Thursday, June 30, 2005
Rich Liberal Back-patting
So, Hillary had a fundraiser in Virginia last night, causing the Post to get its knickers in a twist: is she invading Mark Warner's territory?
For starters...Gov. Warner may be from Alexandria, but the sooner he realizes that (politically) he's from Richmond, the better. Alexandria might as well be part of the District; it votes Democratic, gets overwhelmed by the terrotories that surround it, and is generally represented by assholes. So let's not put too much weight into the hamlet that still thinks it's more important than Washington.
Second...what's the big story here? "Virginia Democrats, desperate for media attention in a GOP-led state, attend a well-covered fundraiser for a prominent Democrat, who they will never support in a general Presidential election unless they are remarkably stupid." Let's all thank the Post for their ball busting coverage.
For starters...Gov. Warner may be from Alexandria, but the sooner he realizes that (politically) he's from Richmond, the better. Alexandria might as well be part of the District; it votes Democratic, gets overwhelmed by the terrotories that surround it, and is generally represented by assholes. So let's not put too much weight into the hamlet that still thinks it's more important than Washington.
Second...what's the big story here? "Virginia Democrats, desperate for media attention in a GOP-led state, attend a well-covered fundraiser for a prominent Democrat, who they will never support in a general Presidential election unless they are remarkably stupid." Let's all thank the Post for their ball busting coverage.
I knew they were stupid...
...but I couldn't have possibly imagined that House GOP leaders were so stupid as to push through a vote on creating private accounts under Social Security, without addressing the program's fiscal solvency:
[House Republican] leaders acknowledged that the measure they are considering would make the deficit worse, and do nothing to deal with the president's rationale for bringing up the issue in the first place: projections that the system will run out of money for scheduled benefits when the baby boomers retire.[shakes head]...no, Speaker Hastert, you need to address the solvency first, THEN you can play with your toy. Nordy, have a field day, I'm not defending these assclowns.
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said he sees the measure "as a first step -- we need to solve this first step."
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
The Pro-Americans
Anne Applebaum provides an interesting look at polling data from around the world in today's Washington Post, identifying the groups of people more likely to be pro-American when it would seem the world is becoming less so.
Some interesting points from this article:
Applebaum charges that "[t]hose on their way up are pro-American. Those who have arrived, and perhaps feel threatened by those eager to do the same, are much less so." I'm sure Nordy will read this differently; that the able and educated view America as dangerous and wanton. But I don't think we should be surprised that America is still viewed as the beacon of freedom and prosperity by those who seek it?
The bigger lesson here...though one that should surprise absolutely no one...is that the populace outside our borders has a memory, too. Here, we generally associate negative feelings based on historical events. How many Americans who came of age in the draft era of the late 60s and early 70s have a less than rosy view of Vietnamese? Aren't there a decent share of people here in the US who still don't particularly trust Japanese or Chinese businesses, seeing them as infiltrating our economy? I'm not endorsing either of these views, but they are rather natural tendancies. Compare that with the data she finds: "people feel more positive about the United States when their personal experience [with the U.S.] is positive." One assumes that the inverse is true.
Question to be put out to the readers (and my fellow owners): do you think that America's current foreign relations will leave a similar bad taste? If so, with whom?
Some interesting points from this article:
Applebaum charges that "[t]hose on their way up are pro-American. Those who have arrived, and perhaps feel threatened by those eager to do the same, are much less so." I'm sure Nordy will read this differently; that the able and educated view America as dangerous and wanton. But I don't think we should be surprised that America is still viewed as the beacon of freedom and prosperity by those who seek it?
The bigger lesson here...though one that should surprise absolutely no one...is that the populace outside our borders has a memory, too. Here, we generally associate negative feelings based on historical events. How many Americans who came of age in the draft era of the late 60s and early 70s have a less than rosy view of Vietnamese? Aren't there a decent share of people here in the US who still don't particularly trust Japanese or Chinese businesses, seeing them as infiltrating our economy? I'm not endorsing either of these views, but they are rather natural tendancies. Compare that with the data she finds: "people feel more positive about the United States when their personal experience [with the U.S.] is positive." One assumes that the inverse is true.
