Krugman on new census numbers...

About that Bush Boom …

The 2007 income, poverty and health insurance numbers are out. As far as I can tell on a first read, there’s nothing deeply surprising. Still, they represent a landmark — and not in a good way.

The key point is that 2007 was the end of an economic expansion — whether or not the NBER declares a recession, the employment situation, which is what matters to most people, has deteriorated sharply this year. So 2007 was as good as it got in this cycle. Yet median household income was lower than in 2000, while both the poverty rate and the percentage of Americans without health insurance were higher.

In short, the economic policies we’ve been following just aren’t working.
Is the bad economic news all Bush’s fault? No, of course not — but remember, the key argument of the right has always been that tax cuts and deregulation would produce good news, a rising tide that raised all boats. Boy, has that not happened.
But remember, we’re just a nation of whiners.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Henry Dems blog post...

I work my ass off debating conservatives... some times I think its pointless... I hope people learn something from it... (see main post for links)

This liberal lacks a retort? McCain, Obama, and the economy

I'm glad to see we are getting a more active blog. The more we debate... the more we discuss... the more we have dialouge. The less the right wing swift boat attacks and urban ledgends that Republicans have used time and time again will work.

The discussion is on McCain and his 8 houses... or however many.

Henry Libertarian commented:

That shows how "out of touch" and "privileged" Obama is, which Liberals like to ignore. Sure it is fun to point across the isle and snicker, but when you are guilt of the same thing suddenly you get defensive and don't see the humor anymore. If you want to call McCain rich then show me a politician at the federal levels that isn't. You obviously don't have a retort or you would have said something better. Obama wants to tax businesses that make goods and provide services which will make goods and services more expensive. With Obama's Trillion-Dollar Spending Plan, who do you think is going to pay for it?

First... "when you are guilty of the same thing? How so? The Rezko smear has been shown to be a complete fabrication for more see Factcheck.org which is a nonpartisan group that I highly recommend to those like myself who want to deal in policy and not whitewash the issues. Read the Rezko Reality to see that Henry Libertarian like many Republicans is misinformed on the issue.

If you want to call McCain rich then show me a politician at the federal levels that isn't.

That is known as a straw man in logic. I'm not arguing that Obama has note earned an impressive income. Or that middle class and working class americans are seldom representative of elected officials.

But here is the deal. Obama understand that Americans deserve to be empowered... he wants to help middle class Americans get a higher quality of life. John McCain wants to cut taxes on the rich... which has harmed our economic health over the past 30 years of supply side reganomics.

I mean there are reasons why European nations--and Canada too!--have more economic mobility than we do in America. These are all repurcussion of conservative economics--a less equitable outcome for hard working americans.

So saying I want to have it both ways because "Obama is rich too" is either a misunderstanding or clever rhetorical trick which won't work. I'll assume its a misunderstanding.

Obama wants to tax businesses that make goods and provide services which will make goods and services more expensive. With Obama's Trillion-Dollar Spending Plan, who do you think is going to pay for it?

First... lets go back to the core questions. Obama wants to bring back the strong economic growth that was seen before the conservative revolution of tax cuts at the cost of quality of life.

The impacts of the Bush tax cuts have been huge. And it has hurt our business competativeness around the globe. That is reason--as the book, "the politics of Bad Ideas" points out--that the World Economic Forum the deterioration of the US public finances has begun to damage US competitiveness. This is a business research institute in Switzerland. The US expereienced the most dramatic drop in rankings of ALL nations.

Also there is a myth that American businesses are being strangled by taxation at the expense of competativeness. I'll outsource to Economist Mark Thoma at U. Oregon "The Greek Menace" who brings together some stuff around the web... I'll quote the larger point--aside from conservatives once again manipluating with hyperbole rather than data...

Economist Dean Baker:

Washington Post Misleads Readers to Push for Lower Corporate Tax Rates

Today, the preferred policy is further reductions in corporate income taxes. To advance this agenda the Post tells readers that, "U.S. companies operating abroad already labor under a bigger tax burden than most foreign competitors."

That's not what the OECD says. Data from the OECD show that in the average member country corporate taxes are equal to about 3.5 percent of GDP. In the United States, corporate taxes have generally been between and 1.5 percent and 2.5 percent of GDP over the last two decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office (Table F-4).

