Read it at the Standard.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Democrats Quietly Looking for Support for War Tax
Just proof that as far as House Democrats go, a good idea never goes away:
Rep. John Murtha (Pa.) opposed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) on two major issues this week, repeating a pattern of alternating agreement and disagreement between the two influential Democrats.
Murtha renewed his call for a surtax to fund the Iraq war, an idea Pelosi has shot down, and he cautioned against bringing up legislation to condemn the Armenian genocide, a measure Pelosi supports...
Despite being rebuffed by Pelosi on the war surtax earlier, Murtha and Reps. Dave Obey (Wis.) and Jim McGovern (Mass.) wrote their colleagues Tuesday to gather support for the idea.
Meanwhile, Charlie Rangel is planning to propose a tax increase of about a trillion dollars. And at the same time, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the budget will be balanced by 2012 -- if Democrats don't bust the budget with new spending.
So why do we need another new tax, exactly?
Bear Grylls Doesn't Know When to Apologize
Put Bear Grylls with Larry Craig, Al Sharpton, and scads of others in modern life today: people who don't realize they've done something wrong and need to apologize. Doesn't he realize that whether it was his decision or someone else's, his show deceived viewers about the risks he was taking. That was wrong.
Yet instead of the apology, we get the next stage -- the period where he gets complimented for keeping a stiff upper lip in the face of embarrassment about what his show did wrong:
Grylls now says the fallout from the revelation has been difficult to deal with.
"It's been hard," he told Outside magazine in an interview out this week. "I'm not that bulletproof underneath it all! But I just want to say thanks for so much support and encouragement. I will keep giving 'Man vs. Wild' my absolute everything."
Grylls stood out because in "Man vs. Wild" he seemed to do anything to survive, including eating loads of creepy things and spending time in the cold.
But earlier this year, it was revealed that during some scenes where viewers were led to believe he was in the woods, he was actually sleeping inside.
There was never any indication in Grylls's show that anything was staged. There was clearly a conscious effort to mislead viewers. That was wrong -- particularly when it would have been a cool show without the deception.
Just say 'I'm sorry,' for heaven's sake.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Tom Davis Rethinking Senate Run
It was regarded as a given that Tom Davis would leave the House of Representatives to seek the Senate seat being vacated by John Warner. But he's now reconsidering, as it would be a major challenge for a moderate such as he to be nominated at a convention dominated by conservatives, then lead a divided party against Warner:
Since Sen. John Warner (R) announced his retirement last month and even before, Davis has been expected to enter the race to replace him.
But Davis said at a breakfast at the National Press Club on Tuesday that both recent developments factor into his decision and suggested that he might instead run for freshman Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-Va.) seat in 2012, or not run for Senate at all.
Davis is also a strong candidate on K Street and could be drawn to a lobbying job.
“There are other races; this isn’t the only shot,” Davis said. “You’ve got a very vulnerable guy sitting there in the other Senate seat right now who may or may not run in four years. And you know what? If you don’t go to the Senate, so what? I’ve been a committee chairman in the House. I’ve got my portrait hanging on a wall. I’ve been pretty productive legislatively.”
There have been rumblings of late that Davis is having second thoughts about running, but he insists his mind was never made up.
While Davis is more liberal than many Republicans both in the House and in Virginia, he's widely respected as a bright team player, with great political skills. Whenever Republicans regain the majority, Davis will have an influential role. He'll also win friends by seeking re-election, which would take away another prime takeover opportunity from House Democrats.
Jim DeMint Wins an Important Victory on Earmarks
When Republicans in the last Congress, and Democrats in the current Congress, began taking up proposals to shed light on the earmark process, appropriators began to turn to the 'phonemark.' Simply put, that's when a Congressman or Senator calls an agency official to inform him or her that even though the Appropriations Committee hasn't said it, x dollars from a particular account are intended to go to this or that project.
As long as the Appropriations Committee stands behind the claim (or makes the call), it's no more or less binding than an earmark in the committee report. To address this end-run around earmark rules, Jim DeMint has gotten the Senate to agree to prohibit the practice:
The Senate on Tuesday backed a prohibition on federal agencies covered under the Commerce, Justice and science appropriations bill from using letters, phone calls or other communications from lawmakers in determining how to spend federal funds.
The amendment, offered by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and approved by voice vote, is the latest in a series of provisions DeMint and other Members have proposed to strengthen the key provisions of the ethics and earmark reform package passed by Congress earlier this year.
With increasing public scrutiny of earmarks, many Members of the House and Senate in recent years have used “phonemarks” to direct federal funding to specific recipients or regions.
Although the White House Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum earlier this year directing federal agencies to disregard these phonemarks, lawmakers have continued to contact executive branch officials over a variety of projects, according to data collected by the Sunlight Foundation. Additionally, federal officials previously have warned that given the power many of the Members have — particularly those who serve on authorizing or appropriations committees for their agencies — there is enormous pressure on them to comply with these requests.
DeMint argued the changes were needed in large part because of changes to the ethics package eliminating much of the law’s transparency provisions. Congress “pretty much gutted the transparency provisions. We’ve made some progress” in reversing those changes, DeMint said.
While the amendment will only apply to these agencies, and will only apply if it is preserved in conference, this is a valuable step forward. If the Senate votes to apply it to one appropriations bill, there's no reason to think they won't do so across the board. And as long as OMB is willing to assist in enforcing it -- by disclosing attempts by Members of the Senate to get around it -- it should be enforceable.
Another good move by Senator DeMint.
NRCC to Turn Lemons into Lemonade?
The surge of retirements for House Republicans poses a challenge in the effort to retake the majority next year, but it also poses a surprising opportunity. Those retirees tend to be more senior, and in many cases they've built up large war chests that they won't need. Federal law allows those funds to be used for a variety of different purposes. One permissible use is a transfer to party committees.
The National Republican Congressional Committee is actively working to tap the campaign war chests of retiring GOP Members who are collectively sitting on nearly $5 million — more than double what the cash-strapped NRCC last reported having in the bank.Nine of the Republicans who have announced they are leaving at the end of next year and not running for other office in total hold $4.67 million in their re-election accounts — money that they are legally able to transfer to the NRCC.
Sources said NRCC Chairman Tom Cole (Okla.) has been aggressively reaching out to Members who are leaving to discuss options for how their campaign funds could benefit the party’s 2008 efforts...
But this cycle the NRCC has lagged far behind its Democratic counterpart when it comes to available funds for the 2008 elections, as Cole has worked to pay down a large debt leftover from the 2006 cycle. As of Aug. 31, the NRCC had less than $2 million in its coffers while the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had more than $22 million.Behind Hobson, GOP Reps. Jim Ramstad (Minn.), Terry Everett (Ala.) and Chip Pickering (Miss.) have the largest campaign war chests among the retiring Members. Their three campaign committees have a total of $2.4 million.
Pickering said he had been in close consultation with Cole about how he could use a portion of his funds to help the NRCC and GOP candidates.
“He’s recommended some good uses,” Pickering said...
Retiring Rep. Deborah Pryce (Ohio), a former House GOP Conference chairwoman, said she is more than happy to use her $367,000 to help out the party.“It will go to support House Republicans and central Ohio races,” she said when asked what she planned to do with her campaign money.
Members of Congress can be extremely reluctant to part with hard-earned campaign dollars. Some retirees -- like Pickering -- will want to save cash for future campaigns for other office. It's clear however, that some of the House GOP retirees will not seek elective office again. They might help winnow down the Democratic cash advantage.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Tsongas Win Sends Warning to Democrats
So in the only special election of 2007 that figured to be anywhere near close, Niki Tsongas has defeated Republican Jim Ogonowski by a margin of around 51%-45%. In a district that went for John Kerry by 17 points, in a seat where Marty Meehan regularly won with more than 60 percent of the vote, Democrats should be concerned.
Yes, Niki Tsongas was clearly not a great campaigner, but she has great name identification, in a solid Democratic district. Furthermore, special elections are frequently decided by the party organizations, which must turn out their voters. How much of an organizational edge did the Democrats have in a district that hasn't elected a Republican in nearly 40 years?
