Unpaid Commentary

Defense is the Name of the Game

2006-04-06T00:07:00.000-07:00

Defense is the Name of the Game

One strategic reason Tom DeLay might have resigned this week is that he has reason to think the Supreme Court will reverse his mid-decade redistricting map that help cement the GOP’s majority in Congress. The logic behind it goes something like this: Texas had a Congressional delegation full of Democrats because of older gerrymandering before the rebirth of the Republicans in the South. DeLay and associates fashioned a new map that didn’t just make seats competitive… incumbent candidates found themselves running against each other. The net impact is that five white, male Democrats: Max Sandlin, Nick Lampson, Charlie Stenholm, Chris Bell and Martin Frost, found themselves out of a job.

But now, Lampson has run in DeLay’s old district because DeLay weakened it to help make the new districts easier for freshmen Republicans to win. Most of the other ousted Dems are not going to run.

But imagine for a moment the old map is brought back…the Republican incumbents are still incumbents now…and Texas 22nd…home to one Thomas DeLay…switches to a more Republican composition. Lampson is also ineligible, living in Galveston. That kills much of the moxie Lampson had not just running against an unpopular DeLay, but also his ability to go nationally to raise money for other Democrats not unlike Barack Obama in 2004.

Remember too that the Democrats need approximately sixteen seats to regain the House. The Republicans used the Texas redistricting not to gain districts, but offset falloff from their strong showing in 2002. With that card expended, and no new redistricting in the works, the name of the game seems to be defense, defense, and defense for the GOP in 2006. As the best defense is, a good offense, however, the only question remains when and where the Party of Lincoln goes on the attack.

2006-01-28T23:12:00.000-08:00

Party Crashers

I have terrible news for conservatives thinking that the nomination of Sam Alito Jr. is going to rip the Democratic Party in two: the GOP is about to get it ten times worse.

Part of the inherent problem with Congress is that much of the true wrangling between various members and the leadership is not covered well in the media. So while there’s plenty of reports on the State of the Union, and Kerry’s le filibuster… you pretty much have to read the national newspapers to make heads or tails of the race to replace Tom DeLay as House Majoirty Leader. The interesting thing from my perspective is that between the Roy Blunt, John Boehner, and John Shadegg the most compelling question has to be one of immigration policy.

Shadegg is from Arizona where President Bush’s calls for a guest worker program plays as well as the Social Security barnstorming at the AARP Convention. But his district isn’t near the border, comprised instead of mostly north Phoenix. Places where the presence of migrant workers in convenience stores, fast-food restaurants and the like are a daily reminder of the nation’s immigration policy.

And this is a reality that Republicans do not want to face: supposedly the Democrats are divided on national security. But in truth, those divisions are not ideological…they are about process. Republicans actually differ on the concrete role of immigration in America. To a certain extent this is true of Democrats and liberals too. But I would argue that very few liberals think any immigration is an anathema, or that the current exploitation of illegal aliens should continue.

The key thing is that even if Blunt wins and Shadegg loses, the immigration issue does not go away. It’s only going to get worse over time. But because immigration may play no role in how the 2006 election shakes out, I tend to think that when it does cost the Party elections it will be seen as a surprise.

Skid Row Power Play?

2005-11-28T15:46:00.000-08:00

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.

Tennessee Titans?

2005-11-09T00:53:00.000-08:00

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.

Minuteman Homecoming

2005-10-31T01:15:00.000-08:00

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.

Saving the Best for Last?

2005-10-22T01:19:00.000-07:00

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?

Best Places to Work in the Federal Government

2005-10-20T00:11:00.000-07:00

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.

Hold on to Your Wallet

2005-07-31T21:41:00.000-07:00

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.

The Case for Wood

2005-07-04T01:10:00.000-07:00

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.

Supreme Surprises

2005-07-02T16:06:00.000-07:00

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.

2005-06-11T01:05:00.000-07:00

Wipe that smile off your face, Ken.

A White Christian Party

2005-06-11T00:16:00.000-07:00

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.

2005-05-25T15:10:00.000-07:00

You see, Priscilla, even a James Bond film can only be great with a truly memorable villain.

Priscilla, Queen of the Fundraising Desert

2005-05-24T18:12:00.000-07:00

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.

Mission Accomplished?

2005-05-12T17:42:00.000-07:00

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.

Wild About Larry

2005-05-05T00:50:00.000-07:00

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.

The Die is Cast?

2005-04-27T22:17:00.000-07:00

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.

Women's Issues

2005-04-24T19:27:00.000-07:00

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.

Primary Colors

2005-04-15T16:11:00.000-07:00

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.

A Cure Worse than the Disease

2005-04-05T18:44:00.000-07:00

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.

Catholicism Goes Back to the Future

2005-04-04T00:00:00.000-07:00

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.

Serial Porkers

2005-03-30T22:47:00.000-08:00

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.

Post

2005-03-27T22:27:00.000-08:00

Daily Grind

I can’t blame the New York Times for reporting on Judicial Watch’s FOIA request about how much help the FBI gave Saudi royals in the US to escape after September 11. The implication is always that perhaps these people ought to have been interviewed and detained to see if they played any role in the terrorist attack. Truth is, if they knew something, the US was already aware at that point. And that’s why this conjures up one’s imagination.

It begins to smell like the FBI and other agencies suspected a terrorist attack was coming, but felt it was more important to show no outward signs so that they could catch the potential plotters in the act.

Notice this isn’t really that sexy. Not as sexy as George Bush senior sharing his security briefings with the Saudi royals. However, if the US really did know that Al Qaeda was eagerly planning an attack the better question is how did they find out? Given the innumerable sources of intelligence, I hope Judicial Watch (or Chuck Schumer) barks up that tree too.

Back in 2003 I pointed out that the Minuteman Project of Chris Simcox was little more than a matter of demographics. In other words, nearly every county along the US-Mexico border is mostly Latino. The two exceptions are San Diego County in California and Cochise County in Arizona. Now guess of those two where Chris Simcox lives. It’s true that increased border patrols around San Diego have pushed the flow of migrants more towards Phoenix. The Minutemen are not imaging things when they see more and more smugglers, bandits, and regular-old border jumpers headed north seemingly unabated. But now…apparently…Bush has decided to beef up patrols in Arizona too. After all, it not only pleases the Sensenbrenner Faction but Mexico’s President Vicente Fox. And that’s leading some conservatives, I am sure, to convince themselves this will mollify divisions not increase them.

Don’t be so sure.

These sort of patrols won’t nearly be as effective as promised. And the frustration surrounding that is going to ratchet up (again) animosities.

Pale Rider

2005-03-26T01:32:00.000-08:00

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.

Here Kitty, Kitty

2005-03-22T18:34:00.000-08:00

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.

Eyes Wide Shut

2005-03-21T22:15:00.000-08:00

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.

Star Wars

2005-03-18T23:48:00.000-08:00

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.

Exile to the World Bank

2005-03-16T16:03:00.000-08:00

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.

Richard Shelby on Social Security

2005-03-16T00:31:00.000-08:00

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.

Beware the Greeks, Even Bearing Gifts

2005-03-15T23:56:00.000-08:00

Beware the Greeks, Even Bearing Gifts

After much speculation, California Treasurer Philip Angelides entered the 2006 gubernatorial fray against Arnold Schwarzenegger. He’s the best chance the Democrats have to beat Arnold – the other Democrats out there have weaknesses that the Terminator can exploit too easily. Plus, Schwarzenegger can’t expect President Bush will rally more voters to his side. Suggesting that Dubya is “unpopular” in California is a serious understatement. Meanwhile, the unions that control the state will stop at nothing to make Arnie a one-term curiosity like Jesse Ventura. Few are paying attention now, but once the Democratic nominee closes the popularity gap with Schwarzenegger the GOP has plenty to fear.

The Spin Cycle

2005-03-15T02:02:00.000-08:00

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.

The Myth of ANWR

2005-03-14T17:34:00.000-08:00

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.

Sword to Plowshares

2005-03-09T22:19:00.000-08:00

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.

No Federalist Left Behind

2005-03-07T23:58:00.000-08:00

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.

2005-03-05T00:46:00.000-08:00

Heads I win....tails you lose.... [White House photo by Paul Morse]

Heads or Tails?

2005-03-05T00:37:00.000-08:00

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.

One Tax to Rule Them All

2005-03-03T15:28:00.000-08:00

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.

Bill Gates on Education

2005-02-27T00:48:00.000-08:00

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.

Cut and Run

2005-02-25T19:03:00.000-08:00

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.

Reviving the Star Chamber

2005-02-23T17:54:00.000-08:00

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.

On to Canada!

2005-02-21T22:15:00.000-08:00

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.

The Cheney Energy Task Force

2005-02-20T16:37:00.000-08:00

Was Chalabi Part of the Cheney Energy Task Force?

Ahmed Chalabi has been accused of a lot. He was tried for bank fraud in Jordan, he was supposedly the source of “bad intel” on Iraq. And the guy is also purportedly a spy for the US, Iran, or perhaps both. So when he continues to suggest he might become the “first prime minister of a free Iraq” you begin to wonder. Just what is going on here?

After the collapse of Enron, there was talk that Ken Lay had attended a secret energy task force headed by Dick Cheney in March of 2001. There’s no dispute that this task force existed or that they eventually made a recommendation in May of that year. However, when the Government Accountability Office attempted to audit the records from those meetings, Cheney declined, citing executive privilege. Other interested parties such as the National Resources Defense Council, and Judicial Watch joined the litigation fray which produced some documents but not all of them. The US Supreme Court ultimately upheld the right to Cheney’s privilege even though Justice Antonin Scalia and Dick Cheney went duck hunting in Louisiana aboard Marine One while the case was under advisement. Up to know, conventional wisdom is that big energy executives such as Ken Lay and Enron got together with Cheney in the smoke-filled room and hashed out major payola. End of story.

Judicial Watch is quick to point out that one of the disclosed documents it has are maps of Iraq’s oilfields. Bush commissioned the panel on January 30, 2001 after blackouts in California. However, most of the emails revealed to the public are from the middle of March. At the same time, it was clear the Iraqi National Congress leader was visiting Iran, not Washington. It is also true that Cheney had a heart operation earlier in month that still leaves February and April of ’01 as unaccounted for. The British-based ‘Guardian’ reported that Chalabi was in Washington DC on February 16, 2001 to meet with Assistant Secretary of State of Middle and Near East Affairs Edward Walker. He was actually a Clinton appointee who was replaced by June of that year. Ostensibly this is because the Bush Administration had decided to pay Chalabi money again to help his “insurgent” activities against Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime. But is it possible that Chalabi really was there to discuss the Administration’s plans to attack Iraq?

Could it be that actually the “energy task force” was really a cover for nascent plans to attack Iraq? Chalabi’s continued involvement with the US makes this harder to deny. His presence also begs the question just what else was deliberately withheld? One email the NRDC points out only says “what are we going to do about the natural gas problem?” Russia had the largest proven reserves as of 2003, but it is followed by Qatar and Iran. Each of these countries dwarfs national reserves in Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and even Venezuela. There is evidence the coup against Hugo Chavez was American-supported, and the Pentagon has built permanent bases in Uzbekistan. Where both of these decisions made as a result of the “energy task force” too?

Perhaps the scariest part of this is that Cheney and company already know what the rest of the script is. The rest of us just don’t. We have to wait it out and see what happens next.

Big Al's Big Day

2005-02-16T21:53:00.000-08:00

Big Al’s Big Day:

Once again Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan wrapped the world around his finger today by testifying before Congress. One thing he said caught my eye:

More broadly, rising home prices along with higher equity prices have outpaced the rise in household, largely mortgage, debt and have pushed up household net worth to about 5-1/2 times disposable income by the end of last year. Although the ratio of net worth to income is well below the peak attained in 1999, it remains above the long-term historical average. These gains in net worth help to explain why households in the aggregate do not appear uncomfortable with their financial position even though their reported personal saving rate is negligible.

Of course, household net worth may not continue to rise relative to income, and some reversal in that ratio is not out of the question. If that were to occur, households would probably perceive the need to save more out of current income; the personal saving rate would accordingly rise, and consumer spending would slow.

Apparently Al is not following the trends that closely. Most longtime homeowners have tapped into their equity to make ends meet. It could be just to pay off other debt, or it could be because they have gone back to school or have a new job that pays less. But even if that is oversimplification, Greenspan seems certain that if the housing market cooled people would suddenly start saving. Again, that seems sort of difficult when to use the equity in your house, you must borrow it.

Furthermore, if there is a real estate bubble present that could portend real economic pain. These two paragraphs are particularly eye catching because after his initial address, he signed off on personal accounts for Social Security insofar as it would increase personal saving. Just how indebted people will be able to pay off more of the debts by saving additional money is a mystery.

Red State Diaries

2005-02-15T15:02:00.000-08:00

Red State Diaries: Montana

A “Wal-Mart tax”? You heard right sir; a Montana state legislator submitted today a bill that would tax large retailers who do not provide certain benefits to their employees. There is no telling if the measure would pass and be signed into law. Assuming it happens, Wal-Mart and Costco both seem ready to claim a violation of interstate commerce in federal court. To some extent, the law may be on the retailers’ side.

But ask yourself this: if resistance to Wal-Mart’s expansion has been largely in urban states, why do they find themselves on the defensive in Montana?

First, Montana is actually a progressive state. It is one of nine nationally that allows marijuana to be used for medical treatment. Also, the state collects only income and property taxes from individuals, eschewing the idea of a sales tax.

Second, Montana’s small population means that it has reached a crisis point over public health faster than others. With more big-box store jobs replacing both unionized and the so called “mom and pop” operations nationally, states with fewer people face a shortfall for public assistance sooner than others.

Now again, because this is a form of taxation that could be construed only to affect businesses headquartered outside of Montana it might fail on Constitutional grounds. But along with California’s attempt to force employers to provide health care to employees, the Montana “Wal-Mart tax” reveals that eventually states will find the optimal way to make “high volume retailers” pay their fair share toward their workers’ wellbeing.

Weird Political Science

2005-02-12T18:07:00.000-08:00

Weird Political Science

The right wing punditocracy is already has a favorite to replace the gay-marriage debate, at least if this National Review editorial is any indication. This time, it’s Massachusetts Senate President Robert Travaglini playing the role of Gavin Newsom and none other than Governor Willard Mitt Romney as the heavy. Calling anything Harvard does immoral is enough to generate major buzz in Massachusetts, and the conventional wisdom is that Romney is staking this position to enhance his political affinity to Republicans in places like South Carolina come 2008. That assumes however the Governor also thinks there is something here that bolsters his reelection campaign in 2006.

Kansas Senator Sam Brownback has proposed a national ban on therapeutic cloning, though it’s uncertain if it will pass. Romney’s hope is likely that all of the money expended in California and New Jersey could be for naught. His fear could be that the state will be blindsided if ban passes. Already this sounds like the gay marriage debate in Massachusetts where Romney was not so proactive. Simply put: no one really knows what the economic effects of sanctioning gay marriage are. Whereas it’s easy for the Governor to imagine many of his state’s biotech firms bankrupted after years of research are declared illegal.

After all, any Governor that runs for President has to tout successful programs and initiatives from back home. The only risky thing is Romney that proposes only half a loaf.

Like To Give Iowa a Try?

2005-02-08T01:56:00.000-08:00

Like to Give Iowa a Try?

Richard Doak of the Des Moines Register argues about legislatures overemphasizing the role of tax breaks in manipulating the public’s behavior:

The other argument for lowering taxes is to stay competitive with other states. There might be something to this. Everyone has heard about the affluent retirees who move to Texas because it has no state income tax. But if economic growth is inevitably attracted to states with the lowest taxes, why does the most robust growth in the Upper Midwest occur in Minnesota and Wisconsin, the two states with not only the coldest climates but the highest taxes?