Also here is the tax policy center on Obama's "business tax increases" that you claim will destroy our economy (pg 22)

Obama’s proposal to make permanent the Research and Development (R&D) credit and the renewable energy production credit would make it easier for firms to make investment decisions because they would no longer have to worry each time the credits approached their expiration. Both credits encourage particular behavior that Congress has deemed worthwhile and the change would likely increase both the amount of business investment in R&D and the development of more renewable energy sources. Most economists believe, however, that credits for selected investments in renewable energy are a less cost-effective way of reducing global warming and dependence on imported oil than approaches that raise the price of fossil fuels (including the cap-and-trade proposals advanced by both Obama and McCain) and allow private markets to select the least costly ways of reducing fossil fuel use.

The two sets of revenue-raisers that Obama has proposed would raise taxes on corporations and individuals engaging in particular activities and thus might cause them to change their behavior. To the extent that the provisions close loopholes in the current tax system, they could lead to more efficient use of resources, in terms of both how firms invest their funds and the use of financial strategies to exploit loopholes. The Obama campaign is probably overstating how much revenue additional loophole-closing proposals can raise, however, particularly with regard to proposals to reduce revenue lost from taxpayers who conceal offshore income and exploit international differences in tax rates to shift income to low-tax jurisdictions. There is little hard knowledge about how much revenue is lost to these transactions and administrative efforts to control them are ongoing.

These are equitable and smart chagnes in the tax code. Not perfect for my market theory wonkish Jim Nichols world... but politics is about compromise and consensus and this is a great step towards creating a more equitable economy that not only empowers middle class america but increases all our prosperity through economic revival and a move away from supply side economic nonsense.

Your concern about goods and services is moot since the incomes and savings of middle class and working class americans will rise... which will happen since ending the Bush economic fiasco will improve our longterm economic forcast. WHy do you think the Bush tax cuts created a recession recovery that faired so poorly compared to other post war recorvies?

With Obama's Trillion-Dollar Spending Plan, who do you think is going to pay for it?

Trillion dollar spending worries you? Obama would boost the debt by $3.5 trillion but at the same time increase spending and tax cuts that help middle class Americans. McCain would increase the debt by $5 trillion and all we get is more of the Bush economy stagnation and tax cuts for people who will just by bigger houses and nice boats.

Remeber a tax cut is government spending... like it or not.. So McCain is definately not your guy--why defend the worse of two evils by your own parameters.

I'll conclude with the Tax Policy Center again...(Intro)

The two candidates’ tax plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those tax cuts would be small as a share of after-tax income. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income

This Liberal lacks a retort? Mama said wonk you out...

We understand economics... and we will bring policies that protect and empower Americans. The every man for themselves mentality Republicans promote not only hurts our citizens, our economic competativeness... but its just plain old bad economics and ways of treating our fellow man...



--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Brad Delong: Draft: To Spend Is to Tax

We economists have a scenario that we call "current policy plus Bush tax cuts." It is made up of (i) the laws currently in force in the United States of America, plus (ii) the assumption that the defense, veterans, and other spending currently appropriated year-by-year by the congress remains the same as a share of GDP, plus (iii) the assumption that the tax breaks like the R&D credit and the regular pruning-back of the Alternative Minimum Tax that are voted for year by year by overwhelming congressional majorities continue to be enacted year-by-year, plus (iv) the assumption that the tax cuts George W. Bush proposed in 2001 and 2003 but made time-limited and set to expire early next decade are renewed. This "current policy plus Bush tax cuts" scenario has the federal government taxing about 20% of GDP over the next seventy-five years. It has the federal government forecast to spend 28% of GDP on average over the next seventy-five years. This is the fiscal gap.

A number of policies could be enacted to eliminate this fiscal gap. Simply doing nothing and letting the Bush tax cuts expire as current law requires them to do would reduce the fiscal gap from 8 percent to 6 percent of GDP. Raising Social Security taxes or cutting back future Social Security benefits by the about 1/7 needed to get the Social Security system back into projected 75-year balance would further reduce the fiscal gap from 6 percent of GDP to 5 percent of GDP. Returning military spending to its late-1990s share of GDP--not fighting wars in Iraq, et cetera--would reduce the fiscal gap from 5% to 3.5% of GDP. And eliminating "excess" cost growth in the government health care programs Medicare and Medicaid--allowing Medicare and Medicaid spending per eligible beneficiary to grow only as fast as the rate of growth of income in the economy as a whole--would bring the federal government into projected balance.