And with all that edge, Democrats managed a 6 point win.
This is a clear sign that the 2006 Democratic wave is gone. Chris Bowers at OpenLeft typifies the response from Democrats; he argues not to read too much into this:
As with the OH-02, much of the problem rests in the ossified local machine of the favored party nominating a weak candidate. Tsongas isn't as bad on the trial as Jean Schimdt, but she is close.But in November 2006, Democrats would have ridden an ossified machine and a bad candidate to a 20 or 30 point margin of victory. Today it yielded them only a 6 point win, even with appearances by Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and other national Democratic leaders, against a candidate they heavily outspent.
Why is this so significant? Because Ogonowski ran a race against Congress, against illegal immigration, and against corruption. According to Democrats in Washington, he should have been defeated badly. After all, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid argue that Congress' low ratings are due to dissatisfaction with President Bush's war, and the American people are with them on the issues. Pelosi and Reid say that when people come out to vote, they'll vote with the Democrats -- whom they allegedly agree with on the issues.
That's not what happened today in the bluest state in the union. Why would anyone expect it to happen next November? Today's outcome shows that Congress' low approval ratings aren't just collateral damage from those of President Bush; Reid & Pelosi own those terrible ratings. Even in Masschusetts, the voters are telling them they're doing a terrible job. Are they likely to be more forgiving in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, New Mexico, or any of a host of other states with targeted races?
Judging by today's results, voters are likely to turn out ineffective incumbents in both parties to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the inability of Congress to move forward on health care reform, tax reform, national security priorities, and other matters. And it is the Democrats who will be fielding far more incumbents in GOP-leaning districts.
They'd better study this race.
Update: We can only hope that Rahm Emanuel is as nonplussed about this as Oliver Willis. Our job gets much easier if Democrats don't notice that something went seriously awry.
Earmarks Buy Melting T-Shirts
Representative John Campbell points to another wasteful pork-barrel project recently approved by Congress:
According to the Oregonian, Rep. David Wu (D-OR) directed more than $ 2 million dollars in T-shirt contracts to InSport International, a clothing manufacturer in Mr. Wu’s district. Unfortunately, these shirts are prone to melting and burning in high heat, thus rendering them dangerous and useless to soldiers in combat.
According to Captain Lynn Welling, the head surgeon of the 1st Marine Logistic Group, the polyester in these “melting shirts” adheres to the skin in intense heat, essentially creating a second skin which leads to horrific disfiguring burns.
Rep. Wu earmarked the contract into the 2006 Defense Appropriations Bill. Due to the design flaw, the Marines shortly thereafter banned the use of polyester shirts for use in combat, or anywhere outside the protected “Green Zone” bases. However, because of Mr. Wu’s earmark the Marines were forced to buy 87,000 of the banned shirts.
While the idea of a more comfortable shirt for our troops is commendable, the flaws of the shirts’ design were left uninvestigated. This is the purpose for process of competitively bidding contracts… to get the best product possible.
By the way, shortly after his earmarks passed in the Defense Appropriations Bill, Rep. Wu received nearly $15,000 in campaign contributions from InSport executives.
To show I'm an equal opportunity basher, I'll point out that the earmark was approved during a Republican Congress. Perhaps both parties can learn a lesson.
SCHIP Polling Should Worry Democrats
Go read the story over at Rob Bluey's site:
- 52% agree with Bush that most benefits should go to children in families earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level — about $41,000 for a family of four. Only 40% say benefits should go to such families earning up to $62,000, as the bill written by Democrats and some Republicans would allow.
- 55% are very or somewhat concerned that the program would create an incentive for families to drop private insurance. Bush and Republican opponents have called that a step toward government-run health care.
As the House and Senate prepare to vote on a veto override -- one that's certain to fail -- it's worth noting that Americans are closer to the president's position on this. It's enough to make you wish he was not so weak as a spokesman; he might otherwise be able to challenge the expansion more effectively.
More broadly, the lack of support for an expansion of health care that would help needy children -- the Democratic line -- should worry the Democrats. The Democratic campaigns are operating that the era when big government was over has concluded. They saw themselves as free to advocate bigger spending and higher taxes. But if even this program can't get a majority in support -- before the question of how to pay for it is even broached -- what does that suggest about the proposals of Democratic candidates for president? Maybe America isn't ready for a return to the Carter era.
Why is Harry Reid So Unpopular?
John Feehery -- a former spokesperson for Speaker Hastert -- has some ideas:
Perhaps it was the senator’s refusal to negotiate with the White House on the children’s healthcare bill. The system as envisioned by the Founders requires negotiation when the branches of government deadlock, which they have with the SCHIP bill. But Reid says that his door is not open to the White House, whatever the kids may think.
Perhaps it was when the senator said that the war in Iraq was lost and that the surge was a waste of time, well before there was time to give the surge a chance. Premature surrender is a bad trait for a political leader.
Perhaps it was when the senator turned his back on the United Mine Workers when he said that he opposed the building of any coal-fired power plants. Picking green activists over hardworking union workers is a sign that the senator has gone native in Washington.
Indeed.
Handwriting on the Wall for Congressman Doolittle?
Roll Call reports that House Republican leaders are pushing California's John Doolittle to decide not to seek re-election:
With polls showing his presumed Democratic opponent beating him in 2008, embattled Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) is under pressure from House Republican leaders to retire at the end of this term.
House GOP leadership held its fire until some time after Labor Day, hoping Doolittle would see the political writing on the wall over the summer and voluntarily choose retirement. But with the Congressman digging in and promising to run for re-election, the leadership of his Conference — urged on by some rank-and-file Members — has held private discussions with Doolittle in an effort to convince him to retire.
Leadership “is telling him that the financial resources are not going to be there, at least from Members, and that he should step aside,” said one Republican House Member. “Everybody likes John. He’s a very likable guy, and there’s no animosity toward him whatsoever. But he’s not — rightly or wrongly — going to be able to win...”
A survey conducted over the summer by Republican pollster Chris Wilson found Brown with a 20-point lead over Doolittle, 51 percent to 31 percent. Doolittle’s favorable-to-unfavorable was 28 percent to 56 percent, with 50 percent of respondents saying the Congressman should either retire or resign. Only 33 percent of those polled thought Doolittle should run for re-election...
Some Republican Members believe Doolittle might do more than jeopardize what should be a safe GOP seat. They worry that the ongoing federal investigation into his dealings as a Congressman could drag down the party by reminding voters of the unethical behavior that helped defeat several of their colleagues last year.
“I went to leadership and said you have to send message, and they said they did,” a second Republican House Member said.
This individual added that Doolittle’s appeals for donations to his legal defense fund have gone largely unanswered while GOP Members wait to see if the Congressman will follow through with his pledge to run for re-election.
The Republicans interviewed for this story say the grumbling over Doolittle, both on Capitol Hill and in California, is likely to remain private until sometime in January.
Not only is there pressure from Capitol Hill for Mr. Doolittle to step aside, but one of his primary opponents has outraised him so far -- a very rare thing for a challenger:
Doolittle raised only $50,308.00 with more than half of that coming from PACs. He now has cash on hand of $37,995.10.
Compare that to Eric Egland.
With our help, Eric raised $79,000.00 and he now has cash on hand of $70,000.00!
Without help from DC Republicans, that's not likely to get a lot better for Doolittle.
Harry Reid Ponders Retirement in 2010
Congressional leaders can never forecast their retirement too far ahead of time. As soon as they confirm their departure, they lose some of their authority -- and they kick off the succession race, which can lead to dissension and division.
Therefore, you should take it with a grain of salt when Reid's spokesman denies that he's thinking of hanging it up:
Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is sending all the right signals that he will run for re-election in 2010, the possibility that he might choose to retire has fueled speculation that a three-way race to succeed him atop the party could ensue among his top two lieutenants — Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Charles Schumer (N.Y.) — and Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.).
