Saturday, December 06, 2003
What really makes me wonder whether this republic can be saved, however, is the downward spiral in governance, the hijacking of public policy by private interests.- Paul Krugman, NY Times, 12/5
Kucinich ad He’s been dismissed as a candidate, which may be a further incentive to produce this awfully powerful campaign ad. So those with a minute- and sound- click here: http://www.kucinich.us/dk.html
Voting Machine issue- Edwards signs on
Candidate Edwards raised the visibility of the voting machine issue by calling on the Bush campaign to return $100,000 in donations by Diebold Election Systems. In a Florida speech Edwards also criticized the machines themselves. Referring to the confusing Florida ballots from the 2000 election, Edwards noted, “We now have touch screen voting machines that some people think are just as bad as a butterfly ballot." http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/7424855.htm
9/11 Comission Families are nervous with their fiercest advocate, Max Cleland, about to leave the commission. Cleland’s repeatedly cited the stonewalling of the commission as it tries to secure documents from the Administration. From the NY Times (Philip Shenon):
He has also criticized the commission's leadership for accepting a deal with the White House that will give only three members of the panel access to Oval Office intelligence briefings that were given to Mr. Bush in the weeks before the attacks. The commission and the White House have defended the agreement, saying it will allow the panel's representatives to see a full range of intelligence reports.
In an interview last month, Mr. Cleland said that the commission had "gotten off to a slow start" and that the agreement with the White House for access to the intelligence briefings was the final proof for him that "this commission will be compromised in its final report."
"We have limited access for a limited number of commissioners to a limited number of these Presidential Daily Briefings," Mr. Cleland said of the intelligence reports prepared for Mr. Bush each morning. "All of the commissioners should have had full access to all of the documents, and that will be the fatal flaw in the commission's report." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/05/national/05TERR.html
Krugman- forget excerpts; here’s the article:
One thing you have to say about George W. Bush: he's got a great sense of humor. At a recent fund-raiser, according to The Associated Press, he described eliminating weapons of mass destruction from Iraq and ensuring the solvency of Medicare as some of his administration's accomplishments.
Then came the punch line: "I came to this office to solve problems and not pass them on to future presidents and future generations." He must have had them rolling in the aisles.
In the early months of the Bush administration, one often heard that "the grown-ups are back in charge." But if being a grown-up means planning for the future — in fact, if it means anything beyond marital fidelity — then this is the least grown-up administration in American history. It governs like there's no tomorrow.
Nothing in our national experience prepared us for the spectacle of a government launching a war, increasing farm subsidies and establishing an expensive new Medicare entitlement — and not only failing to come up with a plan to pay for all this spending in the face of budget deficits, but cutting taxes at the same time.
Recent good economic news doesn't change the verdict. These aren't temporary measures aimed at getting the economy back on its feet; they're permanent drains on the budget. Serious estimates show a long-term budget gap, even with a recovery, of at least 25 percent of federal spending. That is, the federal government — including Medicare, which Mr. Bush has given new responsibilities without new resources — is nowhere near solvent.
Then there's international trade policy. Here's how the steel story looks from Europe: the administration imposed an illegal tariff for domestic political reasons, then changed its mind when threatened with retaliatory tariffs focused on likely swing states. So the U.S. has squandered its credibility: it is now seen as a nation that honors promises only when it's politically convenient.
What really makes me wonder whether this republic can be saved, however, is the downward spiral in governance, the hijacking of public policy by private interests.
The new Medicare bill is a huge subsidy for drug and insurance companies, coupled with a small benefit for retirees. In comparison, the energy bill — which stalled last month, but will come back — has a sort of purity: it barely even pretends to be anything other than corporate welfare. Did you hear about the subsidy that will help Shreveport get its first Hooters restaurant?