I believe that when we Americans look deep into ourselves and ask us what we want our government--because it is our government: it is our agent to do what we want with our money just as the guy in Florida we hire to keep grandma's one bedroom condo in repair is our agent--to do, we conclude the following:

We want to let the Bush tax cuts expire.
We want to close the 75-year Social Security gap, half by raising the limit on earnings taxed by Social Security so that the upper middle class and the rich pay more for Social Security and half by reducing the rate of growth of benefits at retirement.
We want to stop sending our soldiers--the best-trained and best-equipped high tech armed forces in the world--abroad to be military police in countries riven by sectarian conflict where they do not speak the language--and so return defense spending to its late-1990s share of GDP.
We want to reduce but not eliminate the "excess" cost growth in Medicare and Medicaid: we believe our doctors, nurses, and druggists will learn how to do wonderful things over the next two generations, and we do not want those wonderful things in the way of medicine applied only to the rich but to the poor and old as well.
Whether or not we decide to do (1) through (4) above, we want to raise taxes to cover whatever of the long-run fiscal gap remains, and so bring the federal budget back into balance over the long run.
Note that (5) is not optional. As the late Milton Friedman liked to put it: to spend is to tax. If the government buys things, it must get the money to buy them from somewhere. It can get the money from three places. It can tax. It can borrow--but then the borrowing has to be repaid with interest, and the more is borrowed the higher the interest and the worse the value the taxpayers ultimately get for their money when they are taxed to repay the borrowing. Or it can print the money and so inflate the currency--but that too is a tax, and an especially unfair, painful, and destructive one, as lots and lots of people victimized by inflation find their wealth doesn't buy what it used to and what they expected.

We can argue over whether (1) through (4) is what we want to do--that is what politics is about. But whatever we decide to do with (1) through (4), (5) is not optional--not, that is, if we want to continue to have a rich country in the long run. And the politicians who have told you that (5) is optional from Ronald Reagan to George H.W. Bush to Robert Dole to George W. Bush and now John McCain are not your friends, or America's friends.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

blog post from the Henry Dems site...

I must be crazy... trying to run two blogs... that have political slants.. durning an election year. While you are chairman of one county, campaign manager in a state senate race, are in school, and work part-time...

Here is my most recent post on the Henry Dem's website. Please go sign up on the site to have new blog posts emailed directly to you.

from the comments page...

TO catch people up there has been a health debate going on in the comments page. I want to pull it to the front and hopefully entice others to comment as well. The more people dig into the numbers, and talk about their own opinions and feelings on these important issues... the more people will feel inspired to once again participate in the process.

Think about that for a second. By taking some time out of your day to think about and participate in dialogue you are helping empower someone else to want to join to political process. For too long people have been turned away from politics by attack ads and corruption. Well the only way to fight back and stop those things is through MORE participation not less.

Here was the thread so far... and then I’ll responded at bottom. Remember I represent Jim Nichols ideas... you should participate so that you can advocate for your ideas and views...

Henry Libertarian commented:
What we need is REAL change not tax and over spend Liberals. You only want to redistribute waelth not create any new income or jobs. Obama isn't the answer to ANYTHING except "Who is the worse choice for President in '08?"

On 08/21/08 04:37 PM

On 08/21/08 04:51 PM

On 08/22/08 08:26 AM

Henry Libertarian commented:
Clinton didn't "create" all of those jobs, he benefited from the .com boom and no one credits him with the .com bust either. Obama's plans will cost $200 billon a year. Ranking Democrats vowed in December to put a moratorium on earmarks; instead, a record number infect legislation pending in Congress, with 32,000 requests this year, compared with about 13,000 in 2006 . In 2007 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slipped in a $25 million provision for San Francisco's waterfront on a $15 billion federal water bill at the last minute. Cutting individual taxes increases spending wich creates more tax money. Fixing health care does not mean going the Hillary Clinton way of demanding that everyone buy health care or an employer does not have to hire you. Fixing health care starts with tort reform in keeping health provider costs down. I am not sure what school your child goes to but my child has books and supplies. The school is responsible for teaching your child not for buying them paper, pencils, pens, glue, etc. The Federal Government should not have ANYTHIG to do with local school systems. You say that you are not for too much government but you want them to control everything and provide it for you. Be responsible for yourself and stop looking for handouts.

