Just interesting...

Newsweek has an interesting interview with the outgoing editor of The Economist. It's a good read and nice and short too.

Economic growth disappointing in 2005 Q4; Predicted to be slower in 2006

The economy only increased 1.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2005, but that was an improvement upon the preliminary estimate of 1.1 percent. However, growth is expected to slow in 2006 compared to the full year 2005 rate because of stagnating housing prices and rising interest rates. Those two facts are likely to significantly hurt consumption and could also hurt those who are highly indebted, as their disposable income after servicing their loans will be lower and their capacity to borrow further constrained:

"But for all of 2006, they [economists] believe consumer spending won't be as strong as it was last year. The cooling housing market and the expectation that owners won't be seeing huge gains in the value of their homes figure prominently in this scenario of a more subdued consumer. The toll of rising interest rates and elevated energy costs also play roles."

With lower growth next year, there isn't a large chance of an economic crisis, but in the future the risk will be higher as lower growth will translate into lower tax revenues and higher deficits. The servicing costs of the deficit should not rise much because it can be financed by international borrowing. However, this creates a higher vulnerability of the U.S. to future adverse economic news. If holders of American debt begin to believe that the U.S. will not be able to repay the debt, they will demand higher interest rates, which could spiral into a self-fulfilling crisis. The economy is on modest footing today, but the high indebtedness, overvalued housing market, low wage increases and high government deficits projected well into the future are all quite troubling.

Bush believes bin Laden tape helped in his re-election

According to a new book, Bush believed that the bin Laden tape released before the 2004 presidential election was going to aid his chances of re-election:

"I thought it was going to help," Bush said. "I thought it would help remind people that if bin Laden doesn't want Bush to be the president, something must be right with Bush."

Sadly, more evidence that the Bush team was operating on the assumption that if bin Laden didn't like Bush, then it can be inferred that those who oppose Bush and support Kerry like Osama bin Laden. More evidence of mental defect and a generally mean (and incorrect) mindset of Republicans.

A new legal limbo

I noticed a short passage in the Financial Times' article about the riots at the Pul-i-Charki prison in Kabul that I have not yet found confirmed in any other source. It essentially forecasts the closing of Guantanamo Bay, likely with rhetoric of improving America's image abroad, and moving the inmates to Afghanistan:

"US forces are renovating one block of the Soviet-built prison [Pul-i-Charki in Kabul] to house Afghan prisoners who will eventually be transferred from Guantanamo Bay in Cuba"

This move would allow the US to save face because the prisoners would be farther away from America and further from the jurisdiction of US courts. However, it would be largely a change in location, not respect for international conventions. Just something to watch out for in the future.

Poll: Troops want out of Iraq

A new Zogby poll released today shows that by an overwhelming majority, US troops want the US to pull out of Iraq within a year, with 72 percent support. Only 26 percent believe the U.S. should stay "as long as it takes" and 29 percent favor an immediate withdrawl. Furthermore 93 percent of troops don't think the belief that Iraq had WMD was the reason for invasion; 68 percent believed it was to remove Saddam Hussein from power. The scariest part of the article is where the poll shows how pervasive the belief is, sown by the Bush administration before the war, that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks:

"Despite the fact that Mr Bush has acknowledged that Iraq played no role in the September 2001 attacks, 85 per cent of troops said the US mission was mainly 'to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9/11 attacks', a result that Mr Zogby described as 'bewildering'." (italics added)

Bush Poll Numbers Down Even More: 34 percent approve

The NY Times/CBS poll released today shows that Bush's approval rating is now at 34 percent, down 8 points in a month. While part of the drop can be explained by the Arab-bashing over the DP World ports deal, much of the blame for the PR fiasco that has ensued can be placed with Bush. His handling of the approval of the Dubai-based company matches his handling of hurricane Katrina, post-invasion Iraq and his handling of the economy. There are a few points in the article worth noting:

"There has been a decline in Mr. Bush's support even among Republicans. In the January Times/CBS News poll, 83 percent of Republicans approved of the way he was handling his job; in the latest poll 72 percent approve. Approval among self-identified conservatives also dropped to 52 percent, from 62 percent."
[...]
"On Iraq, 30 percent said they approved of his management of the situation there and 65 percent disapproved."
[...]
"Republicans are over all more positive about the work in Iraq than Democrats, with 65 percent saying that things are going well there for the United States. But that number was still down from 76 percent in January."
[...]
"Times/CBS News polls showed George Bush with 34 percent in June 1992 and Bill Clinton with 36 percent in September 1994."

So while conservatives and Republicans remain in quite lockstep agreement with the President, even a number of them are coming to differentiate between the spin of the Bush administration and Republicans in general and the reality, both in Bush's overall performance and more specifically on Iraq. As for the 65 percent of Republicans who say things are going well for us in Iraq, I am left speechless. Is it a sign of things going well that US troops keep dying, that Iraq is on the brink of civil war, with American troops caught in the middle, that the political process is moving slowly, if at all. If that is things going well for America in Iraq, I don't want to know what they consider bad. And finally, in a nice little bitchslap to Bush personally, his approval rating is as good as his father towards the latters last year in office and lower than Clinton's lowest point. Come on George, you can start crying now.

A New African Crisis

The NY Times reports that the fighting in the Darfur region of Sudan has spread to Chad. This growth in the conflict has been predicted for quite a while, but due to the lack of involvement by major countries such as the U.S. has not amounted to much. Currently the U.S. just supports the African Union (AU) forces, only a few thousand troops interjected in the conflict to enforce a ceasefire that has long since been followed. While there has been talk in the U.S. government and in the U.N., there has not been much substative effort to back up the AU forces in their enforcement, nor has their been much effort in expanding their mission into one preventing genocide. Now, the NY Times is reporting the predicted inevitibilities, the beginning of a Chad-Sudan war. Both sides claim that groups operating out of Darfur have been conducting violence. For instance,Human Rights Watch's recent report on the background of the Darfur conflagration note that:

The government of Chad has several times during the Darfur conflict accused Sudan of harboring and supporting the Chadian rebels and sponsoring attacks on its territory, but relations were mended.

The Sudanese govenment, according to a Human Rights Watch report implicate the Sudanese armed forces, as well as the government supported janjaweed in incursions into Chad to target refugees from Darfur:

The government of Sudan is actively exporting the Darfur crisis to its neighbor by providing material support to Janjaweed militias and by failing to disarm or control them, by backing Chadian rebel groups that it allows to operate from bases in Darfur, and by deploying its own armed forces across the border into Chad.

Between these two governments lie the people of the Darfur region and the areas of Chad to which many thousands have fled. When both governments have declared mutual war on the rebels, there is only one outcome likely: a killing field. While the U.S. has responded, in calling this as "a campaign of terror that the Bush administration has called genocide" according to the NY Times, not much has been done about it. If the U.S., NATO and the EU do not act, this will become a stain upon the Western countries' reputations in the shape of Rwanda.

This whisky might kill you

According to the Times of London, a distillery in Scotland has begun making the strongest whisky again.

Twelve barrels of the world’s most alcoholic whisky, or enough to wipe out a medium-size army, will be produced when the Bruichladdich distillery revives the ancient tradition of quadruple-distilling today. With an alcohol content of 92 per cent, the drink may not be the most delicate single malt ever produced but it is by far and away the world’s strongest. Malt whisky usually has an alcohol content of between 40 per cent and 63.5 per cent

The whisky has an alcohol content of 92 percent and was thought to be strong enough that two spoonfuls could kill you. It has also attracted the watchful eye of the US Secret Service, which is wary of its possible use as a WMD:

The US Secret Service admitted in 2003 that it had been monitoring the distillery because the difference between distilling a fine whisky and making chemical weapons was “just a small tweak”.

