Thursday, September 29, 2005

The Three Branches of Government

A little humor about Roberts. In his swearing-in ceremony, Roberts remarked:

The process we have just completed epitomizes the separation of powers that is enshrined in our Constitution. My nomination was announced some 10 weeks ago here in the White House, the home of the executive branch. This morning, further up Pennsylvania Avenue, it was approved in the Capitol, the home of the executive [sic] branch. And tomorrow, I will go into the Supreme Court building to join my colleagues, the home of the judicial branch, to undertake my duties.

Apparently Roberts thinks the President runs the Senate (and probably the house too). A little Freudian slip that exposes his support of increased executive power.

DeLay in trouble

While corporations may say that their right to give money to political campaigns, not all states' law agree. Texas, explicitly bars campaign contributions from corporations and Tom DeLay's indictment falls under this law. He helped his PAC, TRMPAC funnel corporate donatons through the RNC to Republican candidates for the state house. This violates the law not only in his attempt to funnel the money, but also in his role in the conspiracy. However, the legal fouls he made extend further. By funneling money through the RNC to Texas Republican candidates, he and his PAC and the RNC should be investigated for money laundering. The main legal tool for the federal prosecutors should be the RICO act, designed to catch organized crime. By fueling a money laundering opeartion, I think that TRMPAC and DeLay fall under the RICO law and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowed. However, the arguments that corporations should be allowed to give money to political campaigns under the 1st amendment fall afoul of their denouncement of 'activist' judges. It is only because of 'activist' judges that corporations have been given full rights of personhood under the 14th amendment. If they had stuck to strict constructionism that they constantly trumpet, they would oppose corporate personhood. The intent of the drafters of the 14th amendment was to ensure that former slaves and their descendents got all the protections of the U.S. constitution, not that railroad companies in the late 19th century (and by the decision, all corporations) should be treated as a person (including rights guaranteed under the bill of rights). Therefore, the decision to grant corporations personhood under their supposed legal philosophy was 'activism' and therefore is invalid. Unless they are hypocrites...

The Death of a Leader

Constance Baker Motley died yesterday. She was one of the less nationally well-known lawyers for the NAACP (I hadn't heard of her until now), as well as a state senator in NY and the president of the borough of Manhattan. Everytime someone of her stature dies, it calls for someone to step up and fill her place. Without people as corageous as her, there would be far more injustice in this country than there is and many peole would have suffered far more. It should reaffirm the desire, especially since Hurricane Katrina exposed the face and scope of American poverty, for more focus away from oppressive imperialism and repressive 'patriotism' and towards improving the condition of those at home who are oppressed by the invisible force of poverty, whatever its cause.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Section 8 Expansion

One of the most important actions needed from the government in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is how to house those who are now homeless because of the storms. The Bush Administration has proposed creating vast trailer park ghettos for the largely poor evacuees. The other suggestion is an “urban homesteading” proposal which would give urban lands to evacuees on the condition that they build a house on it. The problem with this proposal is that most of the evacuees don’t have the means to build houses and do not have the credit for loans to build houses. The trailer park idea is horrid. It would create zones in which there are few jobs and little opportunity to get the means to leave. It would be a modern Hooverville. Instead, there should be an expansion of Section 8 housing vouchers, not just in the affected area, but for the entire country. This would help the poorest with rent and free up resources to pay for child care, work fewer hours in order to just survive and therefore spend more time with their children and families. It would also free up money for investment in transportation and savings for an unpredictable future. This would help ensure that the debacle of having many people not evacuate before the storm because they couldn’t doesn’t happen again. It would also help bring people out of poverty and into brighter economic futures.

DeLay Indicted!

Finally Tom DeLay was indicted. It is about time that the sleazy "Hot Tub" Tom faced justice. He was indicted on charges of conspiracy after the indictment of TRMPAC (Texans for a Republican Majority PAC). It is about time that DeLay temporarily (hopefully to become permanent) stepped down as House Republican Majority Leader. One interesting note is that under the ethics rules pushed by the DeLay created ethics committee, even though he had been indicted, he would not have had to resign from his leadership positions. It was only due to the Democrats' opposition to the Republican gaming of the ethics procedure. See, if they stand up for what they believe in instead of remaining cowed by the Republicans and right-wing media they can defeat the Republicans. One other interesting note is that Republicans claim that this is a political 'witch hunt' because the prosecutor in Texas is a democrat. Because there is significant evidence that DeLay broke the law it makes Republicans look hugely hypocritical after 8 years and billions of dollars spent on Kenneth Starr's investigation in which they prosecuted Bill Clinton, eventually ending only being able to find that he lied about a blowjob.