Jim Nichols commented:
Also what do you mean by overspend? Our classroom sizes are far too big and lack basic things like supplies and books. Our health care crisis--we rank 37th in the world, and pay 2 to 3 times as much as other industrialized nations--is harming our global competitiveness and litterally killing americans... or at least making them file bankruptcy. Our transportation infrastructure is massively underfunded. Our mental health systems... underfunded. I'm not for too much government... but we aren't investing in our long-term economic sustainability.. and it shows. People pay the price of the Regan economic revolution of cut taxes worry not about the consequences...

Jim Nichols commented:

Well actually the Republican record on the economy and economic growth speak for themselves. George Bush is about to end his 8 years in office having created fewer jobs than Clinton averaged each year of his term. Ever since Regan we've run deficits except during the Clinton years... data speaks louder than words!

My response:

"Clinton didn't "create" all of those jobs, he benefitted from the .com boom and no one credits him with the .com bust either. "

My claim wasn’t to imply Clinton "created" those jobs as if by magic. That not how an economy works. But my claim was intended to point out that every time they open their mouths Bush/McCain/and Company like to say that their economic policies will create jobs... or that they are pro-growth. The question should at least be asked of them... why do you think so?



The paternalistic: "Father says so" [or Bush... or McCain...] is not an economic argument.

And just a question because it seems to be begged...So the Republicans think you have to wait for a dot-com, or real-estate bubble... to create economic growth? Keynes would smile at that one.

Obama's plans will cost $200 billion a year.

true... for those of you who don’t know $200 billion is–if memory serves me–how much Obama’s health care plan costs. For context 200 billion is $645.58 per-capita. 645.58 in my tax dollars going to get millions of people who lack health insurance–such as myself–the ability to get needed medical care and not harm our economy since early treatment rather than last minute care is by far cheaper–more efficient to use an economists term.

And just to give you an idea of how much conservatives end up sounding like they are on mars when talking policy. I spend between 800-1400 dollars a month on health care treatment since I lack health insurance. Its condescending to hardworking Americans who get up each day and try to pay the rules to be told "tough cookies"

Its time for democrats to tell Republicans to cut the crap when it comes to pubic policy.


He then moves onto ear marks...

Ranking Democrats vowed in December to put a moratorium on earmarks; instead, a record number infect legislation pending in Congress, with 32,000 requests this year, compared with about 13,000 in 2006 . In 2007 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slipped in a $25 million provision for San Francisco's waterfront on a $15 billion federal water bill at the last minute

First a question why do "earmarks" always come up when talking to a conservative? The Economist magazine pointed out that all earmarks add up to less than $20 billion a year. That for fiscal year 2008 is $64.56. Since that is a very small chunk of my tax dollars and its part of the push and pull of a federal system. I have faith in our processes of checks and balances... and faith that corruption can be founded and dealt with... the sky isn’t falling.

$25 million for the San Fran waterfront.

For those that don’t know... for fiscal year 2008 that would be 8 cents of my tax dollars. 8 cents? 8 cents? Do we really need to deal with 8 cents? Millions without health care, Bin Ladin still on the loose, terrorist recrutiments UP after the Iraq war... and conservatives want to talk about 8 cents????

Since you brought it up I’ll answer it. San Francisco is a major tourist hub. It brings in tourists from all over the world–myself included. Ask an economist... Adam Smith... Joseph Stiglitz... anyone outside of the Heritage institute really and they will point out the importance of investment in vital infrastructure. Tourism brings a lot of money to the state of California and the United States as a whole. Next time I go to San Fran and enjoy a stroll through one of the tourist district I will feel pleased to know my 8 cents helped me have an enjoyable visit.

Cutting individual taxes increases spending which creates more tax money. ...

Yeah point blank not true... was never thought to be true in theory by a large chunk of economist... and since the Regan revolution has still not proven true in the real world.

