The Citizens

Bell Curve

The Law Talking Guy

Raised by Republicans

U.S. West

Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Insufficient, Inadequate, and Insulting

NY Times reports that the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate judiciary committee--Sens. Specter and Leahy--have sent a letter to Harriett Miers asking her to resubmit her questionnaire, because (among other things) members of the committee have found her answers to be, "insufficient," "inadequate," and even, "insulting."

Ouch!

I suspect Miers and Bush believe that her confirmation by the full Senate is a foregone conclusion--and thanks to Sen. Frist's repeated calls for "up or down votes" on all of Bush's nominees this past summer, I'm guessing the full Senate will get to vote regardless of what the committee does. So to Miers and Bush, it is these hearings by the Senate's judiciary committee that must seem insufficient, inadequate, and insulting.

Sen. Specter has scheduled the hearings to begin on Nov. 7th. If this letter is any harbinger of what is to come, Ms. Miers is in for the "Clarence Thomas" treatment.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

What a Judge Should Sound Like

Hi All,

Today's News Hour on PBS had a story on Arlen Specter's continuing frustration with both Meiers herself, her critics in the Religious Right and her supporters in the White House. Apparently, Meiers has annoyed just about the entire Senate Judiciary Committee with her contradictory, incomplete and "insulting" answers to a questionnaire they sent her to prepare for the confirmation hearings.

In contrast they also had an interview with current Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. I disagree with some of his rulings and I found his split ruling on religious monuments on government property to be absurdly contradictory. However, his explanation of his position was at least thoughtful and eloquent. One thing it wasn't was "incomplete" or "insulting." I really have to ask if Meiers is really qualified to be a judge. We are at the point where we may need to ask, is the country better off with an obvious incompetent on the Court or with a raving ideologue? I suspect the US Supreme Court has survived both in greater number than we'd like to admit.

Still, I'd like to hear what you all think about it.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

More on California's Special Election and Labor

Proposition 75 is a proposition called "paycheck protection." What it means is that a labor union may not use dues for political purposes without the express consent of each member. This proposition is limited to public employee unions only. Every time I see such a proposition, I wonder why a corporation can use money for political purposes without each employee's consent. But here, it's a public employee union, so that issue of 'balance' is a bit diminished. We're talking about prison guards, cops, firemen, and teachers. 'Specially teachers. Anyone without a tin ear for politics knows that this is Schwarzenegger hitting at his political enemies. It's about as brazen a move as prohibiting donations to any campaign of any person who once used steroids. I would support that, the anti-Schwarzenegger, anti-Barry-Bonds initiative. But I digress.

There is a real danger Proposition 75 will pass, singling out these unions for political impotence (many of which already lack the right to strike).

My larger beef is that labor unions aren't going about promoting propositions of their own, such as ones prohibiting corporations from making political contributions altogether. A corporation is supposed to make money, not indulge the personal political desires of the directors. As a matter of corporate law, then, it would follow that spending money on politics is just an improper use of corporate funds... unless the corporation "gets" something for its contribution that is good for business. Of course, that is exactly what happens, and why it should be banned.

There is no reason why the initiative process must be the tool of the right alone, but for laziness. Will Change To Win change this?

Two Russian Items

Hi All,

One of the principle architects of Gorbachev's Perestroika policy, Alexander Yakovlev, has died at the age of 81. Perestroika was a great development in World Politics. The Soviet leaders (Gorbachev, Yakovlev and others) had a choice of how to respond to the rapid economic decline their state dominated economy had imposed on their people. Many at the time expected the Soviets to be increasingly bellicose (Tom Clancy even wrote a book about a desperate USSR lashing out at NATO in its death throws). Others (like Henry Kissinger and Condy Rice) thought the USSR would continue on more or less as it always had. But Gorbachev and Yakovlev had other plans and we are all the beneficiaries!