Question to be put out to the readers (and my fellow owners): do you think that America's current foreign relations will leave a similar bad taste? If so, with whom?
Iraq Casualties
Nordy likes to keep his quick points on his blog...but I'm trying to keep SoCo non-political, so mine go here.
Anyway. I've heard quite a few war opponents (I resisted typing 'libbies' or 'pansies' or 'Michael Jackson sleepover companions'...oops, guess not) claim that the increasing death toll in Iraq is taking a disproportional toll on ethnic minorities. One went so far as to say that the war was Bush's "modern attempt at lynching."
Now, we'll ignore the fact that the President engaged military states in the Middle East and Central Asia to spread security and democracy, compared to Clinton, who seemed to think that American military force was only worthwhile when white Europeans or potential refugees were involved (read one conservative hack's take on that here.) So, no one should buy the argument that Bush pursued the war because he's racist. But surely there is some credence to the idea that more ethnic minorities are dying as part of US forces than whites, right?
Wrong. This report is a little outdated (two months), but it appears that military casualties in Iraq by ethnicity are proportional to the US population as a whole.
Now, Nordy passionately argues that wealthy Republicans aren't among those dying in service. But, personally, I like evidence. Does anyone have any? US Military (or non-military) deaths in Iraq along socioeconomic or political lines?
Anyway. I've heard quite a few war opponents (I resisted typing 'libbies' or 'pansies' or 'Michael Jackson sleepover companions'...oops, guess not) claim that the increasing death toll in Iraq is taking a disproportional toll on ethnic minorities. One went so far as to say that the war was Bush's "modern attempt at lynching."
Now, we'll ignore the fact that the President engaged military states in the Middle East and Central Asia to spread security and democracy, compared to Clinton, who seemed to think that American military force was only worthwhile when white Europeans or potential refugees were involved (read one conservative hack's take on that here.) So, no one should buy the argument that Bush pursued the war because he's racist. But surely there is some credence to the idea that more ethnic minorities are dying as part of US forces than whites, right?
Wrong. This report is a little outdated (two months), but it appears that military casualties in Iraq by ethnicity are proportional to the US population as a whole.
Now, Nordy passionately argues that wealthy Republicans aren't among those dying in service. But, personally, I like evidence. Does anyone have any? US Military (or non-military) deaths in Iraq along socioeconomic or political lines?
Monday, June 27, 2005
Why Did W Want This Guy To Win?
Why did Bush work so hard to get conservative hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad elected as the new president of Iran? I'll try and address that question later tonight.
Monday, June 20, 2005
The Definition of Giving Up
The other evening, a family with two young children joined us for dinner. Not long into the meal, their 7-year-old son began to throw a tantrum: "I don't want that for dinner," he said, and then refused to eat until his parents forced the issue. The end result? He ate what his parents wanted him to, he gained no more than frustrated and tired attention, and no one was pleased with the end result or the process. What was the little man's mistake, as admitted to by his mother? "Had he simply said what he wanted earlier, we might have avoided this whole mess."
Sound familiar? This fracas is eerily similar to the battles being played out in the Capitol every day lately, as Republicans suggest a course of policy, and the Democrats ingest it, cry, then spit it out like a toddler in a highchair.
The Social Security debate is the perfect example - can you seriously name one significant reform proposal that has been brought up by Democrats? Even Nordy must admit that, with no current action, SS goes into the red right around the time the two of us are looking to retire. And that's a bad thing, and should be addressed sooner rather than later. Argue until you are blue in the face that Medicare is a more pressing need...but you can't outright dismiss SS reform as a legitimate policy discussion.
I thought about looking for quotes from Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi on the issue...after all, Nordy did a bang up job with his carefully selected quotes, and as a former campaign communications director I value the spoken word highly. But I thought I would let the Democrats' actions speak for them. Since the Republicans are stuck on rhetoric, SURELY the Democrats must be introducing legislation with fresh ideas, right? Wrong.
Using THOMAS, I located 17 bills introduced by Democrats this year related to Social Security. Of those, 10 either dealt with identity theft, Medicare, or extending benefits to Samoans, who don't even pay the SS payroll tax. So, let's ignore those.
