If W's Right, I don't wanna be wrong

President Bush vetoed the new farm bill.

I'm officially giving our President an "atta boy."

Unfortunately it looks like there's enough graft votes in congress to override it.

UPDATE: Looks like America's most inept party can't even do an overwhelming veto right. Looks like congress sent W an incomplete bill, meaning Congress can't override his veto with the correct bill because W didn't review it. Ineptitude thy name is Democrat. Anyway, while the bill will still most likely pass, there's is now time to hope that the White House can kill this thing.

W's Prom Nightmare

So President Bush put out on prom night, but the Sheik stood him up on pumping more oil. Poor, poor, W. At least he wasn't wearing a tux from the Miami Vice collection.

But here's where I'm confused. The Saudi's say that there's not enough demand to warrant oil increases, and that they are meeting the needs of their customers.

But W says he understands that the Saudi's can't increase production because he,

acknowledges that raising output is difficult because the demand for oil—particularly from China and India—is stretching supplies.

But if there's not enough demand to warrant an increase, how are China and India sucking up all the supply? Doesn't the increased demand from China and India constitute "more demand?"

Next, aren't we customers? What about the need to meet our demand? My understanding is that the US is the largest oil consumer on the planet. If our President is asking "please sir, may I have some more?" isn't that a customer asking for more?

Here's my take. On the first point, the President, after running on a platform that included the message that he would "jawbone" the Saudi's into more production as President way back when oil was at $28/barrel, he blew it. So he was looking for cover and the Saudi's just declined to give him any. Maybe W's a sloppy kisser?

On the second, it shows why its a bad idea to have the President insert himself into an economic issue. Saudi's "customer's" are the oil importers/refiners/distributors etc, not us. Exxon and the gang are doing fine, and since we're still buying gas, so are we. It's beneath the President to beg for more oil. Let the market figure it out.

Bush Calls Defese Sec. Gates a "Wuss."

I'm sure you've all heard about Bush going to Israel and mocking those who want to talk to Iran (the Nazi's in this little analogy-always classy).

Honestly, OK, cool. If you think talking is a bad move, you're the President, you're the chief diplomat so that's your call. But you would think you would get your cabinet on board before you go about running them under the bus.

Since the White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said that it wasn't talking about Obama,

there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president... thinks that we should not talk to".

"I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you," she added.

"That is not always true. And it is not true in this case.

So, if it's not Obama who could be included in the nameless masses that W was referring?

Could it have really been a way to attack Defense Secretary Robert Gates? After all, Gates was on record the day before saying we need to engage Iran in talks. Maybe this was W's way of chastising his Secretary of Defense. I mean what good is a Secretary of Defense who's an appeaser?

What about McCain? McCain also mocks Obama for wanting to talk. From Yahoo!

Meanwhile, in Columbus, Ohio, McCain said he took the White House at its word, but then he weighed into the spat himself, saying: "This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?"

Asked if Obama was an appeaser, McCain said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and added that Obama's position was a serious error. "It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?"

Excellent point. What kind of a jackass thinks its a good idea to talk (Gates) and more importantly for the American people, what kind of jackass would support that jackass? Not John McCain, that's for sure. Wait, what? McCain voted to confirm Gates? Well, surely it was reluctant. Let's look at the transcripts from the hearing.

MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Gates, thank you for your willingness to serve this nation again. We're very grateful. We know you left a very comfortable life in Texas to serve this nation again, and we are grateful. And I would like to offer my congratulations and condolences for your appointment.

MCCAIN: ...I wish you every success. I know that all of us on this committee and in this country have nothing but the interests of our nation's security and the men and women who serve it as our highest priority.

And I hope you will help us gain consensus so that, as a nation, we can move forward and make sure that the American people are not subjected to more sacrifice as a result of the failures that we've experienced in the past in this conflict.

And again, I thank you for serving, Doctor.

Hmmm, well that doesn't look good. I guess McCain will be calling for national attention on why the Secretary of Defense wants to sit down with terrorists. I imagine he'll be calling for W to fire Gates for beings such a stupid sissy. I'll be right here waiting...

Leftist Biased Pentagon Report on Iraq/Al Qiada Released

A Pentagon report finds, and I'll paraphrase here, none, zero, zip, nada, el nolo, links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida.

So the question is, when the Admin was touting all this "evidence" about a link, what were they looking at? What were they seeing? What were they touting?

