Well, I've been watching the replayed hearing on C-Span and, as an opponent of Prop. 8, am utterly disappointed in the arguments by its opponents.
With the exception of Maroko, none of the lawyers seems to have given much thought to the questions they would be asked, especially since they are presenting an admittedly novel argument: that the difference between an amendment and a revision is relevant only when considering the structure of government, not inherent rights.
Their arguments, to this non-lawyer, were weak. Their presentations (Maroko excepted) were weak. Their answers to questions were, to be kind, unimpressive.
Ken Starr (a man I truly despise), on the other hand, was masterful. He was prepared for the questions he got. His responses were to the point.
My guess: the court will let Prop. 8 stand but will not make it retroactive.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Media Missing in Action: The Stimulus Package (If only the Democrats hadn't shut out Republicans)
I am sooooooooo tired of the endless whining by Republicans that they were shut out of the writing of the Stimulus Package and that, if they had been able to participate, it would have passed with overwhelming support of both parties. Bull.
But our useless media, of course (including NPR), continue to repeat this idiocy, to rail against Pelosi (who has become this decade's Hillary Clinton).
Now, I realize that these blow-dried, 6-figure media figures can't be expected to actually report on anything, but couldn't NBC or CNN or ABC hire an unemployed liberals arts graduate to watch C-SPAN? If they had, they would have learned that Republicans were involved. I watched the mark-up committee; I watched the arguments on the floors of both chambers.
Dozens (maybe a hundred or more)of amendments were offered by both parties. Most, but not all, of the Republican amendments were defeated. But a number of the tax cuts survived solely to garner Republican support - not that they did much good.
What proposal did Republicans think would gain bipartisan support? A $450 billion dollar bill focused almost solely on tax cuts.
The Republican amendments failed not because they were not allowed to participate but because they implemented Republican theories of government and spending. Republicans, it should be obvious to our dolts in the media, lost the election in Nov. 2009 by substantial majorities. They have no right to expect a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress to throw over Democratic principles in favor of Republican principles.
One wouldn't think that this simple fact should need to be pointed out to those self-defined experts on politics. Republicans lost. Lost. Lost. If they want to have some input, they have to be willing to step outside their hard-right ideological base. If they don't, they cannot expect Democrats to move right to join them. That is what elections are about.
To quote Republicans after 2000: get over it.
But our useless media, of course (including NPR), continue to repeat this idiocy, to rail against Pelosi (who has become this decade's Hillary Clinton).
Now, I realize that these blow-dried, 6-figure media figures can't be expected to actually report on anything, but couldn't NBC or CNN or ABC hire an unemployed liberals arts graduate to watch C-SPAN? If they had, they would have learned that Republicans were involved. I watched the mark-up committee; I watched the arguments on the floors of both chambers.
Dozens (maybe a hundred or more)of amendments were offered by both parties. Most, but not all, of the Republican amendments were defeated. But a number of the tax cuts survived solely to garner Republican support - not that they did much good.
What proposal did Republicans think would gain bipartisan support? A $450 billion dollar bill focused almost solely on tax cuts.
The Republican amendments failed not because they were not allowed to participate but because they implemented Republican theories of government and spending. Republicans, it should be obvious to our dolts in the media, lost the election in Nov. 2009 by substantial majorities. They have no right to expect a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress to throw over Democratic principles in favor of Republican principles.
One wouldn't think that this simple fact should need to be pointed out to those self-defined experts on politics. Republicans lost. Lost. Lost. If they want to have some input, they have to be willing to step outside their hard-right ideological base. If they don't, they cannot expect Democrats to move right to join them. That is what elections are about.
To quote Republicans after 2000: get over it.
Media Missing in Action: More on Earmarks
Does anybody in the media ever read anything, do anything other than gossip with their counterparts and political operatives?