But those remaining seven bills must contain some reform measures, right? Weeelll...two (HR 2860 and HR 653) asked that, in pursuit of budget honesty, Social Security Trust Fund surpluses not be counted in the overall federal ledger for deficit calculation. Fair enough, and a pat on the back to Reps. Smith (WA) and Moore (KS) for these measures. But that's not the issue at hand. What about the others?
- S 275 would employ a new cost of living calculator for determining benefit levels...likely raising costs, as would...
- S 619, which would ensure retired federal employees receive BOTH SS benefits and their sizable government pensions.
- HJRes 25 would amend the Constitution to require the maintenance of a Social Security like system...which is a relatively useless act, since even hardline fiscal conservatives know that Social Security will not be revoked.
- HR 116 would require the government to hold onto SS Trust Fund surpluses in a (you guessed it) lockbox until the solvency of Social Security is "significantly extended."....ooookay, but how will that happen?
- HR 1330 doesn't say; it would simply bar SS Trust Fund monies from being allocated to create private accounts.
What a surprise; after all of their bellyaching, not a SINGLE piece of legislation introduced that begins to offer new solutions to the problem. No bill boldly suggesting to raise the payroll tax to increase receipts. No resolution calling for a study of whether or not 65 is an appropriate retirement age. No call for debate over whether or not we should employ means testing to control costs. Only a scrap of legislation that does not pursue reform, but rather blocks it.
Meanwhile, the GOP introduced dozens of bills, with policies ranging from the creation of individual accounts to the investment of General Fund dollars to bolster the Trust Fund's long-term solvency. No, I don't think any of these suggestions are perfect...but in the halls of the Congress and in the journals of its chambers, the GOP has taken some action on the issue...and taken the heat for touching the 3rd rail of politics. The Democrats have stomped, snorted, but ultimately done nothing.
Nordy, if that's your definition of "acting like a true opposition party"....ooooh, boy. Maybe they'll score some cheap political points for the rhetoric they are spouting...but they sure won't get anything done. But I guess you were right...the Democrats didn't give up on Social Security. They never even bothered to try.
Sound familiar? This fracas is eerily similar to the battles being played out in the Capitol every day lately, as Republicans suggest a course of policy, and the Democrats ingest it, cry, then spit it out like a toddler in a highchair.
The Social Security debate is the perfect example - can you seriously name one significant reform proposal that has been brought up by Democrats? Even Nordy must admit that, with no current action, SS goes into the red right around the time the two of us are looking to retire. And that's a bad thing, and should be addressed sooner rather than later. Argue until you are blue in the face that Medicare is a more pressing need...but you can't outright dismiss SS reform as a legitimate policy discussion.
I thought about looking for quotes from Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi on the issue...after all, Nordy did a bang up job with his carefully selected quotes, and as a former campaign communications director I value the spoken word highly. But I thought I would let the Democrats' actions speak for them. Since the Republicans are stuck on rhetoric, SURELY the Democrats must be introducing legislation with fresh ideas, right? Wrong.
Using THOMAS, I located 17 bills introduced by Democrats this year related to Social Security. Of those, 10 either dealt with identity theft, Medicare, or extending benefits to Samoans, who don't even pay the SS payroll tax. So, let's ignore those.
But those remaining seven bills must contain some reform measures, right? Weeelll...two (HR 2860 and HR 653) asked that, in pursuit of budget honesty, Social Security Trust Fund surpluses not be counted in the overall federal ledger for deficit calculation. Fair enough, and a pat on the back to Reps. Smith (WA) and Moore (KS) for these measures. But that's not the issue at hand. What about the others?
- S 275 would employ a new cost of living calculator for determining benefit levels...likely raising costs, as would...
- S 619, which would ensure retired federal employees receive BOTH SS benefits and their sizable government pensions.
- HJRes 25 would amend the Constitution to require the maintenance of a Social Security like system...which is a relatively useless act, since even hardline fiscal conservatives know that Social Security will not be revoked.