Again, the point is that the state tax code is vastly overrated as an instrument for shaping the state's economy. Despite what some lawmakers seem think (like those who came up with the notion of exempting young adults from the income tax), most human beings do not make every life decision based on its tax consequences.

You may have heard the media frenzy after Republicans in Iowa’s Legislature submitted a proposal to have only residents over the age of 30 pay state income tax. Now, since most people deduct their (usually much smaller) state franchise fee out of their federal income tax this only looks good if you work at the IRS precinct for the Hawkeye State. But it underlines the frustration many states have keeping younger people around. There’s no set answer but Iowa’s predicament is particularly curious.

Let’s start with the obvious. Iowa usually finds itself in the news when political campaigns set up shop for its January Presidential caucus. The rest of the time, the word “Iowa” is associated with one thing: college sports. It’s not the only state that has the problem is being ignored unless sports is involved. But it is true that Iowa is one of only a handful of states with no professional sports teams of any kind. But the importance of the University of Iowa and Iowa State University is more than just athletics. Already there’s a large biotech program that is growing at ISU. The state should match that by setting up a center for biomass fuel research at U Iowa. That will help encourage people to attend the state’s schools.

Once they arrive, it might seem like keeping them around would be difficult. But it’s more nuanced than that. Iowa lacks a major airport and with it, nonstop flights to escape the wintry chill. The cultural offerings of Chicago and Minneapolis knock the state out for the count. But even places like Austin, Texas have vibrant nightlife communities centered around would you believe live music? All this implies that Iowa must be a rural state with plenty to see outdoors. Interestingly though, there are no national parks in Iowa.

Perhaps that is the whole reason the state suffers, it’s maddeningly rural. Few parts of the state are wild, and only slightly more urban, leaving you with rows, and rows, and rows of corn and not much else to see. One possibility is to turn more of the state back to the wild and reintroducing bison to that wilderness area. As luck would have it, this would trigger resort building as wildlife is a year round tourist attraction. And lastly but not least, gambling is legal in Iowa if conducted on riverboats. Imagine the excitement of seeing live bison during the day, enjoying the sybaritic pleasure of a Las Vegas sized casino at night…and then whiling away time cross-country skiing and ice skating in the winter or playing baseball in an honest to god cornfield in the summer.

If you add in affordable housing, good public transportation, nightlife and new cultural opportunities, a new focus on education and more non stop flights, Iowa could just become the new magnet for America’s youth. And even if the state falls a little short, what does it have to lose?

2005-02-06T03:04:00.000-08:00

Mark Foley (R-FL): Never Scared

Social Security Is Class Warfare in Florida

2005-02-06T01:43:00.000-08:00

Social Security Is Class Warfare in Florida

This whole Social Security privatization scheme is causing some Democrats and Republicans to break ranks with their parties. In fact, Josh Marshall, author of the Talking Points Memo, has been providing daily updates on which members of Congress are straying from the pack. The conventional wisdom would be that Ginny Brown-Waite, who hails from the district with the largest number of Social Security recipients, would be a tad gun-shy. The man with the second-biggest cadre of SSI recipients is Democrat Robert Wexler: good luck trying to convince him. But the districts ranked three through five on SSI recipient populations are represented by 2000 Election villainess Kathleen Harris, Connie Mack’s son, and Mark Foley. The latter had described some of his colleagues as “terrified” to the Associated Press. This implies he is not. Kathleen Harris remains just as ambivalent as Brown-Waite. Mack has done little to make his opinion public.

Down at #21….C.W. Young, a Republican, has vowed he will not support any changes to Social Security that involve personal accounts. Florida Dem Alan Boyd meanwhile, has promised to cosponsor Bush’s legislation in the House. So what gives?

M-O-N-E-Y. Not in terms of campaign contributions or corruption but in terms of rich and poor. The skeptical group of Florida Republicans hails from the state’s poorer coast. Namely, the western one. Income differentials between Brown-Waite’s and Young’s district with that of Foley and Wexler’s are striking. The average per capita income in Palm Beach County is $44,000 a year, double the standard found in Brown-Waite’s district.

But wait, there’s more. Currently there has been a spate of editorials suggesting the Democrats have failed to suggest an alternative to save Social Security. Now, the Clinton task force already has four: eliminate the wage cap on payroll tax, retain the estate tax and have it pay into the Social Security Trust Fund, force some state and county workers to pay Social Security if their retirement plans and non transferable, and re-index the benefit schedule.

The first two don’t play real well in Florida. The state has no income tax, causing many wealthy people to claim it is their state of primary residence. Including but not limited to Ted Turner, Rush Limbaugh, O J Simpson, countless professional athletes, and Dick Vitale. The state also has a wacky rule about homestead exemptions, which is largely a measure to prevent probate. In Florida, the homestead exemption is $15 million dollars. But in other states getting a house that is not your primary residence to qualify for the homestead exemption can be difficult, and Florida’s rules are not exactly clear. But the political reality is: rich retirees in Florida will not want to reinstate the estate tax or raise the FICA cap to pay for poorer Americans. Poor SSI recipients, on the other hand, will be more than happy to see the government “spread the wealth”.

And this smells like…class warfare. The favorite Republican response to Democrats pointing out if a particular policy benefits the wealthy over the poor. Now, the Social Security “crisis” is a bit of misnomer. Social Security is so successful because it loans money to the Federal General Fund by purchasing T-Bills and then redeeming them later. The interest on these T-Bills is the whole reason that Social Security “works”. So it is true that by 2018 the payroll tax will not cover the value of the T-Bills cashed in. But the SSA can’t cash its own T-Bills in; the Treasury Department has to do it (indirectly or directly). And as some have pointed out, the amount of T-Bills sitting in the SSTF is around $1.7 trillion. Sounds big until you realize that foreign governments (like China), domestic and international banks, and private individuals like Bush him all hold another $7 trillion in T Bills collectively. So nothing stops us from having Congress buy more T-Bills and put them in the trust fund. Nothing except a veto, that is.

Barbarians at the Gates

2005-01-30T18:06:00.000-08:00

Barbarians at the Gates?

Bill Gates revealed at the end of the World Economic Forum in Davos that he thinks US visa laws are creating a "disaster" for the software industry. Truth be told, Gates leaves out the part of the story that makes him look like an unsympathetic character.

The United States government puts a quota on the number of skilled laborers that all companies can sponsor to work in the US by visa. Originally, these H-B1 visas were used for jobs where the US market place did not have a competitive demand for them. (People who work in nuclear power, for example). However, foreign workers often will take lower wages than American ones for the same job. Add to the fact that software and other "high-tech" industries are not unionized pervasively and you have the first prong of the "disaster": employers in the US too eager to hire foreign labor for even the most skilled and sensitive jobs if there is a major salary savings to the company.

But wait, there's more. The H-B1 visa does not apply to students. In the past, many firms like Microsoft had the chance to find and offer internships to bright students from all corners of the globe as they studied engineering or science in the US. Since there is no hard quota on student visas, Microsoft and others had found a nifty way to cheat: sign your new talent while they are still in the US on student visas and sponsor their citizenship before they enter the labor market and become governed by H-B1 rules. So not only are employers too reliant on foreign labor we learn, but they are too reliant on loopholes in the visa system as well.

But the reason there have been so many foreign students in the US to begin with also involves a substantial profit. Namely, universities do not have to offer federal financial assistance to international students. They have to pay their own way. And for America's universities that is an extremely profitable way to go. Add to the fact that international students often are willing to attain postgraduate degrees as well; universities then proceed to use them as "free research assistants" in exchange for paying their way through these master and doctoral programs. As these conditions can be less than desirable, many American students who studied engineering at the graduate level opt to become patent lawyers, consultants and other jobs which do not require a doctorate in their chosen profession. Safe in the comfots of American suburban life, the previous generation of foreign-born American engineering students have sired offspring which hope to do well in business, the arts, and other non-technical fields. Such choices allowed the use of international students to fill engineering programs at universities to be self-perpetuating. Until the State Department changed the rules in the wake of the World Trade Center attack, that is.

For the last point Gates brushes off is the schizophrenia the Bush Administration has toward education. Universities were usually so hard up for money in first place because federal aid to students has not increased noticeably since the 1970s. The shortage stems from the Republican desire, both at the state and federal level, to make higher education less subsidized by government money. Absent from Gates's speech was a call to make college accessible to all Americans so that we can be independent of foreign labor in high-tech sectors if need be. He wants no such thing. Gates still wants to have a cheaper labor costs via immigration, but he invariably wants the majority of software development here in the United States. For it is in the US where copyright and patent laws are the strongest.

But is there even a "disaster"? Unfortunately, it is all too imminent. For it is not just that Microsoft will not be able to find new engineers to hire. It will have to pay them almost as much as the older workers they will replace. The problem is real, however, Gates nor Larry Summers nor the federal government have ventured a solution. This is because there has never been a shortage of new immigrants to fill jobs created by economic growth. While the the change in visa rules has reduced the flow of immigration to a degree, that flow will be dwarfed by the job vacanies which loom over the next decade.

It is good to see that Gates is trying to draw attention to this. For in the economics of politics, the more prevalent talk of problems and crises are, the sooner people try to fix them. But it is also true that he is hardly an honest broker. To survive Microsoft and others will have to create a new labor model which will embrace the demographic changes of the 21st century. The only question is whether that Microsoft will still have Gates at the helm.

2005-01-27T02:08:00.000-08:00

You won't be seeing any of this at the 2005 World Economic Forum.

No Dick

2005-01-26T22:01:00.000-08:00

No Dick

Mark Landler of the New York "Times" reports about the opening day of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland with a few curious insights.

The obvious one is that no member of the Bush Administration is in attendance (at least so far). Plenty of Americans in both business are government are there, just no one in the Executive Branch. To be honest, the WEF has been described as a "love-in". You have major economic and political personalities gushing in a mutual admiration society. Protestors always attempt to make a name for themselves but the Swiss police keep them at bay, far from the action. So as cold as Davos is in January, it's still an excuse to fly Swissair to Zurich and flex the expense account.

Newly minted Secretary of State Condolezza Rice obviously was preoccupied, but not sending even John Snow at Treasury indicates Bush has decided not to use the WEF as a platform to say anything. Perhaps he was not expecting the deficit projections to be so ... big.

Meanwhile, the ever pessimistic Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley blamed the Federal Reserve for not raising interest rates to put the brakes on all this debt. It's kind of funny....Morgan Stanley poured in over half a million dollars to Bush-Cheney '04 on the premise (you would think) that a privatization scheme in Social Security would be in the offing. Now Roach wants us to believe that Bush is so incompetent he cannot even lobby the Federal Reserve for an interest rate hike? Either the White House is "on script" or it's not and in any event Roach obviously can call in and ask.

In any case, it is probably true that this is the year where interest rates in the US will rise precipitously. Perhaps that speech was not going to go over too well in the rosy glow of the weak winter sun. The party will go on at Davos, make no mistake, just with no Dick.

2005-01-22T22:55:00.000-08:00

2002:(by Eric Draper) Jeb's sucess at keeping down Medicare costs no doubt buoys his hope for reforming Medicaid.

From Tallahassee to Washington

2005-01-22T19:37:00.000-08:00

From Tallahassee to Washington, Part I

Florida Governor John E. Bush wants to outsource Medicaid to the private sector. He wants to do it because, surprise, he is worried about facing Hillary Clinton in 2008 for the Presidency. It's premature to suggest that such a Bush-Clinton match will be had, but ol' "Jeb" is not taking any chances. Medicare and Medicaid both are facing cost explosions. This is largely due to the two programs covering more and more drug types, treatments, and afflictions--and with its recipients less and less likely to have another means to health insurance. This gap is pronounced in the working world now, which makes single-payer health care possibly only an election cycle away.

If universal health care becomes inevitable, the Republicans will favor a market-style solution. In effect, something close to Jeb's idea where private companies still will own the hospitals, pay the doctors and sell the drugs. The government will then give you a stipend to spend as you see fit. Bush is no fool, he realizes that to sell this idea nationally he has to prove that it works in his home state (being a governor and all).

Bush can't experiment with Medicare: he lives in a state with a huge elderly population and the federal government funds the program completely. Medicaid costs are split between Washington and the states, however. Further, Florida's economy is largely based on a lower wage structure that states with more manufacturing jobs. Its voters in 2004 responded to this by raising the minimum wage. But this does not make health insurance more affordable; Floridians have to hope that big employers of low-wage workers offer them a policy. That is, unless they manage to qualify for Medicaid by being under 18, pregnant, disabled, or even HIV-positive.

So make no mistake, John Bush has a Florida Legisluature dominated by Republicans. He can get any initiative passed he wants. And those are whatever policies he intends to incorporate into a national platform for 2008. Jeb only will declare himself if it appears that the Republicans have a shot. His opposition is likely to coalesce around two men: Mitt Romney and Chuck Hagel. All three will begin their explorations once the midterm elections wind up in November of 2006...but anything can happen in two years. If the economy turns sour, or if there's another terrorist attack...Jeb would be hurt the most. If calamity stays only on the horizon, he remains the toughest out of the bunch.

The Democrats may not end up running Hillary Clinton. But in any even they intend to take issues such as health care and education and go after the Republican nominee (as the placeholder for Bush) with both guns blazing. However, just as Jeb might scuttle plans in the face of bad news, other prominent Democrats might defer until later, allowing an unknown dark-horse to challenge the House of Bush. Too bad Bill Clinton is prohibited by law from running again.

Endless Summers

2005-01-19T23:49:00.000-08:00

Endless Summers

The New York Times has a feature which shows which news stories are the most emailed from their World Wide Web edition. Despite the inauguration of the President, the story generating the most hype this week is about Harvard President Lawrence Summers. More specifically, the shock and horror of female faculty and alumnae about his suggestion that biologically differences may explain why female students stay away from hard science.

Harvard hired him despite his infamous World Bank memo in 1991. Harvard stuck with this guy despite his conflict with Cornell West and Anthony app over African-American Studies. It's hard to believe that a statement (made on the fly) would be the nail in the coffin. After all, Summers is not someone fazed by trying to keep everyone happy. (He was the second Treasury Secretary for Bill Clinton.) Still as the criticism rolls in, there is not much insight. It is fine to say Summers is dead wrong, but what is the correct explanation? And where is the female faculty and alumni pushing to strengthen the number of women in Harvard's scientific majors?

So while Harvard continues to enjoy the controversy and free advertising, don't be surprised if other Ivy League schools attempt to copy America's oldest university. Instead of shunning a personality like Summers, they may seek someone just as controversial to stir the pot.

2005-01-18T18:47:00.000-08:00

The future of aviation supposedly began earlier today in Toulouse, France with the unveiling of the Airbus A380. While Singapore Airlines has revealed already what route it has in mind for the A380, the largest order for A380s has been from Emirates. Emirates does fly plenty of longhaul routes being based in Dubai, but will these routes beneift from increased capacity? Of course two of America's largest airlines think there is plenty of room for increased capacity. They happen to be UPS and Federal Express. If the A380 allows them to compete with the Postal Service (which has passenger airlines carry its mail) on price, there could be increased calls to raise postal rates or privatize the Postal Service entirely. Far and away, USPS accounts for the largest number of federal employees in the US, outstripping even the military.

Of course all this changes if an American carrier decides to use the A380 on domestic routes. Currently, very few domestic flights in the US use even a Boeing 747. But that may change. JetBlue began its road to profitability by charging $250 roundtrip to fly from New York City to Florida. Southwest offers plenty of cheap flights from all over the country to Las Vegas. However both carriers use single-aisle planes. But "legacy airlines" could start to use the A380's larger capacity to compete with cheaper fares on discount carriers. The 747 did trigger the need for deregulation in American aviation. The A380's promise of lower fares might convince legacy carriers to compete against each other more forcefully, making true market deregulation a reality.

