Monday, June 30, 2008

Swiftboating McCain?

General Wesley Clark is taking a lot of heat for some very reasonable and respectful comments about John McCain.



Clsrk simply pointed out the obvious - that McCain's military service does not qualify him to be President because he has little or no executive experience during wartime. People are ignoring that Clark also called McCain a hero and expressed personal gratitude for McCain's patriotism during captivity. The really funny part of the interview is when Schieffer is shocked that Clark does not believe that being shot down in a fighter plane qualifies you to be President. Is that really such an outlandish claim?

Clark has said nothing to discount McCain's service, only its relevance to the presidency. Where was the outrage when Republicans actually did question Kerry's military service?

I completely agree with John Cole's observation that Clark is getting screwed. Cole later states: "If I were John Kerry, I would be breaking shit right now." Absolutely. Your "liberal media" at work.

Shame on the media for buying into this crap, and shame on Obama for throwing Clark under the bus.

As if the double standard between McCain and Kerry weren't already ridiculous enough, we actually have a former SwiftVet for Truth criticizing Clark's comments on behalf of the McCain campaign. He rejects any alleged similarity between Clark and the SwiftVets, saying that his attacks, which McCain himself once called "dishonest and dishonorable", were simply revelation of the truth. So we have a person who lied about Kerry's service now denouncing Clark's comments that honored McCain's service and included nothing untrue, claiming that the difference is that he was speaking the truth about Kerry. Unbelieveable!

Obama and Affirmative Action

Will Obama's success hurt affirmative action?

I don't agree that Obama's success is a refutation of affirmative action, if only because he has a very unique background. I agree that, while there are racial prejudices remaining in this country, those prejudices generally do not prevent an African American from reaching any goals he may set. However, the long history of discrimination continues to negatively impact African-Americans. The wealth, values, habits, skills, knowledge, and lucrative connections passed from one generation to the next for centuries among middle-class and upper-class whites are only now being developed in the African-American community. That is one of the reasons why Obama's commitment to equality in early childhood education is so important.

I am hoping that Obama will take a strong position during the campaign that affirmative action should remain, but should be shifted to emphasize socioeconomic background rather than race. African-Americans would still benefit greatly from a financial need based affirmative action, but it would have the benefit of seeming fairer to whites, not benefitting African-Americans from families that have already "made it" (Obama points out that colleges should see his children as privileged), and recognizing the reality that class is now a stronger factor in success than race.

Sunday, June 29, 2008

Alcohol: The Cause of - and Solution to - All of Life's Problems

Bowling
Golf
Fishing
Sporting Events
Watching Live Music
Watching Fireworks
Cookouts
Boating (always use a DD)
Poker

Add living car-free to the list of activities that become more attactive when you realize you can drink while doing it.

Via Matthew Yglesias:


Now that's a convincing case for public transportation.

Examining the North Korea deal

A step in the right direction, but maybe not all it's cracked up to be. Fred Kaplan:
There was always one loophole in that document. The Bush administration, in summarizing the deal, said that it required the North Koreans, among other things, to list all their nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs. However, that wasn't quite accurate. The document said only that the North Koreans "will discuss" such a list. (Italics added.)

One lesson learned by those who negotiated the 1990s' Agreed Framework was this: The North Koreans will exploit every loophole, so nail the language down tight. That didn't happen this time—for understandable reasons, which we will soon discuss, but still.

The North Koreans did discuss a list. But, according to some knowledgeable sources, the 60-page list that they actually provided pertains only to the Yongbyon nuclear reactor and to its nearby reprocessing plant. Now this is a big deal. Plutonium is the element that produces the largest number of nuclear bombs in the shortest span of time. But it's not quite the deal that the administration said, or perhaps thought, it was getting. The list was supposed to—or, minus that pesky "discuss" loophole, it looked like it was supposed to—cover "all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs," not just those dealing with plutonium. Other programs would include highly enriched-uranium facilities, high-explosive test sites, nuclear test sites, and storage facilities that might contain bombs and fissile materials. The list reportedly does not include any of that.
Kaplan began the article by clarifying that North Korea only destroyed the cooling tower at Yongbyon.

Supreme Court Appointments

I think it is possible that, given that liberals on the Supreme Court are more likely to retire in the next 4-8 years than conservatives, a vote for Obama is a vote for the status quo, while a vote for McCain is a vote for a much more conservative court. Washington Post:
A victory by the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, would probably mean preserving the uneasy but roughly balanced status quo, since the justices who are considered most likely to retire are liberal. A win for his Republican counterpart, John McCain, could mean a fundamental shift to a consistently conservative majority ready to take on past court rulings on abortion rights, affirmative action and other issues important to the right.

This is because the conservatives (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) are relatively young and show no intention of retiring. The liberals (Souter, Breyer, Ginsberg, Stevens) and swing vote (Kennedy) are more advanced in age.

I do see a few sets of circumstances that could alter this course. Of course, all of the Justices are over 50 years old, so anything can happen. Also, a reliable conservative may retire during the McCain presidency in the hopes of being replaced by a conservative, only to be replaced by a Stevens or a Souter. That possibility is made more likely by the third potential intervening circumstances - a Democratic Senate.

However, if Obama can convince voters that Roe v. Wade is in real jeopardy and make McCain's interest in overturning Roe v. Wade an issue in the campaign, Obama stands to benefit tremendously.

Thank God for Condi Rice

In case you doubted that there are dangerously insane people involved in Bush's foreign policy, John Bolton strongly criticized the North Korea deal and Cheney tried to kill it.

I have not put Condi Rice on the pedestal that some have. Her background as an expert on Russia and Eastern Europe seemed ill-suited for a foreign policy that would have to deal with failed states and terrorists. I think this was evident in her failure to recognize the severity of the al Qaeda threat before 9/11. However, she articulates Bush's grand foreign policy strategy far better than anyone else in the Administration, including Bush himself. She and Petraeus seem to be the only grown-ups directly advising the President. For that service, I am deeply grateful.

Friday, June 27, 2008

This is the Coolest Thing I've Seen in Awhile

I've always wanted to go to Dubai; now I really want to go.

Unfortunately My Lovely Wife won't allow it.

Bush Diplomacy a Success!

Good News from North Korea .

Maybe if we get China to work with us on Iran, Israel won't have to go to war with them.

Winning the War on Terror

This article from the London Times for the most part says how I feel about the war on terror.

Failure of the Surge

The American Conservative's Daniel Larison:
The argument over who was for the “surge” first misses several important points. It’s true that there were doubts about the efficacy of deploying additional forces into Baghdad, since it seemed to be no different from previous increases in the number of soldiers there, but the more significant objections were to the proposal that the “surge” be temporary and that this temporary measure would facilitate political reconciliation. The latter has still, for the most part, not occurred, nor was there ever much reason to expect that it would occur. Even the Pentagon’s own more positive report has little good to say about the Iraqi government. According to the administration’s standards, the “surge” has generally not yielded the results that it was supposed to yield–that’s normally what we call failure. Meanwhile, the GAO says that the measurements that the administration is using to show progress in Iraq are either flawed or show a less positive picture than the one currently being trumpeted.

Progressive Taxation

Let's really get something started!

First, some background. In the context of higher gas prices, their benefits, and their impact on the poor, Andrew Sullivan (who doesn't drive, by the way) restated his belief that progressive taxation of income is immoral. That led to a defense of progressive taxation by John Schwenkler - in which he pointed out that the poor are disproportionately affected by high fuel costs - and the following from Andrew Sullivan (part of a longer post):

To put it as plainly as I can: I don't believe in a governmental attempt to engineer a substantively "fair" society through taxation. I see taxation as a necessary evil to pay for those few social goods that private individuals cannot provide for themselves. And the mode of taxation, in my view, should be as simple and as market-friendly as possible and should treat citizens equally, irrespective of their incomes. I believe in formal equality and a very limited state, not substantive equality and the welfare state. I know this is pie-in-the-sky, given our current Byzantine tax code and the entrenchment of certain socialistic assumptions in our political culture. I don't expect any radical change any time soon. But I'm not going to enable this kind of thinking without a challenge to it.

