Because the best things in life are free.

 
Skid Row Power Play?

Over the last month, stories and allegations of homeless individuals being "dumped" in downtown Los Angeles' eastern reaches continue to trickle out. First County Sherrifs were said to have dropped off transients swept off streets elsewhere. Then local hospitals admitted to the practice because of the availability of treatment centers for patients who were without shelter.

But as the story continues to grow legs, there is a degree of mystery just how a few muttering bums happened to convince the Los Angeles Times to print their complaints.

Something tells me they didn't have to. While it's potentially the case that the Times pounded the pavement and figured out this story all by itself...it reeks of a big leak into the newsroom.

That's significant because there are two likely sources of who would provide such a lead. The first is someone in City Hall, eager to stop the practice. The second would be a developer or other real estate player confounded by the inability to move east because of "all these bums around". It's not real clear who at this point, but Mayor Villaraigoisa's response on CNN that he blamed the federal government hints he did not have a planned, locally-significant answer lined up.

That leaves John Q. Developer. More specifically however, Dodger owner Frank McCourt. It has been known for some time that McCourt was unable to buy the team in full, and that the organization owns Dodger stadium outright. Selling it would help balance the books, and the local government would be just so eager to help him publicly finance a new edifice. Suspend your disbelief for a moment that California politicans are usually tight with public money.

McCourt knows that in San Diego, the local police were all too eager to push out the transient population that used to live on the site of Petco Park to help make it a success. This relevation might be the way he gets a crack-down on the practice and frees up enough downtown real estate to build his stadium.

Nevermind the fact that no one is actually advocating from the transients' position. The homeless are not usually a major economic or political force. Still, "trash" often precipates some of the headiest public policy clashes...so don't be be surprised if the real impact is a much bigger struggle by the City of Los Angeles to exert itself on the County and the other 88 incorporated cities within it.
posted by Thomas at 3:46 PM 0 comments

 
Nissan's Tennessee Titans

The Los Angeles Times reported recently that Nissan USA is thinking of jettisoning its California headquarters for one closer to its plant in Smyrna, Tennessee. This development is curious for a number of reasons. There's the obvious culture shock for visiting Japanese executives (after their connecting flight through Chicago or Dallas) of a place as unlike California as one can imagine: conservative, inland, and devoid of racial diversity.

But just like Los Angeles, Nashville's economy increasingly relies on a burgeoning tourist industry that began with country music and has blossomed into other media. Even Miami does not match the glamour of Tennesee's capital in the South. Now, the tourist and entertainment indstury is inherently service oriented. So why are big manufacturers eager to move there?

Don't count out potentially a pension or accounting scandal here. Cost savings would be significant if it completely relocated to Tennessee. But why else would there be such pressure to do so? And does this mean Honda and Toyota, also based in Los Angeles County, are soon to follow to the South?

One factor to consider: imported brands are decidedly less popular in Middle American than in California. The efficiency of smaller, Japanese cars is a lost cause throughout much of the nation. So Nissan may feel it is going to change that trend by learning about these "red state values".

Yet curiously enough, Nissan's premium truck model, the Titan isn't produced at the Smryna plant. The more demure Frontier is, as well as the Xterra, and Altima. If the company wants to make their move stick, they might take a hint from the NFL and move the Titans to Tennessee.
posted by Thomas at 12:53 AM 0 comments

 
The Minuteman Come Home?

What to make of a Washington Post story about "Minuteman" border patrols in the Green Mountain State?

Well, it is true that Vermont was the site of a Confederate raid south into the US in 1864...and the it is the first New England state to see this sort of activity. (After all, the Minute man caricuature was a description penned by Boston newspapers.)

But my own guess is that the "Minuteman" local chapters are tired of being accused of racism or targetting Latin American migrants in their hunts. And where else is a better place to break that mold but the progressive Eden of Vermont. The Post is actually doing them a huge favor by writing this story, though there's no telling if more patrols will pop up along the border with our northern neighbor.

It's also a slow time in Vermont as the "foilage season" is over already but the ski season has yet to begin. Though it does give a whole new meaning to Smuggler's Notch.
posted by Thomas at 1:15 AM 0 comments

 

Saving the Best for Last?

As hurricane season has been particularly active and destructive this year, it’s hard to imagine how things could get any worse. But alas, Wilma has already broken the seventy year old record for intensity in the Atlantic basin. Floridians previously breathing sighs of relief that their state had been spared a major hurricane landfall after surviving four of them in 2004 now find themselves boarding up and heading out.

It’s revealing to see that in Florida the real anguish over Wilma is that her arrival cuts into the start of the tourist season which is usually ramping up as temperatures drop in the rest of the country. After all, the state has seen numerous storms within the past decade and escaped from most with only moderate property damage. No one is talking much about Lake Okeechobee.

The likelihood that the dam surrounding the lake burst and floods all of South Florida is pretty small, but it could inundate much of the Everglades to the south which is used to grow sugarcane and vegetables. Not a big deal, unless you like that slice of tomato or lettuce on your hamburger.

But can it be that in a year of peerless natural disasters, the only victim of Wilma’s wrath could be Mickey Mouse? Or is the hurricane season saving its best for last?

posted by Thomas at 1:19 AM 0 comments

 

Best Places to Work: Rating the Federal Government


There is not a lot of fanfare for this list, but personally it’s not all that helpful to a person with a Master in Public Policy. Ranking the OMB first is not that surprising given the relatively small size of the agency and that it is within the Office of the President itself. The GAO gets good marks, but apparently, there’s no breakdown of its ranking. And the CBO, as an arm of Congress, was not even considered.

It’s too bad there are not more surveys done of local or state agencies. Word is that morale in California state agencies is pretty low, but that it’s better at the county or city level.

This is not making it any easier to decide where a person with a degree in policy ought to hang his hat. Although the OMB website is quick to point out that nearly 90% of their positions are career, not political. And hey, it would be cool to say “I work at the White House”. (The offices for the OMB are actually in the Eisenhower Executive Building which is part of the complex but not inside the White House itself.) But it ranks dead last in “family friendly and benefits”. If it hadn’t it would be head-and-shoulders ahead of other agencies in the rankings. Good thing I don’t need maternity leave.
posted by Thomas at 12:11 AM 0 comments

 
Hold on to Your Wallet


Even though John G. Roberts is not Diane Wood, the Bush Administration hopes that his short judicial tenure makes him appear to be a moderate. But, after some serious digging, a more comprehensive view of Republican judicial politics comes to light.

Nixon first promised to appoint a "strict constructionist" to the Court in 1968 while running for President. By 1972, we had William Rehnquist. However, after helping to organize the Federalist Society, Lee Lieberman embarked on a cautious strategy. Appoint Society-friendly members onto the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and then nominate him or her within a couple years to a Supreme Court vacancy. This was done every time after Sandra Day-O'Connor came aboard in 1981. (Reagan too, had promised to nominate a woman to the next vacancy.) But when Robert Bork was blocked in 1987, followed by Doug Ginsberg...Lieberman had to settle with Anthony Kennedy. She did pick non-DC Circuit judges in David Souter and Clarence Thomas, but resumed the trend with Roberts.

In fact, there is reason to think that Miguel Estrada was the planned nominee for the first vacancy. Roberts was merely the cover. But as Estrada refused to put in his name for reconsideration, now we have our new nominee: someone who just about anyone could have seen coming. But for those outside the conservative cognoscenti knowing how closely allied many of these jurists are is rather difficult.

But so far the Supreme Court is not deflecting as much attention as might be hoped. And while plenty of bad news awaits Bush in the future, the New York "Times" has a particularly ominous article about United Air Lines. Not because of potential scandals or Administration wrongdoing, but because there is reason to suggest that the little-known Pension Guaranty Benefit Corporation may be the hook for $10.1 billion in assets.

The article points out that the taxpayers must cover shortfalls when other contributor firms to the PGBC cannot meet the demands of defaulting pensions. This could create a "cascading effect" wherein each contributor firm would have less and less motivation to keep its pension fund and let go. Should this come to pass within the next year or so pensioners could find themselves a little thin in the wallet.

But if you think the national mood seems pissy now, just wait until more media outlets pick up on the distinct possibility that the American pension might become a thing of the past.
posted by Thomas at 9:41 PM 0 comments

 
The Case for Wood (or Any Moderate)

Supposedly the White House was caught off-guard by Justice Sandra Day-O’Connor’s resignation. From the moment Bush entered office there has been higher-than-normal expectation of Supreme Court turnover. While some Presidential terms had passed without any changes in the Court’s complexion (think Jimmy Carter), very few anticipated it such terms would occur consecutively. Unlike many Presidents who had little time to ponder who they would nominate, Bush has enjoyed several years.