Back to today. Recently, Norwegian fishery inspectors boarded a Russian ship that was fishing in waters near the Norwegian Spitzbergen Islands and ordered it to head to a Norwegian port for a full inspection. On its way to Norway the Russian ship suddenly changed course, kidnapping the two Norwegian officials who were trapped aboard and headed for Russian waters hundreds of miles away. Norwegian coast guard ships gave chase and have attempted to snag the Russian ship's screws to stop it. Russian officials say they are cooperating. But not only are Russian not cooperating, they are sending their own naval units to intercept the Norwegian ships and prevent them from enforcing Norwegian law. Our Scandinavian visitors will probably be reminded of Soviet naval incursions into Swedish home waters, or Communist bloc naval vessels terrorizing Danish fishing ships operating in international waters in the Baltic. One is tempted to wonder what the Russian word for "pirate" is.

Monday, October 17, 2005

Euro Reality Check

Hi Folks,

Danish papers announced today that Denmark had a budget surplus of 2.3% of its GDP. Among EU Member States, 5 countries had budget surpluses: Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Ireland and Estonia. This is the reality check part. When they talk about Europe, especially Scandinavia, Americans get images of "socialist" countries with bloated governments and slow growth. And yet here we have evidence that the so-called "Socialist" countries in Scandinavia are more fiscally responsible in a traditional sense than the supposedly conservative administration we have in the USA.

The Europeans get a reality check too. 10 countries failed to meet the EU requirements for low deficits. Notable among those are Germany, France, Italy, and Greece. France, Italy and Greece were governed by right wing governments last year.

Bush and the Republicans are fond of saying that the Democrats want to make American politics more European. I would say that given our own country's economic indicators that Bush is the one who has Europeanized American politics. Bush runs the US like a European from the corporatist (i.e. not capitalist) right. The Republicans don't respect the market, they respect their constituents - monopolistic industrial interests like Big Oil, Big Electricity and Big Pharmaceuticals. Market forces scare monopolists because when markets are healthy monopolies can't survive long. The Republicans aren't the party they were 20 years ago. They are more like the Italian right wing populists (Berlusconi's group) or the French and Greek Gaullists/Nationalists. Bush also has strong ideological similarities with the Bavarian Christian Social Union.

Comments?

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Special Election

Let's kick off our coverage of the Nov. 8th California special election here on The Citizens.

First off, here's a handy guide to what several groups are recommending. But I'm more interested in hearing what the members or guests of The Citizens think...

So leave a comment below!

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

A Grand Day Out

On October 15, 2003 (almost two years ago to the day), Lt. Col Yang Liwei became the first "Taikonaut" as the Chinese launched their first manned spacecraft, Shenzhou V. The craft orbited for 20 hours and returned safely. Today, China successfully launched their second (imaginatively named Shenzhou VI). It will carry its two new Taikonauts in low Earth orbit for 5 days.

China's stated goal for its manned program is to build a space station and put a man on the moon by 2010. Meanwhile, according to a Guardian article earlier this year, Japan intends to put a robotic spacecraft on the moon by 2010, and hopes to have developed the technology for a manned moon mission by 2015. Meanwhile, NASA announced on Sept. 17th of this year a $104 Billion dollar program over the next 13 years to put a man on the moon again in 2018, starting with robotic spacecraft landings in 2008-09 timeframe.

According to an NY Times article, one PRC state television commentator speculated that, "America's strategy is to lure China into a space race, and to drain China's resources so it will collapse, without a war." But another added, "This is not a competition. There is great commercial potential on the moon."

China continues to insist its interests in space are peaceful and that there is no space race. But the more they deny, the more suspicious I become. And what's this with China speaking of the commercial potential of our moon? Do they know something we don't? Laugh all you want about the Chinese space program being 40 years behind America's... looks like they're catching up fast because we didn't capitalize on it. While our space shuttle fleet is all but grounded, China is marching ahead, and Japan is putting together its own resuable spacecraft. By the time NASA gets us there again, there could be a permanent Chinese presence on the moon. And there could be several more flags.