Assuming no duplicitiousnessity, I just don't see how this report can do anything other than show that this is the most inept administration...potentially ever. At least with some of the past harmful Presidents they were at least corrupt. So they were at least competent in their goals, dishonest, but competent. If you believe that this administration is honest, then you have to go with "honest, but unimaginably, stupendously harmfully, epically incompetently, historically...bad."

As always, I don't point this out with any glee. This is the President of my country. I expect some basic level of competency. I would have fired this guy as my mani/pedi guy years ago, and he's the leader of my country.

If only a book had warned us about this type of stuff. Maybe one about animals. Maybe living on a farm.

In the "you can't make this stuff up" category of the George Bush Presidency, I submit the following.

Talking via videoconference to a group of military and civilian personnel, our own Berkshire Boar says,

I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."

"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.

Holy Schmoley! Looks like Squealer is working for Bush, I mean, Napoleon himself could not have shown more gusto.

Isn't this the same President Bush who famously went AWOL during the Vietnam War? The same one who has no record of ever even showing up for duty? I guess maybe protecting Texas isn't that "romantic." How, seriously, HOW can Bush stand there and say that? I honestly think he's been playing with his action figure too much. To his comment, "If I were slightly younger and not employed here..." I would add, "and living in a fantasy world where I didn't avoid Vietnam, go AWOL from the National Guard and party hard while other suckers were fighting and dying, a little place I like to call, 'Where what my spin team tells me about myself is real,' I think it would be a fantastic experience..."

How can he stand there in front of actual soldiers, knowing his own history, and say "Man, I wish I was a young man again, I'd be right there with you." This is like Bill Clinton talking to a group of monks and saying, "Hey, if I was a young man again, wow, I'd totally join you guys. Celibacy gives you so much clarity, so much time. A life of honorable, humble, dignity is just so pure. I'm envious. How exciting, I wish I could join you. But I can't soooooo, thanks for that."

I Am Sub-Prime

The sub-prime meltdown and the ensuing tsk-tsk's started me thinking (good thing I had my Excedrin handy, thinking always gives me a headache). The general attitude seems to be "well, the borrowers should have known better" and, "obviously, borrowers should have known that those rates weren't forever" or even, "you simply cannot get a house for free."

OK, I hear and understand all of the above. But here's the thing. In a very real way, we are all sub-prime borrowers. Not because of any fallout regarding mortgages. Nope, not that simple. We're all involved because we, as voters, have all bought into the GOP notion that "deficits don't matter." (Well not all Americans. H-Blog readers are well aware of that this GOP notion is utter nonsense-quick examples here, here, here, and here. Two, four, six, eight, who do we appreciate? H-blog, H-blog, yaaaaaaaay H-blog!).

For example, when we fund a multi-gazillion dollar war solely on debt, we're signing on the "no money down" line of our nations mortgage loan.

When we continue to borrow, and assume that we will aways grow our way out of our debt payments, we're committing the "I'll always get raises to cover my spending" mistake that leads to taking on more debt than our nation's household can reasonably sustain.

When we continue to borrow thinking that we can always get others to finance our spending, we're committing the "Las Vegas homes will always go up in value" mistake of the real estate speculator who does OK in good times but goes busted in bad.

So before anyone gets too high and mighty on those who are going busted in sub-prime, I suggest taking a good long look in the mirror. By default, you're in just as deep (I say deeper) and you've fallen for the same "it will all work out, sign here" scam as those who bought their house with too much leverage. You bought the same, "it will cost you nothing" argument, the same, "you can always make the payments" argument, and the same, "someone will aways be there to buy it at a profit argument" argument. In the end, you accepted the same, "it all makes sense in the math, just sign here" argument. Why? Because you really didn't understand the math, because you trusted "experts" who were conflicted because they were profiting on our signature, and most importantly, because we wanted to. So show a little sympathy for the busted homeowners. You're heading in the same direction.

Bush's real, lasting, legacy will be that of the mortgage broker who got the nation to sign away the house.

When One Head is Better Than 50

Continuing my trek through the Bizzaro World that is the modern two party system, I stumbled upon this quote from allegedly Republican President George Bush regarding how the US should deal with greenhouse gasses.

The question is how to have an effective strategy. Is it more effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing greenhouse gases? Or is it more effective to have a national strategy?