Sources both on and off Capitol Hill say while neither Durbin, Schumer nor Dodd openly is discussing a future leadership bid, they are emerging as the most obvious Majority Leader candidates among powerful lobbyists, donors and Democratic lawmakers. Talk of a rivalry among the prominent trio is growing even as Reid appears poised to run for another six-year term, a move that, if successful, would give the Nevada Democrat a chance to hold the party’s top leadership slot for more than a decade.
“Get in line and get used to waiting because Sen. Reid isn’t going anywhere anytime soon,” said the Majority Leader’s spokesman, Jim Manley, dismissing any chatter to the contrary as “inside the Beltway parlor games.”
Roll Call then goes on to say that at least one lobbyist close to the situation says the succession race is 'active.' Are you as surprised as I am that Chris Dodd is hedging his bets in case he doesn't get elected President?
A three-way race among Dodd, Durbin, and Schumer would be interesting. First off, any one of those leaders would give the Senate Democrats a leader who was unlikely to face re-election trouble at home (in contrast to Tom Dasche and Senator Reid). It would also ensure that the next Democratic leader would be from a 'big' state. Traditionally leaders come from smaller states (Nevada, South Dakota, Maine...), partly out of concern of giving undue influence to a populous Democratic state.
Further, the political climate in 2009 will factor in as well. Will Democrats gain a large number of seats in 2008? Will there be an unpopular Democratic president to defend in 2010? Will Reid's re-election prospects remain poor, or improve?
All worth watching down the road.
Barone: Is the Tax Issue Back?
A very interesting piece from Michael Barone. He points out the parallels between politics in the US and the UK, and notes that unexpectedly, taxes have re-emerged as an issue in Great Britain:
Now, his call for tax cuts seems to have boosted the Conservative total. Four polls taken since the party conferences showed Labor with a statistically insignificant 39 percent to 38 percent lead. Even worse news for Labor: A News of the World poll of 83 marginal seats showed the Conservatives ahead by 44 percent to 38 percent. That suggested Labor might win less than an absolute majority, which would force it to govern with the support of the Lib. Dems.
It's unusual to see such a sudden shift of opinion in British politics. (You seldom see it in America, either, except sometimes during the parties' national conventions.)
Does this augur well for the plan of some House Republicans to simplify and reduce taxes -- a plan which has attracted some positive attention already?
Monday, October 15, 2007
Hillary: I'll Trade Blood for Oil
No one likes the idea that the US should surrender blood for oil. Liberal protesters loathe the idea, and conservatives go to great lengths to avoid characterizing their policies that way. Put more elegantly, US foreign policy ought to recognize that at some level, energy means life. We need energy for heat in winter and cool in summer. We need it for hospitals, movement of food, and a host of other things. In extreme circumstances, the United States must be willing to use force to protect our energy supply, and that of our allies.
Congratulations to Hillary for recognizing that:
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton advocated talks to settle differences with Iran but said Saturday that Tehran would invite U.S. action if it were to disrupt oil supplies."I will make it very clear to the Iranians that there are very serious consequences attached to their actions," Clinton said. The presidential candidate spoke at a town hall meeting with 300 people at a high school in a Democratic stronghold in early voting South Carolina.
The New York senator, responding to a question, said blocking oil shipments "would be devastating to the world economy."
If a Republican explicitly considered the use of force to protect our supply of oil, he or she would be savaged by the Left. So far, Hillary seems to have skated past -- taking a position worthy of Dick Cheney, but still enjoying the support of the anti-war fever swamp.
Who said the Left wouldn't sell its collective soul for the White House?
Influence Peddler on XM
I'll be appearing again tomorrow morning at 7:30AM on XM Radio's POTUS 08 channel -- talking about the presidential race. I'm betting the topic of the day will be the fight among the Republican candidates about who's the real conservative.
Hopefully I'll get a chance to talk about the surprising report from Bob Novak that churchgoing protestants and Catholics like Rudy Giuliani -- more than any other candidate:
But the situation is not a simple confrontation between the Christian right and Giuliani. The Gallup data suggest that Dobson and the Salt Lake City group may be out of touch with rank-and-file churchgoers. A well-known social conservative, who asked that his name not be used, is disturbed by Dobson's statement he could not vote for Giuliani under any circumstances. Instead of being considered the lesser of two evils in a possible race against Sen. Hillary Clinton, Giuliani seems to be the positive choice of millions of religious Americans.Just as a point of reference, Georgetown University has found that 63 percent of all Catholics voted in 2004, with 52 percent of those supporting Bush and 47 percent backing Kerry. One has to imagine that the bulk of the 'churchgoing Catholics' voted for Bush.
In an aggregation of 1,690 interviews with Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in four Gallup surveys during August and September, Giuliani led with 27 percent (to Fred Thompson's 24 percent) among those who said they attended church at least once a week. Even more startling was the result of interviews with voters without regard to party preference. Among churchgoing Catholics, Giuliani led with a plus-38 favorable rating (trailed by Sen. John McCain at plus-29, with Clinton bringing up the rear at minus-9).
If Giuliani really has a 38 point net favorable rating among a cohort of Catholics that would tend to be more conservative -- far more conservative than he is -- that would be stunning. Is it because these Catholics tend to be more receptive to Giuliani's message of security and effective government, or is it because they share a cultural touchstone with Rudy? Recall that in 2000, George W. Bush went to great lengths to speak the same language as Roman Catholics; he recognized the importance of embracing the Catholic culture by adopting its language. Is it possible that Rudy already has that -- even as he supports abortion rights, and has favored other liberal positions?
It also suggests a real challenge for Giuliani's primary challengers. How will Romney, Thompson, and McCain break Giuliani's strong lead in this important primary voting bloc?
Larry Craig Channels Bill Clinton
During the NBC interview, Craig slammed Romney.
"I was very proud of my association with Mitt Romney,” Craig said. “I'd worked hard for him here in the state. I was a co-chair of his campaign on Capitol Hill. And he not only threw me under his campaign bus, he backed up and ran over me again."
Does Craig not understand that when a person in a position of trust -- such as US Senator or campaign co-chair -- engages in embarrassing and self-destructive behavior, it's that person who betrays a trust? It was not Romney who created a difficult and embarrassing situation for Craig; it's Craig who did that to Romney. Romney was the one who should have been angry -- that someone he trusted put him in an embarrassing situation.
Craig reminds me of Bill Clinton, promising not to hold a grudge against those in Congress who had voted to impeach him. I wonder if he realizes how off-putting it is to see someone demand respect, who would be better off asking forgiveness.
Ron Paul's Supporters -- Not Republican
Ron Paul ran for president as a libertarian in 1988. Soren Dayton notes that he's appealing to non-Republicans in this presidential race, as well:
There's more over at Soren's site; go check it out.
Man vs. Wild Comes Clean
I loved the Bear Grylls show 'Man vs. Wild,' until I learned that Grylls was receiving help without acknowledging it. When that fact became known a few months ago, Discover Channel announced that they would review the show to ensure that viewers are not misled. Although I missed it, they apparently came to a resolution a few weeks ago:
Discovery Channel has finally begun airing re-edited versions of "Man vs. Wild," that acknowledge parts of the unscripted series were faked.Well, honesty is the best policy.A disclaimer was added last week to at least four episodes from the first season along with other clarifications that came in the form of new voiceovers from "Wild" star Bear Grylls.
"Bear Grylls is trained in extreme survival techniques. He and the crew receive support when they are in potentially life-threatening situations, as required by health and safety regulations," the disclaimer reads. "Professional advice should be always be sought before entering any dangerous environment."
In some cases, footage has been cut from the show, including scenes from an episode showing Grylls going to sleep in a forest when he actually slept indoors that night.
Other episodes will feature Grylls admitting he was helped by producers in some situations, including finding food and building rafts and bridges that he originally appeared to have crafted on his own.
A New Way to Commit Suicide
Some BASE jumpers have apparently grown bored with just leaping off of buildings and spans, and have decided to make it more challenging by skimming as close to the objects as they can.