Illegal Campaign Activity in Non-Profits

The NY Times has a story about the increasing number of IRS investigations into non-profit's activities that may violate the prohibition of advocating or fundraising for specific candidates. While both liberal and conservative non-profits are under investigation, the violations are most egregious in the conservative churches. For example, the article describes a drive by Jerry Falwell to raise money and support for Bush:

The complaints by the group include one on July 15, 2004, against Jerry Falwell Ministries, saying falwell.com had endorsed President Bush and urged readers to donate $5,000 to the Campaign for Working Families. Such activities are illegal, Mr. [Barry] Lynn [head of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State] said, and the Web site was quickly changed.

Most of the complaints against liberal non-profits were centered around criticism of President Bush rather than urging monetary or other support for candidates. In one of the more blatantly political moves, the East Waynesville Baptist Church in North Carolina kicked out all the members who voted for John Kerry after the 2004 presidential elections. This whole train of political events involving churches demonstrates why it is increasingly dangerous for churches to mix with politics and government, not just for government, but for religion as well.

Human Rights First report on Detainee Deaths

In a report by Human Rights First (the full report is Available in PDF format), they allege that the U.S. military has failed to investigate and adequately discipline troops and their superiors (and CIA agents) involved in detainee deaths. Furthermore, in 8 of the 100 or so cases of detainee death where death was caused by torture, the steepest sentence given was 5 months. They also question the reporting and investigations, as well as the lack of accountability higher up in the chain of command since “the law that requires commanders to be held responsible for the unlawful acts of their subordinates about which they knew or should have known has been all but forgotten”. For example in one of the most well-known cases of detainee death, that of Abed Hamed Mowhoush, who was killed by being stuffed in a sleeping bag after many beatings, wrapped up with electrical cord and his mouth and nose were blocked and his chest was sat upon. Although publicly his death was of ‘natural causes’, the autopsy reported it as “asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression”. Despite participation of the CIA and Special Forces in the beatings and eventual death of Mowhoush, only one soldier was eventually tried and convicted and he received no jail time. The other descriptions are equally as disturbing and the consequences no more severe. Furthermore, the investigative techniques and procedures were not followed in many cases that looked to be a cover-up method. The report is a disturbing read on why the U.S. needs to make sure that accusations of torture and detainee death are investigated thoroughly and as far up the command structure as the responsibility goes.

Strange Bedfellows

I didn't want to write about the Dubai Ports World deal and ensuing controversy, but it has done something I don't think any issue has done: put me in agreement with David Brooks, the usually-moronic conservative NY Times columnist. However, strange as it may seem, his column on the DP World controversy today made valuable points (which many can't see because of the Times Select nonsense). Essentially what his argument boils down to is:

But let's be clear: the opposition to the acquisition by Dubai Ports World is completely bogus. The deal would have no significant effect on port security.

However, my one qualm with the op-ed is that Brooks doesn't acknowledge the incredibly bad job the White House has done to reduce opposition. They have failed tremendously, spectacularly on that front, even with the facts supporting their position. Well, hopefully this thing dies down and isn't the start of xenophobic protectionism.

When in doubt, cling to stupidity

While I support the DW Ports bid for P&O, the President has made a terrible case with both the conflicts of interest within the administration, the lack of consultation of the approval process with Congress and with the claim that Bush "didn't know about the deal until a few days ago". Why is the President using the Iran Contra defense of his father when the facts of the case will expose opponents as protectionists and xenophobes. Bush is incompetent, even in the few cases in which I agree with him, at explaining what he wants to do and why it is the right thing. I thought it was just that his policies were indefensible for those of us living in the reality-based community. If the deal is rejected, it will be a victory for protectionists and xenophobes and entirely the fault of the President.

More ridiculous controversy over P&O purchase

Well, the political firestorm over the sale of P&O to Dubai Ports World (DP World) has not abated, but at least some of the correct facts are coming out. The Washington Post has a story detailing the resulting security situation at U.S. ports if the deal goes through. Nothing would change from now except the owners of the leases of the parts of the docks. The head of the North American operations of P&O pointed out that "the workers handling security in U.S. ports are supplied by longshoremen's unions--an arangement he said would remain in effect". The article describes the situation at ports across the country:

"Terminal operators typically lease facilities from a local port authority and are responsible for attracting shipping lines to use their terminal, where there main task is to move the thousands of containers that come in and out onto the right vessels, rail cars or trucks. In the process, they must main security at the facility, with the government providing backup and oversight." (italics added)

While there are legitimate concerns over port security, they are not really the same issue as the ownership of the port terminals. Stephen E. Flynn, a specialist in maritime security at the Council on Foreign Relations puts it into perspective,

"What I hope for out of this whole debate is that, as Americans suddenly realize most of our marine terminals are managed by foreign-owned companies, they ask, given that that's a reality, how do we secure it? I also hope this current situation doesn't lead to a feeding frenzy [against foreign operators], because if we want things to be secure over here, we're going to have to work with foreign counterparts"

That is the appropriate reaction, but the NY Times editorial board seems to disagree and sides with Congressional xenophobes and fear-mongers from both parties. However, it does raise the issue that has been missing from the debate: the administration's slovenly pandering to corporate interests:

"The Bush administration has followed a disturbing pattern in its approach to the war on terror. It has been perpetually willing to sacrifice individual rights in favor of security. But it has been loath to do the same thing when it comes to business interests. It has not imposed reasonable safety requirements on chemical plants, one of the nation's greatest points of vulnerability, or on the transport of toxic materials. The ports deal is another decision that has made the corporations involved happy, and has made ordinary Americans worry about whether they are being adequately protected."

Again, while adding an interesting perspective to the debate, the NY Times returns to the fallacy that a change in foreign company control over the port terminals will affect security. It is from this non-truth that the xenophobia and protectionism come from. The LA Times takes a much more realistic view calling the proposed legislation a "bipartisan hissy fit" that "provides members of Congress an opportunity to talk tough and pander to the terrorism-rattled xenophobe in us all". The latter point is explored in a Reuters article detailing how Bush's fear mongering brought this conflict upon himself. A Washington Post editorial agrees with the LA Times and uses much of the information presented in the article on the controversy quoted above. The article closes with the contradiction between the supposed Republican neo-conservative platform and opposition to the P&O purchase:

"Finally, we're wondering if perhaps American politicians are having trouble understanding some of the most basic goals of contemporary U.S. foreign policy. A goal of 'democracy promotion' in the Middle East, after all, is to encourage Arab countries to become economically and politically integrated with the rest of the world. What better way to do so than by encouraging Arab companies to invest in the United States? Clearly, Congress doesn't understand that basic principle, since its members prefer instead to spread prejudice and misinformation"

DW Ports: Letter to Maureen Dowd and other sensible Americans who have been misled

Ms Dowd,

I have read your column religiously (as well as Bushworld and Are Men Necessary), but I have to, sadly, complain about your last column. You complain about the security of U.S. ports, rightfully. However, DW Ports will not be in charge of security (nor was P&O). That duty falls to the Coast Guard and Customs. Furthermore, you write that "Is [UAE) it a nation that helps us sometimes but also addicts us to oil and then jacks up the price". This is inaccurate. According to a story in Tuesday's Financial Times, Dubai only gets 7 percent of its GDP from oil. It had small reserves to begin with and correctly diversified its economy away from oil. You also claim that "Just because the wealthy foreigners who own our debt can blackmail us with their economic leverage, does that mean we should expose our security assets to them as well?" Again, you miss the main point that DW Ports is an internationally recognized company with a large share of American executives (including the head of the Maritime Authority who was the head of the European division of DW Ports; a conflict of interest, yes, but still a valid consideration). While Britain and Dubai are different across the board does not mean that their running of U.S. ports will be any different. The protectionist wings of the Democratic and Republican parties have jumped on this as an issue which they feel they can tack national security onto their own agendas. Rushing to protect (the British-owned) P&O (or Unocal for that matter) against an "evil" (i.e., Chinese-owned) or "terrorist" (i.e. Arab-owned) company feeds the fires of people like Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan and harms America's reputation as being market-friendly (as opposed to nationlistic) reputation.