So yes: a flat tax so far as possible for as many as possible and no deductions. That's my goal. How that differentially impacts the lives of citizens should not be government's primary concern.

No, government has no responsibility to redistribute wealth downward, but it does have both a moral and practical responsibility not to impose an unreasonable burden on the poor. The advantage of progressive taxation to me isn't redistribution or some other social engineering fantasy. It is simply that the tax burden should not be unreasonable.

To me, if a family is struggling to pay rent, put food on the table, keep the lights on in the home, pay for health care, buy school supplies, etc., we should avoid making things more difficult by taking 20% of that family's income. For a single parent of three children earning $30,000 per year, you would be reducing the take home pay to $24,000. With three children, $2,000 per month goes pretty quickly. The lives of the poor are already made more difficult by reduced access to credit, reduced ability to afford goods and services that make others lives easier, and the day-to-day stress of living paycheck to paycheck, among other things.

I think it is immoral for government to, through taxation, help to drive the poor deeper into poverty. Beyond that, I also think it is bad policy to increase the burden on the most financially vulnerable. Poverty is harmful to society as whole, and even more harmful when it spreads and perpetuates itself. Crime, divorce, and school dropouts are just a few of the steps in the vicious cycle of poverty from generation to generation.

Of course we can't end poverty. There will always be winners and losers in a capitalistic economy. But we can refrain from making matters worse.

The important thing to me is not that taxation be fair. It is that taxation not be overly burdensome. A tax of 20% on the poor is crippling. A tax of 20% on the rich means less luxury items. There should be some recognition in our tax policy that all income earned up to a certain amount is necessary for basic needs.

UPDATE: Sullivan posted this reader email and his reply:

A reader makes the best case I know of for progressive taxation at this present time:

We have seen during the Bush and Reagan eras the negative effects of a more regressive tax policy. The gap between rich and poor widens. The middle class stagnates, while incomes for the top 10% explodes. Crime rates rise, families crack under the strain, whole communities undergo upheaval, the wealthy separate themselves in gated communities, and on and on. If Burkian conservatism is based on a respect for societal traditions and community institutions, one of its greatest adversaries must be unencumbered market forces and the "creative destruction" it unleashes. Have you read your "Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism" lately? I'd say if you want to avoid a future of wholesale class conflict and radical socialism, the smart thing to do would be to keep the gap between the rich and the poor from becoming a chasm.

This is also why Ross and Reihan may be ideologically difficult for me to agree with but are making an important contribution. Conservatism is defined, to my mind, by a respect for practical wisdom, the knowledge of when to abandon certain principles in the face of emergent realities. It is a perfectly conservative worry to follow Aristotle in hoping for a strong middle class as a bulwark for a stable mixed regime. If global economic forces shred that class or drastically exacerbate social and economic inequality so as to threaten the stability of the polity, conservatives should be open to some measure of redistributionism as a palliative. Not as a general principle - but as a temporary pragmatic response to a social danger.

The question then becomes one of whether progressive taxation is the right way to go - or whether raising exemptions, expanding the EITC, investing in public education are not better routes. Where Obama has made me pause is his assertion that we need some re-balancing after the last twenty years. I'm still skeptical for all the reasons I stated here. But it would not be a conservative thing to dismiss the argument at the present time. And the need for greater fiscal responsibility might push some Obamacons toward gritting their teeth and accepting a more liberal Obama administration than we'd like.

I agree with Sullivan's reader completely. I failed to mention in my post that a strong and dynamic middle class is a societal good that our tax policy should take into account.

I also think Sullivan's nod to the reader's points is admirable, but I doubt the efficacy or wisdom of government programs as a route to alleviate the tax burden on the poor. Raising exemptions is more along the lines of what I was proposing, but do we have a bright line cut off at which earners under a certain income are not taxed at all but earners over that income are taxed at something like 25%? That seems to create all sorts of weird incentives. Also, it makes the person with a higher gross salary substantially poorer than a person with a slightly lower gross salary and loses sight of the fact that there is a wide spectrum of wealth, not a magic number at which one's financial well-being is immune to the burden of taxation. Therefore, you inevitably arrive at some sort of sliding scale. We need to simplify the tax code, certainly, but five to ten tax brackets, with far fewer exemptions and deductions and credits, would be fairly simple.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Judicial Activism

Matthew Yglesias on Exxon-Valdez:
Doubtless conservative pundits all across the land will howl with outrage at the gross judicial activism of the Supreme Court in slashing punitive damages in the Exxon Valdez case from $5 billion to $500 million, thus saving ExxonMobil, $4,500 million dollars.

And on Heller:
I also doubt that conservatives will be too upset by the "judicial activism" involved in the Supreme Court overturning the DC handgun ban. I don't really understand the details of the ruling at this point, but I'm not complaining about it either. From a policy perspective, what DC is trying to accomplish is just futile -- as long as the District is a very small patch of land adjacent to Virginia, there's no way gun regulations of this sort will prevent criminals from acquiring weapons.

Heh.

D.C. v. Heller (2nd Amendment)

Here is the opinion:

DC v Heller - Free Legal Forms

I have only skimmed the opinion (it's long).

I don't believe that the Second Amendment was originally meant to protect the right to bear arms for any purpose other than a "well-regulated militia." Scalia, surprisingly for someone who exalts the text so often, too casually dismisses the importance of the statement of purpose in the Second Amendment.

However, I am not an originalist. Therefore, I have no problem with interpreting the Constitution to grant rights not contemplated by the framers. When in doubt, I favor interpretations that expand rights rather than limit them.

Additionally, even if there were no right to bear arms, total bans on firearms would be a public policy disaster. It would have the same success as Prohibition and the War on Drugs. While law abiding citizens would disarm to some extent, criminals would continue to have guns.

So, while I disagree with parts of the opinion's legal analysis, I have no problem with the result. The same may be said for my thoughts on Roe v. Wade.

Castration of Sex Offenders

In Louisiana:

Today, Gov. Jindal signed the "Sex Offender Chemical Castration Bill," authorizing the castration of convicted sex offenders. They get a choice: physical or chemical. Oh, and they don't just get castrated and leave - they still have to serve out their sentence.

SB 144 by Senators Nick Gautreaux, Amedee, Dorsey, Duplessis and Mount provides that on a first conviction of aggravated rape, forcible rape, second degree sexual battery, aggravated incest, molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of 13, or an aggravated crime against nature, the court may sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration. On a second conviction of the above listed crimes, the court is required to sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration.

Forced castration seems drastic to me. It may be considered cruel and unusual. Also, if it only applies to men, there may be an equal protection problem.

However, sex offenders seem compelled to repeat the offense to a greater extent than other offenders. We clearly understand this. That is why Georgia has passed laws to try to prevent sex offenders from living practically anywhere.

My thought is that, once the offender has served his time, we should allow him to resume a somewhat normal life. If we don't believe the offender can safely return to society, then we shouldn't release him.

Perhaps we should lengthen sentences for sex offenses and/or make passage of a psychological evaluation a prerequisite to release. We could then offer voluntary castration as an alternative to a lengthy sentence or passage of a psychological evaluation.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Death Penalty for Child Rape

I am opposed to the death penalty, but if we have it for murder, we ought to have it for child rape.

Why do Republicans, who don't trust the government to do anything well, suddenly have enough confidence in the same government to give them power over life and death?