2005-01-18T01:14:00.000-08:00

NASA photo courtesy of Wiki Commons.

The Blunder Down Under

2005-01-18T01:01:00.000-08:00

The Blunder Down Under

It's received minimal if any media attention in the US, but January 1 marked the start of a new free trade pact between Australia and the US. However, the deal is pretty one-sided, most of Australia's biggest exports to the US face quotas and other restrictions, whereas 99 percent of all American goods face no additional rules. Opposition to the free trade accord was much stronger in Australia than the US, making it an open question why the Government there acceeded to nearly every American demand.

The conspiracy theory that rules Down Under is that it has a lot to do with Rupert Murdoch's reorganization of NewsCorp from Adelaide to New York City. News Corp owns half of the cable networks in Australia. With the Fox brand now being technically an American product, he would find "local content rules" limiting what he can show that is produced outside the Commonwealth. The free trade agreement scraps those rules for cable, allowing Rup to show whatever he wants whether it is made in New York, Sydney, London, or Los Angeles.

But there's another reason even less talked about. The largest import in Australia from American by far is aircraft and aircraft parts. This is because while Australia is almost the same size physically as the US, it has only about 1/10 the number of people. Roads in the Outback are few, and air travel on small planes is crucial. And suffice to say, international travel is only possible from Australia by plane, and usually on very long flights. Boeing, Gulfstream and Cessna all look like winners. But Australia's biggest export to the US, beef, faces quotas. And the next biggest export, alcoholic beverages, is one third the monetary volume of US aircraft exports alone.

Absent is liquified natural gas. Australia has large offshore deposits of natural gas which is already sold to Japan and now China. Previously America has relied on its own natural gas deposits, but now supplies are running thin. LNG, as it is known industry wide, can be transported over long distances. Terminals to receive LNG are being built all across the California coast anticipating this future need. And under the free trade agreement, the Australians will find no barriers to ship their LNG to us as very competitive prices, irrespective of beef quotas.

The short-term aspects for the free trade accord appear dreadful for Australia. But long-term, perhaps inadvertantly, things look pretty sunny for the Commonwealth's trade relationship with America.

2005-01-15T21:36:00.000-08:00

2003: US Marines tour Babylon ruins rebuilt under Saddam Hussein. Photo by Daniel O'Connell, Gunnery Sergeant, USMC

Nothing Sacred

2005-01-15T16:47:00.000-08:00

Nothing Sacred

The British Museum's director of its Anicent Near East operations has filed a scathing report of how American and Polish military forces have damaged the ancient city of Babylon. There was not much the US could do after Abu Ghraib to damage our reputation more. This, however, probably will.

Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was quick to point out that money for Iraq's reconstruction was not necessarily the US's monetary problem. Wolfwitz was convinced the Iraqis would pay for it themselves. Most of this centered around exporting oil. But few if any people have pointed out that oil revenue, even with an optimal security situtation, would probably not generate enought money to reconstruct Iraq. Even if the Iraqi people had welcomed us as "liberators", the US would have still had to grapple with economic redevelopment.

For there are not only oilfields in Iraq but factories for steel and textiles, vast tracts of date orchards and sugar farms, not to mention schools, roads, and other infrastructure to support the service sector. But because of Saddam Hussein's authortarian regime, not much tourism. So whether the US likes it or not, tourism is crucial to the future of a stable and safe Iraq. The country has fascinating ecological sights, such as the "Garden of Eden" marshland near Basra. It has a warm and sunny climate. But most of all, Iraq has very unique archeological sites like Babylon.

Damaging and pirating historical treasures is culturally insensitive and helps demonize the US abroad as heathens to which nothing is sacred. But it also demonstrates that the Bush Administration has no clue how it's going to ressurrect the Iraqi economy and ensure political stability for the future.

No Quarter

2005-01-13T23:26:00.000-08:00

No Quarter

Businessweek observes that federal sentencing guidelines have been overturned just as the Department of Justice readies its case against such corporate crooks as Bernie Ebbers and Ken Lay. I think the Government is extremely reluctant to cut a deal with both of them. Both men are from Texas and knew George W. Bush. It does not help that Lay ran Enron, a compnay which California's state pension fund sued for misrepresentation of its stock price after the firms collapse. Lay's trial is going to provide fodder that equity fund managers do not remain particularly vigilant about their clients' money. With the Bush Administration desperate to partially privatize Social Security into the purview of these same managers, the courtroom dramas will provide plenty of negative publicity for Alliance Capital, Janus, Vanguard 500 and Fidelity.

But wait there's more. The WorldCom trial is likely to cause investigations into media deregulation. Though it hasn't received much press, the Bush Administration through Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Powell is hoping to overturn the 1969 Supreme Court decision of US v. Red Lion. Previously major media players such as Viacom and Disney opposed the case building to overturn Red Lion. However do to Powell's phony war on obscenity they have begun to play ball and change their position on the case. Should Powell succeed, the FCC would lose much of its power to rein in telecommunications. Up to now, this policy by Powell has received little scrutiny but once Ebbers has to present a defense it might turn public sentiment against Powell.

And if that is not enough, there is real potential that Lay will try to undercut the Government by discussing his participation in a secret Energy Task Force convened by Dick Cheney in 2001. The pretense being that Enron was encouraged to be aggressive by the Vice President. Lay would then suggest that this goading by Cheney made him more willing to trust people like Enron CFO Andy Fastow. Lay already hopes to claim that being trusting of board members like Skilling and Fastow might have been naive but not criminal. Add some encouragement by the former President of Halliburton (who conveniently is Vice President at the time) and Lay might succeed in appearing the "real victim".

The trial against Lay is still a few months away. Jury selection for US. v. Ebbers, however, begins Wednesday, January 19.

The Messianic Bush

2005-01-12T22:13:00.000-08:00

George W. Bush: Messiah or Anti Christ?

The President granted members of the Washington "Times” a rare Oval Office interview yesterday. Drawing the most fire were his comments about religion. But as some of the newspaper’s writers have said on TV, Bush himself seems to create a Messianic parallel when talking about himself. So while others have tried to connect eschatological visions in the Bible (such as the Apocalypse) to Bush as the putative Anti-Christ, more striking are the President's comments in the interview compared with the Gospel of John, Chapter 5:19-44

19 Jesus answered and said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, a son cannot do anything on his own, but only what he sees his father doing; for what he does, his son will do also. 20 For the Father loves his Son and shows him everything that he himself does, and he will show him greater works than these, so that you may be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also does the Son give life to whomever he wishes. 22 Nor does the Father judge anyone, but he has given all judgment to his Son, 23 so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes in the one who sent me has eternal life and will not come to condemnation, but has passed from death to life.

25 Amen, amen, I say to you, the hour is coming and is now here when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so also he gave to his Son the possession of life in himself. 27 And he gave him power to exercise judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not be amazed at this, because the hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and will come out, those who have done good deeds to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked deeds to the resurrection of condemnation.30 I cannot do anything on my own; I judge as I hear, and my judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will but the will of the one who sent me.

31 "If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot be verified. 32 But there is another who testifies on my behalf, and I know that the testimony he gives on my behalf is true. 33 You sent emissaries to John, and he testified to the truth. 34 I do not accept testimony from a human being, but I say this so that you may be saved. 35 He was a burning and shining lamp, and for a while you were content to rejoice in his light. 36 But I have testimony greater than John's. The works that the Father gave me to accomplish, these works that I perform testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me.

37 Moreover, the Father who sent me has testified on my behalf. But you have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38 and you do not have his word remaining in you, because you do not believe in the one whom he has sent. 39 You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf. 40 But you do not want to come to me to have life. 41 "I do not accept human praise; 42 moreover, I know that you do not have the love of God in you. 43 I came in the name of my Father, but you do not accept me; yet if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. 44 How can you believe, when you accept praise from one another and do not seek the praise that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father: the one who will accuse you is Moses, in whom you have placed your hope. 46 For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, because he wrote about me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?

The passage is significant not because of some hidden of magical prophecy, but because it may have a great impact on the psychology of the President. Notice versus 19 and 20 describe a person who can only continue, but exceed or finish what his Father. And the realization is not that Bush sees himself as serving his own father in this sense but the Almighty Father through continuing his biological father’s agenda. Verse 30 is even more revealing, about a person who cannot do anything on his own but judges with “what I hear”.

True or not, the reason that Bush sounds perilously like the Anti-Christ is the forty-third verse. Jesus is suggesting that people will believe a false prophet who “comes in his own name” over Jesus. This is to point out the fact that Jews had hoped in earlier Biblical works for a powerful military leader to expel the Greeks, Syrians and Romans from Israel. Instead there the human version of the tent used to hide the Tabernacle. Looked like nothing important, but looks are deceiving. So again, the translation hints that a person who comes with regalia, power and glory in the name of God would not be the savior. And in the First Letter of John describes such a person as one of many Anti-Christs.

So while the Gospel of John provides little proof that “Dubya” is Beelzebub, it does speak to things Bush brought up himself in the Washington “Times” interview.

Raw Deal

2005-01-12T01:24:00.000-08:00

Raw Deal

With the stench of Governor Schwarzenegger’s budget proposal still wafting about, the San Francisco “Chronicle” notes that Arnold will soon announced a comprehensive strategy of housing, urban development, and transportation planning called“Go California”.

This could be the most laughable attempt at public policy ever seen in the history of mankind. I say this because nearly all the problems seen by the state were caused by overzealous developers extending the suburbs beyond the limit of viable infrastructure. Most middle class whites were race-baited into moving farther out from the city center largely because of busing in school districts like LAUSD. And there’s no shortage of eager developers ready to build houses from Los Angeles to Phoenix or San Francisco to Reno if given the opportunity. It is true that transportation funding is low, but that is because in 2001 President George W. Bush cut the National Highway Transportation Fund to pay for Homeland Security outlays. California has been trying to catch its breath ever since. Notice Arnold has done nothing to convince the Feds to reimburse the state, as he promised when he was elected. But seriously, Schwarzenegger shot himself in the foot by repealing an increase in the crucial vehicle licensing registration fee. So what does Go California really sound like? More traffic, more sprawl, less public transportation, less accountability. But hey at least it won’t cost more in taxes.

More Green for This Red State

2005-01-11T01:58:00.000-08:00

More Green in This Red State

Talk about buzz. Word leaked yesterday that DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe will hand over today $1.5 million to Tim Kaine for his Virginia gubernatorial bid somewhere in Arlington.

It’s unclear if the handover will be done publicly or in private. What is clear would be McAuliffe’s desire to up the ante on the Republicans and demonstrate that Democrats can win in the South. After all, numerous Southern governors are Democrats. But somehow, there is the belief that down in the heartland you can’t win by being liberal and usually you can’t win by being a Democrat.

This is why McAuliffe is so eager to pony up. He is eager to dispel that myth and show the main reason Democrats lose in Dixie is that they are outspent. By matching the Republicans in out of state money, McAuliffe thinks Kaine ought to win in a walk. It is early enough to say that such hopes are premature. So much of the campaign is defined by the candidate himself. So why can The DNC Chair give this money with such a cavalier attitude? Does the phrase “red state” mean anything to you? Democrats are tired of appearing equivocal and soft. They want nothing more than the chance to aggressively take the fight to the “red states”. No matter how the election goes, most Democrats believe making a stand will be a moral victory if not an actual one. And unless Kaine is blown away, ala Janet Reno in 2000, critics of this strategy will be hard to find.

No Pundit Left Behind

2005-01-08T17:26:00.000-08:00

No Pundit Left Behind

Just when you think the investigative journalists at USA Today have permanently gone fishin’ the crown jewel of Gannett’s media empire surprises you. Someone (and you can bet Greg Toppo ain’t telling) suggested that the newspaper file a Freedom of Information Act request about Department of Education expenditures promoting No Child Left Behind. What was uncovered is that through an intermediary the Department funneled $240,000 to commentator Armstrong Williams to plug No Child Left Behind. Williams is black, a self-confessed conservative, but most of all a syndicated columnist. His syndication partner, Tribune, terminated his contract after the story broke. So is this about propaganda? Well, Williams says he wholeheartedly believes in NCLB.
He was eager to promote it, irrespective of financial considerations. As much egg as it puts on his face, this really isn’t about Armstrong Williams. It’s about a very cynical attitude that the Bush Administration has towards African-Americans. This idea was designed to make inroads among African-Americans. Guys like Karl Rove sought to chip away at black support for the Democrats by hyping NLCB. But because of Bush’s dreadful reputation among blacks, the Bush brain trust sought a respective African-American to push the agenda. That does not sound so outrageous until you take a hard look at NLCB.

It was supposedly based on Bush’s educational reforms while governor of Texas. The transition to federal law meant that states had the flexibility to define terms differently, so long as they demonstrated progress on the test. Districts that do not find themselves starved of federal Department of Education funds. This encourages lower standards and for school districts with large numbers of blacks this often means an endless cycle of mediocrity. What are much more popular among blacks are school vouchers.

So while Williams did not say explicitly that NLCB is a prelude to vouchers, implying it certainly would help the Bush Administration’s cause. With Bush’s reelection achieved however, it seems completely possible that NLCB will be discarded or reformed so as to enable school vouchers. Such an idea will not require Armstrong Williams to be it’s pimp however. Thus begging the question how the President plans to ensure that no pundit is left behind.

Michael Powell's Poor Attempt at Subtlety

2005-01-08T02:12:00.000-08:00

Michael Powell’s Poor Attempt at Subtlety

The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission hinted on Thursday at the Consumer Electronics Show that it soon may be obsolete. By saying effectively that one could look at Comcast and SBC and “not find a meaningful difference in what they do”, Powell has announced that the future of his agency could be short. Telephone companies used to be the biggest concern of the FCC, and treating them the same as a cable provider would reduce the footprint of regulation period. This might not appear dangerous, but it’s a clever manner to get around anti-trust laws.

You see, it is illegal for one company to control an overwhelming market share of a particular product. Services have less stringent restrictions however. Private utility companies seem to enjoy the ambiguity. Even so, how about being forced to use one provider for all your telecommunication needs? If everything you use is a product, this is illegal under antirust law. But if you use a service, legal precedent is more ambivalent if you can be coerced to use that provider for other certain needs. Imagine having to use one company for your cable, broadband, local phone services, long distance, and wireless. If SBC gets its way, we guarantee that is a foregone conclusion.

And why is this getting around anti-trust laws? Currently you have only have one choice for local phone service. Ergo, consumers would have to use that local phone company for any other communication services that it so desires, or not have a ground line telephone at all.

Red Meat

2005-01-06T21:43:00.000-08:00

Red Meat

Buried in news of Alberto Gonzales and Barbara Boxer was the highly charged committee hearing on Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns. It was “highly charged” not because the Democrats and the Republicans were at odds, but because all the Senators were looking for help from the appointee on international trade. The reason is simple, as this article subsequently points to. Domestic meat producers are paying lots for American beef because Canadian imports were banned until a quarantine period for mad cow had passed. American cattle owners are not eager to cut prices from Canadian importation. American demand for beef is not low, but it may have been artificially high during the Atkins Diet craze.

It should surprise no one then that the Senators involved took aim at Japan, which has been using mad cow concerns to ban American beef imports. But is this solution the panacea? Only if you believe in the “cascade theory”. Japan accounted for 30% of all American beef exports and only about ten percent is sent overseas. In other words, a total of 3% of all American beef in 2003. Canada accounted for around 2%, and so does Mexico and South Korea each respectively. That leaves a conglomeration of nations to represent the final 1%, many from Asia. Canada and Mexico have dropped American beef import bans. The thinking is if Japan does, the rest of Asia follows suit.

The fallacy there is that American beef will be favored over meat from other countries because of some inherent quality. In Japan, Yoshinoya has said publicly American beef is better for its signature teriyaki bowls. South Korea, Taiwan and the others might not have such predilections about which beef is better though. And that enough will probably means that Bush will face tremendous upheaval within his own party about trade.