The moon race is on. Again. And this time, my friends, we're behind.

Fun stuff

If you haven't seen the new Harriet Miers blog, you should really check it out ...

And yes, it's a parody.

Robin Hood in Reverse. Again.

Bush's Tax Advisory Panel is a disaster in the making. Their stated purpose is to come up with a revenue neutral (the time period is not specified) plan to:

(a) simplify Federal tax laws to reduce the costs and administrative burdens of compliance with such laws; (b) share the burdens and benefits of the Federal tax structure in an appropriately progressive manner while recognizing the importance of homeownership and charity in American society; and (c) promote long-run economic growth and job creation, and better encourage work effort, saving, and investment, so as to strengthen the competitiveness of the United States in the global marketplace.

According to the NY Times, the Panel has concluded that a consumption tax (sales or VAT) is a bad idea. Apparently, if they exempted food, education, and medicine, they'd need a sales tax rate of about 87%. Instead, the panel is focusing on reforming the federal income tax. (While a proposal for a "flat tax" is still possible, apparently the panel is unlikely to come to much of a consensus on that.) The only thing they have agreed on so far is that their proposal (originally due out in July, now pushed back to November) will feature the following tax cut:

1. They will eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax entirely. This will cost $1.2 Trillion over 10 years.

This sounds great, especially if you're at the upper end of the tax ladder. And more rungs are being eaten up by the AMT every year. According to Forbes, 2.3 million people paid the AMT for the 2003 tax year, 13 million are expected to do so for 2005, and 33 million by 2010. The big question, though, is how they are going to pay for it. That's where the "Oh My God..." moment comes in. The proposals under consideration are:

A. Lower the mortage deduction ceiling from $1 million down to about $300,000.
B. Reduce the mortage deduction from 35% of interest payments down to 25% or 15%.
C. Limit tax-free health insurance premiums to $11,000/year or below (as opposed to the current system where employers can deduct every penny, and employees are not taxed on the premiums.)
D. Limit the ability to deduct state and local income taxes from the Federal income tax.

Are they insane? It would be hard to think up a set of proposals that would hurt ordinary Americans more. Here's a better idea: abolish the AMT and pay for it by closing tax loopholes and creating a higher income tax bracket rate for the millionaires for whom the AMT was originally invented. There is an extensive, if somewhat biased discussion of the AMT at this House of Representatives website.

You know, I almost wish Bush would endorse these proposals. That might ensure the Democrats retake the White House in 2008.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Social Security E-mail

One of our frequent visitors, Siddharthawolf, recently received an e-mail with the following questions and some answers:

Q1: Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

Q2: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

Q3: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?

Q4: Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?

Q5: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

The e-mail then gives answers that blame the Democrats for all of these things, as you might guess.

Don't be fooled! The real answers can be found on The Social Security Administration's Website. If you have received this e-mail, write back to the person who sent it to you, and tell them that you have found the definitive answers to these questions.

And if a Nigerian businessman wants to transfer several million dollars to your bank account, you might want to view that with a certain degree of skepticism.

Monday, October 10, 2005

Oil Giveaway Backlash?

Hi Gang,

Here are some poll numbers from Pollingreport.com (see link to the right) regarding the high gas prices. Some highlights are:
64% of respondents say they are driving less.
61% of respondents think prices will increase in the near future.
61% of respondents say the gas prices are imposing financial hardship on their households.
49% of respondents think our top priority should be to encourage conservation compared to 37% who favor more production.
50% think that Bush wants more production compared to 36% who think he will encourage conservation.
79% of respondents think that oil companies are to blame "some" or "a lot" for the high prices.

In that context, the Republicans' recent energy bills (which include lots of new drilling, very little in the way of conservation or alternative fuels and massive subsidies to oil companies) are ripe for exploitation by the Democrats.

