Tuesday, September 23, 2003

Missed an Opportunity

The initial reviews weren't too bad, but the Times has a new story, Bush's U.N. Speech Gets Scathing Reviews on Capitol Hill. Here are some highlights:

  • Mr. Daschle, who is not running for president, continued: "He has now asked for $87 billion more. And I wish he would have made a stronger case, a better case with more specificity about a plan. He hasn't presented a plan to the United Nations. He hasn't presented one to this country or to this Congress. It was a missed opportunity, and that's very disappointing."
  • "But once again he has failed to tell us exactly what role he expects the United Nations to play now and what timetable he envisions for the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi people," said Mr. Kerry, who is running for president.
  • Lieberman of Connecticut, another White House hopeful, called the speech an "11th-hour, half-hearted appeal" delivered in an "I told you so" tone that makes it more difficult to secure international help in Iraq.
  • Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, another presidential candidate, said that Mr. Bush had "missed an opportunity"
  • Senator Bob Graham of Florida, accused Mr. Bush of taking a "my way or the highway" approach by trying to force other nations to comply with Washington's demands..."He missed an opportunity."

At least it's nice to see that the faxes at the DNC headquarters are working--the Democrats appear to have a unified message: "missed an opportunity."

Conservative pundit/editorialist Bill Saffire sagely observed that, "Hillary Clinton saying that Bush 'missed an opportunity' is clear evidence that she, in conjunction with the Templars, Free Masons, and The Trilateral Commission, are planning to sabotage the Democrats in 2004, thereby paving the way for Hillary Rodham's election in 2008--unless they do it in 2004."

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 5:56 PM | Links to this post

UN Speech

On balance, Bush's speech was apparently not as aggressive as the advance billing suggested (as I previously) speculated would be the case. On the other hand, it wasn't conciliatory either, and was sandwiched in between an obliquely critical speech by Annan (before) and a more direct critical statement by Chirac (after).

Looking for something he could find that other nations might agree with him on, Bush spent a fair amount of time decrying the international trafficking of women. Sex trafficking is a problem, and Angry Bear is firmly against it, but I fail to see the connection to the need for troops and money in Iraq. On the other hand, I have a pretty good idea of what the proposed solution will be: tax cuts.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 2:53 PM | Links to this post

Another Great Deal

I'm starting to detect a trend here: I put a book up in the right panel and within a few days, Salon starts offering a free copy of the book when you subscribe to Salon Premium. This time it's a free copy of Ivins' new book, Bushwhacked.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 5:35 AM | Links to this post

Hume and The Man

Expect, insofar as people watched Brit Hume's interview of Bush on Fox, Bush to get a bump in the otherwise southerly-trending polls. I watched only the last half hour, but Bush sounded about as smart and eloquent as I can imagine him ever sounding (note: this evaluation is relative to Bush's usual speaking style, not an absolute statement). He smirked occasionally at somewhat inappropriate times, but otherwise came across well. Look for Saffire and similar hacks to describe his treatment of Chirac and Schroeder as magnanimous.

On the other hand, Bush was helped a lot by Hume's friendly questioning. It wasn't so much softball as T-Ball.

On a related note, I heard on NPR and elsewhere that the rumors are that Bush's upcoming UN speech will be more demanding, almost rude, than polite and subdued (see, e.g., this and this)--reportedly, the president will basically again say to the UN, "If you want to be relevant, you have to give money and troops." The implied message being, "otherwise, screw you." I'm not sure I believe the hype, though. It smells more like an effort to push expectations down so it will be easier to claim success if the speech comes off even remotely well.

AB

P.S. Here's an amusing exchange:

HUME: How do you get your news?

BUSH: I get briefed by Andy Card and Condi in the morning. They come in and tell me. In all due respect, you've got a beautiful face and everything.

I glance at the headlines just to kind of a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves. But like Condoleezza, in her case, the national security adviser is getting her news directly from the participants on the world stage.

HUME: Has that been your practice since day one, or is that a practice that you've...

BUSH: Practice since day one.

HUME: Really?

BUSH: Yes. You know, look, I have great respect for the media. I mean, our society is a good, solid democracy because of a good, solid media. But I also understand that a lot of times there's opinions mixed in with news. And I...

HUME: I won't disagree with that, sir.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 1:26 AM | Links to this post

Monday, September 22, 2003

Real-world Howie should act more like semi-fictional Howie

Howie Kurtz in a cameo in this week's episode of K-Street:

I'm not gonna launder your propaganda on this.

And I thought laundering propaganda was his full time job.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 4:36 AM | Links to this post

Sunday, September 21, 2003

Democratic Primary News

First off, congrats to AB on hitting the 50,000 mark Monday!

Second, here's a piece of interesting and brand new Democratic primary news: Howard Dean’s campaign has put up “the bat” – i.e., their fundraising goal for the last 10 days of the quarter (which ends September 30). Their goal is pretty astonishing.

You may remember that at the end of the previous quarter, the Dean campaign blew everyone away by raising well over $7 million, which was millions ahead of his nearest rival. The record for fundraising in any quarter by a Democrat during the primary season is held by Bill Clinton, who raised $10.3 million in this quarter in 1996. One last piece of context: the highest estimates of funds raised by Gephardt, Kerry, or anyone else for this quarter are around $5 million.

The newly announced Dean campaign goal is to raise $5 million… in just 10 days.

Based on that, I would guess that their overall total for the quarter will therefore be in the neighborhood of $14 - $15 million. Which will truly make Dean the 800 pound gorilla of the Democratic candidates. Whatever your preference regarding the 10 Democratic candidates is, this has to contribute to the notion that it’s going to be really tough for anyone to stop Dean from getting the nomination at this point. Is it time to get used to a Dean v. Bush matchup?

Kash

Read More on " "

Posted by Kash at 9:28 PM | Links to this post

Angry Bear Milestone

If you look at the hit counter (it counts unique IPs per day, not page views) at the bottom of the left panel sometime between 9:00 and 11:00 a.m. on Monday, you should see a number in the 50,000s! I've been a "Large Mammal" on N.Z. Bear's Blogosphere Ecosystem for a while now and traffic is growing steadily, now averaging around 400 visits per day. I'm aiming high and hoping to hit 1,000 a day by year's end.

Thanks to Dave Neiwert of Orcinus, who gave me my first link. Thanks also to Atrios and Matt Yglesias (also, here) for some early promotion; occasional links from CalPundit also helped drive traffic. I should also thank Mary Beth, Dwight Meredith, Charles Kuffner, Matt Stoller, and others who I'm unintentionally omitting.

Thanks also to Kash for his contributions. And of course, thanks to all the regular readers and welcome to new readers.

AB

UPDATE: It looks like visitor 50,000 hails from the University of New Mexico.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 7:36 PM | Links to this post

Texas Democrats: What Next?

Charles Kuffner is collecting posts:

Today a group of progressive Texas bloggers are all posting on the subject "What Texas Democrats Should Do Next". The following is a link to everyone's post for today's blogburst, which will be updated through the day as they come in. Please take the time to visit these links and see what a diverse group of people think needs to be done to make the Democrats more effective in Texas.

Check it out.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 7:10 PM | Links to this post

Repeat Formula

In his latest budget, Bush proposed $8 billion in tax incentives aimed at domestic energy producers. The incentives take the form of accelerated depreciation and deferred taxation on new oil and gas exploration and pipeline capacity. While I'm ambivalent about the wisdom of that, there is at least a reasonable argument in favor: natural gas prices are very high; also, if we increase domestic oil production without going into ANWR, that's probably a good thing. The interesting part is that in the mark-up stage, the House "tax cut and spend" Republicans increased the incentives to $19b.

Now Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and a some Senate Republicans, along with the White House, are saying that $19b is too much. See the pattern? The proposal comes in at $8b in new incentives, then in committee it gets inflated to $19b, allowing the White House to then come out as fiscally disciplined when they hold the line at $8b. The initial proposal becomes the compromise position.

This is similar to, though in a slightly different order, the strategy behind the most recent Bush Birth Tax Increase Tax Cut: Bush proposes $750b, Congress (allegedly) trims it to $350b, we then get to hear the leader of the Free World use the phrase "little bitty" (*) to describe the reduced package, and then the package passes (though its true price tag is well over $350b). In the process, $350b becomes the compromise proposal and passes. Republicans get to call themselves fiscally conservative because they reigned in Bush's dramatic proposal.

Expect to see this play repeated until it stops working.

AB

(*) According to sources, Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson narrowly saved the dignity of the President and the nation during a last minute rewrite of the speech, replacing "itsy bitsy" with "little bitty" -- "teenie weenie" having been rejected in an even earlier draft.(**)

     (**) This probably did not actually happen.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 6:26 PM | Links to this post

Update on Steel Tariffs

I’ve taken a close look at the ITC’s newly-released report on the impact of Bush’s steel tariffs (see my earlier post for more). Here are some selected bits of information that I’ve drawn from the report:

- Since the tariffs caused the price of their biggest input (steel) to go up, steel-consuming firms, such as auto parts producers, appliance manufacturers, construction firms, etc. have reduced employment. The US economy has lost between 33,500 and 50,000 manufacturing jobs as a direct result of the tariffs.

- Many steel-using firms – almost one out of ten – have moved significant amounts of production offshore to remain competitive in the face of the steel tariffs.

- Overall, US workers earned about $400 million less in wages during the year after the tariff, as a direct result.

- Employment in the steel industry itself has continued to fall. Employment fell by 26,000 (6.9%) in the year before the tariffs were imposed. But employment fell by 37,000 (10.6%) in the year after the tariffs. There is no estimate of whether the tariff had much impact on this continuing loss of jobs, but from this data it is obvious that it has not saved many jobs, if it saved any at all.

Presumably the Bush administration imposed the tariffs to try to help US manufacturing. (Though of course one could argue that the tariffs were purely a political calculation, and that the Bushies didn’t care about manufacturing jobs in general.) These reports therefore document yet another pathetic failure of the Bush administration.

Kash

Read More on " "

Posted by Kash at 7:33 AM | Links to this post

Friday, September 19, 2003

Americans' Net Worth Up 10%!

Well, not all Americans, but if you are one of the 400 richest people in the country then, on average, your income is up 10%. If, on the other hand, you are part of the other 90%, then you are now paying higher interest rates on your loans, and bearing your share of the debt created by the Bush administration's "tax cuts for the wealthy and spend" policy, and more likely to be or become unemployed than you were a few years ago.

Interestingly, the two richest people on the list are both Democrats and both opposed ending the estate tax. Buffet also vigorously opposed reducing or eliminating the dividend tax (I don't know where Gates came down on that one).

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 8:26 PM | Links to this post

At First Glance...

...I thought they were talking about Newt Gingrich, then I thought "or maybe Rush Limbaugh," then I realized it was Diamond Bill Bennet.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 7:31 PM | Links to this post

Bush the Diplomat

MSNBC NEWS SERVICES Sept. 19 — With little chance that a resolution on Iraq will be approved quickly, President Bush is pinning his hopes on face-to-face diplomacy — including meetings with two of the most vocal critics of his policy in Iraq, French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder — during his visit to the United Nations in New York on Tuesday.
An excellent chance to put Bush’s outstanding diplomatic skills to work.

Kash


Read More on " "

Posted by Kash at 3:30 PM | Links to this post

Yet Another Bush Failure: Steel Tariffs

Later today the International Trade Commission (ITC) will release its midterm report about the effects of the steel tariffs that Bush imposed in March of 2002. It looks like the steel tariffs have been yet another Bush failure.

The Washington Post discusses why, and has a fascinating peek into the Bush Administration's internal debate over the steel tariffs. The President who, while campaigning for President said that free trade was "not just monetary, but moral," and that he would "work to end tariffs and break down barriers everywhere, entirely, so the whole world trades in freedom," imposed the highest tariffs the US has had on steel in decades. Estimates mentioned in the Post article suggest that the steel tariffs have cost the US tens or potentially hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs over the past 18 months – and more importantly to the Bush administration, the tariffs have potentially cost them support in crucial swing states without winning the support of steel unions. That’s why the ITC report will make interesting reading. Well, okay, at least the summary will make interesting reading.

The real question is this: will the Bush administration realize that the steel tariffs have backfired, and reverse course? They have the option of reducing or eliminating the tariffs, if they wish. Which brings us to my favorite line from the Post article:

The only reason they won't do it [remove the tariffs] is if they're unwilling to admit they made a mistake," said a Republican strategist who works closely with the White House.
Good thing this White House has so clearly demonstrated the ability to admit it when they make a mistake. Anyone want to place odds on the chances that they’ll reverse their steel policy?

Kash

Read More on " "

Posted by Kash at 12:22 PM | Links to this post

US Morale in Iraq is Good. Really.

Today’s Guardian contains a powerful commentary written by Tim Predmore, a US soldier who has been serving with the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq since the beginning of hostilities. It starts off with this:

For the past six months, I have been participating in what I believe to be the great modern lie: Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Luckily, the Bush administration and the Pentagon assure us that things are going well in Iraq, and that morale among the US troops in Iraq is good. Whew. So we don't have to worry when Predmore writes:

I once believed that I was serving for a cause - "to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States". Now I no longer believe that; I have lost my conviction, as well as my determination. I can no longer justify my service on the basis of what I believe to be half-truths and bold lies.
Read the piece.

Kash


Read More on " "

Posted by Kash at 11:04 AM | Links to this post

More Lies from the Vice President

Cheney’s lies about the existence of an Iraq – 9/11 connection on his Meet the Press appearance last Sunday got some long-overdue attention, as pointed out in yesterday’s AB post.