California Dreaming

2005-01-05T20:49:00.000-08:00

Schwarzenegger’s California Dreaming

Governor Schwarzenegger delivered an exuberant “State of the State” address on Wednesday afternoon. He is very excited about his agenda and says if the legislature doesn’t pass it he will put it to the voters in a June special election. Most of the agenda is likely to pass because, quite frankly, Schwarzenegger “agenda” is largely hot air. But there are three points which will be easier said than done.

Base teacher pay on merit, not tenure, and tie teachers' continued employment to their performance in the classroom.

In charter schools this idea generally works…but…pay scales tend to be up to 150% higher. Schwarzenegger’s whole plan is that merit pay will somehow lower education costs. Should the governor be reelected in 2006, his second term is going to see massive retirement by state employees. On the contrary, the state is going to have to pay more money than ever to hire new employees. What’s worse, until those new employees can grab the bull by the horns, the state faces closures and shortages from schools to highways to hospitals to state parks. Traditionally Republican voters are going to get disgusted just as quickly as Democrat ones and there could be conceivably another recall.

Will send the Little Hoover Commission a plan Thursday to reorganize the state prison system. Look, Schwarzenegger is not going to win against the prison guard union.

When you have to incarcerate as many people as California does, the prison guard union is naturally the best ally of any “tough on crime” candidate. He’s going to send a Commission a plan…whoopee…how about REAL MANDATORY SENTENCING REFORM, ARNOLD? Oh wait, some wealthy guy had to use the initiative process against you for that.

Says the state must shift move from a defined benefit to a defined contribution pension system for new state employees, similar to that offered by many private companies.

Already the state employee pension invests in stock and bonds. What Schwarzenegger wants to do is take the pension board, which are full of elected members, and abolish them. He would then offer state employees a 401(k) plan. In other words, instead of a state pension board deciding where the state employee fund is invested it would be a bunch of investment bankers on Wall Street. No wonder Schwarzenegger easily borrowed enough money to keep the state solvent in 2003, he just promised this in return. I don’t know if this will cost Schwarzenegger reelection but if any form of Social Security privatization passes nationally…this idea is politically toxic. Phil Angelides might as well draft his inaugural address.

Delta Equals Change

2005-01-04T15:10:00.000-08:00

Delta Equals Change… in Math

Delta has decided to simplify its fare structure, and now it appears American might following suit. (Both airlines experimented at one of their hubs, but did not make the experiment system-wide). It might seem strange to think that this will remedy the “long-suffering” airline industry. However, it actually might. No matter how frilly JetBlue and Frontier pretend to be, they still do not have international service or first class. If the article is true and first class roundtrips are capped around $1200 or $1400…that is probably low enough to fill up the plane.

The idea is that in the past, economy passengers were pure profit, as the first class passengers made sure every flight broke even. Now, most first class passengers are “upgrades” and not paying customers. If paying customers start buying more first class tickets, fewer seats would have to be given away as upgrades. However, the airlines would have to turn a profit based on their revenue in economy class. Given that Southwest already has solved that puzzle, the only reason it would be harder for Delta or American is because they have a higher cost-per-mile expense. Another reason that larger airlines would gain an advantage: point-to-point is largely a myth. It’s true that Southwest eschews having a major hub, but many of its “point-to-point” flights actually involve multiple stops and are not to larger, more central airports. United and American actually have far more point-to-point flights, especially because they have code-sharing partners.

In any case, “legacy” airlines still need to press the Federal Government to improve security speed and professionalism and work with their host cities to develop better public transportation links and facilities. However, lobbying takes money and if the simplified fares strategy works, the airlines will have more dollars at their disposal.

Voodoo Economics

2005-01-04T01:30:00.000-08:00

Social Security: Bush Using Neo-Voodoo Econ?

The Washington Post thinks it knows how Bush is going to fix the Social Security “crisis”. Once again, whoever made this policy decision is pretty astute. While it still involves “cutting benefits” in essence, this strategy seems to solve a few problems. One, it preserves Social Security as a government program and does not materially change the FICA tax rate. Two, it ensures that Social Security is more or less going to provide a safety net so that seniors will still have something at the end of the month. By not rewarding higher wages however, it’s going to encourage investment in private accounts. It used to be that if you earned more at your job, you got more SSI when you retired. Now, you wouldn’t have to open a private saving account (PSA) but the more money you make the more tempting a PSA would look.

So why oppose the PSA idea? Well the reason is because it would favor the wealthy tremendously. Unless the rules are different than say a Roth-IRA, there won’t be much choice involved with PSAs. That inflexibility means the firms that sell them will make a healthy profit, while people with more discretionary income (rich people) can make other investments to offset a lackluster PSA. At present there is no deterrent for smart people of little means to pick a better investment choice, but it seems like there almost wouldhave to be one. Unless of course, Bush really intends to empower people and not simply payback the millions in election cash he received from companies like Morgan Stanley.

The other possibility is that inflation is going to be much higher than anticipated. However, since the number of workers is likely to fall in the future, wages would still surge ahead of inflation. But in either case, whether the labor age population rises or falls, higher inflation might still derail this strategy. This is because Social Security uses Treasury bonds that have a fixed return. If inflation in a given year exceeds the return, problems ensue. It last happened in the 1970s when the amount of wage earner dwarfed people receiving Social Security. It made the already terrible inflation worse, but was not responsible for causing devaluation in the first place. That was due to government borrowing for domestic spending and Vietnam Given how profligate we’ve been in the face of these federal income tax cuts, the parallels between then and now is almost palpable. If Bush hits the brakes hard on spending and interest rates rise he might get around this problem. But given that Iraq doesn’t look resolved that seems unlikely. Secondly should interest rates ascend too fast, we’re looking at pretty stank-smelling recession. Ironically, it would be the opposite of a jobless recovery: hiring would continue to rise because of demographic shifts

So again, this preliminary leak could be wrong. But if it isn’t, it appears Bush is using some serious voodoo economics to claim he’s “reforming” Social Security. It appears instead of reducing the real size of government FICA revenue, he’s just creating a tax loophole to get people to once again tepidly buy those mutual funds they left four years ago after it was clear Wall Street was taking them for all they had in their 401(k)s. If that’s “reform”, what is the status quo?

The NAFTA Super-Mega-Uber Highway

2005-01-03T02:19:00.000-08:00

The NAFTA Super-Mega-Uber Highway

If you are one of those people wondering what substantive policy changes are coming in George W. Bush’s second term, this one is for you. Apparently, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has a rather revolutionary idea for a new interstate. It’s called “Interstate 69”, and perhaps that’s an all too apt name. The concept is really different, and yet it’s simple to explain. The US Government wants one highway to lead directly from the largest border crossing (in terms of cargo) from both Mexico and Canada. They want a NAFTA Superhighway. At first blush this looks innocent, since the Mexican crossing is near Laredo, Texas on I-35. For Canada: it’s north of Detroit at Port Huron, Michigan on the existing part of I-69. But if you drove south, you would find currently I-69 ends at Indianapolis. The plan is to build a brand new highway south of Indianapolis (or upgrade what exists already) in a southwesterly diagonal from Indiana through Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, and finally Texas. Of course in the old days, there could only be intersections between odd and even number interstates. The idea was that the highways should be straight enough (normally) to allow planes to land on them during a national emergency. Nothing prevents diagonal construction, but this would be the first time that an interstate cuts across lower numbered sister highways. [It should cause mass confusion and chaos, but most Americans don’t even realize the meticulous numbering system that often goes into road numbering both at the state and federal level.]

The mystery about I-69 is if would be a toll road. It’s a mystery because originally Texas Governor Rick Perry wanted to include the I-69 construction as part of his “Trans-Texas Corridor” project. Perry sells the project as a massive viaduct system which would have dedicated truck and passenger car lanes sandwich commuter and high speed rail lines along with monster utility feeds for things like broadband Internet service. Because federal gas tax revenue is so small (most federal highway funding is culled from your federal gas taxes, states are free to use vehicle registration, a state gas tax, or tolls) Perry believes the only way to build the “Corridor” is to use federal and gas taxes but still charge a toll. Perry publicly envisions TTC’s for the I-35 (running from Oklahoma south through Dallas, Austin, San Antonio to Laredo) and for the mythical I-69.

But the Spanish company that Perry has signed to work as the contractor is selling something else. They are expecting to build a toll road from Dallas to San Antonio, buffeting or flanking the existing I-35. There’s no mention of I-69, rail or utility lines. Part of this can be explained by the fact that company rep that apparently negotiated the deal now works as an aide for Perry. Thing is, the governor naturally would want to charge tolls for the trucks laden with cheap goods from Mexico. Many truckers still have to use the San Antonio-Dallas segment to connect to the I-20, but it’s a lower number than the number between Laredo and San Antonio. (Once in San Antonio, a driver can head east or west on the I-10.) And it’s undoubtedly lower than the number of trucks that would use I-69. So no matter what the TTC ends up becoming, it’s not going to be as great of a commercial success unless it expands from only the Dallas-San Antonio route.

Still, I-69 could easily end up as a toll road. This is because states have the power to levy tolls on federal highways. It seems contradictory, but try driving through New Jersey and be amazed. Not all federal interstates there charge tolls, just mysteriously the only one that runs from New York to Philadelphia (I-95). But in the South, charging tolls on federally-subsidized highways is usually unpopular. But given the fact that most of the traffic might be NAFTA-related…can the states involved resist? Can the bankrupt US Government actually find a way to build the NAFTA Superhighway at all? And if they do, will it meet opposition causing the beginning of the end for the free trade zone? Few people are likely on the edge of their seats about this right now, but that ought to change in the future.

Forever the Service State

2004-12-29T18:22:00.000-08:00

Nevada: No Longer “the Service State”?

It’s been a big year for Nevada. The Las Vegas monorail is finally up and working. MGM Mirage acquired Mandalay Bay Resorts. Electronic voting machines managed to print out thousands of paper receipts. And yes, Silver State resident Dudley Hiibel failed to overturn a Nevada Supreme Court ruling that you must answer if a police officer asks for your name. But Nevada’s biggest story of 2004 proved to be overwhelming success for a measure raising the minimum wage. Previously, Nevada had used the federal guideline. The measure must be approved again, because under Nevada law there must be two affirmative referendum votes if an issue amends the state constitution. This proposal would.

Even so, why is this perhaps the most neglected story in America in 2004, let alone Nevada? Nevada is a state where nearly everyone works in the service sector. Some jobs in mining remain, but the state has almost no manufacturing presence or other raw materials like timber. A service sector job tends either to be a highly lucrative professional career, or low-paid part-time work. Nowhere is this truer than Nevada. While lawyers and doctors continue to be in demand, there are more openings for bellhops, housekeepers, and security guards. But the ballot measure was not just popular in Clark County, where Las Vegas sits, but across the entire state. It triumphed even in the most Republican and conservative counties.

In short, it appears that in other states where manufacturing jobs have been replaced by service ones there will be growing support to raise the minimum wage. After all, Nevada represents the future of the America. It grapples not only with labor issues, but also public transportation failures, water shortages, and urban renewal. For years, the lure of low state taxation spurred development. Nevada has been the fastest-growing state since 1986. But solutions have been few and far between. The monorail system closed abruptly in September only to reopen last week. Lake Mead’s water level continues to drop, exacerbating drought conditions. MGM Mirage meanwhile, is trying to lure people to live in a new mixed-use development on the Strip. This is heresy in a town where most residents never venture onto Las Vegas Boulevard unless they are going to eat at a good restaurant. While no solution to these ills may gain the currency that gambling has in other states, a higher minimum wage just might. Florida, equally dependent on tourism and low-wage work, passed an identical measure on the same day as Nevada. Support is growing in other, rapidly developing states, such as Arizona.

Yet perhaps the most curious thought for 2005: job growth is set to rise precipitously in both the South and West. The largest openings: low-paying jobs like customer service. That news is sending shockwaves already to state governments like Nevada’s, which are worried the federal government will not increase Medicare funding. Part-time employees are not entitled to medical coverage under federal and state laws. Many of them have to rely on Medicare. In Nevada and other states primarily reliant on part-time service sector work, there are two likely outcomes.

One, states are forced to raise their own Medicare premiums. A raise in the minimum wage would not be enough to send hundreds of families or individuals into bankruptcy. With interest rates set to rise, home refinance and credit cards will become less viable ways to underwrite big expenses. Ensuing personal bankruptcies would trigger a wave of foreclosures, flooding the home market with numerous properties priced to move. This in turn would push down home prices in states with red-hot real estate markets, of which Nevada is the leader. While a real-estate dip along might not be enough to cause a national recession, it could be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back.

Two, Nevada could raise taxes to offset the Medicare gap. Just less than forty percent of all tax revenue in Nevada comes from gambling. Property taxes are low, and the constitution prohibits a state income tax. With MGM-Mirage now the largest employer in Nevada by far, larger than even the state itself, it would be hard to imagine a hike in property or gaming taxes. That leaves a sales tax increase of some sort. It could take the form of higher hotel taxes, but this would hurt MG-Mirage who runs among the most expensive resorts in the state. It could also be an across-the-board sales tax hike, which would eat up most of the gains made by raising the minimum wage. The drop in consumer spending also would lead to economic sclerosis equal to if Medicare premiums go up.

The obvious solution would then be to diversify the labor market with higher paying jobs. More are coming in the form of government scientists. The Department of Energy has decided to close its nuclear weapons laboratory at Los Alamos, New Mexico in favor of a more secure and remote location at the Nevada Test Site. But the influx of researchers is probably not enough. The state will have to find other ways to attract higher-paying jobs if it wants to avoid the reputation of being “the Service State”.

Fox News

2004-12-21T22:09:00.000-08:00

Five People Fox News Ought to Hire Before Zell Miller

It was a rousing moment; the Fox News Channel had the highest viewership in the history of its existence on September 1, 2004. Senator Zell Miller proclaimed that John Kerry wanted to defend America with “spitballs” speaking at the Republican National Convention. A Georiga Democrat, Zell had voted with the Republicans so often many wondered why he had not changed parties. Miller maintains it is the Democratic Party that abandoned his values, not vice versa. And that hook is why Fox News Channel has decided to hire Miller as a contributor. It may or may not be a gimmick. Even if it is not, there are several other personalities who FNC should have hired before the former Georgia governor.

Brad Carson: No Democrat candidate has been more critical of the Party’s strategy after November 2. To hear him tell it, Democrats cannot win in Oklahoma so long as it is the party of Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy. What’s more, the Rhodes Scholar Carson lacks any Southern twang in his voice. This combined with being only 37 years old, means he cannot be written off as a civil rights era relic like Miller could be. Carson also is just as organic as Miller, having been born and raised in a long-time Oklahoman family.

Michael Scheuer: Certainly guys like William Kristol, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz chafe at the former CIA analyst’s suggestion that the US has to reevaluate its relationship with Israel. But Scheuer’s assertion that we are really fighting an Islamic insurgency, not terrorism is music to the ears of people who want to expand the “war on terror”. His warm, teddy-bear countenance is a stark contrast to more sinister-looking folk like Charles Krauthammer. Add in the fact that few former CIA agents appear on ANY all-news channel and you can see why getting the man formerly known only as “Mike” should be a big priority for Fox.

Victor David Hanson: You might question why Fox would want to hire the author of the book “Mexifornia”. Rural votes were the key to Bush’s victory in ’04, not Latinos. Hanson comes from a long line of farmers while also being a professor in classics. His slow, deliberate style of speaking is melodious and thoughtful. He is also from California, where agriculture is the largest employer despite being it being a “blue state”. All of these things make Hanson a distinct voice, and someone who can speak forcefully albeit constructively.