As I pointed out before, the earmarks in the Omnibus Appropriation Bill for 2009 constitute less than 2% of the total. 2 billion dollars. The effect on the debt or the deficit? Invisible. And we are in a major, major recession by any criteria. Government spending in this environment pretty much can't be bad. And if Representatives and Senators want to direct some of that money to projects of particular interest to them, who cares? (If earmarks were 50% or 75% of the bill, I might argue differently although, again, in this economic climate, I'm pretty much for government spending of any kind.)
Two of the earmarks that have gotten special treatment from John McCain and the media particularly irritate me as examples of "unprincipled" spending: the research on hog smells & manure in Iowa, and on termites in Louisiana. I am neither a farmer, nor a Southerner. But I do read widely. So I know that the effluent from factory hog farms (smells and manure disposal) are both major environmental problems that also have significant economic consequences as well. But nobody on TV (or, unfortunately, on NPR) seems to have read Michael Pollen. As for the termites, I'm not up-to-date on the current situation, but I recall reading that termites in New Orleans are especially destructive, hard (impossible?) to kill, and moving north. That isn't good for anybody who lives in a wood building.
As I pointed out before, the earmarks in the Omnibus Appropriation Bill for 2009 constitute less than 2% of the total. 2 billion dollars. The effect on the debt or the deficit? Invisible. And we are in a major, major recession by any criteria. Government spending in this environment pretty much can't be bad. And if Representatives and Senators want to direct some of that money to projects of particular interest to them, who cares? (If earmarks were 50% or 75% of the bill, I might argue differently although, again, in this economic climate, I'm pretty much for government spending of any kind.)
Two of the earmarks that have gotten special treatment from John McCain and the media particularly irritate me as examples of "unprincipled" spending: the research on hog smells & manure in Iowa, and on termites in Louisiana. I am neither a farmer, nor a Southerner. But I do read widely. So I know that the effluent from factory hog farms (smells and manure disposal) are both major environmental problems that also have significant economic consequences as well. But nobody on TV (or, unfortunately, on NPR) seems to have read Michael Pollen. As for the termites, I'm not up-to-date on the current situation, but I recall reading that termites in New Orleans are especially destructive, hard (impossible?) to kill, and moving north. That isn't good for anybody who lives in a wood building.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Campbell Brown's No Bias, No Bull - Appropriations Bill "Loaded with Pork" - Earmarks: Another Look
Well, snarky Brown opened up her show tonight with another slam about the "loaded with pork" appropriations bill. And what is her definition of "loaded with pork"? 7 billion out of 410 billion. That's less than 2% of the entire bill. 40% came from Republicans, 60% from Democrats. One wonders how she would describe a bill that were oh, say, 50% earmarks?
Worse, I have recently learned that earmarks are not what I thought they were: spending added to a bill by a Senator or Representative to benefit a special project. That's not true, and it is time that our useless media got it right.
From the Wikipedia:
In short, this is not new money but the allocation of money already authorized but not directed.
The argument in favor of earmarks that I heard during the debates this week is that Congress has a right, and a duty, to direct spending. The issue is not whether the money should have been appropriated but where it should be spent. So who should decide? For conservatives (one of whom I am not) the quandary could be stated thusly: who can better decide where to spend money? A faceless Federal bureaucrat or the person representing the district or state?
Looked at in that light, maybe earmarks aren't so bad. Yes, some are dumb, from one perspective or another. But Representatives are elected to represent the needs of the people in their district. And Senators are elected to represent the interests of their states. As a Californian, I might think a project in Minnesota is stupid and wasteful while a Minnesotan might think the same of a project in California.
Obviously, our elected officials have obligations to the country as a whole, in addition to their parochial issues, but I can't see any bright hard line telling them when to give priority to their personal morality, their constitutents, or the country.
Bottom line: earmarks do not increase the cost of spending bills, they simply direct some of the spending. One can argue about who should direct the spending (the Federal government or Congressional representatives), and whether specific projects benefit the country as a whole and even whether that kind of test is realistic or practical in our federal system. But it is time that Americans learned that when we are arguing about earmarks we are arguing not about how much money has been authorized but where it is being spent and who has the right or duty to decide where it is spent.