Conventional wisdom would point to the President selecting an archconservative would could shift the balance of the Court indefinitely and put conservatives at the helm of every branch of American government. Yet it may be the case that Bush and his staffers anticipate multiple vacancies, not just one. And for that reason, they may decide to replace the Court’s first justice with an unexpected choice: a judicial moderate.

Bandied about by Legal Affairs magazine in its pre-election issue was the Hon. Diane Wood of the Seventh Circuit. She was thought to be on a shortlist for the Supreme Court, if Kerry won that is. But her rulings are not particularly liberal. She did dissent from a decision to force Indiana women seeking an abortion to listen to adoption counseling first. But she also interpreted a case about schools having the right to edit student newspapers to include college papers in Hosty v. Carter. And most helpful to President Bush, Judge Wood hails from a Midwestern circuit, a fairly staid one at that, and is a woman. She’s a nominee that no Republican lawmaker might approve of, but on paper she makes Karl Rove’s heart leap. A pro-choice woman from an electorally tight region of the country replaces Day-O’Connor.

Sound crazy? Then why did National Review and other conservative groups stridently denounce the idea of nominating Alberto Gonzales? They know that the White House wanted to be seen a progressive with his choice, elevating a moderate Latino jurist. In sort of an odd political calculus, there is probably a fear of making the court less diverse. If a man replaces Day-O’Connor Bush probably wants that person to be a minority preferably Latino because of their growing political clout. The departure of William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, or Anthony Kennedy would either have neutral or positive impacts on the Court’s diversity.

And then there’s the whole posturing within the Senate. If Bush picks an archconservative judge to replace Day-O’Connor it’s a guaranteed showdown. Further, it reaffirms Democratic and liberal contentions that the far right is really in control on issues from Terri Schiavo to Iraq. But if he picks a pro-choice woman like Wood or a moderate minority like Gonzales, suddenly the Democrats are in an ugly position. If they reject Bush’s nominee they appear to be the more ideological and partisan of the two sides. Should they approve her, opposing future nominees becomes a tougher, more technical process.

Expect Bush at that point to nominate Federalist Society members like J. Michael Luttig and Edith Clement to future vacanies. These younger judges will then populate the Court for decades, ensuring that along with Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia there will always be a firm conservative block on the Supreme Court for years to come. But this only happens if the GOP retains control of the Senate potentially through 2006. And that’s where the need for a moderate comes back into focus.

With President’s Bush’s approval ratings dropping, he needs to help paint the picture of a “kinder, gentler Republican Party”. He knows how aloofness strangled his father politically and wants to appear to be the force pulling the GOP back from the ledge to something more inclusive. While the Democrats would need to pick up five states (and Bernie Sanders’ leadership vote) to regain the Senate in 2006, public opinion suddenly can change toward widespread change. If nominating a moderate helps Lincoln Chafee in close race or aid a Republican in picking up Minnesota’s open seat, Bush will do it. After all, he knows his agenda is totally dependent on the complexion of Congress. And every person in the White House is cognizant how quickly that can change.

Confronted with this nomination strategy, liberals might wonder what they should do…beyond buying more potato chips and dip to watch outraged conservative pundits take aim at the President. If a moderate nominee is selected, liberals and Democratic lawmakers ought to show minimal resistance. That way, there’s a greater sense of uncertainty what might happen when the next vacancy occurs. It also removes the chance for political hay from the Senate invoking the nuclear option. Those living in states with pro-choice Republican Senators can write in support of the nominee. And if that’s not you, there’s always holding off on buying big ticket items. A boycott of one might seem inconsequential, but sinking consumption is the one thing that worries Republicans of all stripes. Simply waiting until after the nominee is confirmed to purchase expensive items will help to increase the level of economic and political uncertainty among Bush’s base, which consequently puts the heat on him.
posted by Thomas at 1:10 AM 0 comments

 
Anything But a Supreme Surprise


Let’s dispel two bits of conventional wisdom about developments surrounding the Supreme Court.

First, any pundit, politician, or journalist who told you he or she was surprised by Day-O’Connor’s resignation is either lying or not very astute. She actually wanted to retire in 2000, but felt that she should wait until the election was over. But after being summoned to adjudicate its outcome, America’s first female justice probably decided to wait until after the 2004 election. How do we know? During the 2000 recount, Day-O’Connor and her husband attended a Christmas party where she was heard to say that she wanted to retire. As it is technically illegal for any federal judge to make a statement that implies how they would rule on a pending decision, or a decision that is in the pipeline, she had to phrase it this way to hint that she felt Bush would win the case, the election, and then she could resign in July of 2001.

But the fact that her comments at the Christmas party were leaked to various media outlets meant that she may have sought to clear her conscience by allowing another election to pass before leaving the bench. My guess is that her initial opinion of Bush was that he would govern as a moderate and select a more traditional, moderate Republican. And while Bush is certainly anything but his father in terms of political stance, she may get her wish.

A Rehnquist resignation would have been good news for conservatives and bad news for liberals, hands down. There are no shortage of legal thinkers in the Rehnquist mold, who are more police-power than libertarian, more classical contract theory than living constitution. And as a white man, Rehnquist’s departure could only help the diversity index of the Court. But because Bush would want someone who would be around for a long time (and hassle the left), the frontrunner would be J. Michael Luttig of the 4th Circuit. Luttig is actually a Texan by extraction, and his parents were killed in an abortive carjacking over a decade ago. That visceral quality is exactly what heavy-duty Republican strategists want, someone who will be very unlike to deviate from a specific ideological line. In Luttig’s case, every case allows him to punish the murderers vicariously through draconian and archaic opinions.

Day-O’Connor’s resignation poses a bit more of a problem. With the Senate in Republican hands, in theory Bush could nominate any person he wanted. You don’t need to have a law degree to serve on the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, social conservative groups are already frothing at the mouth at the suggestion that the President will nominate Alberto Gonzales. They want no part in having a moderate. And this is precisely Bush’s problem. He and brother Jeb sat on the sideline in the Terri Schiavo affair because they realized that it could cost them with moderates. Now he realizes that no matter who is chosen, some conservatives and Republicans will be unhappy.

And with Arlen Specter, one of the GOP’s most liberal members, controlling the Senate Judiciary Committee, you can understand why the White House will not promise any nominations until after the G8 summit ends in Scotland on July 8th.
Just don’t be surprised when you start hearing more Republicans crying about his choice than Democrats.
posted by Thomas at 4:06 PM 0 comments

 

Wipe that smile off your face, Ken.
posted by Thomas at 1:05 AM 0 comments

 
A White Christian Party

Given the amount of horror some Democrats and nearly all Republicans have displayed at DNC Chairman Howard Dean’s remark that the GOP is “…a white Christian party”, one might assume that nothing could be farther from the truth. Unfortunately, Dean was right on the money.

The US Senate: 11 members of the Senate are Jewish. Two are Republican (Norm Coleman and Arlen Specter). The only black and Asian American delegates happen to be Democrats too. However, Ben Nighthorse Campbell (a person largely of Native American descent) was Senator from Colorado until 2004. He had switched parties though to become a Republican. Ken Salazar went on to replace him. Even so, the Democrat’s level of diversity with 44 members is 13. That’s over a quarter of (D) Senators who are either nonwhite or Non-Christian. With 55 members, the Republican Senate has a diversity level of 3/55. (Florida sending Mel Martinez in 2005.) That is something akin to 8%.

The US House: There are 26 Jewish members of the House. Only one, Eric Cantor, is a Republican. Of the 25 Hispanic members, just five are in the GOP. All 39 black Representatives are Democrats, along with five Asian American representatives. One of the two Native American House members is a Republican. Figuring again that Democrats have just over 200 Represenatives, the diversity level of 90/202 equals around 45%. The Republicans with 229 members have seven non-Christian and non-white members total, leaving their contingent with 3% diversity.

Governorships: Until Gary Locke retired in Washington State, the Democrat was the nation’s only Asian American governor. Hawaii’s Ben Cayetano had termed out in 2002. New Mexico’s Bill Richardson stands firm as the only Latino governor. Pennsylvania’s first man, Ed Rendell is Jewish along with Linda Lingle in Hawaii. However, only Lingle is the only Republican among them. While Democrats do lead in the number of State houses, being 2/30 is marginally better than 1/20 in terms of diversity level.