Ralph Nader: Here is a real, dyed-in-the-wool liberal who has absolutely nothing good to say about the Democratic Party. For while Zell hit John Kerry from the right, Nader bashed him from the left. It’s true that Nader would likely never take money from Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes…but not because they are conservative. Nader has been a very strong antagonist toward media consolidation. He fears that if the sources of information congeal into fewer and fewer hands, it is more possible for people to be misled. Murdoch recently bought DirecTV to ensure that the Fox brand in America, the NewsCorp brand in Australia, and the Sky brand elsewhere always have a modicum of broadcast. Certainly no one represents these views among the current Fox News Contributors, but Nader’s other solidly liberal opinions mean he would still be in the panelist minority.

Jesse Ventura: His MSNBC show didn’t quite make it, but that doesn’t mean that the former governor of Minnesota would not work well as a contributor. He’s from the heartland, and he’s not exactly well liked by Republicans OR Democrats. But the reason to pick him over Miller, Ventura isn’t trying to write books. He says lots of punchy things, but does not market himself as a McCain wannabe. Add the deep voice and the background in acting, and be it Jesse “the Mind” or Jesse “Body”…Roger Ailes ought to dial his agent.

The Partial Jenna Bush Reader

2004-12-16T20:04:00.000-08:00

The Partial Jenna Bush Reader

No Child Left Behind is turning into a family affair. Jenna Bush has set her sights on a District of Columbia charter school for employment as a fourth-grade teacher. It’s an interesting decision, given the fact that several parts of the District have some of the worst primary schools in America, compromised almost entirely of minorities. What makes it even more compelling is that as No Child Left Behind has caused uproar in large urban school districts, individual schools have sought independence by becoming charter members of the state or district department of education. With her major being English, “Unpaid’ suggests some equally intriguing reading lists for Jenna Bush’s prospective students.

Roll of Thunder Hear My Cry: I don’t know if Jenna cried for TJ, but this book definitely will resonate with her students. Themes of oppression, quiet strength, manipulation by whites, and economic hardship fit in quite well with the youth of Columbia Heights. One of the few Newberry Medal Winners with blacks and not white children as protagonists, “Thunder” is a great vehicle to push students to empower themselves no matter who the teacher is. But with Jenna’s school only a mile away from the African-American Civil War Memorial, in the heart of DC’s most renown black neighborhood, “Thunder” may become required reading.

The Whipping Boy: With Colin Powell unemployed, he has plenty of time to lead a discussion on Jemmy and Prince Brat. After all, no one can beat the Prince when he misbehaves, he or she can only beat the “boy”. When Jemmy finally decides he has had enough, he escapes, but the Prince tags along…and Jemmy realizes that he will blamed for abducting Brat. Once Brat recognizes he cannot take other people for granted, well Jemmy resigns from his position in the Cabinet anyway. It’s a cautionary tale for the children; fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on George Tenet.

Where the Wild Things Are: Jenna may be lacking a wolf-suit of her own, but her bad girl reputation now precedes the Bush Twins. While it’s aimed at a younger audience, even Jenna’s father can appreciate the idea that sometimes you need to admit you are wrong, no matter how vivid your imagination is.

Holes: This most recent publication of the list was so inventive it even won a movie deal. It’s a tale about crime, punishment, and most of all, ulterior motives under the guise of rehabilitation. It’s unlikely that her fourth graders will figure out it’s really allegory for how the older generation tends to treat the younger. (Be it by installing the draft, cutting welfare benefits, or leaving a big manure pile of federal debt.) But no matter, it’s still a viable way to teach children how to address conflicted feelings.

My Pet Goat: So riveting even the President could not put it down during a national emergency. Wait, that wasn’t why he kept reading even after Andy Card told him about the first terrorist attack? You’re kidding, right?

Breaking the Bank

2004-12-13T18:03:00.000-08:00

Breaking the Bank: The US is Running out Troops to Send to Iraq.

Former drug czar Barry McCaffrey suggested on Sunday’s episode of “Meet the Press” that the fifth troop rotation into Iraq would mark the limit of American military capabilities. He went on to suggest that if nothing is done, within a year “we’re in trouble”. The host of Meet the Press, Tim Russert, then asked if a larger army was necessary and McCaffrey along with other panelists agreed. None of them attempted to propose other solutions…and opening the door for a real debate. How does one solve the imminent manpower shortage in Iraq?

Hire More Soldiers: Given how the civilian American labor markets works, somehow there’s the belief that if the US offers more open positions with the armed service, more people will gladly join. But undoubtedly the conflict in Iraq has all but ensured those joining the military are from either from a proud family of servicemen, or they have few other opportunities to better themselves. During the relative peace of the Cold War, military pay and benefits were enough to ensure a middle class existence for many that served. However, for middle-class college graduates a life in the Army has become the very anathema of their ambitions. That leaves the military to compete for the most undesirable members of the American workforce.
A totally separate question is if the armed services can attract enough people from any station in life. Demographics point to this being a harder task overall as the labor market continues to shrink. Should the economy continue to grow, this task could become even more difficult.

Outsourcing: You heard us right, send most of the troops home. If most of the country is peaceful and safe as claimed, the Iraqi National Forces should have little trouble keeping the peace there. An American military contingent would remain, but largely to carry out “hornet’s nest” operations like Fallujah. However, we suspect the reason this idea is not pursued heavily is because of one word: oil.
The public eye spends plenty of time concentrating on attacks in the Green Zone and other insurgent attacks in the cities. However, far less attention is given to the struggle for Iraq’s oil-producing infrastructure. The Pentagon is coy to say how much military might is actually protecting these pipelines and oil fields as opposed to patrolling the streets of Sadr City. It is no secret how much the Bush Administration planned to use oil revenue to pay for reconstruction. McCaffrey comments indicate the US is afraid to use Iraqi troops to protect these petroleum reserves. If this commitment alone is big enough to as McCaffrey says, “break the bank”, America finds itself in a real pickle.

Beg the UN for Help: President Bush won’t call it that, but he may try and use the oil-for-food imbroglio to suggest that the UN “repay its debt to the Iraqi people”. The biggest stumbling block is none other than Secretary General Kofi Annan. While it is likely true there was corruption involving Oil-for-Food it is probably that the US firms involved were simply not getting the better end of the deals. Certainly companies like Bechtel and Halliburton are now, but even those have come with a price. Annan currently is not volunteering to bail out the US because of the nearly ad hominem style attacks by Senator Norm Coleman. Make no mistake, the United Nations would love to use Iraq as proof that no nation is as strong as to disregard the will and the resources of the UN. But he wants to make sure that efforts to unseat him are unsuccessful first.

Bring Back the Draft: Oh sure, Bush said it was just a rumor during the debates, but he’s not running for President anymore. Even though there is no shortage of young men to serve, the real questions are if the draft army would work and if the occupational strategy is ever winnable. Because of the nature of Vietnam, there is a disagreement whether conscription itself is the problem or that occupation is always a recipe for failure. No one truly wants to take the political consequences from a draft, but under the right circumstances these can be mitigated. Unfortunately given the nature of Bush’s conduct, such circumstances are unlikely to happen.

The Battle of New Orleans

2004-12-09T22:37:00.000-08:00

The Battle of New Orleans

A week of political developments now suggests that President Bush is on a collision course with Senate Democrats over the judicial nomination of Priscilla Owen. On Sunday, incoming Senate minority leader Harry Reid proclaimed that he would not simply accept the judicial nominations of the President without question. He spent most of his time attacking the notion that Clarence Thomas should be Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. But several of Bush’s picks remain in limbo, with Democrats like Reid threatening a filibuster. On Monday, the US Supreme Court ridiculed three appellate decisions of the Fifth Circuit (to which Owen has been nominated) over death penalty procedure. The most outstanding case, evidence came forward of the Dallas district attorney using jury handbooks that recommend only whites to serve on juries. Add that on Thursday, President Bush had announced no more Cabinet members were leaving. The remaining holdovers are all either minorities or women. And then later on Thursday, Fifth Circuit judge Charles Pickering announced his retirement from the court in favor of “someone younger”. Pickering had been grilled in hearing over his seemingly benign view of a cross-burning defendant. Bush had issued a recess appointment, which would last until the start of the next Congress, after being denied a vote on the Senate floor.

All roads lead to Owen. Bush likes nominating women and minorities to major government posts, using it as a way to appear inclusive even if his policies are not. Owen is a polarizing figure that Democrats detest, but they may have a tough decision whether to dig in and filibuster her only to have Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William Rehnquist resign and trigger an even bigger battle. Owen’s views on the death penalty and abortion are not uplifting, helping fuel the fire between the Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court over death penalty appeals. And Pickering’s exit paves the way for a “younger nominee”. Lastly, Judiciary Committee Arlen Specter is unlikely to suffocate Owen in committee.

What will Reid do? If he knows the Owen won’t pass on the floor of the Senate, he would not resist. If he believes she would squeak through…he would mount an aggressive attack on her using the not so secret weapon. White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales served on the Texas Supreme Court with Owen in the 1990. In at least one major abortion case involving parental notification, Gonzales heavily criticized Owen for being on the fringe of judicial opinion. Instead of using a filibuster solely to delay the vote, the Democrats may turn into a media event all its own: effectively airing every piece of her dirty laundry and painting her as an “activist judge”. Bush used the term to great effect in ’04 but if the Democrats can demonstrate hypocrisy on the matter he might lose the issue.

Still, there is reason to think that Bush merely wants this to happen to vindicate his opinion and alienate more people about the priorities of Senate Democrats. He would love nothing more than to categorize Reid as an “obstructionist”.

Overlooked in all this is the fact that a vote on Owen could backfire. A number of Republican senators running for reelection in 2006 come from battleground states. With Republicans doing better with women in 2004, a number of senators might simply refuse to cast votes. Among the hunted are Olympia Snowe (ME), Rick Santorum (PA), George Allen (VA), and John Ensign (NV) and Lincoln Chafee (RI). Add pro-choice Republicans Lisa Murkowski (AK), Arlen Specter (PA), and Susan Collins (ME) and things start to appear almost dicey for Owen. Yet there is no denying she would easily be confirmed on a straight party-line vote.

Why is Owen so important? Because “judicial activism” supposedly only happens in the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco and occupying the largest federal appellate caseload and the largest number of reversals by the Supreme Court. But judicial activism, as in the case of the Texas death penalty lawsuits, can be sins of omission as well as commission. The Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, Virginia has seen a bevy of suits dealing with terrorism related matters. And the Seventh Circuit has several jurists who favor more radical alterations of contract law. The Fifth Circuit sits in New Orleans. Owen’s presence there would preserve the current state of affairs. Keeping a seat vacant might cause just the opposite.

The Essential Al-Qaeda Travel Planner

2004-12-06T19:19:00.000-08:00

The Essential Al-Qaeda Travel Planner

Pakistani President (and generalissimo) Pervez Musharraf stopped in Washington over the weekend to inform the White House of his decision on various policies. One of them was the withdrawal of Pakistani troops in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. The search for bin Laden, Musharraf intimated, has gone cold. Equally he refused to allow the US to see Dr. A. Q. Khan,who purportedly had visited with Al Qaeda about providing them a nuclear weapon in the past. Musharraf refused to hazard a guess as to where Osama bin Laden is now. Given that it has been three years since the disastrous assault at Tora Bora, he has certainly had time to escape. Up until now, the suggestion has been that he would hide in desolate locales away from sight. But what if bin Laden and his closest allies like Ayman Al-Zawhiri have been playing tourist. After all, bin Laden is no fan of repressive Arab regimes, and might chose a place where Muslims can worship openly, where government do not support “Zionist” policies, and where he can avoid the spotlight. Still, you aren’t likely to find the Al Qaeda travel planner bundled with your copy of the New York “Times”. Therefore, “Unpaid” struggled long and hard to come up with destinations where (besides the other allures), there is the potential for some terrorist stargazing.

The Maldives: A short flight from Dubai, the Maldives are a handsome string of atolls draped north to south off the southwestern coast of India. With excellent diving opportunities, you can hold your own submersible terror training camp. With the resorts confined to certain parts of the archipelago, the Maldives remains largely untouched and unspoiled. Yet, there is culture in the form of the National Museum and various ruins from an age gone by. Add a relatively progressive and representative republican style of government (even though the same president has reigned for two decades), and this could be all you could ask for.

Malaysia: One of Asia’s growing tourist destinations, Malaysia has everything an Al-Qaeda member could want. A government that spews anti-Zionist rhetoric…gorgeous nature….native women wearing burqas to the beach…excellent diving and aquatic activities as well as a hint of British colonialism. The jungles of Borneo make for an excellent location to practice skills such as climbing, hand-to-hand combat, and team-building. Convenient for cave-style living or houses over the water, Malaysia has been a favorite of such notables as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Tunisia: Supposedly, the Tunisians in Al Qaeda were among bin Laden’s most trusted adherents. Tunisia is worth a visit for every type of traveler. Ruins, culture, and nature have drawn Europeans across the Mediterranean Sea for years. But why would some one like bin Laden or al-Zawahiri set up shop? While the government has been tough on Islamic extremists and is by all accounts not yet an open and free democracy, the press offerings are plentiful and personal freedoms are better than other parts of the Arab world. Also, the shapeless and foreboding Sahara Desert beckons at the southern frontier. So whether you are looking for a rugged, ascetic vacation or a more sybaritic, hedonistic escape, Tunisia ranks high in the Al Qaeda travel planner.

Bulgaria: Despite the horror that befell Muslims in places like Romania and Spain earlier in history, Bulgaria is a place where the Ottoman Empire simply withdrew from. Though become more commercialized and less authentic…Bulgaria is still a place emblematic of antediluvian Eastern Europe. From the heady mix of cosmopolitan delights and Old World culture found in the capital Sofia, to the charm of it’s Valley of the Roses, Bulgaria should be on your tourist radar anyway. But it also has enjoyable resorts on the Black Sea and great natural attractions as well as a short border with Turkey. It’s through this gap that thousands of migrants pass from Asia to Europe in search of work and opportunity. Combined with a small, but respected Islamic community native to the country means a guy like bin Laden (sans the fatigues) will fit right in. And you will hardly consider yourself an “accidental tourist”.

Belgium: With its super-secretive banking laws, Belgium is an excellent place to hide your laundered money. In addition, being inside the European Union makes it much easier to get to (and out of) than Switzerland. Add a strong cultural scene in Brussels, the otherworldly curiousness of Brugges, dynamite food, and prices lower than London or Paris, and there is much for both you and the Al Qaeda elite to like about the cozy confines of Belgium. But then there are the Ardennes, site of the infamous Battle of the Bulge. Ski buffs can indulge themselves, but if you don’t want to be found…there are several small towns which provide a great deal of seclusion.

Trinidad and Tobago: Despite plenty of gorgeous places in the Islamic world…few are as hedonistic as Port-au-Spain during Carnival. Yes, we know, the idea of sullen, burqa-wearing Islamic women sharing the streets with vivacious Catholic dames does not seem too logical. But being an internationally-wanted terrorist is stressful, and few places besides the island paradise of Trinidad are better to truly let loose. When Carnival is not going on there’s still an odd combined of outdoor activities and indoor ones. With the bustle created by oilmen moving in and out of the country, and an Arab guy wearing espadrilles and carrying a fat wallet looks right at home.

Canada: Pro-immigration Canada has everything a Muslim person could want. And it happens so frequently so that they pick up and move to the North. Seclusion is easily found in the nearly 80% of the country barely touched by humans. The glorious Canadian Rockies, the urbane delights of Toronto, and the delicious food and culture of Quebec welcome anyone with a passport. A few casinos and other gaming dins are equally likely to impress you, but stay for the truly unique Canadian sense of tolerance, gentility, and friendly patriotism. Whether it’s on the slopes of Whistler or the bracing foam and mist of Niagara Falls close your eyes and savor the majesty of the Dominion. After all, bin Laden would too.