Grunwald's March 5, 2009 Time piece does a better job than I have done at pointing out where the real problem may be.
Worse, I have recently learned that earmarks are not what I thought they were: spending added to a bill by a Senator or Representative to benefit a special project. That's not true, and it is time that our useless media got it right.
From the Wikipedia:
The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.
Attempts have been made to define earmarks in ethics and budget reform legislation. However, due to the controversial nature of earmarks and the effects these definitions would have on Congressional power, none of these has been widely accepted.
Despite the lack of a consensus definition, the one used most widely was developed by the Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress:
"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."[2]
In short, this is not new money but the allocation of money already authorized but not directed.
The argument in favor of earmarks that I heard during the debates this week is that Congress has a right, and a duty, to direct spending. The issue is not whether the money should have been appropriated but where it should be spent. So who should decide? For conservatives (one of whom I am not) the quandary could be stated thusly: who can better decide where to spend money? A faceless Federal bureaucrat or the person representing the district or state?
Looked at in that light, maybe earmarks aren't so bad. Yes, some are dumb, from one perspective or another. But Representatives are elected to represent the needs of the people in their district. And Senators are elected to represent the interests of their states. As a Californian, I might think a project in Minnesota is stupid and wasteful while a Minnesotan might think the same of a project in California.
Obviously, our elected officials have obligations to the country as a whole, in addition to their parochial issues, but I can't see any bright hard line telling them when to give priority to their personal morality, their constitutents, or the country.
Bottom line: earmarks do not increase the cost of spending bills, they simply direct some of the spending. One can argue about who should direct the spending (the Federal government or Congressional representatives), and whether specific projects benefit the country as a whole and even whether that kind of test is realistic or practical in our federal system. But it is time that Americans learned that when we are arguing about earmarks we are arguing not about how much money has been authorized but where it is being spent and who has the right or duty to decide where it is spent.
Grunwald's March 5, 2009 Time piece does a better job than I have done at pointing out where the real problem may be.
Jon Stewart - The Daily Show on Mar. 4, 2009 - Roasts CNBC (incl. Rick Santelli & Jim Cramer)
The Daily Show keeps getting better. Having a liberal in the White House has in no way affected its quality.
Last night's roundly deserved roast of CNBC's coverage of the stock market showed TDS at its best: a stinging montage of CNBC prognostications showing just how often, and consistently, wrong its predictions have been.
I especially enjoyed the sequences that focused on Jim Cramer. I've been watching Cramer for a couple of months now and the one constant is his inconstancy. His advice varies almost daily and rarely holds up over the long haul. (Only a few months ago, he declared Bank of America, Well Fargo, and JP Morgan Chase to be among the 5 "gold standard" banks.) Yes, I know he was a successful hedge fund manager but as such he could and did trade daily, probably almost every minute. Most of the people who watch him can't do that. He's a lot of fun to watch, but unless you have money to burn and want to buy and sell stocks all day, he's not going to help you.
The Mar. 4, 2009 montage was just one of many that Stewart's staff has put together over the past year. One recent montage I recall contrasted statements by Gibbs (Obama's press secretary) with those from prior press secretaries. Not a word's worth of difference. It takes a lot of skill and research to put together these montages. You must realize that there is something worth looking for, then locate the sound bites or videos that will support your thesis. Google and the other search engines help, but anybody who's used them for serious research knows just how hard it can be to find just what you need.
So, yes, I adore Stewart. But his staff deserve special credit for providing the material. Give Thain's bonus to them.
Last night's roundly deserved roast of CNBC's coverage of the stock market showed TDS at its best: a stinging montage of CNBC prognostications showing just how often, and consistently, wrong its predictions have been.
I especially enjoyed the sequences that focused on Jim Cramer. I've been watching Cramer for a couple of months now and the one constant is his inconstancy. His advice varies almost daily and rarely holds up over the long haul. (Only a few months ago, he declared Bank of America, Well Fargo, and JP Morgan Chase to be among the 5 "gold standard" banks.) Yes, I know he was a successful hedge fund manager but as such he could and did trade daily, probably almost every minute. Most of the people who watch him can't do that. He's a lot of fun to watch, but unless you have money to burn and want to buy and sell stocks all day, he's not going to help you.
