Don't Get Your Hopes Up

Whenever I read that the US has captured some high-ranking Al Qaeda leader, I become optimistic that fresh off his capture, we will have a sudden round of victories in the War on Terror. Whatever else may happen, the news that the US may be holding Mustafa Setmarian Nasar should not prompt this type of optimism. I say this not because I am a pessimist, but only because he was apparently captured in Pakistan in November. Thus, whatever quick actions that may have followed from his capture have already occurred.

Oh well.

Back to the top.

Times, Post, others Downplay Entitlement Problems

This morning a number of news outlets and bloggers write about the Trustees' report on the problems of Medicare and Social Security financing. But by focusing on the date that these programs are projected to reach bankruptcy, they understate the problem. The New York Times notes that:

Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund, a widely watched gauge of the program's solvency, will run out of money in 2018, two years earlier than projected in last year's report, the trustees said.

And the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted in 2040, one year earlier than projected last year, the trustees said. At that point, in 2040, Social Security tax collections would be adequate to pay only 74 percent of scheduled benefits.

I think that this dramatically understates the problem, and I'll explain why. But Harry Reid disagrees with me. He says that the White House is exaggerating the problem:

The Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said the reports showed that "despite White House scare tactics, Social Security remains sound for decades to come." Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, said the administration had worsened Medicare's problems by promoting managed-care plans, which he said often "cost more than traditional Medicare."

The Washington Post tells the story more or less the same way:

The annual report, issued yesterday by the trustees who monitor the fiscal health of the Medicare and Social Security programs, said the trust fund for the health insurance system for the elderly will run out of money in 2018 -- two years sooner than predicted a year ago and 12 years sooner than had been anticipated when President Bush first took office.

The problem, the report says, has accelerated largely because hospital costs last year were greater than expected.

The forecast also said that Social Security's financial condition has weakened, although its problems are not as great or urgent. It said the retirement system will have enough cash to pay the benefits it owes retirees, disabled workers and workers' survivors until 2040 -- one year less than expected in the 2005 forecast.

So the Post and the Times are agreed: Medicare and Social Security are projected to go bankrupt in 2018 and 2040, respectively. Under the financing system for these programs however, a surplus was (theoretically) built up to cover the cost of benefits down the road. To ensure that the government received a fair and safe return on those accrued funds, they were invested in federal bonds, which would be paid back to the trust funds with interest.

This sounded fine on paper, but in practice, it means that the federal government withdrew money from the trust funds to spend on other things - education, defense, roads, etc. Well, long before the trust funds are bankrupt, the day will come when those trust funds begin to draw down their theoretical surpluses. When that day comes, tax dollars will have to flow from things like education, defense, roads, etc., into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, to pay for benefits. That's the day that we begin to 'feel the pinch' of entitlement insolvency.

The summary released on Monday is available here. On page 9 of the text (13 of the Adobe file), the trustees identify those dates - the years when benefits exceed revenues for Medicare and Social Security. By their current estimate, 2006 is the first year that Medicare benefits exceed revenues; 2017 is the date for Social Security.

In fact, page 11 of the report released yesterday notes that by the year 2017, the transfer from the general fund to the Medicare and Social Security trust funds will be $487 billion! The trustees themselves stress that the programs reach a critical juncture by this time:

Because neither the interest paid on the Treasury bonds held in the HI and OASDI Trust Funds, nor their redemption, provides any net new income to the Treasury, the full amount of the required Treasury payments to the trust funds must be financed by some combination of increased taxation, increased Federal borrowing from and debt held by the public, and a reduction in other government expenditures. Thus, these payments along with the 75 percent general fund revenue contributions to SMI will add greatly to pressures on Federal general fund revenues much sooner than is generally appreciated.

Now the projected insolvency dates for the entitlement programs shift every year. Sometimes they are moved forward, sometimes backward. And perhaps there will be no problem at all. Maybe in 2017 the voters will say 'you know what? $500 billion is a small price to pay in additional taxes or borrowing to pay for the social compact with seniors and Medicare beneficiaries.' In fact, maybe Harry Reid is overstating the problem, too! Maybe when the trust funds ARE completely bankrupt, people will still want to transfer TRILLIONS of dollars annually to pay for those benefits! After all, there is no magic significance to the insolvency date; it's simply the date when theoretically, the surpluses have been spent. There's no reason that transfers from the general fund to the trust funds have to stop at that time.

On the other hand, if Harry Reid questions whether people will maintain their commitment to pay for entitlement benefits with deficit spending and tax dollars, maybe he ought to get serious about trying to fix the long-term financing problem of these programs. With Medicare leaking like a sieve already, those problems are here TODAY. And they are only going to get worse.

Democrats have long accused Republicans of wanting to gut the entitlement programs, but the surest way to put them at risk is to ignore the problem until we reach crisis point. Now we are a few Presidential terms away from a crisis, but Congressional Democrats are spending a lot of capital trying to convince the public that the problems are exaggerated. Wouldn't this Presidential term - perhaps in the next Congress - be the time to make a deal to 'save' Social Security and Medicare? After all, Bush will not be seeking re-election in 2008, but whoever is elected President will probably have to deal with it. And Reid and the Congressional Democrats may well have to sign off on some reform package. It could turn out that that package will be a feather in the cap of Bush's Republican successor, or it could wind up being a millstone around the neck of his Democratic successor. Why not make the deal now? It is the right thing to do policy-wise, and it is probably the wise thing to do, politically.

Plus, if they keep whistling past the graveyard, the programs may end up being gutted. And the Democrats don't want that, do they?

Back to the top.

Porkbusters Will Require Eternal Vigilance

With the House of Representatives having handed Republicans a very narrow victory in their campaign to limit earmarks, I thought it might be instructive to look at the way that porkbusters are trying to fight pork barrel spending.

First off, the House of Representatives will consider a statutory change to put this reform into effect. The alternative would be to insert the reform in House rules. The statutory change is preferable, because it would require a new law to roll back the reform. If the change were simply in House rules, it would require nothing more than a one-time majority vote of the House to eliminate the reform and go back to the old way of business.

The most interesting thing to me is the mechanism used to limit earmarks. If you consider the question, there are several ways you could attempt to block Congressional earmarking. You could write a law that makes earmarks illegal. That would be awkward, because earmarks can be hard to define. How might you phrase it? Maybe something like 'no law shall have effect which specifies the expenditure of federal funds for a study, work of construction, capital expenditure, equipment purchase, outside contract... retroactively or prospectively made, by a state or local government entity, or by a commission or other independent governmental or non-governmental agency...' Well, it would be awkward, but I'm sure with enough effort, you could write a law that covers all possibilities without taking in other items unintentionally. If you take this approach, you have a few problems. You need the approval of the President and the Senate. And more seriously, you face the problem that anytime Congress appropriates dollars, it writes a new law which conflicts with the one we've just written. So a new appropriations bill with earmarks would presumably supercede our reform.

OK, so writing a new law is not the best way to do it. What else can you do? Well, you could write a Constitutional amendment. In such a case you'd still have the challenge of how you write it. As we discussed above, I bet you could do it - although it would be a long amendment. The next problem would be securing the two-thirds majority of both Houses of Congress, and the states. Well, forget the states really, because you probably would never get the two-thirds in Congress.

So what else can you do? Well, we could do what reformers are doing in the House bill. You can read it for yourself here, starting on page 23). It proposes a statutory change (better than a change of House rules), that only affects the process in the House (good, because the Senate is less likely to object). Further, it does not attempt to outlaw earmarks, or anything so ambitious. Rather, it requires that the Committee report which accompanies every appropriations bill contain a list of the earmarks included in both the bill and the report, with the name of the requesting Member of Congress specified. It enforces this rule by allowing any Member of the House to raise a point of order against consideration of the bill, on the grounds that this rule has not been followed. A 30-minute debate will follow, after which time the House has to vote on whether to consider the appropriations bill or not, notwithstanding the objection. In the case of a conference report (the compromise bill created by House and Senate negotiators, after both have passed different versions of an appropriations bill), the same procedure will apply if the conference report contains earmarks that were not previously identified in either the House or Senate Committee report for the bill.