Housing Market Turning Negative for the Low-Income Population

The NY Times reports that there has been a sharp increase in the numbers of foreclosures on mortgages of minorities. This is a worrying sign in an already over-valued housing market because minorities have lower incomes than non-minorities. Therefore, any signs of a weak housing market will begin with lower-income Americans. For one, those living on low-incomes will end up paying higher interest rates and fees due to the higher risk of loaning money to those with lower earnings. The market for these people is called the subprime market because they have lower credit ratings and a higher risk of default. The article notes that subprime interest rates on mortgages are "three points higher than the prime rate, [which is] about 6.2 percent". Furthermore the rates of subprime (i.e., higher interest rate) loans for mortgages is higher for minority lenders than for white lenders:

About 30 percent of home purchase loans made to blacks from 1999 to 2004 and 20 percent of home loans made to Hispanics were subprime, compared with 10.4 percent of loans to Asian-Americans, only slightly higher than for white borrowers.

In 2004, the last year with data available, nearly 27 percent of loans taken out by minorities were subprime, up from 15 percent in 1999.

While these differences reflect largely differences in the relative income levels of minorities and whites, it reinforces the fact that that minority foreclosures could foresee broader problems in the housing market (and the economy as a whole), because foreclosures are linked with the income levels of homebuyers. A stagnating wage and decreases in savings (for instance, the first negative savings rate of the American economy since 1933) could cause the rise in foreclosures to spread upwards into the income distribution. Increases in the foreclosure rate will reduce the demand for housing, which in turn will decrease housing prices and could cause severe economy-wide problems. It is a harbinger of future recession.

Execution delayed indefinitely

The BBC reports tonight that the execution of Michael Morales has been postponed indefinitely over concerns about lethal injection. The reason give was "ethical issues surrounding the lethal injection method". This is a first step to ending the potentially painful process of lethal injection and eventually ending capital punishment in the U.S.

Explanation for the Danish Cartoons

The culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten has an op-ed in the Washington Post today explaining why the paper printed the cartoons that have caused so much uproar, as well as the domestic reaction within Denmark. I don't really think I need to comment, as the op-ed is quite illuminating, so a few quotes:

"The idea wasn't to provoke gratuitously -- and we certainly didn't intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter."
[...]
"We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims."
[...]
"When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy."
[...]
"As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate as an insult and punish the offenders."

Fukuyama: The Ideas are Right, They Just Screwed It Up

In his NY Times Magazine article, Francis Fukuyama, a leading proponent of neoconservatism, seemed to renounce the neocon war in Iraq. However, while articulating a generally liberal foreign policy, he still clung to the ideas of neoconservatism. One thing that was correct is his call to avoid isolationism. It will be difficult with the amount of damage the Bush administration did to American credibility abroad, as well as to the belief many Americans held that foreign policy could accomplish the goal of benefitting American interests abroad. However, Fukuyama's essay reeked of a "don't blame me" mentality where he accuses the administration of misinterpreting the neoconservative message. He appears to still believe in the neoconservative ideology, while disagreeing with the Bush administration's tactics. While it is admirable to admit that the criticisms of the war in Iraq, made before the war even started, were valid, it does nothing to stop the death and destruction occuring on a daily basis as a direct result of an administration's policies which Fukuyama supported.

Idiot Protectionists

While I am hesitant to agree with much that the Bush administration does, I do believe that the opposition in Congress to DP (Dubai Ports) World's purchase of P&O is wrong-headed. First, the members of Congress have said the ports would be owned by "terrorists", a ridiculously racist charge. Besides the racist aspect, the ports would only be run by the company, continuing the concessionary leases held by P&O Co. As the Financial Times "Lex Column" points out:

The US should be careful about singling out Arab and Chinese [the CFIUS rejected CNOOC's bid to buy Unocal last summer] investors, who happen to be amongh the most likely sources of funding. Moreover, any new laws should not affect already approved deals. Constitutional niceties aside, that would leave the US looking like a third world country that can force foreigners to divest assets at will.

According to sources used by the NY Times, the Coast Guard and the United States customs authorities, not the terminal operators, are responsible for checking incoming cargo, passengers and crews as well as for planning and maintaining port security. This seems to contradict all the hoopla about security. If the security is not good enough at ports, maybe we should look towards the government of the United State, not Dubai or the UAE.

Another execution delayed

The NY Times reports that the execution of Michael Morales was delayed. He was expected to be killed at 12:01 am today, but he had successfully challenged the means of execution. The Supreme Court agreed that it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute by lethal injection if the barbituates were not administered correctly. To go ahead with the execution, there were two anesthesiologists present to "minimize Michael Angelo Morales' pain". However, both anesthesiologists refused to participate because of ethical concerns. Therefore, instead of killing Morales this way, he will be given an overdose of the barbituates only. If they do not kill him by midnight tonight, the death warrant will expire and they will have to go back to the judge that originally sentenced him, who petitioned for clemency.

"[Sentencing Judge] McGrath said he no longer believed the credibility of a jailhouse informant whose testimony helped land Morales on death row."

Resistance within Navy to torture

The New Yorker reports that Alberto Mora, general counsel of the U.S. Navy resisted the moves outside of international conventions and laws on the use of torture. He mostly fought with William Haynes II, general counsel for Department of Defense and a member of the clan that agrees with David Addington, Dick Cheney's cheif of staff, in the unitary executive theory. A memo from 2004 reveals that:

Mora's criticisms of Administration policy were unequivocal, wide-ranging, and presistent. Well before the exposure of prisoner abuse in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, in April 2004, Mora warned his superiors at the Pentagon about the consequences of President Bush's decision, in February 2002, to circumvent the Geneva conventions, which prohibit both torture and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." He argued that a refusal to outlaw cruelty toward U.S.-held terrorist suspects was an implicit invitation to abuse. Mora also challenged the legal framework that the Bush Administration has constructed to justify an expansion of executive power, in matters ranging from interrogations to wiretapping. He described as "unlawful", "dangerous," and "erroneous" novel legal theories granting the President the right to authorize abuse. Mora warned that these precepts could leave U.S. personnel open to criminal prosecution.

However, Mora lost out to lawyers close to VP Cheney in the argument about whether the U.S. was subject to the Geneva Conventions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Mora, the article points out is a "cautious, cerebral conservative...[who] strongly supported the Administration's war on terror, including the invasion of Iraq". The New Yorker also reports that his concerns came from fear that torture would "undermin[e] any attempts to prosecute [terrorism suspects] in a court of law", doubts about the "reliably of forced confessions" and the feeling that, in his own words, "it just ain't right". Mora also worries that cruel and degrading treatment violates the inherent right to dignity bestowed on all, and in its absense, "the whole Constitution crumbles". For a Republican appointee, it is a remarkably honest view.

One of the main rationales for allowing torture and cruel treatment was that, although it was illegal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Administration officials or other "higher authorities" could allow these otherwise illegal techniques. However, this sounds like the type of practice that caused the Protestant Reformation (not to mention many other revolutions in the past) where people could buy forgiveness in advance. Neither argument holds water and both expose those who give the advanced forebearance to the risk of shaming themselves.