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Boulis murderers arrested

There were arrests today in the investigation of the murder of Gus Boulis, the owner of SunCruz before it was bought by Jack Abramoff and Adam Kidan shortly before his murder. Abramoff and Kidan (as I noted in previous post) were arrested and charged with bank fraud for their behavior in purchasing SunCruz. One of the suspects, Anthony ''Big Tony'' Moscatiello, and his daughter received $145,000 from SunCruz (then owned by Abramoff and Kidan) for 'catering and other work'. It appears that "one of [DeLay's] closest and dearest friends," Jack Abramoff, in addition to his other legal problems may soon be on the hook for soliciting the murder of Boulis after Abramoff had scammed investors for $60 million in his little bank fraud incident.

Brownie is out of touch!

In his testimony, Brownie, the ex-head of FEMA (and recently re-hired as a consultant) said the following:

"It's my belief that FEMA did a good job in the Gulf states"

"My biggest mistake was not recognizing by Saturday that Louisiana was dysfunctional."

Once again, a crony hack Bush Administration official works to try to discredit the local and state officials while refusing to admit what was obvious to the rest of the world: FEMA and the federal government, particularly those in the Administration failed at pretty much everything they were supposed to do. If Brownie wanted to tell the truth he should point fingers at Michael Chertoff, Bush and himself. Michael Chertoff for his inaction, Bush and the Republican Congress for demoting FEMA to a sub-department instead of a cabinet level agency and himself and Joe Allbaugh for allowing the defunding and demotion of the agency. Had FEMA been run as well as it was under James Lee Witt during the Clinton Administration, most if not all of the problems that were encountered would have been avoided.

Pension Troubles: A New Savings & Loan Crisis In The Making?

The PBGC, created in 1974 as an insurance plan for defined-benefit retirement plans, is currently approaching a brink in which the federal government might be politically compelled to transfer large amounts of money to the PBGC to pay pension benefits of bankrupt companies. Over the past 4 years as the economy has struggled, several large firms have gone into bankruptcy and the PBGC has been forced to take over their insured pension liabilities, with some of the largest liabilities resulting from the bankruptcies of US Airways and United Air Lines. While the problems forcing these companies into bankruptcy are caused by general economic weakness, the pension liabilities of these firms and many others that are in danger of default involve both a decline in the stock market and moral hazard. Moral hazard is a situation in which being insured changes behavior to increase the expected liabilities of the insurance plan. In the case of the PBGC, the availability of insurance without a corresponding strong requirement that these plans be fully-funded has created an overhang of potential liabilities for the PBGC. Many firms, especially those most likely to default on their pension liabilities, have under-funded plans. Because they are under-funded, the PBGC will inherit greater liabilities than assets if the firms become insolvent. With the current large pension liabilities of United and U.S. Airways already the responsibility of the PBGC and the medium-term prospect of others (the worst-case, but not entirely unlikely one would be either GM or Ford declaring bankruptcy) increases the expected overhang for the PBGC. If this overhang is severe enough, no politician in their right mind would support severe cuts in millions of retirees pension benefits. Therefore, the political will would be there for a bail-out of the PBGC, and the implicit guarantee for other troubled companies’ pension funds. This would not be a small cost, nor would it be a one-off cost. There should be stiff premium increases for companies that have persistently under-funded pension funds. This would be far less costly than bailing out those companies who default on their pension liabilities and would be a more equitable solution. Every dollar that a pension fund is under-funded is another dollar the firm can count towards profits, which will likely be given to either the shareholders or the executives. The shortfall in pension benefits if the company goes bankrupt, however, will come from taxpayers.

Friday, September 23, 2005

Frist and Martha

With the revelations recently that Bill Frist used the only lever of control over his blind trust of HCA stock to make a suspiciously timed sale of all his family's HCA stock days before it released a warning that it would not make the quarterly profit targets. His explanation was that it would reduce or eliminate the appearance of a conflict of interest. However, this is a rather lame excuse since Frist has been in the Senate for quite a while before the sale, in July of 2005. If he had wanted to reduce the appearance of a conflict of interest, he would have sold it when he was first elected. However, the fact that his stock transaction cleared the day before the profit warning announcement. If Martha Stewart was sent to prison for 6 months with 6 months of additional house arrest for lying to investigators about a possible inside trade worth $10,000, certainly Frist's sale of between $7 and $35 million in his family's company (his brother is the director) should open the possibility that he be prosecuted and sentenced to prison. At very least, he should resign his leadership position in the U.S. Senate. To avoid the appearance of protection on the basis of his position, he should resign his Senate seat.