Funny, I thought Republican's believed that the Great American Experiment was having 50 states trying 50 things and seeing what works best. Yes, yes McGinty you're probably right. W was trying to help the GOP distance itself from that well known disgrace Ronald Reagan who famously catered to the KKK when he made a speech referencing "States Rights." Whew. Now that the GOP is in danger of losing the White House, I guess it makes sense to try to out Democrat (another slur) the Democrats and get as far as possible from the RR (Granted, some might say that W already took the long walk off that short pier). Talk about two hearts living in just one mind. Just one mind, just one mind. Good to know that the Republic is dead, long live whoever holds the keys to the Federal Offices. Well, unless you're not quite born, then its all about giving the States the right to choose (see below).

Honestly, I have no idea what's the right thing to do with these gasses. For all I know, maybe we need more of them. I mean, isn't everyone always complaining about the lack of gas in America? Maybe W has a crazy solution to both problems. However, if the good people of California want to ignore the mad genius that is W and desire a tougher standard than the national one, I say let 'em. Then we can all see how it works out for them.

Now for some irresistible quick hits.

One, hearing W talk sincerely about the need for effective strategy is like hearing Brittney Spears talk sincerely about the need for effective family values.

Two, isn't W the same guy who says that the best way to handle the abortion issue is to let each state decide what's best for its citizens? Sooooooo, if you're keeping track at home (and if you're reading this blog you probably are, heck right now I'm in my jammies), that means that according to W, the need to protect the environment demands a sound national strategy, while the need to protect unborn children specifically doesn't require a sound national strategy. And I thought Gore was the one who was over the top on Global Warming. Poor Stalin. What to do when your hero W tries to out Gore Gore. Now that's...gory (ohhhhhhh, even I'm embarrassed by that one).

Three, I was trying to find a way to work C&C Music Factory's "Things That Make You Go Hmmm" into this post. But I was honestly embarrassed by the opening verse.

I was at the crib, sittin' by the fireplace
Drinkin' cocoa on the bear skin rug.

This is a rap song mind you, and this guy is boasting about sitting by the fireplace drinking hot chocolate on a bear skin rug. And you thought Barry Manilow songs were gay.

You see your Gypsy

In the "why can't I just just catch a break" category, W goes to Albania, gets treated like a rock star, get not one, not two, but three stamps issued in his honor, but somewhere in the adoring crowd of gypsies, tramps and thieves, a particularly guts person stole his watch. Why someone didn't say, "Hey Mr President, how 'bout you slip off that watch before you plunge into the crowd," is really the big mystery.

On the other hand, somewhere a new Gypsy King was crowned. If you stole the watch of the President of the United States, you have to move up the latter. Right? Plus, isn't that watch almost invaluable as a family asset? Can't you see for generations the watch displayed in a glass case above the fireplace, "Ahhhh, the watch that your great-great grandfather stole from the President of the United States. Someday that will be yours."

I don't know much about gypsies, for deeper analysis I turn to one Mr Stalin Malone. Now he knows gypsies. I still remember the day he successfully negotiated to buy a $5 t-shirt for $20 at the ruins of the Berlin Wall, and later gave a strange gypsy a pull of his Coke in the Czech Republic. Maybe this explains the unbreakable bond between W and Stalin, both are Gypsy Masters.

Polls and market speak, W's value is dowwwwn.

The latest AP poll shows W again at his all time low with a 32% approval, which is also in line with his Hydrablog number. This alone isn't big or breaking news. Breaking it down, he has a 70% number with Republicans, a 25% number with Independents, and an 8 (yes 8) with Democrats.

Polls may lie, but markets rarely do. Take a look at this article. It implies that W's value in the market has declined from $25,000 for a photo to $5,000 in New Jersey. As a side note, I would love to see some real tracking on the value of photo ops with politicians and how much of an indicator that price is as for popularity and/or predictive of winning.

Combined, my bet is that you will see the current crop of GOP hopefuls start to really distance themselves, and eventually turn outright on W. While a 70 number is high in the GOP, you can't win with 25 and 8 for the other groups. A candidate needs Independents and Democrats to win, even if that means sacrificing some of the 70. You got a hint of this during the last GOP debate. My bet is that the candidates are crunching the data to see how their various methods of distancing themselves, and taking tentative jabs at W went. If it's not killing them, they will keep ramping up efforts on distance and jabs until its full out. The goal will be to trade one person from the 70 for three or more from the Independents and Democrats.

Bottom line...W's hurting. He's like wounded piranha, and the rest of the GOP piranha school is poised to devour him.

Bush says market is wrong

A small meat packer is looking to test all of its meat for Mad Cow disease. Creekstone Farms Premium Beef wants to test all of its cows and then advertise their meat as "safe." Great idea. The market, both domestic and foreign is concerned with Mad Cow disease (or at least Creekstone feels that it is), and Creekstone is going to use the same test that feds use (only the feds test about 1% of all meat).