Flying Human TricksPRO.com - Wingsuite - video powered by Metacafe
It won't be long before you read the first obituary of a BASE jumper who got just a little bit too daring.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
The Hello Project
Remember Lionel Richie's 'Hello' video -- the one where he stalks a blind girl, who ends up sculpting his perfect likeness -- though she's never seen him?
How would that work in real life?
Andrew Roth found a video that shows exactly how. Answer? Not all that well.
O, Brave New World!
A scientist predicts that within 50 years people will be marrying robots. And earlier than that, people will be having... relations with robots. I am skeptical -- as in, I hope I'm not around when it happens -- but I can't argue with one prediction: It will happen in Massachusetts:
"My forecast is that around 2050, the state of Massachusetts will be the first jurisdiction to legalize marriages with robots," artificial intelligence researcher David Levy at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands told LiveScience. Levy recently completed his Ph.D. work on the subject of human-robot relationships, covering many of the privileges and practices that generally come with marriage as well as outside of it.
Her name was Pris...
Friday, October 12, 2007
Democrat Hypocrisy: Why Doesn't Hillary Fire Berger and Albright
Democrats have complained at length that President Bush hasn't fired people when things went wrong on their watch. Rumsfeld, Tenet, Michael Brown, and others were all allowed to remain at their posts when Harry Reid and Howard Dean felt they had failed the people and deserved to be fired.
Well, if that's the case, why is there so little attention to Hillary Clinton's having brought Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger back to choreograph her national security and anti-terror strategy? This is the team that turned a blind eye to the gathering storm of international terror, and left Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden more powerful than when Clinton took office.
And not only that, but Berger still has not answered questions about the destruction of classified material -- which cost him his security clearance:
Fund is absolutely right -- reporters should be asking Clinton why she relies for national security advice on a man who has no security clearance because he stole and destroyed classified documents.
And Democrats should be concerned that Obama and Edwards are refusing to hit Hillary with attacks she will get from Giuliani (or Romney, or Thompson) in the general election. Are Democrats getting ready to nominate a candidate with a glassjaw?
Al Gore Wins the Nobel Peace Prize.
Gosh. I hope he doesn't get all arrogant and holier than thou. People might not like him so much if he loses that warm 'everyman' quality.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Thanks Walter, But no Thanks...
Earlier today Jim Geraghty looked at the endorsements some current candidates are getting that they would be better off without:
Door Number One: NARAL’s statement that electing Rudy Giuliani ‘would help’ their movement?
Door Number Two: The Log Cabin Republicans’ ad praising Mitt Romney’s ‘Massachusetts Values’?
Door Number Three: Mike Huckabee’s kudos from Andy Stern's Change to Win union group?
What, no formation of a 527 group called “Hollywood Elites for Fred Thompson”?
Who would have thought the next item on that list would come from the Democratic side?
Mondale to Endorse Clinton
Former Vice President Walter Mondale, the 1984 Democratic presidential nominee, is planning to endorse Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), The Hill has learned.
Mondale’s endorsement could prove especially valuable in Iowa, which borders his home state of Minnesota. Mondale won Iowa overwhelmingly in the ’84 primary.
Remember though, Walter Mondale's last foray into politics was his embarrassing loss to Norm Coleman in the 2002 Senate race in Minnesota -- a race he entered only after the death of Paul Wellstone. Running as a legacy candidate -- and as someone who agreed with just about everything Wellstone stood for -- few thought Mondale could lose -- but he did.
Further, doesn't this serve to reinforce the idea that Hillary is little more than a throwback, tax-raising, big-government-loving liberal in the mold of well, Walter Mondale? And is that a good thing, when it's starting to become clear -- more than a year before the election -- that today's Democratic party is beginning to look a lot like the Mondale/Dukakis party?
It’s obvious from watching congressional Democrats and the party’s presidential candidates that they have decided the political environment has changed dramatically since Bill Clinton told the country that the era of big government was over.
They are again offering spending programs and calling for measures that would lead to tax increases of the type that they began shying away from after the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress.
They changed their ways after 1994 for some time, of course, because voters had made clear that they thought government was doing too many things with too much tax money. It was that realization that led a contrite Clinton to make clear in his annual State of the Union address that he, and his party, understood.
But, clearly, times have changed. Democrats are not only offering up programs that would enlarge the reach of the federal government and collect more money from taxpayers, but they’re doing so enthusiastically, confident the American people are on their side.
It's nice of Hillary to bravely embrace the 1970s style liberalism.
Netroots Strategize Holding on to Power Once Gained
Chris Bowers of OpenLeft pens a post on the legislative reforms and statutory changes that would contribute to the creation of a more progressive society:
...I am referring to those key areas of legislation and Democratic Party behavior that have the potential to build progressivism itself. As Matt as discussed in recent length pieces such as Emergence Politics and Rush Limbaugh, and The Broken Market for Democratic Primaries, what progressives need are the creation and institutionalization of "positive feedback loops" that will make America a more progressive place, and thus make all other progressive policy more likely to be enacted...As a conservative, this ought to scare you. I don't know of anyone on the right putting together a corresponding agenda: the reforms that conservatives support for their own sake, which would simultaneously reinforce a conservative direction for government.
* The Employee Free Choice Act...
* Clean Election Laws...
* Reversing Corporate Media Consolidation...
* Progressive Immigration Reform...
* Colonial Reform... [full voting rights for districts and territories -- the Editor]
* Re-locating government spending...
* Voting Reform...
Of these reforms, which ones do Democrats back because they're the right thing to do, and which do they support because they promise to cement the progressive hold on power? Does it call into question the legitimacy of a political movement to taint their agenda for the betterment of the human condition, by associating it with tightening the grip on the levers of power?
As a conservative, I think it's good to expand the ownership society. If I point out that expanding the ability of workers to invest for their retirement, also creates more pressure for government policies that promote business generally, is it a 'conflict of interest?'
What other policies would make it onto the corresponding list for free-market advocates?
- School choice: Allows kids trapped in bad schools -- often the poor -- to get a superior education, while simultaneously weakening teachers' unions.
- Contracting out of government services: If the government used more private contractors to deliver services, it would weaken government unions while also saving taxpayer money.
- Restraining federal spending increases to some combination of inflation & population. (Which would prevent the federal government from doing something new, without simultaneously giving up something it currently does).
See also Riehl World View
Fred Thompson: Master of Detail
The dominant image that critics of Fred Thompson have noted and/or created is one of a half-hearted candidate, not particularly interested in the rigors of a presidential campaign. It's therefore worthy of note that the Annenberg Center's Factcheck.org gives him high grades for accuracy on the specific claims he made during the recent presidential debate.
Thompson: Just the FactsPlaying devil's advocate, I could point out that it doesn't actually require a lot of intellectual heft to memorize three or four talking points. A critic might suggest that's what Thompson has done here.
Thompson stuck to the facts in his rookie outing. A number of his statements attracted our interest, but they all checked out.
Corporate Taxes 2nd Highest in the World: Thompson was correct when he said of the U.S., "We have the second highest corporate tax penalty in the world." According to a study produced by the global consulting firm KPMG, the U.S. top corporate tax rate of 40 percent is just slightly below Japan’s 40.6 percent. The United States is resisting a worldwide trend that has seen most nations reduce corporate taxes during the last decade. As of Jan. 1, 2007, the German rate was 38.36 percent; the Italian rate was 37.25 percent; and the Canadian rate was 36.1 percent. The average for the 30 major industrial democracies was 27.8 percent.
WMDs in Iraq: Thompson corrected moderator Chris Matthews, who wrongly implied that the former senator had said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction "right before" the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq:Matthews: You made a statement a couple of days ago, I believe, that alluded to the fact you believed that there were such weapons [WMDs] in Iraq. Do you believe they were there right before we got in – they were moved out somewhere? ...Thompson was correct. Matthews referred to remarks the senator made to about 60 persons in Newton, Iowa, last week. Both MSNBC and the Des Moines Register quoted him as saying, "We can’t forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had had WMD. He clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program..."
