Alito: No

There are many reasons to oppose this nominee. One of them is simply because he is nominated by Bush. This is a motivating factor in my decision to oppose him, but my overarching reason is his paternalism towards women evident in his decisions, especially compared to the Justice he is slated to replace. The quotes below are from a Washington Post article:

"The panel, in that same ruling, struck down a single provision in the
law requiring women to notify their husbands before they obtained an
abortion. Alito dissented from that part of the decision."

[...]

"On the spousal notification provision, O'Connor wrote for the
court that it did indeed constitute an obstacle. The 'spousal
notification requirement is . . . likely to prevent a significant
number of women from obtaining an abortion,' she wrote.

'It does not merely make abortions a little more difficult or expensive to obtain; for many women, it will impose a substantial obstacle. We must not blind ourselves to the fact that the significant number of women who fear for their safety and the safety of their children are likely
to be deterred from procuring an abortion as surely as if the
Commonwealth had outlawed abortion in all cases,' she said.

Plus,
it 'embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of
married women, but repugnant to our present understanding of marriage
and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. Women do
not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry, '
she said.

Whereas Sandra Day O'Connor came out and disagreed with a law requiring women to provide consent of their husbands before receiving an abortion, Alito supported it. The idea that a woman should get her husband's assent before getting an abortion (or doing pretty much anything) is an antiquated view shared by the Saudi Wahabbists and the Taliban (and the Religious Right in this country) and is quite far out of mainstream opinion. If he hadn't noticed (and O'Connor pointed out) "Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry". Husbands do not own their wives and in many cases, if Alito's opinion had stood, many women would have been forced to have children they didn't want or couldn't support in many cases because they are in abusive (physically or emotionally) marriages. As far as I can tell, the law also did not provide an exemption for rape, which does occur in marriages and is more common in abusive marriages. His confirmation would be a victory for religious zealots from Pat Robertson to the Saudi clerics to the Taliban and a loss for moderation, female rights and common decency.

Patriot expansion

An Editorial in today's NY Times points out many of the flaws of the proposed expansion of the use of the death penalty in federal cases (both terrorism-related and unrelated) by reducing the size of juries and allowing federal prosecutors to jury-shop until they find a jury willing to impose the death penalty. The fact that this country still has the death penalty is a black mark on our progress. In almost every other developed country (as well as in the International Criminal Court and the ad-hoc tribunals), the death penalty has been taken off the table. It is an irreversible punishment, and the implementation of it has come under increased scrutiny in the past few years. It also lacks the deterrent effect claimed by supporters. It is time not to expand its use, but to eliminate it altogether. Merely the possibility of sentencing someone to death is a over-reach on the government's monopoly on the use of violence. The Patriot Act should be repealed or amended to shrink the federal government's snooping powers and the death penalty should be eliminated not expanded.

The 401(k) Monster

Wjfhile many studies suggest that employee ownership of stock in their companies creates loyalty to the company (and increases in productivity), I view it in a different light, based partly from my own experience. I worked in a consulting firm, which was privately owned (but bought out by a public company after I left). Upon it's buy-out, current employees were not given any proceeds in the sale (nor any stake in company), despite that their contributions were responsible (in part) for the sale. In fact, during the transition period, some employees were laid off. Employee ownership and companies' "matching" contributions to 401(k) plans are nothing more than blackmail. Even leaving aside the downside risks of employee-ownership (noting Enron as a prime example where employees were encouraged to buy Enron stock for their 401(k)s as management was selling), the increase in 401(k) plans and increased stock-option distribution has turned into a form of blackmail. Under most stock-option plans, employees must remain with the company for many years (usually between 2 and 5 years) to be able to excersize their options. In the intervening period, their stocks can rise to high levels or plummet to depths near zero. Furthermore, the provision of 401(k) plans is also problematic. It increases the risk on the employee while decreasing the risk for the firm because it is a defined-contribution plan, rather than a defined-benefit plan. The employee, not the firm, is responsible monetarily for the movement of the investments made, over which they often have little control. In addition, there is the downside risk created by the requirement that to be eligible for matching contributions (or at least to have them vested), the employee must work at the company for between 2 (for partial vesting) to 5 (for full vesting) years. Between these two forces, the company can use these benefits as leverage to keep wage growth low and benefits stationary. There is little incentive for big increases in wages or benefits as long as the employee knows that much of the compensation (in terms of stock-options or 401(k) matching contributions) will disappear if they leave the firm.