There's another important item to observe in all this dry legislative back-and-forth. The House cannot vote to waive the point of order against consideration of a House appropriations bill, but it can vote to waive the point of order against a conference report. What does this mean? Well, it's standard operating procedure that prior to considering a bill, the House votes to waive all points of order against it. The reform pushed by porkbusters ensures that this point of order cannot be waived; the House will have to have the debate and vote if a Member rises to make a point of order. Unfortunately, the House can waive the point of order against a conference report.

This is a problem - although perhaps an unavoidable one. By a simple majority vote, the House can consider anonymous earmarks inserted by Senators, or by House Members in the House-Senate conference. This may well be a necessary concession, as it would be hard for reformers in the House to force a change in the Senate. After all, after Tom Coburn and John McCain, it's unclear how many porkbusters there are in the Senate.

If this imperfect reform makes it into law, it will discourage earmarks in the House by subjecting them to the sunlight of public scrutiny. And, it will shift the pressure for secret earmarks into the Senate, and the House-Senate conference committees. It may add to the power of appropriators, because they are the only ones in the conference committees. There will be Members of Congress who want secret earmarks for favored projects, who will ask members of the conference committees to insert them at that stage. Depending on how committed Congress is to the reform, there could wind up being no such projects added, or there could be hundreds of them. It will put lots of pressure on reformers in the House (and to a lesser degree, the Senate) to hold the line on conference reports that include pork barrel projects.

Now like a lot in life, this is both good and bad. First the good: it is narrow, specific, and achievable. It builds on procedures already used in the House. It goes a long way to achieving transparency. It doesn't allow (or shouldn't allow) Members of Congress to pretend the problem is 100% solved; rather, they must continue to press for adherence to a no-earmark policy. The bad: it won't end earmarking. It shifts power to the less-reformist Senate. It empowers appropriators in conference committees.

Make sure you contact your Representative and let him or her know you want to see Congress stick to real reform of the earmark process.

Back to the top.

Marxists/Anarchists Pay Tribute to the Chicago Martyrs

It fascinates me that supporters of the 'immigrant cause' have selected Monday, May 1, to try to get America to stand up and notice them. It demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of American culture, a tribute to Marxism, and a tin ear as to how to appeal to a majority of Americans.

What is the significance of May 1? Why is that date International Workers' Day, as apart from any other day on the calendar? Because May 1 marks the day in 1886 when Chicago labor leaders organized a strike against the McCormick reaper plant. On May 3, two strikers were killed by police during a fight on the picket lines, and the next day anarchists organized a rally at Haymarket Square, where eight police officers were killed when a fused bomb exploded among them. Police opened fire and four protesters were killed. The Haymarket Riot was born.

Ultimately 8 leaders of Chicago's anarchist movement were arrested and convicted for the crime. All but one were of german ethnicity. They had all advocated violence to overthrow the current system. Four were hanged. These 8 anarchists became martyrs to leftists around the world, and May 1 became the day to celebrate their 'sacrifice.'

May 1 soon became 'May Day,' a time of celebration for anarchists and marxists,' and a symbol of the struggle of labor against capital. It is celebrated around the world, as the official commemmoration of the importance of labor.

I don't recall learning about the Haymarket Riot in school - though I imagine that in Chicago it's probably part of the standard history curriculum. The first I heard of it was in Mexico, where Mexican friends were stunned to learn that I knew nothing about it. They were able to recount details about the event, the 'martyrs,' and their significance in world history. I imagine that others who have lived outside the US have similar experiences, as International Workers' Day is celebrated in most other countries.

But if May Day was 'born' in the United States, why does the United States not commemorate it? You might as well ask why we don't 'celebrate' Pearl Harbor, or the Kent State riots. May Day is at best a sad and tragic day in US history. Further, the United States rejects the marxist/anarchist trappings that are now permanently associated with the day. Why does the United States celebrate Labor Day in September, and not on May 1? Because the United States and the US labor movement wanted to make clear their rejection of May Day's association with socialism, communism, and anarchism.

In considering the May Day protests about to get underway across the country - supposedly on behalf of immigrants - think about who else will be celebrating that day. A look at the Wikipedia page on the Haymarket riot prominently features links to a host of items on anarchism and socialism. A quick internet search turns up lots and lots of interesting sites.

Why is the Haymarket Riot ignored in the US, while it is celebrated around the globe? Because the event and the commemmoration stand for the victory of labor over capital and management - the victory of socialism (or anarchy, depending on your point of view). This is all antithetical to what the US stands for. So when the organizers and the marchers at today's protests tell you that they're just standing up for basic American values, ask them which ones.

Update: Check out Michelle's latest on May Day here.

Back to the top.

Kean and Menendez Still Looking Close in NJ Senate Race

According to a Quinnipiac University Poll of registered voters, incumbent Bob Menendez has a 6-point lead over challenger Tom Kean (Jr.) in this year's New Jersey Senate race. The actual poll data is available here.

It's truly amazing that Kean is this close in a state where 69% of voters disapprove of the job Bush is doing as President, and where 39% want all US troops withdrawn from Iraq. My incredibly insightful observation is that Kean is likely to continue to try to distance himself from the President for the remainder of the Senate race.

Back to the top.

I'll Get this Round

Michelle's post from Los Angeles, combined with the insane actions of the California legislature, make me thing it's time for a drink. This is something our of Homer Simpson's dreams, and it works for a host of settings. Get your own here.

I think it's already in widespread use.

Back to the top.

So Two Nurses and a Traveling Salesman...

save the life of a heart-attack victim. Talk about right place, right time.

Back to the top.

AQ and Hezbollah on the Southern Border

Blogger and independent researcher Thomas Joscelyn posts a must-read on the terrorist threat along the southern border.

Back to the top.

More on Moscow and the Iran Crisis

Here's an interesting article on a proposed civilian nuclear energy agreement between the United States and Russia and the potential that it might encourage Russia to curtail nuclear cooperation with Iran.

I certainly applaud the concept. Approaching Russia as a potential partner is likely to get more results than lecturing them at the Security Council. And at this point the United States could use all the energy cooperation it can get, regardless of the Iran crisis.

However, I have to say I'm skeptical. Not because it's a bad idea, but because I'm not sure we're offering very much. As one source said:

"It would provide a foundation for greater (U.S.-Russia) cooperation but
doesn't commit the sides to any particular project and could be a way of
demonstrating to the Russians how much larger our market is than what exists
in Iran,"

Clearly, the United States is a much larger potential market for nuclear cooperation, but unless I missed something, my understanding is that public opinion and government regulations still make the United States a pretty unfriendly place for the nuclear power industry.

It's easy to scoff a these sorts of initiatives so I'm hesitant to just dismiss it. An agreement like this can have real benefits in the long run, but in this case I'm doubtful that long term potential benefits can compete with Russia's desire to maintain her influence in the Middle East.

Russia is certainly not above playing both sides of the street. This week Russia launched an Israeli spy satellite meant to monitor Iran's nuclear program. It's that willingness to play both sides that convinces me Russia's goal isn't to support Iran per se but rather to reestablish herself as a major diplomatic actor in the region. The undefined benefits of civilian nuclear cooperation with the United States are unlikely to change that.

Points North: Freedom Tower and Self Serve

It's been my experience that a great many DC residents are just former New York and New Jersey residents. Therfore, I hope that many around the DC area will be happy to hear that the Empire State is finally getting down to work it should have begun four years ago and the Garden State is considering doing something it should have done twenty five years ago.

Frak!

Did the best show on TV just take that first step on the way to jumping the shark? I'm not sure. Obviously starting a second series could dilute the franchise. But the people behind Battlestar Galactica have demonstrated a lot of talent so far, particularly with the overall vision and their ability to weave multiple plotlines. They may be able to handle a second storyline.

Have a Happy International Socialist Workers Day!

Or Soviet May Day Parade! Or Illegal Immigration Rationalization Day! Or whatever they're calling it nowadays. After all, what's in a name? That which we call a path to citizenship, by any other word would still smell like amnesty.

All snarky kidding aside, I don't see the logic of trying to "close cities". This is either going to fizzle or it's going to succeed in disrupting peoples' lives. And if it succeeds in disrupting peoples' lives it will just convince that many more people that the time has come to draw the line.

I guess the silver lining is that if they do succeed in shutting down some cities, people will use less gasoline.