And it's not just legislation: hardly a day goes by without an administrative decision that just happens to confer huge benefits on favored corporations, at the public's expense. For example, last month the Internal Revenue Service dropped its efforts to crack down on the synfuel tax break — a famously abused measure that was supposed to encourage the production of alternative fuels, but has ended up giving companies billions in tax credits for spraying coal with a bit of diesel oil. The I.R.S. denies charges by Bill Henck, one of its own lawyers, that it buckled under political pressure. Coincidentally, according to The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Henck has suddenly found himself among the tiny minority of taxpayers facing an I.R.S. audit.
Awhile back, George Akerlof, the Nobel laureate in economics, described what's happening to public policy as "a form of looting." Some scoffed at the time, but now even publications like The Economist, which has consistently made excuses for the administration, are sounding the alarm.
To be fair, the looting is a partly bipartisan affair. More than a few Democrats threw their support behind the Medicare bill, the energy bill or both. But the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress are leading the looting party. What are they thinking?
The prevailing theory among grown-up Republicans — yes, they still exist — seems to be that Mr. Bush is simply doing whatever it takes to win the next election. After that, he'll put the political operatives in their place, bring in the policy experts and finally get down to the business of running the country.
But I think they're in denial. Everything we know suggests that Mr. Bush's people have given as little thought to running America after the election as they gave to running Iraq after the fall of Baghdad. And they will have no idea what to do when things fall apart. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/05/opinion/05KRUG.html
Unemployment: It’s not a good sign that so few jobs were created in the past month even if the unemployment numbers officially went down. [Analysts don’t want to emphasize how many are off the rolls- not counted, but now the “long-term unemployed.] Economists had predicted more jobs would be created this month and the Administration has been on record as saying each month would produce over 300,000 new jobs if the tax cuts were passed, not the 57,000 that were created. As noted before, we need almost 200,000 new jobs each month just to absorb the growing (potential) work force. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107063102778604700,00.html?mod=home_whats_news_us
Since the recession ended 24 months ago in November 2001, 726,000 jobs have disappeared, a 0.6% contraction. This is the first time since monthly job statistics began in 1939 that there has not been positive growth in jobs for two years after a recession ended. Two years into the "jobless recovery" of the early 1990s, jobs had grown by 1.3%. http://www.jobwatch.org/
Dean: Pro and Con: Molly Ivins vs Nick Kristof Dean is solidifying his lead; a deadlocked convention- which turns to Gore or Hillary R.C.- seems to be the only way to stop him. So, let’s debate the fundamentals:
Molly:
No one has been waiting with bated breath for me to make up my mind about the Democratic presidential candidates, but I have, and you might be interested in how I got there. I'm for Howard Dean -- because he's going to win.
For a while, I fretted over Dean being angry, or at least appealing to the political anger that is normally manipulated by right-wing radio jocks. Anger makes liberals uncomfortable: We prefer peace, reason and gentle persuasion. Beloveds, it is way past time for us to get mad -- social, economic and political justice are being perverted by the Bush administration.
Dean gives a hell of a speech -- even if you're Republican, you should go and hear him just for the experience. But I fretted about Dean on TV -- TV is so important. How could anyone poker up on Margaret Carlson of PBS, not one of the world's toughest interviewers? But then I saw Dean laugh his way through a Chris Matthews interview (which he should have done with Tim Russert, who was hell-bent on gotcha questions), and I know the guy can take care of himself. So he fights back if you get in his face -- that's not all bad.
I know, he's even less of a liberal than Bill Clinton was, but I don't think Dean is a moderate centrist. I think he's a fighting centrist. And folks, I think we have got ourselves a winner here. http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/ivins/story/7896598p-8835083c.html
Kristof:
Don't get me wrong. I agree with Mr. Dean on many issues, and I admire his willingness to oppose our Iraq invasion from the beginning. But shiny-eyed teenagers who distribute leaflets for him in places like Yamhill County are going to get very cold stares — and end up heartbroken.
If the Democrats are serious about governing, they should remember the words of one of their nominees, Adlai Stevenson. After one of his typically brilliant campaign speeches, someone shouted out to Stevenson from the crowd that he had the votes of all thinking Americans.