You often hear this argument... "the tax cuts pay for themselves." Its either someone misinformed or trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Don’t let them do it. For more on this read "The Politics of Bad Ideas–the Great Tax Cut Delusion and the Decline of Good Government in America" by Bryan D. Jones and Walter Williams both of whom are at the Center for American Politics and Public Policy at University of Washington.

Then we move back to health care...

Fixing health care does not mean going the Hillary Clinton way of demanding that everyone buy health care or an employer does not have to hire you. Fixing health care starts with tort reform in keeping health provider costs down.

We rank 37th in the world for quality of health care. We rank 37th!!!

WE SPEND 2 to 3 times as much as other industrialized nations who already have universal coverage. We are creating huge profits for a small group of people, causing hard working Americans to go bankrupt from illnesses they have no control over, and we are killing people every day because they lack needed treatment. Our businesses put at a competitive disadvantage because they are paying the price....

The idea that tort reform and health care provider costs is going to fix the market failure we are currently dealing with is a bit of a stretch. Private insurance companies and the bureaucracy they bring into the health care system IS PART OF THE PROBLEM. Insurance companies pay people a lot of money to go through peoples files to try to keep people from getting insurance or certain treatments.

I am not sure what school your child goes to but my child has books and supplies. The school is responsible for teaching your child not for buying them paper, pencils, pens, glue, etc

Our schools are underfunded.... class sizes too large... teacher pay too low.

As someone who dropped out of high school... I can tell you how passionate I am on making sure that our kids stay competitive in a global economy.

If we don’t invest in our kids... and create and educated work force we will continue to fall far behind Japan, Europe and the other industrialized nations in the world As someone who wants to know my economy is going to be strong and stronger... over the long run I can tell you how passionate I am at making sure the needed investment in our infrastructure is spent NOW.

Instead of seeing a hand-out... see it as a hand-up which helps empower other people to rise up and helps protect your own economic security at the same time

You say that you are not for too much government but you want them to control everything and provide it for you. Be responsible for yourself and stop looking for handouts.

When did I say that??? I don’t know how to respond to that one since I never said I want them to control everything and provide it for you. Republicans always try this trick. If it isn't a trick then its a manipulation. I never said any such thing so I can't respond to the attack.

Be responsible for yourself and stop looking for handouts

That about as condescending as it gets... and you see it from conservatives all the time.

You don’t know me... but it doesn’t matter... you shouldn’t need to. The presumption should always be that people are trying to play by the rules and work hard. Plus I'm demanding better schools, better health care system, better foriegn policy. What do those things have to do with not being responsible for myself... what about that is look for a handout. I'm demanding Government actually do its job. It is there to protect and empower people. Plus personally I believe that which we do to the least of these is very telling about ourselves.

Every time someone tells me to stop whining and work hard I think of my grandfather who got up everyday before the sun to go work on his farm, would then go work at the factory for 8 to 10 hours, to come home and raise a family. He died with less than $200 to his name and never lived very far above the poverty line. You can call me every name in the book... but you I won’t let you call my grandfather lazy.

Imagine if Democrats finally told Republicans.. .cut the crap. The attacks, the personal a fronts, the swift boat ads... and urban legends speak to how little Republicans how when it comes to policy. But they win if Democrats don’t fight back. Knock on doors, make phone calls.... help bring our country back to the entrepreneurial machine it once was. Government is in the business of empowering its citizens. Its time to say no to another Republican who won’t do the job.




--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

What am I missing here?

Boortz...
THE U.S.EXAMPLE

Barack Obama finally came around on Russia, scolding the nation for invading a sovereign nation (Georgia). However, now he has thrown a new caveat into the mix: the United States should set a better example on that front, too. He says, "We've got to send a clear message to Russia and unify our allies ... They can't charge into other countries. Of course it helps if we are leading by example on that point."

So finally, Barack Obama comes out and directly compares Russia's military invasion of Georgia to our own efforts in Iraq. Way to go Big O.

Does anyone remember Georgia being a threat to Russia? Did Georgia have a weapons program? Was Georgia in violation of multiple UN Resolutions ... violations that authorized any UN member to go in and remove their leader? Just wondering.