House of Representatives to Debate Iraq War

The Hill reports that because of Republican defections, the House will be forced to debate a resolution on the Iraq War:

House will debate Iraq
By Alexander Bolton

House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told Republican colleagues yesterday that they will have a full and lengthy floor debate on the Iraq war, a dramatic change of course for GOP leaders who had previously resisted Republican and Democratic calls for such a debate.

Four House Republicans have signed a Democratic-sponsored discharge petition that would begin 17 hours of debate over Iraq on the House floor. The Republicans signed on because GOP leaders had ignored their requests for a debate, said Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), one of the four mavericks.

Boehner told colleagues about his plan for debate on Iraq yesterday morning during a closed-door meeting of the Republican Conference that was mostly devoted to discussing soaring gas prices. Boehner’s remarks, which were unexpected, caused a hush to fall over the audience, said Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.), who attended the meeting and is one of the four GOP signatories to the Democratic discharge petition.

In an interview, Jones confirmed that Boehner promised a “lengthy debate on Iraq” during yesterday’s meeting.

House Republicans have clearly been trying to avoid this debate, and that's no surprise. Elected officials are primadonnas, and they don't want to be put on the record defending the President's policies. Plus, Republicans as well as Democrats will have to work hard to come up with a statement of what they believe about Iraq.

But that said, I think this is more positive than it is negative. Right now Congressional Democrats are having a lot of fun criticizing the President for every aspect of the Iraq action; this would force them to actually say what they favor and what they oppose.

In fact, reading the resolutions that Democrats have introduced is very instructive. Neil Abercrombie's resolution (which was introduced last June) includes the following findings:

(9) The armed forces of Iraq number more than 76,000 troops as of June 8, 2005, and are growing in number and capability daily.

(10) The forces of the Iraqi Interior Ministry number more than 92,000 personnel as of June 8, 2005, and are growing in number and capability daily.

(11) The United States has in place a timetable for training, equipping, and employing Iraqi security forces to take over the counterinsurgency mission from coalition forces.

Did you know that Neil Abercrombie and 66 of his colleagues are so upbeat about Iraq? Anyway, Abercrombie also wants to make sure that the President:

[takes] all necessary steps to ensure the completion of Iraq's political transition to a constitutionally elected government by December 31, 2005, as called for in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 (2004), which was supported by the United States.

Had you realized how supportive of the President Neil Abercrombie is? And he is one of the most liberal members of the House. (Of course, that's not saying much, because House Democrats are so far to the left that half of them qualify as 'among the most liberal').

The only major difference between the Abercrombie position and the White House is this:

to initiate such a withdrawal as soon as possible but not later than October 1, 2006.

Abercrombie wants us to tell the insurgents when we're leaving.

John Murtha has another of the Democrats' resolutions on Iraq. It says:

SECTION 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

SEC. 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.

SEC. 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

This is currently the main Democratic alternative to whatever Republicans come up with. And if I were they, I would not lead with it.

In the House, there is a longstanding tradition of trying to show up the other side through resolutions like this. However, the language is typically so broad that the other side - if they are sensible - will realize that they can simply vote 'yes.' Eg, all House Democrats voted for the vague, feel-good resolution that House Republicans advanced to embarrass Cynthia McKinney after she punched a cop (oops! - allegedly punched a cop, right?)

Anyway, House Republicans are going to be able to draft a resolution that looks a lot like this one. And if Democrats insist on the language 'terminating the deployment,' they can fairly be characterized as wanting to cut and run. Even they realize that's not a winning position - as they showed when they voted 187-3 against a resolution to terminate the deployment in Iraq, last November.

Now that's just my idea off the top of my head. The House leadership will have more time to craft a resolution that makes things difficult for the Democrats, and they will also schedule it for a vote at the most politically advantageous time.

This is likely to wind up a debate full of sound and fury, signifying... very little.

Back to the top.

Kavanaugh Nomination Delayed

National Journal reports this afternoon that the Senate Judiciary Committee delayed their consideration of the Kavanaugh nomination to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The account is a little unclear. Is Specter willing to hold the hearing that the Democrats want, or not? It sounds like no, but it's a little unclear.

All-in-all, a disappointment. They should get moving.

Judiciary. The controversial nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was delayed today as Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats demanded another hearing on the White House staff secretary. Senate Majority Leader Frist has served notice he wants the full Senate to take up the Kavanaugh nomination before Memorial Day, and is ready for an expected battle with Democrats. While Judiciary Chairman Specter put off a vote on Kavanaugh for a week, he refused to yield to Democratic requests for another hearing. Kavanaugh, 41, was first nominated to the court in 2003 and was given a hearing in 2004. But Judiciary ranking member Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said Democrats wanted to question Kavanaugh to determine what role, if any, he played in White House activity on warrantless surveillance, military abuse of prisoners and the bribery scandal involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Specter said he would hold a hearing if it were to be productive, but he doubted it would "shed any light" on the issues raised by Leahy. Democrats have accused Kavanaugh of lacking legal experience to sit on what has been called the second highest court of the land.

Confirm Them reports on the delay here.

Back to the top.

Was this trip really necessary?

If Nanman's economic evidence of consistent gasoline prcing doesn't make you feel better, keep in mind, it could always be, and occasionally has been, worse.


Back to the top.

Are Gas Prices all that High?

Glenn posts a pair of great pieces that shed perspective on today's gasoline prices. The first points out that energy intensity is falling, and the second shows that once adjusted for inflation, gas prices have remained relatively steady over the last 30 years or so.

If that doesn't make you feel better the next time you fill up, then go in and pick up a six-pack, too.

Back to the top.

Roll Call: Senate Moving Ahead on Nominees

The Capitol Hill publication Roll Call reports today that Arlen Specter has given notice (subscription required) that the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote Thursday to send the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Senate floor:

Less than three hours later, Specter emerged from a meeting in Majority Leader Bill Frist’s (R-Tenn.) office and declared that there would be a committee vote Thursday on a quintessentially controversial nominee, White House Secretary Brett Kavanaugh. He was a deputy to Kenneth Starr during his tenure as independent counsel investigating the Clinton White House.

Specter predicted a “party-line vote” in favor of Kavanaugh, sending the nominee to the floor in what could be the first real showdown involving a potential Democratic filibuster since last May’s “Gang of 14” deal settled that issue. Kavanaugh, notably at the time, was not mentioned in that deal that averted attempts to end filibusters.

But, back in the committee Tuesday, there was no talk of filibusters or the “nuclear option.” There weren’t even any tough questions. Hatch did little more than ask the handful of nominees to introduce their families.

The great bulk of the article is about the non-controversial hearing the Committee held yesterday on other nominees.

It's good to see that Frist is moving forward on stalled nominees. As others have noted, the key now is to make sure that Frist guarantees that this debate receives the public attention it warrants, rather than becoming a late-night sideshow.

Back to the top.

"Good Morning, Senator Harris" Sounding Even Unlikelier

Readers know that I am an optimist when it comes to Republican chances this Fall. Even I can't spin the Florida Senate race, however. The Hill reports on more bad news for the Katherine Harris campaign:

Fla. Poll holds more bad news for Harris
By Andrew Barr

If retired Gen. Tommy Franks were to jump into the Florida Senate race, he would lead Rep. Katherine Harris by 4 percentage points in the Republican primary, according to a new poll of Florida voters conducted by Strategic Vision LLC, a GOP polling firm.

In a gracious move, the Hill avoides piling on. They save the real bad news for the last line:

The poll also shows Harris trailing Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson 56 percent to 24 percent in a potential general election.

Obviously this is bad news for Katherine Harris. It turns to terrible news if you read the poll, as only 21% of likely voters have yet to form an opinion of her, while 54% have a negative opinion. I'm not always great at math, but it's tough to win an election when your ceiling of support is 46%.

The only good news for Republicans is that other Republicans would have a chance in a race against Nelson. In fact, retired General Tommy Franks (is he a Republican?) ties Nelson in the poll.

Back to the top.

Republicans Helped on Immigration

After finishing up my past post, I came upon Jack Fowler's item at the Corner, noting that Republicans are doing very well among voters who say that their primary concern is immigration. If you have any doubt that these immigration-concerned voters are those who want illegal immigration stopped, note that 73% of them want to see a barrier built along the Mexican border.