Thursday, September 22, 2005

Not a wage cut...

Talking Points Memo provided the transcript of the parts of a press conference with Scott McClellan about the suspension of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 (ensuring that federal contracts pay prevailing wages in the region in which they are awarded). In effect, it serves as a union-busting measure, as the prevailing wages in the industries most likely to be part of the rebuilding effort are the result of unions' hard work in trying to equalizing the power at the bargaining table. Instead, Scott McClellan gave the reason (over and over, as he always does) that suspending the Davis-Bacon Act:

"will open up access to more business -- small businesses, including women-owned and minority-owned businesses. It cuts through the red tape and helps us move forward quickly to address the needs of the people in the region and to provide substantial savings."

This is the most ridiculous explanation that he could have given as many of the contracts are going to firms that are the most politically connected, large corporations that can't be called women- or minority-owned, like Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root, Bechtel and Fluor Corp. The only red tape it cuts through is the "red tape" of accountability and a responsibility to help the local community and economy get back on their feet. It will not, as McClellan mistakenly claims, provide "substantial savings" because there is nothing in the suspension that forces the contractors to pass savings in wages on to the government. It is purely a hand-out of even more profit potential to politically connected firms at the expense of the people and economy of the Gulf Coast.

Flip-flopping on priorities

An email I wrote to David Brooks on his latest column decrying John Kerry's latest speech:

How dare you assail John Kerry for mentioning Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech. He rightfully did so because American troops are still dying for his lying and misinformation that led to the war. You Republicans are always questioning the patriotism of anyone who opposes Bush's policies. In the 2004 election it seemed vitally important to rehash his actions during Vietnam, a war that ended over 30 years ago, while whitewashing Bush's AWOLism in the Air National Guard. When Bush appeared on that aircraft carrier, he highlighted his neglect and distaste for reality by declaring the "end to major combat operations in Iraq". Yet, major battles are still being fought by under-manned, under-resourced American troops. Surely, the Iraq war is still a current issue. Yesterday, 5 American troops (along with 4 other Americans) died in Iraq. You cheapen their memory and degrade their efforts to get out alive from an unjust, illegal war. In the aftermath of a national disaster and under the threat of a new one, in which the president has once again shown his distaste for effective, prompt, and competent governance, it is a travesty for you to deride someone who (as you know) is not the current president, although he should be, while supporting an incompentent president!

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Read my lips, no new taxes (or existing taxes)

When Bush claimed that there would be no tax increases to pay for the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast, he took a fairly wire-reaching view of what a tax increase is. Apparently, for Bush, not cutting taxes is a tax increase. Instead, he would rather just cut already low spending on Americans who are not in the top 1% of income earners than see any additional tax cuts for the top 1% or corporations trimmed down. In a period of increased government spending and an impending economic slowdown (which will lower tax revenues), his priorities are all wrong. What he should do is roll back the tax cuts he gave in 2001, 2002 and 2003, ditch the elimination of the estate tax and reduction of capital gains and dividend tax cuts. In order to truly help the economy, the reconstruction should be funded by the government, if necessary using deficit funding. It is one thing to spend $200 billion on a one-time payment to rebuild after the storm's destruction, even when financed by deficit spending, as long as the structural (long-term) deficit caused by the tax cuts is shrunk or eliminated. A one-time rebuilding of the Gulf Coast will increase economic growth, particularly in the affected area and in the long run will increase taxes (because of the stronger economy). Tax cuts for the rich, on the other hand, do little for the economy (rich people just save it away (instead of spending most of it, which would stimulate the economy) and create structural deficits that stretch way into the future as tax revenues will never recover. Supply-side economics is a failed doctrine and Bush should recognize that and switch towards a more proven, more Keynesian economic policy.

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Gonzales channeling Ashcroft?

Today it was announced that the FBI would be diverting 10 agents away from their prior duties (terrorism, maybe) and towards obscenity prosecution of the makers of adult pornography marketed to adults. Apparently, Gonzales is tired of being bad-mouthed by the far right wingnuts and would rather concentrate on securing his place in the history books as an attorney general who (like John Ashcroft) is more obcessed with pornography and other "purient" interests than in protecting the country from actual threats. The loony right strikes again. It could also be a sign that Bush wants to nominate Gonzalez (a.k.a. the torture tsar) to the open spot on the Supreme Court and wants to appear to support the irrational crusade of the wingnut right.