State Legislatures: According to Retro v. Metro, 99% of all Republican legislators at the state level are white. (No mention how many are not Christian.) Democrats are not much better at 80%. However the book points out that in 25 states the Republicans have no minority representation at all, whereas its only five for Democrats.

Members of the Administration: RNC Chair Ken Mehlman yukked up Dean’s comment, pointing out that a lot of people at his bar mitzvah would have been surprised to know the GOP was a white Christian party. But then again, Republican ridiculed Clinton for having a Cabinet that “looked like America”. Two members are Jewish, Gale Norton and Michael Chertoff. Two members are black, Condi Rice and Alphonsus Jackson. Two are Asian-American, Elaine Chao and Norman Mineta. And there is also a pair of Latinos: Alberto Gonazales and Carlos Guiterrez. But even with all this diversity, half of the Administration are Christian whites.

So go ahead and laugh Ken. The President has shown he is willing to appoint minorities to positions of power. Now it would be up to you, as head of the Republican National Committee to help minority candidates win both for state and national office. Because while the members of his local Temple might be chuckling…minority Republican candidates starved out of national help from the RNC are not.
posted by Thomas at 12:16 AM 0 comments

 

You see, Priscilla, even a James Bond film can only be great with a truly memorable villain.
posted by Thomas at 3:10 PM 0 comments

 
Priscilla, Queen of the Fundraising Desert


For all the ink the “nuclear option” received, one might think that the real purpose of the opposition was to stop the most extreme nominees for the federal bench. But, as the deal struck on Tuesday hints, that is a false assumption. Extreme nominees are good for the opposition; it’s the less visceral candidates that pose problems. It has been easy to vilify Charles Pickering, William Pryor, Janice Rogers-Brown, and of course Priscilla Owen. Doing the same to the other choices that President Bush sought to ram through a second time is much harder. But notice who the Democrats guaranteed to vote on: Brown, Myers, and Owen.

And regarding the Texas Supreme Court justice, she promises to be a minimal danger to the Fifth Circuit, where she would be put if approved. The New Orleans-based circuit encompasses Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Several of its judges have been criticized by the US Supreme Court over death penalty cases, as well as being regarded overall as among the most conservative of the federal circuit courts. And then there’s the case which then fellow Texas Supreme Court justice Alberto Gonzales criticized Owen: a case about parental notification. The US Supreme Court decided to review parental notification this year, potentially to prevent Owen from ruling that is not constitutionally protected while on the 5th circuit.

She also could not receive campaign contributions. As members of the Texas Supreme Court are elected, justices are allowed to receive donations to their campaigns. Two such in state corporations who lavished their money on Owen: Halliburton and Enron. Both of whom received usually favorable results from her in return. Given the upcoming trial of former Enron CEO Ken Lay in 2006, having Priscilla Owen in New Orleans brings her back to the spotlight. Any attempt to intervene in the case would meet with immediate suspicion, whereas not so much if she stays in Austin. Her ties to Halliburton are less relevant, but still raise the hackles of those concerned about its role in the Iraq war.

The most unusual political figure connected to Owen, however, is Karl Rove. He apparently “discovered” her at a Houston law firm in the early 1990s. It was under his guidance that she ran a successful campaign for the Texas Supreme Court and won. Both she and Rove are single and childless. Owen had been married previously. The image of her as a “spinster” while perhaps unjustly negative is immediately apparent. But given the amount of rumor about Rove being gay, her lifestyle receives even more scrutiny. Not because any liberals would look down upon her or Rove being homosexuals or spinsters, but that their ideologies appear downright condescending to people just like them. This specter of hypocrisy reinforces the view that conservatives are elitist and out of touch toward the impact of their policies.

So do not be fooled by the words of Howard Dean, Ralph Neas, and Kim Gandy. Liberals love Priscilla Owen, who promises to help tap a previously dry bed of fundraising. Nothing gets people to donate money like someone they hate. And Owen, as you can see, has the makings of a perfect villain.
posted by Thomas at 6:12 PM 0 comments

 
Mission Accomplished?

How do you know things are not going well in Iraq? The US military boasts that casualties are down because insurgents now concentrate on attacking civilians.

But it appears the US Army and Marine Corps is downplaying the severity of fighting in the Al-Anbar province. A report on Al-Jazeera.net indicted that as many as two helicopters have been shout down as forces storm cities along the Euphrates River near the Syrian border. But the resistance now reportedly might have uniforms, body armor, and best of all…armor piercing rounds that have killed several US troops who wander into building only to be shot at through walls.

A Canadian website that posts “official” Al Qaeda briefings, jihadspun.com, intimates one such report where one hundred American troops have been killed. The Washington Post on Thursday reported that an entire company of Marines has been decimated by ambushes other guerrilla tactics. Problematic news considering the Defense Department sent 1,000 troops for the Operation, code named “Matador”.

Yet evidence continues to mount these insurgents are not all Iraqi, a Marine told the Washington Post’s journalist. He pointed to enemy dead with “olive skin, thick curly hair, and delicate features”. The implication is curious. The physical description in light of what sort of equipment these foreign fighters are wielding is probably seen as involvement by Iran. But could the conventional wisdom be wrong here?

Perhaps, but the combination of characteristics cited are unusual outside of Europe. The
Chechens could fit the profile, but they already have their hands full fighting against the Russians. Somalis are known for fine features, but thick curly hair is not common there. Given how well known Tunisians are within Al Qaeda, it’s possible they are who the Marines refer to. But Tunisia’s government is not oil-rich and would have sparse military supplies to equip them.

Still, it could be that Al Qaeda is so flush with cash that they have bought old Soviet surplus from arms dealers only to issue it to new recruits to the insurgency upon arrival.

Each implies however, that the insurgency is better-financed and armed than previously thought because of the presence of outside influence.
posted by Thomas at 5:42 PM 0 comments

 

Wild About Larry

It’s always a strange feeling when hot-to-trot prosecutors leak news of a big case only to find insufficient evidence for the most damaging charges. So that the Justice Department was unable to uncover enough dirt to demonstrate former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin provided Israel with classified documents on Iran is perhaps really fitting.

All the U.S. Attorney can offer us now is that Franklin had lunch in June of 2003 with two former employees of AIPAC. And that he might have talked about Iran because of Defense Department fears the Iranians planned to launch attacks on US troops in Iraq. No proof exists any of this fell into the hands of the Israeli government or natch, Ahmed Chalabi. But the fact that the initial disclosure of the investigation started with more serious allegations…and that the FBI made two visits to AIPAC’s offices to collect evidence suggests this might be a head fake.

Consider the neocons. Richard Perle is now on the rubber chicken circuit. Paul Wolfowitz has been exiled to the World Bank. Scooter Libby is one step away from being indicted for leaking Valerie Plame’s name to Bob Novak. John Bolton is being ushered toward the meaningless role of US Ambassador to the UN, and Doug Feith has said he will be leaving his role at the Pentagon shortly. In other words, the Franklin non-indictment ties up all the loose ends.

Or does it?

When Richard Perle wrote “A Clean Break” in 1987, he summarized that the US should effect regime change in Iraq, Syria, and Iran in that order. Given the highly suspect cause of the Hariri car bombing in Lebanon and the disingenuous retreat by Syrian forces there, it seems like Israel really wants to know how much progress the US is making to proof Iran has nuclear weapons justifying a preemptive strike. Part of the allegation is that Franklin advocated a hard line against Iran and felt he needed AIPAC’s help to ratchet up pressure on the Administration to see it his way.

So is the “Flight of the NeoCons” preparing the way for a strike on Iran (as promised by former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter)? Is this really about Act Two of the “Bush Doctrine”? It’s clear that Bush is cleaning house and that he’s probably not wild about Larry Franklin.

posted by Thomas at 12:50 AM 0 comments

 
Is the Die Cast?

Nero fiddled while Rome burned...while George W. Bush has to rely on another guy to write his music. A scathing column by "BusinessWeek" pundit John Carey reveals that GOP pollster Frank Luntz more or less has had to educate the White House on controlling energy policy. (Not to mention ripping all of the proposed ideas.)

Understand, gas prices are a short term political problem. People grumble, but adjusted for inflation these rates at the pump are nowhere near history highs. The long term problem is that high energy prices either will cause the cost of things to go up, diminishing consumer confidence, or people will not experience a rise in wages and cut back spending. It's not what functions as textbook inflation, but it might feel the same to many people.