Fowler carries over Rasmussen's title for the post: Dems Make Progress on Immigration Issue. I suppose that's true as far as it goes: in a poll of all Americans, Democrats are more trusted to handle the immigration issue. But as true as that may be, it's worthless politically. 'All Americans' don't vote in elections. The most committed 30%-40% do. And I think Republicans are making headway among that group.

My question still stands however, about whether the northern or southern border is a greater security concern.

Back to the top.

GOP Triangulation on Immigration?

The Washington Times this morning reports that the President has forged an agreement with key Senators on the core provisions of a comprehensive immigration bill. The central element is an amnesty - or 'earned legalization' - whatever you want to call it:

Bush, senators agree on alien citizenship, shut out critics
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published April 26, 2006

President Bush and a group of senators yesterday reached general agreement on an immigration bill that includes a pathway to citizenship for many illegal aliens.
But left out of the closed-door White House meeting were senators who oppose a path to citizenship. The meeting even snubbed two men who had been considered allies of Mr. Bush on immigration -- Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican and chairman of the immigration subcommittee, and Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican.
Mr. Bush in brief remarks to the press said there was agreement to get "a bill that does not grant automatic amnesty to people, but a bill that says, somebody who is working here on a legal basis has the right to get in line to become a citizen." But senators, speaking afterward, said Mr. Bush was far more specific in the meeting.
"There was a pretty good consensus that what we have put into the Hagel-Martinez proposal here is the right way to go," said Sen. Mel Martinez, Florida Republican. "I think he was very clear [on] pathway to citizenship, so long as it goes to the back of the line, and he even opened the door here for something we've haggled back and forth on, that you can shrink the time for people to become citizens by simply enlarging the number of green cards."

I have to say though, I still don't see anything like this becoming law. Much has been made of the President's falling poll numbers. A key effect of this is that Members of Congress feel more comfortable dissing the President. In the House, there are lots of Republicans who feel that their political standing is helped greatly by opposition to illegal immigration. Indeed - they feel that it may be the just about the only thing standing between them and minority status. They are not going to vote for an amnesty. John Boehner has clearly been hearing from them:

Even as Mr. Bush is moving in that direction, the House majority leader yesterday rejected it.
"This idea that was being kicked around the Senate about providing some sort of amnesty for those who have been here five years or more, I just think it was a very big mistake," House Majority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said yesterday. "You are just inviting more people to come."

Now it's possible that House leadership will ultimately bring up a bill that many Republicans hate, and pass it with Democratic votes. I still don't think that will happen, but it's possible. It will be the only way to get this compromise enacted, I suspect. There are likely to be dozens of Republicans voting against any such compromise; I'll guess somewhere around 50. Significant Democratic support will be needed.

I'm starting to wonder whether we are going to see a period of a few months where the President and the Republican Congress start to almost run against one another on a few key issues. Certainly conservative Republicans can tell their base that they differ with the President in their opposition to illegal immigration, their commitment to increasing petroleum supply, and their opposition to pork-barrel spending. The President can say that he is pushing a recalcitrant Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform, that he wants to see a greater commitment to ending our addiction to oil, and that he's willing to veto spending bills if Congress cannot control their big-spending ways.

Can each side benefit from using the other as a foil? I'm not sure. But they are speaking to different audiences. The President merely wants to get the focus off of Iraq and gasoline, and to raise his standing with independent voters. Republicans in Congress want to give their conservative base a reason to turn out in November, and to support them. For that reason, they might both benefit from highlighting their differences to their respective target audiences.

I'm not sure that this is going to work, but I bet it's going to happen.

Back to the top.

Blast from the Past

Greek shipbuilders to reconstruct Jason's ship the Argo, and head off to retrieve the golden fleece. Pretty cool. Obviously, I should have read more in High School.

And if you find yourself wondering how anyone invented a plot device as novel as 'golden fleece,' this site explains that it was probably real.

Back to the top.

Coolest Baseball Site Ever?

The Major League Baseball website allows you to look up the hitting patterns of any major league player. You can see where he hit singles, doubles, triples, and homeruns, as well as where he flies out or grounds out. I'm not sure if it has any practical use, but that's a completely secondary consideration.

Scratch that - it has a practical use: if you're actually involved in professional baseball, it may help you predict what a given hitter may do in a given ballpark, based on how he tends to hit the ball. Got a hitter who consistently flies out to the warning track in rightfield? You might want to put him in Yankee Stadium.

Speaking of Yankee Stadium, this is the chart for Jason Giambi, but you can go to player search and look up anyone you want. If you're a San Francisco Giants fan for example, you can look up where Barry Bonds hit his home run this year.

The site also allows you to look up batter vs. pitcher and all sorts of other stuff. It's a good place for a baseball geek to kill a morning.

Back to the top.

Blackstar, I Hardly Knew You

Aviation Week and Space Technology reports that the Pentagon may have mothballed a supercool space plane that might - or might not - exist. The "Blackstar" is a two-stage-to-orbit military spaceplane designed for reconnaissance, satellite insertion, and possibly weapons delivery - unless there is no such thing. The plane might be completely built and run by contractors - including Boeing and Lockheed Martin - giving government officials deniability.


It might even be used for Tom Maguire's "smart spears" - er, assuming that they're real, also.

It's cool enough that you sure hope it's real.

Update: Thanks, Ace, for the traffic. And a bronx cheer to Dave at Garfield Ridge, who points me to a site that rains on the parade.

Back to the top.

Kerry Forgives Administration for Plame Leak?

Others are doing a great job of covering all the hypocrisy and silliness surrounding the firing of Mary McCarthy. I won't try to duplicate their efforts.

I will point out though, that I was pleased to see John Kerry give the White House an implicit pass on the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity. As has been reported in lots of places, Kerry said this to George Stephanopolous about the CIA leaks and Mary McCarthy's firing:

A CIA agent has the obligation to uphold the law and clearly leaking is against the law, and nobody should leak. I don't like leaking. But if you're leaking to tell the truth, Americans are going to look at that, at least mitigate or think about what are the consequences that you, you know, put on that person. Obviously they're not going to keep their job, but there are other larger issues here.

Of course, the administration leak(s) about Valerie Plame were intended to suggest that:

1) Joe Wilson's wife at the CIA helped him get assigned to go to Niger; and,
2) Wilson had misrepresented his findings there.

Both of these allegations were upheld by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, in its report on the problems with intel that led to incorrect conclusions about Saddam's program of WMD.

So it seems to me that to the extent that Kerry is saying that truth is a defense, then Patrick Fitzgerald might need to think about closing up shop.

Back to the top.

Harry Reid Losing Support at Home

As I've noted before, Harry Reid's job as Senate Democratic leader is incompatible with being extremely popular in his home state. A typical Senator can have reasonable success in being all things to all people, and catering his message to his constituents. A leader however, is the face of his party - for good or ill. And in a relatively conservative state such as Nevada, Reid's role is going to cost him some fans.

The Las Vegas Sun reports that Reid is working hard at home to make sure that he gets his message out, and to avoid being badly damaged by his job in Washington. Read past the headline though ("As Reid's power grows in D.C., his support slides in NV"), because the article offers only a few named and unnamed analysts to back up that assertion.

Back to the top.

Al Qaeda Update

If you're interested in the fate of Al Qaeda members who aren't necessarily named Zarqawi or Moussaoui, the Los Angeles Times has a couple of articles for you. The first is on the status Mohamedou Ould Slahi who some believe is connected to both the millennium plot to bomb LAX and the Sept 11 attacks. The second is on Khaled Mohammed Abdullah Batati. Batati was one of the 23 inmates to escape from a Yemeni prison back in February.

More Special Forces in More Places

The Washington Post gave front-page treatment this Sunday to this story on a revamp to the Pentagon's strategy behind the global War on Terror. The bottom-line: a heavier emphasis on special operations forces. I can't say I disagree with the approach, but in DC you can't swing a stick without hitting somebody with a new plan or strategy. Fortunately, this piece in Monday's Washington Times makes it seem like the State Department could actually be making the international arrangements necessary to put the new Pentagon strategy into action someday. I love it when a plan comes together.