The Mar. 4, 2009 montage was just one of many that Stewart's staff has put together over the past year. One recent montage I recall contrasted statements by Gibbs (Obama's press secretary) with those from prior press secretaries. Not a word's worth of difference. It takes a lot of skill and research to put together these montages. You must realize that there is something worth looking for, then locate the sound bites or videos that will support your thesis. Google and the other search engines help, but anybody who's used them for serious research knows just how hard it can be to find just what you need.
So, yes, I adore Stewart. But his staff deserve special credit for providing the material. Give Thain's bonus to them.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Bernanke, Geithner, and Orszag Face Congressional Committees Mar. 3, 2009
Well, I've now seen Geithner and Bernanke testify before several Congressional committees and yesterday I saw Orszag's first budget presentation.
Here's my assessment of the three as performers.
Geithner
Without question, he is the worst of the three. He is simply not a good salesman - in large part because of a number of quirks. First, he has a tendency to hunch over the mike and look up at the committee from under his eyebrows. Second, he has a habit of starting answers with phrases such as "that's an excellent question". Third, he has an Obama-like tendency to repeat the same phrases over and over and over. Fourth, and worst of all, he is defensive. He may be very, very smart. And his plans may, indeed, pull us out of this mess. But he does not give that impression and right now we need somebody who can be seen to be confident, optimistic and in charge. (It also doesn't help that he continues to talk in generalities.)
Bernanke
Calm and respectful. Sometimes, I think, too respectful. Like Geithner, he is smart. And he has acted decisively. But in front of Congressional committees, he comes off as a bit of a mouse. Perhaps he feels constrained because of the position he holds, but he seems to bend over background not to get into any kind of argument with any of his questioners - which limits his ability to sell, to Congress and to citizens, the actions he has taken.
Orszag
Triple A+. His performance yesterday was masterful. His command of budget details was awesome. His answers to the questions posed were concrete and short. No endless justifications of the general strategy, goals, etc. Moreover, he was not intimidated by the Republicans and he was indulgent toward those Democrats whose questions were designed solely to prove how good this budget is in contrast to the Bush budgets. Not only was he never defensive, he seemed to enjoy the give-and-take. Orszag came across as a man who understood the budget, who supported the budget, who was not ashamed of the choices made in creating the budget. Cheers.
Here's my assessment of the three as performers.
Geithner
Without question, he is the worst of the three. He is simply not a good salesman - in large part because of a number of quirks. First, he has a tendency to hunch over the mike and look up at the committee from under his eyebrows. Second, he has a habit of starting answers with phrases such as "that's an excellent question". Third, he has an Obama-like tendency to repeat the same phrases over and over and over. Fourth, and worst of all, he is defensive. He may be very, very smart. And his plans may, indeed, pull us out of this mess. But he does not give that impression and right now we need somebody who can be seen to be confident, optimistic and in charge. (It also doesn't help that he continues to talk in generalities.)
Bernanke
Calm and respectful. Sometimes, I think, too respectful. Like Geithner, he is smart. And he has acted decisively. But in front of Congressional committees, he comes off as a bit of a mouse. Perhaps he feels constrained because of the position he holds, but he seems to bend over background not to get into any kind of argument with any of his questioners - which limits his ability to sell, to Congress and to citizens, the actions he has taken.
Orszag
Triple A+. His performance yesterday was masterful. His command of budget details was awesome. His answers to the questions posed were concrete and short. No endless justifications of the general strategy, goals, etc. Moreover, he was not intimidated by the Republicans and he was indulgent toward those Democrats whose questions were designed solely to prove how good this budget is in contrast to the Bush budgets. Not only was he never defensive, he seemed to enjoy the give-and-take. Orszag came across as a man who understood the budget, who supported the budget, who was not ashamed of the choices made in creating the budget. Cheers.
