votes are overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates.

There is every chance that exit polls are actually more accurate than the official vote tally. Exit polls indicate the preference of the voter but don't take into account the fact that, for a number of reasons, that voter's ballot may fail to register that choice.

That spoilage turned the tide in the 2000 election and provided Bush with his "victory" is obvious, but can we be certain this was the case in 2004? Greg Palast has actually taken the time to do the math. So the answer is "yes." Once again, the votes that are actually counted will put George W. Bush in the White House when the preference of the voters would have been for John F. Kerry.

I am not a fool. I know that Mr. Bush is going to continue to reside at 1600 Pennsyvania Avenue for the next four years, barring a richly-deserved impeachment. So the question is: what can be done to keep this from happening in the future?

Simply put, states need uniform voting standards which include the same type of voting machine in all precincts. This is, to say the least, impractical. Should they balk, the option needs to be to statistically "spoil" ballots in all districts so that the spoilage rate is the same statewide. This is an obvious flaw that needs to be fixed, and I care little which parties or candidates would benefit. Until the voting system accurately reflects the preference of the voters, it is bogus and should not be allowed to continue in its present form.

Life Imitates Artlessness

2004-11-04T01:01:00.000-08:00

Have you ever noticed how much the war against Iraq played out like a Jerry Bruckheimer movie? Here's the pitch:

Flashback: A cop corners a master criminal, waits for backup (has to follow the regulations, you know?), and, instead of killing the bad guy, arrests him & goes home. Years later, from his very prison cell, the bad guy orders a hit on the cop. In the movie version, it probably succeeds, but in the real world, it's thwarted pretty easily.

Needless to say, the cop has a son. Unlike the father, the son is a reckless rebel who doesn't respect authority. He, too, becomes a cop, but unlike his father, he feels restrained by the regulations. He's a ROGUE COP WHO PLAYS BY HIS OWN RULES!. The bad guy who killed his father has been freed (in the real world, he's still in jail, but that presents some sticky plot complications). The son decides to take the law into his own hands and trumps up some bogus charges against the baddie.

Needless to say, he doesn't fool anyone and gets reprimanded. He can't bear to let this criminal, who he just knows is scheming something, walk free. So he ignores the law and goes it alone and takes the bad man down! Yee haw!

Sure, I'm stretching it in places, but you have to admit, it fits better than it ought.