The Doctor is IN

Angela Merkel of the Christian Democrats will be the next Chancellor of Germany. The Socialists and Christian Democrats have agreed to a power-sharing "grand coalition" and Schroder is stepping down. (In exchange, most of the Cabinet posts--including foreign affairs--will be occupied by the Socialists.) Quite a phenomenal rise to power for a private, shy woman who was a quantum physicist back in communist East Germany. It's hard to conceive of such a candidate triumphing in America. She has proven that she can persevere to win at the game of politics. Time will tell if she can lead a nation.

Friday, October 07, 2005

The Looting Continues

A Texas Republican has introduced a refinery construction bill in the House of Representatives that would give incentives to the petroleum industry to develop more refining capacity. This bill also re-introduces a number of anti-environmental provisions that were dropped from the original "National Energy Strategy" that the Bush Administration finally pushed through last month, after 4 years of trying.

NY Times says the new legislation, "would give regions downwind of polluted areas more time to comply with national standards on ozone levels and would limit the government's ability to prosecute utilities or refineries if they make plant changes that increase their overall emissions of pollutants." NY Atty. Gen. Spitzer (and 8 other State AGs) say bluntly that it would, "eviscerate protections of the Clean Air Act."

Once again, the Republicans are trying to exploit a national tragedy (this time Hurricane Katrina) in a cynical move to line their own pockets. Everyone knows that the so-called National Energy "Strategy" last month was nothing but a bunch of giveaways to Republican corporate donors. And now that they have another chance to try to sneak it in, why not let them all off the hook for their pollution as well? I guess the Republicans figure that the hurricanes already made such good progress in destroying the environment on the Gulf Coast that we might as well finish the job.

The pretext for this insidious little bill is that the nation sorely needs to incentivize the petroleum industry in America to increase its refining capacity. What a load of crap! What more incentive does the petroleum industry need beyond $3.00/gallon?! Does throwing more money at the price-gougers really make sense to anyone except a Texas oilman? If they really want to help solve the energy crisis, how about giving us a bill that incentivizes the automotive industry and the public utilities to end their dependence on petroleum altogether!

Bush Claiming Prophet Status Again

Hi Everyone,

Many in this country both on the right and the left believe that belief in God should be a necessary requirement for holding public office. Well, you get what you ask for I guess. And here is what you asked for. A God fearing, devout lunatic. Bush told Palestinian delegates that God told him to invade Iraq and establish a Palestinian state. The White House now denies he said such a thing but remember Woodward's reports that Bush had nearly said as much to him?

Did Mr. Bush ask his father for any advice? '“I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, '‘Well, no,'’ and then he got defensive about it, 'says Woodward. '“Then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, '‘He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.' And then he said, '‘There's a higher Father that I appeal to.'’"

Bush says he doesn't use God to justify the war. But he makes such a grand point of saying he asked God for advice about going to war that one wonders if he's being completely honest with himself or us. Friends I ask you. Wouldn't you rather have a level headed atheist?

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Senate Votes 90-9 to Improve Treatment in Military Prisons

Friends! Is Democracy fighting back? Is Liberty reasserting itself?

The Senate voted by a vote of 90-9 to impose stricter limits on the treatment of detainees in US Military Prisons. The measure is a rider added by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to the enormous DOD spending bill. This was added despite warnings from the President that he would veto the bill. Here is the CNN.Com article. The White House is saying Bush will be giving a "major speech" about it soon.

If Bush vetoes this bill his first veto of his Presidency will be declared to defend torture. Think about that. Think about it twice if you ever voted for this man.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Whaaaaa?

This just came out of left field.

LTG and I have been talking about how the Bible cannot be taken literally for a while now. But I have a very hard time believing that the Catholic Church came out and said as much. Good for them. Read the article, and note this part:

They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.

“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”

I'm impressed.

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Military Response for the Flu?