Thompson: No, I didn't say that. I was just stating what was obvious and that is that Saddam had had them prior. They used them against his own people – against the Kurds.
Economic Growth: Thompson erred – but on the safe side – when he said, "We're enjoying 22 quarters of successive economic growth." Actually, the U.S. economy has grown for 23 successive quarters, according to the most recent figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. And when preliminary figures on gross domestic product for July, August and September are released later this month, the official total is expected to reach 24.
Restraining Future Social Security Benefits: Thompson also was correct about the effect of restraining growth of Social Security benefits for future retirees:Thompson: And then, lastly, one of the other things that could be done would be to index benefits to inflation. Index benefit to inflation for future retirees. It would not affect current or near retirement people. [It] would be indexed to inflation instead of wages, as it is today. And it would solve the problem for several years; it wouldn't solve it indefinitely, but it would give us a window of opportunity to get our arms around the problem. It would be a major step in the right direction.The Social Security actuaries calculate that it would require a tax increase of 1.95 percent of taxable payroll to pay benefits promised under current benefit formulas for the next 75 years. But most of that "actuarial imbalance" would disappear under various proposals to peg benefits of future retirees to inflation rather than to wage growth. One form of so-called "progressive" indexing would allow future retirement benefits for the lowest 40 percent of wage earners to keep growing under the current formula, which is pegged to wage growth, but slow down the growth of benefits for higher-income workers retiring after 2012 according to a sliding scale. Benefits for those at the very top would rise only enough to keep pace with inflation. Actuaries calculated that this would remove 1.21 percentage points from the 1.95 percent actuarial imbalance...
But his point about Social Security -- as well as comments he's made on the program in other venues as well -- demonstrates an interest in it, and a depth of understanding that speak well of him.
They also contrast with the other candidate I like in this race -- Mayor Giuliani. In particular, I am disappointed that he has apparently been misattributing a quote to Senator Clinton that she hasn't said:
Misquoting Hillary: Giuliani wrongly attributed a quote to Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton, and he got the quote wrong as well:Giuliani: And the leading Democratic candidate once said that the unfettered free market is the most destructive force in modern America.
Sen. Clinton, the "leading" candidate in public opinion polls, never said that. The quote is by Alan Ehrenhalt, author and executive editor of Governing magazine. Furthermore, Ehrenhalt didn't call the free market "destructive" but used the somewhat softer term "radically disruptive."
I'd prefer if she said the free market was destructive; to say it's extremely disruptive is merely accurate. Joseph Schumpeter coined the term 'creative destruction' to describe the dynamic process of eliminating outdated and inefficient economic arrangements in favor of ones that serve consumers better. I'm disappointed at the suggestion that Hillary understands this.
Oh well.
McKinney, Nader as Third Party Candidates
While a lot of attention has been focussed lately on the possibility of a third-party challenge on the Republican right, it appears that there are several potential third-party challenges on the Left.
In particular, Cynthia McKinney -- who will reportedly seek the Green Party nomination -- and Ralph Nader, who is on the California ballot as a candidate for both the Green and Peace and Freedom nomination.
Nader has made clear that he is undecided on a 2008 run. McKinney on the other hand, is apparently committed to the race.
Will the Democratic candidate sufficiently alienate the anti-war Left, to drive votes to a nut like McKinney?
Federal Deficit Falls Further in 2007
Congressional Quarterly reports:
For the third straight year, the federal budget deficit diminished in fiscal 2007, dropping to $162.8 billion, according to figures released Thursday.
During the early years of the Bush administration the deficit grew steadily, peaking in fiscal 2004 at $412.7 billion, or 3.6 percent of gross domestic product. Since then it has declined each year, with the fiscal 2007 figure standing at 1.2 percent of GDP, which economists say is the best way to measure the relative size of the deficit.
The deficit for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 was down 34 percent from the $248.2 billion deficit in fiscal 2006.
Why do Democrats want to dramatically change fiscal policy, when the trend line is so positive?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Sign of the Times
A Republican Congressional candidate tying his Democratic opponent to George Bush:
It’s gotten so bad for President Bush that a fellow Republican is using him as a punching bag to to attack a Democrat opponents — in Massachusetts, nonetheless.
Republican hopeful Jim Ogonowski, running for the open seat in Massachusetts’ 5th District, today criticized Democrat Niki Tsongas for sharing the same beliefs as Bush on immigration reform.
If Bush is as unpopular next year as he is now, expect to hear more of this. It might even come from the presidential nominee (though perhaps not quite in so straightforward a form as this).
Ron Paul Fever: Catch It!
A level of seriousness befitting the candidacy of a man seemingly dedicated to making Rudy Giuliani the Republican presidential nominee in 2008:
Seriously -- don't Giuliani and Ron Paul remind you of Biff and McFly?
Pelosi: We Drained the Swamp. DoJ: Looks Full to Us
Curious timing. Glenn points to a post of Don Surber's on Speaker Pelosi's claim that Democrats have cleaned up Washington. Surber says:
Having had the worst 10 months for a House speaker in recent memory, Nancy Pelosi is patting herself on the back — to a fawning press. She told the Swamp blog (irony alert) at the Baltimore Sun:
“We have drained the swamp. We have passed historic legislation.”
Well, if you mean by draining the swamp declaring it a wetland and moving on, sure.
Not only does Jack Murtha’s Earmarks Inc. continue, but it welcomed a new franchisee: House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, whose brother set up a PAC in March that quickly collected money from the clients of the Murtha-connected PMA lobbying group.
Last time I looked, Congressman Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., still headed a committee even though he steered $10 million to a company headed by his nephews and daughter.
Surber is right of course. From Murtha to Kanjorski, Mollohan, Jefferson, Reyes and others -- Democrats are abusing their authority and linking donations to official actions. They have passed toothless ethics legislation and claimed it represented a great step forward. And now comes word that the Department of Justice is preparing to crack down on a whole range of abuses by Members of Congress, their staffs, and their campaigns:
Federal investigators are hinting that a fresh wave of campaign-related theft and corruption investigations of Members of Congress are moving through the pipeline, signaling that indictments may be on the horizon.
According to multiple sources and independent confirmation from agency officials, the Justice Department currently is honing in on the possible misuse of campaign money by Members and political candidates for personal country club dues, health club fees, non-campaign-related travel costs and other expenses that candidates are prohibited from paying out of their campaign war chests.
The Federal Election Commission also confirmed that it currently is investigating 10 embezzlement cases involving federal campaign committees — four more than its entire caseload in half a decade.
Officials from both agencies declined to name the Members or candidates involved in the investigations, which were first revealed at a legal seminar for the Practicing Law Institute in Washington, D.C., late last week by Craig Donsanto, head of the Justice Department’s election crimes branch, and David Mason, the FEC’s Republican-nominated vice chairman. A Justice Department spokesman confirmed Tuesday that corruption cases involving lawmakers and other public officials remain “a high priority for the Department of Justice.”
The piece mentions one specific Republican -- a former Congressman -- and a current sitting Democratic Congressman. Clearly there will be more.
One thing I'm curious about: these stepped-up investigations follow fairly closely on the successful effort of Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress to shield their offices from DoJ searches. I wonder if federal investigators decided that they needed to demonstrate that Members of Congress can't use their elected positions to cover up their lawbreaking. If so, it would be a fitting response.
