Search

Custom Search

Monday, July 31, 2006

Friendly Reminder

This is a friendly reminder from the Bush Administration: Mission Accomplished.

Saturday, July 29, 2006

Further in the financial hole...

It is no surprise that the costs of reconstruction in Iraq are turning out to be more than anticipated. Though apparently things are worse than they even appeared! According to an independent auditor that reports to Congress, the people in charge of reconstruction have been cooking the books. They have been reporting that projects are within the budget while classifying any overrun as "indirect costs" which aren't fully reported to Congress. One of my favorite lines is:

The hospital’s construction budget was $50 million. By April of this year, Bechtel had told the aid agency that because of escalating costs for security and other problems, the project would actually cost $98 million to complete. But in an official report to Congress that month, the agency “was reporting the hospital project cost as $50 million,” the inspector general wrote in his report.

The project was actually reported as being on time when it was close to 300 days behind schedule. And the Bush Administration claims it is the liberal media that only reports the bad news.

Krugman: Reign of Error

This was so good, I had to reprint the entire thing:

July 28, 2006 Op-Ed Columnist Reign of Error By PAUL KRUGMAN

The New York Times

Amid everything else that's going wrong in the world, here's one more piece of depressing news: a few days ago the Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of Americans now believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded, up from 36 percent in February 2005. Meanwhile, 64 percent still believe that Saddam had strong links with Al Qaeda.

At one level, this shouldn't be all that surprising. The people now running America never accept inconvenient truths. Long after facts they don't like have been established, whether it's the absence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons in the Whitewater affair or the absence of W.M.D. in Iraq, the propaganda machine that supports the current administration is still at work, seeking to flush those facts down the memory hole.

But it's dismaying to realize that the machine remains so effective.

Here's how the process works.

First, if the facts fail to support the administration position on an issue -- stem cells, global warming, tax cuts, income inequality, Iraq -- officials refuse to acknowledge the facts.

Sometimes the officials simply lie. "The tax cuts have made the tax code more progressive and reduced income inequality,"Edward Lazear, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, declared a couple of months ago. More often, however, they bob and weave.

Consider, for example, Condoleezza Rice's response a few months ago, when pressed to explain why the administration always links the Iraq war to 9/11. She admitted that Saddam, -- as far as we know, did not order Sept. 11, may not have even known of Sept. 11.-- (Notice how her statement, while literally true, nonetheless seems to imply both that it's still possible that Saddam ordered 9/11, and that he probably did know about it.) "But," she went on, "that's a very narrow definition of what caused Sept. 11

Meanwhile, apparatchiks in the media spread disinformation. It's hard to imagine what the world looks like to the large number of Americans who get their news by watching Fox and listening to Rush Limbaugh, but I get a pretty good sense from my mailbag.

Many of my correspondents are living in a world in which the economy is better than it ever was under Bill Clinton, newly released documents show that Saddam really was in cahoots with Osama, and the discovery of some decayed 1980's-vintage chemical munitions vindicates everything the administration said about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. (Hyping of the munitions find may partly explain why public belief that Saddam had W.M.D. has made a comeback.)

Some of my correspondents have even picked up on claims, mostly disseminated on right-wing blogs, that the Bush administration actually did a heck of a job after Katrina.

And what about the perceptions of those who get their news from sources that aren't de facto branches of the Republican National Committee?

The climate of media intimidation that prevailed for several years after 9/11, which made news organizations very cautious about reporting facts that put the administration in a bad light, has abated. But it's not entirely gone. Just a few months ago major news organizations were under fierce attack from the right over their supposed failure to report the "good news" from Iraq -- and my sense is that this attack did lead to a temporary softening of news coverage, until the extent of the carnage became undeniable. And the conventions of he-said-she-said reporting, under which lies and truth get equal billing, continue to work in the administration's favor.