This is great. Everyone complains about lousy FDA standards and testing, and here a private company is stepping up to provide the service. In essence, the private sector wants to take on a government service. Awesome. They take the risk, if they cannot pass on the cost, or are wrong about the markets desire for this information, they take the hit, if they're right, they get the reward (but probably short lived. If Creekstone is right, other companies would quickly follow, but again, that's on Creekstone). Plus, they're heavily incentivised to do it right. Announcing this program, then doing it wrong would kill the business.

What's not great?

The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease.

Why?

The Agriculture Department regulates the test and argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry.

To which I say...huh? It's the same test the FDA uses. Clearly, Creekstone has no interest in doing anything to harm the industry...its their industry. Plus, if Creekstone has a false positive, the damage directly and powerfully harms them. They have the highest interest in making sure the test is done correctly, a Creekstone false positive hammers them.

Why is W so opposed to letting the market work this out? It takes the pressure off of the FDA, if the model works, this could potentially save the taxpayers money or allow the FDA to shift resources to other areas. Its an easy "yes" to anyone who truly supports a free market and small government. I don't want to be cynical, but the only reason I can come up with for W's hex is that the,

Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone tested its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive test, too.

My bet is that they make loads of contributions too. But that's just me.

Tired of Being the Worst

In a bid to move up one spot on the "Worst President" list, Jimmy is bashing W again. "Hey, I know I did nothing good...but did I really do anything BAD?" America responds to his comments, much like his legacy, with a yawn.

Seriously, are they thinking of our President Bush?

Minor scandal playing out over at the World Bank involving Paul Wolfowitz (the whole thing is somewhat ironic given that cleaning up corruption was his big thing going in, but anywho). Latest twist is that the board of direcectors is going to get tough on Wolfie and send in a vote of "no confidence." Why not just fire him? Well, being foreigners (loooved both "Four" and "Records" classic, classic rock) they lack, well, guts. Rather than fire him, they decided to go with "no confidence" because,

Board members are betting that a strong expression of dissatisfaction will persuade the Bush administration to withdraw its support and urge Wolfowitz to step down.

I'm sorry, are they new to the party? Are they really thinking that Bush will bow to their cute little "no confidence" vote and withdraw support for Mr Wolfowitz? Where have they been for the last six years? I know it shouldn't, but that line of reasoning just insults me. W is a man who won't take urging from the US SENATE on his AG, even when members of his own party have "no confidence" in his man. Do they really, honestly think that W cares at all about their "confidence" in Mr Wolfowitz? They will pass the "no confidence" measure, and W will assume that the whole mess has blown over. Mr Wolfowitz did something wrong, the Board handled it with their cute little measure, and all's well.

I honestly don't care either way. But at this point, I'm rooting for the two W's. If the Board can't summon the courage to fire a boss they have "no confidence" in, and if they're homework is really so bad that they think that that vote will force W's hand, then, well, they deserve to be frustrated. That's what happens when you lack courage and are incompetent.

The good news for Stalin is that this action only builds on his argument that global institutions are completely incapable of dealing with any kind of crisis.

I hate hate crimes? Is that a crime?

President Bush is threatening to veto a new piece of legislation expanding Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to cover gender and sexual orientation...on the surface. Underneath all the media hype about a double standard for not protecting homosexuals and trans-gender types, the bill actually greatly expands the reach of the Feds into "hate" crimes. I know, I know, who would have thought that the Federal government would do something to expand their power under the guise of doing the right thing, and if you're really paying attention you would also not be surprised that the media missed that and focused on "W hates gays" (which may be true, or not, I don't know. I do know that there's no way I'm buying the "I don't want to expand federal power " line, not from the biggest fan of big government since FDR). However, I too would veto this legislation.

Bottom line? This bill will actually expand federal powers far beyond their current reach and I'm not a fan. However, Congress could actually do what they're saying by simply amending the 1969 federal hate-crimes law to add protection for sexual orientation. The Volokoh Conspiracy does a nice job distinguishing between this bill and the 1969 law (for some reason Volokoh and many other sources have it as a 1968 federal hate-crimes law-Wikipedia says 1969). Also, here's a quick take from Sarah Scanlon, Regional Field Director for the Human Rights Campaign.