Update: There's a good summary of Democratic ethics trouble over at Right Voices.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Ogonowski for Congress
Congressional Quarterly notes that the Ogonowski/Tsongas special election race is closer than it's supposed to be:
The advantages that Democrat Niki Tsongas was expected to enjoy in her campaign for the Oct. 16 special House election in Massachusetts’ 5th Congressional District have come together for her. She has a widely recognized name, as the widow of the late Democratic Sen. Paul Tsonagas, who began his congressional career as the 5th District’s representative. The consistent, if not overwhelming Democratic lean in the district — which links suburbs, exurbs and old industrial cities west and north of Boston — has helped Tsongas draw campaign help from influential friends such as former President Bill Clinton and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
On top of these factors is Tsongas’ big money edge over the Republican nominee, retired Air Force officer Jim Ogonowski. Tsongas’ latest campaign finance report for activity through Sept. 26, filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by Thursday’s deadline, showed she had raised a total of $1.9 million since entering the race to succeed Democrat Martin T. Meehan, who resigned July 1 during his eighth House term to become chancellor of University of Massachusetts at Lowell. She raised $670,000 just within the reporting period of Aug. 16 to Sept. 26 — exceeding Ogonowski’s $434,000 in receipts for his total campaign.
Yet there are some other numbers that suggest that Tsongas will not be able to let up over the final week of the campaign if she is to maintain her favored status. The Democrat’s heavy spending — including on the five-candidate Sept. 4 special election primary in which she outlasted Eileen Donoghue, a Lowell city councilwoman, by a 4 percentage-point margin — left the candidates nearly even in remaining cash with three weeks to go before the general election. Tsongas reported $241,000 in cash on hand as of Sept. 26, while Ogonowski, who had token opposition in the Republican primary, had $221,000.
Go make a donation.
Buried further down in the article is a demonstration of just how big the Democratic edge is in Congressional races -- and why your donation is needed:
Ken Spain, press secretary for the National Republican Congressional Campaign, confirmed that the GOP’s national House campaign unit had donated $5,000 to Ogonowski’s underdog campaign.
A year ago, the NRCC would have spent $100,000 on the race. Clearly their resources are dramatically reduced.
Good News from the New Mexico Senate Race
Soren Dayton points out that in the latest New Mexico poll, each of the two potential Republican Senate candidates leads each of the three potential Democratic candidates.
On the Debate -- Trade Follies
I enjoyed the debate today. I think the major Republican candidates acquitted themselves very well. Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani still seem to me to be the class of the field, although Mitt Romney came across to me as more impressive than he has before. Among the leading candidates, only John McCain hurt himself in my eyes -- and not because of any substantive mistake -- but because of his repeated problems in hearing questions from Maria Bartiromo. I understand the acoustics were tricky and all the candidates had problems hearing her, but it still reinforced his age to me.
On that point, Kathryn Jean Lopez has the line I wish I thought of:
I really wish John McCain didn't have that hearing problem! Maria B. looked like his granddaughter reading him the menu.On the substance, I'll limit my comments to a policy area in which I have actually worked -- trade.
Governor Romney was pretty forcefully pro-trade -- which I like -- but I had to chuckle at his suggestion for greater involvement by businessmen in trade negotiations:
Well, I believe in trade, but I believe in opening up markets to American goods and services. And it's been calculated that the average family in America is $9,000 a year richer because we have the ability to sell products around the world.The point of trade negotiations is to expand trade -- to ensure that consumers and producers in the US and abroad can make the deals that they think are best for them, without undue taxation or government interference. By eliminating barriers to trade, we give consumers the best deal and encourage competition and efficiency.
And a lot of people in this country make their living making products that go around the world. But it's also true that the people who negotiate these agreements -- the people who sit down with the Chinese and sit down the Mexicans and others are people, by and large, who spent their life in politics.
And the politicians come together and try to understand how the economy works. I think I'm probably the only guy on the stage who spent most of his career in the business world. I understand how the economy works. I understand how if you make a certain adjustment in the agreement, it's going to have a huge impact on the United States.
And so if, for instance, we agree to sit down with China, I understand that if we don't get real careful and protect patents and designs and technology, that what we tend to sell the most of, those kinds of things -- intellectual property -- is going to get stolen by the Chinese or by others; that we have to recognize agreements have to be in our benefit, not just in their benefit.
And so as I look across the agreements we've made, I recognize we're going to have to do a better job. We're going to have to have people who understand how the business world works, how the economy works, and make sure that the playing field really is level by having people who know something about the economy and that understand the business world being part of that effort.
But businesses don't want that. Businesses want to enhance profits --by maximizing their sales opportunities and by shutting out their competitors. Look at the lobbying of the US agricultural sector: the goal is to open foreign markets while 'protecting' our own. If American companies truly had their way in trade negotiations, the US market would be closed to foreign competitors whenever possible.
Romney's line sounds good -- and it's critical to have negotiators who understand the sectors they're negotiating. But it wouldn't be an especially good idea to have company people taking the lead in trade negotiations.
Duncan Hunter is -- as always -- highly critical of US trade agreements. He argues that the US has made bad deals, and he wants us to maintain the same tariff rates as our foreign trading partners. He blames China's exchange rate and bad trade deals for the loss of many high-paying jobs (transcript here):
But let me tell you, Chris, what is missing from this economy: 1.8 million jobs that have moved to communist China from the United States, including over 54,000 jobs from Michigan...Trade skeptics always complain about jobs lost in the US. The US unemployment rate is 4.7 percent. If we had these jobs back, who would do them? Which jobs would we get rid of -- so that people could return to the factories where Duncan Hunter wants them to work?
And I would say to my colleagues and Senator Thompson and the other senators, you all voted for "most favored nation" trading status for Communist China. That set the groundwork for 1.8 million high- paying manufacturing jobs moving offshore, going offshore, some of them never to return.
And what I would do is pass the Hunter-Ryan bill which would put countervailing duties on the Chinese when they cheat. They are cheating on trade right now. I'd bring those jobs back home to the United States and I would connect up the middle class of America with the Republican Party one more time...
And to all my colleagues who talk about the joy of free trade, that requires one thing: good business deals.
We've made the only business deal in the world with 132 other competitors where they get to have a rebate on their taxes and then put a block up of 15 to 20 percent tariff against our goods and we don't get to do the same thing.
That's why we have a trade deficit with countries that have higher labor rates than the United States.
So we're short on good businessmen, and I would junk those bad trade deals, bring them back to the table. And I'd practice mirror trade. If a country wants to put a 15 percent tariff against the United States, they're going to see that reflected back at them. If they want to take it down to 1 percent, we'll take it down to 1. But there's not going to be a one-way street any longer.
And if some country wants to impose a 15 percent tariff on imports from the US -- effectively denying their consumers the right to purchase US goods at market prices -- why should the US deprive our consumers in the same way? Put another way, is the American economy stronger if products imported from China cost 30 percent more than today? Which Americans are returned to high-paying jobs here in the US?
A last point on Hunter's contentions: Hunter blames both bad trade deals and China for the problematic trade deficit. The National Association of Manufacturers has done yeoman work on the value of Free Trade Agreements. They note that the US trade deficit in manufactured goods is consistently lowest among the nations with which we have Free Trade Agreements.
“Geographically, our free trade partners and the EU continued to show the largest reductions in the manufactured goods trade deficit,” said Frank Vargo, the NAM’s vice president of international economic affairs. “Free trade agreements are a proven key to reducing the trade deficit and Congress has four agreements awaiting approval. It’s time for lawmakers to unlock these market opening agreements.”According to the NAM, the trade balance with FTA partners has improved by $10 billion in the last two years, while it has deteriorated by $82 billion with the rest of the world. Experience suggests that if balance of trade is your concern, then the trade deals that we have are working well.
In 2007, the deficit with U.S. free trade partners is 10 percent smaller than a year ago, while the deficit with the EU is 14 percent smaller. Overall this year, the January to July U.S. deficit in manufactured goods stood at an annual rate of $489 billion, compared to $505 billion for the same period of 2006.
Also check out CQ.
Some debate highlights here. Count me among those who would rather hear from Fred Thompson -- who understands the free market -- than from Chris Matthews:
Link: sevenload.com
LiveBlogging the GOP Debate
The Thompson campaign's Jon Henke will be liveblogging today's GOP debate in Michigan. Follow the action here -- especially if you're trapped at work.
RadioHead Makes a New Fan
I don't even know what kind of music Radiohead makes -- but this is the first time I've ever rooted for a specific business model:
The rock band, Radiohead, will be releasing their new album next week, but instead of finding it in record stores or on iTunes, it will be posted on the band's website. The best part is that you can pay whatever you want for it.