St. Barack

The more things Obama changes his mind on the more he seems just like any other politician.

The Huffington Post also has an article about how Obama seems to be abandoning the same people who helped him get the nomination. This isn't really that surprising. Just ask Jeremiah Wright.

P.J. O'Rourke is the Man

I read this awhile back but I didn't have anywhere to promote it to my friends.

I do now.

The LA Times has biased polling?????? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gallup Daily: Obama, McCain Tied at 45%


Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Quid Pro Quo?

Democrats who switched to vote in favor of immunity for the telecommunications industry in the FISA bill received more money from the industry. The Hill:
Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T donated $8,359 on average, between January 2005 and March 2008, to 94 House Democrats who switched their stances and voted yes last week on the House's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) overhaul bill.The same companies donated $4,987 on average to those who consistently opposed immunity and voted no, the study finds.
This system is little more than legalized bribery.

Let me also say that the telecommunications companies should get no immunity. They rolled over way too easily to have acted in good faith. It would have been extremely easy and completely reasonable to refuse to disclose any confidential information without a court order. They owed that to their customers.

Offshore Drilling: No Equipment?

On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) pointed to the vast federal lands that the oil industry already has access to. Red Cavaney of the American Petroleum Institute disputed the assertion that there is oil and gas under all of this land, but also claimed that the industry doesn't have the equipment needed to drill.

Transcript (video here):
STEPHANOPOULOS: is there grounds for a compromise?

SACHS: yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: okay. fine. we don't love it. but let's drill on the outer continental shelf. let's drill on anwr for the return on investments you're talking about in alternatives.

REP. MARKEY: we don't have to have a grand compromise to drill off beaches to drill where the polar bear is swimming. until experts say this is the case. they drill on 80% of the oil that we already have that is available to them. they should clean their plate before they ask for dessert. they are not going there. exxon mobile, 40 billion in profits just to buy back their own stock. they onlypent $10 million on renewables last year and blocked the tax breaks. that formula is a recipe for dependence upon oil to the indefinite future.

CAVANEY: every single available drilling rig, drill ship is in use being used right now. you can't go and drill when you don't have equipment. we are not magicians as an industry. the idea that there's oil and gas under this 80% it's not true.

SACHS: can i say that's not the support? they are sure this oil off the beaches and in the arctic where the polar bear is swimming but the 80% of the leases they already control, they are not sure the oil is there. it's a disingenuous argument. in order to get access to every bit of oil in pristine wilderness areas.
How do they intend to take advantage of the additional drilling rights that McCain wants to give them without equipment?

538 Update





Also, LA Times / Bloomberg gives Obama a 15 point national lead (12 if you exclude Barr and Nader).

Surge Makes All Options Better

Responding to David Brooks' Bush Paradox, Matthew Yglesias writes:

To its proponents, the surge is working so well that it sets the stage for years and years of further American military engagement in Iraq. And it's true -- the security gains of the past year do make the Bush/McCain strategy of perpetual military entanglement in Iraq look a lot more viable than it looked a year ago. But it's also true that the security gains of the past year make a strategy of leaving Iraq look a lot more viable than it looked a year ago.

Basically, when Iraq was hellishly violent, all possibly strategies seemed likely to lead to more hellish violence. The cliché was to start every discussion of Iraq by saying "there are no good options, but..." Now insofar as things look better, all options really do look better as a consequence.

Monday, June 23, 2008

Obama's Libertarian Paternalism

This is probably the benefit of Obama's association with University of Chicago economists. George Will:
Thaler and Sunstein say the premise of libertarian policy is that people should be generally free to do what they please. Paternalistic policy "tries to influence choices in a way that will make choosers better off, as judged by themselves." So "libertarian paternalism is a relatively weak, soft, and nonintrusive type of paternalism because choices are not blocked, fenced off, or significantly burdened."

Thaler and Sunstein stress that if "incentives and nudges replace requirements and bans, government will be both smaller and more modest." So nudges have the additional virtue of annoying those busybody, nanny-state liberals who, as the saying goes, do not care what people do as long as it is compulsory.
Of course, some of Obama's policies will more significantly burden choices, but I think a general approach of lightly influencing choices is preferable to traditional heavy-handed big government regulation.

Sunday, June 22, 2008

George Carlin

Dead today at 71.

In tribute, and in keeping with the topics of this blog, Carlin on saving the planet:

News on Iran

I'm not sure what to make of these items, but here they are.

Bill Kristol says Bush might bomb Iran if he thinks Obama will win.

John "Yosemite Sam" Bolton basically concurs.

European officials fear Obama may undercut progress with Iran. What progress?

RE: This should be fun (Bush's legacy)

A friend recently compared Bush to Lincoln. I laughed out loud. The Truman comparison is only slightly less ridiculous.

Andrew Roberts analogizes that both Truman and Bush will have left office with extremely low approval ratings and a foreign policy that has been judged a failure. He goes on to predict that, like Truman, Bush will be regarded as a great president. The analogy should be of no comfort to Bush's supporters. Truman was unpopular, and his foreign policy deemed a failure, because of the Korean War. Truman's handling of the Korean War is still considered a foreign policy failure. Truman is considered a great president because he was, in retrospect, successful in other areas. Surely Andrew Roberts, a historian, knows this. I can only assume he is being dishonest.

On to the merits. The article gives this pretty good summary of Bush's supposed positive legacy.

The overthrow and execution of a foul tyrant, Saddam Hussein; the liberation of the Afghan people from the Taliban; the smashing of the terrorist networks of al-Qa'eda in that country and elsewhere and, finally, the protection of the American people from any further atrocities on US soil since 9/11, is a legacy of which to be proud.
Hussein was an awful dictator whose removal from power is a good thing. No reasonable person ever denied that. It remains to be seen whether Iraq will become a liberal democracy. I would say the odds are still against that final outcome.

Even if that is the outcome, it came at great financial cost to the United States, with great sacrifice on the part of many soldiers and their families, and with great loss of life in Iraq. Will a liberal Iraq be worth it? Additionally, the disregard for diplomacy leading up to the war badly strained our international relationships.

The conduct of the war is nothing to be proud of. If we have a stable and peaceful Iraq, it will be in spite of - not because of - Bush's leadership. He went in with too few troops. He then stuck by Rumsfeld well after it was clear that Rumsfeld was not up to the task. The surge, the impact of which I believe has been overblown by the right in an effort to take more credit for recent progress than Bush or McCain deserve, was not even Bush's idea. Finally, he authorized torture and other abuses of power for which I will forever be ashamed of my country.

The invasion of Afghanistan was a no-brainer. I give Bush no credit for that. Further, instead of seeing that project through, he diverted attention to Iraq. The author credits Bush with "the smashing of the terrorist networks of al-Qa'eda in that country and elsewhere," so why is Osama bin Laden still putting out tapes? Did Bush disrupt al Qaeda? Maybe. Smash? Not so much. I would expect any president to have at least overthrown the Taliban and disrupted al Qaeda. You don't get credit for doing the minimum.

In the article, Andrew Roberts says we should give Bush credit for the lack of a terrorist attack after 9/11. According to Roberts, if there is a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center during the first year of a president's first term and none during the rest of his two terms, he has responded to the threat as well as possible. So I'm sure you can understand my surprise when he described Clinton's response to al Qaeda as ineffective. After all, there was an attack on the WTC in 1993 and no other successful attacks from Islamic terrorists on U.S. soil until after Bush took office. Roberts describes Clinton as refusing to act against al Qaeda. However, some conservatives accused Clinton of an attempt to "wag the dog" when he ordered strikes against al Qaeda in 1998. During the transition in early 2001, the Bush Administration reportedly had little interest in the Clinton Administration's strong recommendations for dealing with al Qaeda.