Myth of Elections in Iraq

2004-12-02T16:50:00.000-08:00

The Myth of Elections in Iraq

There will be no January elections in Iraq. The reason is not civil unrest; instead it is because the US Government cannot make up its mind. With less than two months to go, there is no mention of what the permanent Iraqi government is supposed to look like, or how elections will occur. One thought is that Iraqi voters will merely choose between slates of candidates for various offices. The slates would be a combination of various ethnic minorities and loyalties to prevent one group…for example the Shias…from controlling every office in the administration. Yet another school of thought argues that the Prime Minister will name his cabinet, and that the election will be between sanitized choices for the parliament. Each province would send a representative to Baghdad, who then would have one of them named Prime Minister by a President of sorts. This would allow power-sharing again between Shias and Sunnis, who would split roles. And then there’s the possibility of rigging the game even more: mock parties would be created with a certain number of members. The proportion of victory would determine the allotment of seats. And then there is the threat of a unity ticket…whereby nearly every office and seat would have candidates unopposed. Who would become prime minister if a direct election was held today? Dare we suggested Moqtada al-Sadr?

And there is the concern of the policymakers at the State Department and perhaps the Defense Department. How do you create a benign regime in Iraq that is strong enough to defend itself but not attack American interests? In some circles, that means not allowing elections at all. After all, the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported a conversation between Democrat Tom Lantos and Laborite member of the Knesset Colette Avital in September of 2002 where Lantos explained that while the US military would eventually leave…a pro-Western dictator would control Iraq until they “learn how to run a state”. Lantos believed that this would take approximately five to six years. While Lantos is not part of the Administration, he was one of the biggest Democratic supporters of the Iraq war in the House. He worked hard to convince other Democrats to support the President.

But perhaps the most incisive development was the resignation of both Secretary of State Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Having taken the case for Iraq to the United Nations and losing face in the process, Powell likely had no desire to have his personal credibility undermined again if elections did not occur. Appearing on “This Week” in September, the Secretary of State seemed to contradict testimony Defense head Don Rumsfeld had told a Congressional committee days earlier. Powell spoke of needing a “comprehensive, full, free, and fair election in order to get the credibility we want it to have”. Rumsfeld had told the committee that if violence prevented the election being held in parts of Iraq, “so be it”. Assuming Condi Rice is confirmed as Secretary of State, she is likely to accede to his belief. If this is true, then deciding what provinces are ready for an election could prove an even harder decision than how to stage it. Just as US troops got the upper hand in Fallujah, insurgents began to target Mosul, which had been quiet for months.

Thus it appears the “January surprise” is that Iraq will remain election-free for a little while longer.

Biggest Success Story of 2004: Native Americans

2004-11-28T02:27:00.000-08:00

Biggest Success Story of 2004: Native Americans

Thanksgiving journalism is the perfect time to examine Native Americans. Seldom does it appear to happen. Perhaps this is because ever since the “First Thanksgiving” of 1621, the fate of Native Americans has moved backwards. That is, until 2004. Just as the National Museum of the American Indian opened in Washington, it appears for the first time in a long time, there is something to cheer about on the reservation. Casino gaming has yet to touch every tribe equally, but many have grown richer. Native Americans are the fastest growing racial grouping, and Native American employers are hiring at a frenzied pace. So it should come as no surprise that the National Congress of American Indians wants to build a new headquarters in DC.

What might surprise you, however, is that the largest recipients of donations by Indian gaming lost their elections. In fact, Ben Nighthorse Campbell retired after facing a Senate investigation into impropriety. But nevertheless, Native Americans flexed incredible muscle. They single-handedly revived the moribund Senate campaign of Brad Carson in Oklahoma. Their money also proved useful to Patty Murray of Washington State defending her seat from George Nethercutt. But the ultimate beneficiaries may be the tribes themselves. Revenue from gaming allows them to diversify and create wealth of all forms. At first, dividends from this wealth will likely improve schools and other dilapidated infrastructure across America’s reservation system. But once the floor is swept clean, what will be next?

One possibility: reparations for lands seized in the 19^th century. Another would be buying back that land to give displaced tribes the opportunity to live in their ancestral homes. Uncertainty rules in large part because few non-Indians in America seem to understand Native Americans. Would the tribes seek to avenge themselves for prior mistreatment? Or only build up the country by building themselves up? So far, signs point to both.

Among the most significant pro-Native American legislation is the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. It prevents excavators from touching Native American remains without the permission of the individual’s tribe first. When a nearly 9,000 year old skeleton was found in Washington State and identified as “Caucasoid”, local tribes invoked NAGPRA. Anthropologists desperate to study the Kennewick Man, named the town where he was uncovered, are livid that Native Americans have blocked them from studying one of the oldest human remains found in the United States. NAGPRA demonstrates the desire of its supporters to protect Native American remains from being recalled from the grave.

In Hawai’i there is evidence of a more positive impact. The Bishop Estate, a trust held by the descendants of the deposed Hawaiian monarchy, used its land holdings to create and fund Kamehameha Schools. In the process Kamehameha Schools have become the richest private primary school in America. It also refuses to allow any students who are not of some Native Hawaiian ancestry to attend. Nevertheless, the quality of education at Kamehameha is first-rate, empowering many children coming from impoverished circumstances.

So even though the new NCAI headquarters has yet to break ground, the growing stature of Native Americans cannot be denied. But as we have seen, just what impact it will have remains to be seen.

Texas Justice

2004-11-22T15:56:00.000-08:00

Texas Justice

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay thinks he will be indicted. He had the Republican House Conference change its leadership rules because he believes the indictment is fait accompli. But that does not mean it will happen, and even if it does, will DeLay be convicted and jailed?

Unpaid is going to say no to both. The District Attorney for Travis County (where Texas’s capital city Austin sits) has noticed a great deal of state election law violations regarding the political action committee Tom DeLay founded. The full name of the PAC is Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC). The DA, Ronnie Earle, happens to be a Democrat though by all accounts the elected office of district attorney in Travis County is a non-partisan one. After nailing three top members and organizers of TRMPAC, speculation remains high that Earle will arraign both the Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, Tom Craddick, or DeLay himself. The GOP in both Texas and Washington is ready to smear Earle into oblivion. And that should tell you something.

Earle knows convicting DeLay would be next-to-impossible. However, he may wait until he has enough evidence to arraign Craddick, and call DeLay as a witness. If there’s a real political motivation to the D.A.’s strategy, getting DeLay under oath would be the equivalent of frying him. For his part, Earle has few good options. State law in Texas is quite harsh about corporations donating to legislative elections. If he prosecutes, immediately it is a witch-hunt. If he does not investigate, he becomes just another spineless Democrat. With Tom DeLay the most powerful man in Washington, the major media is afraid to allege his demise only to be shut out of the Capitol if they are wrong. But it doesn’t look good even with the set of indictments Earle already has.

Craddick and DeLay already can be called as witnesses for the prosecutions for the current indictments. Many of DeLay’s closest fundraisers may be staring at very hard time in the Texas prison system. Not to mention that any testimony given by DeLay can be used by federal authorities for additional investigations. And then, just imagine if faced with charges, DeLay has the chance to turn state’s evidence. The ensuing rabbit-hole of corruption could lead all the way to China (literally). Earle has said investigating the case is taking a long time because he said, “it’s like watching clowns climb out a Volkswagen. There are a lot more in there than I imagined.” Lou Dubose, who co-wrote the book Shrub with Molly Ivins, speculates that the Republican Party of Texas may be guilty of even greater violations than TRMPAC.

DeLay’s actions indicate he feels an indictment is coming. This would not materially affect him, but a long trial in Austin would cause serious disruption. House Majoirty Whip, Roy Blunt, would invariably help DeLay manage things while Hot-tub Tom was away. However, should DeLay leave the House under any circumstance, there is likely to be a fight brewing between moderate and more conservative Republicans. Secondly, if DeLay’s fundraising machine is eviscerated, the Congressional races in ’06 could be ugly. But most of all, DeLay’s disappearance would eliminate the biggest enemy to John McCain. Already investigating DeLay as a member of the Indian Affairs Committee for his involvement in a tribal gaming scam with two fundraisers in Louisiana, McCain knows DeLay is the reason he lost to George W. Bush in the 2000 primary season. Seeking comprehension campaign finance reform, McCain would love nothing more than to use DeLay’s misbehavior as the central plank of 2008 run.

And that should explain more or less everything. DeLay knows even if he survives the indictments, he will have to answer under oath anything Earle wants in Austin, and anything McCain wants in Dirksen. So while the Republicans in the House circle the wagons, realize in part they already have conceded defeat.

Colin Powell: Mr. Unelectable

2004-11-18T22:01:00.000-08:00

Colin Powell: Mr. Unelectable

Colin Powell is unelectable. Judging by the rumors, you would think he was the most popular man in America. Having never held elective office before, Powell was cajoled by many to run against President Clinton in 1996. And now, some want him to challenge Hillary Clinton for the New York Senate race of ’06. We will say it again and again though; Mr. Powell is unelectable, despite being a wonderful and dedicated public servant.

In general, African Americans rarely attain national office if they are Republican. Julius Caesar Watts represented his native Oklahoma until 2002, but Mr. Watts was also a well-known college football star at the University of Oklahoma in his younger days. Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele is often-cited as another “up-and-coming” star. But nearly every other black person in elected office sits at the local level. This is not said to denigrate these offices, but to illustrate that strangely, black Republicans seem to do poorly when more is at stake. Democrats do not fair much better, failing to ever elect more than a handful of black Senators, no black President, no black governors and black congressmen only because of district gerrymandering.

Such gerrymandering also means that while Powell could run for any Congressional seat in New York State, nearly all are “safe”. To win, he would likely need to run for the Senate in 2006. And for Powell, that is a big challenge. The assumption is that Powell would magically win over African Americans to the Republican Party. He is more moderate than Alan Keyes, but seeing how dismal Keyes did in both 1996 and 2000…that is still a speculative idea. What could happen is how Alfonzo D’Amato won the Senate in the Empire State…win the swing voters upstate.

One problem…that’s a tall order for Powell, appealing to upstate New York, and specifically vote-rich Buffalo. His achievements on issues like free trade might not sit well among idled factory workers. Not to mention the fact that he did not argue very hard to allow (using free trade as a modicum) for the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada. His biggest asset is name recognition, and going against Hillary Clinton that is not much of an advantage. However, name recognition is usually a force to be reckoned with. Elizabeth Dole used it to win a Senate seat in North Carolina. Both of the Bush sons found it instrumental in being elected governor.

So what is Colin Powell’s best option? He would be an excellent choice for Vice President. Dick Cheney has done much to alienate people in both his own party and outside of it. Powell is erudite but not secretive. Powell is forthright and has a decorated military career. But as much as he has served as a cheerleader, he is not an unrepentant hawk. All of these characteristics make him a tremendous contrast to Dick Cheney. No matter who runs for President on the Republican ticket in ’08, he or she ought to give the outgoing Secretary of State a call. He may be Mr. Unelectable, but he’s not Mr. Un-likeable.

Will the Senate Question Gonzales about Panama?

2004-11-15T16:26:00.000-08:00

Will the Senate Question Alberto Gonzales about Panama?

With the US Senate ready to begin confirmation hearings for Alberto Gonzales to the post of Attorney General, there is an air of uncertainty around the Capitol that is almost palpable. No one is quite sure how much antagonism Gonzales will face from the Democrats on the Hill. Because of Arlen Specter’s brash announcement on judicial nominees, many Judiciary Committee members may be keen to ask him about abortion and other hot-button issues. But the most important question will have to with an oft-cited memo Gonzales wrote to advise the President on observing the Geneva Conventions toward Taliban members and Al-Qaeda operatives. Gonzales has been criticized roundly for such zingers as calling provisions in the treaty “quaint”. But it appears those comments are overshadowed by a remark about precedent. As White House Counsel, he mentions that already there had been a consensus in 1989 that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the US action taken against Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. However, Gonzales duly notes that then President George H. W. Bush decided to observe the treaty anyway.

So who knew that the Road to Abu Ghraib went through the Panama Canal? The parallels between the American intervention in Panama and the Iraq war are surprising. Both seemed elective conflicts by President Bush with a degree of occupation as well as the capture of a former US ally running each country as a dictator. Or that both of these strongmen were involved in a global proliferation of bad things infiltrating the US. For Noriega it was drugs, for Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction. In both instances, not just Gonzales but other top administration attorneys believed the Geneva Conventions did not apply. The January 2002 memorandum does not explain why.

The answer may be timing. US Marines did not arrive in Panama until December of 1989, a month after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It has been alleged, however, that preparations had been made throughout the year. Could it have been that policy advisors in Bush Sr.’s administration already believed that the Geneva Conventions were “quaint”, but that the presence of the Soviet Union meant serious repercussions if the US opted out. Yet, reluctance by the Soviet Union to intervene in East Germany demonstrated that the old “bipolar paradigm” was gone. The invasion of Panama would be the crucible to try a new strategy. That is, until Bush Sr. got cold feet and demanded the Conventions be adhered to.

If true, does this revelation impact Gonzales’ nomination to Attorney General? The answer is yes. The nominee must explain how he would try any person under

jurisdiction not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Noriega, after all, was tried on drug charges in absentia only to be caught in

Panama

and sent to federal prison in Florida. If the Geneva Conventions had not been in force, could Noriega have been put in a military tribunal and executed? And now that the treaty has been discarded not only against the Taliban, Al Qaeda but also members of the resistance in

Iraq

, what will Gonzales recommend? What is his strategy against Zacharias Moussaoui, Jose Padilla, and Lynne Stewart? If the 2002 memo is any indication, Gonzales will be just as draconian and heavy-handed as his predecessor.

Decision ’04: Democrats Take a Dive

2004-11-11T14:48:00.000-08:00

Decision ’04: Democrats Take a Dive

During the Second Punic War, faced with a tremendous defeat at the hands of Hannibal, the Roman consul Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus elected to combat the Carthaginians by avoiding them, chasing and provoking the army until Hannibal attempted a full-on attack. At this, Fabius would withdraw. Such Fabian tactics, as they are now eponymously called, always have reappeared throughout history only to disappear again because they are unpopular.

And precisely for this reason, could it be few suggest the real reason the Democrats were beaten soundly in 2004’s election is because they intended to lose all along. “Unpaid” knows there is little proof of collusion, but coincidences do matter. The first has to be a curious decision by Al Gore not to run for President again in 2002. Already other candidates had begun to raise money, but Gore gave no reasoning why not 2004. With the war on Iraq still in planning on the US largely terror free in 2002, Gore may have considered Bush impossible to beat. And so did the entirety of the Democratic Party establishment from Terry McAuliffe to Democratic Leadership Council Chairman Al From, to Bill Clinton himself. The idea was to run a solid, predictable campaign in ’04 and regroup once the worm had turned in ’08. This strategy was pioneered by none other than Richard Nixon. Upon losing to Kennedy in 1960 (and considering the limiting effect of the 22^nd Amendment) he chose not to oppose Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964 at the height of his popularity but instead four years later with the country on the brink. But Nixon also was reluctant to face a war-time president.

The man who crashed the party in ’02 was Howard Dean. His anti-war stance electrified the Democratic base despite the fact that few elected Democrats would criticize the war beforehand. Yet for all of Dean’s effort, his own party decided to crush him with a vicious campaign of negative ads in violation of election law by a group called Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progress in Iowa and New Hampshire. Funded by individuals very close to John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, John Edwards, and Wesley Clark, the ads refused to acknowledge their campaign ties. Unsurprisingly Dean lost the Iowa caucus to John Kerry. But did Dean decide to throw the fight? If he is successful in his bid to win the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, it seems plausible. Dean would get a job with plenty of face-time and the chance to be aggressive attacking policies he doesn’t like, but without the rigors of the campaign. Instead he would do what he is best at: raising money from previously parsimonious donors. So should the job at the DNC turn out to be Dean’s golden parachute, why did the election proceed to be so closely fought by both sides?