Hi All,

A week or so ago I commented on this blog that I was concerned that the Bush administration seemed to be ensuring that the only federal agency that could do anything effectively was the military. Having accomplished that they want the military to take over everything from disaster relief to law enforcement and now Bush is suggesting that if the Bird Flu hits the US, it may require a military response. Wouldn't it be easier to cancel the highway bill pork fest and pay for the vaccine!? But why prepare when an "unforeseen" disaster would be an excuse to put the US military out on the streets nation wide! Medical professionals have been ringing the alarm bell about this flu for a couple of years now. They are comparing its potential to kill with the influenza pandemic in 1918. And now there are reports that it has mutated in exactly the way it needed to start a pandemic!

OK, that was a lot of links. But it's a complicated issue about which we've said little on this blog.

Comments?

Yup.

This diary on Daily Kos, I think, hits the nail right on the head. Check it out, report back here and leave a comment.

Monday, October 03, 2005

Loyal Lackey Rewarded with Plum Appointment

President Bush's decision to appoint personal counsel and long-time yes-woman Harriett Miers to the Supreme Court is another example of his leadership style: acquaintances get minor, ceremonial posts like FEMA chief, while good friends get the juicy jobs that really jazz up the resumé. It's an old tradition that goes back at least to Andrew Jackson, "To the victor belongs the spoils." I suppose we should be grateful that at least she has some excellent legal credentials, even if she brings no judicial experience to the table.

What does she think about abortion, gay rights, gun control, separation of church and state, and assisted suicide? What is her view on federalism, and to which constitutional schools of thought does she subscribe? I don't know if Mr. Bush really even cares. According to Political Moneyline, she contributed money to Gore and Bentsen in '88 (later, of course, she contributed heavily to Bush.) She's not a conservative ideologue; she's just someone who finally found the right horse to back.

Bush said he consulted with "80 Senators," but according to the NY Times, Democratic Senators complained that the conversations lasted about five minutes and were consultations "in name only." But get this: apparently it was White House Counsel Ms. Miers herself who called some of the Senators to "consult" with them. Did Bush ask her to make those calls as one last practical joke on her? The man loves to smirk at everyone.

Should the Senate confirm her nomination? In a perfect world, no. But in the real world, yes. Because if they don't, Bush will nominate a highly qualified Scalia-clone--that's the unspoken threat: give my girl a good job or I'll send in the Enforcer. So unless we discover that she has a hidden agenda, the Senate might as well confirm her and move on.

Because I'd rather have an opportunist than an ideologue on the bench any day.

Sunday, October 02, 2005

A Comment On Schwarzenegger

Hi Everyone,

This LA Times article about Governor Schwarzenegger describes the Governor's grab bag of policies and concludes (based on analysis from a respected Political Scientist) that Schwarzenegger is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. However, I read the story (combined with other things I know about the Governor) and came to nearly the opposite conclusion. Schwarzenegger is socially conservative/populist and fiscally liberal. Here is why I think that.

Indicative Schwarzenegger social policy positions:
1) Anti-equality re: marriage for homosexuals
2) Pro-vigilante re: illegal immigration in the desert
3) Refusal to repeal recent tax cuts (this is often seen as exclusively "fiscal" policy but really tax code structure is a social policy too)
4) Education at all levels is cut heavily (K-12, community colleges, Cal State system and UC system)

Indicative Schwarzenegger fiscal policy positions:
1) Budgets are not balanced but are made to appear so by heavy borrowing
2) Spending on favored constituencies goes up despite little demonstrable benefit to broader society (I'm talking about the governor's slavish devotion to the Prison Guards Union and the prison industry)
3) Refusal to repeal recent tax cuts (to the extent that they affect revenue, they are fiscal policy).

Schwarzenegger frequently claims to be a leader that transcends partisan identity. "I represent all the people" or "What California needs is a single strong leader for all the people" or similar comments are common from the governor. These are NOT encouraging. Such claims to personalized legitimacy is the foundation of populist/fascist ideologies not democratic politics. Corporatist populism is a common ideological position in Austria. Schwarzenegger fits in that tradition far more than he fits with the socially liberal Californians who just want their budget balanced!

Comments? Alternative Perspectives?

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)