If Only They Could Help with the Food...

I'm quite tall, so it's been my experience that all airplane coach seats are too small, and have no leg room. That said, this site is very useful for finding the best seats on any given plane.

If you wind up using the site, be gracious to those taller than 6'4" - please leave us the emergency exit seats. Oh - and is there any way you could maybe, not recline?

Back to the top.

Senate Appropriators Stick with Tradition

Roll Call (subscription required) notes that the Senate's 'emergency supplemental' funding bill - which will pay for the cost of the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina rebuilding - will still contain a host of extraneous funding and policy provisions. And this time, Bill Frist will join Tom Coburn in fighting to eliminate pork from the bill:

Earmarks Seek Aid for Fishing, Vaccines
April 24, 2006
By John Stanton,
Roll Call Staff

Thanks to more than $3 billion in earmarks inserted by Senate appropriators, Gulf Coast fishing interests and vaccine makers could be two of the biggest financial beneficiaries of the $106.5 billion emergency supplemental spending package, which is primarily intended to fund military needs in Iraq and recovery efforts from Hurricane Katrina.

Amid growing restiveness among fiscal conservatives over the federal budget’s rapid growth in GOP-controlled Washington, D.C. — and amid concerns that earmarking may have contributed to a run of Congressional scandals — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has set aside the next two weeks to work through the measure, during which he hopes to whittle down the bill’s price tag.

Although critics of the supplemental see these and other additions as examples of classic pork barrel spending, supporters argue they are all necessary federal expenditures needed to either restore the Gulf Coast economy or avert potential future disasters like an Avian influenza outbreak.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), who wrote the fishing industry provisions in the bill, defended the additional spending last week as key to the region’s economic recovery. “I was pleased to work with Chairman Cochran and Appropriations Committee members to include additional funding for the Gulf Coast fisheries recovery effort. The seafood industry is an important part of the Gulf Coast economy and this funding will provide much needed assistance to fisherman, their communities, and the supporting industry and infrastructure,” Shelby said.

His spokeswoman, Katie Boyd, added, “An essential element to the recovery process is to restore a semblance of normalcy to people’s lives, which includes allowing them to earn a living. Sen. Shelby’s amendment would provide funding to restore essential fisheries’ infrastructure that would ultimately allow people to regain their employment and their way of life.”

It looks like Frist has finally realized that Republican Presidential primaries are dominated by small government conservatives:

Frist’s quest to slim the bill has the backing of budget hawks, including Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). Coburn, who has long opposed earmarks, has prepared dozens of amendments targeting individual pieces of the bill, a Coburn aide said. Although the Oklahoman has frequently been isolated in his efforts to block excessive spending during his short time in the Senate, Coburn appears to have the backing of Frist, which could bolster his offensive.

Don't get worried that the Senate is willy-nilly embracing reform, however:

The Senate Appropriations Committee included a variety of earmarks unrelated to either the Iraq war effort or the Gulf Coast disaster that appear to have broad support within both parties. For instance, the committee agreed to an amendment by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) barring the Bonneville Power Association from increasing rates, plus nearly $4 billion in emergency agricultural and drought relief funding sought by farm-state lawmakers.

The bill also includes language replacing millions of dollars in relief funds to Pennsylvania, Hawaii and other states that were reprogrammed last year to help pay for the initial rounds of hurricane relief spending, as well as funds to accelerate flood control projects and studies in California and Hawaii.

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) — who has a $1 million earmark in the bill relating to an international air show in his home state — has marshalled his Caucus to use the bill as a platform to push his party’s agenda. Senate Democrats have prepared a series of amendments adding new avian flu and homeland security spending to the bill, and they have given no indication that they would back significant cuts to the existing proposal.

It will be interesting to watch the debate.

Back to the top.

Roll Call Notes Mollohan's Troubles

The Capitol Hill weekly Roll Call (subscription required) today reports on Alan Mollohan's political troubles.

Ethics Switch Eases Pressure, for Now

The decision by Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) to step down as ranking member of the House ethics committee has ended, at least for now, an escalating controversy over his financial dealings, but in the long run his departure from the panel may undermine one of the most promising political messages House Democrats are wielding against Republicans in the midterm elections — that the GOP has been corrupted by 12 years of control of the House.

Roll Call then talks a little more about the allegations against Mollohan and the political trouble he faces at home. He can't be happy to hear a Democratic leadership staffer comment that he 'had to go:'

With the question of his service on the ethics panel resolved, at least for now, Mollohan still faces a growing scandal that threatens to loosen his hold on a seat that has been in the family for decades. Mollohan’s father, the late former Rep. Robert Mollohan (D-W.Va.), served for 18 years in the House. Alan Mollohan has been a Member since 1984.

The younger Mollohan has been dogged by questions over his personal finances since the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative watchdog group, revealed earlier this month that it had filed a complaint with the Justice Department regarding the West Virginia Democrat.

The NLPC claimed that Mollohan had improperly reported his assets on annual disclosure forms filed with the House, a charge that Mollohan vehemently denied.

More seriously, Mollohan was accused of steering $250 million in federal earmarks to non-profit groups he founded or controlled. Officials from those groups in turn donated nearly $400,000 to Mollohan’s re-election campaigns...

In the end, while he was not forced out, Mollohan was faced with an increasingly nervous Democratic leadership that knew that if he continued serving as ranking member of the ethics panel, it could threaten the political gains made by the party since the scandal surrounding former lobbyist Jack Abramoff began two years ago. A number of GOP lawmakers and former aides are under investigation by a DOJ task force in that case.

“Mollohan had to go,” said one Democratic insider, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “It’s not that he has done anything wrong, necessarily. It’s that he may have done something wrong, and we just can’t have that while he serves” on the ethics committee.

The Rothenberg political report lists the Mollohan race as an opportnity for Republicans.

Back to the top.

No Love from Moscow

Outside of the occasional criticism of Putin's disregard for civil liberties, few people these days seem to care about Russian foreign policy or Washington's relationship with Moscow. However, there is a vocal segment of the population that believes that American security policy requires the United Nations' stamp of approval. Unfortunately for those people, Russia's seat on the Security Council still comes with veto power. And it looks increasingly likely that veto is going to be used to make sure diplomacy and collective security do little to solve the current nuclear crisis with Iran.

For example, Russian is doing its best to make sure cooperation on the Bushehr nuclear plant continues. According to the Associated Press this week, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said

"The adoption of a commitment on ending cooperation with this or that state in some sphere lies exclusively in the competence of the UN Security Council," and "Up to now, the Security Council has made no decision on ending cooperation with Iran in nuclear energy." Kamynin said that every country "has the right to decide with whom and how it should cooperate," and that the Bushehr project was "under the full control" of the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. The plant has no relation to Iran's work in uranium enrichment, he said.

The last statement is the most troublesome. Whether the Bushehr plant is contributing to the Iranian uranium enrichment program or not, ending cooperation on the plant is the easiest and most effective way for Russia to express its displeasure with Iran and her recent threats against Israel. But evidently, one UN member state threatening to wipe another UN member state off the map isn't enough to spur some Security Council members to action.

According to Reuters on 21 April, Russia made it clear that it believes that the U.N. Security Council should only consider sanctions against Iran if it had proof the Islamic Republic was trying to build nuclear weapons. Non-compliance with previous U.N. demands to end enrichment, the fact that Iran hid its nuclear program for decades, and again, threats against Israel, don't warrant sanctions as far as Moscow is concerned.

One could, and probably should after the war in Iraq, make the argument that "proof" of a weapons program is the bare minimum required for military action. However, diplomacy is not an exact science. If the United States and the United nations are going to end this crisis by diplomatic means, the bar can't be that high. Sanctions are just the diplomatic response to Iran's diplomacy of threats.

Finally, as Russia sets proof of a weapons program as the requirement for sanctions, she is doing her best to make sure that any possible future military action be as costly as possible for the United States and our allies. The Washington Post reported this morning that despite United states' request to the contrary, Russia will go forward with the sale of 29 Tor-M1 air-defense missile systems to Iran.

So much for collective security.

Mollohan Quits Ethics Post; Will the House be Next?

Alan Mollohan has temporarily resigned as lead Democrat on the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct - the Ethics Committee. There's a good chance that this is only the first shoe to drop.