Monday, September 19, 2005

Message: How could we have known

In the weeks since Katrina submerged New Orleans in water, poverty and racial relations have emerged from a seeming absence in past years. However, it is not a surprise that the people most vulnerable to the hurricane would be the poor, and given the distribution of wealth in the U.S., a disproportionate number of the poor, especially the urban poor are likely to be black. It was, as President Clinton pointed out yesterday on George Stephanopolous', stunningly simple to see that the poor will bear the brunt of the destruction after five years of policies that have expanded the ranks of the poor in the country. Bush's policies have given the wealthy huge tax cuts while sending the poor off to Iraq to die for a lie and the attempt to impose the doctrine of pre-emption on the world. In addition, there have been reports that Jeff Sessions of Alabama is trying to find people whose relatives died in the storm and who are subject to the estate tax that affects a small business or a family farm. It is more evidence of the Republican's craven view of legislating. They won't find an example either. Indeed, despite the Republicans search for examples, they have not found a single one. That is at the lower limits currently, not the higher limits the Democrats offered as a compromise. It was very clear that much of the catastrophe of the hurricane could have been foreseen if not prevented.

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Katrina Tax Cuts

The only thing the Republicans seem to know how to do (and their universal panacea) is tax cuts. The budget is in surplus, cut taxes. The economy is in recession, cut taxes. The U.S. is attacked, cut taxes. A major American city is under water, cut taxes. This logic is flawed. What the survivors of Hurricane Katrina need is government assistance and government programs to help them get back on their feet, either returning to New Orleans or moving somewhere else. While giving money to the survivors is important to help them survive until they can find a job and a new place to live, a more important move would be to suspend the bankruptcy bill that was passed earlier this year and is scheduled to go into effect on October 19th. Providing federal housing grants and other anti-poverty measures would help the (largely poor) survivors of the hurricane that are displaced and relying on Red Cross assistance. Not only would social programs to help the Katrina survivors and especially the poor provide current relief, it would help in the future to increase the proportion of the population with the means to evacuate in the face of another natural disasters.

Faith-Based Response

Senator Rick Santorum, among others, has suggested that the poor government response to Hurricane Katrina should be reason enough to direct more funding to faith-based groups. This is a bad idea, as well as an illogical response to the failure of the federal government in particular. First of all, the experience of the past 5 years with the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives has shown itself to be involved in establishing a religion, Christianity, above other religions. By far most of the money has gone to Christian organizations and very little has gone to any other religion. The idea of the government paying churches money to do the government's work is ridiculous. It is also not the best solution to the failures in the response to Hurricane Katrina. The weaknesses exposed were largely due to cronyism in the upper eschelon of the Bush Administration and FEMA and the chronic under-funding of FEMA and other disaster-preparedness initiatives. Thus, diverting more money from the government's disaster relief agencies to church groups, who are not likely to have an over-arching coordination of relief efforts, and cannot fulfill all of the roles that the government and expecting this to improve the response to future disasters is a completely illogical conclusion.

Two-Face Coburn

In the Roberts confirmation hearings, Tom Coburn (R-OK), after completing his crossword puzzle, he made a tearful cry for less partisanship and hateful words in the Congress. This is a strange position for Coburn to advocate given his previous statements:

"I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life."

"The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power. ... That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That’s a gay agenda."

It seems like a stretch for someone who makes comments like that to be able to speak sincerely on reducing hateful rhetoric in Congress. He is one of the major bigots today in the Congress and his crying should not convince anyone he has changed his above enumerated positions.

Sunday, September 11, 2005

SBNHS (Should-be National Healthcare System)