Stevenson shouted back, saying that wasn't enough: "I need a majority!http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/06/opinion/06KRIS.html
Bush and Tony Soprano:
Huh? Let me explain. One technique employed by Tony S. (season 2) is the “bust-out”- the planned bankruptcy of Dave Scatino’s sporting goods store whereby Tony and associate Richie Aprile looted Dave’s goods and Dave wound up broke and without a store.
Why do I mention this? Josh Marshall, of talkingpointsmemo.org notices that the Bushites are doing the same thing- looting the country without regard for the country (Dave), focused only on their short-term gain. From his The Hill story.
Like the decision to game the Medicare bill around the 2004 election, just about everything the administration has done in the last 30 months has been done with little thought to the medium-term, let alone the long-term, consequences.
Where to start? There’s the rapid run-up in the deficit we’ve noted, repeated instances of breaking political precedents for short-term political gain — like the unprecedented decision to re-redistrict congressional maps in Texas and Colorado — and then of course there’s foreign policy, where decades-old alliances have been wrecked and our military capacities have been vastly diminished all to make way for the invasion of Iraq, which — in case you haven’t noticed — isn’t going so well.
Taken together, almost everything we’ve seen since early 2001 points to a decision to rush through as many political goodies as possible and secure as much political power as possible as soon as possible, with little regard for picking up the pieces.
And that suggests an analogy.
What we’re seeing in Washington today has an uncomfortable resemblance to what, in mafia lingo, is called a bust-out.
It goes something like this.
Say you’re a gambler and I’m a mobster. I’ve lent you lots of money. But now you can’t cover your debt. I could pursue the matter through your kneecaps or toss you out of an office window, but instead I take a more constructive approach.
You own a shoe store. I take it over your operation, order everything under the sun and fence all the merchandise for as much money as I can get as quickly as I can. I run out every line of credit you have and generally squeeze the place of every dollar I can get out of it. And then when I can’t squeeze anymore, I torch the place and collect on the insurance money.
Sure, it’s not the most sustainable business model. But I have my money back, and what happens to you is your problem.
http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/120303.aspx
-R
Kucinich ad He’s been dismissed as a candidate, which may be a further incentive to produce this awfully powerful campaign ad. So those with a minute- and sound- click here: http://www.kucinich.us/dk.html
Voting Machine issue- Edwards signs on
Candidate Edwards raised the visibility of the voting machine issue by calling on the Bush campaign to return $100,000 in donations by Diebold Election Systems. In a Florida speech Edwards also criticized the machines themselves. Referring to the confusing Florida ballots from the 2000 election, Edwards noted, “We now have touch screen voting machines that some people think are just as bad as a butterfly ballot." http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/7424855.htm
9/11 Comission Families are nervous with their fiercest advocate, Max Cleland, about to leave the commission. Cleland’s repeatedly cited the stonewalling of the commission as it tries to secure documents from the Administration. From the NY Times (Philip Shenon):
He has also criticized the commission's leadership for accepting a deal with the White House that will give only three members of the panel access to Oval Office intelligence briefings that were given to Mr. Bush in the weeks before the attacks. The commission and the White House have defended the agreement, saying it will allow the panel's representatives to see a full range of intelligence reports.
In an interview last month, Mr. Cleland said that the commission had "gotten off to a slow start" and that the agreement with the White House for access to the intelligence briefings was the final proof for him that "this commission will be compromised in its final report."
"We have limited access for a limited number of commissioners to a limited number of these Presidential Daily Briefings," Mr. Cleland said of the intelligence reports prepared for Mr. Bush each morning. "All of the commissioners should have had full access to all of the documents, and that will be the fatal flaw in the commission's report." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/05/national/05TERR.html
Krugman- forget excerpts; here’s the article:
One thing you have to say about George W. Bush: he's got a great sense of humor. At a recent fund-raiser, according to The Associated Press, he described eliminating weapons of mass destruction from Iraq and ensuring the solvency of Medicare as some of his administration's accomplishments.