When Mora criticized a report by John Yoo, one of the authors of the torture memos, the Defense Department secretly signed and implemented them. The memos allowed for the use of over 30 techniques that amount to cruel and degrading treatment and "when the Commander-in-Chief deemed it necessary, [the authorization to engage] in torture". However, in December 2003, the memos were withdrawn by the Office of Legal Counsel because the Justice Department "could no longer rely on the legal analysis" in the memo because "Yoo's interpretation of the President's powers [were] overly broad". The article helps tell the story of how the Administration authorized torture and cruel and degrading treatment of detainees that led to Abu Ghraib and left many members of the Bush Administration possibly on the hook for war crimes charges under the War Crimes Act, which defines a war crime as one that violates the Geneva Conventions. Mora closes by saying: "When you put together the pieces, it's all so sad. To preserve flexibility [in interrogation tactics], they were willing to throw away our values".

Another one on free speech

David Irving is an idiot. While he has recanted his hard-core Holocaust denial, he is still an idiot. There is so much physical evidence that the Holocaust happened that his theories are almost crack-pot delusions. However, like the Mohammed cartoons he has a right to print his views in whichever journal will print them. Those who deny the Holocaust are idiots, out of the view of reality. And those who laugh at stupid jokes about Muslims as terrorists are getting a base view of society. Each group influenced by these cartoons either understand the freedom of the press issues or are idiots. Many people know that it is against the rules of Islam to show paintings of the prophet. It is also in bad taste to show a view of Mohammed as a terrorist. But it is perfectly legal. Fuck you if you disagree with the printing of these cartoons. They may be offensive, but free speech is often offensive in the headlines. I hate Nazis, but they have the right to march at Skokie. That perogative is given under the U.S. constitution. My right to free speech is inviolable!

Medicare & Social Security Changes Anathema to Elderly Voters

The NY Times has an article on the effect of Republican efforts to change Social Security and Medicare on support for Republicans by the elderly. Overwhelmingly, the changes are detrimental to elderly support for Republcians:

Surveys show that older voters remain skeptical; a new nationwide poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health research group, found that retirees were almost twice as likely to say they viewed the benefit unfavorably (45 percent) as favorably (23 percent). Last month's New York Times/CBS News Poll found that most did not expect the law to lower drug costs over the next few years.

This is what Democrats are focusing on, and with good reason. The programs proposed do nothing to help with the future solvency of Social Security or providing affordable drugs for seniors. The former benefits financial firms and create an unfunded liability for the Social Security program and the latter helps pharmaceutical companies without providing the government the ability to negotiate over drug prices.

Bush administration hypocrisy

Reuters reports today that the State Department has asked the Palestinian Authority to return $50 million dollars it has received from the U.S. While I am always suspicious of political parties that have armies, the move is dripping with hypocrisy. The Bush administration pushed hard for the Palestinian elections and therefore, to request that aid money is returned when the political party won whom the administration opposed seems to be blatantly inconsistent. Never mind the $2 million in aid given right before the vote (for projects that would have reflected well on Fatah, but likely backfired and ended up benefitting Hamas), an administration that sees democracy as the answer to everything should not make aid conditional on the 'right' outcome. Thomas Friedman's op-ed (sub. rqd) today in the NY Times makes a valid point:

If Hamas is going to fail now in leading the Palestinian Authority, it is crucial that it be seen to fail on its own — because it can't transform itself from a terror group into a ruling body delivering peace, security and good government for Palestinians — not because Israel and the U.S. never gave it a chance.

"Any minute that it is evident to the Palestinian public that Hamas is being forced to fail will guarantee that any future elections will only produce another Hamas victory," said the Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki.

This is an important lesson for the Bush administration if it sees (incorrectly in my view) democracy as the solution to terrorism and anti-Americanism. Democracy alone will not bring economic stability or political stability. In fact, as we are seeing in Iraq, it may lead to chaos. That is not to say that the U.S. should be supporting tyrants like Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak (head of Egypt) or the Saudi Royal family. It is important, though, to realize the potential instability if democracy is pushed forward too fast without any underlying institutions. In countries such as Egypt, which had partially-free elections last year, the Muslim Brotherhood had a strong showing despite the restrictions placed on how well it could do. However, in comparison with the other opposition parties, there was no question about which party won. This is because, for one reason or another, the religious parties have been more successful at organizing and recruiting and avoiding the restrictions placed on opposition parties in countries like Egypt. Therefore, any 'big bang' move towards democracy in Egypt will see a victory by the Muslim Brotherhood, and will be counter to what Bush predicted in his inaugural address that democracy will moderate religious political power. This is the failure of Bush's 'democracy' agenda and the failure is inherent in the policy and has been since the beginning.

Senate Rejects Wiretapping Probe

The Washington Post reports today that the Senate Intelligence Committee will not investigate the legality of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. Instead, Congress will work with the White House to revise the FISA law to accommodate the desires of the Administration. This is a ridiculously obvious case in which the Congress eschews its oversight role and hands more power to the executive branch. This is how democracy moves towards facism by legal (although highly suspect) legislative action. In addition, by agreeing that the FISA law needs to be revised to accommodate the NSA program, the White House has agreed that they violated the FISA law. The Post reports: "[Scott] McClellan and [chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Pat] Roberts cited efforts by committee member Mike DeWine (R-Ohio). DeWine, who will face a tough reelection battle this fall, is drafting legislation that would exempt the NSA program from the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA]" What essentially happened is that the Congress has said the President can do whatever he wants and the Congress will, once the program is leaked, change the law to bring the President's actions within the law. While other hearings will be held, they will be held in closed session and deal less with determining whether the President broke the law and more with presenting the appearance of oversight. the New York Times has a scathing editorial today, quoted extensively below:

"Is there any aspect of President Bush's miserable record on intelligence that Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is not willing to excuse and help to cover up?"
[...]
Mr. Roberts had promised to hold a committee vote yesterday on whether to investigate. But he canceled the vote, and then made two astonishing announcements. He said he was working with the White House on amending the 1978 law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, to permit warrantless spying. And then he suggested that such a change would eliminate the need for an inquiry.
[...]
Mr. Rockefeller said the White House had not offered enough information to make an informed judgment on the program possible. It is withholding, for instance, such minor details as how the program works, how it is reviewed, how much and what kind of information is collected, and how the information is stored and used.

Mr. Roberts said the White House had agreed to provide more briefings to the Senate Intelligence Committee — hardly an enormous concession since it is already required to do so. And he said he and the White House were working out "a fix" for the law. That is the worst news. FISA was written to prevent the president from violating Americans' constitutional rights. It was amended after 9/11 to make it even easier for the administration to do legally what it is now doing.

FISA does not in any way prevent Mr. Bush from spying on Qaeda members or other terrorists. The last thing the nation needs is to amend the law to institutionalize the imperial powers Mr. Bush seized after 9/11.

Renewables and Public Financing

The International Energy Agency , a group focused on energy policy founded during the oil crisis of 1973-74, released a document advocating increasing renewable energy supplies and supporting the use of public funds for this purpose. The Executive Director, Claude Mandil, notes that: "We need to use public funds as effectively as possible in achieving this" This is a message that the Bush administration should listen to. Although Bush made reference to increasing funding for renewables, he actually proposed cutting the funding in his 2007 budget.

Can Cheney declassify documents?

In the interview with Fox News about his shooting incident, Dick Cheney made the following claim : There is an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously focuses first and foremost on the President, but also includes the Vice President. From what I can tell, the Executive Order he is referring to is 12958 . It talks about the classification and declassification of documents, but as far as I can tell, there is nothing in it that gives the Vice President any power to declassify documents. This is held by the President, Agency heads, and the Archivist at the National Archives, as far as I can tell. The section relating to declassification is Part 3.

UPDATE: John Dean was asked about this and said that he did not remember an executive order that allowed the Vice President to unilaterally declassify documents.