But Cheney, being the fair-minded guy that he is, didn’t restrict his lying to just one topic. He actually told several lies about economic issues in that appearance, as well. Let’s go to the tape…

Transcript from Meet the Press, September 14, 2003:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: The deficit that we’re running today, after we get the approval of the $87 billion, will still be less as a percentage of our total capacity to pay for it, our total economic activity in this country, than it was back in the ’80s or the deficits we ran in the ’90s. We’re still about 4.7 percent of our total GDP…. A significant chunk was taken out of the economy by what happened after the attacks of 9/11.
MR. RUSSERT: And tax cuts.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Tax cuts accounted for only about 25 percent of the deficit.

[And a minute later:]
VICE PRES. CHENEY: The cost of one attack on 9/11 was far greater than what we’re spending in Iraq.
How many lies about economic issues can we find in these few sentences? At least four.

1. “We’re still about 4.7% of GDP.”
In actuality, the White House projects that the budget deficit will be $455 billion in 2003, and that GDP will be $10,746 bn in 2003. (You can find the White House estimates here. ) If you add the administration’s request for $87 billion, my calculator tells me you get $542 billion. Which my calculator then tells me is 5.0% of GDP. (It’s a very clever calculator.) Wait, maybe he was referring to FY2004, not 2003. Well, the White House projection is a deficit of $475 billion in 2004, not including Iraq. Add in $87 bn, and you get $562 bn, which is… 5.0% of their projected 2004 GDP of $11,266 bn. So he lied: the deficit is significantly above “4.7% of GDP.”

2. “The deficit we’re running today… will still be less… than it was back in the 80s or the deficits we ran in the 90s.”
If you check the data (which you can find in Table 1.2 of this White House document), you will find that there are only two years in the 80s when the deficit was greater: 1983, and 1985 – and in 1985 it was just barely greater, at 5.1%. Cheney's statment implied that we regularly ran greater deficits back in the 80s. It is therefore misleading at best. And in the 90s? There are zero years in the 90s when the deficit was 5.0% of GDP, so that's just a plain old lie.

3. “Tax cuts accounted for only about 25 percent of the deficit.”
The CBO has conveniently provided estimates of the cost of the various Bush tax cuts, here here and here. If you add up the estimates of the cost of the tax cuts contained in those three CBO documents, you get a total cost of tax cuts of $199 billion for 2003 and $293 billion for 2004. The White House projection of the deficit is $455 billion in 2003, and $475 billion for 2004. My clever calculator tells me that the tax cuts therefore are responsible for 44% of the deficit this year, and 52% of the deficit next year, once the additional Iraq request is included. So he lied: tax cuts definitely account for more than “about 25 percent” of the deficit.

4. “The cost of one attack on 9/11 was far greater than what we’re spending in Iraq.”
The CBO also has conveniently estimated the cost of 9/11, published in this document. They added up all spending on disaster relief, increased spending on counter-terrorism, increased defense spending related to the invasion of Afghanistan and other counter-terror operations, victim compensation funds, and the airline bailouts. How much is it? The total of 2001 through 2004 will be about $68.3 billion. As far as I can tell, the Bush administration’s original request for $64 billion for Iraq, plus its new request for $87 billion for Iraq, adds up to a number larger than $68.3 billion. So Cheney had it exactly backwards: Spending in Iraq is far greater than the cost of the attack on 9/11.

Four easily verifiable lies in just a few sentences, by the Vice President of the United States on national television – pretty impressive! Lying liar.

Kash

Read More on " "

Posted by Kash at 8:00 AM | Links to this post

Thursday, September 18, 2003

Blogs you might have missed

Here are some blogs that are new, new to me, or that don't get read as much as they should (in no particular order):

Check 'em out.

AB

UPDATE: Dwight Meredith (Politics, Law, and Autism) unfortunately decided to stop blogging (though I hope to someday see him showing up as a contributor to one of the group blogs out there). But Dwight is keeping his archives available, and he now has his posts indexed by category and sub-indexed by topic. Political posts are itemized here; Law posts here; Autism posts here. The system works pretty well. I was able to find one of my favorite posts (from any blog, not just PLA) very quickly.

UPDATE 2: I should also add Jack O'Toole to this list.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 6:29 PM | Links to this post

Comments Policy

I've noticed other bloggers catching a little flack when they delete comments without having an formal comment policy. To avoid that, here's my announcement:

Spam in the comments, even if it's promoting a lefty site, will be deleted. For example "Cool site. Great post. For more check out my blog at XYZ.blogspot.com." Linking your own, or others blog is fine, actually encouraged, whenever it's on point. If something is a clear cut and paste promo, that is clearly being posted as far and wide as possible, I'll delete it.

Beyond that, I'm unlikely to delete posts based on content. I have a pretty high tolerance for offensiveness, so if you can manage to cross that line then you've done something pretty extreme (e.g., making overtly racist comments or threatening people) and I'll exercise my editorial powers.

We now return to our regularly scheduled worrying about the deficit and pointing out the flaws in Republican policies.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 5:50 PM | Links to this post

Sometimes Up is Up

First, Dick Cheney spends much of last Sunday lying. Finally the press wakes up and decides to write a few articles that point out the lies (e.g., this). And there actually was a bit of a backlash.

Then Don Rumsfeld actually tells the truth:

"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that [Saddam Hussein had a role in 9/11]

Now Bush is telling the truth too:

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11," Bush said.

It would be nuts to predict a Cheney resignation is impending (and I'm not doing so), but both the Bush and Rumsfeld statements really do make the Vice President look like a fool, a liar, or both.

AB

UPDATE: Atrios offers a clue to what's going on here:

They're just trying to defuse the pack mentality of the press - once it's cool to pile on, they'll keep doing it.

Cheney made the usual lies and exagerrations, but they followed on the heels of declining satisfaction with the war and an unpopular request for $87b. Smelling the wind, members of the press started calling him on it--Cheney didn't do anything different, the Press did. As we saw with Gore, once members of the press get an idea stuck in their head, they'll run with it, facts to the contrary notwithstanding. Gore Lies. Bush Stupid. Blather, Write, Rewrite. So, to prevent a "Bush lies about the war" meme from really getting locked into the mind of the press, Cheney had to take the fall. We'll see if it worked.

UPDATE 2: Oops, Josh Marshall had this story yesterday.

UPDATE 3: And for a little more context--and to see that the conflation of Saddam and 9/11 predated Dick Cheney's Sunday MTP appearance--check out this September 6th post by Angry Bear's Friday blogger, Kash.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 2:08 PM | Links to this post

Grasso

Via Reuters:

New York — New York Stock Exchange chairman Richard Grasso resigned his position during an emergency board meeting last night as the growing condemnation over his $140-million (U.S.) compensation package threatened to damage the exchange itself.

There's a lot of outrage directed at Grasso and his giant compensation package. For example, CalPundit writes that

If people like Grasso are shunned and embarrassed over this kind of legalized thievery often enough, maybe we can put an end to it and redirect some of that money back to shareholders, to whom it properly belongs in the first place.

I agree that the money should be directed to shareholders, but that's the direct responsibility of the board (in this case the NYSE directors), not the CEO. The CEO's direct responsibility is to maximize the performance of the firm. The board's job is to represent shareholders' interests and exercise oversight over the CEO and topmanagementt.

Simplifying somewhat, if the CEO does his or her job well, then there's a pool of profit created every year ("free cash flow", as it's often called). Some portion of that is paid to top management, including the CEO, and the rest goes to shareholders. The board's job is to ensure that the allocation of those profits serves the interest of shareholders. Certainly, we hope that CEOs will voluntarily decline excessive pay. But when was the last time you turned down a pay raise? If your pay is too high, is it your fault or your manager's fault? I'd say the latter.

Perhaps Grasso should go, but by all accounts he ran the NYSE well, even though he was overpaid for it. The real culprits, the ones who really should go, are the directors of the NYSE. In this case, the directors are particularly culpable because they are primarily CEOs of companies that trade on the Big Board. As such, overpaying Grasso, whose job responsibilities include monitoring member companies, has the appearance if not the actuality of a pay-off for lax oversight.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 2:29 AM | Links to this post

Wednesday, September 17, 2003

Lucky Duckies Again

In the current New Republic, Jacob Levy offers a modest defense of the WSJ editors for suggesting that we raise taxes on the poor (the "Lucky Duckies") in order to generate a consensus on cutting taxes. His argument is basically an appeal to we're-all-in-this-together-ism:

...it is the standard classical liberal argument for the rule of law, for not being ruled by an aristocracy exempt from the legislation it writes, and for hoping that justice will be blind. Only if laws are drafted and enforced without respect to persons or identities, only if they are prospective and general rather than retroactive and selective or arbitrary, can we expect anything like just governance.

To sometimes be yoked together under a shared institution in order to preserve its viability is the universal price of political life. ... It should always be done with a bit of bad conscience, and without denying the element of exploitation. But no one should pretend to be surprised that it's being done at all.

Thus, for example, Levy makes an analogy between "tax the poor" arguments from the Right and Rangel's calls for reinstating the draft (so that the wealthy, or at least their 18-27 year old children, will pay part of the price of a war and therefore think carefully before starting one). Levy also rightly points out that Liberals often use similar arguments to support Social Security and to oppose school vouchers.

However, the generally smart Levy leaves a big part of the taxation picture out of his argument: nowhere does he mention the distinction between payroll taxes (which the working poor do pay) and income taxes (which many of the working poor do not pay).(*) All people who work do in fact pay taxes, but some only pay payroll taxes (the taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security). By Levy's logic, there should be a national consensus to lower payroll taxes because everybody who works pays them. I've heard Democrats argue for such cuts, but no Republicans. In fact, because income over $87,000 is exempted from payroll taxes, Levy's argument could just as easily imply that the wealthy are not sufficiently "yoked together" in society's effort to fund Medicare and Social Security. Perhaps what Levy meant to say was "let's get rid of the payroll tax exemption on income over $87,000."

AB

(*) Usually, this omission is opportunistic--made so that Republicans can justify regressive tax cuts by pointing out that the top 1% pay 30% of all taxes or something like that. Then when pressed, they'll later say "by which I meant to say, but didn't and never do unless forced, 30% of all income taxes." In Levy's case, I suspect he was just trying to make the points that the WSJ proposal was similar in spirit to other proposals made by Democrats and that the "we're-all-in-this-together" argument has long been a part of politics. Still, if he's going to invoke Kant's Categorical Imperative, Levy should avoid mixing in Republican spin.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 6:50 PM | Links to this post

What are they thinking?

Seriously, go read this post by Nitpicker. Make sure to read to the end.

AB

P.S. Nitpicker didn't quote this amusing part from the original Washington Post story

Our personal favorite is a shot of the president looking out from the official limo in Beijing. The ID placard, done at the State Department, says he's in Tienemen Square.

No. No tiene men. No tiene women either. That would be Tiananmen Square.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 4:07 PM | Links to this post

What's the Difference...

...between Texas Republicans and monkeys? Click here to find out.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 3:08 PM | Links to this post

Tuesday, September 16, 2003

Syria-ously

The previous post does not mean that Syria is not a problematic nation--it is. But it always has been, and primarily for Israel, not the U.S. directly. And I believe Syria and the entire world know who wins if war breaks out between Israel and Syria, which tends to keep Syria somewhat in check.

This new drive to mention the "Syrian threat" at every turn is a pretty transparent effort at distraction, even for this administration. After all, if Syria were such a threat, why did we invade a country without any actual weapons of mass destruction? Still, expect the administration to continue using such diversionary tactics until they stop working.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 5:28 PM | Links to this post

Quick! Look Over There!

Evildoers and Evildoings in Syria!(*)

AB

(*) $87 billion? Quagmire? Unemployment? Deficit? Forget about those issues, we've go evildoers in Syria.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 5:19 PM | Links to this post

A Great Deal

Salon's latest promotion:

Subscribe to Salon Premium today and get a free copy of Paul Krugman's "The Great Unraveling."
AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 4:41 PM | Links to this post

Texas Special Session Number Three--Now with Democrats!

On day one, Democrats had their mike cut, got "quick-gavelled", sang "Nobody Knows the Trouble I've Seen," and one was warned that her car would be towed if it remained parked at the Capitol (Democrats lose parking and other privileges until they pay the $57,000 fines, each, that the Republicans imposed during the boycott).

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 4:08 PM | Links to this post

Krugman Interview

Calpundit interviewed Paul Krugman, who was on tour promoting his book over the weekend. The entire transcript is here; it appears they talked for quite a while. In case you were wondering but you don't have time to read the whole thing, here's the big question and answer:

KEVIN: If you were king of the economy, what's the Krugman plan?

KRUGMAN: A phased elimination of all the Bush tax cuts, plus some additional taxes. I'd probably look first at some way to make the corporate profits tax actually effective again — the nominal rate is 35% but the effective rate is only 15% or so. Look at some cuts, maybe you start to talk about retirement age, and possibly some means testing of Medicare, and that's enough to bring the budget under control. And meanwhile you have to manage the economy, you have to talk about what we can do to actually get demand going faster, and there are lots of things you can do….

Of course, for anything remotely like that to happen, Democrats would have to control both houses of Congress and the Presidency, and even then the changes in the retirement age and means-testing for Medicare are unlikely. Krugman makes a good case that there a lot of things that can be worse than a top marginal tax rate over 33% and a tax on the countries wealthiest estates: inflation and high interest rates, for example.

AB

P.S. Some may also find this interesting:

I'm on the web, I read Josh Marshall regularly, and Atrios regularly, and I read you [CalPundit] occasionally, once every couple of days so I know what's going on.