The answer is that it’s an illusion. The Kerry campaign again and again made odd decisions after securing the nomination. Most noticeably it focused nearly all its energy on Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Massive voter registration drives and millions of dollars spent in advertising focused on a swath of states that predictably split as they did in 2000. In fact nationally, the only states that shifted from “red” to “blue” or vice versa were Iowa, New Mexico, and New Hampshire. Each was so closely decided in 2000 that such shifts are not even statistically significant. Bush ran hard to attract more voters to be sure, but picking up Iowa and New Mexico were not why he won. The states he won in 2000 gained electoral votes overall, allowing Bush the freedom to lose New Hampshire without picking up any new states. Kerry would have needed to win in the South or Southwest. Kerry and other Democratic Party members refrained, focusing only on Ohio and Florida. While victory in either one would have been enough to propel Kerry to victory, such a strategy allowed the GOP to focus nearly all of its energies there. Losing the element of surprise as a challenger doomed Kerry’s tactical chances before the voting ever began. Republicans wanted to claim this was all a reflection of Kerry’s personal tendency to be a “flipper-flopper”.

Au contraire. The Democrats are now poised to humiliate Bush akin to Napoleon’s invasion of Russia. The ’08 Republican nominee will have no name recognition because of the vice president’s vow not to run to succeed Bush. Kerry, Edwards, Dean, and even Gore can run with an edge in name recognition over every Republican candidate with the exception of John McCain and Bush’s younger brother John. McCain would be the oldest President ever elected, John “Jeb” Bush has said he will not run in ’08, suggesting that a relative outsider…an “anti-Bush” …would be chosen. The Democrats would likely choose a candidate from a “red state”, where at least among sitting governors or Senate the list of viable candidates is rather short. But also note, none of the previous Democratic candidates would qualify. Edwards lost his seat while the others are from “blue” states, including Hillary Clinton.

Still, expect to see very little public news about the process until 2006. The Democrats, until that time, will play up their defeat while quietly raising money and marshalling resources for the mid-term election. While the situation in both the economy and Iraq is important to the campaign, the Democrats also must choose when and how to oppose both the President and the Republican majority in Congress. That dance begins on November 16^th, with Bush hoping to confirm White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and the next Attorney General of the United States.

Ten Reasons Not to Fear Bush

2004-11-08T16:26:00.000-08:00

Ten Reasons for Liberals (and Moderates) Not to Fear Bush's Second Term

There was really only one reason for a liberal to vote for Bush. And that reason was that a second term would be just enough rope for Bush to hang himself. Your conservative friends poke fun at you, your accomodationist liberal friends talk about how they can appeal to someone who lives in a red state, and your defeatist progressive pals are prepping for their move to Canada. Before you start worrying about having to wear a blue star on your lapel, here are ten comforting thoughts about a second Bush term. Ten reasons to remind yourself that no matter what Bush says he’s going to do, know in your soft heart that his bluff is about to be called.

Foreign Policy: Forget Iraq for a second. Tony Blair faces a killer reelection campaign in May. North Korea's nuclear program continues unabated, and Iran cannot effectively be deterred with our energies focused on Iraq. Add to that a tenuous leadership situation in Saudi Arabia, Arafat on his death bed, Pakistan President Musharraf being chased by assassins, China-Taiwan tensions, and mixed signals from Russia, and Bush’s unilateral strategy will have its day of reckoning shortly.

Social Security: With corporate scandals still causing tremors in courtrooms across America, guys like Grover Norquist say with a straight face that a person’s hard earned money is safer in the stock market than Social Security? Um, sure Grover, you keep thinking that while the Calfornia state employee pension fund, CalPers, is still suing Enron for misleading it as a major stockholder. Progressives and liberals alike should not be afraid, privatizing SSI will be so costly, that it may bring down the house of cards altogether. The reason is because today’s workers pay for today’s beneficiaries, which means that if younger workers stop contributing, it would fail sooner than when that generation retires. The impending collapse of Social Security is likely to have huge repercussions on the economy to say the least.

Education: Yeah that’s right, No Child Left Behind is a success. You heard me, look at all those schools we have punished with less funding for failing students. That is what I call accountability. Too bad the real plan is to crush the public service union by undermining schools, closing them, and offering vouchers to the disenfranchised. So now someone who earns $24,000 a year will earn even less to help ensure your child doesn’t fall behind. Right…

Immigration: The rural vote was often key to Bush’s success with special “Farm Team” signs hoisted around various events. Boy, does the President ever know how to return a favor. His guest worker program ensures that the “Farm Team” will get buried by waves and waves of Latin American workers who will undercut their wages. What’s worse, the guest worker program means no one’s job is safe eventually, once it proves successful in the Heartland.

Taxes: Simplify the tax code often means making it more regressive. The more you have, the more you can cheat. If a national sales tax is passed, it eliminates the IRS and all of its lazy employees. Plus it pushes the tax burden squarely on those struggling to get by, often who voted Republican. There is a God after all.

Health Care: More choices, better care. George Bush should get credit for creating single payer health care in America…it’s just called Kaiser. The government may not administer the program per se, but the future isn’t some clunky HMO. Instead it’s the physicians' Auschwitz known as “big medicine”. The prescription drug benefit is dead-on-arrival…as its funding source has yet to be appropriated. And if one is found, expect the drug companies to raise prices on otherwise prosaic drugs and supplies like insulin. Add to the fact that California stands to benefit from being the stem cell research oasis nationally and that pie on Bush’s face is going taste awful good in four years.

Abortion: Republicans love to talk about abortion when it fires up the base, but never do anything toward it. No matter how conservative the Supreme Court gets, they cannot prevent individual states from ruling on the practice and keeping it legal. No one likes unwanted pregnancy, but banning all abortion would just create an underclass of unwed mothers who need more welfare. See how this works? This shame felt by these unwed mothers will shame the next generation of women into returning to a life barefoot, pregnant on the kitchen floor married to her dud husband because there is no longer Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

Energy: Bush’s terminally short memory left out on his Ohio campaign stops any talk about the big blackout of ’03 which started south of Cleveland. Oh wait, perhaps it’s because he has done NOTHING about it. He wants to improve domestic energy production if it involves drilling a hole somewhere. In Alaska, local support for ANWR is big, but in Florida support for Area 151 is not. Incentives for public transportation, hybrid cars, and even a hydrogen based engine are all missing. Where's my Jimmy Carter-approved solar panes and sweater?

Gay Marriage: If you never thought you would live to see the day conservatives were against marriage, look alive! But see, the conservative vision of marriage is one where a white family, in accordance with Biblical teaching, raises white children so that Catholics, Jews, blacks, and other undesirables do not “out-breed” your kind. The thinking is, if married gays can marry, they can adopt and indoctrinate their children to be gay, thus reducing the supply of desirable white children in America who can be saved. Who adopts the Catholic, Jewish, black, and other minorities? Their own kind, of course.

Terrorism: George W. Bush has done little if anything to make America safer. During his time as President he has eviscerated the government from top to bottom. There will be another attack, and it will affect you, even if tangentially. How the Bush Administration rationalizes that, and his inability to capture bin Laden, ought to be a curious sight indeed.

Specter of Dissent

2004-11-04T20:07:00.000-08:00

Specter of Dissent

With Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle defeated, President Bush re-elected, and the Texas redistricting working according to plan, the Republicans stand at the very apex of their power. An ambitious agenda for 2005 awaits, but it turns out 2004 is not yet fait accompli for the future. Already, “Unpaid” explored Bush’s options if Chief Justice William Rehnquist either retired or died during the current Supreme Court term. Somehow, the story gets even weirder. It appeared that Bush had a yellow-brick road to any nomination, with the Senate slipping even more into Republican hands. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania senator set to succeed Orrin Hatch as Judiciary Committee chairman announced that he would approve the hearing for no judges who want to overturn Roe v. Wade. He then issued a press release a day later saying he would apply “no litmus test” in regard to abortion. Nevermind the fact that Specter was challenged in a primary with an evangelical candidate, Pat Toomey, and that Bush endorsed Specter giving him a close win. Nevermind that the general election against Democratic congressman Joe Hoeffel was also too close for Specter’s comfort. The 72-year old Specter who may never run for office again suddenly had the President by the tail.
Unless Bush invokes the recess appointment tactic and one of the justices leaves the Court while the Senate is not in session. In theory, Bush could wait until the Senate resumes on November 16th. However, with more Democratic senators this time around, there could be a costly showdown in the waning days of 2004. Recall too that if Bush utilizes the recess appointment it would expire in 2006, with the potential that the balance of the Senate could reset to Democratic control. Already Democratic strategists have mentioned that more Senate seats are up in “blue states” come 2006, but no Republicans look particularly vulnerable yet.
Still, what brought Specter to make comments about this in the first place, even if he now downplays them? Until 2002, Specter was the only Republican senator who was Jewish. After the death of Paul Wellstone in Minnesota, Republican Norm Coleman joined Specter. This is not to imply that Jews are underrepresented on Capitol Hill. It is just that the rest of them, with the exception of Virginian congressman Eric Cantor, are Democrats. And specifically, Specter’s retraction mentioned he had no desire to apply a litmus test on abortion. But what about say, cross-burning? Bush already has utilized the recess appointment tactic already, to appoint Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit of Appeals and William Pryor. Both of them stalled in the Senate not because of abortion concerns but instead civil rights. Pickering failed because of his leniency to cross-burner Daniel Swan in 1994. Pryor, conversely, believes that public prayer and the Ten Commandments are not out of place at government offices.
It is also true that Specter is pro-choice. Yet, he does not need his judiciary chairmanship to stop nominees like Janice Brown of the California Supreme Court or Priscilla Owen of the Texas Supreme Court. Unless pro-life Democrats defect (which seems unlikely for they could have other reasons to dislike these nominees), Bush stands to get strung up by his own party. Maine’s two female senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, combined with Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chafee, Specter himself, and three other Republicans: Lisa Murkowski, John McCain, and Mel Martinez would certainly not dismiss all conservative judges, but would like toss Owen, Carolyn Kuhl, and Janice Rogers.
Therefore, what Specter really means is something along the line of: “Go ahead, nominate conservative justices but be forewarned that Pickering and Pryor will not make it out of committee, whereas Owen, Kuhl, and Rogers will just be voted down on the floor of the Senate. Miguel Estrada and Alberto Gonzales are still welcome. Now go send Colin Powell to Israel before Arafat’s death causes a real problem.
Until there’s true transparency about Rehnquist’s health, Specter probably will not change his tune.

Election of Remedies: The Rehnquist Factor

2004-11-01T15:54:00.000-08:00

Election of Remedies: The Rehnquist Factor

Imagine the following scenario. During the 2000 election recount, a member of the Supreme Court dies. With Congress out of session, President Bill Clinton nominates a new justice to serve as a recess appointment. The new justice votes to continue the recount and affirm the Florida Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Gore. Al Gore becomes President. With this scenario as a backdrop, conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist announced his diagnosis with thyroid cancer last Monday. He asserted he would return to the bench today. That did not happen.

There is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will be involved at all in the election aftermath. Secondly, the Senate will resume on November 16th. If Mr. Bush wants to replace William Rehnquist without advice and consent of the Senate, he must do it within two weeks. Or he must do it after the Senate adjourns for good. Given that the Senate is under Republican control, one wonders if Bush would simply wait a week or two, and then make his appointment. Bush v. Gore, after all, the US Supreme Court did not get involved until December of 2000. Yet, the Senate has the filibuster, and this weapon means that Bush could be deprived of this strategy if the Senate maintains quorum. Given that the Supreme Court would likely rule before Christmas, this is the riskier strategy.

Yet, the possibility remains there will be no Bush v. Gore style climax. Would George W. Bush still attempt a recess appointment? The answer here is yes. The Democrats will retain 43 seats in the Senate irrespective of what happens on Tuesday. That is enough to kill any unpopular nominee. However, the Senate is reelected in thirds. Should the Democrats lose a few more seats in 2006, this would pave the road to Bush being able to permanently appoint more conservative judges. Assuming there is no electoral fracas, Bush would likely favor this more, making his selections during the inactivity of the holiday season.

However, there is still one more scenario. If Rehnquist resigns or retires after the Senate reconvenes but before all litigation is settled...does he propose a moderate vote for himself and ensure his electoral victory or a more conservative justice after the court rules with only eight justices? (The lower court ruling would then hold in a 4-4 tie.) this, as any law student would say presents a most confounding election of remedies

Arnold MIA

2004-10-27T20:53:00.001-07:00

Does Arnold Consider Bush a Lost Cause?

It is a story which is being underplayed, but probably tells us a lot about 2004 election. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, was supposed to appear in Ohio earlier this week with President George W. Bush. Ohio is a state in dire economic straits, and one that no Republican has been able to forgo when winning the presidency. Schwarzenegger has reneged a couple times, and now has said he will only appear once in Ohio, this weekend. While the official story is that Arnold is just being fickle, the truth is probably that Bush is in trouble.

Schwarzenegger won the recall election in California because he convinced a core Democratic constituency, African Americans, to choose him instead of Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamente. Latinos and blacks tend not to see eye-to-eye in California, but misery still makes them odd bedfellows. Karl Rove's idea is that in suburban Ohio, places like Cleveland and Cincinnati, which have significant black neighborhoods are fertile ground for a moderate like Schwarzenegger to sway just enough to tilt the state in Bush's favor. Hence, Arnold hasn't been used in razor-thin showdown states like New Mexico or Iowa, or even Florida, because there swing voters are not likely to be black. Still the common thinking is that wouldn't Arnold want to help put Bush over the top and help the Republicans rebuild in California?

Some would speculate that Schwarzenegger simply is worried about being reelected in 2006. Very true, but it is more likely that Schwarzenegger believes that Bush will lose. We say this because Arnold has a long history of reversing himself to always be on the winning team. Most recently, he endorsed Proposition 71 only after polling indicated that the measure would pass. Before that he was ready to negotiate the construction of the state's first Indian casino in a Bay Area suburb until it appeared sentiment in Contra Costa County was against it.

So what indication does Schwarzenegger have that Bush will lose? We say it has a name: Pete Wilson. Good ol' Pete was the governor of California throughout the 1990s, and ironically he found himself in much the same paradox as Schwarzenegger. Elected in 1991, Wilson soft-pedaled his support for then incumbent George H. W. Bush in California. Thanks to Ross Perot, Clinton was the first Democrat since LBJ to carry California. Wilson might simply think that Bush is going to lose, but he is also likely to suggest that Schwarzenegger's energies must be directed in state versus out. The economic malaise of the early 90s was far worse than currently, but they underscore the same sources. Wilson's popularity in 1992, in light of the Los Angeles Riots, was a meager 15%.

Yet somehow, even as divisive as Wilson proved with measures like Proposition 187...he found himself reelected with broad support in 1994. And perhaps this is what he is suggesting to Arnold, cut a bold profile out of state and lose. Yet Wilson himself wanted to run for President but was undercut in 2000 but support by George W. Bush and the unpopularity of Proposition 209 nationally. But Wilson knows that Schwarzenegger cannot run for President yet, while 2006 is only 14 months away. Machinations aside, does Wilson have reasons to suspect Bush is done for?

This is the ominous question, and it's tremendously hard to guess what his rationale could be. Make no mistake, Arnold was not shy in September at the GOP Convention, begging the question why he's suddenly missing now.

Draw!

2004-10-19T17:57:00.000-07:00

DRAW!

After serious contemplation, Unpaid is prepared to call the 2004 for election for Bush. The final electoral count… about 30-25. What is that you say, doesn’t a candidate need 270 votes to win the Electoral College? Unpaid thinks the Electoral College will deadlock, leaving the House of Representatives on January 8th to re-elect George W. Bush. Under the Constitution, each representative does not get a vote, but rather each state’s delegation of representatives. Currently the GOP controls about 35 delegations, and the Democrats only 20. The new Congress votes in the President, however, leaving there chance for the margin to change. The only reason Kerry is seemingly hopeless here is that most seats in the House are gerrymandered to be “safe” and noncompetitive.