Bernanke goes to Capitol Hill

In his first appearance in front of Congress as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank Open Market Committee (FOMC), Ben Bernanke outlined uncontroversial views on the economic performance of the U.S. in 2005 and predictions for 2006. He acknowledged that the 1.1 percent growth rate in GDP in the 4th quarter was likely due to the effect of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. However, he countered pessimism over future economic growth:

“the most recent evidence--including indicators of production, the flow of new orders to businesses, weekly data on initial claims for unemployment insurance, and the payroll employment and retail sales figures for January--suggests that the economic expansion remains on track.”

He also noted the pressures on inflation in 2005 and the possibility for further increases in inflationary expectations in 2006. While inflation excluding food and energy (which are volatile, and therefore unreliable for predicting future inflation) was only 2 percent in 2005, Bernanke noted that

” Prices of consumer energy products jumped more than 20 percent, with large increases in prices of natural gas, gasoline, and fuel oil.”

What was interesting was Bernanke’s discussion of the prospect of a fall in consumption, which has held up the economy for the past couple years (and which has led to the first negative savings rate since 1933). He pointed out that:

“given the substantial gains in house prices and the high levels of home construction activity over the past several years, prices and construction could decelerate more rapidly than currently seems likely. Slower growth in home equity, in turn, might lead households to boost their saving and trim their spending relative to current income by more than is now anticipated. The possibility of significant further increases in energy prices represents an additional risk to the economy; besides affecting inflation, such increases might also hurt consumer confidence and thereby reduce spending on non-energy goods and services.” (italics added)

The full report is clearer on the link between house prices and consumer spending:

”some observers believe that home values have moved above levels that can be supported by fundamentals and that some realignment is warranted. Such a realignment - if abrupt - could materially sap household wealth and confidence and, in turn, depress consumer spending.”

Were house prices reduce significantly and quickly, the repercussions could affect the entire economy through the corresponding reduction in consumption in favor of savings as people’s perceived wealth shrinks dramatically. In addition, the new bankruptcy law has made it more difficult to discharge debt. The full report describes the effect of the law:

”A large number of households filed for bankruptcy in the weeks leading up to October 17, the date when a new bankruptcy law took effect. […] After the new law became effective, filings fell sharply to a level significantly below the average of recent years, and they have since remained low”

With bankruptcy harder to use to reduce indebtedness, the possibility of a sharp drop in housing prices would be even more devastating. As people refinance mortgages, the amount they owe increases. If the value of their house suddenly drops, there will be a significant overhang between their debts and assets that cannot be eliminated through bankruptcy. As more and more people realize the limits of the new law, there may be more hesitation to purchase a house, which could have the perverse effect of creating bankruptcies by precipitating the very drop in housing prices that created the fear of the new bankruptcy rules. It’s a bit of a long shot, but it’s possible. Whether or not events transpire this way, a fall in housing prices is one of the biggest domestic threats to economic growth in the next few years along with the rapidly increasing budget deficit. While the deficit decreased from 2004 to 2005, the Congressional Budget Office (pdf) predicts that the deficit for 2006 will be about $20 billion higher than in 2005 at $337 billion, not counting supplemental appropriation for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and much of the hurricane relief. The CBO optimistically estimates these will cost between $20 and $25 billion. The major international threat is the prospect of a sharp spike in energy prices. The full report highlights concerns about future increases in oil prices:

Growing conviction among traders that oil-market conditions would remain tight in future years pushed the price of the far-dated NYMEX oil futures contract (currently for delivery in 2012) from an average of $38 per barrel for January 2005 to about $61 per barrel for January 2006”

This highlights concerns over both the supply of and demand for oil but doesn’t account for any unforeseen events that could disrupt the supply of oil, such as Iran’s nuclear stand-off, Nigeria’s instability in the major oil producing region, Venezuela’s increasingly distant relationship with the U.S. and Russia’s use of control over energy as a political tool, as demonstrated by their shut-off of gas to Ukraine on January 1, 2006 for several days.

The full report presented to Congress is available on the Federal Reserve’s website.

When the Veep Shoots Someone

The whole Dick Cheney shooting someone is not to surprising. He doesn't like to follow the rules, whether in selling the war or hunting for quail and therefore the fact that he shot someone isn't surprising. On Hardball tonight, they are making a big deal that Bush/Rove etc. (the president's office) has not forced Cheney to reveal fully what happened. That doesn't surprise me at all because throughout the Bush administration, Cheney has been obsessed over secrecy. It has been the president's office that has been concerned with managing the media and what information the public receives. But, as long as the president's people do not compel Cheney to explain what happened, the story will continue to create problems for the administration's credibility.

Bob Barr, Bane of the Right?

Dana Milbank at the Washington Post has a good column on the conservative's reluctance to hear the truth that Bush is breaking the law with the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. Conservatives booed him: He [Barr] says President Bush is breaking the law by eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without warrants. And fellow conservatives, for the most part, don't want to hear it.[...]"Are we in danger of putting allegiance to party ahead of allegiance to principle?" [Barr said][...]But nobody said anything in the deathly quiet audience. Barr merited only polite applause when he finished, and one man, Richard Sorcinelli, booed him loudly. "I can't believe I'm in a conservative hall listening to him say [Bush] is off course trying to defend the United States," Sorcinelli fumed. I don't like Bob Barr's politics, but the Republican lock-step crowd refuse to hear anything against what the leadership tell them to be.

Maybe Brownie was right?

NPR is reporting that a Congressional timeline from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs shows that: 28 federal, state and local agencies reported levee failures the day Katrina made landfall in New Orleans[, which] contradicts top officials -- including those at the White House -- who say they learned of the failures the following day. What it does clearly show is confusion and the inability to communicate and respond effectively to the unfolding disaster. It doesn't really support Brownie as an effective leader; all it does is further discredit the White House and Department of Homeland Security.

Bush uses L.A. Plot to bolster his case

The Washington Post article on the plot to attack the tallest building in Los Angeles leaves much room for speculation that the timing of the release of more details on the plot were motivated by the Congressional hearings on the NSA wiretapping program: The reported West Coast plot had been disclosed before but never in as much detail. The president's speech came on the same day as a Senate hearing into the Bush-ordered warrantless surveillance of telephone calls and e-mail by Americans and their contacts overseas, but aides said his comments were not related to the dispute over the program. However, intelligence officials, speaking anonomously have discounted the claim that the timing of the speech and the NSA hearings were coincidental: But several U.S. intelligence officials played down the relative importance of the alleged plot and attributed the timing of Bush's speech to politics. [...] [They] said there is deep disagreement within the intelligence community over the seriousness of the Library Tower scheme and whether it was ever much more than talk. The Bush administration has used the release of information for political gain many times before and has also manipulated the color-coded threat level from the DHS to help bolster their poll numbers when they slip or when a serious criticism is made against the administration. It is interesting to note how infrequently the threat level has been mentioned or changed since the 2004 presidential elections.

Not what I imagined...

When I thought we were heading for a 1984 style authoritarian regime, this wasn't the leader I had in mind. But I guess what's done is done.

Just click the panda and it will all be ok.

Brownie Speaks

The Washington Post reports today that Michael Brown has confirmed that he told the Administration and other Department of Homeland Security officials of the levee breaches when they occurred: Brown said not only did he inform the White House, but he also informed top Homeland Security officials about the situation on the same day. His comments contradicted previous statements by agency officials, who said they did not know the levees had been breached until the following day. Clearly someone is lying and it is not necessarily DHS and the administration. Michael Brown described FEMA under DHS as the agency's red-headed "stepchild". While Brown has said he wants to testify more openly than he could as part of the administration, part or all of his motivation could come from a desire to try to repair his reputation and attract clients to his disaster consulting firm which would be helped by having more media coverage of him. Either Brownie or the administration is lying and it is unclear now which one. Both have reason to lie and both have lied in the past.