UPDATE: Link fixed.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 12:17 PM | Links to this post

Monday, September 15, 2003

The Civil Service Laws

Republicans often deride the Civil Service Laws as creating a giant union of inefficient government employees, and in a very small way, they are right. It is in fact hard, though not impossible, to fire protected government workers, and that can lead to instances of startling incompetence. But that factor is partly offset because managers, knowing they will later find it difficult to fire bad workers, will place more emphasis on pre-hiring screening. In any case, Republicans generally cite such obstacles to hiring and firing as reasons to, in the interest of "flexibility," weaken or remove the Civil Service rules.

However, the Civil Service statutes serve another, and in my opinion, even more important purpose: ensuring that hiring and promotion decisions are made on the basis of competence rather than political patronage. So when I see Republicans weakening the Civil Service laws, I often suspect that some of the motivation is to facilitate patronage hires of political favorites.

Henry Waxman explained the issue well, in a May 2003 letter to Tom Davis (R-VA), chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform. At the time, the Dept. of Defense was seeking (I believe successfully) to get exemptions from the Civil Service statutes similar to those that the Homeland Security Department's:

Until the Civil Service Act of 1883, federal jobs were often awarded through the spoils system. Civil service jobs went to supporters of elected officials and loyal party members, which often led to incompetence and corruption.

We’ve come a long way since 1883. But we’re about to embark on a path that will reverse many of the legislative accomplishments of the past century. Today, we begin the process of stripping away the fundamental rights of one-third of federal civilian employees. And in doing so, we’ll be opening the door for the rest of the federal workforce to have their rights taken away as well. That’s wrong. As yesterday’s hearing demonstrated, members on both sides of the aisle agree that the Defense Department needs certain flexibilities to allow it operate more effectively and more efficiently. But the bill we’re considering today goes well beyond those flexibilities. The Defense Department seeks blanket waivers from large parts of the civil service laws.

Why do they need such broad waivers? No one seems to know. At two hearings in this Committee and one hearing in the Armed Services Committee, members have asked DoD to justify its desire to be exempt from large portions of the civil service laws. ... Mr. Wolfowitz explained that it would be more efficient to bargain at the national level, instead of the local level. ... But when we asked Mr. Wolfowitz why the Department needed to be exempt from all collective bargaining responsibilities, he had no answer. He simply said that DoD should get this authority because the Department of Homeland Security got the same authority.

This reminds me of how kids behave. One child wants something just because his brother or sister got it, not because he needs it. Giving into that kind of logic is no way to be a parent, and it’s certainly no way to be a legislator.

So what's the real Republican motive behind the attacks on the Civil Service Laws? Flexibility or Patronage? Until yesterday, I always thought mostly the former but a fair bit of the latter. As the hiring of the loony, lying, partisan, and incompetent (but virulently anti-Clinton) L. Jean Lewis clearly demonstrates, I had the weights exactly wrong. (Story here; discussion and links here and here).

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 11:09 PM | Links to this post

Electronic Voting

This CNN story, Gaffe casts doubts on electronic voting, is a bit dated but important. In a nutshell, Diebold Election Systems Inc. is the leading vendor of electronic voting machines, particularly touch-screen voting machines. Diebold's machines have already been hacked (not in an actual election) and, as CNN reports, Diebold recently posted the results of absentee votes for an election in San Louis Obispo, CA hours before the polls were closed.

The odd part in all this is that Diebold, for some reason I've never heard explained, is opposed to having its system keep a paper record of the votes-for example, a simple step like having the machines print and store a hard copy of each voters' selections (or maybe the voter would review the hard copy and drop it in a box, though that increases the likelihood of a discrepancy). At the end of the day, the number of hard copies at each machine should equal the number of recorded electronic votes. If so, then electronic tabulation can proceed. If not, then the print-outs are counted manually. ATM machines have been doing something similar for decades. Has anyone heard why voting machine makers oppose this?

The Diebold FAQ does not address this question. However, it does say that "[The Diebold software's] process eliminates the need for the generation and storage of paper ballots for use with provisional voters," which leads me to suspect that the Diebold marketing people fear that states and municipalities would see little reason to buy Diebold machines if they still produce paper. I think that's misguided because, paper or not, touch-screen voting would still prevent over and under votes while also dramatically increasing the speed and accuracy of the count. But if a hacker breaks into the system, or even alleges to have done so, there needs to be a hard copy of all the ballots. It's so common sensical that it's sure not to happen.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 7:27 PM | Links to this post

Huh?
Dick Cheney on Sunday (from the Washington Post):

"If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11," he said in an hour-long interview on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Iraq was the "geographic base" for 9/11? Here's another rather egregious statement:

Asked about his earlier dismissal of Gen. Eric K. Shinseki's prewar view that an occupation force would have to be "on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers," Cheney replied: "I still remain convinced that the judgment that we will need, quote, 'several hundred thousand for several years,' is not valid.

In fact, Shinseki had not mentioned "several years" in his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 25.

But wait, there's more. After speculating for a while about Iraq/al Qaeda links, Cheney refused to speculate about Saudi Arabia:

"I don't want to speculate," he said, adding that Sept. 11 is "over with now, it's done, it's history and we can put it behind us."

Also, this exchange did not make the Washington Post story, but it's in the transcript of the Russert interview:

MR. RUSSERT: Democrats have written you letters and are suggesting profiteering by your former company Halliburton and this is how it was reported: “Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Cheney, has won contrast worth more than $1.7 billion under Operation Iraqi Freedom and stands to make hundreds of millions more dollars under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ...Were you involved in any way in the awarding of those contracts?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Of course not, Tim. Tim, ... when I ran Halliburton for five years and they were doing work for the Defense Department, which frankly they’ve been doing for 60 or 70 years, I never went near the Defense Department. I never lobbied the Defense Department on behalf of Halliburton. ... And since I left Halliburton to become George Bush’s vice president, I’ve severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven’t had now for over three years. And as vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government...

AB

UPDATE: To see the president in action, click here.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 4:11 PM | Links to this post

Sunday, September 14, 2003

It's Your Children's Money. Quick, Take It!

When it comes to the federal deficit, there are few free lunches. What we don't pay for today, we and our children will pay for tomorrow, with interest--the birth tax:

When President Bush informed the nation last Sunday night that remaining in Iraq next year will cost another $87 billion, many of those who will actually pay that bill were unable to watch. They had already been put to bed by their parents.

How big is the Bush Birth Tax overall? Roughly $7.9 trillion and counting:

The $5.6 trillion surplus once predicted for the 10 years ending in 2011 is now a $2.3 trillion cumulative deficit under the best-case prediction issued by the Congressional Budget Office two weeks ago.

That's right, when a child is born in the currrent decade, she starts out $28,000 more in the hole than she would have without the Bush deficits. (Presumably "best case" means "if tax cuts that are scheduled to sunset really do, and if the economy grows very rapidly--the latter is unlikey, and the former is a thousand-to-one longshot).

And it's not just Republican tax cuts that are to blame, there's also Republican spending:

The conservative Cato Institute noted tartly last month that Mr. Bush had never vetoed a spending bill, had advocated huge farm and Medicare programs and had presided over double-digit increases in spending each year of his term. Barely a month goes by when House Republican leaders do not propose a new form of tax cut, and Congressional Republicans join the administration in saying they fully intend to extend the tax cuts that are now scheduled to expire in 2005, which would add another $1.6 trillion to the cumulative deficit by 2013.

If taxing and spending is bad, and it often is, not taxing and still spending is worse. At least when spending is financed by tax hikes, there's a political price to be paid and the dollars have to be justified, so there's a check built into the process. When the government finances spending with deficits the bill comes due later--after the next election--so there's much less of a political cost and thus much less restraint.

Another nugget from the Times story, which gives a good summary of how we got to where we are now:

"Once the gridlock was broken, it was hard when staring at the surplus to argue that there shouldn't be a tax cut," said Mr. Reischauer, now president of the Urban Institute. "Of course there was debate about who should get what share of it. But because there seemed so much certainty about the persistence of these surpluses, there wasn't a proper caution that would have led lawmakers to say, `We don't know what the situation will be in the next downturn, we don't know the priorities of future Congresses, so we should not have a set of tax cuts that phase in over a 10-year period.'"

I seem to recall one candidate in the 2000 election making the exact argument (underlined) that Mr. Reischauer says lawmakers were not led to make. Here's a (Hint: Gore's economic plan called for "[Setting] aside $300 billion of the surplus as a reserve in case rosy projections do not materialize.")

Bush will surely try to blame his deficits on the economy and the war on terror, but while it's been a jobless recovery, the economy has not been in a recession as traditionally measured (by GDP growth). GDP growth has been modest, meaning that without tax cuts, tax revenue growth would have been positive. Instead, the government now spends more and collects less. For more numbers, see this post, where I also did a ballpark allocation of responsibility for the deficit and conservatively estimated the Bush administration's share of that blame at two-thirds.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 4:55 AM | Links to this post

Friday, September 12, 2003

The Consequences of Tax Cuts

Paul Krugman has a piece in this weekend’s New York Times Magazine about the long-term consequences of the Bush tax cuts. His argument is one that has been made elsewhere, but is nevertheless compelling: the Republican tax cuts have intentionally set the US on the path that will lead to the end of the social safety net. Here’s an excerpt:

The advocates of tax cuts are relentless, even fanatical. An indication of the movement's fervor -- and of its political power -- came during the Iraq war. War is expensive and is almost always accompanied by tax increases. But not in 2003. ''Nothing is more important in the face of a war,'' declared Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, ''than cutting taxes.'' And sure enough, taxes were cut, not just in a time of war but also in the face of record budget deficits. Nor will it be easy to reverse those tax cuts: the tax-cut movement has convinced many Americans that everybody still pays far too much in taxes.

A result of the tax-cut crusade is that there is now a fundamental mismatch between the benefits Americans expect to receive from the government and the revenues government collects. This mismatch is already having profound effects at the state and local levels: teachers and policemen are being laid off and children are being denied health insurance. The federal government can mask its problems for a while, by running huge budget deficits, but it, too, will eventually have to decide whether to cut services or raise taxes. And we are not talking about minor policy adjustments. If taxes stay as low as they are now, government as we know it cannot be maintained. In particular, Social Security will have to become far less generous; Medicare will no longer be able to guarantee comprehensive medical care to older Americans; Medicaid will no longer provide basic medical care to the poor.
It’s an extreme scenario, but Krugman may have a very good point. Could the Bush tax cuts really be part of a deliberate plot to dismantle Social Security and Medicare? After all, the Republicans no longer even pretend to have any idea about how to balance the budget anytime in the next 10 years. I’d love to hear someone ask President Bush how and when he expects the budget to be balanced. While they’re at it, I’d love it if they also asked President Bush how much tax revenue he thinks the government should collect. According to some of the things he’s said in the past, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s zero.

Which is why he is sure to continue appealing to the voters of Alabama.

Kash

Read More on " "

Posted by Kash at 8:45 PM | Links to this post

Bush's Popularity

Here's a new bit of polling data from Gallup:

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- President George W. Bush's job approval rating has dropped significantly over the last two weeks, and now, at 52%, is at its lowest point since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and within one point of the lowest rating during his presidency. The percentage of Americans who disapprove of Bush's performance, 43%, is the highest measured since he took office. Bush's job approval rating on his handling of the situation in Iraq has dropped from 57% to 51%, and a slight majority of Americans say Congress should not authorize Bush's request for $87 billion in additional funding for Iraq and the war on terrorism.
This is simply one example of a dramatic decline in Bush's approval numbers over the past month. (See Pollkatz for a great graphic.) As people realize that the emperor has no clothes, one wonders: what will Rove think of to give Bush his next bump in popularity? A war would work well, but all of the easy targets are now gone...

Does anyone have any suggestions?

Kash

Read More on " "

Posted by Kash at 3:01 PM | Links to this post

Aid to Cows

I love this image from the BBC's Cancun coverage:




It's a nice graphic depiction of the oft-cited comparison (slightly specious, but still good for making the point) that the annual dairy subsidy in the European Union in 2000 was $913 per cow, average income in sub-Saharan Africa was $490 per capita, and the EU's annual aid to sub-Saharan Africa was $8 per person. There's nothing like giving something with one hand and taking away with the other...

Kash

Read More on " "

Posted by Kash at 2:15 PM | Links to this post

Proposal for a 2004 Campaign Theme

Picking up where AB left off with this post, here’s my proposal for the theme of the anti-Bush 2004 campaign:

Time after time, George Bush's policies fail to work. The Bush presidency has been a complete failure.
You probably recognize this as an elaboration of Gephardt's excellent “miserable failure” line from the Democratic debate in New Mexico. But the real fun comes with the specific examples you can play with. Here’s how to play: Simply take any of Bush’s policies, and then couch it in terms of how his policies have failed to do what he said they were intended to do.

Here is the beginning of a list of specific failures:

1. The job market: Bush has repeatedly said that his economic plan, consisting exclusively of tax cuts that go largely to the wealthy, would help the economy; it has not. The White House said that the 2001 tax cuts would create millions of new jobs “and provide a foundation for economy-wide recovery in 2002” – but nearly two years later, no improvement in the job market is evident, and jobs continue to disappear month after month. His economic plan to has utterly failed.

2. The budget: Bush promised that “he would not burden future generations with the nation's pressing domestic problems.” He has failed, and instead will run up record deficits not just now, but as far as the eye can see. Bush has repeatedly talked of the need to “restrain government spending.” Yet government spending during the Bush administration – with the help of a Republican Congress – has risen at a faster pace than any time since the 1960s. His management of the US budget has been an abject failure.

3. Osama bin Laden: On Sept. 13, 2001, George Bush said “The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!” After two years of somewhat distracted searching, he has failed to find him.