I like this idea a lot. Record labels currently made the bulk of a single album's selling price. Cutting them out of the picture means all the money goes to the band directly.
Here's one of Radiohead performing one of their most popular songs -- Paranoid Android:
High-Tech Weapon of the Day
It's a two-fer: a cool weapon, and something to excite the Star Trek geeks. It's Boeing's Bird of Prey:
Regrettably, it's not new. In fact, it's a museum piece:
The airplane incorporated many new innovative concepts to reduce radar, infrared and visual signatures. Designed to represent a platform that would fly operationally during the daytime, it featured exterior markings that blended with the sky and reduced telltale shadows from components such as the engine inlet. Bird of Prey was among the first aircraft to incorporate large single-piece composite structures, low-cost disposable tooling, and three-dimensional virtual-reality design and assembly processes to ensure affordability and high performance...
After completion of the test program the Bird of Prey was placed in storage, and may have been destined for the scrap yard. Fortunately, however, it was saved for posterity. On July 16, 2003, the Bird of Prey and its cousin, the X-36, both were placed on permanent display at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
If you're a Star Trek geek here because you googled 'Bird of Prey,' this is probably more up your alley.
Monday, October 08, 2007
The Real Hillary Clinton
McQ takes a look at her -- and the view is not pretty.
More importantly, it indicates that Ms. Clinton's paranoia is still alive and well. Now obviously everyone is somewhat paranoid and to some degree I'm sure that's healthy. And politicians should probably be granted a little slack on that anyway because there are certainly people out to get them. But Ms. Clinton, of VRWC fame, is more than just a little paranoid.
And, if the rumors are true, she's really more like what we saw in this little incident than the public persona she's trying to project during the campaign. Don't you love it when a politician is out asking for your vote, and then when you ask an honest question, your integrity is questioned and your premise is declared "wrong".
CBO: 2007 Was a Very Good Year
According to the Congressional Budget Office, fiscal year 2007 (which ended on September 30) saw dramatic improvements in the nation's fiscal picture:
CBO estimates that the federal budget deficit was about $161 billion in fiscal year 2007, $87 billion less than the shortfall recorded in 2006. Relative to the size of the economy, that deficit was equal to 1.2 percent of gross domestic product, down from 1.9 percent in 2006.You may say 'no big deal -- so what if the federal deficit was down dramatically -- we expected that.' You want to know about the bigger picture, right?
Well, income taxes and payroll taxes were up significantly -- as were wages and salaries:
Receipts of individual income taxes, the largest tax source, increased by an estimated $118 billion (or 11 percent), and receipts of social insurance (payroll) taxes, the second largest source, rose by an estimated $32 billion (or 4 percent). Receipts from withheld individual income and payroll taxes, the largest source of income and payroll taxes, grew by $107 billion—or 6.7 percent. Those receipts grew at similar rates of 6.9 percent in 2006 and 6.3 percent in 2005. Those gains in withholding reflect continued growth in wages and salaries.What about corporate taxes? They were up too -- but because of slow growth in corporate profits, they weren't up as much as in previous years:
CBO estimates that receipts in 2007 from corporate income taxes grew by about $18 billion (or 5 percent). That represents a substantial slowdown from the growth in the prior three years, which averaged 39 percent per year. Receipts slowed progressively through 2007, with gains in the first three quarters of 22 percent, 11 percent, and 4 percent, respectively, followed by a decline of 11 percent in the fourth quarter—reflecting slowing growth in corporate profits.All this is according to the Congressional Budget Office.
In light of all this, does it really seem wise for Congress to consider huge tax increases -- in particular on corporate profits? Wouldn't a wiser course of action be to continue current policies -- which are yielding significant economic growth, increasing wages and salaries, and increased corporate tax receipts?
Walk in 385,000 Year Old Footsteps
Want to walk in the footsteps of the early humans? Tourists in Italy can do almost just that starting this weekend, after footpaths believed to have been left up to 385,000 years ago were opened to the public.
The fossilized footprints, which Italian scientists say are among the oldest anywhere, extend along six trails at the edge of the Roccamonfina volcano in southern Italy.
There is also a handprint, made when one of the primitive humans slipped on the soft earth.
The fossilized footpaths were known locally as the "Devil's Trails" for centuries because they were thought to be supernatural. Scientists first identified them properly in 2003, and had kept the area off-limits to the public until Saturday.
The article notes that you're not actually permitted to walk in the footsteps; you must keep a distance.
It's interesting to me however, how different the practice is in the US from in other parts of the world. When I traveled to Ireland, I was stunned that tourists are permitted to walk all the way back into the Newgrange passage tomb, which has such little passage space that there's no way you can avoid rubbing against the sides and top of the passage. In the US, I would imagine such a site would be off limits -- due to the certainty that the entry of thousand or millions would, over time, wear down the site. Similarly, in Mexico, there are few restrictions on tourists at many historic sites -- such as the pyramids at Teotihuacan. Tourists are allowed to walk all over the pyramids, and there are no guardrails or other safety improvements to speak of. In the US, I suspect that no one would be allowed to walk on such ancient constructs. And in the event that one could, there would almost have to be improvements in place to guard against lawsuits.
I guess Italy at least, is more like the US.
Democrats Keep Dirty Money
Norman Hsu, Peter Paul, William Lerach.. all big criminal donors to Democratic candidates. In the case of Lerach's cash at least, the DNC has decided not to return his contributions:
A spokesman for the Democratic National Committee said more than $1 million in donations from attorneys who pleaded guilty or have been indicted on federal charges for an alleged $11.8 million kickback scheme will not be returned.The donations, according to Federal Election Commission and state campaign finance databases, come from William S. Lerach, totaling $600,000 between 1998 and 2002, and from Melvyn Weiss, for a total of $25,000 in 1997.
Lerach pleaded guilty in mid-September to one felony count of conspiracy stemming from a seven-year federal investigation into the kickback scheme that began in 1981 and netted the New York law firm Milberg Weiss more than $200 million from verdicts and settlements in an estimated 150 cases.
The sad thing is, the DNC would probably love to rid themselves of this dirty money -- it's just that it's against the darn rules!
A standing policy of the DNC prevents money accepted and vetted under previous chairs to be returned, said press secretary Stacie Paxton. Dean has held his title since early 2005.
However, a recently discovered $5,000 contribution from Weiss to the DNC could be returned, depending on what verdict is reached in the attorney’s case, Paxton said.
Officials with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee declined to comment on contributions their committees received from the firm and its partners.
What would Dean, Schumer, and the rest of the Democrats say if the RNC tried to use such a lame excuse for keeping ill-gotten money?
Just another lesson in how the Democrats have 'drained the swamp' in DC.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Why Tom Cole is Optimistic About 2008
David Broder talks to Tom Cole:
I think that is a tough sell politically. But I'm more persuaded by his argument that Republicans have little to fear from a Hillary Clinton candidacy. "That is no landslide election," he said. "The Republican nominee, whoever he is, wins at least 43, 44, 45 percent against her, and that gives us a base for congressional races.In essence, Cole is arguing two things:
"She is not going to carry Georgia or Kansas or Texas, and we have good candidates running against shaky Democrats in every one of those states. There are Democrats sitting in 61 districts that Bush carried; 47 that he carried twice. We are on the offensive in those districts," he said.
That may seem implausible, but Cole has history on his side. In 1992, as he notes, incumbents were hammered, 24 of them losing in November, 17 others failing in their primaries. The Republicans achieved a net gain of 10 House seats that year, a feather in the cap of the executive director of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Tom Cole. Now, no longer a hired staff man but the chairman, Cole faces a familiar challenge. In 1992, the Democrats nominated Bill Clinton for president -- and he won. But his party, nonetheless, lost House seats. Cole is out to make history repeat itself.
- The Republican candidate will not lose a blowout; and,
- Turnout will be high in Red states where there are important House races.