Right on Krugman

Well, for those with NY Times Select, you can see the article in its entirety, for others, some clips. Krugman does a really good job of summarizing the Bush budget shenanigans:

The story begins in 2001, when President Bush was pushing his first tax cut through Congress. At the time, the administration insisted that its tax-cut plans wouldn't endanger the budget surplus bequeathed to Mr. Bush by Bill Clinton. But even some Republican senators were skeptical. So the Senate demanded a cap on the tax cut: it should not reduce revenue over the period from 2001 to 2011 by more than $1.35 trillion.

The administration met this requirement, but not by scaling back its tax-cutting ambitions. Instead, it created fictitious savings by "sunsetting" the tax cut, making the whole thing expire at the end of 2010.
[...]
Clinton-era budgets offered 10-year projections of spending and revenues. But the Bush administration slashed the budget horizon to five years.
[...]
Now, the administration has proposed spending cuts that are both cruel and implausible. For example, administration computer printouts obtained by the center show that the budget calls for a 13 percent cut in spending on veterans' health care, adjusted for inflation, over the next five years.
[...]
At this point the administration's budget strategy seems to be simply to ignore reality. The 2007 budget makes it clear, once and for all, that the tax cuts can't be offset with spending cuts. But Bush officials have decided to ignore that unpleasant fact, and let some future administration deal with the mess they have created.

New head of USAID

The Financial Times reports today that anti-poverty groups are concerned that the restructuring of USAID and the appointment of a new director who reports directly to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice will hurt the long-term initiatives aimed at fighting poverty. This fear is justifiable because linking USAID with State and the regular foreign aid means that the focus will be placed more on the "war on terrorism" instead of fighting poverty. There is also concern about the new director of USAID, Randall Tobias. According to his State Department bio, the only relevant experience he has was his brief tenure from October 2003 to January 2006 as the United States Global AIDS Coordinator. Even in that position, he was criticized for his links with the pharmaceutical industry--he was President and CEO of Eli Lilly from 1993 to 1999 and became chairman emeritus. Furthermore, and likely the reason he was selected as the Global AIDS Coordinator and now head of USAID is because he has consistently donated money to Republican candidates and groups. According to PoliticalMoneyLine.com, he gave $145,750 to candidates, parties and PACs, 96 percent of which went to Republican recipients. The money went to the following groups and candidates:

Republicans

10/24/2001, Hoosiers supporting Buyer for Congress, $1,000
01/27/2003, Indiana Republican State Central Committee, $5,000
03/03/2003, Indiana Republican State Central Committee, $5,000
06/28/2002, Indiana Republican State Central Committee, $5,000
01/17/2001, Indiana Republican State Central Committee, $250
11/08/2001, Friends of John Hostettler Committee, $1,000
11/08/2001, Friends of John Hostettler Committee, $1,000
07/23/2002, Chris Chocola for Congress, Inc., $1,000
11/08/2001, Cathy Keating for Congress, $1,000
04/17/2002, Brose McVey for Congress, $1,000
12/10/2001, Brose McVey for Congress, $500
09/17/2001, Brose McVey for Congress, $500
08/21/2001, RNC State Elections Committee, $2,000
07/09/2003, Friends of Dick Lugar, Inc., $2,000
07/09/2003, Friends of Dick Lugar, Inc., $1,000
11/22/2002, Friends of Dick Lugar, Inc., $1,000
07/18/2003, Bush-Cheney ’04 (Primary), Inc., $2,000
12/10/2001, Mike Pence Committee, $1,000
05/09/2001, Mike Pence Committee, $1,000
09/09/2003, Mike Pence Committee, $1,000
04/30/2003, Republican National Committee, $15,000
11/15/2001, Republican National Committee, $15,000
03/14/2000, Friends of Giuliani Exploratory Committee, $1,000
03/22/2000, Friends of John Hostettler Committee, $500
07/07/1999, Bush for President, Inc., $1,000
12/31/1999, Friends of Dick Lugar, Inc., $1,000
05/03/2000, Friends of Dick Lugar, Inc., $1,000
09/26/2000, Republican National Committee - RNC, $10,000
05/26/2000, Bush for President, Inc., $1,000
06/07/2000, Bush for President, Inc., $1,000
06/12/2000, Bush for President, Inc., $1,000 refunded
08/01/2000, Bush for President, Inc., $1,000 refunded
08/29/1997, David McIntosh for Congress, $1,000
11/17/1997, Campaign America, Inc., $5,000
05/15/1998, Campaign America, Inc., $5,000
09/22/1996, Virginia Blankenbaker for Congress, $1,000
06/09/1995, Issues ’96 (FKA Issues ’94), $5,000
04/18/1996, Lugar for President - Audit Fund, $1,000
02/01/1996, Forbes for President Committee, Inc., $1,000
02/02/1996, Lugar for President Committee Legal & Accounting Compliance Fund, $1,000
04/18/1996, Lugar for President Committee Legal & Accounting Compliance Fund, $1,000 refund
06/19/1995, Lugar for President Committee Inc., $1,000
05/11/1995, David McIntosh for Congress, $1,000
06/04/1996, David McIntosh for Congress, $1,000
08/23/1995, Indiana Republican State Central Committee, $10,000
04/15/1996, Indiana Republican State Central Committee, $500
11/12/1996, Indiana Republican State Central Committee, $5,000
04/12/1996, Republican National Committee - RNC, $5,000
7/27/1993, Friends of Dick Lugar, $500
11/15/1993, Friends of Dick Lugar, $500
11/15/1993, Friends of Dick Lugar, $1,000
12/06/1993, Indiana Republican State Central Committee, $5,000
06/25/1992, New Jersey Republican State Committee, $250
11/14/1991, Bush – Quayle ’92 Primary Committee, Inc., $1,000
08/04/1992, Bush – Quayle ’92 Primary Committee, Inc., $1,000
10/05/1988, Indiana Republican State Central Committee, $1,000
05/02/1986, Broyhill for Senate, $500

Democrats

04/12/2000, Hamilton for Congress, $500
02/03/2000, Americans for Responsible Leadership, $5,000
04/01/1991, Lautenberg Committee, $500
09/26/1987, Lautenberg Committee, $500

Multi-party PAC (68 percent to Republican candidates and parties)

06/30/1997, Eli Lilly & Company PAC, $2,750
06/30/1995, Eli Lilly & Company PAC, $2,500
06/30/1996, Eli Lilly & Company PAC, $2,500
01/25/1994, Eli Lilly & Company PAC, $1,000
12/31/1994, Eli Lilly & Company PAC, $1,000

Cheney authorized Libby's leaks

According to a new article in the National Journal , Scooter Libby claims that Cheney and other "superiors" authorized his release of classified materials to bolster the Administration's case for war in Iraq. I don't have any knowledge of classified materials procedure, but I doubt that the rules allow the release of classified information for political gain. The article goes on to say that the defense that he was "authorized by superiors" to release the materials may be an attempt to undermine the prosecution. It was a tactic used by Oliver North in Iran-Contra (one of North's lawyers is working for Scooter Libby) where authorization by superiors is claimed and the government refuses to turn over classified materials that will confirm or deny this. It also doesn't seem to work well at protecting the Administration unless the tactic gets Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney prosecuting the case, to drop all charges. If it doesn't work to that degree, it may provide support for charges that the release of classified information, and Valerie Plame is not specifically mentioned, started much higher in the Administration and that there may have been a broader cover-up and conspiracy than just Scooter Libby and Karl Rove. The article points to some doubt about whether the tactic used by North will work as well with Libby: "A defendant can make a claim that he is just a victim of Washington politics or doing the bidding for someone else," said [professor of law at Fordham University Dan] Richman, the former prosecutor, "But there may be limits to a jury's sympathy when that defendant himself was so high-ranking. Given Libby's position in the White House, the jury is less likely to view him as a sacrificial lamb than as a sacrificial ram."