4. Afghanistan: Bush vowed to eliminate al Qaeda and the Taliban, to create a “stable Afghanistan” that would no longer harbor terrorists, to relieve the country’s oppression by religious fundamentalists, and to “eradicate narco-trafficking out of Afghanistan.” But both al Qaeda and the Taliban are still alive and well, Afghanistan is not stable, religious oppression is still rampant, much of the country is still a safe-haven for terrorists, and the country has flooded world markets with cheap narcotics over the past two years. Another huge failure.

5. Iraq: You don't need my help with this one.

6. Korea: Clinton had successfully gotten North Korea to cease its nuclear weapons program and allow UN inspectors into the country, and was on the verge of getting North Korea to give up its long-range missile program. Bush failed to finish the deal on long-range missiles, however, and North Korea now has a vibrant long-range missile program. Bush also tried to keep them from restarting their nuclear weapons program; he failed. Since then, he has tried to get them to give up their nuclear program. But North Korea continues developing nuclear weapons, is on the verge of testing one, and is more dangerous than ever before. His North Korea policy is a spectacular failure.

7. The Middle East: Bush tried to let the Israelis and Palestinians work out an agreement on their own. When that strategy failed, he tried to design a roadmap to peace, and hoped that the roadmap would work with minimal American intervention. But the cycle of violence seems to get continually worse rather than better. Yet another Bush failure.

8. Political discourse: Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider, and to change the tone of politics in Washington. However, he has failed (I wouldn’t be writing this otherwise), and US politics are more divisive and partisan than they have ever been in recent history.

9. Add your own favorite examples! It's fun for the whole family!

Kash

Read More on " "

Posted by Kash at 11:18 AM | Links to this post

Negotiating Tactics in Cancun

Right now an important meeting of trade ministers is happening in Cancun, Mexico, where they are discussing possible changes to WTO rules. I’ve been worried that the US was going to get taken advantage of in the negotiations, though. So I was glad to read this story from the BBC reporting that US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick knows how to play hard ball with those greedy, selfish developing countries. I'm tired of those poor countries constantly bullying the US and getting their way. It's about time that we stop them -- so don't give them an inch, Bob!

Rich and poor clash over farm aid

Europe and the United States have been accused of trying to break up a powerful new alliance of poor states bent on rewriting global trade rules.

The Group of 21 (G21), which includes China, India and Brazil, has threatened the traditional dominance of rich countries during world trade talks in Cancun, Mexico.

The G21 is demanding the complete abolition of subsidies paid by rich countries to their farmers which, they say, locks the developing world out of international markets.

But aid agency Action Aid has accused the US delegation at Cancun of attempting to alternately cajole and bully poor nations into leaving the G21 - an accusation the Americans have denied.

The charity claims US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick attempted to bribe some countries into dropping out of the group with trade incentives.

It said Costa Rica, El Salvador and Guatemala had been offered increased trade quotas if they quit the alliance.
The BBC has lots of great coverage of the goings-on there, for those who are interested. Stay tuned...

Kash

Read More on " "

Posted by Kash at 11:13 AM | Links to this post

Thursday, September 11, 2003

, and DC, Northern Virginia, and Shanksville, PA

Since then, we've failed to capture Osama bin Laden, and the president now no longer mentions his name, invaded a country with no documented ties to bin Laden or the attacks, allowed bin Laden's family members to vacate the country (apparently without first questioning them), lied to first responders about the health risks they faced at ground zero, and allowed an erosion of civil liberties. On the plus side, the TSA seems to be functioning fairly well so far (though apparently that could change).

UPDATE: For a poignant yet depressing reminder of how the world felt about the United States two years ago, visit the When Words Fail Us photo collection. (Via TBogg).

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 6:16 AM | Links to this post

Mike Allen: Noted in The Building?

Thursday's Washington Post has an article, Bush Cites 9/11 On All Manner Of Questions, sure to upset Karl Rove. The punchline of the story is that, regardless of what the topic is, Bush will almost invariably make reference to 9/11:

...President Bush paused in his Labor Day remarks about jobs and told his audience of union members, "I want you to think back to that fateful day, September the 11th, and what happened afterwards ...[snip]... In the past six weeks, Bush has referred to "9/11" or Sept. 11, 2001, in arguing for his energy policy and in response to questions about campaign fundraising, tax cuts, unemployment, the deficit, airport security, Afghanistan and the length, cost and death toll of the Iraq occupation.

I suppose the innnocent explanation, cited in the article, is that 9/11 is always on Bush's mind. I'm even prepared to accept that as true, but that doesn't make it appropriate--and probably makes it inapproptiate--to use the tragedy as a smokescreen whenever the topic turns to something Bush would rather not discuss. For example, here's my favorite:

"Every day, I'm reminded about what 9/11 means to America," Bush said when asked in July about the $170 million budget for his primary campaign, where he has no opponent. "We're still threatened," he said, explaining that he wants to "continue doing my job, and my job will be to work to make America more secure."(*)

There's a lot more, read the whole thing.

AB

(*) Even I doubted that Bush would really answer a question about fundraising thusly, so I did some Googling and eventually found the transcript, from July 30th, 2003. In fairness to Bush, he did address the question; in fairness to the Post reporter, Bush immediately segued to 9/11 without ever mentioning his primary war chest or the $2000 contributors:

QUESTION: Mr. President, with no opponent, how can you spend $170 million or more on your primary campaign?

BUSH: Just watch. Keep going.

QUESTION: And with 15 fund-raisers scheduled for the summer months, do you worry about the perception that you're unduly attentive to the interests of people who can afford to spend $2,000 to see you?

BUSH: I think American people, now that they've realized I'm going to seek re-election, expect me to seek re-election. They expect me to actually do what candidates do.

And so you're right, I'll be spending some time going out and asking the American people to support me.

But most of my time, as I say in my speeches — as I'm sure you've been bored to tears listening to — is that there's a time for politics, and that's going to be later on. I've got a lot to do and I will continue doing my job. And my job will be to work to make America more secure.

Steve asked the question about this al-Qaeda possible attack. Every day I am reminded that our nation is still vulnerable. Every day I'm reminded about what 9-11 means to America.

That's a lesson, by the way, I'll never forget, the lesson of 9-11, because, and I remember right after 9-11 saying that this will be a different kind of war, but it's a war. And sometimes there'll be action and sometimes there won't, but we're still threatened.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 12:23 AM | Links to this post

Wednesday, September 10, 2003

Thou Shalt Not Make Taxes Less Regressive

Actually, that's not one of the Ten Commandments, but based on the results of yesterday's vote on Republican Governor Bob Riley's tax package (67-33 against!), most Alabamans think it is. Riley cast his plan, which proposed to deal with the state's $675 deficit by increasing taxes on the wealthier Alabamans, as the Christian thing to do. Two-thirds of the voters in Alabama were apparently unconvinced so now Riley has to find a way to cut $675 million from the state's budget.

AB

UPDATE: Where will the money come from and what will it mean for Alabama residents? No More Mister Nice Blog has the details. I agree with Kash's prediction in the comments to this post: "[I'd] be surprised...if Alabamans don't complain when their services (especially education) are slashed over the coming months." But when they get upset, will they blame Riley or the Republicans who opposed the tax package?

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 6:24 PM | Links to this post

Debut Byline

Blogging's loss is The American Prospect's gain. Matt Yglesias leapt from writing his blog to being an intrepid (and paid) writer. Via CalPundit, I see that Matt has his first byline today, House Broken: The gutting of federal housing vouchers and the declining fortunes of renters. Check it out. While Matt's blog endures, his political blogging now belongs to Tapped.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 5:13 PM | Links to this post

Crucial or Negligible?

Writing in Salon about the Ashcroft road show promoting the virtues of the PATRIOT Act, Michelle Goldberg makes a good point:

In the face of such opposition, Ashcroft has taken to the road to try to convince America of two somewhat contradictory propositions. On the one hand, he argues that without the PATRIOT Act, the government cannot protect Americans from terrorist atrocities. On the other, he insists that the PATRIOT Act contains only "modest, incremental changes in the law." Apparently, the PATRIOT Act is both crucial and negligible.

Ashcroft's tour is part of the same effort to improve the Act's image as the website lifeandliberty.gov, which I blogged about here.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 5:02 PM | Links to this post

The Spoils of War

The Texas Republicans, with the aid of the cowardly John Whitmire, have won the battle in Texas. Governor Perry has called a third special session and redistricting (to give Republicans 5-7 more seats in the US House) will soon be underway. The one bright spot is that redistricting may not go anywhere for a while, as Republicans are now fighting each other over how to redraw the districts.

AB

P.S. Let's root for the Democrats to gain narrow majorities in California, New York, and Illinois and then respond in kind. It's not as far fetched as it sounds.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 3:48 AM | Links to this post

Foreign Policy?

Or just a Visa commercial?

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice defended the administration's supplemental spending request. "Yes, the price tag may be very high," she told Washington-based foreign reporters. But, she added: "Freedom is priceless."

In the same story, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard Meyers--apparently unaware that for a few years in the twentieth century a hostile Germany and its allies controlled most of continental Europe, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Pacific Ocean--said this:

"You may have to go back to the Civil War to find a time when the values that we hold dear have been threatened like they've been threatened today," Myers said.

Yes, you may have to go that far back, if you're an idiot. Just under 50 million people died in World War II, including about 40 million Allied dead, of whom about 400,000 were Americans.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 3:34 AM | Links to this post

Tuesday, September 09, 2003

Since We Invaded Iraq...

...a few other things have happened on the world stage

And, domestically, the economy continues toshed jobs.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 3:46 PM | Links to this post

Health Insurance Rates Up 13.9 Percent in 2003

Which is, of course, bad news for the job market--at least, it's bad news in the market for jobs that come with benefits. Even for jobs that carry benefits, look for rising premiums, rising copayments, and higher deductibles. Apparently, prescription drug costs and rising prices for hospital services are the primary culprits.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 1:57 PM | Links to this post

Brushed Off by the World

I guess insulting much of the world and then asking for help wasn't such a great idea. Here are some salient excerpts from a story, Brushed Off by the World, Bush Calls India for Help, in today's Washington Post:

From Asia to Europe to Africa, President Bush's televised appeal Sunday night for international help in rebuilding Iraq drew as much scorn as sympathy in the online media.

…In Brunei, the oil-rich enclave in southeast Asia, the headline in the Borneo Bulletin minced no words: "U.S. Admits Failure in Iraq."

…reported Michael Settle in the Glasgow Herald, "drew an embarrassingly muted response across the globe."

…Even Norway, which has already sent 150 soldiers to Iraq, was critical. Foreign minister Jan Petersen was quoted in the English-language Norway Post as saying that he regretted that Bush didn't offer "a greater political role for the U.N. in Iraq. This he could have done and should have done."

...The real acid test for Bush's appeal is India, where recent developments give the Bush administration at least some hope of a positive response…By itself, India nearly could satisfy the Bush administration's immediate desire for 20,000 fresh troops in Iraq.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 1:47 PM | Links to this post

Tours of Duty

Just heard on NPR that some reservists tours will last for one year, rather than six months.

AB

UPDATE: Here's a link to the story.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 12:10 PM | Links to this post

Democratic Ranks Swelling in Texas

Not really, but there are now or will soon be ten more Democrats in Texas than there were last week:

The runaway senators had vowed to stay out of Texas until another redistricting session was called and a quorum established on the Senate floor. However, Ms. Van de Putte said, the decision last week of Houston Democrat John Whitmire to return to Texas changed the other Democrats' thinking.

They will still stay out of Austin until Mr. Whitmire helps the Republicans reach the 21-member quorum needed to do business but will return to their families in Texas, she said.

Nuts to you, Mr. Whitmire.

AB

P.S. Note to Texans: patriotism and love of State and Country come from the heart and mind, not from statutorily mandated recitation.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 4:56 AM | Links to this post

Monday, September 08, 2003

Talking Points Memo

This is a good example of why Josh Marshall is one of my favorite political writers.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 11:40 PM | Links to this post

2004 Projected Deficit Now Over Well Over $500 Billion

Way back on 8/24 the projected deficit was $480 billion (see this post). Now it's $525b and counting. That's another $45 billion in 15 days--deficit projections for the next year are growing by $3 billion per day. If current trends continue then by New Year's Eve, the projected deficit will reach $846b or about $3,400 per U.S. citizen. That's extreme. Most likely, the fiscal year 2004 deficit will turn out to be in the $550b to $600b range.(*) That's a mere $2200-$2400 per person over the next year.

Fortunately, the grown-ups are in control. They understand the simple economics of trade-offs and tough choices. From CNN:

Senior administration officials told reporters there were no plans at the White House to seek "offsets" -- or spending cuts elsewhere in the budget -- to ease the strain of the new war budget request on the Treasury.

Nor is the White House open to scaling back tax cuts already passed by Congress, these officials said.

Officials still maintain that the deficit will be cut in half over the next few years. They don't really say how this will happen, but I'm guessing it involves the magic of tax cuts and possibly the awesome stain-fighting power of Oxiclean.

AB

(*) Because Fiscal Year 2004 starts on October 1, 2003, I'm playing a bit fast and loose with this example, but you get the point.

UPDATE: Via corrente, I find this impressive bit of buck-stops-here-ism:

Asked who bears the blame for the nation's growing budget deficit, Bush said "It's nobody's fault."


Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 9:31 PM | Links to this post

More Christianistanity

Can we, based on the worthless jackasses in the top picture, now say that the entire Right is composed of diversity-hating, first-responder-hating, and freedom-hating morons--much in the way the entire Left is held to account whenever ANSWER does something stupid? No, you say? Well then quit blaming "Liberals" when Chomsky says something goofy. In the meantime, the answer to my original question is yes.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 4:22 PM | Links to this post

Christianists

Jesse has a great series of posts on those who would like to see this country become a theocracy--Christianists(*). It starts here with a Phillis Schlafly smackdown, but keep scrolling up to see more. Why do they insist on defying the Constitution? Are they Enemies of Freedom?