I think, again, that the Dems just do not think strategically. Simply doing what they say has the obvious benefit of being a pleasant change from any political body, it also puts W under pressure. If he vetoes a simple amendment to the 1968(9) law, then it forces him to veto it to appeal to his base and further harm his standing with mainstream America (helping the Dems), or allow it (helping the Dems). W wouldn't be able to hide behind "expanding federal powers" and would find himself in a no-win situation, and the Dems would be helping their base in the process. Lose-lose for W, win-win for the Dems. Sometimes simple is better.

Hate Crime legislation is a whole nother ball-o-wax. Personally, I bounce back and forth, but generally settle in against them. I do think motive matters, as does circumstance. I also think that most of motive and circumstance can be handled in the sentencing process. If a crime has a 3-5 year sentence guideline, then I think you get five if your motive was particularly heinous, and three if not. However, with more things like mandatory sentencing and leeway being taken away from judges and juries by the legislative branch, then we will find ourselves in the position of having to think through and legislate things like "hate crimes."

300

Saw 300 last night. Loved it. No, it was not historically "precise," especially, especially the battle scenes. Spartans would never break rank and fight one on one like in the movie, the phalanx was life (even the phalanx depictions aren't right, the front guys used swords). And at one point Mrs Blogger leaned over and asked if "Xerxes was really a drag queen?" (which was a bummer because I was hoping she was leaning over to neck). And there's a throw away line about the Athenians being "boy lovers," when its the Spartans who, famously, took up with boys (my bet is that line's meant to counter that unpleasant fact, and throw "which Greeks slept with boys again" into the coversation). There's more, but it was a movie and movies are meant to entertain. If you want to get really historical, the Greeks were famous back in the day for taking "liberties" with actual events, soooo you could say that 300 pays homage not only to the Spartans, but to the Athenians and their theater.

300 Graphic novel was pretty good too, but the book "Gates of Fire" blows both away.

What I find really interesting is that I keep reading how this is a "Bush" movie, or that it really appeals to the "Bush" crowd. Granted, I bet that most movie reviewers are pretty liberal (read anti-war), and that most supporters of the Iraq War voted for Bush, but I'm not sure this is a good movie for Bush. Yes, it's very pro combat, its very pro leadership, and very pro fight to the end, but its also, repeatedly a conflict about reason v. mysticism aka religion. It's a very, very anti-religion movie. The Greeks mystics are deformed beyond recognition, molest young girls and are corrupt to the coin. The Persian mystic is a man who thinks himself a God and is both humiliated and defeated. Somehow Frank Miller manages to offend both the peacenicks (good for W) and the religious (bad for W). As much as this is a movie about fighting for actual freedom, its a movie about fighting religion in the name of reason. If anything its key group is the prowar, anti-religion crowd (or teen-age boys, take your pick).

Finally, Iran banned 300 from its movie houses. 3000 years later and my people are still sticking it to the Persians. OPAH!

McCain's Curious Rumsfeld Blast

Presidential Hopeful (and he needs all the "hope" he can muster since apparently being 72 led being gay by only 2% on the "would you vote for someone who is..." list) John McCain came out and blasted former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfelf saying,

We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement - that's the kindest word I can give you - of Donald Rumsfeld, of this war. The price is very, very heavy and I regret it enormously.

And,

I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history,

Hey, I'm with you brother. But I have to point out that that sentiment is a touch different than what he said when Rummy retired.

While Secretary Rumsfeld and I have had our differences, he deserves Americans' respect and gratitude for his many years of public service.

Ok, everyone can change their mind. But here's what's really interesting. If Rummy is the worst ever, and we're paying a "heavy" price for his ineptitude, what about the guy who hired him, stood by him, and refused to fire him? Doesn't that make W culpable? Doesnt' that make W some kind of moron? Surely if Rummy was the worst W should have recognized it and acted. What does it say about W as a leader if he can't even recognize that he has the worst guy ever working for him? Not only that, but kept him on for years, causing all this heavy damage. Shouldn't someone at least ask the question?

So, is this McCain's ham fisted way of addressing Iraq without blaming W? With the majority of Americans against the war all Presidential hopefuls have to come up with some way of handling the bad feelings. Dems get to attack W, but GOPers have to tread lightly, especially during the primaries. W's still very popular with the party hardliners, aka primary voters. But this is so transparent, it makes one wonder.

It makes me wonder if he's trying to hit Rummy now to appease the masses but not offend the base, while setting up the "W should have acted on Rummy sooner" line once McCain wins the primary. This way, he can stay to the right early, then come up with a "soft" criticism of W during the general election where W's overall numbers are much, much...much lower. Its an attempt to win enough of the main-stream vote without sending the base ballistic.