All the Republicans frothing at the mouth to trumpet their moral confidence and lack of relativism now find themselves at the mercy of Alan Greenspan. If he continues to raise interest rates it will soften the blow causes by inflationary impacts on the economy, but it will also short-circuit the lucrative housing market. That could be the butterfly whose wings start a hurricane of international economic troubles.

And for his part, Bush did little to dispel myths that the Saudi royals are really in charge by his unwillingness to appear forceful towards a visiting Crown Prince Abdullah earlier this week. So perhaps Nero is the wrong comparison. Julius Caesar, after crossing the Rubicon and disobeying the Senate's order to disband his army replied, Alea iacta est. The die is cast.
posted by Thomas at 10:17 PM 0 comments

 
Five Issues More Important to Women than Abortion


The watershed moment in the 2004 election turned out to be the gore-strewn end of the Beslan school siege. Millions of viewers tuning in for the Republican National Convention saw the heavy rhetoric of Dick Cheney and company reaffirmed: terrorists would stop at nothing, even taking hundreds of children hostage. Of course, the Chechen separatists who committed the act have never attacked America. Not to mention the fact that Beslan is far closer to the furnace of war in Russia than any place in the US is to the Middle East.

The Democrats knew the polls saw this was costing Kerry the election, but decided they were smarter than themselves in what platforms to use toward women voters who were susceptible to Beslan-related fears. I say this because in both Nevada and Florida (swing states to be sure) minimum wage referenda passed, the first time that any so called “red states” had increased their minimum wage above the federal standard. Many blue states, however, already had set higher rates. Had John Kerry come to Nevada and Florida and campaigned for the minimum wage, he might have won.

The reason is simple, in Nevada and Florida at least, most jobs are in the service sector. They are usually connected to tourism in some way, and this means that many women find themselves eking out a living at the federal minimum. This is not to suggest that men have it much easier in these states, but almost overwhelmingly single mothers find themselves done in by this scenario more than single men who have no other responsibilities. This hard reality means that pay equality is a sore issue for many women voters who believe that both parties try to woo female voters talking lots about abortion (each pro or con) and not enough about their economic livelihood.

In Sunday’s Washington Post, Dan Balz revealed that DNC Chairman Howard Dean specifically asked for a study of eight swing states by pollster Cornell Belcher. Unsurprisingly the survey detailed that many voters were feeling two sets of anxiety, one economic and one social. Bush’s success was convincing them their cultural fears were greater than their pocketbook worries. Dean promised to realign a new message to reach out and grab these voters.

So what will this message consist of? Here are five platform issues I think we’ll see.

Minimum Wage/Pay Equity: The ship may have sailed in terms of using hikes in the minimum wage to target female voters. But that doesn’t mean arguing for pay equity has lost any of its luster. From Hawaii to Maine, it’s a solid consideration at the nexus of social and economic policy.

Lowering the Cost of Healthcare: Guess who is bearing the cost of unaffordable medicine? The Bush Administration is afraid to force big corporations to provide insurance for its employees. This never used to be a problem until the better-paying jobs left and stuck much of the heartland working for Wal-mart. Just how the Dems want to address the problem is open to interpretation, but it’s a stone-cold lock for 2006 and 2008.

Education: No Child Left Behind is failing, and the hope of the Bush Administration and Republicans is to replace the current system with vouchers. Saying this a few times will prove to be such political Kryptonite that even Bush won’t try to revive the point.

Saving Social Security and Retirement: It’s not about giving people a choice of where they invest; it’s about protecting their pensions. Bush suggesting the stock market is a great place to invest won’t jive well when Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay go on trial next year. Add in the desire of many large employers to shed their pension plans and the desire of several state politicians to privatize state benefits…and…this one is a another hot coal.

Domestic Violence Prevention: Here’s the reality check. In a poll done after the election, this issue was considered a bigger priority than equal pay and abortion to women voters. Though the federal government often does not directly deal with the issue of domestic violence, Dean and company would be wise to suggest something that would heal this rift.

After all, abortion is still important, but neither party should expect to make much headway using it as the sole bargaining chip to attract women voters. Dean’s cageyness and the fact that there are more prominent women in the Democratic Party indicate a chance for redemption. Just don’t be surprised if the issues used happen to be the five above.
posted by Thomas at 7:27 PM 0 comments

 
Primary Colors

The US Congress creeps toward total sideshow, with Tom DeLay’s past finally catching up to him and Bill Frist inching toward changing the Senate rules on filibusters. But don’t ask John Q. Citizen about any of this, all he knows is that he’s never seen gas prices so high. So while wheels continue to spin, the other big event gets set for Monday in Rome. You know, that Papal Conclave thing. And the front-runner for the next Father of the Roman Catholic Church is Francis Arinze. Born in Nigeria, the Vatican is already cognizant that his dark skin might help the faith’s profile.

But that’s not why Arinze is popular. He’s popular because what he is (African) gives the appearance that change is afoot but who is he (a resident of the Vatican state for twenty years) means that most of the changes would probably be token ones. He would not rock the boat on Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae (which famously ruled out any sanctioned use of contraceptive pills). He’s the Colin Powell of the Catholic Church.

But if Arinze becomes Pope, he would join Kofi Annan as another West African in control of a major (and in theory peerless) world organization. And does this mean anything? In the sense that both men have dark skin, no. But that they both hale from the most fragile and unstable continent on Earth, yes. It proves that even after all the oppression and environment destruction Africa has seen, the potential is there for rebirth. And it also proves that Africans are able to lead.

And does a black Pope presage better luck tomorrow for other people of African descent in positions of authority and overall? The Republicans love putting in token minorities. Just imagine Bush’s glee in naming Clarence Thomas Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the same year that Arinze became pope. Or how about the year an African country wins the World Cup?

After how painful this month has been privately for the conservatives, that might bring a smirk back to Bush’s face.
posted by Thomas at 4:11 PM 0 comments

 
A Cure Worse than the Disease

My initial excitement that Connecticut’s Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, announced he would file suit against the Department of Education over No Child Left Behind was tempered by a moment of reflection. The Bush Administration probably wants nothing more than to have No Child Left Behind struck down as an unconstitutional “unfunded mandate”. This would allow all parties involved to explore the topic of school vouchers, which is the ultimate hope of a person like George W. Bush.

Vouchers would achieve several of the global themes adopted by the Administration. First, they provide a subsidy to otherwise not-so-profitable businesses that benefit the well off at the cost of America’s poor. Secondly, vouchers would have a chilling effect on the strength and militancy of the Parent Teacher Association. But most of all, vouchers would extend the reach of the Executive Branch down to the classroom floor, without guarantying the success of the schools and without allowing local and state authorities to intervene.

It is true that if ALL unfunded mandates are struck down by the Supreme Court that would put all parties involved in a tough situation. And perhaps this is a true slipknot: every outcome has the potential to be a nightmare. If the federal government has the power to enact unfunded mandates universally, the results could be as disastrous as if it had no power to under any circumstances.

That being said, it’s not like NCLB is a good program or is improving the lot of America’s public school children. Curing it with vouchers however, sounds worse than the disease.
posted by Thomas at 6:44 PM 0 comments

 
Catholicism Goes Back to the Future

Saying that the Conclave of Cardinals might struggle to decide a successor to Pope John Paul II is an understatement. His reign was so long that most Catholics have forgotten or were not alive to see the controversy surrounding his elevation in 1978. If not for “The Godfather, Part III” most Americans would likely not even be aware that there was a controversy to begin with. His predecessor, John Paul I died after only 33 days in office once it became clear that he might amend the major encyclical of the previous Pope, Paul VI. He had rejected the recommendations of Vatican II to liberalize Church additions toward female sexuality and contraception.

But thanks to John Paul II, the Catholic Church squelched this debate only at the risk of trivializing itself in world. His staunch opposition to the Iraq war did nothing to stir Catholic sentiment against George W. Bush in the 2004 election. He waited far too long to address sex-abuse scandals. And for all his talk of standing up to Communism, John Paul II did very little to aid the plight of Catholics in China. He did enhance the retail papacy with World Youth Days and several international visits that raised the profile not just of the Church but of his own office.

But the long reign of a monarch is often deleterious for the people he or she leaves behind. The pressures building throughout the pontiff’s quarter-century rule are about to be released. The developed world’s scorn for Africa roils beneath the surface. The demands of Americans and Europeans for the Church to embrace things such as stem-cell technology will also rumble parishes from California to Krakow. Not to mention the critical shortage of priests everywhere.