Tom DeLay and Bob Ney are object lessons - on the Republican side - of how difficult it is to hold on to your House seat once you get tarred with unethical behavior. And Mollohan certainly fits that description, now. He realized that surrendering his post would be seen by many as an admission of guilt - and that was why he fought hard to hold onto it.

Having effectively confirmed the suspicions of many that he did something wrong, he'll now have to convince the voters of his district that he still deserves re-election. That's very hard to do.

The Gang of 14 to be Tested

Update: Roll Call reports on April 26 that Specter announced a Judiciary Committee vote on Thursday, April 27, to report the Kavanaugh nomination to the Senate floor.

Second Update: The Senate Judiciary Committee has delayed the scheduled vote on the Kavanaugh nomination.

Third Update: Much more recent material on judicial nominations starting at the top.


National Journal (subscription required) reports that Bill Frist will schedule May votes on 14 of President Bush's judicial nominations:

Frist Ready To Tee Up The Next Floor Fight Over Judges

Senate Majority Leader Frist wants to bring two controversial judicial nominees to the Senate floor in May -- a strategic move that GOP strategists and aides say would help energize the Republican base and fundraising efforts heading into the November elections. A Frist aide said Tuesday the majority leader is considering scheduling votes next month on President Bush's long-stalled nominations of U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and White House aide Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Democrats adamantly oppose both nominees, along with nearly a dozen other Bush nominations. Partisan tension over Bush's judicial picks peaked last May when Frist threatened the so-called nuclear option -- a change in parliamentary procedures to stop minority filibusters of judicial nominees. A group of 14 senators -- seven Republicans and seven Democrats -- formed a pivotal coalition that persuaded both sides to avoid a showdown. The group said senators should not filibuster a president's nominee except under "extraordinary circumstances," which cleared the way for the Senate to approve several nominees.

Brett Kavanaugh is nominated for the US Circuit Court of Appeals for DC, and Boyle for the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals. Votes for these nominees are far overdue; they both have the support of a majority of the Senate, and were nominated by Bush in 2001. Further, both were left hanging after the 14-Senator judicial compromise of last May.

Kavanaugh was reportedly left out of the deal because:

• he was Ken Starr’s Associate Independent Counsel;
• he was part of the White House staff on Bush’s judicial nominations; and,
• he’s too conservative.

It was reported at the time of the deal that 6 of the 7 Democrats party to it had agreed to filibuster Kavanaugh – with only Ben Nelson declining. Since the deal, and with the shocking revelation that the Administration has wiretapped the calls of terrorists, Senate Democrats have also asked for a Committee hearing to explore Kavanaugh's role in that policy.

Boyle's problem is that he too, is 'ultraconservative.' He's also a protege of Jesse Helms, is overruled too often, and has a poor record on civil rights, according to Senate Democrats. Notably, he's been awaiting a vote for about 15 years - since George H.W. Bush originally nominated him.

Bob Novak recently reported that Frist and the Senate leadership saw little urgency to schedule votes on stalled judicial nominees like Kavanaugh and Boyle. That seems to have changed. Of Boyle, Novak reports that there are no 'extraordinary circumstances' that would justify a filibuster, and so 'the votes for the nuclear option presumably would be there.' That's certainly a loaded statement. I wonder how accurately that reflects the views of the 7 Republicans in the Gang of 14.

This move comes a little out of the blue. There are comparatively few legislative work days left on the Senate calendar, and lots to vote on. This debate will undoubtedly consume a lot of floor time, and be very contentious. Any potential votes to end filibusters and change Senate rules will take even longer. All this raises the prospect that the Senate could remain in session right up to election day.

A number of members of the Gang of 14 are up for re-election this year, and political considerations will influence some Senators. On the Democratic side, Lieberman, Byrd, and Nelson face re-election this year. Only Nelson has a race perceived as tough, and he's already said he won't support a filibuster. On the Republican side, DeWine and Chafee have competitive races this year, while Olympia Snowe will cruise. Chafee may be put in the toughest spot on this. His primary is May 20, so he will almost certainly have to vote for cloture - and even for the 'nuclear option' - to fend off the challenge from Laffey. He'll probably try to convince fellow New England Republicans Snowe and Collins to vote with him, too. And if McCain wants to be the Republican nominee in 2008, he will have a tough time voting against the 'nuclear option,' - it could be that Frist would schedule a vote partly to draw him out on the issue.

Lots of Republicans will welcome the chance of a Democratic filibuster and a change in the filibuster rule (although such a change is still a long way down the road). While no one seems sure whether the Democratic vote this fall will be energized or not, they are very fearful that Republicans will be apathetic. This kind of fight will be seen by some as a chance to do the right thing - ensure that nominees get a vote - while energizing the base.


Back to the top.

Our Porous Northern Border

The subject of illegal immigration and terrorism is a fascinating one. Many of those who oppose an immigration amnesty, and who push most aggressively for improved enforcement at the US-Mexican border, argue that these measures are necessary to reduce the possibility that Al Qaeda or other terrorists will take advantage of them to attack the US. And as far as I can tell, these ideas are misguided.

While there are millions of illegal crossings of the US Southern border each year, those crossings are directly due to the fact that that is where our poorer neighbors are - not because that border is undefended. It is the US's Northern border that is undefended. If the standard of living in the US was as superior to Canada's as it is to Mexico's, the border with Canada would be seen as a problem. The US-Canadian border is more than 4,000 miles long. And according to the Congressional Research Service, we have one agent for every 4.2 miles of the Northern border, compared to one for every .2 miles of the Southwestern border.

If you were Al Qaeda or another terrorist group seeking to pull off an attack inside the US, would you send your plotters through Canada or Mexico? Apart from the wide disparity in the level of border security, you might consider that Middle Easterners and Muslims stand out more in Mexico than in Canada - so your team would be less likely to attract attention in Canada. You might also consider that most of the US-Canada border is temperate and easy to cross, while the available crossing points from Mexico are largely deserts and rivers. Why would you pick Mexico? Wouldn't it be Canada that seemed the attractive option? We know that Ahmed Ressam was apprehended crossing into the US from Canada, preventing an attempt to bomb LAX at the turn of the millennium.

CNN recently reported on a smuggling ring that brought dozens of Indian and Pakistani immigrants into the US illegally. That's different from the ring that ICE broke up in February. Heck, the US-Canadian border even has its own smuggling tunnels. Considering that the US-Canadian border is so much less policed than our border with Mexico, what may be going on that we haven't discovered yet?

I'm not in any way saying that our southern border is not vulnerable to crossings by Al Qaeda. We have evidence that Al Qaeda has considered bringing nuclear weapons into the US through the border with Mexico. Crossings of the Mexican border by "OTMs" (other than Mexicans) have increased significantly in the last few years. CNN reports that there were about 100,000 in the first 9 months of 2005. Most of these are certainly Guatemalan and others from Central America, but there's at least anecdotal evidence that we are apprehending more from other parts of the world. The threat needs to be taken seriously.

But if you were AQ, why would you send operatives to a country where they stand out, to cross an unforgiving desert that is regularly patrolled, when you could send them to a place where they fit in, and have them cross an unguarded border where you can practically pick from city, suburb, rural area, or forest as a crossing point?

Republicans Feel Intensely About Immigration

Courtesy of Byron York at NRO, we see that Gallup's latest poll on immigration starts to answer the question I posed the other day: what groups of voters feel most intensely about immigration?

Gallup has the poll results here, and I don't see the partisan breakdown that York mentions. However, this is how he reports it:

But just as dramatic are the differences in who is most concerned about immigration. Thirty percent of self-identified Republicans named it the most important issue, while just 11 percent of self-identified Democrats said the same (for independents, the number was 16 percent). Twenty-five percent of people who called themselves conservatives named immigration the most important issue, versus 13 percent who called themselves liberal (for self-described moderates, the number was 18 percent).

Almost all the Republicans who feel intensely about immigration are bound to be those who favor stronger measures against illegal immigration. The fact that this group feels strongest about it is not surprising in the least, and it means that Republican candidates in general will probably have the most to gain by trying to appeal to this group, while worrying less about the others. Notwithstanding the promise of the House Republican leadership to bring a comprehensive immigration bill to the floor (ie, a bill that features earned legalization), I still bet it won't happen.