Unsatisfactory Cuts

The cuts in social services proposed in the House of Representatives in order to offset the costs of the recoveries from the Gulf Coast hurricanes are not fair in that they do not require a shared sacrifice from those who are poor (and who were hurt the most by the hurricane, especially in the long term) and those who are rich (who were more likely to have insurance to cover the economic effects of the hurricanes). In fact the House has, while refused to reconsider the tax cuts passed in the past 5 years, suggested cutting food stamps, medicare, enforcement of child support payments, and child care assistance. While the Republicans have been forced to retreat on the suspension of the Davis-Bacon Act, which required contractors to pay the "prevailing wage", this does not ensure that those livng at or below the poverty line before the hurricanes will be able to pay for services in the areas under consideration for cuts any better than they did before the hurricanes. If anything, the disruption in employment and housing caused by the hurricanes has made them more, not less, able to get by, and suggest that these programs shouldn't be cut across the country, but certainly should not be cut for the regions affected.

The Economics of Affirmative Action

In a recent JEL paper, Fryer and Loury propose convincing economic arguments for the continuation of affirmative action. The argument I found most compelling (their refutation of "Myth #4: Equal Opportunity is Enough to Ensure Racial Equality") is one based on the influence of intergenerational opportunity. They posit that those from previously discriminated against minority groups will be less likely to achieve equality with whites is a factor of the determinants of success. They argue that because a group has been discriminated against in the past, there is a higher rate of non-success now and those people's children will typically have less access to tools that ensure success in the future either due to fewer parental contacts or lower provisions of public goods. Despite all of the racial inequality that has been eliminated (particularly in the past 40 years), there is still a significant difference in the economic outcomes of minorities (as a group) vis-a-vis whites (and also between women and men), that there exists substantial evidence that assistance in terms of expanding opportunities through affirmative action make a lot of sense, even when the underlying discrimination appears to have disappeared.

Non-market activity in international GDP comparison

An interesting point has been raised in the current issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives article on measurement of U.S. National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA). The article notes that the values of non-market goods, such as childcare or cooking is excluded from the NIPA and therefore many of the gains in the U.S. income statistics reflect the increase in female labor market participation and the resulting marketization of the previously non-market productions. The article specifically mentions that the increased marketization of this production could distort time-series comparisons of GDP across countries because in many countries, there is a larger value of these services that are not included in NIPAs because they are subject to non-market valuations, where they have been in the U.S. It is an interesting point which suggests another reason for suspicion in the comparisons of countries' GDP where there are different rates of female labor force participation.

Indictments galore!

Fitzgerald’s indictment of Scooter Libby is very interesting in terms of what information it provides on his role in the White House. As Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo notes that he is not simply working in the Office of the Vice President. He is listed in the indictment as “Assistant to the President of the United States” in addition to his roles as chief of staff and assistant to the VP for national security affairs. In contrast to what the right-wing pundits claim, the indictment states that “Valerie Wilson was employed at the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003 [the date of Novak’s first column exposing her identity], Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community [italics added]”. It also notes that on May 29, 2004, Libby asked an (unnamed) Undersecretary of State for information on Wilson’s trip to Niger (he was named as just an ambassador at this point). This is interesting because the claims investigated were for weapons of mass destruction, and Wilson’s wife worked on these issues. And who was the Under Secretary of State for WMD proliferation issues? John Bolton, now the Ambassador to the U.N. What is his role in the scandal and was he moved to the U.N. to isolate him from the investigation?
One of the most puzzling parts refers to a conversation with an unnamed senior official in the White House (Karl Rove). The indictment notes that “on or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, Libby spoke to a senior official in the White House (“Official A”) who advised Libby of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson’s wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson’s trip. Libby was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson’s wife.” Could this be information that was spilled first by Novak and then was corroborated by Karl Rove in his desperate attempts to avoid indictment? Libby’s obstruction of justice charge relates to “when, and the manner and means by which, Libby acquired and subsequently disclosed to the media information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA”. Now it remains to see how far the cover-up extends within the White House and whether Rove will be indicted and whether either Rove or Libby will squeal about the role of Bush and Cheney in the leaking of Valerie Wilson’s identity. I anticipate at least another year of testimony and drama in the criminal trial or trials. Bad news for Republicans.

Cheney is in too...