AB

(*) I believe Dave Neiwert coined this phrase as an amalgam of Christian and Fundamentalist.

P.S. While at Pandagon, be sure to check out Jesse's play-by-play recounting of his thoughts while watching DC 9/11: Time Of Crisis, Showtime's Bush puff-piece "docudrama that traces the nine days after the terrorist attacks on America of September 11, 2001, a week and a half that challenged..."


Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 2:50 PM | Links to this post

Bold or Foolish?

Edwards Says He Won't Run for Re-Election

ABC News - 3 hours ago

John Edwards said he'll stick to one term in the US Senate, convinced his presidential campaign is going well enough to bow out of the 2004 race for his seat.

There's still a lot of time before the election, but I'm leaning toward foolish.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 2:15 PM | Links to this post

Deficits

I got a hit today from someone Googling this:

economy's budget deficit graphs that do not start at 0 and have good artwork to deceive the public

I wonder who the Googler thinks is likely to issue misleading deficit graphs?

In Lying Liars, Al Franken has two graphs that illustrate the point about scaling graphs in a misleading fashion. I'll add an update with the page number this evening, or someone can do it for me in the comments.

AB

UPDATE: It's on p. 174 of Lying Liars.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 2:09 PM | Links to this post

Sunday, September 07, 2003

Bush Tax Cut Jobs Scoreboard

Mike at The 18½ Minute Gap has a nice graph showing the jobs promised by Bush and the jobs delivered, with the former category consisting of positive numbers and the latter consisting of only negative numbers so far. The predictions are plotted through 12/04 while the results only go through 8/03. If the eventual results for 9/03 thorugh 10/04 look at all like Bush's results to date, the 2004 Democratic nominee just might be the favorite.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 7:59 PM | Links to this post

Saturday, September 06, 2003

Subliminal Programming, or “Strategic Ambiguity”?

No one should underestimate the power of the Bush administration’s subtle but persistent efforts for the past two years to link Iraq to 9/11:

The Washington Post: Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.

Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll. That impression, which exists despite the fact that the hijackers were mostly Saudi nationals acting for al Qaeda, is broadly shared by Democrats, Republicans and independents.
How did they do this? They never overtly stated that there was a connection, but they used two other techniques:
a) continually putting the words “Iraq” or “Saddam” and “9/11” in the same sentence - they appeared in the same sentence 11 times during the 2003 State of the Union address, for example.
b) putting together facts that lead to the desired (though incorrect) conclusion. Here’s an example from a Bush speech on Oct 7, 2002 (quoted in a nice piece about the use of this technique more generally by Spinsanity):

”We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.”
Obviously the techniques work: you don’t have to explicitly tell people what conclusion to draw (because you would get called a liar, given that it’s an incorrect conclusion), but rather simply put things together in a way that most reasonable people would draw the incorrect conclusion you’re hoping for. Spinsanity calls this technique “strategic ambiguity.” I’d say that’s a generous way of putting it.

Kash

Read More on " "

Posted by Kash at 12:20 PM | Links to this post

Friday, September 05, 2003

More Freeway Signs

Reader Scarlet Pimpernel continues to find intersting signs Interstate 5 between San Diego and Los Angeles. Here's one:

For I-5 travelers who, like Scarlet but unlike me, are fluent in Latin and familiar with the works of Wilfred Owen, there's also a sign on the fence of Camp Pendleton that reads, "Dulce et Decorum est por Halliburton Mori" ("it is sweet and honorqable (or 'decorus') to die for Halliburton").

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 6:08 PM | Links to this post

The Daily Show

Somehow I missed Steven Colbert's hilarious bit on The Texas Eleven (from back when there were eleven). Fortunately, Off the Kuff pointed me to it.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 5:21 PM | Links to this post

Bush Brings Back Big Government

I wonder how many conservative Republican voters appreciate the irony of this:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The era of big government, if it ever went away, has returned full-throttle under President Bush, who came to office championing “conservative ideas” as an alternative.

A report released on Friday by the Brookings Institution think tank and New York University said the “true size” of the federal work force -- which includes employees for federal contractors and grant recipients -- grew by more than one million, to 12.1 million, from October 1999 to October 2002.

The increase was linked to the war on terrorism that Bush launched after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, as well as to growth at the Department of Health and Human Services and other domestic agencies, the report said.

The growth represents a roughly 75 percent rebound from federal work force declines linked to the post-Cold War “peace dividend,” which helped enable former President Bill Clinton to declare in 1996 that “the era of big government is over.”
I can hear some die-hard Texas Republicans saying "Damn, I hated those liberals and their small governments. I'm glad we've got a good old-fashioned big-government conservative running things."

Kash

Read More on " "

Posted by Kash at 11:46 AM | Links to this post

Democrats Debate, and Gephardt does a little historical revision

There were several decent Bush-bashing moments during the Democratic debate last night. One of my favorites was this one, as quoted in the Washington Post:

"This president is a miserable failure," Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) said. "It's incomprehensible to me that we would wind up in this situation without a plan and without international cooperation to get it done."
Okay, I'm not a Gephardt fan, but I genuinely liked the line "This President is a miserable failure."

HOWEVER, did anyone else who heard Gephardt say that line find themselves shouting at the radio (tv, or computer): "Then why the hell did you jump on Bush's bandwagon about Iraq last fall, totally cutting the legs out from under Daschle and the other Democrats that were considering putting up some principled resistance!?!"

Seriously, Daschle and other Democrats were undecided about the Iraq resolution, and were considering asking Bush some tough questions. But in early October 2002, Gephardt and Lieberman both unexpectedly (to other Dems) showed up in the Rose Garden with Bush, saying very publicly that they supported him 100%, and that they would do everything in their power to get Bush's resolution passed quickly. That action completely undermined the building determination among Dems on the hill to ask some serious questions about the Iraq resolution and Bush's proposed handling of the Iraq situation. The rest is history.

Lieberman has at least been consistent since then. Yet Gephardt now is acting totally outraged by the way Bush has conducted things in Iraq, saying that he's had a "miserable" foreign policy - when HE (Gephardt) was one of Bush's enablers-in-chief last fall.

Kash

Read More on " "

Posted by Kash at 10:33 AM | Links to this post

The number of jobs in the US shrinks yet again

From today’s BLS release, as reported by the AP:

Layoffs Rose Sharply Last Month, Report Says

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The civilian unemployment rate improved marginally last month -- sliding down to 6.1 percent -- as companies slashed payrolls by 93,000. Friday's report sent mixed signals about the nation's overall economic health.

August was the seventh consecutive month of cuts in payrolls, a survey released by the Labor Department showed, indicating continuing weakness in the job market. But the overall seasonally adjusted unemployment rate fell from 6.2 to 6.1 percent of the labor force, as reflected by a broader survey of U.S. households.
It’s interesting that the divergence between the payroll numbers (falling for 7 months in a row now) and the unemployment rate (roughly constant for the past 5 months) continues with this report.

Since the unemployment RATE is derived by taking the number of people who say they’re unemployed and dividing it by the total number of people in the workforce, there’s one obvious explanation for this divergence: while fewer people are working, fewer people who aren’t working are calling themselves unemployed. In other words, every month more and more non-working people tell the BLS that they’re not actively looking for work.

I don’t think that such a continual fall in the number of non-working people actually looking for work has a precedent in recent US history. Economists call this the “discouraged worker effect.” But one interesting question is whether there could be another explanation for this, other than the (probably sufficient) possibility that people won't bother looking for work until our current pathetic economic policies are changed.

Kash

Read More on " "

Posted by Kash at 9:50 AM | Links to this post

Blogs, Dean, and Clark

Today's Salon piece on the Clark movement plugs three bloggers who are probably familiar to most Angry Bear readers. First, Kos gets a plug:

...Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, a 31-year-old former U.S. Army soldier turned lawyer turned Dean campaign technical consultant. Moulitsas jump-started the Draft Clark Movement earlier this year before finally giving up on Clark after months of waiting for him to declare -- and after Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi invited him to work with Dean.

Then it's Stirling Newberry's turn:

Stirling Newberry, a 36-year-old computer consultant, is the unofficial theorist of the Clark movement, a regular blogger over at the ClarkSphere, and maintainer of Zuniga's [Kos's] old site, DraftClark.com.

"If you're annoyed about something in the Dean message, good luck going to Joe Trippi and getting it fixed," Newberry says. He expresses frequent annoyance with the Dean campaign, which he says rebuffed his offers of help some 18 months ago. "The Clark movement is a movement based on a person with an idea. Wesley Clark has articulated a vision and it's the job of the Clark movement to put that vision forward in a variety of ways to bring people in and say, 'We do things a certain way here, and if you do things that way you'll be welcome and your work will be disseminated to everybody.'"

Then, it's Matt "To The Point" Stoller's turn:

"Clarkism is not about an individual," explains 25-year-old Matthew Stoller, former Kerry volunteer and recent Harvard graduate who runs the ClarkSphere with Newberry. "It's not Dean for America, it's leadership for America. It's not an embrace of the man, it's an embrace of the ideas he suggests, and an embrace of Clark's vision is an embrace of what we love about America, what we always felt in our hearts was the America we really wanted to live in ... The absence of personality in the Clark movement attracts people who are not interested in personality; they are interested in ideas.

"If you place your faith in an individual," Stoller continues, "then you are not placing your faith in systems like the rule of law. The Clark people place their faith in systems. That's why institutional legitimacy is so important to Clark -- the institutional legitimacy is about systems, about placing ideas in their legitimate forms, which is institutions. America is the actualization of the Enlightenment through institutions."

I too am excited about Clark's potential; whether he belongs at the top or bottom of the Democratic ticket is an open question, but as a Southerner with a distinguished military career, he needs to be on the ticket. Plus, picture this scenario in a debate with Bush (or Cheney):

BUSH (or CHENEY): Mr. Clark your math is fuzzy and the average benefit of our tax cuts is $1,000, and Saddam had a WMD program (even though I never added "program" to the phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" until after the Iraq war).

CLARK: That's "Supreme Allied Commander Clark, Mr. President."

While Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has a great ring to it, Supreme Allied Commander is even better. Politics aside for a moment, what title is cooler than Supreme Allied Commander? Picture yourself in a social situation trying to strike up a conversation with somene who catches your fancy. He or she says, perhaps deignfully, "I'm a top executive at a Fortune 500 firm. And you?" You reply, "I'm the European Supreme Allied Commander."

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 5:18 AM | Links to this post

Thursday, September 04, 2003

Don't Mess With Texas

And Don't Mess with Democracy. Not normally reading the print edition oif the NYT, I almost missed MoveOn's first Texas Redistricting Ad in the NYT. MoveOn's Texas radio and TV ad campaign is also underway, but I can't find online clips of the ads. If you've have a link, let me know and I'll update this; if you've seen the ads, were they any good?

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 11:46 PM | Links to this post

Doha Update

The World Bank will soon be issuing its Global Economic Prospects 2004: Realizing the Development Promise of the Doha Agenda report, which deals mostly with issues relating to trade. Fortunately for those who, like me, can't wait to see what's in the report, some website I've never heard of has advance details:

Under the scenario, the World Bank recommends that rich countries should cut tariffs to 10 per cent in agriculture and five per cent in manufacturing while developing countries could reciprocate with tariff cuts to 15 per cent and 10 per cent in agriculture and manufacturing respectively.

Similarly, the bank implores all countries to eliminate agricultural export subsidies, 'decouple' domestic subsidies to minimize the trade distortions and eliminate specific tariffs, quota and anti-dumping duties.

The formula, according to the World Bank, "generates gains which amount to about three quarters of those might be possible through full trade liberalization."

The bank expressed optimism that, if the afore-stated "reforms were implemented progressively over five years to 2010 and accompanied by a realistic productivity response, developing countries would gain nearly $350 billion in additional income by 2015, and rich countries benefit in the order of $170 billion" adding, "there would be 144 million fewer people living below $2 per day by 2015."

[snip]

For instance, the GEP 2004 noted, Industrialized countries will benefit by cutting protection and agricultural subsidies, most of which go to large farmers who already make more than the average family in the EU, Japan and US.

"These measures cost the average family in these regions roughly $1,000 a year. Slashing agricultural protection would result in cheaper food and labour-intensive manufactures for consumers in those countries. At the same time it would help raise the incomes of poor farmers in developing countries. In return, rich countries might get greater access to still-protected services markets in middle-income countries," it stated.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 4:12 PM | Links to this post

Do They Really Pay Him for This?

In today's Media Notes, inexplicably esteemed media critic Howie Kurtz condescendingly writes about Franken and his book:

"... Al Franken, slashing away at the Republicans and the right-wing press for fun and profit."

..."[Franken] is having fun peddling a book about those he deems liars."

"...Franken is trying to do for the left what Ann Coulter and Bernard Goldberg (not to mention best-selling authors Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly) have done for the right: Demonize the other side. Slap the conservatives around. Get some good licks in. While Franken's book is strident, the former Saturday Night Live comic is helped by his sense of humor."

Not addressed at all, of course, is whether the charges in Franken's book are true (and whether the listed conservatives really are liars). That would take effort and research, not really Kurtz's cup of tea.