I'm fairly certain that, if there had been a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Andrew Roberts and the rest of the Bush apologists would have plenty of (good) reasons for absolving Bush of responsibility. They were preparing for such a possibility years ago by talking about how we have to succeed 100% of the time and the terrorists only have to succeed once. Even with our best efforts, attacks can still happen. What effective measures has Bush taken that any other president wouldn't have taken? I can't think of any. While I criticize his lack of attention to terrorism before 9/11, I don't blame Bush for 9/11 because I have no concrete reason to believe he could have prevented it even if he were paying attention. However, I'll give Bush credit for the lack of a terrorist attack since 9/11 if he accepts full responsibility for 9/11. No, "But Clinton!" Full responsibility.

Bush's actual record is terrible. Port security remains neglected. The war in Iraq has been a drain on resources and a recruiting tool for terrorists. I'll conclude with former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora's comments to the Senate last week explaining how Bush's detention and torture policies killed Americans.

This should be fun

I'm going to write several posts about the Bush Administration's decision to go to war with Iraq at some point. I don't plan to be persuasive enough to change any body's minds but I would like to write about why I felt at the time, and still feel, that we were justified in going to war and that it was a good thing to do. I need to read a couple books before I start on this project though

However, before I start doing that (it may be a couple of months, or even after the election before i do this) I'll present this article about Bush's legacy.

I fully expect this to cause a flood of links and posts. Let's see if this gets Ryan and Curt going.

McCain's Iraq Trap

Americans aren't as committed to it as McCain is. Success there proves McCain right in the past, but undermines his candidacy because it is evidence that we can take a chance on Obama and leave. Andrew Sullivan:
The overwhelming response among Americans to good news from Iraq is a simple question: can we come home now? With a hefty majority still believing the war was a mistake in the first place, the “success” of the surge is less a vindication of the entire enterprise than an opportunity to get the hell out with less blowback than previously feared. Moreover, the less chaotic the situation in Iraq, the easier it is for the Democrats to persuade Americans that the relatively inexperienced Barack Obama is not that big a risk as commander-in-chief.

Withdrawal the right way, moreover, plays to Obama’s strengths, not McCain’s. McCain is a superb fighter and underdog, a man who likes his conflicts clear and his wars epic. He takes strong moral stands and sticks with them. But what is now required is a deft and subtle assessment of future military needs, a hefty dose of canny diplomacy with Iran and Syria and an ability to retain the trust of Americans that an exit is both feasible and imminent. On all these, Obama is obviously a more pragmatic choice.

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Oh Barack

I go and compliment you and what do you do in return?

Good News About Obama on Iraq?

If this is true I find it to be very good news. My biggest worry about an Obama presidency was his insistence that we need to bring home our troops from Iraq as quickly as possible. If Obama decided that was the wrong strategy in Iraq I would be much happier on election night.

However, I would like to know what the people who support a quick withdrawal of all of our troops would think if Obama decided not to bring the troops home until the Iraqi's could handle their own security issues. If he decides that a quick withdrawal is a bad thing than does this tarnish him somewhat in your eyes? I know it won't change your mind on who you would vote for, but would it disappoint you at all? And if your fine with this new plan from Obama, why did you not believe General Petraeus when he reported on the progress in Iraq?

I know the campaign finance change of heart probably doesn't mean much to people (although it does to some), but this has to make his supporters at least pause for a moment. Right?

You Might Remember Him From Such Films As...

I know it's not political but it's pretty funny.

The Quiz - Troy McClure or Actual Bad Movie

I got 12 out of 15 right.

Friday, June 20, 2008

Obama - Just Like the Rest of Them

I've always found it funny that many people who support Obama do so because they feel he is a new sort of politictian. I've always felt he is no different than any other politician and I'm not the only one.

A side note - As a graduate of Georgia Tech I probably shouldn't be saying this but UGA law produced a fine lawyer in Brian. I might need to go to law school so I can argue my opinions as well as him. I'll keep trying though and only hope I get better at this.

Are We any Safer Than 8 Years Ago?

I know it's lazy to link to another blog but why do the work if someone else already has.

Also, Obama's plan to deal with terrorists.

Tied in Georgia

Insider Advantage / PollPosition

McCain: 44%

Obama: 43%

Barr: 6%

Undecided: 7%

McCain previously led in the same poll by 10 points (AJC).

Obama Opts Out of Public Financing



Obama's argument about 527s honestly seems disingenuous. There is as much money for 527s on the left as on the right, and Obama never really attempted to reach an agreement with McCain on 527s.

However, while he has reversed his decision to accept public financing, he has not reversed his commitment to taking power from special interest lobbyists and PACs.

Obama does not accept money from lobbyists or PACs. His average donor gives around $200. The point of public financing is to remove special interest money from politics. The more money that can be raised from small donors, without raising any money from lobbyists and PACs, the less influence special interests will have.

Public financing offers a decent incentive of $80 million to refuse special interest money. That's good, but it can be exceeded with traditional fundraising. If Obama's fundraising model offers a $300 million incentive to refuse special interest money, that's even better because traditional lobbyist and PAC sources can't compete with it. Also, the model is applicable to campaigns at all levels, whereas federal financing is only applicable to presidential campaigns.

Because a large network of small donors is a more powerful competitor to special interests, it is preferable to public financing as a way to return power to ordinary Americans. Also, it saves the treasury money!

Gen. Clark: McCain Untested and Untried on National Security

RE: Obama's Appalachian Problem (Part II)

I'll start by pointing out that his Appalachian problem may be fading.

I actually live in Appalachia and find many pieces about the politics of the area, including this one linked to in a post on this blog, to be too simplistic.

While there are some truths to this column, the caricaturizations and sneering tone toward "academicians" makes it a less constructive critique than it could be.

I have two general problems with the article. First, it either fails or refuses to understand the impact of problematic factors influencing voters in Appalachia. Second, rather than objectively analyzing the race, it is a partisan attempt to mischaracterize Obama in the hopes that he will suffer the same fate as past "academicians".

Those who deny that race, religion, and misinformation are significant factors are kidding themselves.

Just yesterday, I was in a restaurant in Appalachia and overheard a discussion of politics. One man bemoaned the possibility of Obama being elected president, worrying that the Muslim would change our religion and raise his taxes. We all know that the Muslim charge is false, and I have posted about taxes here and here. His interlocutor feebly pointed out that Obama claims he is not a Muslim. The first man expressed that he doesn't necessarily believe Obama and would rather not take a chance on him.

The belief that Obama is a Muslim, hates white people, is unpatriotic, is a Manchurian candidate, or will raise taxes on the middle-class is disturbingly widespread in Appalachia. I live here. I know.

Sure, the Colonel Obama described in the end of the article would perform better than Barack Obama. It is a fact that Appalachian voters will vote in a majority for a black man who they believe shares their values and doesn't dwell on racial divisions. But Colonel Obama wouldn't stand a chance against a caucasian named Colonel White.

Also, you can't separate white voters' failure to identify with Obama from his ethnicity. The scurrilous rumors about Obama are easier to believe because of Obama's race and exotic name. Even if Obama shares Appalachian voters' core values (I think he does), he starts at a deficit because he doesn't share their physical characteristics.

Barone's comparisons of results are apples to oranges and thus do not convince me that my impressions from my own experiences are incorrect. He's comparing primaries to general elections and comparing elections that took place decades apart.

The warriors vs. priests theme is both troubling and annoying. It is troubling because I think it is unhelpful in dealing with real problems. It is annoying because the author has chosen to perpetuate this theme and attempt to tar Obama as another "priest".