I think its an interesting play. I also think that his hit on Rummy is a direct attack on W, but it's not playing out that way in the media, and hasn't backfired that I can tell.

See, Hydrablog goes beyond the media. Pop in some Pink Floyd and join us. Or, pop in some Roxette and Join the Joy Ride. Either way.

W compares himself to the first (W)ashington

No lack of confidence for him.

But his analogy left me more scared than inspired. Says the modern W,

"On the field of battle, Washington's forces were facing a mighty empire, and the odds against them were overwhelming. The ragged Continental Army lost more battles than it won, suffered waves of desertions, and stood on the brink of disaster many times. Yet George Washington's calm hand and determination kept the cause of independence and the principles of our Declaration alive."

Ummmmm, who's who in the analogy?

OK. Lets assume we're the Continental Army. Is Al Qaeda the mighty empire? Are the odds against us overwhelming? Should I be planning to lose more battles than we win? Desertions? Are we on the brink of disaster? What the hell's going on? Maybe I haven't been scared enough? Or maybe W's finally starting to read papers. I mean, was that supposed to be inspiring? Is he really comparing the most powerful military ever to the "ragged" Continental Army? Is he saying troop moral is so low we're facing mass desertions? I'm not even going into the difference between defending the Declaration and putting it aside "for now." I'm completely baffled. That or he's just totally delusional. Worst. Peptalk. Ever.

But looking at it, it sounds more like a rallying cry for Al Qaeda. I mean, we're more like the "mighty empire." We could certainly be viewed as the modern version of Britain. And aren't the odds against them overwhelming? The insurgents are certainly rag-tag, and are definitely losing more battles than they're winning. Disaster is absolutely a constant presence. Seriously, wouldn't this speech make much more sense if it came from Binny?

However, maybe we should pay close attention to the current W's words. It's very hard to defy the locals if they don't want you around. A lesson the Brits learned about 250 years ago, one we learned 35 years ago, and one we may be learning now.

Finally, I think this quote is the scariest.

"After winning the war, Washington did what victorious leaders rarely did at the time. He voluntarily gave up power.

Isn't he acknowledging how difficult it would be for any leader to give up the powers he asked us to give him. Especially since he won't be that leader? I think this is the warning we should all be heeding.

The GOP's big Slur

Been reading of late about W's big "slur" against the Democratic members of congress in his State of the Union Address.

During his speech, Bush congratulated what he called the "Democrat majority" while welcoming the "new," "changed" Congress, even though the prepared text of the speech reportedly called for Bush to recognize the "Democratic majority."

Apparently referring to members of the Democratic party as the "Democrat" party is some kind of big insult.

There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. “Democrat Party” is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but “Democrat Party” is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams “rat.” At a slightly higher level of sophistication, it’s an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation.

Furthermore, while the word dates back to at least the Hading Administration, use today is all the fault of Newt Gingrich and pollster Frank Luntz

In the early 1990s, apparently due largely to the urging of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective became near-universal among Republicans.

But here's the thing, both my parents (Hi Ma, Hi Pop) are members of the Democratic Party and I grew up a Democrat...(ic?) (before making the big switch to Libertarian), and I just don't see the insult. Sorry. I dunno, maybe I'm tougher than I thought, or, more likely, I've been called much worse. When I try to place, "Called Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party" on the big list of slurs, well, it doesn't even make the list of things to be listed. Seriously, it just feels silly. But after reading the first article, I did a search and this really bugs people. Well at least some people. From The Huffington Post,

"Those two letters actually do matter," Luntz said the other day. He added that he recently finished writing a book--it's entitled Words That Work--and has been diligently going through the galley proofs taking out the hundreds of "ic"s that his copy editor, one of those partisan Dems, had stuck in.

What Michelle Pilecki leaves out is just who the those two letters actually matter to. Preceding that paragraph was another in the original.

Luntz, who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001, has concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the—how you say?—Democratic Party.

And now you get it. No one really cares, except those are so wrapped up in party politics, on both sides, that they share little with the rest of America. I never knew it was a slur and I'm not new at this game. So when members of the Republic Party (hah-suck on that Gingrich, how's it feel now?) say "Democrat Party," I never knew they were trying to hurt my feelings. Not really the best insult when the insultee doesn't know they've been insulted. Ironically, since the Dems have brought so much attention to it, now I know, and honestly, I think the Dems are the ones looking silly.