What am I missing?

Does anyone remember Iraq being a threat to the their neighbors let alone the United States? Did Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?--and weren't the U.N. weapons inspectors, as well as many allies, and anti-war activists here at home pointing to the holes in that idea? Wasn't the US in violation of UN Resolutions when it preemptively attacked with no authorization from the Security Council?--the answer is yes if you weren't aware.

The lack of awareness about the facts during the war... and the rewriting of history afterwards has been an amazing and shockingly successful feat by conservatives.

And if you were wondering how laughable the idea that Iraq was a threat... think back to Iraq I. Where Arab countries were calling for us to beat back the preemptive attack by Iraq which lacked authorization from the security council. Thats why we fought with a HUGE coalition, and the war was paid for--mostly by Saudi Arabia if my memory serves me.

Agree or disagree with how it went down... we--Republican and Democrat alike--knew how to win wars, effectively, and at as little cost to our soldiers and our citizens wallets. Republicans were taken over by the conservative wing and all of a sudden the ability to win a war becomes this great quandary. As if military strategy was back to the rock, bigger rock, spear, club... of our ancestors days in the caves.

sigh... what a waste of lives, money, and our national security...

Obama 2008. The lesser of two evils...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Go out and organize... register voters... vote... our Republic is at stake: Obama 2008

A Kind of Fascism Is Replacing Our Democracy

by Sheldon S. Wolin

Sept. 11, 2001, hastened a significant shift in our nation's self-understanding. It became commonplace to refer to an "American empire" and to the United States as "the world's only superpower."

Instead of those formulations, try to conceive of ones like "superpower democracy" or "imperial democracy," and they seem not only contradictory but opposed to basic assumptions that Americans hold about their political system and their place within it. Supposedly ours is a government of constitutionally limited powers in which equal citizens can take part in power. But one can no more assume that a superpower welcomes legal limits than believe that an empire finds democratic participation congenial.

No administration before George W. Bush's ever claimed such sweeping powers for an enterprise as vaguely defined as the "war against terrorism" and the "axis of evil." Nor has one begun to consume such an enormous amount of the nation's resources for a mission whose end would be difficult to recognize even if achieved.

Like previous forms of totalitarianism, the Bush administration boasts a reckless unilateralism that believes the United States can demand unquestioning support, on terms it dictates; ignores treaties and violates international law at will; invades other countries without provocation; and incarcerates persons indefinitely without charging them with a crime or allowing access to counsel.

The drive toward total power can take different forms, as Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union suggest.

The American system is evolving its own form: "inverted totalitarianism." This has no official doctrine of racism or extermination camps but, as described above, it displays similar contempt for restraints.

It also has an upside-down character. For instance, the Nazis focused upon mobilizing and unifying the society, maintaining a continuous state of war preparations and demanding enthusiastic participation from the populace. In contrast, inverted totalitarianism exploits political apathy and encourages divisiveness. The turnout for a Nazi plebiscite was typically 90 percent or higher; in a good election year in the United States, participation is about 50 percent.

Another example: The Nazis abolished the parliamentary system, instituted single-party rule and controlled all forms of public communication. It is possible, however, to reach a similar result without seeming to suppress. An elected legislature is retained but a system of corruption (lobbyists, campaign contributions, payoffs to powerful interests) short-circuits the connection between voters and their representatives. The system responds primarily to corporate interests; voters become cynical, resigned; and opposition seems futile.

While Nazi control of the media meant that only the "official story" was communicated, that result is approximated by encouraging concentrated ownership of the media and thereby narrowing the range of permissible opinions.

This can be augmented by having "homeland security" envelop the entire nation with a maze of restrictions and by instilling fear among the general population by periodic alerts raised against a background of economic uncertainty, unemployment, downsizing and cutbacks in basic services.

Further, instead of outlawing all but one party, transform the two-party system. Have one, the Republican, radically change its identity:

From a moderately conservative party to a radically conservative one.

From a party of isolationism, skeptical of foreign adventures and viscerally opposed to deficit spending, to a party zealous for foreign wars.

From a party skeptical of ideologies and eggheads into an ideologically driven party nurturing its own intellectuals and supporting a network that transforms the national ideology from mildly liberal to predominantly conservative, while forcing the Democrats to the right and and enfeebling opposition.