- HR 116 would require the government to hold onto SS Trust Fund surpluses in a (you guessed it) lockbox until the solvency of Social Security is "significantly extended."....ooookay, but how will that happen?
- HR 1330 doesn't say; it would simply bar SS Trust Fund monies from being allocated to create private accounts.
What a surprise; after all of their bellyaching, not a SINGLE piece of legislation introduced that begins to offer new solutions to the problem. No bill boldly suggesting to raise the payroll tax to increase receipts. No resolution calling for a study of whether or not 65 is an appropriate retirement age. No call for debate over whether or not we should employ means testing to control costs. Only a scrap of legislation that does not pursue reform, but rather blocks it.
Meanwhile, the GOP introduced dozens of bills, with policies ranging from the creation of individual accounts to the investment of General Fund dollars to bolster the Trust Fund's long-term solvency. No, I don't think any of these suggestions are perfect...but in the halls of the Congress and in the journals of its chambers, the GOP has taken some action on the issue...and taken the heat for touching the 3rd rail of politics. The Democrats have stomped, snorted, but ultimately done nothing.
Nordy, if that's your definition of "acting like a true opposition party"....ooooh, boy. Maybe they'll score some cheap political points for the rhetoric they are spouting...but they sure won't get anything done. But I guess you were right...the Democrats didn't give up on Social Security. They never even bothered to try.
Did the Dems "Give Up" on Social Security
In one word: no. In two words: hell no.
I'll apologize in advance if my tone on this subject sounds a little defensive. I'm very proud of the performance of the Dems on Social Security, as it has been the one instance where they have (so far) shown some backbone and effectively acted as an opposition party to the benefit of Americans. So I am very proud of the Democrats' record on this issue (so far).
One theme you'll see me repeat here is that compromise with the Bush administration is a sucker's bet. Let's take a look back at the major Bush initiatives:
The fight for Social Security is another one of these cases. The Republican "fix" to SS's solvency is worse than if no changes are made at all (If readers would like me to get into specifics on the numbers, please let me know via comments. But the short story is that Bush's proposal hastened the date of insolvency, cost a ton, and resulted in lower benefits...the ultimate lose-lose-lose situation). The fact that the Democrats have defeated Bush's proposals leaves the party better off (unity and backbone...what great concepts!), and, more importantly, has left the country better off.
Which brings me to a secondary point regarding just how the Democrats achieved victory (so far). My esteemed blogging buddy, Eirishis, insinuates that the Democrats achieved victory by "scaring" the American public. Really? Who was it that offered the following frightful tales:
I could go on, but I think you get the point. You know who was peddling these spooky tales. I'll give you a hint, it was your tax dollars financing his trip to go around the country and lie in the faces of Americans. And he wasn't a Democrat.
Does the solvency of the program still need to be addressed? Yes. But the solution is no great mystery. A small combination of tax increases and benefit cuts (likely via raising the retirement age) can put the system in the black for decades to come. But it's no priority now, as it's in better financial shape than nearly any other government program. The immediate concern should be Medicare, and reigning in our fiscal budgets.
By the way, the fight isn't over. Jim DeMint, Rick Santorum, and Lindsey Graham want to use the Social Security withholding tax revenue surpluses currently accumulating in the trust fund, and redirect them to pay for funding private accounts. Steve Soto at TPM Cafe explains why this is a bad idea.
I'll apologize in advance if my tone on this subject sounds a little defensive. I'm very proud of the performance of the Dems on Social Security, as it has been the one instance where they have (so far) shown some backbone and effectively acted as an opposition party to the benefit of Americans. So I am very proud of the Democrats' record on this issue (so far).
One theme you'll see me repeat here is that compromise with the Bush administration is a sucker's bet. Let's take a look back at the major Bush initiatives:
- The Bush tax cuts - Dems were willing to agree, so long as they were allowed insert sunset provisions - worthless measures that the fiscally-insane portion of the Republican party has no intention to honor. They also fought to make the cuts marginally more progressive than Bush originally proposed.
- Iraq - Dems agreed to support the Iraq War so long as Bush promised to go to the UN and only pursue war as a last option (a promise laid bare by the Downing Street Memos).