Administration misled the FISA court for warrants

The Washington Post reports that the administration has used NSA wiretaps to provide probable cause when seeking warrants from the FISA court and may have neglected to include the source when getting the warrants. In addition, the presiding judges hid the NSA wiretapping program from the rest of the FISA court. According to the sources, twice in the past four years, "a top Justice Department lawyer warned the presiding judge of a secret surveillance court [the FISA court] that information overheard in President Bush's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to obtain wiretap warrants in the court". This would add to the penalties under the FISA law to include a conspiracy charge that the administration had used an illegal (and no courts have ruled that this specific program was legal and constitutional) method to obtain information presented before the FISA court. The article notes that "Both judges expressed concern to senior officials that the president's program, if ever made public and challenged in court, ran a significant risk of being declared unconstitutional". The judges on the FISA court were appointed by then-Chief Justice Rehnquist and were "generally veteran jurists with a pro-government bent " (italics added). These judges would have had little objections to requests for genuinely terrorism-related wiretaps. Between 1979 and 204, the court approved 18,748 requests and only rejected five. This article suggests a more sinister reason for the wiretaps. They may have been taken in a racially-determined fashion against Arab Americans or even against political enemies. We do not know why they were deemed to be too sensitive or the court too reluctant, and Attorney General Gonzales' testimony does not illuminate at all. We have only to assume the worst since the administration has insisted upon stonewalling any Congressional or judicial oversight on the matter. Until they come clean, the suspicions will continue to grow.

The Republicans have a Boehner

The Washington Post has an article today showing that the new majority leader in the House, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) rents his Capitol Hill apartment from a lobbyist for whom he has written favorable legislation. While Boehner pays a market rate for the apartment, his close relationship with the lobbyist, John Milne, shows his "reform" agenda for what it is: new face, same corruption.

CIA leaks

The CIA has been aggressively the leakers of some classified material but not others. The government as a whole has been a bit scattered on what leaks it investigates. While a special prosecutor was appointed to investigate the leak of the identity of Valerie Wilson, the administration has been much more aggressive investigating the leak of the NSA wiretapping program, and had already forced the NY Times from releasing the story for over a year (from around the time of the elections). There is so much more politics involved in leak prosecution than there is national security. The damage from leaking Valerie Wilson's identity was far greater than the NSA illegal warrantless wiretapping program. Our enemies knew that they were being monitored before the NY Times story (by commonsense assumption), but the so-called "rogue states" did not know that the energy consultant Valerie Plame was a CIA agent (and therefore her associates were also implicated as on the CIA budget, and in some cases killed as a result). The NSA (on the President's orders) was breaking the law and therefore the leak was a public service by several NSA employees and should be protected under the whistleblower protection laws whereas the Wilson leak was for political benefit. The administration, by ignoring the differences, is further damaging the legitimate whistleblower protections and hurting national security. All in the name of politics. What a shame.

FY 2007 Budget--Unfair, Untransparent & Irresponsible

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) issued a preliminary report on the President’s FY 2007 budget that highlights the problems and omissions of the budget. The main problem in the budget is that it makes cuts that hurt low- and middle-income Americans while proposing new tax cuts and legislation making existing tax cuts permanent, both of which are designed so they predominantly benefit the wealthy. The budget proposes cuts in federal funding for Medicare and Medicaid, guts the COPS program (which provides federal funds to increase community policing) by cutting 79 percent of its funding, and cutting many other programs that help the poor, children and the elderly. Another problem the CBPP highlights is what is omitted from the budget: projections past 2011, funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, funding for hurricane Katrina rebuilding and the cost of reforming the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Since the projections only extend until 2011 and many of the most expensive proposals the President has proposed or that has been enacted are designed to show little cost until 2011, with the bulk of the cost appearing conveniently after 2011. The CBPP writes:

Several of the additional tax cuts the Administration is proposing--including costly proposals related to health savings accounts and to retirement and lifetime savings accounts -- are designed in a way that their costs in the first five or ten years would be substantially smaller than their costs in subsequent decades, when they would lose huge amounts of revenue. The budget shows the Administration’s Health Savings Accounts proposals would cost a whopping $156 billion over ten years; the costs would be even higher in subsequent decades. Past analyses by the Congressional Research Service estimated that the Administration’s retirement and lifetime savings account proposals ultimately would cost $300 billion to $500 billion per decade (measured in today’s dollars).

On to Afghanistan, Iraq and Katrina reconstruction. The funding for the two wars have been consistently left out of the President’s budgets, as has the Katrina reconstruction in this year’s budget, with the funding paid for through supplemental appropriations. While the costs of the wars and reconstruction are not known, there is some level of funding that could be anticipated in the budget (with unexpected changes in cost picked up by supplemental appropriations). However, this would shred the President’s claim to cut the deficit in half by 2009, as would a fair accounting of the cost of AMT relief. The AMT was set up in the 1960s to make sure the super-wealthy paid some taxes, but the standard deduction was not indexed to inflation, and more and more middle-class Americans are becoming subject to the AMT and seeing their taxes increase. Currently, year-by-year, Congress passes AMT relief, but there has been no success in making a permanent solution or even incorporating the yearly AMT relief bills into the budget, despite the political necessity to pass AMT relief every year. The CBPP’s conclusion is short and straightforward:

Unfortunately, this budget fails the tests of fiscal responsibility, fairness and balance, and transparency. The nation and its policymakers can do better.

Obesity & Global Warming

This is an interesting article on obesity in The Washington Post on January 22. My first thought on the problem with obesity is how similar it is in cause and solution (and obstacles to solutions) to global warming. Both are caused, in part, by increasing economic wealth (in fact, they are interrelated, as people who drive more are more likely to be fat because they don't get enough exercise and people who are fat are going to drive more because it is difficult for them to get around by other means). The solution to them is similar too. People need to use less polluting energy sources and need to eat less fatty foods. They need to get more exercise and plant more trees. The entrenched industries for energy and food are going to resist any government action to move towards socially beneficial ends (where energy is cleaner and people are skinnier). The oil & coal (potato chip & cookie) industries are likely to be hurt in the short run if (and while) they adapt to cleaner (healthier) output. In the end, there will be new industries like wind-generated electricity and hybrid cars (and nuts and other healthier snacks, which the article said increased 21.9 percent between 2003 and 2004), but there will be a transition cost. Their is also a cost of doing nothing, but it is borne by such a wide consitutency that there is little collective power, especially compared to the industries that stand to lose from the switch to cleaner/healthier energy and food. However, with both energy and obesity, the end result of making the changes will be very beneficial to the country as a whole economically, socially and environmentally.

2007 Budget Favors Defense

The www.washingtonpost.com/... Washington Post reports that Bush's fiscal year 2007 budget will cut discretionary spending while increasing defense and homeland security funds. The proposed budget would also not include much of the funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the reconstruction in New Orleans. In addition, The White House also has decided to try again to increase passengers' security fees for air travel from $2.50 per flight for nonstop travelers to $5 This would hurt any recovery of airlines by increasing the total cost of flying. It is a tax, but the Bush rhetoric wouln't allow that, so it is always labeled as a 'fee'. I haven't seen the budget proposal or any analysis of the details yet, but it appears that Bush plans to ask for an unacceptable budget once again.