Coburn & Education - A Lot of Neurons Short of a Full Deck
In arguring against Harkin's earmark for repairing schools in Iowa,Mr. Coburn asserted that, of course, our schools only declined in quality after the federal government got involved (out in here in California, it's pretty obvious that schools began to decline after the passage of Prop. 13 rolling back & limiting property tax increases), and that students could learn just as well in a quonset hut as in a high-tech building.
Now, I suppose one could build a quonset hut that would hold labs for biology, chemistry, physics, computer science, etc. And that would have running water and indoor toilets - but after one has done all that, how many students could be accommodated? So, unless he thinks that one-room schoolhouses with chairs and a blackboard provide the same quality education as a high-tech school building (a very dubious claim in 2009), Mr. Coburn must be given credit for one of the dumbest arguments ever made against an earmark.
Further, he argued that to spend money repairing schools in Iowa in today's difficult financial situation would mean placing - yes, you guessed it - a burden on our children and grandchildren.
Although one can argue about the value of earmarks, or the value of this earmark in particular, it seems to me that arguing that improving the educational environment of students who will be creating those future generations could be bad for those future generations is absurd. Educated parents generally raise educated children.
One wonders if Coburn would be where he is today if he had been educated in a quonset hut.
Now, I suppose one could build a quonset hut that would hold labs for biology, chemistry, physics, computer science, etc. And that would have running water and indoor toilets - but after one has done all that, how many students could be accommodated? So, unless he thinks that one-room schoolhouses with chairs and a blackboard provide the same quality education as a high-tech school building (a very dubious claim in 2009), Mr. Coburn must be given credit for one of the dumbest arguments ever made against an earmark.
Further, he argued that to spend money repairing schools in Iowa in today's difficult financial situation would mean placing - yes, you guessed it - a burden on our children and grandchildren.
Although one can argue about the value of earmarks, or the value of this earmark in particular, it seems to me that arguing that improving the educational environment of students who will be creating those future generations could be bad for those future generations is absurd. Educated parents generally raise educated children.
One wonders if Coburn would be where he is today if he had been educated in a quonset hut.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Iraq - One Downside of an Exit Date
Yes, I want us out of Iraq. The sooner the better. But it seems to me that there is one downside to a fixed exit date that could be summed up in a very old question: "Do you want to be the last person to die in [fill in the blank]?"
I know that soldiers fight to save themselves and their comrades but, surely, from this day forward, and each day that we get closer to that exit date, they can't not be thinking "how do I stay alive until x"? (Obviously the same problem exists for tours of duties that have specific end dates, but this exit strategy must certainly add to the effect.)
Fighting to stay alive is both rational and normal in any war, but when you're told that your country not only wants to leave the field of battle but plans to leave by a fixed date, the nature of the conflict, psychologically, must change, mustn't it?
Just a thought.
I know that soldiers fight to save themselves and their comrades but, surely, from this day forward, and each day that we get closer to that exit date, they can't not be thinking "how do I stay alive until x"? (Obviously the same problem exists for tours of duties that have specific end dates, but this exit strategy must certainly add to the effect.)
Fighting to stay alive is both rational and normal in any war, but when you're told that your country not only wants to leave the field of battle but plans to leave by a fixed date, the nature of the conflict, psychologically, must change, mustn't it?
Just a thought.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Jindal and the Volcano - Media Missing in Action Again
Good grief. Our media seem to get more useless with every day. (Even progressive bloggers have gotten lazy.) Here's the legislative language:
Was this hard to find? No. I just went to recovery.gov, followed the links and voila!
Link (Instruction for Russ Limbaugh listeners: use the search function and type in the word volcano.)
SURVEYS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND RESEARCH
For an additional amount for ‘‘Surveys, Investigations, and Research’’, 140,000,000, for repair, construction and restoration of facilities; equipment replacement and upgrades including stream gages, and seismic and volcano monitoring systems; national map activities; and other critical deferred maintenance and improvement projects.
Was this hard to find? No. I just went to recovery.gov, followed the links and voila!