The "Jacksonian warriors" didn't win elections just because they loved war, as the neocons at the Weekly Standard would have you believe. They won in large part thanks to long-lasting resentment against Republicans stemming from the Civil War and Reconstruction. They also advocated domestic and foreign policies that I don't see the Weekly Standard supporting very often. Why is the lesson from Wilson warfare and not the League of Nations? Why is the lesson from FDR warfare and not the New Deal? Why is the lesson from Truman nuclear weapons and not the UN, NATO, the Fair Deal, and defense spending cuts to pay for his domestic policies?

Wilson successfully campaigned for reelection in 1916 on his avoidance of the war in Europe.

FDR congratulated Neville Chamberlain on his "appeasement" of Hitler at Munich. He didn't declare war on Germany until they declared war on us four days after Pearl Harbor.

Truman rapidly demobilized and weakened the military after WWII.

A modern president successful in Appalachia, George W. Bush, is no warrior. He took great effort to avoid military service and campaigned on a humble foreign policy in 2000. In 2004, he beat an actual warrior in Kerry, who personally hunted down and killed people in Southeast Asia. It's easy to be a tough guy from the Oval Office. Where was Bush when his country needed him to take a real risk?

The truth is that a great leader knows when to wage war and when to find peace. Reagan was accused of appeasement from the right, including Gingrich, for his willingness to deal with the Soviet Union.

For his part, Obama is not weak on national security.

Obama: "I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership — the people who murdered 3,000 Americans — have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That's the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism."

Let's remember that when Obama said we should be willing to strike al Qaeda in Pakistan if Musharraf refuses to act, McCain criticized him. How does that fit into the warrior vs. priest theme?

If a warrior, in response to a monstrous attack that killed thousands of civilians, lets the perpetrators live and diverts us to a war against a country that had no involvement whatsoever, while a priest pursues the evil murderers wherever they may try to hide, I'll take the priest.

There is a cultural divide, primarily among Baby Boomers, that was created in the 1960's. A large part of that divide is based on the left's association with an anti-war movement that spiraled out of control. The subsequent perception of weakness from Carter and strength from Reagan on national security cemented the foreign policy gap between the parties. This cultural divide and foreign policy gap accounts for some of Obama's problem in Appalachia. Unfortunately, this divide that was created a decade before I was born does not seem relevant to me or current issues. My hope is that Obama can get beyond that. The Weekly Standard is desperately hoping he will fail.

Obama: I Like Patriotism and White People



The ad will run in Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Two Weeks Later

I didn't get involved in this discussion a couple of weeks ago because i was on vacation but Brian made some comments that I would like to write about.

Brian wrote:
Bush talked about 1000 points of light. I think it's a fantasy that private charity will fill in all of the gaps if government gets out of helping people.

It's interesting that the same conservatives that decry handouts also say that philanthropy will replace government. It doesn't give me a lot of confidence that they intend to provide the handouts.

BTW Social Security is not a handout. Most of those getting checks today paid FICA for decades.

The reason that conservatives feel that private charity can fill the gap of most, if not all, of the government programs is that they give more than liberals.

I understand that Social Security is not a handout. The burden on those paying into the system now is much greater than those who are currently receiving benefits. In 1950, there were 16 people paying into Social Security to pay for one recipient. Now the ratio is around 4 to 1. I know it'll never happen but I feel that our generation needs to be told that we aren't going to receive benefits because it'll be too burdensome for future generations.


Obama's Appalachian Problem (Part II)

Here is a good (if long) article about Obama's biggest problem this election.

I know Brian won't read it but I hope the others will.

Economics of Environmentalism

Until now, environmentalism has set itself up in opposition to pollution, and therefore to the people, businesses, and free market principles that drive economic growth and development. The Breakthrough Institute thinks we can make environmentalism consistent with - and even a source of - economic prosperity.

Limp Boehner

It's unfortunate that I can't find video of it right now, but I was watching CNN International while I was in Greece last Sunday and I saw an interview with House Republican leader John Boehner from Ohio talking to Wolf Blitzer. I think they were talking about the up coming election. In it he said that the Republicans had a plan to lower the deficit and lower taxes. These are generally things I'm for. However, he then went on to blame the Democrats for the high deficits in government. He said that the federal government (more specifically the Democrats) had a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Now again I found this statement to be true but it amused me it was coming from this man. I hope he realizes that the Republican party can't make this argument any more. They are no longer the party of smaller government. They were just as bad as the Democrats when it came to spending over the past eight to ten years. I think this is the real reason that Republicans lost their majorities in 2006.

I hope people like Boehner realize that when Republicans (not Republican politicians) say that they want smaller government, they actually mean it. Republicans will continue to lose elections if they keep their big spending ways up.

Unfortunately the only other real alternative is the Democratic party so, as far as congressional races go this year, I hear that a young up and comer Milhouse Cumberland has some great ideas about reducing the size of government.



He is the change we seek.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Hard Rock Cafe in New Yankee Stadium

Beautiful.

If the Yankees will return to losing like they did in the late 80's, I'll be happy to start collecting Hard Rock t-shirts again.

I'd love to hear from Curt, the blog's food snob, on this decision.

i'll be back...

let's have a linda richman moment here...


schwarzenegger for republican vp.


discuss.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Do You Own an Oil Company?



Now that I think about the few bucks a quarter I'm making in my retirement account, I'm not so unhappy about paying several hundred dollars more per month for gas, paying more for everything else because of high energy costs, borrowing money from China to send to terrorists, and all of the other trivial complaints I once had about our energy policy.

Thanks, Big Oil! I'm sorry I've been such an ingrateful bastard.

"How Can You Possibly Support the Policy I Once Supported"

I understand that politicians change their minds occasionally. Often, it reflects a habit of actually thinking about things rather than being automatically for or against something because of ideology, party line, etc. As Winston Churchill once said about changing his postion: "When facts and circumstances dictate a change of policy, I change my position. What do you do?"

I also realize that positions change for purely political reasons. I don't like it. It makes me find the candidate less trustworthy, but it happens to almost every politician and I am realistic about that.

What really annoys me is when a politician suddenly mocks an opponent or attacks the opponent's character for a position he once held. Hillary Clinton was a master at this. For example, she accused Obama of disenfranchising Michigan and Florida after supporting the DNC policy!

Disappointingly, McCain is playing the same game. He once said a windfall profits tax doesn't bother him:



Now that his campaign theme is to compare Obama to Carter, Obama is hopelessly idiotic for supporting a windfall profits tax:
McCain reminded the crowd of Obama’s support for taxes on oil company profits, which resulted in a chorus of boos from the audience. “He wants a windfall profits tax on oil, to go along with the new taxes he also plans for coal and natural gas,” McCain said about Obama’s energy policy. “If the plan sounds familiar, it's because that was President Jimmy Carter's big idea too – and a lot of good it did us. Now as then, all a windfall profits tax will accomplish is to increase our dependence on foreign oil, and hinder exactly the kind of domestic exploration and production we need. I'm all for recycling -- but it's better applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the 1970's.”
As I've written here before, I tend to think Obama is wrong and McCain is right on this particular policy. What I can't stomach is McCain acting like only a completely naive imbecile would favor a policy that he once seemingly accepted as self-evidently reasonable.

538 Update

Now predicting a relatively large Obama victory.



Obama Names Patti Solis Doyle VP's Chief of Staff

Clinton fired her during the primary campaign and they reportedly are not on good terms. HuffPo:

One thing the move does suggest, insiders believe, is that Hillary Clinton's chances of being tapped for the vice presidency are now slim to nil.

A Clintonite called it the "biggest fuck you I have ever seen in politics."

I'm not sure how smart this is politically, but I'm enjoying the heck out of it.