Then came the punch line: "I came to this office to solve problems and not pass them on to future presidents and future generations." He must have had them rolling in the aisles.
In the early months of the Bush administration, one often heard that "the grown-ups are back in charge." But if being a grown-up means planning for the future — in fact, if it means anything beyond marital fidelity — then this is the least grown-up administration in American history. It governs like there's no tomorrow.
Nothing in our national experience prepared us for the spectacle of a government launching a war, increasing farm subsidies and establishing an expensive new Medicare entitlement — and not only failing to come up with a plan to pay for all this spending in the face of budget deficits, but cutting taxes at the same time.
Recent good economic news doesn't change the verdict. These aren't temporary measures aimed at getting the economy back on its feet; they're permanent drains on the budget. Serious estimates show a long-term budget gap, even with a recovery, of at least 25 percent of federal spending. That is, the federal government — including Medicare, which Mr. Bush has given new responsibilities without new resources — is nowhere near solvent.
Then there's international trade policy. Here's how the steel story looks from Europe: the administration imposed an illegal tariff for domestic political reasons, then changed its mind when threatened with retaliatory tariffs focused on likely swing states. So the U.S. has squandered its credibility: it is now seen as a nation that honors promises only when it's politically convenient.
What really makes me wonder whether this republic can be saved, however, is the downward spiral in governance, the hijacking of public policy by private interests.
The new Medicare bill is a huge subsidy for drug and insurance companies, coupled with a small benefit for retirees. In comparison, the energy bill — which stalled last month, but will come back — has a sort of purity: it barely even pretends to be anything other than corporate welfare. Did you hear about the subsidy that will help Shreveport get its first Hooters restaurant?
And it's not just legislation: hardly a day goes by without an administrative decision that just happens to confer huge benefits on favored corporations, at the public's expense. For example, last month the Internal Revenue Service dropped its efforts to crack down on the synfuel tax break — a famously abused measure that was supposed to encourage the production of alternative fuels, but has ended up giving companies billions in tax credits for spraying coal with a bit of diesel oil. The I.R.S. denies charges by Bill Henck, one of its own lawyers, that it buckled under political pressure. Coincidentally, according to The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Henck has suddenly found himself among the tiny minority of taxpayers facing an I.R.S. audit.
Awhile back, George Akerlof, the Nobel laureate in economics, described what's happening to public policy as "a form of looting." Some scoffed at the time, but now even publications like The Economist, which has consistently made excuses for the administration, are sounding the alarm.
To be fair, the looting is a partly bipartisan affair. More than a few Democrats threw their support behind the Medicare bill, the energy bill or both. But the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress are leading the looting party. What are they thinking?
The prevailing theory among grown-up Republicans — yes, they still exist — seems to be that Mr. Bush is simply doing whatever it takes to win the next election. After that, he'll put the political operatives in their place, bring in the policy experts and finally get down to the business of running the country.
But I think they're in denial. Everything we know suggests that Mr. Bush's people have given as little thought to running America after the election as they gave to running Iraq after the fall of Baghdad. And they will have no idea what to do when things fall apart. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/05/opinion/05KRUG.html
Unemployment: It’s not a good sign that so few jobs were created in the past month even if the unemployment numbers officially went down. [Analysts don’t want to emphasize how many are off the rolls- not counted, but now the “long-term unemployed.] Economists had predicted more jobs would be created this month and the Administration has been on record as saying each month would produce over 300,000 new jobs if the tax cuts were passed, not the 57,000 that were created. As noted before, we need almost 200,000 new jobs each month just to absorb the growing (potential) work force. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107063102778604700,00.html?mod=home_whats_news_us
Since the recession ended 24 months ago in November 2001, 726,000 jobs have disappeared, a 0.6% contraction. This is the first time since monthly job statistics began in 1939 that there has not been positive growth in jobs for two years after a recession ended. Two years into the "jobless recovery" of the early 1990s, jobs had grown by 1.3%. http://www.jobwatch.org/
Dean: Pro and Con: Molly Ivins vs Nick Kristof Dean is solidifying his lead; a deadlocked convention- which turns to Gore or Hillary R.C.- seems to be the only way to stop him. So, let’s debate the fundamentals:
Molly:
No one has been waiting with bated breath for me to make up my mind about the Democratic presidential candidates, but I have, and you might be interested in how I got there. I'm for Howard Dean -- because he's going to win.