No, it Only Looks Like the Onion

Today brings another example of the sort of mistake a blogger might make, but wouldn't make it past the multiple layers of fact-checking employed by the mainstream media. It's from the Washington Post's free daily the Express.





Porter
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English portour, from Middle French porteour, from Late Latin portator, from Latin portare to carry
1 : a person who carries burdens; especially : one employed to carry baggage for patrons at a hotel or transportation terminal
2 : a parlor-car or sleeping-car attendant who waits on passengers and makes up berths

Do you think the Post is trying to say that he's going to be the administration's bag man?

Heh

Via Instapundit: Generals Call for Resignation of Media Leaders

What About Doha?

Although it's received almost no attention since the Hong Kong Ministerial meeting in December, the World Trade Organization continues to work toward an agreement on the framework (or 'modalities') of the Doha Round of trade liberalization talks. The Doha Round kicked off in 2001, with the goal of delivering substantial liberalization of agricultural trade, with attendant benefits for everyone - but especially less developed countries. Progress has come in fits and starts - almost exclusively when it was felt that Doha was on life support. Most recently (at Hong Kong), Europe agreed in principle to give up its agricultural export subsidies by 2013, pending an overall Doha Round agreement.

Now there is a theoretical deadline of the end of April for agreement on the parameters of a final deal. Countries are all supposed to approve the broad brushstrokes within which a deal will be negotiated. They will then hash out the actual provisions of a deal between now and December, when the final accord will be put on paper - theoretically.

The problem is that Europe is unwilling to actually put its cards on the table and agree to real openness in agriculture. Or maybe it's that Brazil won't agree on opening its industrial market, or the US won't go further on reducing its agricultural price supports. There's plenty of finger-pointing.

While there are apparently no real deadlines in trade talks that are governed by consensus, there is one real deadline in US law. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) - or Fast Track - or whatever you like to call it - expires in mid-2007. Simply put, TPA requires the Congress to vote yes or no on a trade deal - to accept or reject it without amending it. If our trading partners know that Congress has the power to change a deal after the President has signed it, they will never sign on to an overall Doha agreement with the US. So for there to be a Doha Round agreement, it probably has to be signed, sealed and delivered by the end of 2006. No one wants to bet that Congress will be willing to extend TPA in the foreseeable future.

Into all this, the move of Rob Portman from USTR to OMB has set off shock waves. Our trading partners say that it sends the signal that the US doesn't take Doha seriously. They're implying that this might mean the end of the Doha Round.

Frankly, this is nonsense. Rob Portman - and before him Bob Zoellick - worked tirelessly to revive Doha when it seemed dead. Their shuttle diplomacy and their willingness to push the boundaries on what Congress might ultimately accept in a deal have helped keep the process moving. Europe has been unable to get down to brass tacks in these negotiations - largely because France will not contemplate further changes to farm programs, and especially not before their 2007 Presidential election. To the extent that Portman's departure means anything about Doha, it means that the US is recognizing that the intransigience of our trading partners means success in Doha is unlikely.

If you're interested in reading a critique of Europe's Common Agricultural Policy, written by those on the inside, check this out.

Illegal Immigrants in Mexico

I note that Ace and others are talking about the treatment illegal immigrants receive in Mexico. It's definitely true that Mexico takes illegal immigrants as seriously as the US does. I can't say that they take it more seriously, because most employment in Mexico is informal (40% according to this site, but I've heard up to 60%), and it's hard to enforce laws against employing illegals.

When travelling in the southern part of Mexico, near the border with Guatemala and Belize, it's not unusual to run into military checkpoints searching for illegals. Once when traveling near Oaxaca, I was in a bus that was stopped by the military for just this reason. I thought it stunning that when I asked my guide what the soldiers wanted, he told me 'they're looking for wetbacks.' I was amazed at the irony of a Mexican using this term.

It's certainly true that the US is more rigorous in protecting the rights of illegal immigrants than is Mexico.

Chavez Punishes his Enemies

Bloomberg notes that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is making sure that those who forced him to face a recall election in 2004 are punished. Thousands of government employees have been fired from among the 3.4 million that signed the recall petition.

It seems only a few years since the United States celebrated a new dawn in Latin America - with more or less freely elected regimes everywhere but Cuba and with the region increasingly looking to the US for friendship and support. Now however, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is proving increasingly successful at forging an anti-American alliance among leftist leaders throughout the hemisphere. As the BBC recently noted, the United States is losing Latin America.

This July will see a Presidential election in Mexico, where the stakes are higher than ever before. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (or AMLO, or the 'pejelegarto') is the candidate of the PRD, and it's alleged that Chavez has been funding his campaign. Should AMLO be elected, Chavez will have a powerful potential ally.

Europe Attacks American Companies, Profits

Rich Smith of the Motley Fool has an interesting post on the move by the European Community to rein in what credit card providers can charge. Smith notes that it appears to be an attack on US firms, and it fits in with a European pattern:

But after reading all these numbers the Commission is bandying about: "$1.6 trillion," "six times" this, and "12 times" that, I notice that nowhere have I read -- in any of the press reports on the Commission's witch hunt -- an actual number being put to these "outrageous" profits.

So I turned to Capital IQ, the Oracle of financial data we use here at the Fool, to find out, and it turns out that American Express nets just 6% of its revenues as profit. MasterCard earns a 9% net margin. Only the 14% margin that Visa boasts even shares a zip code with "outrageous."

Don't get me wrong. Fourteen percent is certainly respectable, but I was sure there were companies out there making better margins than that. With a few more clicks, I dug up a handful:

Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO): 21% net margin
Intel (Nasdaq: INTC): 22%
eBay (Nasdaq: EBAY): 24%
Google (Nasdaq: GOOG): 24%
Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT): 32%

Now, these companies all have a couple things in common -- both with each other and with the major card providers as well. First, they've all been targeted for criticism by European authorities in recent years -- Coke for out-competing other pop vendors for shelf space, Intel for controlling too much market share, eBay for failing to do the European Community's tax collecting for it, Google for getting too inventive with its advertising, and Microsoft seemingly for every single thing it does.

And the second thing they have in common: They're all American companies.

The fact that Europe is attacking America is nothing new. The US goes after European companies from time to time; sometimes it's justified, sometimes it's not. What's fascinating to me is the continuing creep toward socialism. European economic growth is at best sclerotic. Apart from immigration, its population is imploding. It features unfunded pension programs that cannot be sustained. The continent is headed for a crisis, and its leadership fiddles while Rome burns - or worse - throws on kerosene.

On the heels of Europe's unwillingness to open its markets in the current Doha Round trade talks, of France's refusal to allow private employers to fire new workers with cause, the EU is now talking about growing its own credit company:

"We need a European card payment system that can rival Visa and MasterCard...Those companies are welcome in Europe, as long as they conform to European competition rules, but there is evidence that [they] appear to be abusing the system at the moment."

How do they propose to create such a company? Probably the same way they created Airbus - government subsidies and protection. But that is no way to create wealth. Airbus is strong today, after receiving billions in government subsidies. But it is beholden to its host governments for those subsidies, and is hampered by them. For example, Airbus would like to reduce input costs by sourcing parts outside of Europe - but it is prevented from doing so by France and other governments. How long can Airbus stay competitive with firms that can buy parts wherever they are cheapest? Or alternately, what will it cost in terms of taxpayers subsidies to keep them competitive in a changing market?

What will it cost to create credit company? Will the money come from consumers or taxpayers? After all, those are the only choices. And of course they are the same people - so it doesn't really matter.

Only about 15 years since the collapse of communism as an economic model, Europe is slowly creeping in that direction. And they are doing so in the face of the Irish tiger - Europe's strongest growth economy for more than a decade, and one of its strongest market models. It is doing so even as increasing government intervention in the market causes slower and slower growth.

What can they be thinking?