This leads me to think that for Catholics, the future may be now.
posted by Thomas at 12:00 AM 0 comments

 
Serial Porkers

Something getting minimal press attention seems to be a confrontation between Rep. John Shadegg-AZ and Rep. Don Young-AK over “high priority projects” contained in the Transportation Equity Act of 2005. Shadegg asked Young (who wrote the bill) if Arizona’s portion could be directly conveyed to the state Department of Transportation and not diced up into “priority projects” by Arizona’s delegation. Offended, Shadegg turned down a slice of the pie for his own district and proceeded to vote against the bill.

This infuriated two Phoenix Council members who were hoping to use Shadegg’s allotment to upgrade previously rural roads that are now unable to handle the amount of traffic triggered by the city’s explosive growth.

Shadegg’s motivation might appear ideological or naïve, but he’s on to something. Bush originally drained the National Highway Transportation Fund for his initial “war chest” funding in 2001. He’s continued to reduce the amount of money provided by Washington and increased measures of compliance creating “unfunded mandates”. You can imagine that as much as he might consider projects in his districts justified, there could be other pork barrel spending he loathes. The biggest project in Arizona totaled $13 million for rail grading and underpass upgrading in Tucson. Second largest at $8 million was the extension of the Rio Salado Parkway from Tempe, Arizona west through southern Phoenix. Currently traffic bottlenecks across the Rio Salado from eastern Maricopa County are exacerbated by the lack of a direct route. Completing the Parkway would solve, apparently, many of those woes.

The big beneficiaries would be Arizona’s only two Democratic Congressmen, Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva. But Shadegg just as easily could be upset at other, smaller dollar value projects which he believes have far less value to the community. Yet they all pale to Rep. Young’s monster pet project: a $125 million bridge between the Island of Gravina and Ketchikan, Alaska. Thus, Shadegg has to realize even if he got his way the tax cuts and structural deficits seen by the current Congressional fiscal policy would still leave Arizona scrambling for more money for infrastructure projects.

Notice that while Shadegg tries to appear principled about the matter, the rest of the Republican Congress indulges their penchant for pork while steadfastly ignoring the need to boost revenue. Oh well, John, at least you stood for something.
posted by Thomas at 10:47 PM 0 comments

 

posted by Thomas at 10:27 PM 0 comments

 
Pale Rider

No political issue proved more divisive for Democrats in the 1990s than free trade. It pitted the social liberals who wanted to encourage immigration against economic ones who favored controlled markets and powerful unions. But it also hinted that when the Republicans took control, they would face the yang to free trade’s yin: immigration. Now Hillary Clinton knows that the Republicans want to do what the Democrats did to free trade: split the baby. But she knows that won’t work and has not been afraid to mention tightening immigration in public. Everyone assumes that she does this because she wants to run for President in 2008: but look alive…it’s also extremely sweet revenge against many of these Republican Revolution generation lawmakers who pummeled her and her husband throughout the Clinton Administration.

Here at last is George W. Bush’s “NAFTA/WTO Spring”. Now in theory, there won’t be all that much drama. The House of Representatives approved an emergency war supplemental with an unusual rider about tougher immigration restrictions and now has to work out a compromise with the Senate. So as hard as it might be to find Republicans in the Senate raring to go about Social Security privatization…try finding fifty votes for this one.

After all, in December of 2004 House Judiciary Chairman James F. Sensenbrenner refused to put out another appropriations bill until heavy negotiation with the White House on these “restrictions”. This has the making to be even worse. But the Democrats can’t exactly smile. Most Americans think either party is afraid to crack down on illegal aliens. While undocumented workers are only part of the bigger picture on immigration, they elicit the most visceral response from the public. And that is the problem in a nutshell.

Throughout Bush’s time in office, attacking the most visceral fears of America has covered up for more structurally-oriented shortcomings. But on immigration there is no substitute for stopping its illegal form. The most effective way to do this has nothing to do with border security: suing employers who hire undocumented workers for tax evasion. Bush’s solution: a guest worker program.

Still, the amount of Republican fratricide ought to make for serious entertainment. Any Senator with 2008 aspirations now has to vote on this issue. Add the seeming helplessness of Bush against Sensenbrenner last December, and this could be a classic intra-party fight. And no one will smile in private more than Hillary Clinton herself.
posted by Thomas at 1:32 AM 0 comments

 
Here Kitty, Kitty

All this talk about how sleazy and corrupt some--okay--a good number-all right fine--a majority of Republicans have become sure has ignored Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton. After a whistleblowing scientist, Andrew Eller. at the Fish and Wildlife Service was fired (for criticizing how the agency was measuring the habitat of Florida's highly-endanger species of panther). The agency dragged its heels until lastweek, when the director resigned. (Most likely at Norton's behest.) But before he did, the agency filed a report acknowleding that Eller's criticism was accurate.

Now Florida might be stuck with thirty "mega-developments" in panther habitats. At first blush, it sounds like the only losers are the panthers themselves. But as endangered species, the owner or tenants of the developements can't harm the cats if they pass through. So imagine how much it will take to convice customers of these developments that panthers who idle around the parking lot are not a threat to their safety.

Of course the developers weren't going to tell their prosepective tenants about this if they could help it. Now it looks like the cat is out of the bag. And if Norton isn't careful, this will lead back to her other "pay-for-play" political deals and expose her for who she is.
posted by Thomas at 6:34 PM 0 comments

 
Eyes Wide Shut

No wonder Karl Rove expelled Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz to the World Bank. Al Qaeda is on the march yet again, and this time they might be on to something. Even before Bush became President, most American foreign policy experts argued that lack of political freedom and poverty caused much of the political unrest in the Middle East. Thing is, some Arab nations have tried hard to moderate themselves, even without direct elections. Qatar founded Al-Jazeera; the UAE has boldly welcomed foreign investment, tourism, and even selling alcohol to nonbelievers. Through it all, increasing personal freedom has been a win-win situation.

But all that changed on Saturday. A longtime employee of the Qatar state petroleum company drove his bomb-ladden car into a theatre frequented by Western expatriates.

It is a real test of leadership. Does the Qatari government resist increasing personal freedoms or move ahead with its plan for elections? Probably not. But Doha, Qatar’s capital is a tantalizing target. Guest workers outnumber native Qataris. The US Central Command has it’s headquarters there. And it’s the hometown of Al-Jazeera. Dubai, with its huge resorts, and rapidly expanding airport would also suffer tremendously at the hands of terrorists.

Which is why the lack of comment by both the US Government and independent analysts is unnerving. Can the US afford to close its eyes one more time? Don’t bet it on it.
posted by Thomas at 10:15 PM 0 comments

 
Star Wars

Sequels, the addage goes, are rarely as good as the original. Which is why George W. Bush's attempt to ressurect the Reagan era fetish with space-oriented national defense programs is almost too funny. "The Phantom Menace" proved a dull shadow of Lucas's original three works, and Bush's attempts to emulate Reagan are nearly as comical. After all, the biggest jawboner in all of Congress, Tom DeLay, has been a stalwart supporter of NASA. The agency does many things--but everyone knows they put things into space.

But the Cold War idea of using satellites to shoot down nuclear-tipped warheads...that's been on the back burner. At first it appeared that nuclear proliferation was over...until India and Pakistan reminded us how quaint that idea was. But no one, except maybe the North Koreans were thought to be "crazy" enough to attack the US. And now of course, Al Qaeda seems eager to gain nuclear material. Just where they will find a willing nation and someone to sell them that ICBM to launch against the US...well Homeland Security isn't telling us.

So why the fascination, the enthrallment of the final frontier among people like Reagan and Bush? In a word: Sputnik. The Soviet Union beat the US into space, but America responded by landing Neil Armstrong on the moon twelve years later. Considering it occured during a very turbulent era for the US, it helped cement America's reputation in the world.

And in terms of the Bush's Kampf, a strong defense is the one luxury of the state. His desire for an imperious President, an eviscerated bureaucracy, a feckless Congress, a powerless judiciary, combined with states precluded from acting when the federal government elects not to is achieved by various means. They include devastating tax revenue, a permanent climate of uncertain and danger, and other milleu already associated with Bush today.

Left out is that through it all, the military and spending money on it provides excellent cover to run up huge deficits. Public outcry occurs when you attempt to "break the bank" spending money on other projects if the tax revenue isn't there. But as the Iraq conflict shows, you can use war to bankrupt the US and still win reelection. And if eventual bankruptcy means favoring NASA, the Bush team would argue, so be it.