Despite the esoteric nature of my title, this is a simple post. I am one of over 40 million Americans without health insurance. This phenomenon is one of the most glaring sources of our inequity that I can see. In a nation with such wealth whose health care spending is near to 15 percent of our GDP, to have over 40 million people without health insurance is a defeat in the realm of our government's purpose. How can a country so rich in ideas fail so significantly in protecting its citizens from the woes of injury or ailment, with the huge economic and social costs these traumas can cause? A national health insurance system, a National Health System, is long overdue. There are no arguments that can refuse it on economic, social or moral grounds. Economically, there are many societies that have ensured the well-being of its citizens, while spending a far smaller share than the U.S. currently does. Socially, we leave behind a large portion of our citizens who live in poverty without health insurance and lead less fulfilling lives than they should. I was at the river last summer and one of the men we met there had brought his kids along. He warned them against getting hurt "because Daddy doesn't have health insurance". This illustrates the moral component compelling a National Health Care system. If a large percentage of the population has to be overly cautious while at home or work, America cannot thrive. If we are spending 15% of our $11 trillion GDP on healthcare while leaving 1 in 7 without health insurance, there cannot be long-term health security. For all the rhetoric about freedom and security, as long as the health care needs of all go unnoticed, the security of all is in danger. From the flooded city of New Orleans could come an unforeseen epidemic of disease that could have been prevented if all our citizens health needs were attended to. The public health of the nation rests on the early detection and isolation of new epidemics, as well as those already existing. There is a large benefit in a society that is aware of the health of its members. A new outbreak of Avian flu or another contagious disease could be disasterous if there is not a system in place to detect its presence and spread in the most vulnerable, the poor, who are also most likely not to have health insurance.

Saturday, September 10, 2005

No one could have anticipated the breach of the levees?

In the Brookings Institution's timeline of Hurricane Katrina, considerable doubt is placed on Bush's claim that "No one could have anticipated the breach of the levees". Really, Mr. Bush? The timeline shows that early on August 28th, Department of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff and the head of FEMA, Micheal Brown were electronically breifed on that exact possibility. This, in addition to the widespread evidence that a breach of the levees had been feared as a realistic possibility in a Category 3 or higher hurricane if it were to hit close to New Orleans, demonstrates that Bush is either a liar or an incompetent president. If he is not informed of possibilities that other senior members of his administration are told of with the significance of this one, there is a problem. There, of course, is the other possibility that Bush is just a liar, which he has demonstrated repeatedly. Is he really fit to continue to lead a country involved in two wars and a catastrophic natural and man-made disaster at home or should the House of Representative blow the dust off of it's impeachment procedure manuals that have layed dormant since the impeachment of President Clinton for lying about a blowjob?

Bush's Social & Economic Blunder

By using the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act to remove federal restrictions of wages, more specifically requiring federal contracters to pay the prevailing wage in the region in which they are working, Bush has hurt the people and the economy of the Gulf Coast in order to help the contracters, including Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown & Root. The use of this act strips workers of the main way in which they can be helped, in the rebuilding of their community. With contractors paying lower wages, there will also be a lower demand-side driven economic recovery in the area. Much of the money paid to the contractors that is not paid in wages or materials will leave the area. In order to help the economic recovery of the Gulf Coast, it would make sense to limit the amount of the money paid in contracts that leaves the affected area. However, Bush seems to be more driven by fealty to the contractors and an idealogical opposition to Keynesian economics. If he had the interests of the people living in the Gulf Coast, he would strenghten the regulation of contractors hired for rebuilding to make sure a large percentage of money paid in the rebuilding contracts stays in the local economy of the affected region. To not do this demonstrates his lack of concern for ordinary Americans.

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Friedman awakes

Thomas Friedman usually is a schill for the Bush Administration, but it looks like Katrina has pushed him too far to do it any more. It's good to see that the media is finally waking up and reporting on the news instead of on Michael Jackson or other non-news like the girl who disappeared in Aruba (although I did see them break from the hurricane coverage on Tuesday or Wednesday to talk about Aruba). However, it looks like Bush is getting ready to smear Governor Blanco (of LA) and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, both Democrats in a red state and give the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Michael Chertoff and (Arabian Horse Judge, now head of FEMA) Michael Brown. Hopefully everyone else will realize how little Bush really cares for Americans who do not give his campaigns money.

Sunday, September 04, 2005

Politicization of Katrina

The Bush Administration has begun their shameless (and shameful) process of passing off blame to others and politicizing a disaster largely of their own making (hmm, didn't that happen with Iraq too?). They are now passing the blame for the lack of response onto the governor of Louisiana and the mayor of New Orleans. However, who was it who was responsible for coordinating the efforts of disaster relief? It was FEMA, whose head is a political appointee who has no disaster relief experience. Furthermore it was Bush's stunningly brazen disregard for what was happening. It was two days before he left his ranch, and even after ending his vacation early, he decided to stay an extra night in Texas. How dare he! As soon as there was a hurricane the strength of Katrina he should have been back in Washington and FEMA should have been preparing for the recovery and rescue of people who could not leave. He should have pulled out National Guard units for Alamaba, Mississippi and Louisiana from Iraq to help in their states' recovery efforts. But he did nothing and hundreds needlessly died because of it. He should fire the head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, and the head of FEMA and if he refuses, he should be removed from office.