Finally, from what I've been able to ascertain, "Democrat" is OK when referring to one member of the Democratic Party. "Democrats" is OK when referring to several members of the Democratic Party (or at least I assume so, the Democratic Party web site is www.democrats.org), Dems are OK as short-hand (Whew, I use that a lot). In fact, the only time this slur is a slur is when referring to the whole of the Democratic Party.

Not to be nitpicky, but this is another example of how the Dems don't get it. Rather than just mocking this as the all-time worst insult, they actually get all hot and bothered by it. Just completely the wrong way to handle it.

My take on W's Insurance Tax Plan

I've been mulling over W's health insurance initiative, at least the tax code part. Here's the passage from the Sate of the Union Address.

And so tonight, I propose two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their own insurance. First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents. Families with health insurance will pay no income on payroll tax -- or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income. With this reform, more than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills. At the same time, this reform will level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job. For Americans who now purchase health insurance on their own, this proposal would mean a substantial tax savings -- $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year. And for the millions of other Americans who have no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within their reach. Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making health care affordable for more Americans. (Applause.)

Says House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY),

This is a dangerous policy that ultimately shifts cost and risk from employers to employees and could result in a higher number of uninsured. The new, Democratic majority in Congress is interested in relieving, not increasing, working families' tax burden.

Clearly, two hearts living as just one mind. Now on to the analysis. NYT tackles it here (I know, Stalin I know, but for all your paranoid ramblings, NYT still does the best job - but I have to admit, "With his proposal to uproot a tax break that has been in place for more than 60 years..." is not the most neutral way to start the article).

I agree with W on this one, at least as a start (and I haven't heard him say, "This will fix things all by itself."). However, the tax code is a blunt instrument, mostly helping those who itemize and make enough to pay taxes. For those who don't fall into either category, this is not going to be a big deal. One real issue is that the bulk of people who are uninsured fall into the latter category. So I think its a solid argument to approach the President's bill with some skepticism as far as just how within reach this will put health insurance for the uninsured.

But as one part of a much needed solution, at this point I'm a fan (I'm not hedging here because it comes from W, rather because tax-code cause/effect isn't the easiest thing to work through - but that's why you have me...right...and subscribe to our email feed to the right...right?). Here's what I like. Rep Rangel is correct, this does shift the risk from employer to employee, and that's where it should be (so at least you can say he understands the point). The employee understands their needs better, and is better prepared for the risk/reward decision than an employer who buys a blanket policy for all employees. When the employee takes the personal risk two things happen. They buy the policy they need, and they shop for value, not just from the insurance company but also in treatment. Take into account incentives that will be offered by insurance companies to cover health, home and care in a bundle, and that employees do change jobs, often taking a period of risk without insurance, or even become trapped by one job precisely because of insurance benefits and it seems that attaching insurance to the employee is a much better option. I need someone to explain to me why this scenario is worse than having the employer pay create the system.

From what I gather, W is basically saying that insurance is a perk that has value. His tax cut is really a tax increase, immediately followed by a tax cut. It's a two step process, this is important. Now employees don't pay any tax on the benefit of employer based health insurance even though it is a perk that has definite and quantifiable benefit. What he's immediately proposing however, is to offset this newly created taxable event with a tax break. In my mind, a large part of getting comfortable with this plan is getting comfortable with creating a new tax, one that can be manipulated by later lawmakers, and then cutting it.

According to NYT, W's "economic rationale for Mr. Bush’s proposal is that too many people have “gold-plated, deluxe” health insurance, which encourages them to use excessive amounts of health care, driving up costs for everyone." Really hard to argue with that one too. But some try. Mr Robert D. Reischauer, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office said,

The president’s proposal addresses inequities in the tax code that provide an open-ended subsidy for premiums paid by employers. If your employer does not provide health insurance and you have to buy it on your own, you get no tax benefit at all. The president’s plan would eliminate that distinction.”A glaring problem with the president’s plan is that he did not call for any stronger regulation of the individual insurance market.

And the NYT tacked on,

In that market as it now exists in most states, insurers can deny coverage or charge higher rates to sick people.

I'll take them in order. Notice that Mr Reischauer shifts the focus. In the first part he gets W's goal. In the second, he just tacks on some random criticism. Again, at least as far as I've read, W does not claim that he's "solved the health insurance issue." I see this as one part of the solution. Calling for stronger regulation may be another part, but why join them? Doesn't that risk drowning both of them? Oh well, I guess he had to say something to make the paper.