Well, the investigation moves along, and upwards. It appears that Dick Cheney told Scooter Libby about Valerie Wilson's position at the CIA and therefore, the leak originated at the top. More importantly for the prosectution of Libby, his testimony is at odds with the details of his notes of the meeting that were presented to the grand jury. Within days it will be known who is charged. It is unlikely to be Cheney, although his involvement could have been the source of recent rumors that he was planning to resign (to be replaced by Condoleeza Rice, currently Secretary of State). It will also be interesting as to whether the grand jury testimony implicated Bush in the fiasco, although his demands of extreme loyalty make that unlikely. More likely is that he was kept in the dark to provide the cover of 'plausible deniability', and, like most matters in the government, the Vice President was in charge of co-ordinating policy and the personal attacks that sustained it despite lack of fact.

The Anti-Starr

Throughout the investigation of who leaked Valerie Wilson's identity as a covert CIA operative, the independent counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has be an antithesis to the image of special prosecutor Kenneth Starr. Where Starr was partisan (Republican, in case you are the subject of Zappa's song "Help, I'm a rock"), Fitzgerald is non-partisan. He is the best hope for justice simply because Democrats cannot say "Oh, I knew it" and Republicans cannot deride him as a hack. With a nearly leak-free investigation (a Washington "miracle" in and of itself), the investigation has proceeded smoothly except for Judith Miller's bullshit (one release is coereced, but the next is genuine, give me a break). It is likely that indictments will be handed down to Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, but the more interesting speculation is on Bush and Cheney. With rumors of Cheney's impending resignation (and replacement by Condi Rice), there have been hints that the conspiracy (in both the legalistic and everyday use of the terms) goes to the top, Bush and Cheney. If only we still had Nixon and Agnew. Compared to Bush/Cheney they are leftist commies. Well, regardless of the outcome, Fitzgerald has been a good special prosecutor and I wish Ken Starr had had the decency to act in a similar manner. Bring on the indictments!

Missing Map, Found Oil

A map missing since 2002 has recently caused much controversy in the argument over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. In the missing map, the Native American lands were omitted, while they were included in the newly drawn USGS maps. The difference is that the Native American lands are easier to allow drilling on due to differences in regulations. The map disappeared in 2003 before the big votes on drilling in ANWR. If the government has undertaken a "Watergate" type burglary of the map they should be prosecuted. At very least, the disappearance of the map should be investigated as there is no one that can indicate where it went. Patrick Fitzgerald should be ready soon for another investigation.

Playing the Cards

With Karl Rove operating more quietly than normal political decisions that would have been spun effectively have been exposed as the disaster they are. This is because the person in charge of the White House staff for the entire Bush Administration has been Andy Card. While not necessary ineffectual on his own, to adapt the words of Donald Rumsfeld "you go into politics with the staff you have, not the staff you want". Throughout the administration, there has been miscalculation and policy decisions based more on what the Rapture Right wants, instead of what the country needs. As such, the most important area for continuing power has been perception, not reality. Thus, in the perception area of how the administration has performed, Karl Rove, as spin-meister (and Deputy Chief of Staff) has been in charge. Since his sidelining because of the seemingly inevitable indictment in the outing of Valerie Wilson as a CIA operative, the White House's image has been in freefall in both the general public and Rapture Right's opinions. This is because their policies are bankrupt and without the spin provided by Rove (Andy Card's deputy), the reality has been exposed. It is about time!

Hurricane devastation moves to the south

With Bush's suspension of the Davis Bacon Act of 1931, which requires federal contractors to pay workers the prevailing wage. The decision was an obvious hand-out to businesses (the prevailing construction wage in New Orleans is $9 or $10 per hour) without a clause requiring them to pass the savings on to the government. Instead, many illegal immigrants have been hired to do the job. While that is nothing terrible on its own (although it would be desirable to use local labor), many employers force their workers to live in squalid conditions and pay them $7 per hour, or sometimes nothing at all. Because the workers are illegally in the country, they may be reluctant to complain about the abuses and they risk being deported. These labor abuses undermine the economic recovery of the region and are wrong regardless of the circumstances.

Republican woes

In the 2006 midterm elections, Democrats have a good chance of recapturing the congress, at least the House. This is the important part of congress to recapture. The House is the body that issues the Articles of Impeachment. The Democrats need to create an agenda to rally around, like the 1994 Contract with America, in order to have a chance. Here are mine:

Healthcare for all: this would be an insurance plan, not a government takeover of the healthcare industry. The healthcare industry in America is one of the best in the world. Insuring basic access to all is a duty of the government. We spend 15% of GDP on healthcare while leaving 45 million people uninsured.

Tax cuts for the richest Americans is wrong. Rescinding the tax cuts to the upper class and extremely rich would help cure the deficit woes of the nation, while allowing the government to keep the lower- and middle-income tax cuts as well as expanding Federal programs for the low- and middle-income groups.