Fixing the negative savings rate

The NY Times has an editorial tomorrow about what the government and private companies can do to help people save for retirement and reduce the individual risk that are increasingly burdening workers. The savings rate for 2005 was -0.6 percent, which is the first time since 1933, in the middle of the Great Depression, when the U.S. savings rate was negative. Much of the dissaving has been caused by the recession, increased consumption financed by refinancing of mortgages. However, the record deficits caused by Bush's tax cuts, which benefited primarily the wealthy, have made the future more uncertain because of the budget deficit's relationship with the current account deficit. Both have not been seen as too much of a problem because other countries, primarily Japan and China, continue to buy American government debt. However, there is a high risk of a disorderly currency devaluation of the U.S. dollar in the short- to medium-term which will compound the problems of people saving for retirement by reducing national income and perhaps also popping the housing boom and reducing house prices significantly. Instead, the government should roll back much of Bush's tax cuts and provide more support for individuals saving for retirement and reducing the chances of a currency devaluation, which would hurt the domestic economy tremendously. The New York Times editorial sums up the general rationale for government action on increasing savings and making sure people have adequate resources when they retire: It simply makes no sense, socially or economically, for each person to increasingly bear the risks of financing old age when that risk is more efficiently borne on the much broader shoulders of Washington and corporate America. What America needs are leaders who understand that asking ordinary citizens to assume ever-greater risks is not the path to greater security.

Bush's illegal spying hurts terrorism prosecutions

The Washington Post reports that the suspect who admitted to working for Al Qaeda on a plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge should be let out of his plea bargain because he was illegally spied upon. While many Bush loyalists will claim that the harm comes from the NY Times publishing of the story that revealed the program, they are wrong. It was not the Times' responsibility that the President was very clearly violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, which explicitly prohibits wiretapping U.S. persons (defined as those on long-term visas, citizens and U.S. corporations). The cause for the plea bargain to be scrapped is the illegal behavior of the government, not the fact that the program is known. However, that's not how the Republicans will spin it. But they are liars and have been for years.

Economic struggles in 4th quarter 2005

With the disappointing growth of only 1.1 percent in the fourth quarter of last year, there were concerns about whether the economy might be slipping back to recession. The numbers on productivity and labor costs reinforces this fear with productivity falling 0.6 percent in Q4 and labor costs rising 3.5 percent. While labor costs increased 3.5 percent, it is doubtful whether wages kept up with this pace, especially when looking at real wages. Hopefully this is a blip, but without effective counter-cyclical economic policy from the Bush administration over the past 5 years and with a growing housing bubble and large federal deficit, current account deficit and a negative savings rate (the first since 1933) the signs are worrying.

Kenyan finance minister resigns, VP refuses to

The fallout from the many scandals in the Kenyan government are just beginning with the resignation of the finance minister over a contracts scandal. In the scandal, the government gave lucrative contracts to a non-existing company in England, the Anglo Leasing Company. Reuters describes the scheme as:

Under the Anglo Leasing scandal, government money was paid to a shadowy foreign company for services supposedly including forgery-proof passports, navy ships and forensic laboratories.

For a government elected in 2002 pledging to end corruption, this scandal and the $1 billion Goldenberg scandal, which involved the bogus export of gold and diamonds and started under Moi, are not a very good record. The resignations are not and should not be over.

Free speech

There has been a lot of criticism of the Danish newspaper that published cartoons depicting Mohammed as a terrorist sporting a turban-bomb and it is probably offensive to most Muslims. However, it should be protected under the freedom of the press (which exists in much of Europe as well as in America). The State Department spokesman made the following comments:

"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."

It is true that the cartoons are offensive but what are they referring to as "press responsibility"? First, I don't think that the cartoons pose enough of a threat of inciting violence (most of the violence has been in response and opposition to them). But the main message of the State Department is urging subtle press censorship, that of self-censorship. This is no better than explicit government censorship. The State Department's statement is remarkably close to a statement by Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister of Turkey, described in the Financial Times today (p.3) as:

Tayyip Erdogan, prime minister of Turkey, a European Union candidate country, deemed the cartoons an "attack of our spiritual values", and called for a limit to press freedom.

This is a huge threat to any country with freedom of the press because it provides easy cover for restricting the freedom of the press under the guise of limiting disrespect to religion. Every religion can be satirized in the press as long as it doesn't advocate or incite violence. Any move away from this principle is damaging to press freedom and democracy.

Update on Kansas' law banning sex

There is a good piece in Slate by Dahlia Lithwick on the Kansas law and how it boils down to forcing abortion clinics to disclose records and possibly even keep fetal tissue from abortions performed on girls under age 14. Kansas is a wack state and they seem intent on proving this as often as possible.

Getting the Patriot Act renewal right

Today, Congress renewed the Patriot Act for another month while the full renewal is debated. The Act would have lapsed tomorrow. It is good that, in the absence of agreement on how to renew the Patriot Act, while addressing very valid concerns about infringment of civil liberties by the few proposals that are controversial. Forcing a comprehensive review of the Patriot Act so that it does not trample personal liberties is one of the Democrats few victories in Congress.

Enron trial

It will be interesting to see what happens in the Enron trials where prosecutors are trying to get Jeffrey Skilling and Kenneth Lay (a.k.a. Kenny Boy, to Bush) on conspiracy charges. While the delay since the company collapsed in December 2001 has been difficult not to attribute to political interference, the Economist reports that much of the testimony in the upcoming trial has been obtained (much in the way the Abramoff investigation will head) through plea bargains with lesser employees of Enron involved in the outright fraud that netted Lay and Skilling millions at the expense of the employees and shareholders of Enron. While it is anything but sure whether they will be found guilty, I sure hope they are.

Hamas & Peace

I have not blogged much about the election of a majority of Hamas representatives to the Palastinian Authority because I don't really have a firm idea of what to make of it. What I have realized is that despite the benefits of spreading democracy, there are consequences when external events (like the American occupation of Iraq) are present, as one or another almost certainly will. The Bush plan to win over the world from extremists through democracy is bankrupt. With the election of Hamas, as well as the triumph of extremists in Iran (Ahmadinejad) and the Shia-fundamentalist group UIA in Iraq, as well as the strong showing for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (and the continued presence of Hezbollah in the Lebanese government), democracy alone will not solve the problem of extremism. In fact, it may create new problems. The rise of Islamic fundamentalist parties throughout the Middle East is more of a reaction to the corrupt, authoritarian groups that maintain power throughout the region, including in the occupied Palestinian territories. Hamas could benefit the PA if the West is willing to work with them and on the condition that they do no attack Israel. I have no particularly favorable view of the Israeli government. I think it has used the terrorist attacks against it to undermine its future security by occupying the West Bank and (until recently) the Gaza Strip. I also dislike political parties with armies and therefore am suspicious of Hamas as a political organization. However, cutting off aid would just embolden the more radical elements of the group without providing any more security for Israelis. A more realistic option would be to negotiate a continuation of aid linked to the Hamas cease-fire, and cut off direct aid to the PA if there is a continuation in the violence against Israel. That would provide Hamas with the cash needed to operate in the short term and keep a bargaining chip to keep them in the peace process. While Bush seems content to cut off aid with a government of 'terrorists', it would be in America and Israel's interest to not cut off aid until Hamas rejects a ceasefire. To do otherwise would be to provide justification for the more radical parts of Hamas who want to attack Israel (and probably also the U.S.).

The execution of the mentally ill should end

There is an interesting report by Amnesty International advocating the end of capital punishment for the seriously mentally ill. Whatever one's perspective on the death penalty--I consider it barbaric in all situations--the execution of those who do not have the mental capacity to aid in their own defense or even understand the seriousness of what is happening to them should stop. Often they will end their own appeals with no idea that it will lead to their death. The Amnesty report ends:

For the USA to be pursuing this premeditated ritualistic killing in the 21st century against offenders suffering from serious mental illness is particularly offensive to widely held standards of decency.