For a while, I fretted over Dean being angry, or at least appealing to the political anger that is normally manipulated by right-wing radio jocks. Anger makes liberals uncomfortable: We prefer peace, reason and gentle persuasion. Beloveds, it is way past time for us to get mad -- social, economic and political justice are being perverted by the Bush administration.
Dean gives a hell of a speech -- even if you're Republican, you should go and hear him just for the experience. But I fretted about Dean on TV -- TV is so important. How could anyone poker up on Margaret Carlson of PBS, not one of the world's toughest interviewers? But then I saw Dean laugh his way through a Chris Matthews interview (which he should have done with Tim Russert, who was hell-bent on gotcha questions), and I know the guy can take care of himself. So he fights back if you get in his face -- that's not all bad.
I know, he's even less of a liberal than Bill Clinton was, but I don't think Dean is a moderate centrist. I think he's a fighting centrist. And folks, I think we have got ourselves a winner here. http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/ivins/story/7896598p-8835083c.html
Kristof:
Don't get me wrong. I agree with Mr. Dean on many issues, and I admire his willingness to oppose our Iraq invasion from the beginning. But shiny-eyed teenagers who distribute leaflets for him in places like Yamhill County are going to get very cold stares — and end up heartbroken.
If the Democrats are serious about governing, they should remember the words of one of their nominees, Adlai Stevenson. After one of his typically brilliant campaign speeches, someone shouted out to Stevenson from the crowd that he had the votes of all thinking Americans.
Stevenson shouted back, saying that wasn't enough: "I need a majority!http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/06/opinion/06KRIS.html
Bush and Tony Soprano:
Huh? Let me explain. One technique employed by Tony S. (season 2) is the “bust-out”- the planned bankruptcy of Dave Scatino’s sporting goods store whereby Tony and associate Richie Aprile looted Dave’s goods and Dave wound up broke and without a store.
Why do I mention this? Josh Marshall, of talkingpointsmemo.org notices that the Bushites are doing the same thing- looting the country without regard for the country (Dave), focused only on their short-term gain. From his The Hill story.
Like the decision to game the Medicare bill around the 2004 election, just about everything the administration has done in the last 30 months has been done with little thought to the medium-term, let alone the long-term, consequences.
Where to start? There’s the rapid run-up in the deficit we’ve noted, repeated instances of breaking political precedents for short-term political gain — like the unprecedented decision to re-redistrict congressional maps in Texas and Colorado — and then of course there’s foreign policy, where decades-old alliances have been wrecked and our military capacities have been vastly diminished all to make way for the invasion of Iraq, which — in case you haven’t noticed — isn’t going so well.
Taken together, almost everything we’ve seen since early 2001 points to a decision to rush through as many political goodies as possible and secure as much political power as possible as soon as possible, with little regard for picking up the pieces.
And that suggests an analogy.
What we’re seeing in Washington today has an uncomfortable resemblance to what, in mafia lingo, is called a bust-out.
It goes something like this.
Say you’re a gambler and I’m a mobster. I’ve lent you lots of money. But now you can’t cover your debt. I could pursue the matter through your kneecaps or toss you out of an office window, but instead I take a more constructive approach.
You own a shoe store. I take it over your operation, order everything under the sun and fence all the merchandise for as much money as I can get as quickly as I can. I run out every line of credit you have and generally squeeze the place of every dollar I can get out of it. And then when I can’t squeeze anymore, I torch the place and collect on the insurance money.
Sure, it’s not the most sustainable business model. But I have my money back, and what happens to you is your problem.
http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/120303.aspx
-R