UPDATE: Oh, and I find it strange that Clinton supporters are so concerned with politeness after her scorched earth campaign against Obama.

Veterans Returning with PTSD

Here's a crazy suggestion. Let's not house them next to firing ranges and test drugs with severe side effects like psychosis and suicidal behavior on them.

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Traffic Laws

Our abundance of traffic laws and regulations represents the greatest victory of the nanny state in America. Ironically, it makes us less safe. A comparison of British and American traffic laws finds the less regulatory British system to be more effective and concludes with a recommendation that we rethink our own laws:
So what am I suggesting—abolishing signs and rules? A traffic free-for-all? Actually, I wouldn’t be the first to suggest that. A few European towns and neighborhoods—Drachten in Holland, fashionable Kensington High Street in London, Prince Charles’s village of Poundbury, and a few others—have even gone ahead and tried it. They’ve taken the apparently drastic step of eliminating traffic control more or less completely in a few high-traffic and pedestrian-dense areas. The intention is to create environments in which everyone is more focused, more cautious, and more considerate. Stop signs, stoplights, even sidewalks are mostly gone. The results, by all accounts, have been excellent: pedestrian accidents have been reduced by 40 percent or more in some places, and traffic flows no more slowly than before.
When you stop expecting people to exercise judgment and take personal responsibility, they stop doing so.

The tendency to prohibit certain actions rather than educate and encourage caution can be seen in many of our traffic laws. Recent pushes to ban cell phones in cars and place cameras at traffic lights are just the latest examples.

Driving on little sleep can be as dangerous as driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Cell phones are just one of many potential distractions to drivers. Increasing the time a light is yellow by a second or two can prevent more accidents than cameras. Most people don't respect speed limits anymore because too many of them are arbitrary, excessively low, or sporadically enforced.

We can't outlaw and punish every potentially dangerous action on the roads. By trying, we discourage discretion and encourage deception.

Climate Change Response: Adaptation or Prevention?

Bjorn Lomborg, author of Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming



"There's definitely a global warming problem, and it's one that we need to fix throughout the 21st century, but the problem is what we can do right now is actually fairly little at very high costs."

Mr. Lomborg is certainly not without his critics, but he presents a unique way of thinking about climate change policy.

To me, the most interesting part of the debate with regard to climate change policy is not whether the Earth is warming, or even the causes of warming, but the cost-benefit analysis of the policy choices.

A thought-provoking example provided by Mr. Lomborg is windmills (sometimes he'll use solar panels). A great deal of resources have been invested in constructing very expensive and inefficient windmills. These windmills will have negligible impact on global warming in the long-run. Rather than spend an enormous amount of money building and installing these few expensive and inefficient windmills, wouldn't it be better to spend that money improving the technology so that we can have a far greater number of more efficient windmills?

Further, if we are limited in what can reasonably be done to prevent global warming, should we be preparing to adapt to it instead? I worry greatly about unforeseen consequences, so this decision cannot be taken lightly. But the question of adaptation or prevention should be explored.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Obama's Social Security Doughnut Hole

The Trail:
Taxes to fund Social Security end once a worker makes more than $102,000 this year, a ceiling that is indexed to inflation. Workers and employees share the cost, with each contributing 6.2 percent. Under Obama's plan, which the presumptive Democratic nominee will discuss this afternoon at a retirement community here, there would be a "doughnut" between $102,000 and $250,000 when no taxes are paid, according to a campaign adviser who asked not to be identified. But then new taxes would be imposed on people making more than $250,000.

I like the idea of funding Social Security. I also like the idea of taxing the highest incomes for Social Security at the same rate as everybody else. So the doughnut hole sounds like a great idea at first blush. Does it make sense, though?

Under the current system, a person making $16,129 pays $1000 in Social Security taxes. A person making $32,258 per year pays $2000. A person making $96,774 pays $6,000. That's 6.2% of their incomes. A person making $967,740 pays only $6,324. A person making $9,677,400 still pays only $6,324. That's .65% and .065% of their incomes, respectively. If it is progressive under $100,000, shouldn't it be progressive over $100,000, too?

However, I'm not quite sure how you justify this exemption between $102,000 and $250,000 (other than, of course, the political reality that there are a lot of Democratic voters along the coasts with incomes in that range). What else makes these people so special? Don't the lowest income voters need a break more? Remember, even if you pay no other income taxes, you pay the 6.2% Social Security taxes.

The best justification I can come up with is that you want everyone paying into Social Security, but you don't want to excessively burden some taxpayers. Having everyone pay keeps a sense of fairness in the program so that it is more comparable to a pension than a welfare program. That requires taking 6.2% from even the lowest wage-earners up to $102,000. Taxing the highest incomes at the same 6.2% rate would also contribute to a sense of fairness, so that the wealthy are contributing a proportionate share of their incomes. That requires the over $250,000 portion. Continuing to tax at the rate of 6.2% in the $102,000 to $250,000 income levels, you would drastically increase taxes by thousands of dollars on a lot of families that are well-off but would be more burdened by a tax increase than the over $250,000 group.

The doughnut hole meets two important, but sometimes competing, goals - progressivity and inclusiveness.

What about the employers' 6.2% contribution? Does the new doughnut hole apply to them? I hope the cap stays at $102,000 for employer contributions.

McCain Can't Decide How Much He Supported Bush

A, O, Way to Go, New Mexico

I keep hearing that Ohio in 2008 could be Florida in 2000. I think it is as likely that New Mexico will produce such a post-election fight.

Nevada and New Mexico each may be as important as Ohio in November. This is based on a few very simple assumptions in comparison to 2004:
  1. Obama will not be able to win any states that voted for Bush except for Colorado and Iowa. That means no wins for Obama in OH, VA, NC, GA, Omaha, etc.

  2. McCain will not be able to win any states that voted for Kerry except New Hampshire, which loves him so much it revived his moribund primary campaign. That means no win for McCain in Michigan, which I think will come home to the Democrats now that the delegate situation is resolved. The first poll taken after Clinton's withdrawal gives Obama a 3 point edge.

  3. In the event of an Electoral College tie, there will be no faithless electors and Obama will win in the House of Representatives.

Using the interactive map at 270toWin.com, those assumptions leave me with a 264-264 tie in the Electoral College before counting Nevada and New Mexico. Nevada and New Mexico each have the five Electoral College votes Obama would need to throw the election to the House.

Obama could lose Ohio but win the election if he simply holds his current leads in Colorado and Iowa and then takes either New Mexico or Nevada. New Mexico is more favorable to Obama than Nevada and therefore offers the better pick-up opportunity of the two states.

New Mexico has been a true swing state. It was won by less than 1% of the popular vote by different parties in 2000 (for Gore) and 2004 (for Bush). Given the close history, and New Mexico's notoriously slow certification of election results, and allegations of serious counting problems in 2004, New Mexico sets up to be the focus of a nasty fight lasting beyond election day.

I cringe watching Bill Richardson sometimes, but maybe he isn't such a bad choice for VP.

Swing States

What are the swing states? FiveThirtyEight.com currrently gives Obama or McCain a 34%-66% probability of winning in the following states:

New Hampshire (McCain 55%)

Virginia (McCain 64%)

Missouri (McCain 65%)

Ohio (50%)

Michigan (50%)

Colorado (Obama 66%)

New Mexico (Obama 63%)

Nevada (50%)

Note that Pennsylvania didn't make the list with a 68% chance for Obama. I also generally don't consider Pennsylvania a swing state because Obama has larger problems if he can't win there.

I think Michigan will be close but blue. The African-American population there is large enough to help Obama at 17%, but still in the Sirota Race Chasm. And the dispute over the primary may have hurt Obama. But the economy is in the crapper, and McCain isn't going to offer much help. Michigan was once reliably Republican, and barely went for Kerry 51-48 in 2004, but hasn't gone to the Republicans since the Electoral College landslide of 1988. Current polling is skewed in part by the fact that Obama didn't campaign there in the primaries.