Instead Kurtz cuts and pastes 510 words from a 1311 word essay by Salon's Dave Talbot. I'm sure Salon appreciates the plug, but an undergrad who did this in a paper would be lucky to get a D.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 10:34 AM | Links to this post

Wednesday, September 03, 2003

Whitmire Update

Back in Texas, and using the New York Times to respond to allegations of cowardice, Texas State Senator John Whitmire (D-Houston) has this to say:

"This is not Alamo stuff. This is serious, but it's no life or death matter."
And this:
"I don't perceive what I'm doing as caving. I'm pursuing a different strategy."

Different? Yes, I suppose capitulation is in fact different--not wise or effective, but different.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 11:35 PM | Links to this post

Even the Conservative Dan Drezner

University of Chicago Political Science professor Dan Drezner, a smart guy even if he is conservative, writes in the current issue of The New Republic about Bush's naked sell-outs on the principles of free trade--when it bolsters his position in swing states:

Evaluating the Bush administration's international economic policy is the political equivalent of diagnosing a schizophrenic. Every step forward in Robert Zoelllick's grand strategy for trade liberalization--getting fast-track authority, launching the Doha round of world trade talks--is matched by a blatantly protectionist measure contained in Karl Rove's master plan for reelection, such as the steel tariffs and the farm bill.

I recommend reading the whole thing (it's one of TNR's free articles). If you are still unconvinced by my attempts (here and here) to explain why free trade is a good thing, the read Drezner's fourth-to-last paragraph particularly carefully. Or if you really don't want to read the whole thing, here's Drezner's conclusion, and I can't find anything to disagree with:

The most likely outcome for the next 18 months is a policy of "hypocritical liberalization." The Doha round will proceed, as will the Middle East Free Trade Area. But the administration will take advantage of every exception, escape clause, and loophole at its disposal to protect vital constituencies from the vicissitudes of the global market. This will hurt the broad majority of American consumers and a healthy share of producers that rely on imported raw materials. But hey, there's a rosy future awaiting West Virginia steelworkers.

AB

P.S. Josh Marshall has a nice take on Bush's new-found protectionist populism.

P.P.S. It's really starting to look like there's an easy way to predict what this administration will do next, at least in terms of domestic policy. It's not as haphazard as John DiIulio made it out to be (and then retracted). Instead, just comb the history books for any of Herbert Hoover's domestic policies not yet proposed by the Bush administration. Those are the ones on the horizon.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 6:24 PM | Links to this post

The Racial Side of Texas Redistricting

Politics in the South generally has a strong racial element. In spite of that, so far I've mostly viewed the Texas Eleven's Ten's fight as a battle over control of the U.S. House of Representatives. Today in Salon, Michelle Goldberg reports on the racial dimension of the DeLay/Rove/Perry plan. Specifically, in addition to likely extending Republican control of the House, redistricting will attenuate the effects of demographic trends in Texas that favor Democrats:

No Republicans returned calls for this story. But the redistricting standoff comes at a time when blacks and Latinos are on track to become majorities in Texas, leading some Texas Democrats to believe Republicans are using redistricting to limit the effect of demographic changes. One exiled Democrat recalls the candid comment of a Republican colleague: "We have 10 years until Hispanics take over."

A quick visit to the 2000 Census QuickFacts for Texas (and the 1990 data) highlights the Republicans' impending problem:

Category20001990
White persons (Includes Latino)71.0%75.16
Black or African American persons11.5%11.89%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin32%25.54%
White persons, not of Hispanic/Latino origin52.4%N/A
Other/Multiple4.1%12.89%

So yes, the Republicans will soon have a problem in Texas--unless they can concentrate the minorities into a small number of districts. Since the 1960s, racial gerrymadering in the South has been limited due to the requirement that proposed districts be submitted to the Justice Department for review. The Department reviews only for discrimination against minorities, not for naked power-grabs. But the districts that DeLay is trying to get through would apparently pass such scrutiny because, according to Goldberg,

The GOP proposal would redraw the state's legislative boundaries so that minorities are concentrated into a few districts, likely leading to a net increase in the number of minority members of Congress. But the voting power of blacks and Latinos would likely be diluted in other districts, giving Republicans a net gain of as many as seven seats.
AB

Salon also has a nice companion piece on Tom DeLay.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 5:07 PM | Links to this post

Abandon the Alamo?

How often does a state senator raise 1/11th of $1 million in a matter of weeks? I'm very dissapointed in Texas Senaor John Whitmire. Here's Whitmire, explaining his return to Texas, likely facilitating a quorum that will allow DeLay's inter-Census redustricting to go through::

Whitmire said remaining in New Mexico was counterproductive. "Redistricting is very important but there are also many other important issues such as criminal justice, school finance and property tax reform," he said in Houston.

Here's a real Texan, Senator Rodney Ellis:

"While I understand Senator Whitmire's frustration and anger, I am disappointed to see him surrendering so easily," said Sen. Rodney Ellis. "All eleven of us have made true sacrifices to be here in Albuquerque. I have a newborn baby at home that doesn't even know what I look like."

While discretion may well be the better part of valor most of the time, Texas is the "Remember the Alamo" state. Take a stand for what's right and damn the personal consequences, Mr. Whitmire. Find your courage and your Battle of San Jacinto will come.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 1:06 AM | Links to this post

Tuesday, September 02, 2003

Sunset Magic

An editorial in the Washington Post's business section, by Newsweek's Wall Street editor Allan Sloan, compares the purported $1.4 trillion 10-year deficit (which assumes that all sunsets actually do sunset) to the much more likely outcome in which Congress extends or makes permanent the various tax cuts currently scheduled to expire between 2008 and 2012. The result of this calculation is a bit sobering:

By law, the budget office has to assume that existing laws expire as planned, and that no new programs are added or subtracted. This report, however, includes numbers that you can use to adjust for political reality. Which I did. First, I counted the $2.4 trillion Social Security surplus, which the Treasury uses to offset its cash shortfall. Then I figured that the last three years of tax cuts will become permanent and that Congress will pass a Medicare prescription-drug package and stop the dreaded alternative minimum tax from hitting 30 million taxpayers. These changes add $3.6 trillion to the deficit. So by the time you're done, the total projected deficit is more than five times the aforementioned $1.4 trillion. Call it $7.4 trillion. And I'm being generous, assuming we spend nothing in Iraq starting Oct. 1, 2005.
AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 6:45 PM | Links to this post

John Kerry

I didn't hear the whole speech, but CNN played excerpts from the parts of Kerry's speech where he scathingly attacked Bush's execution of the war in Iraq. At least in the excerpts, Kerry didn't pull any punches. At one point, Kerry said that half of the names on the Vietnam Memorial were there because of the misguided pride of America's leaders and that Bush, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz are repeating the same mistakes. Kerry's proposal: we should go back to the U.N. and go international in Iraq as soon as possible. There's no transcript on his website, but presumably one will be available soon at http://www.johnkerry.com/news/#speeches.

Kerry's attacks are almost surely good for any candidate that emerges, other than Kerry himself. Non-Kerry candidates can say "Kerry makes many valid and important points," effectively attacking Bush, but without actually doing so. Whether Kerry's U.N.-heavy message will resonate in his favor among swing voters remains to be seen.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 11:02 AM | Links to this post

Bad News?

I just overhead a reporter on CNN citing poll results indicating that 2/3 of Americans polled could not name a single Democratic presidential candidate. I'm not sure I believe that figure, but that's what they said. If true, it's moderately bad news I suppose.

However, a larger portion of the half of Americans who vote presumably can name a candidate. For example, if all respondents among the 1/3 who could name a Democratic candidate were also among the half that vote, then the stat would change to "2/3 of likely voters can name a Democratic presidential candidate."

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 10:15 AM | Links to this post

Rice Watch Day 42

It's been a while, so long that I almost abandoned the watch. Friday's Slate has an interesting piece, Condi's Phony History: Sorry, Dr. Rice, postwar Germany was nothing like Iraq, attacking the credibility of Rice's comparison of Germany and Japan's reconstruction to Iraq's ("The Rice-Rumsfeld depiction of the Allied occupation of Germanyis a farrago of fiction and a few meager facts...).

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 10:10 AM | Links to this post

Bush Quotes

Forbes has a collection of Bush quotes about September 11th, starting on 9/11 and continuing to last week. For example, this quote:

Sept 17, 2001 - "When I was a kid I remember ... the 'wanted' poster. It said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.' All I want and America wants is to see them brought to justice." (comments to reporters about bin Laden).
At the time, I agreed with the president's sentiments, if not his manner of expressing them. Of course, that was before the administration forgot that OBL was not in Iraq.

AB

P.S. Here's another, less serious, collection of Bush quotes.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 10:05 AM | Links to this post

Open Source Politics

Kevin A. Hayden of ReachM High emailed me about a new 44 blogger blog called Open Source Politics. I'm traveling, so I haven't had time to check it out yet, but with 44 bloggers there should be a steady stream of new content. It sounds like an interesting project, though there does seem to be some risk that it will be tough to manage.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 9:57 AM | Links to this post

Monday, September 01, 2003

A Warning, Not a Manual

Someone in the Office of Presidential Infallibility apparently doesn’t grasp the point of Orwell’s 1984. To wit, the revisionist insertion of “major” before the phrase “combat operations”; Rice’s incessant statement of facts that were known to be true before 1991 as if they were true in 2003; the “Program” program to change, after the fact, the reasons for war; and probably a few more I can’t think of right now.

The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 4:16 PM | Links to this post

Friday, August 29, 2003

Only a matter of time...

I almost missed this little detail from the Washington Post:

North Korea startled international diplomats yesterday by threatening to test a nuclear weapon in response to perceived hostility from the Bush administration, a U.S. official said after the second day of six-nation talks in Beijing on North Korea's nuclear program.
The Bush administration is currently (and very reluctantly) engaged in negotiations with North Korea to try to avert exactly this. Of course, this means that it won't be long before we formally welcome North Korea into the nuclear club...

Anyone want to try to guess who in the US will benefit when North Korea openly goes nuclear?

Kash

Read More on " "

Posted by Kash at 3:29 PM | Links to this post

Uh Oh...

An article in this week's Economist (subscription required to read the entire article) suggests that China may actually be getting closer to the point of revaluing the yuan than I thought when I wrote about this issue last week:

Time to worry about China's strong economy, not just its weak currency

WHEN John Snow visits Beijing on September 2nd and 3rd he will ride into town on a Harley-Davidson—in spirit, if not reality. As America's Treasury secretary promised workers at the motorcycle maker's Milwaukee factory earlier this month, the main purpose of his trip is to talk tough with his hosts about China's currency. In the eyes of America, as well as Japan, South Korea and a host of other nations, an undervalued yuan is unfairly boosting Chinese exports and leading to lost jobs at home.

America's attempted strong-arm tactics over the exchange rate are proving a nuisance for the Chinese government by encouraging inflows of “hot money” that are a bet that the yuan will soon be revalued...

The broad money supply surged by 21% in the year to July, the fastest rate of growth for five years (see chart), causing the PBOC to give warning of “an excessive increase” in lending. Total loans by financial institutions hit 525 billion yuan, up 71% year on year. Investment in fixed assets was nearly a third higher in the first seven months of 2003 than in the same period of 2002.

A booming money supply can indicate that higher inflation is on the way. That may seem odd in China, which spent much of last year struggling against deflation and where the consumer-price inflation rate is still only 0.5%. For the time being, likelier problems are roaring asset prices and a further increase in China's already enormous bad-debt problems, fuelled by ill-considered lending. The signs are already there. Car sales [are] up 82% in the first half of the year and prices of luxury properties in Shanghai [have soared] 172% over the same period...

Policymakers are reacting. Verbal admonishments to rein in lending, especially to property developers, proved ineffective. So on August 23rd the central bank raised its reserve requirements for financial institutions from 6% to 7%, forcing banks to keep more money on deposit with it. The PBOC estimates that this move will drain 150 billion yuan from the banking system, checking lending and thus preventing another build-up of bad loans. In China's financial system, says Nicholas Lardy of the Institute for International Economics in Washington, DC, 31.4% of loans—equivalent to 44.6% of GDP—were non-performing at the end of 2002.
This is a lose-lose situation. If the Chinese gov't is serious about cooling their economy, a next logical step is to revalue the yuan against the dollar (i.e. make the yuan stronger/dollar weaker). This will have serious economic repercussions, a lot of them negative, especially if the revaluation isn't managed extremely well. My prediction is that a revaluation that's even slightly sloppy will usher in a period of significant volatility in the international financial world, as well as in US asset (i.e. stock and bond) markets.

On the other hand, if there is a banking-sector meltdown in China, then the Chinese gov't will not want to revalue (the cheap yuan keeps exports growing), but the Chinese economy could then be in for some serious trouble more generally. China is now the world's third largest economy after the U.S. and Japan, so if China's economy goes, the rest of Asia will go, and this will be a big problem for the world economy.

One bit of history: the last time the Chinese changed their exchange rate was in 1994. Within three years this had lead, more or less directly, to the East Asian financial crisis. I'm not saying that the sky is falling... but I would definitely advise you to keep your eyes on this issue over the next year. By the way, when the Chinese DO revalue the yuan, expect interest rates in the U.S. to take a pretty serious step up.

Kash

Read More on " "

Posted by Kash at 11:34 AM | Links to this post

Iraq WMD Exaggerations: Casualty #1

It looks like Tony Blair's right hand man (people call him Blair's Karl Rove) is the first major political casualty of the Bush/Blair WMD exaggerations:

LONDON (AP) -- Prime Minister Tony Blair's powerful communications chief, Alastair Campbell, a central figure in the controversy over whether Britain exaggerated Iraq's weapons threat to justify war, will resign, Blair's office said Friday.

No date was set for Campbell's departure and his successor was not named, the prime minister's office said. Campbell said in his resignation statement he intended to step down in "a few weeks'' for family reasons.