Still, with national polls titling Bush by a small margin nationwide, you might wonder why Unpaid is certain the Electoral College will be tied. There are two scenarios, one commonly accepted the other not.

Scenario One: John Kerry wins Ohio and New Hampshire. If this occurs, even if Wisconsin, New Mexico and Florida stay red, both candidates get 269 votes. George W. Bush can defeat this strategy a myriad of ways, most notably by winning populous New Jersey. But that requires buying time on New York City and Philadelphia television stations. While Bush-Cheney already considers Pennsylvania in play, it is not hopeful for New York, and that gives Kerry and edge in that regard.

Scenario Two: Much has been made about an initiative to split electoral votes in Colorado. The state is not as big a prize as Florida to be sure, but it’s not even as big (in electoral terms) as Wisconsin, a former “blue” state that seems firmly in Bush’s grasp. Still if Florida and Ohio both tilt for Bush, how would the “Colorado” effect have an impact? If the initiative fails, and Bush wins Colorado…Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico would have to select Kerry. Bush is ahead in polls in all three states. Each poll is probably done incorrectly. In Nevada, large numbers of blacks have moved in since 2000 from California. We doubt they will vote Republican. In Arizona, immigration is an issue which Kerry has not bludgeoned the incumbent on, but still could be a way to make tremendous hay. New Mexico went for Gore last, time and while Bush is ahead, again undersampling ethnic minorities probably means a razor thin blue shade. Because of the reliance on Arizona, this is unlikely.
If Kerry wins Colorado outright, getting Nevada and New Mexico still tip the election to Bush. As a result, there would have to be another state on the fence that could switch from “red” to “blue”. There is such a state, and it is Arkansas. Bush barely musters a one percent lead in the Ozarks, with Nader getting a healthy chunk as well as the undecided vote. Undecided voters tend to pick change over the status quo, and even if that does not hold, the sampling again likely means Arkansas might already be a blue state. Combining it with Colorado and New Mexico would be a tremendous coup for the challenger.
So how does the intiative passing chance the equation? If Bush gets 5 votes, and Kerry 4 in Colorado, then Kerry would need Nevada, New Mexico, and Arkansas for a tie. If Kerry wins a qualified election 5-4 in Colorado then he would need Nevada New Mexico, or West Virginia to pull even.
Of all these possibilities, Unpaid believes that Bush winning a split in Colorado is the reason the for the draw. Voter registration and irregularities here smack of Florida but only in terms of how overworked the staff will be counting over-votes and the like. Arkansas probably has large number of Latino voters who are new to the state undercounted by the polling organizations, and along with a strong black turnout suggest that it already may be a blue state. The President has to counter Yucca Mountain, a planned repository for nuclear waste set to be deposited in Nevada. With the state’s powerful Democratic Senator Harry Reid running for reelection, Reid can run against Bush for the purposes on the ticket, giving Kerry plenty of oxygen in addition to demographic changes which we think favor Kerry, not Bush. Add a contentious victory in New Mexico, and we will have overtime once again.

Time to Show Initiative

2004-10-12T17:31:00.000-07:00

Time to Show Initiative

It was Thomas Jefferson who believed the US Constitution ought to be rewritten from time to time. Jefferson’s dream has been realized in California, where no matter who you elect, the people have the power to circumvent the officials by means of ballot initiatives. Nothing has a greater impact on California than these measures, and as hard as candidates fight for offices, the propositions make everyone, from the junior assemblyman to the governor irrelevant by comparison. “Unpaid” is here to help by cutting through pages and pages of the voter guide to give you the unvarnished reasons why to vote for, or against.

Proposition 1A No. The reason to vote no on this measure is incredibly simple, yet abstract. The idea behind the measure is to prevent the Legislature from making new spending appropriations until the amount of money it sends to local governments are satisfied. So why is this a bad idea? Well, is there anything to prevent cities and counties from overstating what they need in an attempt to reduce the state’s general revenue? And if even if they don’t, some revenue shortfall comes from the federal government not coming through on its requirements in the form of unfunded mandates. So as abstract as it seems, you vote for your local government, you vote for your national representatives, and you vote for your person in the state legislature. You do not get to vote for other districts’ representatives, other states’ senators, and so forth. This measure impedes the state and appears to be harmless, but what it ensures is that the federal government will continue to cut spending to local governments knowing that local leaders won’t resist and instead shrink the size of the state’s cushion for revenue. Unlike the feds though, California is not authorized to run a deficit, ensuring that taxes will rise precipitously at the state level if this measure is passed. Sales, vehicle licensing fees, university fees…it does not matter…Proposition 1A could be the most ill-considered idea since 1978’s Proposition 13.

Proposition 59: No. How much do you really want to pay for more access to your public records. While we do not have the equivalent of “sunshine laws” as strong as other states, so many other strong measures exist that make “59” window dressing. After all, confidential government meetings still are barred, so with that semantic trick, this is a dead letter.

Proposition 60: Yes. It’s usually a bad reason to vote for an initiative to avoid another initiative. But Proposition 60, designed to prevent any party from being denied ballot access is just such a reason. Chances are the party you vote for doesn’t have this problem, but if Proposition 62 passes, “60” limits the trickery by preventing an “open primary” where only two leading vote getters are placed on the ballot.

Proposition 60A: No. This measure is only here because it was stuck in a rider to Proposition 60. It’s not that there’s any reason to oppose it. But it’s because the Legislature can vote on this measure again later on should the initiative not be passed.

Proposition 61: Yes. It is true that this measure’s opponents are right. The reason this measure is on the ballot is that our healthcare system in America is broken. But the reason it comes to this in California is Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s vicious redlining of the University of California. While its hospitals aren’t going under, it still needs money to make capital improvements and the losses are mounting because people are afraid of “socialized medicine”. Yes, it will cost money, but there’s really no other option, short of a total political change in the United States away from myopia on health care and immigration.

Proposition 62: No. As much as people seemed to have liked the open primary, where anyone can vote for primary candidates, the parties went all the way to the Supreme Court to rid themselves of it. So now, a new initiative says, you can have your open primary back, but the only two top voter getters will be sent to the general election. This is how they do it in Louisiana, which perfected the situation to ensure that if one Democratic nominee did not win the election, the runoff would consolidate the votes to defeat the challenger. This wouldn’t quite happen in California; instead it would just kill the primary process into no third parties and the two major parties having coronations. Sure, we don’t live in a democracy as much as a republic…but still…

Proposition 63: Yes. Los Angeles and San Francisco seemingly have an out of control homeless problem, but in reality most are just disabled people or mentally impaired folks turned loose with no ability to handle them. Proposition 63 does not solve the eternal problem, but it does create an interesting solution. It raises income taxes only on the rich as an attempt to pull many of the mentally ill off the streets. The odd surprise is this is supported by law enforcement because surprise, they often have to be the ones to marshal the downtrodden. The less street people, the more time they have to tackle more serious problems. Again, if the federal government would get serious about replacing the money it used to spend on mental health in the 1980s and earlier, this would not be necessary.

Proposition 64: No. Chances are you never heard of the Trevor Law Group, a bunch of thieves who happened to be lawyers running wild with California’s Unfair Competition Law. Unfortunately their abuse does not warrant this. It’s a strong-armed measure which prevents real legal champions taking on unfair and incorrect marketing and business practices.

Proposition 65: No. This was what Proposition 1A was before Arnold Schwarzenegger made his suggestions. It’s still a bad idea.

Proposition 66: Yes. Now here’s a thought, why send a person to jail for life for stealing a slice of pie. Sure, recidivism is a problem in state prisons. Still, when your state incarcerates more people than any other country or state on earth…including much more populous ones like China…you can see where this “budget deficit” really comes from. As fun and exciting as the “3 Strikes Law” was during the crime-ridden early 90s…we really don’t want to have a geriatric ward disguised as a penitentiary in 20 years. Why do we claim society will be so much safer locking up offenders for life when in fact recidivism is neither likely in some cases, nor likely as a person ages. Even the most dangerous or deranged individual will become pretty harmless as they grow longer in the tooth, and if not, they probably need to be committed anyway.

Proposition 67: Yes. Though it has a different mechanism than Proposition 63, this is the same idea. The uninsured have strained hospitals and EMTs to the breaking point, and we need new revenues to pay for closing hospitals. Sure there is another solution, but it’s unlikely to happen.

Proposition 68: No. If we are going to legalize gambling in California, we can’t give it away this cheaply. Considering how lucrative it can be, this is just a bad deal, no matter who is the beneficiary, card club owners or Native Americans.

Proposition 69: No. The reason to vote this measure down is because of what was left out. Instead of forcing all people arrested (DUI and domestic violence types take note) to give their DNA to the database, it places no evidentiary guidelines how that would be treated in court. In other words, even though the State would be able to show how close the DNA match would be in court, it would smell like OJ. And ultimately you know that it will actually have the reverse effect. More of more people would be suspicious of the State’s discretion using the DNA drops as evidence without requiring DNA matches to either hold, arrest, or convict a suspect. Barry Scheck is going to be a rich man if this passes.

Proposition 70: No. We repeat, it’s not that legalized gambling is an anathema to California. It is merely that if we need the revenue generated in its taxes, we need to cut a better deal than this. Proposition 5 stands in any event, allowing the Native Americans more or less sovereign gaming rights on their reservations anyway.

Proposition 71: Yes. This is huge. California is the biggest biotechnology state in the country. Massachusetts nips at our heels. The University of California hangs by a thread thanks to a coordinated reduction in funding at the state and local level. So why stem cells? The answer is that this would create lots of jobs in California, high paying, while offsetting the amount of money certain UC program would need. The bottom line, don’t think of this as a bond measure, think of a tax break that actually works out even better should President Bush be reelected.

Proposition 72: Yes. Here’s a novel idea. If you hire people at minimum wage and they cost the state money for being uninsured, why not force employers to buy insurance. This is the bottom line in the health care “crisis”, a restaurant owner is covered under the small business exception of providing health care because he or she bought the franchise rights, not into the company itself. Now companies supposedly would put out of business. Please, trauma centers are being shut down and the state is being forced to mortgage its future for Walmart? Note, small businesses under fifty people are still exempt, causing you to wonder just who is against this idea.

The End of Wal-Mart?

2004-10-05T21:56:00.000-07:00

The End of Walmart

There was a time when Wal-Mart did not conjure up the negative stereotypes it does today. There was a time when the discount retailer had a much lower profile, maintaining strongholds in the South and Midwest. Slowly but surely, Wal-Mart pushed east and west simultaneously, causing a culture war. Wal-Mart has been blamed for everything from grocery store strikes to the oppression of Chinese workers. Marked by more and more rapid expansion, and cutting prices, the question remains: what happens when there is no new place to open a Wal-Mart? Will stores raise prices when they are the only store in town?
Wal-Mart has found itself unable to make inroads where it is weakest: California and the Northeast. Some cities, like Rosemead, California have capitulated to the desire of the retail giant to open Supercenters there. Others like Inglewood, have resisted bitterly. And surprisingly, of all the things that you could imagine the corporate officers fear, this inability to open new stores is chief among them. Growth is a principal concern for the company; if new stores do not open, it is not as profitable. But there are finite limits to where stores can be opened, and the question remains what happens when there is a Wal-Mart on every corner.
The answer may be more visible than every person thinks. After all, while Wal-Mart is a publicly traded company, it has the majority of its stock owned by the Walton family. And the value of the stock has fluctuated from the 1990s into the new millennium. But if growth powered the stock’s rise, will lack of growth cause it decline, and the rich family’s fortunes with it? The answer appears to be yes and no. Currently, Wal-Mart does not have higher wages because of an anti-union environment. Healthcare and other benefits are non-existent for the majority of employees. Raising those standards could cost the company its bottom line.
Even if the only limit to growth is Wal-Mart’s own success, it still seems possible that the ultimate end-game for the Waltons would be to sell their stock. And had the stock market not crashed in 2000, perhaps this would have been fait accompli. With the economy rebounding, and investors moving back into stocks after cautious avoidance in light of such corporate scandals as Enron, the Waltons may be ready to start selling their stock.

Whither Iraq?

2004-09-28T22:20:00.000-07:00

Mission Accomplished: Why Bush Already Has Won the War in Iraq

There’s only one question that seems to resonate among voters in regard to Bush and his opinion of foreign affairs. Why did we ever invade Iraq if our assertions about the need to preemptively attack were false? The answer to this question is that the Iraq War lies at the intersection of George W. Bush’s beliefs about domestic and international policy. No matter how history would have turned out, “Dubya” only had one goal in mind. In short, everything revolves around reducing the size of government. Governments exist by taking money from their citizens; the more one perceives the government taking away and not giving back, the more sympathetic a person will be to this reasoning.
However, taxes in general do not come into existence because of a regime’s desire to have social programs or protections. No, the income tax always is tied to the development and need for a standing army (as opposed to a militia system). The implication seems to be, if so, then a war would cause taxes to rise and not to fall. But consider the situation George W. Bush faced in 2000, taxes were not particularly high, but revenues had been buoyed by an artificial stock market bubble. Bush suggested that tax cuts were a viable option, since given the surplus created the US government could afford it.
This is not the most effective way to shrink the size of government. The most effective way to reduce the size of government is to run a deficit. The reason for this is that, when the deficit overshadows yearly shortfalls and becomes too large, politicians find it hard to suggest taxes be raised only to combat the problem…most are stuck reducing the size of government in part, and increasing the tax burden in other places. Still, even this compromise strategy means that eventually the government becomes far smaller than it was before.
As a result, the next concern Bush had was how to raise spending but still be able to argue for the need to have government shrink overall. While a war is not the only way to achieve it, it is effective, and therefore it was obvious that when Condoleezza Rice (now Bush’s National Security Advisor) wrote in 2000 about the need to “confront evil in the world” that there was some planned confrontation. So why was Iraq chosen as the location for this war?
Three answers. 1) Saddam Hussein’s regime was already on thin ice with the United Nations. Military warplanes bombed Saddam Hussein for violating the UN non fly-zone splitting up his own nation. He had already rejected the overtures of UN weapon inspectors, so it seemed that popular opinion outside and inside the US would tilt toward a quick and speedy removal. 2) America’s largest allies, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Israel all sought the destruction of the Hussein dictatorship. Britain due to oil concerns in Kuwait and the Gulf, Israel because of Hussein’s generous support to groups like Hamas. Saudi Arabia had a multitude of concerns: Hussein’s willingness to attack them, their reliance on American troops to protect their shaky regime, and the unrest that the American military presence brought. 3) After Pakistan confirmed its ability to detonate a nuclear weapon in 1999, General Pervez Musharraf staged a military coup. Suddenly, there was great uncertainty if Russian nuclear material had been the source of the Pakistan’s arms, and if so, where else had it wound up.
Nevertheless, the existence of this uncertainty could mean that any country ruled by a less-than-revealing group of people could be due for an invasion. Politicians prefer the known quantity however, and that meant of the places likely to qualify for an invasion, Iraq would be the only politically safe choice.
Most people then are curious to know where the “War on Terrorism” fits into this strategy. It never did, because terrorism was largely an unknown concept in the United States. The President utilized terrorism to create the illusion of a cold war of sorts. Everything on the international stage is drawn on this canvas of combating terrorism. The danger with this is that Bush had to make a credible argument why his opponent in Saddam Hussein is related to terrorism. He chose two false assumptions, that Iraq would give nuclear weapons to groups like Al Qaeda, and that Iraq aided Al Qaeda in previous terror attacks. Nevertheless, his original goal of creating deficits has been a success. No matter what happens military, this why Bush believes it is “Mission Accomplished”.