Ironically, most of the money cut from the 2006 budget happens to be in areas of aeronatics research. Which implies that aircraft and air travel will become less safe, not more. It all causes one to think he or she has seen this movie before. Just as Reagan's legacy has corroded once exposed to daylight and fresh air, so too will Bush's cynical treatment of NASA and other agencies prove to discolor his reputation for decades to come.
posted by Thomas at 11:48 PM 0 comments

 
Exile to the World Bank

Why does Bush seek to exile Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to the World Bank? Can it be a coincidence that White House regulars are being exiled by these appointments left and right? Karen Hughes to the State Department, John Bolton to the UN, Wolfowitz to the World Bank... It all seems to suggest that Karl Rove is seriously consolidating his authority.

On the surface, everything is going well. The Democrats appear unable to stop any piece of legislation. The money continues to roll in...but this whole Social Security thing is not going as planned. Secondly, Iraq is now becoming a major headache. And don't forget the trouble with Tom DeLay. Rove's paranoia must be at a fever pitch.
posted by Thomas at 4:03 PM 0 comments

 
Richard Shelby Comes Clean on Social Security

Don't look now, but it appears even Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama (also known as the super-leak on intelligence matters) confesses that the best way to save Social Security is tying the payroll tax cap to inflation. He also suggests that raising the retirement age is a good idea (impliedly because he has been able to carry on as a Senator into his 70s). Given the amount of blue collar workers in Alabama, that probably is not going to be popular. Still, his unequivocal rejection of Bush's privatization scheme is warming my heart.
posted by Thomas at 12:31 AM 0 comments

 

posted by Thomas at 11:56 PM 0 comments

 
The Spin Cycle

As successful as Karen Hughes was painting President Bush as a "compassionate conservative", who tapped her for this job at the State Department? She, Dina Powell, and Condi Rice are going to tackle the plummeting image of the US overseas. This is going to go over well in the Middle East. Remember the request of Crown Prince Abdullah when visiting Bush's Crawford ranch: please don't use any female air traffic controllers to bring in my jet.

Sure, you can send John Bolton to the UN as the anti-hero and look cool, but sending an all female team (among whom only Powell has much experience there) to the Middle East? Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon must be turning over and over in their graves.
posted by Thomas at 2:02 AM 0 comments

 
The Myth of ANWR

Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton is putting on the full-court press. First, she appeared in a strange segment of “Hannity and Colmes” where the usually nasty Sean Hannity pitched her only softballs. Seeking affirmation from the other end of the spectrum, her March 14th editorial in the New York “Times” waxes poetic about the remarkable scientific advances in oil exploration. Norton has brought out the pom-poms and the creased skirt to root for ANWR drilling. Unlike other Bush appointees who have sometimes objected to their cheerleading duties…Norton probably has never met a strip mine she doesn’t like. She loves nature…but loves exploiting its resources even more.

Both sides in the “debate” over ANWR talk around realities. No one knows how invasive or difficult retrieving the oil would be. The techniques to explore have modernized, but they still might be spread out to the point that one surface location might not work. The caribou won’t mind crews trolling around the dark tundra in winter, but come summer they will have to adjust to any man-made improvements. On balance however, few good arguments seem to exist against “exploration”. Drilling is a whole other issue. Especially because that oil would be used to end our dependence on foreign sources.

That assumption, however, is false.

Most American oil companies are less than thrilled to try their luck. And even if they do, they are hardly obligated to sell what is recovered there to the US. Transcontinental oil pipelines are almost non existent in the US. Alaska is a long way by ship to New Orleans or East Coast hubs which serve the majority of America’s refineries. Add in an eventual decrease in the US population and it’s a paradox. Just as ANWR’s black bounty would reduce America’s burden on foreign sources, so will the country’s demand of oil and petroleum products also decline. So why is Norton so eager to forge ahead?

In a word: China.

Its state-owned oil companies have had difficulty buying fields in foreign countries. As a result, China has to buy much of its oil on the open market. The sense of desperation is so strong, that the China National Offshore Oil Company has signed deals with Iran and now the Sudan. Each poses a risky investment, given the tenuous future of each regime. ANWR is the exact opposite: a remote location in a completely stable country not that far away from Asia. But certainly, there would be much political opposition to allowing a Chinese state-owned company to plant its flag in Alaska. As a result, one of the three nationalized firms, CNOOC, Sino-pec and China National Petroleum Corporation, would likely set up a subsidiary in Hong Kong. Supporting Hong Kong erases much of the political opposition, but it also solves a few other problems.

China has a huge trade deficit with the US, meaning it has every reason to buy American Treasuries to stabilize the value of its own products. Hong Kong has a trade deficit with the US (though not very large). Hong Kong holds a the fourth-largest amount of US Treasuries. In fact, Hong Kong is unique for holding so many US bonds, despite its positive balance of trade. Unlike China, Japan, and other countries, Hong Kong selling her Treasuries would not affect its trade relationship with the US. If the Special Administrative Region started to sell ANWR’s oil however, every regime would likely pay in US currency. That would reinforce Hong Kong’s need to stockpile a certain amount of US currency.

Such a scenario is at ten to fifteen years away, however. It will take at least that long to investigate the viable areas for drilling, and then build the necessary infrastructure. That is why Norton suggesting that ANWR can do much to alleviate any current energy woes is disingenuous. The stark reality is that only Iraq has enough excess capacity to drive down the price of oil anytime soon. And retrieving it will require peace and stability, not technological advances.
posted by Thomas at 5:34 PM 0 comments

 
Swords to Plowshares

When former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer began appearing on TV to defend and promote his book, “Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror” he posited the same paradigm to every host. He said, “We have a choice between war and endless war”. No foreign policy expert could put it better. But don’t tell that to Rich Lowry, editor of “The National Review.” He’s all too eager to accuse “liberals” of being true defeatists of the Pax Americana. But in classic Lowry fashion, he never identifies which events in the Middle East or elsewhere demonstrate reasons for jubilation or at the very least, hope.

The greatest irony is that mere hours after writing his editorial, Chechen separatist Aslan Maskhadov was killed in a firefight with Russian troops. President Vladimir Putin is not celebrating. He does not assume that Russia’s war on terrorism is over. He no doubt remembers that Boris Yeltsin promised a short and easy conflict only to face a two year insurgency that only came to an end because of a Russian military withdrawal. When Putin, as Prime Minister, decided to reassert Moscow’s authority, Chechen tactics changed from standard resistance within the province to nationwide terrorist attacks. Despite Putin’s ability to use the conflict to tighten controls on the media, increase police powers, and expand the role of the Russian Presidency, the civilian body count continues to rise. This is because, as Scheuer would say, Putin chose endless war.

Liberals fear that the Bush Administration will also choose “endless war” because it provides the illusion of temporary victory but promises the reality of permanent defeat. Michael Tomasky, editor of “The American Prospect” said in an interview with the “New York Times” published last Sunday echoed this by suggesting that a two-state solution is not going to end violence between Israel and Palestinians. Lowry no doubt thinks Tomasky’s comment is sour grapes. Libya has renounced its weapons of mass destructions program, Iraq had free and fair elections, and Syrian troops are pulling back from Lebanon. And most importantly, there have been no major terrorist attacks in the United States since 2001. President George W. Bush deserves credit not just for Iraq, but all of it’s reverberations throughout the Arab world. But give the Arabs credit too. The Qatari government’s decision to invest in Al Jazeera was made long before Bush ever decided to run for President. Dubai’s investment in its Media City initiative also dates from 1990s. And then there is Bahrain, whose emir announced a referendum in early 2001 to turn the country into a constitutional monarchy.

Meanwhile the Karzai government in Afghanistan has less control of the country now than the Taliban did. Bush’s silence on the genocide in Sudan administered by an ethnically Arab regime is deafening. And there is apparently no American impetus to push freedom in oil-rich Central Asian republics like Kazakhstan. Lowry must not want to take credit for these “advances”, probably because they provide no instant gratification for Bush or the conservatives. Liberal commentary, by and large, will acknowledge these shortcomings (to suggest that the overall picture is a mixed bag) only to be assailed by the right for always “blaming America” and being “cynical”. At first it appears to be a Hobson’s choice: talk openly about what has gone wrong and be labeled a traitor, or discuss positive developments and be accused of not wanting to give Bush and the neoconservative strategists their due.