- Medicare - What concessions did the Dems win in passing this monstrosity? Some of their major campaign contributors reaped pay-days, as well? Thanks for nothing, Democrats.
- The Nuclear Option Compromise - Great! Dems can still use the filibuster, so long as the Bush nominee is clearly worse than Brown, Owen, and Pryor. And the population of potential judges worse than those three is how big? Let's just say that the number is about equal to the number of times Bill Frist has correctly diagnosed a patient from the floor of the Senate.
The fight for Social Security is another one of these cases. The Republican "fix" to SS's solvency is worse than if no changes are made at all (If readers would like me to get into specifics on the numbers, please let me know via comments. But the short story is that Bush's proposal hastened the date of insolvency, cost a ton, and resulted in lower benefits...the ultimate lose-lose-lose situation). The fact that the Democrats have defeated Bush's proposals leaves the party better off (unity and backbone...what great concepts!), and, more importantly, has left the country better off.
Which brings me to a secondary point regarding just how the Democrats achieved victory (so far). My esteemed blogging buddy, Eirishis, insinuates that the Democrats achieved victory by "scaring" the American public. Really? Who was it that offered the following frightful tales:
- "...the system is headed towards bankruptcy down the road. If we do not act soon, Social Security will not be there for our children and grandchildren."
- "So if you're 20 years old, in your mid-20s, and you're beginning to work, I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt, unless the United States Congress has got the willingness to act now."
- "Most younger people in America think they'll never see a dime. Probably an exaggeration to a certain extent [do you think he has any clue what the terms "probably" and "to a certain extent" mean?]. But a lot of people who are young, who understand how Social Security works, really do wonder whether they'll see anything."
- "But if this Congress doesn't join this administration in working to reform and strengthen Social Security, we will not be able to look at the high school seniors of today and say we have done our duty in protecting Social Security for you; for after all, the system will be bankrupt by the year 2040."
- "If nothing happens, at your age, [Social Security] will be bust by the time it comes time for you to retire...if nothing happens and we don't start moving on it now, by the time Josh gets to retirement age, the system will be flat broke."
- "In other words, you've been working all your life. You're putting money in, and by the time it comes for you to get ready to retire, there's nothing there."
- "As a matter of fact [ha!], by the time today's workers who are in their mid-20s begin to retire, the system will be bankrupt."
- "Some youngster told me about the survey that said many young people are?think it's more likely they're going to see a UFO than get a Social Security check."
I could go on, but I think you get the point. You know who was peddling these spooky tales. I'll give you a hint, it was your tax dollars financing his trip to go around the country and lie in the faces of Americans. And he wasn't a Democrat.
Does the solvency of the program still need to be addressed? Yes. But the solution is no great mystery. A small combination of tax increases and benefit cuts (likely via raising the retirement age) can put the system in the black for decades to come. But it's no priority now, as it's in better financial shape than nearly any other government program. The immediate concern should be Medicare, and reigning in our fiscal budgets.
By the way, the fight isn't over. Jim DeMint, Rick Santorum, and Lindsey Graham want to use the Social Security withholding tax revenue surpluses currently accumulating in the trust fund, and redirect them to pay for funding private accounts. Steve Soto at TPM Cafe explains why this is a bad idea.
Not Biden His Time
While waiting for Kris to respond to my Social Security challenge...this is too good to pass up:
Biden to Seek Presidential Nomination
I think he's a little nutty for announcing the bid this early (psss...Joe...you raise money from your historical sources first, THEN you start stumping nationwide and testing your message, THEN you declare that you are a candidate)....but the Democrats could do worse. That said...who are the other options?
Bill Richardson has the intelligence and the portfolio, but coming from a small state, he lacks the charisma necessary to raise money and name recognition. In other words...he needs to be Bill Clinton, and he's just not. Plus, its dangerous to assume that he would bring in more of the Hispanic vote for Democrats - talk about a fractured voting bloc.
Mark Warner would be a great choice: a record of bipartisan leadership, a centrist from the South...but the last time America elected a Southern Governor who had been out of office for more than a year, we ended up with the Carter Administration. And Warner gets bumped from the Governor's Mansion in Richmond next January. We're dumb, but not that dumb.