Campbell was at the center of media allegations that Blair's office exaggerated the threat posed by Iraqi weapons in an intelligence dossier used to win support for military action against Iraq.
Of course, David Kelley was a much more serious and tragic casualty in this mess, but it's nice to see at least one deserving head rolling over this. So far.

Read More on " "

Posted by Kash at 11:02 AM | Links to this post

MTV Video Music Awards

I didn't watch them, but skimming the news I can't help wondering how many Google hits I'd get if I were to post the words "Madonna", "Britney Spears", and "kiss". Nah, that's too cheesy.

AB

(Frustrated Googlers, click here to find what you're looking for. See also here.) But before you leave, check out this table comparing GDP growth under Clinton to the dismal economic performance under Bush. Rock the vote.

Real GDP
Growth		Period
2.65%92-93
4.04%93-94
2.67%94-95
3.57%95-96
4.43%96-97
4.28%97-98
4.11%98-99
3.75%99-00
0.25%00-01

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 6:09 AM | Links to this post

Thursday, August 28, 2003

Kurtz and Franken

Howie Kurtz has a lengthy piece on Franken and his book today; it's partly a summary of Franken's charges and partly an interview of Franken (there's little by way of addressing whether the charges have merit, which is a rather weak showing for a star media analyst). On balance, my fair opinion is that Kurtz's piece is remarkably fair and balanced. Here's my favorite tidbit:

Franken doesn't merely denounce conservatives. He harasses them, provokes them, gets right up in their faces. He once called up National Review Editor Rich Lowry and challenged him to a fight in a parking garage. Lowry declined.

"Comedians who aren't funny have to try to become political spokesmen -- thus Al Franken's new career," Lowry said yesterday. "But if I said I was unhappy that such an ill-informed and unpleasant man is emerging as a Democratic Party spokesman, I'd be lying."

All this time I thought that comedians who aren't funny were called waiters. Also, I challenge anyone to watch the Stuart Smalley skit with Michael Jordan and not laugh.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 4:05 PM | Links to this post

Reasonably Good News

From Reuters,

Gross domestic product, or GDP, grew at a revised 3.1 percent in the second three months of the year, the government said before the open. That was up from the 2.4 percent rise estimated a month ago and slightly above Wall Street expectations for a 3.0 percent gain.
AB

UPDATE: Leave it to Kevin to rain on the parade.

UPDATE: See also General Glut, who ballparks the GDP growth in the absense of the surge in military spending at 2.2%--decent, but not great. For comparison (and a reminder of how good the economy was under Clinton), I grabbed Real GDP growth numbers for 92-93 to 00-01 from the Economic Report of the President:

Real GDP
Growth		Period
2.65%92-93
4.04%93-94
2.67%94-95
3.57%95-96
4.43%96-97
4.28%97-98
4.11%98-99
3.75%99-00
0.25%00-01

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 1:08 PM | Links to this post

Update on "It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything."

Just click here. As some might say, Jeebus. (For context on the title of this post, click here).

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 2:44 AM | Links to this post

Leave No Fraudulent Statistics Behind

A while back, Education Secretary Rod Paige made the news because Houston high schools, Sharpstown High School in particular, were caught faking drop out rates. Now, via Susan Nunes, I see that Houston high schools are also lying about how many of their students plan to go to college:

Across town, Davis High School, where students averaged a combined SAT score of 791 out of a possible 1600 in 1998, reported that every last one of its graduates that year planned to go to college.
Now "plan" is a vague, almost Clintonian Rovian word, but even so, the 100% figure is surely a lie:
At Davis High, for instance, comparison with test scores and records from the Higher Education Coordinating Board, which tracks students who enroll in public colleges and universities in Texas, suggested that not 100 percent, but less than half of Davis's 1998 graduates enrolled in the state's two- or four-year institutions of higher education, which generally absorb the great majority of college-bound graduates, particularly from poorer high schools.

I can believe that every student answered that "they would like to have a college scholarship," but that's not quite the same.

Paige was elevated from Superintendent of the Houston Independent School District to Secretary of the Department of Education based on the allegedly stellar results of Houston schools under his watch. In fact, the Texas system became the model for the No Child Left Behind Act. Like so much else with this administration, upon closer inspection the success morphs into smoke, mirrors, fraud, and lies. Also like much else with this administration, much of the truth was known beforehand, but severely under-publicized.

AB

P.S. Susan also links to this unusual story (though she does say "For those who love conspiracy theories").

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 2:09 AM | Links to this post

Angry Bear Traffic Tops 100,000 Per Day

That, of course, is only on a pro forma basis. Ezra Klein at NotGeniuses has an interesting theory:

What I'm trying to get is that in terms of sheer effect, 5 blog readers, due to how specialized and specific the medium is, equal thousands of Washington Post readers in net effect in the political world. You can bet your ass every campaign right now is keeping a watch on the blogs and the CW that emerges from them, and that makes blogs more powerful than they seem.

I agree entirely that blog readers are a self-selected group of political junkies. And I guess any group that consists disproportionately of political junkies probably also includes a few political bigwigs or freinds thereof. So I don't dismiss Klein's theory entirely, but I do often feel that blogs are primarily one giant echo chamber, daily ministrations to the choir.

So, assuming my comments work today, some questions for blog readers:

  1. Has reading blogs changed any of your views? If you can pin it down, which blog? If you remember the post, cite and/or explain.
  2. Has blog reading encouraged you to donate time or money that you otherwise would not have? If so, to what and why?
  3. Even if you view each individual blog as insignificant, do they, taken as a whole, have an effect on politics?
If the comments are not working, then send me an email and I'll write a post or two giving the highlights. My guess at the moment is that #2 is where the best hope for blogs lie.

AB

P.S. Try to keep references to anyone named "Lott" to a minimum.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 1:42 AM | Links to this post

Wednesday, August 27, 2003

Happy first anniversary to Dwight Merredith and Kevin Drum (who also had his one millionth visit the same week!).

And best wishes to the TBogg family.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 10:23 PM | Links to this post

The Birth Tax

From the NYT today:

Even if the economy rebounds strongly over the next few years, the federal budget deficit could climb for the rest of the decade if Congress adopts proposals strongly supported by President Bush, the Congressional Budget Office said today...The nonpartisan office said the deficit would be $480 billion next year but could reach a cumulative total of $5.8 trillion by 2013.

At several points in the article, a Republican says something to the effect that ten year projections are unreliable, so we shouldn't worry. For example, White House budget office spokesman Trent Duffy said this:

The only thing we know about 10-year projections is that they are terribly, terribly wrong. In 1993, 10 years ago today, C.B.O. did not predict that in the late 1990's we would have a surplus.
Dufffy's not entirely wrong here, ten year predictions are highly speculative. One presidential candidate in 2000 , Al Gore, repeatedly pointed this out and argued that we should not blow the whole ten year projected $1.4 trillion surplus on tax cuts, and instead advocated a more conservative (!) approach of targeted tax cuts and paying down the debt.

The other candidate, George Bush, loved those ten year projections and used them to justify tax cuts. Now he doesn't like ten year projections.

On a related note, remember Bush's "it's your money, I'm gonna give it back to you" line? That should really be modified now to "it's your children's money, and their children's money, and I'm gonna give it to people making over $100,000 a year."

AB

P.S. I believe Molly Ivins gets credit for coining the "birth tax" phrase. Dwight Meredith recently did some back of the napkin calculations and finds that the birth tax is roughly equal to one BMW--admittedly, entry model--per taxpayer.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 3:28 PM | Links to this post

Tuesday, August 26, 2003

What was he trying to say?

Conason is on Crossfire with Al Franken (who the witty Tucker keeps confusing with Al Sharpton. Hey Tucker, how about "Chairman Al"?) Also on is someone named Blanquita Cullum, who complains that she's always introduced as a conservative, even though she was, minutes earlier, introduced as "nationally syndicated talk radio show host Blanquita Cullum."

Conason seems to be trying to say something. Here's the first pitch:

(CROSSTALK)

CONASON: Al and I are going to change the slogan. We're going to change the slogan.

CULLUM: I actually think that Fox News and many of their hosts are more editorialists. But they do have more -- they make an effort. They have people like Greta. They have got Ellen Ratner. They have got Alan Colmes.

FRANKEN: Who?

CULLUM: Ellen Ratner, who is a very outspoken

(CROSSTALK)
Swing and a miss, strike one.
CONASON: Why can't I finish what I'm saying? Why can't I finish what I'm saying?

CARLSON: Go crazy.

CONASON: See, you shouldn't act like the Fox News Channel, which Al and I are changing their slogan to

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Attempt to explain

(CROSSTALK)

Close, but strike two. Time to talk to the coach
FRANKEN: Let Joe do his joke.

CONASON: Yes. We'll get to that. [then instead talks about conservatives not being evil]
Shortly thereafter, the strikeout:
CARLSON: On that note, I'm afraid we're going to have to end. I'm sorry. We're completely out of time. Al, your face is actually twitching, so you're starting to make me a little nervous. Joe Conason in Boston, thank you. Blanquita Cullum here, thank you.

Foiled! For the record, here's what Joe was trying to say:

I hope we can discuss the new slogan I've suggested for Fox News Channel, drawn from the wording of Judge Denny Chin's decision in the network's lawsuit against Franken and his publisher. Instead of "Fair and Balanced," why not "Wholly Without Merit"?
AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 7:54 PM | Links to this post

Lying Liars and the Hypocritical Lying Jackasses with Bowties Who Tell Them

I'm reading the transcript because I unfortunately missed what was surely a great Crossfire: Al Franken hosting and Joe Conason as a guest. Conservatives really just make shit up. And they're hypocrites. Here's Carlson ably displaying both at the same time:

CARLSON: Well, there's mixed news, speaking of, to report this week on retired General Wesley Clark's quest to become a vice presidential nominee. The good news is, he's found a candidate who will take him. The bad news is, that candidate is Howard Dean....We can't know whether Clark will succumb to Dean's charms. We do know that Dean could use Clark's help. During an appearance on "Meet the Press" earlier this summer, Dean admitted that he had no earthly idea how many American troops are currently on active duty or even, in an ideal world, how many there should be. Wesley Clark could help with that.

Dean said he couldn't answer the question, but when pressed did not say that he had no idea but rather that, "I know there are roughly between a million and two million people active duty"--a true if somewhat imprecise statement that in no way resembles Carlson's characterization (see the addendum).

Now for the hypocrisy. Dean also took heat for saying that there were 135,000 troops in Iraq when the true number was 146,000. Last week, Bush said that, "We’ve got about 10,000 troops there, which is down from, obviously, major combat operations." At the end of major combat operations in Afghanistan, we had 3,000 troops there (see Milbank or Somerby). Dean off by less than 10%; Bush off by more than 300%. No wonder Carlson has to lie.

Here's the ending of the Carlson-Franken exchange:

CARLSON: Do you think it is kind of important to know that if you're running on a platform that includes fixing the United States armed services?

FRANKEN: Well, I don't know if the platform is about fixing the American armed services. I think the American armed services did a damned good job in Iraq and a damned good job in Afghanistan, frankly. [Carlson repeats his question and they move on].

Shortly thereafter, they bring on Joe Conason. More highlights to come.

AB

Addendum: What Dean really said (if you think my ellipses are hiding something, or just for fun, read the whole MTP exchange). [Note: reformatted to improve readability]

Russert: Let’s talk about the military budget. How many men and women would you have on active duty?

Dean: I can’t answer that question. And I don’t know what the answer is.

[...talks about the need for more troops in Afghanistan]

Russert: But how many troops—how many men and women do we now have on active duty?

Dean: I can’t tell you the answer to that either. It’s...
Russert: But as commander in chief, you should now that.

Dean: As someone who’s running in the Democratic Party primary, I know that it’s somewhere in the neighborhood of one to two million people, but I don’t know the exact number, and I don’t think I need to know that to run in the Democratic Party primary.

Russert: How many troops would have in Iraq?

Dean: More than we have now. My understanding is we have in the neighborhood of 135,000 troops. I can’t tell you exactly how many it takes. General Shinseki thought that we were undermanned by roughly 100,000.

[...talks about how he'll have advisors]

[...debate over the merit of Russert's seeking exact numbers]

Dean: I know there are roughly between a million and two million people active duty. I know that we don’t have enough people in Iraq. I know that General Shinseki said that we need 300,000 troops to go into Iraq, not 200,000 troops, and I’m prepared to assume the burden and have the proper people around me advising me on what needs to be done.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 7:31 PM | Links to this post

It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything.

The quote is from Homer Simpson. I'm reminded of it by these people.

AB

UPDATE: Orcinus has more.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 4:56 PM | Links to this post

This is Awesome

MoveOn.org is raising money to support the Texas Democrats and has almost reached its million dollar target (95.22% there)! That's a lot of money for 11 state Senators.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 4:07 PM | Links to this post

Have Cake and Eat It Too?

Some readers by now have probably picked up on the fact that I'm in favor of free trade. However, I am sympathetic to the concerns of those who oppose free trade on labor standards grounds, environmental grounds, and protecting domestic industry grounds. Nevertheless, free trade is a net positive for both trading partners, meaning that at the end of the day, when trade is liberalized, there is enough money to simultaneously compensate workers in affected industries while leaving society at large better off. Tying free trade to labor and environmental standards is justified on moral grounds and economic grounds (ensuring that the terms of trade actually reflect the production costs in each country). A few years back, Robert E. Litan (*) coauthored an editorial in the Financial Times (2/28/2001) describing what such a system would look like:

The main question centres on whether—and if so, how—the administration can craft an approach to free trade that somehow ensures any further trade agreements adhere to labour and environmental standards, primarily among less developed countries, without offending the business community or pure free traders.