Whatever the reason, the fact is that the Bush administration continues to be remarkably successful at rewriting history. For example, Mr. Bush has repeatedly suggested that the United States had to invade Iraq because Saddam wouldn't let U.N. inspectors in. His most recent statement to that effect was only a few weeks ago. And he gets away with it. If there have been reports by major news organizations pointing out that that's not at all what happened, I've missed them.

It's all very Orwellian, of course. But when Orwell wrote of "a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past," -- he was thinking of totalitarian states. Who would have imagined that history would prove so easy to rewrite in a democratic nation with a free press?

Compromise Passes the House

Well, the Estate Tax/Minimum Wage compromise passed the house early this morning. The Republicans played it very well. The bill includes an increase in the minimum wage over 3 years to$ 7.25 but they included enough stuff the democrats could not stomach, such as eliminating the tax on estates up to 5 million dollars (10 Million for married couples). So now if (and I say IF) the bill passes the Senate next week, it will look like Republicans passed a minimum wage bill while the Democrats voted against it. Hopefully people will realize that it has been in fact the Democrats who have been fighting for an increase in the minimum wage all along, even more so since gas and heating prices have gone through the roof. The only reason this bill even came to the floor was because moderate Republicans are scared. People are upset with Republican leadership and they needed something to make it look like they were out to help the little guy.

It is great that we are giving more tax cuts; great if you like debt and making our children pay for it. Even the Treasury Department agrees that down the road we are going to have to cut spending or raise taxes to pay for Bush's tax cuts, and here we added even more tax cuts. Yes, in the long run, the taxes might benefit the economy, but that necessitates also limiting spending, something has decided not to do. So we continue to increase spending and continue to cut taxes. Any economist would agree that is bad in the long run. Government costs money to run, no question. If we do not pay for it, our children will.

Some other highlights of the Compromise bill: Pension reform, tax break to timber, increase educational tax deduction, shifting the costs of health care and environmental reclamation from coal companies to the federal government, a research-and-development tax credit, a credit for hiring workers off welfare, and a credit to promote wind energy.

Friday, July 28, 2006

Oil Subsidies

It is a good thing that we are subsidizing big oil to keep them afloat. If it weren't for the federal government, they would not make any money at all!

Maybe if we stopped subsidizing oil so much with tax breaks and direct subsidies switching from oil dependency wouldn't look so bad.

We are subsidizing them with tax breaks and other subsidies. They are making more money than they have ever made in the history of their industry. They are taking that money saved in subsidies and money made in sales and using it to further influence the political process to make more money and slow the development of alternative energy options. We pay for their profits and lobbying efforts and then we pay for the cleanup when they have an environmental disaster.

If we had to really face the cost of oil, like Europe, we would realize the need to develop alternatives, use public transportation, not buy SUVs and increase fuel efficiency. This will not happen for a very long time because the exact industry that needs to get changed is the one that continues to make enormous profits and use their money and influence to continue to do so and because Americans are content and we are not willing to change our ways in the short run to benefit us and our children in the long run.

It must be an election year

Why else would Republicans be pushing so hard for a raise in the minimum wage? It is disturbing that politics and riders could prevent this from being passed. I bet Republicans would love to attach a repeal of the estate tax or a roll back of minimum health benefits required for employees of small businesses. That way, either they get these passed or they get to say it was the Democrats that voted down the minimum wage increase.

Dear Congress:
Do something right for once. Pass the minimum wage increase and do not try and attach unessesary politically motivated riders. Give a reason to believe that not everything you do is politically motivated and self serving.

Very Best,

PV

War Crimes

Meet the 1996 War Crimes Act. It was passed with little debate by a Republican controlled Congress. It creates a criminal penalty for anyone who commits a war crime by violating provisions of various international agreements and treaties, including the Geneva Convention.

This Act has the Bush Administration scared. It leaves open the possibility of criminal sanctions against Administration and military officials for violations of the Geneva Convention in the treatment of detainees in the war on terror.