If Obama wins Virginia or Missouri, the election probably wasn't close enough for those to be the deciders. Choosing Webb from VA, Kaine from VA, or McCaskill from MO as VP could potentially help him in either of those states.

Colorado seems to be fairly well in Obama's column at this point. Not to mention his nominating convention will be in Denver. I have no reason to believe he'll lose that state.

That leaves New Hampshire, Ohio, New Mexico, and Nevada, and an interesting scenario for my next post.

Friday, June 13, 2008

Tax Relief for the Middle Class

Personal Fiscal Morality

I have difficulty seeing Andrew Sullivan's moral angle to personal financial decisions, but I also wonder whether he is correct on the "pettier matter" of his assertion that personal financial decisions are relevant to the campaign.
Obama, who grew up on food stamps and foreswore a lucrative corporate law career, "reported no liabilities in his annual financial disclosures." McCain, who married an heiress worth millions, has more than $100,000 in credit card debt.
I tend to think it isn't relevant. I can imagine someone behaving more responsibly with public funds because he recognizes his fiduciary responsibility to the public.

McCain is Wrong Again

After taking a day to become unreasonable, McCain has decided to come out strongly against the Supreme Court's decision on habeas corpus in Boumediene.
Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation, and the men and women who defend it.
No, our first obligation is to the American values they are defending.

An Iraqi-Israeli Alliance?

One can dream.

McCain, Please Take Krauthammer's Advice

Charles Krauthammer recommends that McCain make the Iraq war the central winning plank of his campaign.

I'm sure that what this country is looking for in a time of great uncertainty at home is continued investment well beyond six years and in a foreign action that they were told could last six weeks and be relatively cheap.

In response to Obama's criticism that the Bush Administration's policy asks nothing of Iraqis, Krauthammer points to what the Iraqis have been doing.

First, this is not a refutation of Obama's criticism. While the Iraqis have made recent progress, the fact remains that this progress is coming too slowly and too late because our policies have not asked enough of them.

Second, Krauthammer's list of Iraqi accomplishments seems to me a great argument that our presence in Iraq is no longer necessary.

Krauthammer also sets up a false choice between withdrawal in defeat and staying to victory. We already won the military victory by defeating the Iraqi army and capturing Hussein. We are now in a peacekeeping role.

Krauthammer's choice of defeat and victory implies that we have some control over the outcome. We do not. A military victory is won by destroying resources, killing soldiers, and deposing the leader. Our military performs all of these tasks very effectively. These tasks are not part of the current mission. Our current mission, security and the creation of political institutions, is wholly reliant upon the contributions of Iraqis. Blowing things up and killing people won't help.

This is a choice of how best to turn control of Iraq over to the Iraqis. I think removing the incendiary American presence that delegitimizes the Maliki government creates the best conditions for a peaceful Iraq. McCain thinks Iraq is on the verge of looking like Western Europe.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Tax Policy

If you're one of the middle-class bums that contribute nothing to the economy, Obama gives you a bigger tax cut than McCain. If you have an income well into the six figures, you can stop worrying about how to pay your bills because McCain is here to help.

Tom Foreman at CNN

Please stop talking to me like I'm a six-year-old. I know I didn't go to Troy State or anything, but I think I can handle being treated like an adult.

Thanks.



Link

Shock Artist Smut Trial

There is a major obscenity trial in California that has become more interesting with the discovery of pornography on a website maintained by the presiding judge, Kozinski (who is one of the leading federal judges in the country and has been considered a potential Supreme Court justice).

Setting aside whether we should have any obscenity laws or waste resources enforcing them, it seems strange to me to exclude from the jury potential jurors who find the material offensive when the test is in large part based upon whether most people would find the material offensive.
In an unusual twist, the trial is being presided over by the chief judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Alex Kozinski, under a program that allows appellate judges to occasionally handle criminal trials at the District Court level. Kozinski is known as a strong defender of free speech and First Amendment rights.

When jury selection began Monday, he urged prospects to be open about their opinions and incurred an onslaught of negative statements. Within the first hour, he dismissed 26 men and women who said they could not be fair to the defendant because they were repulsed by the subject matter. By day's end, half the panel of 100 had been excused.

"I think watching something like that would make me physically ill, nauseous," said one woman. "It's affecting me physically now just thinking about it."

Several prospects marched up to the judge's bench for private conferences when he told them that the films also involved violence against women. They, too, were excused, as were several who cited their religious beliefs.

Score One for the Rule of Law

NY Times
Foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention there in United States courts, the Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, on Thursday in a historic decision on the balance between personal liberties and national security.

“The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court.

Roberts was with the minority, making this another decision vindicating his opponents.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Indefinite Occupation

Some say that both sides of the current Iraq debate want to leave Iraq, it's just a matter of when and how. McCain is calling even that potential point of agreement into doubt. First, he talked about staying in Iraq (peacefully) for 100 years. Now he says the date of withdrawal is "not too important".



I know he assumes a presence without casualties, but if he thinks we can stay there long-term without violence and resentment, I think he fundamentally misunderstands the situation.

I think it is possible that violence would be reduced by withdrawal because it would legitimize the Iraqi government and make Iraqis' own countrymen the face of government and security.

If we're waiting to withdraw when Iraq looks like Germany, we'll be there for closer to 1000 years than 100 years.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Windfall Profits Tax

Obama's support for it may be politically popular, but I disagree with him here.

Monday, June 9, 2008

Regulating Investment Banks

Should investment banks be regulated more closely as promised by Obama's economic adviser Austan Goolsbee and advocated by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke?

Brad DeLong defends the policy with an unfavorable comparison of deregulation to Hoover's policies going into the Great Depression.

Certain regulations strengthen the free market economy, rather than weaken it.

Obama's Speech on Economic Policy

Full text here.



My vision involves both a short-term plan to help working families who are struggling to keep up and a long-term agenda to make America competitive in a global economy.

...

In January, well before the administration seemed to discover ordinary Americans were struggling, I called for a fiscal stimulus plan to get checks in the hands of hard-working families and seniors. Congress passed such a plan and the first checks are now arriving. But since then hundreds of thousands more people have lost their jobs, and so we must do more.

That’s why I’ve called for another round of fiscal stimulus, an immediate $50 billion to help those who’ve been hit hardest by this economic downturn – Americans who have lost their jobs, their homes, and are facing rising costs and cutbacks in state and local services like education and healthcare.

...

I’ve called for the immediate creation of a $10 billion Foreclosure Prevention Fund to provide direct relief to victims of the housing crisis. We’ll also help those who are facing foreclosure refinance their mortgages so they can stay in their homes at rates they can afford. I’ll provide struggling homeowners relief by offering a tax credit to low- and middle-income Americans that would cover ten percent of their mortgage interest payment every year.

...

We will give every American the chance to get the same kind of health care that Members of Congress give themselves. We’ll bring down premiums by $2500 for the typical family, and we’ll prevent insurance companies from discriminating against those who need care most. And we won’t just lower costs for families, we’ll lower costs for the entire country by making our health care system more efficient through better technology and more emphasis on prevention. That’s the choice in this election, and that’s the change I’ll bring as President.

Just as we need to reform our health care system, we also have to reform a tax code that rewards wealth over work – a 10,000-page monstrosity that high-priced lobbyists have rigged with page after page of special interest loopholes and tax shelters; a tax code that continues George Bush’s billion-dollar giveaways to big corporations and wealthy CEOs; a tax code that has plunged this country deeper and deeper into debt.

...