Michael Scheuer suggests that liberals focus on “exit strategies”. President Bush continues to move back the goalposts on Iraq. Osama bin Laden still evades capture. And while Al Qaeda has yet to perform an American encore, the organization’s reach has expanded from Africa and the Middle East to Europe and even Australia’s doorstep. Yet this has occurred despite acquiescence to bin Laden’s original casus belli : the American military presence in Saudi Arabia. Lowry and his kind would be quick to swoop on this, arguing that “we won’t know if we have won until we know”. But don’t bother asking what sign ensures victory: no conservative pundit has a clue.

Liberals should not bother to throw them a rope. Instead, liberals have to talk about what cannot be achieved through military means. You cannot bomb your way to democracy, even if it appears American military intervention in Iraq is causing authoritarian Arab regimes to liberalize some political processes. Moreover, you certainly cannot bomb your way to diverse, integrated economies. But no one likes to hear complaints without solutions. Simply reiterating failure is never political savvy, but describing shortcomings as opportunities for new ideas always is in fashion. Liberals, therefore have to explain how America (and the Arab world) can beat their swords into plowshares. And it’s not as hard as it might seem.

Iraq is full of archeological and historical treasures, preserving and rehabilitating them will help to attract tourists and foreign investment. Dubai’s role as the economic heart of the Middle East is buoyed in part by its heavy investment in the state-subsidized airline, Emirates. Negotiating an “open skies” agreement with Dubai and other countries that show progress towards democracy should be a priority. Al Jazeera’s ability to grow and provide jobs and revenue for Qatar and the Arab world is reliant on expanding its availability worldwide. Helping to broker the channel’s entry into the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States would be a tremendous boost to Qatar and free speech in the Arabic-speaking world.

All of these initiatives would encourage the “swords to plowshares” methodology. And all of them have been ignored by the President or his Congressional allies. But most importantly, they encourage hope, even for liberals who are uncertain democracy alone will solve of all the Middle East’s ills.
posted by Thomas at 10:19 PM 0 comments

 
No Federalist Left Behind

How funny is it that the state that voted for Bush overwhelmingly (Utah) is threatening to junk all of No Child Left Behind. Read the Salt Lake Tribune here. What exactly happens if the state repudiates the statute? I suppose Bush could be like Eisenhower and send in the National Guard to force compliance on NCLB like Ike did "Brown v. Board of Education". But something tells me even Dubya is uncertain what to do. After all, once an exception is made with one state....the others shall be lining up to strike the law down.

But compliance without the means to coerce is equally divisive. The Federal Government through the Department of Education is not prepared to take over every American school. However, a national education program would not be the end of the world. But when you consider how big a chunk schools represent in each state's budget: that would be a tremendous expansion of federal government. And setting national standards or a curriculum still requires money unless you want another titanic unfunded mandate.

So don't be fooled. There is a strong possiblity this sort of exceptionalism by states will slice apart NCLB into a thousand parts. But it also will create an open question as to just what role the Bush Administration (and Congress) believes federalism plays in policy. Long eager to play fast and loose with the concept of federalism, the current Republican majority has run out of steam on the topic...at least in Utah.

And even if they resolve this dispute, there is still Medicaid, the current political widowmaker.
posted by Thomas at 11:58 PM 0 comments

 

Heads I win....tails you lose.... [White House photo by Paul Morse]
posted by Thomas at 12:46 AM 0 comments

 
Heads or Tails?

Given the fever pitch on Social Security and to a lesser extent bankruptcy reform, I can understand if the judicial nomination hearings on William Myers III are being ignored outside the Beltway. Unlike other appointments, Myers’s issues on civil rights and abortion are not in the cross-hairs. Instead, it is his record as the Solicitor of the Interior Department. Gale Norton has been on the Sierra Club hit list for a long time, and Myers was selected by her to be the top attorney for the DOI in 2001. Before he resigned, the DOI tried to end a contentious legal dispute with a man named Harvey Frank Robbins Jr. in Wyoming.

Robbins comes from a powerful industrial family in northwestern Alabama. And surprise, the elder Robbinses are big Republican donors. Junior arrived in Wyoming in 1994, buying the High Island Ranch near Hamilton Dome. The younger Robbins then began to acquire more land culminating with the purchase of the Owl Creek Land Company in 2000. About half the property was fee simple, meaning that the government held no reversionary interest. The other half was Bureau of Land Management leased property. Suffices to say, the BLM can impose regulations on the land it leases, even if you possess it and pay taxes. Robbins ignored every action the BLM would impose, if it was simply warning him for having cattle trespass other land he did not lease or if he had violated grazing quotas for his herd.

After reams of litigation, the DOI hashed out an agreement in Washington DC giving Robbins exemption from many BLM rules. The Inspector General of the DOI since 2001 fingers Myers. However, within two weeks, the inspector, Earl Devaney, claimed that his comments were not intended to single out the Office of the Solicitor. Myers denies he even had anything to do with the settlement to begin with…that of all people an assistant was in charge. So even if this is true, it’s a bit disconcerting that two $12,500 donations by Robbins’s father to the RNC in 2000 allowed the Interior Department in DC to supercede its own Bureau of Land Management. Even though Junior claims to be using his property as a tourist attraction, it probably hasn’t been so profitable as to pay for all this litigation.

It’s possible that Robbins thinks he can test for natural gas or oil perhaps if the BLM is out of the picture. (The Bureau would retain subsurface mineral rights to its land otherwise). Or perhaps Robbins senior had the chip off the old block buy these ranches as a way to hide corporate malfeasance over a decade ago. Then again, Junior could be just that eccentric or eager to be a legal trailblazer.

The DOI voided the agreement in 2004, and Myers resigned long before that. Now the Senate Democrats have to decide if they should invoke the filibuster again to stop his ascension to the Ninth Circuit.

Strategically this is a very tough decision. The Democrats are very close to killing the Bush Social Security privatization gambit. They would prefer to have it die without any perceived sleigh of hand. If the Democrats filibuster Myers however, Bill Frist as Majority Leader has threatened the “nuclear option”: reducing the number of votes needed for cloture of a filibuster from sixty down to fifty. The Democrats have promised to retaliate by using other mechanisms to bring the Senate to a screeching halt. It’s no idle threat.

But if used, it would diminish the impact of the legislation torpedoed by it. Bush is hoping by pushing his judicial nominees AND his Social Security programs that the Democrats will break ranks over which would deliver a more paralyzing defeat for Bush. And if that unity is interrupted, the White House figures both measures pass. The old, heads I win, tails you lose stratagem. And this does not even take into consideration the bankruptcy reform bill bobbing inside the Senate. For the Democrats might have to rely on the filibuster to stop it.

Harry Reid and others were hoping to kill Social Security first, poison pill the bankruptcy bill with an amendment by Charles Schumer about abortion (don’t ask)…and then save the filibuster card to drop Myers and send the Republicans throughout the nation into a tailspin. Don’t be fooled however, Bush is simply doing his best impression of General George Pickett. He knows the enemy lines are thin and if he can muster one more surge, he might break them. But the Democrats also know that they can drag out the bankruptcy bill all week and prevent it from passing. By that time, Bush’s version of Pickett’s Charge will collapse, and save the filibuster weapon until the next vote for Myers. Even if the bankruptcy reform bill passes, the vote need only be delayed until Bush’s energy is exhausted.

The President says that won’t be until he’s visited “60 cities in 60 days”. More like “sixty districts of vulnerable Congressmen in sixty days”. So far he’s visited: Fargo, ND; Great Falls, MT; Omaha, NE; Little Rock, AR; Tampa, FL; Blue Bell, PA; Raleigh, NC; Portsmouth, NH; Westfield, NJ; and South Bend, IN. Bradenton, FL; Roswell, NM; Anchorage, AK; Covington, KY; and Hamilton’s Dome, WY; can’t be far behind.
posted by Thomas at 12:37 AM 0 comments

 
One Tax to Rule Them All


Greenspan’s testimony this week to the House Budget committee continues to test one’s sense of disbelief. It’s one thing to honestly say you don’t think an Asia-wide sell off of US Treasuries is imminent, but it’s another thing to indirectly voice support for a consumption tax. Greenspan is saying the latter because the alternative minimum tax is projected to grab a larger number of Americans by the end of the decade. President Bush, (naturally) wants to abolish the AMT despite projections that it is the only mechanism to prevent limit structural deficits. In other words, the AMT’s future ability to generate revenue will limit how big the deficit can grow. If it is abolished, there is a serious potential for freefall.