So now, instead of further attempting to punish those who have committed such crimes, the Administration is attempting to weaken the 1996 Act by exempting law suits involving detainees in the war on terror.

The only reason they would be attempting to do this is that they know they have violated the 1996 Act. This Act is a good tool to ensure compliance with the Geneva Convention by US Military personnel and nations, especially when we refuse to join the International Criminal Court. This is just another step in the direction of the US losing international credibility; "You have to follow these rules, but we do not. Why? Just because."

We can't continue to preach human rights while we are trying to get around them.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Two candles

There are a lot of bad things that happen in the world. Then there are things that happen that make you ask what is wrong with people in this world.

My thoughts go out to the Perry family.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

No, I am not talking about Al Gore's movie. I am talking about the fact that our current President believes he can set aside any law passed by Congress that he believes is unconstitutional. Of everything he has done since being in office, I think this is the scariest. It basically implies that he doesn't need the Congress. How it is supposed to work is that Congress makes the laws, the Courts interpret their constitutionality, and the President ensures their enforcement. This is called separation of powers. The framers created this system so that no single branch could take too much power. This is a foundation of our democracy and it terrifies me to see it happening.

Thank fully, people are standing up to him. My only hope is that they are successful. The belief that the Presidency is more important than the other branches and has more power is something I feel we need to move away from. Our Constitution was not put together haphazardly. Everything in there was put in its place for a reason. Art. I, the first and most comprehensive section of the Constitution talks about the legislature and gives them their powers. Art. II is much shorter and talks about the President's limited powers. Art. III is also relatively short and talks about the power of the Courts. If any conclusion can be drawn from the structure of the Constitution it is that the Legislative Branch has the most power but is still limited by powers given to it in the Constitution. The Executive Branch is not the superior branch. It is a dangerous idea to entertain and should be squashed as soon as possible or we endanger our freedoms even more than they have been in the past.

Update: Someone who can articulate the President's actions far better than I.

Monday, July 24, 2006

I want my two dollars!

So I just had a realization today: In the last 8 years, the price of gasoline in New Jersey had gone up about two dollars or 300%. I know gas prices have been sky rocketing, but I guess it doesn't really sink in until you set a reasonable baseline in your life. How much were you paying for gas in 1998?

Am I glad I do not drive that Ford Bronco anymore.
These gas prices that are only likely to rise as China and the rest of the world industrializes and conflict continues to be so prevelant in the middle east. Maybe it is time for consideration of alternatives...

Well, at least fewer people are buying SUVs. Maybe our American Car companies will eventually catch on to the likes of Honda and Toyota.

(yes, I know the link to NJ gas prices only goes back to 2003, but it is still a pretty striking increase since then.)

Save the planet and make money too

Who says saving the planet cannot be economical? Vinod Khosla doesn't. He is betting heavily on ethanol as a replacement for oil and having our country dependent on Middle America, not the Middle East for our fuel.

You could just say he's crazy and is throwing away his money. People probably said that when he invested in those complete failures Amazon.com and Google. When you have one of the most successful venture capitalists out there investing in something, I would take a hint. It is probably going to be a money maker. Which is a good thing, because if there is going to be any real progress in alternative energy and cleaner fuels it is going to have to be economically driven. If it is driven by necessity, it is probably already too late. It is just human nature to think about our personal best interests in the relative short term.

Hopefully Mr. Khosla will have some luck with his investment and his work trying to convince our country's leadership that change is needed. Ethanol fuel is not and end-all-be-all, but it is a start and his success could spur others to pursue increased investment in alternative carbon reducing technologies.

Saturday, July 22, 2006

I want one!

Too bad my birthday has passed. I could really use one of these.

Who says the electric car is dead? Yes there have been some attempts to get rid of it. Oil executives don't like it one bit, but the people do. Approximately 86% would use more fuel efficient to reduce their energy usage.