The Fearsome Foursome of previous nominees? [laughs, chokes on his lunch, keels over at his desk, recovers]...sorry.
That leaves Hillary. And if that's really the case, Democrats should be thanking their lucky stars that there is anyone considering a serious run against Hillary for the nomination...even if it's Biden, a guy caught plagarizing twice. Because...everyone repeat after me...the easiest way to guarantee another four years for a GOP White House is to nominate Hillary.
Of course, this is all a moot point if McCain runs.
Biden to Seek Presidential Nomination
I think he's a little nutty for announcing the bid this early (psss...Joe...you raise money from your historical sources first, THEN you start stumping nationwide and testing your message, THEN you declare that you are a candidate)....but the Democrats could do worse. That said...who are the other options?
Bill Richardson has the intelligence and the portfolio, but coming from a small state, he lacks the charisma necessary to raise money and name recognition. In other words...he needs to be Bill Clinton, and he's just not. Plus, its dangerous to assume that he would bring in more of the Hispanic vote for Democrats - talk about a fractured voting bloc.
Mark Warner would be a great choice: a record of bipartisan leadership, a centrist from the South...but the last time America elected a Southern Governor who had been out of office for more than a year, we ended up with the Carter Administration. And Warner gets bumped from the Governor's Mansion in Richmond next January. We're dumb, but not that dumb.
The Fearsome Foursome of previous nominees? [laughs, chokes on his lunch, keels over at his desk, recovers]...sorry.
That leaves Hillary. And if that's really the case, Democrats should be thanking their lucky stars that there is anyone considering a serious run against Hillary for the nomination...even if it's Biden, a guy caught plagarizing twice. Because...everyone repeat after me...the easiest way to guarantee another four years for a GOP White House is to nominate Hillary.
Of course, this is all a moot point if McCain runs.
Friday, June 17, 2005
So we're actually doing this this
I pitched The Sanford Project to Kris last night in an email...half joking, but half serious. I agree with about 5% of what he posts, and, being as liberal as the amount of seasoned salt on Bojangles fries, he probably wants to vomit whenever I opine.
In other words, it sounded like the perfect combination for a joint blog.
Given the short time span that I've thought about this, I have no expectations for this blog. Maybe we'll abandon it, along with our friendship, in three weeks. Maybe we'll have a show on MSNBC in a year. Who knows. (OK, so the latter isn't likely, but a boy living on an intern's salary can dream, right?)
Here is what we know so far:
RICH I say.
Oh yeah, one other thing I know: the Democrats gave up on Social Security, and scared the American public into doing the same. Thoughts?
In other words, it sounded like the perfect combination for a joint blog.
Given the short time span that I've thought about this, I have no expectations for this blog. Maybe we'll abandon it, along with our friendship, in three weeks. Maybe we'll have a show on MSNBC in a year. Who knows. (OK, so the latter isn't likely, but a boy living on an intern's salary can dream, right?)
Here is what we know so far:
- We can both write a bit.
- Kris is better at finding solid, non-traditional sources for his views.
- I'm pretty good at writing op-ed type pieces.
- You have opinions too.
RICH I say.
Oh yeah, one other thing I know: the Democrats gave up on Social Security, and scared the American public into doing the same. Thoughts?
Test II
Is this thing on?
I just want to add, that I thoroughly disagree with Erishis's take on the original test (we're supposed to debate stuff, right?).
That's all for now...working hard today so I can leave early and enjoy the weekend.
I just want to add, that I thoroughly disagree with Erishis's take on the original test (we're supposed to debate stuff, right?).
That's all for now...working hard today so I can leave early and enjoy the weekend.
Test
OK, so the template blows, and I couldn't come up with a catchy name.
But I figured we could try a few posts out, get a feel for it, and see if we wanted to continue it before we put much effort into making it not look like a dump my dog just laid on the carpet.
Stupid dog.
But I figured we could try a few posts out, get a feel for it, and see if we wanted to continue it before we put much effort into making it not look like a dump my dog just laid on the carpet.
Stupid dog.