Greenspan acknowledges that after reforms in 1986 there have been continued complications of rules and exemptions. Well, duh. Do you really think the people who can afford accountants are going to pay their fair share? Simplify the tax code is probably a good idea anyway, but consumption taxes will probably not get the job done. This is for the same reason that Bush loathes the AMT: no deductions. Unless you have consumption taxes with no deductions (like a VAT), deductions must be priced into marginal rates. Supporters of a national sales tax would find varying rates on what you buy: food might have none, but expensive items like homes or automobiles could have a 50% federal tax rate attached to them. The other option is to levy on tax rate on all purchases. Other countries do this, but apply a smaller rate over several times creating the value added tax or VAT. Prices would rise, but the most revealing impact would be reluctance to manufacturer or process goods in the US. Outsourcing would increase because importing ready-to-sell goods would limit the number of times the VAT could be assessed.

Which begs the question if there can ever be, with apologies to J.R.R. Tolkein, one tax to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them? As a matter theory, probably so. It just seems as a matter of practice that the political consequences would be so unsavory as to ensure it would never pass.
posted by Thomas at 3:28 PM 0 comments

 
Bill Gates Takes America’s Governors to School

Leave it to Bill Gates to shake up the National Governor’s Association meeting. Despite not suggesting anything revolutionary, having a person of his stature excoriating all governors present for not fixing America’s high schools was long overdue. He also voiced strong support for smaller class sizes, and smaller high schools. Gates is no demigod, but his criticism does mean two separate things. One, it means he feels he has to do better to attract talent from overseas where he cannot find it domestically. But two, this business reality may convince Gates to open the floodgates and have Microsoft lobby much harder for educational reforms.

Still it’s a bit curious to hear this from a man who spends much of his time hiring cheaper workers from overseas to do the same job Americans can. In his defense, Gates claims that there are simply not enough “quality” engineers and scientists to fit his needs. That could be true; watchdog groups like WashTech.com detail a Microsoft all too eager to purge those workers who can be replaced by hiring someone in India. It’s perfectly acceptable to use outsourcing to replace someone worth $72,000 with someone worth $56,000 but a tragedy to substitute someone earning $42,000 a year with a person paid $24,000.

Nevertheless, Gates’s analysis is completely accurate. However, the causes of these problems are incredibly varied. They range from an overemphasis on athletics by school departments, a lack of a national curriculum, the desire to use liberal immigration laws to keep the cost of labor down, to white flight. And opposition to change is a surprising alliance of people from the Catholic Church to most large teacher’s unions to Wal-Mart to major media conglomerates. The Catholic Church because of their ownership and maintenance of a whole shadow system of education, teacher unions because higher wages inevitably would be tied to less job security, Wal-Mart because skilled workers would command higher wages and likely unionize, and major media because they lose millions on televising pro sports with the hope it will attract men without a college education to watch their programming.

Lucky for Bill, educational initiatives tend to be popular. His job, it appears, will be to crack the whip.
posted by Thomas at 12:48 AM 0 comments

 
Cut and Run

There have been no major terrorist attacks in the United States since 2001. Security lapses remain, and Osama bin Laden is nowhere to be found. The only explanation appears to be that America has been lucky, and that “hundreds of plots” have been broken up by the diligence of law enforcement. Nevertheless, the more time passes, the less luck seems a plausible answer.

Instead it seems more like Al Qaeda has pushed US attacks to the backburner. Bush appeased them by withdrawing our military footprint in Saudi Arabia. This leaves the Saudi forces to defend them against popular insurgency. Bin Laden is thrilled and the Iraqi military occupation and strengthening insurgency is precisely what he wants to see as well. In some sense, bin Laden may find Iraq to give cause to a whole new series of attacks on Americans. Yet given the indigenous origin of Iraq’s insurgency and the chance that the new government will favor Islamic rule, he may seek to leave well enough alone.

However, bin Laden may yet attack us again on behalf of other Muslims. The growing footprint in Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan could find Al Qaeda turning its energies on Moscow or DC. The hotel bombing in Taba hints at Al Qaeda not only targeting Israel, but also Egypt. No group is a monolith, though. Serious debate may be going on with Al Qaeda as to where the organization should focus the majority of its energies now that US forces have packed up and left Saudi Arabia.

Americans can hope that this debate causes Al Qaeda to fragment and lose much of its effectiveness. But the US Government should not rest on its laurels. To cut and run from Saudi Arabia, or Lebanon for that matter, is one thing. To completely disengage the Islamic world is something far different. Al Qaeda will find a new a cause to champion. Should attacking the US further that cause, bin Laden and the current leadership certainly not afraid to try. But if our intelligence services and general population not know what the new cause is, never shall we know who to look for. And if we have no idea what to expect, we will find ourselves at as much of a loss for words as on that bright day in September 2001.
posted by Thomas at 7:03 PM 0 comments

 

Reviving the Court of the Star Chamber

The US Constitution specifically prohibits in Article IX any bills of attainder. Yet somehow, the Executive Branch of the government manages to claim a person may be an “enemy combatant”. Simply put, a Bill of Attainder stripped free British subject of certain rights in courts of law if ordered by the king. During the passage of the Constitution, it was not uncommon for the Crown to issue Bills of Attainder should a person be accused of a crime. Criminal cases were tried by the auspice of the king. Before the English Civil War kings had used Court of the Star Chamber to try political enemies without being guaranteed any rights.

Enter Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, enemy of the state. The centerpiece of the US’s argument against him appears to be a confession he gave while tortured by the Saudi government. Already there is evidence the US has signed off on torturing potential terrorists by having friendly ally governments like Egypt and Saudi Arabia do the dirty work while handing American authorities a transcript. But now it appears, the Executive Branch is ready to assert that these torture transcripts provide enough evidence to convict Abu Ali.

Does this mean the Court of the Star Chamber is back with a vengeance? Not yet. While Abu Ali may be convicted initially, the Constitution explicit rules against attainder imply that there would be no ability for precedent. In other words, should the US have to try Jose Padilla, Yaser Hamdi or other American citizens currently deemed “enemy combatants” prosecutors could not assume any evidence wrought by other governments torturing would be admissible. A judge would always have the final say.

That is unless a convicted Abu Ali appeals and the Supreme Court weighs in. For now, the Government alleges that the planning was only “at the talking stage.” Federal conspiracy charges do not require a tremendous amount of evidence. But they still need proof of an affirmative act towards the conspiracy’s end. While the legal question is where the prosecution found evidence of this affirmative act, a more salient one is what the act was. Should the Government refuse to say, then the Court of the Star Chamber might be on its way to a comeback.

posted by Thomas at 5:54 PM 0 comments

 

On to Canada!

If you knew that Calgary’s National Hockey League franchise was originally from Atlanta would be surprised that the sport is suffering from a year long lockout? Would it shock with a sport that overbuilt itself would suffer a monetary contraction and hence, labor troubles?

On the face of things, Major League Baseball, the NBA, and the NHL have suffered remarkably analogous fates in the past few years. The NFL appears to do much better but that is a façade as we shall see. In each sport, the economic boom of the 1990s encouraged expansion and new stadia from coast to coast. The NBA opened its first two Canadian franchises, the NFL relocated teams to St. Louis, Baltimore, and Tennessee while putting expansion teams in Charlotte and Jacksonville. Baseball finally put teams in places most known for Spring Training: Arizona and Florida as well as Denver. And the NHL forsook its Canadian/Snow Belt roots for Phoenix, Colorado, Dallas, and North Carolina.

The reasons were very simple. Owners moved their clubs to cities and states that were willing to pour in money for new construction. You might call this extortion, but only if you think that a team owes something to the city that it occupies. This extortion does not always work however: Los Angeles still has no football because it refuses to finance a new edifice for the NFL. Winnipeg and Quebec City balked at the thought of taxing its citizens to build state of the art facilities. And now, each sport is facing lower or stagnating television revenues. So when the NBA gets a cold, the NHL might as well have pneumonia.

Many hockey franchises are losing money, and unsurprisingly most of them are in smaller cities outside of the Northeast or Canada. So before the owners and fans convince themselves the only way to save the NHL is contraction considering this. Move franchises with little or no fan support but are otherwise viable back to Canada.

Now it is true that aside from Winnipeg or Quebec City, there seem to be few good options. But don’t forget the potential to make Detroit a two-team city, where a Canadian counterpart would be based in Windsor Ontario. The Edmonton-Calgary rivalry sizzles just as much as the one between the Flyers and Rangers. “Saving the NHL” is all about creating a marketable product. When you forget the history of that marketplace, economic troubles are never far behind.

posted by Thomas at 10:15 PM 0 comments