I’ll take a different approach. I will reform our tax code so that it’s simple, fair, and advances opportunity instead of distorting the market by advancing the agenda of some lobbyist or oil company.

...

Now, contrary to what John McCain may say, every single proposal that I’ve made in this campaign is paid for – because I believe in pay-as-you-go.

...

At the beginning of our marriage, Michelle and I were spending so much of our income just to pay off our college loans. And that was decades ago. The cost of a college education has exploded since then, pricing hundreds of thousands of young Americans out of their dream every year, or forcing them to begin their careers in unconscionable debt. So I’ll offer this promise to every student as President – your country will offer you $4,000 a year of tuition if you offer your country community or national service when you graduate. If you invest in America, America will invest in you.

Sunday, June 8, 2008

538

FiveThirtyEight.com provides an interesting snapshot of the Electoral College. The site weights the publicly available polls and runs 10000 simulations for each prediction.

The site's creator is Nate Silver, an amateur in politics who works for the respected statistics-based sports media company Baseball Prospectus.

Right now, 538 has Obama leading in the simulations with an average electoral vote count of 274.4 to McCain's 263.6.

Obama's Appalachian Problem

Obama's problem is less with "working-class whites" than it is with Appalachia. A Daily Kos contributor has presented great analysis with two striking graphics. Below is a map of Appalachia and a map of counties (in purple) where Clinton won 65% of the vote.







Since this second map was created, West Virginia and Kentucky have voted and would be almost completely purple.

As you can see, Obama has been trounced mostly in Appalachia, as well as the hills of the Ozarks and the Texas Hill Country.

Yes, this area has many working-class whites, but there are plenty of working-class whites in the rest of the country. Working-class whites dominate the West, where Obama has regularly beaten Clinton.

Obama's main weakness is in Appalachia. The ideal VP candidate would help Obama with voters in this geographic region and those voters like them around the country.

18 Million

People who support Clinton for VP keep pointing out that 18 million voted for her. First, Obama will be able to get the votes of nearly all of those without Clinton. Second, there's no guarantee that all 18 million will vote for Obama with her as VP. Third, it will take over 60 million votes to win in November. Clinton repels way more potential voters than she brings.

As Carter pointed out, combining against you the 50% of the electorate that will never vote for a Clinton with those that will never vote for a black man named Barack Hussein Obama is not a winning strategy.

Coldplay (now with balls)

I've always liked Coldplay a bit more than I care to admit. They need to keep doing stuff like Violet Hill, though:



The new album was produced by Brian Eno, who has worked with U2 and the Talking Heads.

* That last sentence makes my second reference each to U2 and the Talking Heads on this blog this week.

Friday, June 6, 2008

why we need bill...

richardson, that is...

There are 3 under-registered, under-voting groups for whom an identity politics can trigger massive increases in participation: youth, Afro-Americans and Latinos. It is true that the poor and lower middle-class constitute a fourth group, but they have been relatively difficult to reach and congeal to increase their electoral participation in part because they have a variety of different interests, and thus, since Robert Kennedy, have not had a single iconic figure around which to rally.

Barack Obama's persona and message have galvanized the first two, and legions are going out to increase their participation this fall.

The third group is Latinos.

Governor Richardson has been nominated 5 times for the Nobel Peace Prize, is loved by labor, is highly experienced in foreign policy having negotiated successfully with the worst regimes, has been an extremely successful Governor of a red-state growing jobs/improving education/raising teachers' salaries/raising wages and re-elected with 68% of the vote, is a former Energy Secretary -- one of the critical issues for at least 2 decades to come -- is pro-2nd Amendment, hails from the West... and, he also happens to be Latino.

Richardson fits beautifully Barack's theme of change, and unity.

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

How Did I Get Here? This Isn't My Beautiful House!

A couple of light mortgage crisis primers:



Also check out this slideshow:

Rendell

It looks like he's realized that now Obama can make him VP, not Clinton:
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell – one of Hillary Clinton’s strongest supporters – today warned her: “There’s no bargaining. You don’t bargain with the Presidential nominee. Even if you’re Hillary Clinton and you have 18 million votes, you don’t bargain.”

In an exclusive interview with NY1 Political Anchor Dominic Carter, Rendell added that Obama would have to be an “enormously big person” to pick Clinton as his running mate and that Clinton sometimes “couldn’t help but upstage” Obama on a joint ticket.

Rendell also said former President Bill Clinton could greatly complicate things if his wife was the Vice Presidential nominee.

“The Obama campaign would have to make strict rules, you know, about what President Clinton could and could not do during the campaign… For example, the Obama campaign would have to control his schedule; where he would go into, what states,” Rendell tells Carter.

“You know, normally politicians don’t want to be outshone. Well you know you’ve got Bill Clinton lurking in the background. But Hillary Clinton, a very charismatic figure for many Americans — generally a lot of politicians don’t like to put somebody like that on the ticket. You know rule one for the vice president is make sure you never upstage the president, right? It’s rule one. You know, Hillary Clinton in some ways couldn’t help but upstage, even if she was trying not to”

Mortgage Crisis

We are in a market correction, but at what cost? The effects of the mortgage crisis are not felt only by lenders and their strapped borrowers. It has a ripple effect through the economy that drives down the home values of those who have acted responsibly and generally weakens the economy. Further, a lot of jobs are created by home building.


A smart economic policy going forward will discourage the kind of recklessness and deception that poses a problem for all Americans. An important component of a future policy will be disclosure requirements that ensure borrowers understand the decisions they are making. I am apprehensive about completely prohibiting ARMs and other such loans because I think we should have a virtually unlimited right to contract, but tighter controls on who is eligible for these products may be advisable (perhaps by qualifying based on debt-to-income ratio, credit score, and/or loan-to-value ratio).


Also, a large part of the problem was packaging these loans together and selling them with no information as to the likely default rate. When the weakness in the market began, investors did not know which assets were risky and became wary of the entire industry. More information with which to assess their investments would have slowed the crisis.


That being said, I think the government's response after the fact should be limited. We should not bail out lenders who have made and will continue to make money on these loans. We should not bail out homeowners that knowingly or foolishly got in over their heads, especially those who short-sightedly opted for adjustable rate mortgages.


We must also remember that while subprime borrowers have a significantly higher default rate, the vast majority are still making their payments on time. Subprime lending has allowed countless Americans to realize the dream of home ownership.


Clinton's idea to freeze foreclosures and readjustment of interest rates on ARMs may sound good to subprime borrowers in the short-term, but preventing lenders from enforcing their contracts will only discourage future lending to borrowers looking for a first home or a second chance.


The right to contract is a pillar of our economy. The government should do nothing that impairs that right.


However, some borrowers were victims of fraud. The illegality of fraud is long-standing and also very important to our economic well-being. If fraud is proven, the borrower is enitled to recover damages from the lender.


Lenders do not want foreclosure, and neither do the borrowers or their neighbors. There may be a role for government, in conjunction with voluntary participation by lenders and borrowers, to help ease the pain of this market correction for lenders, borrowers, and the economy as a whole.


If the government wishes to back some loans with government funds to allow borrowers facing foreclosure an opportunity to get back on their feet, and lenders wish to take advantage of this opportunity to keep borrowers making regular monthly payments, I think that would be good policy.


Some borrowers find themselves in a house worth less than their loan with payments that they can't afford. Another option may be for the government to back personal loans to these borrowers for the difference between the loan and the sale price, so that they can find cheaper housing and make good on their debts to mortgage lenders.


I do not favor a bailout of lenders or borrowers who made knowing decisions, however reckless and painful for them. I do not favor impairing the precious right to contract. I do favor punishing fraud and finding creative solutions to help borrowers meet their contractual obligations and, if possible, keep their homes.