Making Star Trek a Reality

Looks like the whiz kids at NASA are working on an anti-matter propulsion system, which could conceivably be used to put astronauts on Mars. I like the part where they say that this system would be much more simple - not a word I would previously have used to describe anti-matter drive:

"The most significant advantage is more safety," said Dr. Gerald Smith of Positronics Research, LLC, in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The current Reference Mission calls for a nuclear reactor to propel the spaceship to Mars. This is desirable because nuclear propulsion reduces travel time to Mars, increasing safety for the crew by reducing their exposure to cosmic rays. Also, a chemically-powered spacecraft weighs much more and costs a lot more to launch. The reactor also provides ample power for the three-year mission. But nuclear reactors are complex, so more things could potentially go wrong during the mission. "However, the positron reactor offers the same advantages but is relatively simple," said Smith, lead researcher for the NIAC study.

No mention in the article of the timetable for testing and deploying such a system. Makes me think it's still safe to regard it as years off in the future.

Portman Moves Over

Well, I feel almost like I have the gift of prophecy. A few hours after I predict that Rob Portman will move from USTR to Treasury, he moves from USTR to... OMB. Oh well, I'm half right.

I suppose the next name that people are talking about for Treasury - assuming Snow is replaced - is Henry Paulson, Chief Executive of Goldman Sachs.

White House Shakeup

Looks like we can count on a shakeup of the President's team. Josh Bolten and Scott McClellan signalled as much today, as reported everywhere. The New York Times finds a way to twist the dagger, even as they try to describe such shakeups as normal:

Staff changes are common in a president's second term, as he and his most trusted associates try to preserve their influence and ward off the impression that they are sliding toward lame-duck irrelevance. President Bush has been beset by sagging support for the war in Iraq, as reflected in public-opinion polls, and has lost momentum on some of his domestic-policy goals as well.

The obvious likely change is John Snow at Treasury, since the administration has not gotten any credit for a strong economy on his watch. Snow has little to do with that of course, but if you're going to have a shakeup you have to dismiss someone. Rob Portman is an obvious rising star in the party, and would be a good pick. Supporters of expanded trade would be disappointed to lose him from USTR, but at least the Treasury Secretary has substantial infuence on trade discussions, so Portman could continue to push for progress in the Doha Round and in trade talks with China.

It appears that Rumsfeld is not going anywhere, but we'll need to get rid of another Secretary or two for this to qualify as a shakeup. We can probably rule out changes at HHS, DHS, Energy, State, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, and the VA. All of those Secretaries assumed their duties in 2005, and none is really regarded as doing a bad job. That leaves Elaine Chao at Labor, Norm Mineta at Transportation, and Alphonso Jackson at HUD. Any or all of those three could be candidates for replacement. The first two have been in their jobs for the whole of the Bush Presidency, and Jackson has been at HUD for a little over 2 years. None is a star, and Mineta in particular has been criticized for the failure to increase airline security under his watch. Replacing Mineta might help Bush energize his base and promote turnout in the Fall. I would bet heavily on Mineta's moving on.

Since the White House is looking for a shakeup to generate some excitement - or at least to change the headlines for a few weeks - you'll try to find interesting and capable replacements, rather than just retreads. In a challenging election year, the White House will look to people who are not currently running for re-election in swing states or districts. That typically means retiring officials, but I don't see any likelies there. Names like Kenny Guinn, Dirk Kempthorne, Bill Frist and Henry Hyde don't work.

Moving past retirees on the list, the names that jump out at me as having potential are:

Bobby Jindal (LA) - a rising star
To raise a brilliant and successful young South Asian to a position of prominence would help generate buzz, while strengthening the President's team.

John Cornyn (TX) - close to the President
Cornyn is extremely bright, and has built a strong following in his short time as a national figure. Plus, there's almost no chance that a Democrat would win his seat in Texas.

Paul Ryan (WI)
Another bright candidate and good communicator, popular with the Right

Small Victories

Roll Call reports that Senate appropriators are starting to look at reining in spending in supplemental/emergency appropriations bills (subscription required). Depending on who's doing the counting, these measures are not typically added into the calculation of overall spending levels, and year-to-year changes in federal discretionary spending. For this reason, there's great incentive to push spending and policy changes into supplemental bills, which typically get less scrutiny than the regular 13 appropriations measures. While Roll Call reports explicitly on forcing the Administration to limit its ambitions in these measures, the same should be true of Congress, which often uses these same 'emergency' measures for pork-barrel spending.

Senate Targets Supplementals
April 17, 2006
By John Stanton,
Roll Call Staff

Senate appropriators have inserted language into the fiscal 2006 supplemental spending bill chastising the Bush administration for using the now twice-yearly “emergency war” supplementals as a shadow appropriations and policy process, warning the Senate will not consider future requests that do not include a full budget justification to appropriators.
Although budget hawks in the House and Senate have long criticized using the supplemental spending process and its attendant waivers from spending limits to prosecute the war on terror and campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, Senate leaders and rank-and-file Republicans and Democrats also have soured on the process.

Noting longstanding Appropriations Committee concerns with supplemental procurement spending requests by the military, the committee for the first time puts the administration on notice that “Congress will not be able to fully support [future] supplemental requests unless it is provided with the same detailed justification and program materials that it receives with the annual request,” according to the committee report.

A senior GOP aide said last week that Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and other leaders support the Appropriations Committee’s decision to seek a full accounting for future supplemental requests from the administration.

In fact, both House and Senate appropriators have repeatedly expressed concerns with how the Defense Department’s use of supplemental spending bills — which Congress has traditionally held to a lower level of expected spending justifications — to pay for either routine maintenance and procurement costs or projects and policies that have not received Congressional approval. Additionally, Members in both chambers, as well as members of the Senate’s GOP leadership, have become increasingly unwilling to allow the White House to use the supplemental process to keep the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan “off budget” and are instead insisting that it be accounted for as part of the normal appropriations process, Senate aides said...

Additionally, in at least one case, the White House has sought to use the supplementals to affect a controversial policy change without Congressional approval or input.

Specifically, buried in the massive supplemental request was a series of DOD funding proposals to build permanent military installations in Iraq and Afghanistan — none of which has been approved by either country’s government and all of which violate an explicit U.S. policy that only temporary construction is allowed. The committee rejected all of the White House requests that were deemed to violate the prohibition on permanent construction projects.

The White House and the Appropriations Committee could not be reached for comment.

Why I Miss Mexico

Most major cities never see protests like this, but in Mexico they're common (mild content warning). If you've ever seen the farmers, you'd give them anything they want to get them to keep their clothes on.

Support for Amnesty

Well, Bob Novak joins the crowd of respected columnists disagreeing with me on immigration. This is what the Prince of Darkness has to say:

Immigration politics

New national polling data show, to the surprise of many politicians, that the immigration issue is one of the very rare areas where President Bush is gaining rather than losing strength.

The conventional wisdom has been that Bush's guest worker proposal runs sharply against mainstream Republican opinion and contributes to the president's loss of party support. However, polls show Republican opinion on the issue is split, as are the Democrats, with a national majority actually backing Bush (while he continues to drop in nearly every other category).

Some Republican members of Congress have reported back from Easter recess to say their constituents are less outraged by leaky borders than the possible loss of immigrant workers, some from their own households.

Surprised, I went to PollingReport.com, to see what they have to say about immigration - and in particular, earned legalization. It seems that several recent polls do indeed show broad support for it. USA Today/Gallup and CBS News both poll a broad sample of adults nationwide, and show support of 63 and 74 percent, respectively, for an earned legalization program. I'm surprised by the level of support.

What these reports don't show however, and what I'm curious to see, is the respective views of the 'bases' of the two parties, and the views of those likely to vote this year. After all, not all adults are eligible to vote, and of those who are eligible, somewhere under 40 percent are likely to turn out for the midterm elections. It's possible - even likely - that the views of these people are very different from those of 'all adults.' The poll doesn't show us the intensity, either. How many supporters of amnesty will base their votes on it this year? Fewer than among the opponents, I bet. Elected officials who respond to polling are going to look at those questions - not just the data presented here - when deciding how to approach immigration legislation this year.

I'm also curious about Novak's assertion that the President's approval rating is being helped by increased support for him on immigration. Mickey Kaus pointed out that Daniel Schorr (and probably others) are sloppily characterizing the President as being opposed to amnesty. I bet there are lots of casual observers who think the same. To the extent that immigration is boosting his ratings, I bet it is from people confusing his policies with those of Congressional Republicans.