Analysts frequently note the large number of swing seats in 'purple' states, or in states that lean Democratic. It's argued that unless the Republican candidate wins in a landslide -- which no one thinks will happen right now -- that there won't be big GOP gains in those seats. But some forget that there are many Republican targets in conservative states, where a nominee like Hillary will likely lose badly.
For example, Indiana is home to three freshman Democratic incumbents in marginal seats -- Joe Donnelly (R+4), Brad Ellsworth (R+9), and Baron Hill (R+7). In Florida, Tim Mahoney (R+2) won only because of the Mark Foley scandal. in Georgia, Representatives Marshall (R+8) and Barrow (D+2) both won close races in 2006, and will have tough races in 2008. In Texas, Nick Lampson (R+15) is a likely loser next time out, while Ciro Rodriguez (R+4) could be as well. Nancy Boyda (R+7) in Kansas is also likely to be defeated, if the GOP can settle on a good candidate. In North Carolina, Heath Shuler sits in a seat with a 7 point GOP edge.
That's ten potential pickups, just in strong conservative areas in strong conservative states. The margin of House control is just 15, so a gain of six more in the rest of the county -- along with no other GOP losses -- would give House control to the GOP. And we haven't yet talked about Republican-leaning districts in moderate (and even liberal states). There are plenty of those as well (eg, McNerney in CA, Bean in IL, Hall & Gillibrand in NY, Mitchell and Giffords in AZ, Space in OH, Altmire and Carney in PA, Tim Walz in MN). After all, it's simply not possible for Democrats to hold forty-seven seats that George Bush won twice, without there being plenty of potential targets for the GOP.
I'm not saying the Republicans will win back control of the House, I'm just saying that it's likelier than people now acknowledge. In fact, in any scenario where the Republican nominee wins the White House, it might actually be a likelihood.
Read also Prairie Pundit and BCB.
Iraq Surrender Becoming Less Popular for Democrats
This is an interesting milestone: a key backer of Governor Bill Richardson in an early primary state has flipped to the Biden camp -- because he can't abide Richardson's proposal to quit Iraq:
Gov. Bill Richardson's proposal for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq has won him accolades from the anti-war left and in the blogosphere, but it lost him a key supporter in primary state South Carolina today. State Rep. Fletcher Smith of Greenville County, formerly a co-chair for Richardson's South Carolina campaign, announced this morning that he is endorsing Sen. Joe Biden instead.
Smith told NBC News/National Journal that he became concerned about his support of Richardson after hearing the governor advocate for a six-month timeline to for withdrawal from Iraq.
"Those of us who have had some idea about military evacuations understand that you cannot redeploy troops, or take troops out, or evacuate them within a six-month period of time," he said, adding that Richardson's plan could bring about the same morale-damaging image evoked when Americans were airlifted from Saigon in 1975. "We do not need a Vietnam-style evacuation.”
Richardson's support for quick withdrawal is not new; he's been pushing it for months. It IS new that key Democrats are forcefully rejecting that idea, in favor of a long-term commitment. Of course, South Carolina is a conservative state, but it's a sign that the center of gravity on Iraq in the Democratic party is moving to the right.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Mitt Romney: Catching the Protectionist Bug?
Has Mike Huckabee proved that populism is a winner in the Republican party? Is Mitt Romney afraid of being attacked as one of the 'Wall Street' Republicans? Has he read the recent Wall Street Journal article which attracted so much attention -- the one that reported on the weakening of support for free trade among GOP voters?
One can infer that he has, since one of his advisers -- the highly-intelligent, conservative former Congressman Vin Weber -- is interviewed by the Journal for the piece:
While rank-and-file Democrats have long blasted the impact of trade on American jobs, slipping support among Republicans represents a fresh warning sign for free-market conservatives and American companies such as manufacturers and financial firms that benefit from markets opening abroad.
With voters provoked for years by such figures as Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot, "there's been a steady erosion in Republican support for free trade," says former Rep. Vin Weber, now an adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
One fresh indication of the party's ideological crosswinds: Presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas, who opposes the Iraq war and calls free-trade deals "a threat to our independence as a nation," announced yesterday that he raised $5 million in third-quarter donations. That nearly matches what one-time front-runner John McCain is expected to report
After reading that, it should be no surprise to see Romney back off of free trade -- in favor of action to redress the 'unfair playing field:'
Romney is clearly avoiding the traditional rhetoric of leading Republican contenders for the White House. No promises to 'open markets to US exports,' and 'expand markets for American products abroad.' He has chosen not to use this language for a reason. Is it because he wants to sounds more 'fair trade,' while pursuing the same policies (a bait and switch), or is it because he doesn't agree with the trade policies pursued by Republican presidents since the 1970s, at least.
If Romney wants a fair playing field, why doesn't he talk about US agricultural subsidies, import quotas, and the other measures the United States employs to protect our own producers (and of course, damage our consumers)? While the US is more of a free trader than many leading trading nations, we are hardly blameless.
That's not to say he should smile and accept violations on the part of US trading partners; the US pushed for the creation of the World Trade Organization specifically to punish unfair practices such as the one he mentions. Let Romney promise to push the WTO aggressively.
This sounds suspiciously like someone who wants to seize the votes that go with pushing protectionism, without actually using language specific enough to scare those who support consumer choice. I hope the governor gets the chance to clarify his meaning.
Don't Do the Crime if You Can't do the Time
Peace activists discover that Canada doesn't like convicted criminals trying to cross the border -- even if your arrest was for 'peaceful protest.
What has Medea Benjamin ever done to deserve being considered a real criminal?
Nothing much -- traveled to Cuba, organized the violent anti-WTO protests in Seattle (which caused about $20 million in damage), disrupting Congressional hearings and proceedings, as well as political conventions... you know, the usual. Why wouldn't Canada be delighted to welcome her with open arms?
You think she'd be proud at achieving a certain level of notoriety. Instead she's a crybaby, unwilling to take repsonsibility for her actions.
Indians over Yankees: Lord of the Flies Edition
In 25 years or so of watching baseball, I think this is the most bizarre thing I've ever seen:
The pictures are from the MLB site here.
They were a group of bugs clearly partial to the hometown Indians, as they began to appear during Doug Mientkiewicz's at-bat in the top of the eighth and arrived in full force when Joba Chamberlain took the mound in the bottom of the frame...
Blake's words provide the essence for this latest chapter of "When annoying bugs attack." The Indians went about business as if nothing out of the ordinary was taking place, pretty much how they have adeptly handled the first two games of this playoff encounter.
New York, meanwhile, temporarily became a bit unglued. Players were sprayed down with Off before the inning, with shortstop Derek Jeter swatting at the nuisances using his glove, and third baseman Alex Rodriguez using his hat to move them away.
Chamberlain looked as if he was conducting some sort of entomology experiment with the 20 or so bugs perched on his neck. They provided more than just a physical distraction, though, as the hard-throwing right-hander, rushing fastballs to the plate at 98 mph, threw two wild pitches to bring home Grady Sizemore with the game-tying run.
According to crew chief Bruce Froemming, who spoke to a pool reporter after the game, stopping action because of the bugs never was under consideration. It certainly wasn't necessary in the collective minds of the Indians players...
A reporter for Friday's broadcast on TBS identified the bugs as Canadian Soldiers, but apparently they were smaller. Since these bugs weren't looking for food, and probably had come from nearby Lake Erie in search of moisture, the bug spray actually had very little effect on getting rid of the pests. According to the Associated Press, in a game taking place against the Angels at Jacobs Field in September 2004, play was stopped several times after players complained of swallowing the bugs while running the bases. The situation played out very similar on Friday, with the bugs ending up in players' mouths, eyes, noses...
The Indians have a commanding lead because they weren't affected the way the Yankees were. Still... just bizarre.
Oh well -- back to the friendly confines of Yankee Stadium. With Clemens and (God-willing) Chien Ming Wang going in games three and four against Jake Westbrook and Paul Byrd respectively, the Yankees still have a chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