The second part is a major can of worms. What people don't get is that by forcing insurance companies to cover sick people for the same cost as healthy is that everyone pays. There are no free meals here. If you demand that an insurance company cover a sick person for the same cost as a healthy person, what you're really demanding is that the healthy person pay more for services they won't likely need. If said healthy person is poor, you've just increased the cost of his insurance. I'm not sure this is the goal. I suppose one could make the argument that under the current system all employees get the same coverage, healthy or sick. But the reality is that this means two things, you may not be getting the most insurance you can for the buck (here what the employer pays in your name) because the company's rate is higher with more sick people, and customers are paying more for goods because the company works the cost of insurance into the cost of goods. Again, there are no free meals. You are bearing the cost somewhere. W's plan at least puts it close to home so you can monitor and control it.

This is already a long post so I'll just summarize from here. W's plan definitely shifts the momentum towards employee based insurance. One, I haven't heard why this is bad. Two, employer based insurance is no longer what it was. It's the fastest growing expense line in most businesses and they're cutting back. The momentum is already away from employer based insurance. I like this proposal. It is not the end, there is no "Well, that's that" moment with this, but it is a step in the right direction. Provided, of course, that Congress doesn't get all weird with this new tax class.

Nuclear Boondoggle Upon Us Again

Looks like Nuclear Power is back. My feelings on this are well known (my comment from last year, plus another) , but it still bugs me to no end that we can't get past nuclear power. But I do hope we get past this new "wave."

Look, I'm a clean air guy (a nation of little obese kids who can't exercise because they have asthma is not my happy vision of the future) and my bet is that human related emissions are adding to the warming trend, but even given both of those, I still think that nuclear is a bad, bad investment by the American people (and make no mistake, we will bear most of the cost, while giving away most of the revenue). My past comments,

The "nuclear boondoggle" is the fallacy of the cost of Nuclear energy. It's commonly touted at about $.06/kilowatt. However, that cost does not include the following: First, there’s insurance. Here the free market has made coverage too expensive for any plant to cover. Insurers just wouldn’t touch it without a very, very high premium. Damages from an accident range from hundreds of billions to trillions depending upon location of plant and scope of damage. Thus, the feds decided that the national taxpayers would cover any and all liabilities. Then, waste. Again, too expensive for the plant operators, so the feds again decided the national taxpayers should build, store, transport, and maintain waste facilities, and again cover any liabilities. Finally, there’s financing. Here the feds decided that the national taxpayers should guarantee the loans for building plants. Add those real costs back into the equation and “cheap” nuclear is easily the most expensive power on the planet. It would be cheaper to hire Lance Armstrong to pedal a generator at my house than to buy nuclear. Especially if the feds cover the three biggest expenses.

As much as I want clean air, I just don't think nuclear is worth the cost and risk. Period. No matter how you look at it, its just too expensive to survive without massive help from the taxpayers, and that will never change. This isn't an emerging technology where the taxpayers could be sold on future reduction in real costs, nuclear is actually the opposite. Take solar. The more solar panels are sold, the cheaper they get, basic business principle, right? The more that's produced the cheaper the cost. But with Nuclear, the more that's produced (waste, building, etc), the more expensive it gets (insurance, waste, transportation, building, land, potential for disaster; either accidental or terrorist related, etc). Nothing gets cheaper, everything related to nuclear power just makes it more expensive as time goes by. Why are we hitching our wagon to that star? What genius thinks this is a good "investment?"

Plus, what genius thinks its a good idea to build nuclear targets and scatter them around the nation during our "long war" with terrorism? Seriously? They don't make sense during times of peace, but war? Especially when our opponent's only hope is use our stuff against ourselves? Someone thinks it makes sense to create nuclear "stuff?" Wow.

Nuclear is just a really bad investment, even when the "clean air" component is figured in, but especially while we're at war. Spend the billions (and potentially trillions) on something else. Please.

The first "Hitler" reference of the year belongs to...

Paul Craig Roberts. Hooooray! Juuuuust sneaking in under the 10 day mark. I'm sure he had to dig deep to pull this off, so congratulations Mr Roberts. For history buffs, Mr Roberts was, among other things, assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, associate editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and contributing editor of National Review.

Details if anyone cares are here, but basically, Bush is insane like Hitler in the end and wants to nuke the middle east.

A personal "Atta boy" from me for looking like a loon on a Libertarian web site. Like we don't have enough problems getting taken seriously.