Things you can do to help get companies to improve their fuel efficiency of cars or at least reduce how much you spend on gas and contribute to air pollution:
-Write your congressman and ask him or her to improve CAFE standards.
-Write your favorite car maker and tell them you want more fuel efficient vehicles.
-Don't buy SUVs. If you need the extra space, by a car rack.
-Ride your bike. A lot of businesses these days have a gym or at least a shower at work. Take advantage of it.
-Take Public Transit. You get to relax, sleep, read a book, and not honk your horn at other drives.
-Car pool. Even better if you can get someone else to drive!

I know it is not realistic for everyone to do all of those. Public transit in the US, not exactly the best. Bike riding, not likely happening in Anchorage in December. But gas prices are getting obscene and our air quality can be better. Fuel efficient or emissionless vehicles are good for everyone.

Friday, July 21, 2006

A letter to the Tourists

Dear Tourists,

I think it is wonderful that you come to our fair city to see the sights and support our economy. It is a joy to see you walking around being awed by buildings, monument, and statutes that we have long since come to take for granted. I am glad our city is here for your enjoyment because it is a wonderful city and all who live here want to share it with you.

During your time wandering the city seeing the sights, please remember, we live here and we work here. This is a very fast paced city for those who live in it. We are always on the move and always in a hurry. You may notice this when you ride an escalator down to the T or the Metro. While some like yourself are sitting there aweing at the length of the escalator, we are running up and down it because we are in a hurry to catch our train because we don't have the luxury of being a little late for a visit to a monument or for dinner. So please, if you are not walking up or down the escalator, do not stand on the left, stay to the right. We want you to enjoy your vacation, but we want to get to work. We can both do that without any problems if you will just please please please stay to the right on the escalator so we can walk down it. It is all we ask while you visit our fair city.

Thank you for your time, and enjoy your stay.

-PV

Thursday, July 20, 2006

North American Union? Not without the Senate.

I love World Net Daily. They have been running a series of articles and commentaries on SPP and the "North American Union." This is just the most recent. They claim the President and the leaders of Canada and Mexico are secretly planning the dissolution of our three countries and the formation of the North American Union by the year 2010.

Obviously, no one there has read the Constitution (which they say Bush completely dismisses). Specifically, Article II Section II, "He (the President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." Whether or not he is planning to dissolve the United States or not, it is not something that can be done without at least the agreement of 2/3 of the Senate. I seriously doubt the Senate would stand for that, mainly because their constituents wouldn't stand for it. I don't believe even Scalia would uphold it. People who think this could be done with out the support of the Senate or the people have a bit too much faith in the power of the Executive Branch.

The idea of SPP is not to eliminate each country's national borders and create a super state, but join forces on continental security and commerce. Yes it needs to be discussed more, and the public needs to give their input. We need people like Corsi and McGuire to poke and prod the government with FOIA requests and questions. It keeps our democracy open and free, something it feels like we have to fight for these days. However, the idea of sharing security and making commerce freer between us and our neighbors is not necessarily a bad idea. I mean, something that would help reduce the number of illegal aliens coming into the country is to make life better in Mexico. It is not going to happen over night. Conditions don't just have to be better, they have to have the appearance of being better and that can take time. The world is eventually going to globalize. Either through an open democratic means or less than democratic means, it will happen. Taking open, intelligent steps towards that means to ensure we are a major player when it happens is not necessarily a bad thing.

White House Economics as usual

This guy seems to explain Bush's "economic" theory on the deficit pretty well. Politicians claiming responsibility for economic upturns when their policies had very little if any effect on the outcome and politicians trying to something look better than it actually is (our deficit is smaller than we thought it was going to be!). If out economy is booming as Bush says it is, why is it that he isn't able to keep our spending under control? Clinton could. Yes, Clinton didn't have the war on terror, but Clinton also didn't create the biggest addition to government since FDR. Clinton had the benefit of an economic boom, but doesn't Bush?