Labour and environmental standards are important but they reflect an underlying anxiety that many Americans have about trade. Whether or not they work in trade-related industries, workers fear that expanded trade will cost jobs and suppress wages.

… No amount of supporting evidence is likely to ease workers' growing concern.

… Mr Bush and the Congress should introduce programmes better designed to cushion the economic pain of job losses, in a way that encourages workers to find gainful training and employment quickly.

… The current unemployment insurance programme eases some of the pain but does not address two of the greatest concerns of workers: the decline in wages often associated with accepting a new job and the inability to pay for health insurance while unemployed.

… One way to allay fears is to take up a recent, but little publicised, recommendation by the bipartisan Congressional Trade Deficit Review Commission. This argued for a new, more comprehensive worker adjustment package that included "wage insurance" and that would be available to displaced workers regardless of the cause of the loss of employment.

…Robert Litan and Lori Kletzer of the Institute for International Economics have costed out such a programme on the assumption that the compensation equals half the drop in a worker's income, is capped at $10,000 per year, and is paid for up to two years after the loss of the initial job.

Even if the unemployment level rises to 5 per cent (well above the current 4.2 per cent), the annual total cost of this programme would be just under $3bn. That compares with more than $20bn spent by the federal government each year on unemployment insurance.

For more on this, see " A Prescription to Relieve Worker Anxiety: Wage and Health Insurance for Displaced Workers," by Lori Kletzer and Robert E. Litan

AB

(*) Litan was on Carter's CEA; under Clinton he was Deputy AG for Antitrust and then OMB associate director; Litan currently is a senior fellow in Economic Studies at Brookings.

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 2:39 PM | Links to this post

Do I Hear $500 Billion

420 billion, 420 billion! Going once, going twice, 450 billion! Do I hear 475? 450 billion going once, going--$480 billion! Do I hear $500 billion?

AB

P.S. Technically, the auction should have started around $250 billion, corresponding to the administration's projections back in February.

P.P.S. And what's this about: "To placate some lawmakers (Republicans as well as Democrats) worried about huge deficits in the years ahead, some tax cuts are supposed to expire a decade or so from now." The sunsets are coming sooner than that. Many of the cuts -- e.g., the estate tax and the educational savings account deduction (529 plans) -- sunset in 2010 (so Bush could distort downward the 10 year cost of his 2001 tax cut), which is a lot nearer than a "decade or so". The NYT lets too much slop like this through--give reporters access to Google and Lexis/Nexis and the make them use it.

P.P.P.S. What's missing from the list in the concluding paragraph of the story?

As recently as early 2000, some economic experts foresaw surpluses for many years ahead. Then the stock market collapsed, the country was attacked by terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001, and costly wars unfolded in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It's on the tip of my tongue, I feel like it rhymes with "bax mutts", ...

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 1:47 PM | Links to this post

From Angry Bear to the Front Page of the New York Times

Last Thursday, Guest-blogger Kash wrote about the rising issue of China, its currency, and the trade deficit with China ("2. There’s growing discussion about the value of the Chinese yuan against the dollar...[snip]...My prediction: these issues are going be HUGE in the not-too-distant future.")

Now today, the NYT has a front page story, Currency of China Is Emerging as Tough Business Issue in U.S.. As Kash predicted, the issues are indeed looming large as manufacturing states increasingly pressure the administration to do something about the under-valued Chinese yuan.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 12:09 PM | Links to this post

Not Just Politics and Law

Go read Dwight Meredith's blog. Start here and read every post above. Or start here and work down.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 2:30 AM | Links to this post

More Free Trade

First, this issue is important. Second, it seems to generate a lot of action in the comments. So I'll keep harping on the subject until I encounter diminishing returns.

In practice, free trade is not an unmitigated good, but the world is better off when all goods and services are produced in the locations and by the people most able to efficiently produce them--all else equal. First an example, then back to the caveat.

Country A can produce either 20 units of food or 4 units of literature, or any linear combination in between (e.g., 10 food and 2 literature).

Country B can produce either 12 units of food or 2 units of literature, or any linear combination in between (e.g., 6 food and 1 literature).

Note that Country A can trade food for literature at the rate of 5 to 1--for every five units of food it gives up, it can get one more unit of literature. Similarly, Country B can trade six units of food for one unit of literature. Note immediately that Country A is the more efficient producer of literature. If Country A produces a unit of entertainment, the world loses five units of food, whereas if Country B produces the unit of literature, then the world would lose 6 units of food.

Does it make sense for Country B to produce literature? Not really. Country B should instead produce food and then trade between five and six (call it 5.5) units of that food to Country A, and receive a unit of literature in return. Both countries are then better off: Instead of getting only 5 units of food for a lost unit of literature, Country A gets 5.5 units of food. Instead of having to give up 6 units of food for a unit of literature, Country B only has to give up 5.5 units of food. Each country benefits by .5 units of food when they trade thusly!

It's so simple, what's the hold up? Well, there are losers in this trade, even though both societies benefit on balance. Literature producers in Country B are driven out of business, as are food producers in Country A. And history shows that, not surprisingly, they will vigorously oppose free trade. Nevertheless, there is a role for government in solving the transition to trade problem. Since after trade is established, each country has more of all goods (possibly the same amount of some and more of others, but less of none), both societies are wealthier after trade is established. Some or all of that extra wealth can then be directed to recompensating the affected sectors in each country--because of the increase in overall wealth, there is necessarily enough money to make them whole.

But this is a very stylized example, how might this work in the real world? First, the benefits from trade work out exactly the same if there are thousands, billions, or gazillions of different goods. So restricting the example to two goods does not limit the example's relevance.

However, I did say "all else equal." Perhaps one of the countries uses slave labor, child labor, sweatshops, or cheap but heavily polluting technology. Then, economics aside, there is a moral argument for tying free trade to environmental and working conditions standards. But there is also an economic rationale: each of these scenarios entail negative externalities (costs borne by society at large, rather than by those who engage in an activity). Countries will over-engage in activities that have negative externalities. In those cases, tying free trade to work and environmental standards can also increase economic efficiency (by reducing the over-production otherwise implied by the negative externality).

But what about the affected workers? Technological change is the engine of economic growth, but along the way, it renders once-thriving industries obsolete, to the detriment of workers in those industries. Can we have growth without misery among the workers in the declining industries? Possibly. A senior economist at Brookings (with what I find to be impressive credentials as a liberal) outlined what such a plan would look like. More tomorrow.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 1:05 AM | Links to this post

Monday, August 25, 2003

Tariffs and Trade

Volokh contributor Jacob Levy has a New Republic piece on protectionism, a subject that came up in one of Kash's posts and the comments therein. Here's Levy's key paragraph, but read the whole thing:

Agricultural protectionism--the combination of quotas, tariffs, and subsidies for farm products--may be the purest example of destructive special-interest politics ever created. Rich countries--with a few exceptions, such as Australia--burden their own populations three times over. The policies cost taxpayers directly--the atrocious 2002 U.S. farm bill is slated to cost $180 billion over ten years. (Worse, annual unbudgeted "emergency" farm spending during the late 1990s accounted for a great deal of the spending boom that squandered much of the predicted budget surplus long before the first Bush tax cut took effect.) In return for their largesse, taxpayers get the privilege of paying higher prices as consumers (and, of course, inflated prices for basic foodstuffs hit the poorest proportionately hardest). And, by locking up an excess of labor and capital in an agribusiness sector that couldn't turn an honest profit on its own, agricultural protectionism inhibits productivity growth, preventing shifts in employment and investment to more productive parts of the economy.

Liberals and Conservatives are mixed in their support of free trade. The extremes of both sides (think Buchanon and Nader) are generally against free trade; the center to near-extreme Right is generally for free trade unless (1) it's with Cuba, or (2) it involves a swing state (Pennsylvania/Steel and South Carolina/textiles. Actually, SC isn't a swing state, so why are the Republicans in favor of textile tariffs?). The moderate Left generally supports free trade, or perhaps free trade conditional on some minimum level of working conditions (with the minimum being the key issue of debate).

On balance, it seems that a greater portion of the Left than the Right oppose free trade, with the Left usually arguing that tariffs and subsidies are needed to protect agricultural workers or blue collar workers in declining manufacturing industries. A regime of tariffs and subsidies actually does protect workers in the industries that are being supplanted by foreign suppliers. But, as Levy explains, the costs far exceed the benefits. Who gets the benefits? Domestic farmers, be they family or corporate. Who bears the costs? Domestic consumers (in particular, the poor, since so much of protectionism centers around food and textiles), domestic taxpayers (in higher taxes and lost productivity), and foreign producers (in particular, the Third World Poor, who get lower crop prices as a result of subsidies of U.S. farmers and tariffs on U.S. farm imports).

This last point bears repeating, particularly to the anti-trade Left, a group is generally in favor of increased aid to developing nations: propping up U.S. industries that cannot compete on their own prevents those industries from migrating to countries where they can be profitably undertaken (poorer nations), taking jobs from the would-be workers of those same poor nations. As an added bonus to reducing Third World living standards, we all get to pay more for our goods.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 2:30 PM | Links to this post

Stop Watching Ads

I'm think that Salon is worth the price, Sully and Horowitz notwithstanding. Right now, they've got a great deal:

Get "Lies" for free. Get a FREE copy of Joe Conason's new book "Big Lies" when you subscribe to Salon Premium today. Hurry, quantities are limited
AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 12:32 PM | Links to this post

Life and Liberty (.gov)

In the car yesterday, I caught the tail end of a radio editorial by a guy named Dave Ross, who apparently has a talk show in Seattle and also does syndicated commentary for CBS radio. This particular editorial was on the government's relax, don't worry about your civil liberties site, www.lifeandliberty.gov, which is devoted to defending the USA PATRIOT Act.

Ross argued that if you've done nothing wrong then you don't have to worry (loosely paraphrasing, "if you don't like the idea of the government auditing your library records, check out different books"). He also argued for the converse: law enforcement officials would only be looking into your actions if you've done something wrong. Therefore, ordinary Americans have nothing to fear from this substantial expansion of police power. Not defined is who counts as ordinary, nor where the Constitution and Bill of Rights distinguish between the subset of rights afforded to all citizens and the full set of rights available only to special group of ordinary. When he argued that the "sneak and peak" provision that allows a search without notification was a good thing when used on ordinary Americans because they wouldn't have to undergo the stress of knowing they were searched, I thought Ross was joking but then came to realize that he was not. (I can see reasons why such searches might be very useful, but this is surely not one of them).

Also in the L&L.gov website is a FAQ devoted to "Dispelling the Myths". Each of the myths uses a complaint by the ACLU as the starting point. The first alleged myth includes this: "They [the ACLU] also claim that it [PATRIOT Act] includes a “provision that might allow the actions of peaceful groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, to be treated as ‘domestic terrorism." The government's response to this allegation is that

Peaceful political discourse and dissent is one of America’s most cherished freedoms, and is not subject to investigation as domestic terrorism. Under the Patriot Act, the definition of “domestic terrorism” is limited to conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life. Therefore, peaceful political organizations engaging in political advocacy will obviously not come under this definition. (Patriot Act, Section 802)

Maybe it's just me, but a broad range of activities not related to terrorism seem to satisfy criteria (1) and (2). Even marching without a permit could violate the law and be construed as dangerous to human life (causing traffic accidents or something like that). While I believe the Patriot Act was not specifically invoked, the Department of Homeland Security has already been used to track domestic politicians (Texas House Democrats). If the powers can be used against elected officials, is it really a stretch to envision their usage against less popular groups like ANSWER or Greenpeace?

In any event, for a quick laugh and a bit of a scare, take a look at www.lifeandliberty.gov and see if you're convinced.

While we're nowhere near this stage (although the government can now arrest and detain citizens indefinitely, without council or a hearing in federal court), this is worth remembering:

"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.
And then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
And then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."
-- Pastor Niemoeller, arrested by the Nazis during World War II

The point, I suppose, is that non-Jews probably considered themselves "ordinary Germans," with no need to be concerned about expanded police power.

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 12:04 PM | Links to this post

Sunday, August 24, 2003

I'm Back!

The vacation was great, though I've lost track of current events somewhat. Fortunately, reading the bloggers on the left (that is, the left panel of this web page) and the links therein should catch me up nicely.

Special thanks to Kash for filling in during my absence. I think he did a great job, and based on the comments, so do my readers. I agree entirely that the rising interest rates are likely to be very problematic for the economy over the next several years. In particular, while consumer spending propped the economy up over the last few years business spending (investment) remained flat, in spite of low rates. Rising rates will only further delay the resurgence in that sector.

While I'm not planning to make this a team blog, I am inviting Kash to stick around as an occassional contributor ("Kash Friday" has a nice ring). He knows much more about international trade issues than I do, and that's a good thing.

In other news, take a look at Voters Don't Want Bush Re-Elected. The story reports that, based on Newsweek's latest polls,

"...49 percent of registered voters would not back the president for a second term if the vote were held now. Forty-four percent would support Mr. Bush's re-election. The poll marked the first time in a Newsweek survey that supporters of Mr. Bush were out-numbered by those who would not like to see him back remain in office."

AB

Read More on " "

Posted by Angry Bear at 10:28 AM | Links to this post

Subscribe to:

Contributors:

Posts are contributed by cactus, divorced one like bush, save the rustbelt, rdan, spencer, stormy, Bruce Webb, Ken Houghton, Tom Bozzo, Robert Waldmann, Linda Beale. Guest posts are frequently contributed and others welcome. Template by Calculated Risk and edited by Rdan.
Copyright 2003-2009 Angry Bear. All Rights Reserved.  

Return to top at Angry Bear