Revising the Alternative Minimum Tax, while keeping its original purpose. All that is necessary here is to up the minimum income level and increase it year-by-year at the level of inflation. This would also minimize the fiscal impact of such a change.

Increase federal spending on education in order to minimize the state fiscal impact of No Child Left Behind.

Increase funding for IRS enforcement of tax laws. Currently, they are targeted at the lowest income Americans, particularly those claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The areas of particular fiscal importance are the top bracket of the income tax spectrum and corporate tax burdens. This would be assisted with the Paul Wellstone bill that would remove corporations from the bidding process if they have established a mail box in Bermuda to evade federal taxes.

This would, for sure, get the Democrats in at least the House if not the Senate too.

Bush's Poverty

An article in today's New York Times has finally come around and framed the issues in terms of what is needed and what President Bush has denied, federally funded programs to help those living in poverty. The article cites the hypocrisy dealing with the aftermath of the Gulf Coast hurricanes. Even before the hurricanes the affected regions were some of the poorest parts of the United States. Afterwards, and with the lag affect of the new credit card-written measures, it is likely to be even poorer, with its poor spread out among many southern states and concentrated in cities like Atlanta and Houston. The Times article notes that:

"Economic growth is crucial to reducing poverty, but the effect of tax rates is less clear. In 1993, President Bill Clinton raised taxes on upper-income families, the economy boomed and poverty fell for the next seven years. In 2001, President Bush cut taxes deeply, but even with economic growth, the poverty rate has risen every year since."


This is slightly misleading because the evidence presented shows that while Clinton slightly raised upper income taxes, there was a decade of prosperousness that reached those living in poverty and Bush's tax cuts, which benefited high income earners the most had an increasing effect on poverty. This is because of the spending cuts Bush's tax cuts made inevitable and the fact that supply-side economics is a bankrupt concept. The Times article also mentioned:

"The week before his speech, Mr. Bush suspended the Davis-Bacon Act, a 1931 law that prohibits federally financed construction jobs from paying wages less than a local average. The administration argued that the suspension, which applied only to storm areas, would benefit local residents by stretching financial resources."

As I have argued previously, the suspension of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 would benefit the corrupt winners of the no-bid contracts (which have since been reconsidered) like Halliburton and Fluor, while hurting the people who need the income the jobs provide the most. It would take money out of their pockets without providing any certainty of government savings; the Act is tied to no reduction in contract value for money saved on labor costs. The press is finally taking note the failures since the hurricanes in the reconstruction. I hope it continues.

Bush's desperation

Today, in Bush's speech on "Islamofacists", he demonstrated his desperation on the domestic front. With the corruption and abuses of power that are being exposed (e.g., DeLay, Safavian et al.) and the flagging support for the war in Iraq and Bush's dismal handling of the Gulf Coast hurricanes, Bush needs to demonstrate that he has a plan. While he doesn't have any plan, he needs to demonstrate that he can handle situations as they arrive a la Hurricane Katrina and the insurgency in Iraq, which he has clearly demonstrated that he cannot. In order to compensate, he demonstrated his psycopathic obsession with terrorists which he uses for political gain (as contrasted to Richard Clarke's obsession with averting terrorist threats). Instead, Bush demonstrates his overarching desire to cast his goals for reshaping the world along the lines of the neo-conservative vision and in making any issue political. It is the signature of his failure as president.

Gore on the media

Today, Al Gore made a great speech on the decline in the media over the past 20 years that gives corporations and idiots control over the television media. My favorite moment is when he discusses the squashing of press rights and the intimidation of CBS, PBS and Newsweek:

"And every day they unleash squadrons of digital brownshirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President."

It is a very pressing issue and if the media hadn't spent time misinterpreting his comments about Love Story and the internet, and actually devoted coverage for his views on significant issues, the election fraud in Florida wouldn't have been able to bridge the gap in the polls and we would have had a very different last 5 years.

Wasted Appointment

Bush is a national embarrassment and apparently has no shame as well. With the appointment of his personal lawyer (and more recently, White House Counsel), Harriet Miers. She has no judicial experience and very little proven experience in constitutional law. The only experience she has (which she shares with John Roberts, the new Chief Justice) is in corporate law. This appears to be the legacy that Bush wants to leave. A court in which social issues and civil rights are not important and are subserviated to the power of the executive and corporations. That is what appears to be the most important qualification for Bush, besides personal connections and loyalty. It is the wrong move and hopefully Meirs will be rejected by the Senate as the unqualified crony she is.