Link (Instruction for Russ Limbaugh listeners: use the search function and type in the word volcano.)
Republicans and Tax Cuts (Obama's first budget)
Well, Obama's 2010 budget has been announced and, as usual, Republicans are apoplectic about the tax increase on the rich which will cause small businesses to fail all over the country, kill entrepreneurship, etc.. And how big is this tax increase? 3.9%. The top marginal tax rate for people earning over $250,000/year will increase from 36% to 39.6% - which won't kick in until 2011. Now, I know that COLs vary a lot around the country and I believe that, once we're out of the recession, we should all pay more for the government services we want. But this knee-jerk Republican hissy fit should be shown up for what it is. And if the reduced tax rates on dividends and capital gains remain in effect, this increase will, practically speaking, probably have even less impact.
Once upon a time, the top marginal tax rate in this country was 94%!* Now, the Republicans think 39.6% is too much. Indeed, during the battle over the stimulus package they wanted a 5% across-the-board cut. Tax cuts are the Republican answer to good times and bad times. It is, indeed, the only government action they approve of (except for defense and legislating morality, of course).
Republicans won't even raise taxes to pay for the one government function, defense, of which they approve - which is why Obama inherited a trillion-dollar deficit. The truth is that Republicans don't believe in government. They want to kill social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, the NEA & NEH, the CDC, the NIH, the NSF, the FDA, etc. Indeed, if they could, they would kill every non-defense agency. And they figure the way to do this is to starve the government of money. But they know that if they tell the American public this is their objective, they couldn't get elected dog-catcher. They know Americans don't like to pay taxes (who does) but,while Americans differ on which government programs they approve of, all Americans use or want some government services. So Republicans talk about "waste, fraud, abuse" (of which there is nowhere near enough to end the deficit and at least one of which exists in every household in the U.S.). They talk about earmarks (which don't add money to the budget but direct it to pet projects). They talk about individual responsibility. They don't talk about the government programs they want to kill. And our ineffective media let them.
I have a challenge for you tax-cutting Republicans. Give me a tax rate, any tax rate (flat or progressive), which will satisfy you. 20%? 15%? 5%? 0%? And then tell me what government agencies you will shut down to balance the budget.
*Here are three web sites with historical tax rate information:
1.Top tax rates 1913-2003
2.Highest marginal tax rates 1913-2009.
3. Historical bottom and top tax brackets 1913-2000.
Once upon a time, the top marginal tax rate in this country was 94%!* Now, the Republicans think 39.6% is too much. Indeed, during the battle over the stimulus package they wanted a 5% across-the-board cut. Tax cuts are the Republican answer to good times and bad times. It is, indeed, the only government action they approve of (except for defense and legislating morality, of course).
Republicans won't even raise taxes to pay for the one government function, defense, of which they approve - which is why Obama inherited a trillion-dollar deficit. The truth is that Republicans don't believe in government. They want to kill social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, the NEA & NEH, the CDC, the NIH, the NSF, the FDA, etc. Indeed, if they could, they would kill every non-defense agency. And they figure the way to do this is to starve the government of money. But they know that if they tell the American public this is their objective, they couldn't get elected dog-catcher. They know Americans don't like to pay taxes (who does) but,while Americans differ on which government programs they approve of, all Americans use or want some government services. So Republicans talk about "waste, fraud, abuse" (of which there is nowhere near enough to end the deficit and at least one of which exists in every household in the U.S.). They talk about earmarks (which don't add money to the budget but direct it to pet projects). They talk about individual responsibility. They don't talk about the government programs they want to kill. And our ineffective media let them.
I have a challenge for you tax-cutting Republicans. Give me a tax rate, any tax rate (flat or progressive), which will satisfy you. 20%? 15%? 5%? 0%? And then tell me what government agencies you will shut down to balance the budget.
*Here are three web sites with historical tax rate information:
1.Top tax rates 1913-2003
2.Highest marginal tax rates 1913-2009.
3. Historical bottom and top tax brackets 1913-2000.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