Running a deficit gives support to the idea that we need to cut social programs. Reagan was famous for it: we need to spend money on defense to protect us from the evil Soviet Union! Oh, because we are spending so much on that we are running a deficit. Well, we can't cut defense spending; we have to cut social programs!

I don't know...those terrorists are too much of a threat...we certainly can't cut defense spending...

Limiting defense spending does not necessarily mean limiting defense. There is a lot of waste in our government spending and a lot of services that could be offered at lower costs. Some examples: Competitive bidding for certain government contracts, stop subsidizing industries making enormous profits, and don't let companies offering to house hurricane victims charge the government more per room/cabin than they charge a regular guest.

This is a good link to some additional discussion of the deficit and spending and a discussion of the piece I linked above.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Global Warming

I've decided from now on I am going to blame everything on Global Warming.
Tornado in New York - Global Warming
Flooding in DC - Global Warming
Tsunami in South Pacific - Global Warming
Lebanon kidnapping Israeli Soldiers - Global Warming
My hangover - Global Warming

Bye Bye Penny?

Well, it looks like there is another attempt to get rid of the penny as part of our monetary system. You know what? It is probably about time.

Apparently, because of the cost of zinc, it now costs 1.4 cents to make each penny. In a time where you can’t buy anything for a penny (except maybe novelty candy in cute little tourist towns) and our country is running a deficit, we should stop making pennies.

Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona has introduced legislation that among other things, includes a provision for the elimination of the penny. My favorite thing about this bill, aside from getting rid of the penny is that is called the Currency Overhaul for an Industrious Nation or COIN Act. I really want the job of the person in Congress who is responsible for coming up with names for acts that form such perfect acronyms (See also USA-PATRIOT Act and US-VISIT). But I digress…

Thought a Gallop poll says that 55% of Americans favor keeping they penny, I don’t put much faith in polls, especially when the CNN poll right next to this statistic says 62% of those polled favor getting rid of the penny. Spending more to print the penny than it is worth is just ludicrous. This is just one of the many reasons why our country continues to go farther and farther into debt.

I hope that someone will read this and contact their Representative to support this bill.

I do not believe the bill has been posted on the house website yet, but I am told the bill number will be H.R. 5818, which you can search for here.

Monday, July 17, 2006

Check Card or Credit Card?

I heard an interesting thing on the radio the other day, George Pataki in Iowa stumping for a mayoral candidate. Nothing is too unusual about that, he is a potential candidate for President in 2008 and has to be seen around the primary states. What I found interesting was one of him comments about the difference between Democrats and Republicans. He said that Democrats think they can spend a person’s money better than the person can while Republicans think people know how to spend their money best. This is not a new concept and certainly something I have heard before, but for some reason (probably my impending 4 hour drive) I actually thought about it a bit more beyond the usual dismissive Republican propaganda.

It is true. There are Democrats who think they know how to spend someone’s money better than they do, but there are also Republicans who feel the same way. There are also Democrats and Republicans who know most people know how to spend their money best.

It is not that all Democrats feel they know best about spending money. Democrats believe in a safety net. Democrats believe in a government that is there when no one else is. When a disastrous hurricane hits, a rogue nation decides to attack us, or the stock market crashes, the government should be there. The insurance policy you purchased is likely not going to cover the damage, if at all. The government is the insurance company that will (hopefully) always be there. It is the private security force that defends our borders. They are the children or the 401k that provide for us in our old age.

Key word in the name of country, “United.” Democrats want to provide for the entire population of the United States of America not just some.

Neither side is spectacular with spending money, just look at deficit since 2000. Democrats like to spend money we have which means higher taxes now. Republicans like to spend on credit which means higher taxes later. Neither of those is necessary, just what we end up with the modern political climate. The answer is some modification to the tax code. Our tax system is very regressive and is in need of a considerable overhaul, but I will leave that to the economists.