From one that maintains space between business and government to one that merges governmental and corporate power and exploits the power-potential of scientific advances and technological innovation. (This would differ from the Nazi warfare organization, which subordinated "big business" to party leadership.)

The resulting dynamic unfolded spectacularly in the technology unleashed against Iraq and predictably in the corporate feeding frenzy over postwar contracts for Iraq's reconstruction.

In institutionalizing the "war on terrorism" the Bush administration acquired a rationale for expanding its powers and furthering its domestic agenda. While the nation's resources are directed toward endless war, the White House promoted tax cuts in the midst of recession, leaving scant resources available for domestic programs. The effect is to render the citizenry more dependent on government, and to empty the cash-box in case a reformist administration comes to power.

Americans are now facing a grim situation with no easy solution. Perhaps the just-passed anniversary of the Declaration of Independence might remind us that "whenever any form of Government becomes destructive ..." it must be challenged.

Sheldon S. Wolin is emeritus professor of politics at Princeton University and the author of "Politics and Vision: The Presence of the Past" and "Alexis de Tocqueville: Between Two Worlds."

Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Henry Rollins: On President Bush

In the "take our word for it... we learned the hard way" file

"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."

-- President Bush, quoted by the Associated Press.


--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

John McCain... more of the same...

WSJ forgets to mention that fact...

Summary: The Wall Street Journal reported that the RNC "made note of Sen. Obama's party-line votes. During the 109th Congress, which was in session in 2005-2006, Sen. Obama voted along party lines 97% of the time. Sen. McCain voted with his party 81% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly." But in citing only the CQ 2005-2006 "party unity" scores provided by the RNC, the Journal failed to note that according to a 2008 CQ study, McCain voted in support of the Bush administration's position 95 percent of the time in 2007, making McCain the administration's most reliable supporter in the Senate that year.


In an August 13 Wall Street Journal article, Elizabeth Holmes and Amy Chozick reported that the Republican National Committee (RNC) "criticized" Sen. Barack Obama "for, in its view, his lack of bipartisan accomplishments." The article continued: "They made note of Sen. Obama's party-line votes. During the 109th Congress, which was in session in 2005-2006, Sen. Obama voted along party lines 97% of the time. Sen. McCain voted with his party 81% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly." But in citing only the Congressional Quarterly 2005-2006 "party unity" scores provided by the RNC, Holmes and Chozick failed to note that according to a 2008 Congressional Quarterly study, McCain voted in support of the Bush administration's position 95 percent of the time in 2007, making McCain the administration's most reliable supporter in the Senate that year. Indeed, in a January 13 article (accessed via Nexis), CQ reported that "McCain's 95 percent support [for Bush] score for last year was the highest in the chamber." Moreover, CQ also found that McCain has voted with Bush 90 percent of the time over the seven-and-a-half years of Bush's presidency.

In addition, discussing the establishment of "Republicans for Obama," Holmes and Chozick wrote: "Despite Sen. McCain's bipartisan activity, including on campaign finance and immigration, the Republicans behind the Obama support group express dismay with how his candidacy has evolved." But in citing immigration as an example of McCain's "bipartisan activity," Holmes and Chozick did not note that, under pressure from the Republican base, McCain reversed himself on a key component of immigration reform, now saying that "we've got to secure the borders first" -- a position at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective. McCain further stated during the January 30 Republican presidential debate that he would not vote for the comprehensive reform bill he co-sponsored with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) if it came to a vote on the Senate floor.

From the August 13 Journal article:

Sen. McCain echoed the same sentiment in his opening statements. "I know Americans are tired of the partisanship," he said before opening the floor up to questions. "I have a record of reaching across the aisle, reaching across the aisle and working with my friends, whether it be Joe Lieberman or Ted Kennedy."

The Arizona senator's comments were supported by the Republican National Committee, which criticized the Illinois senator for, in its view, his lack of bipartisan accomplishments. They made note of Sen. Obama's party-line votes. During the 109th Congress, which was in session in 2005-2006, Sen. Obama voted along party lines 97% of the time. Sen. McCain voted with his party 81% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly.

Despite Sen. McCain's bipartisan activity, including on campaign finance and immigration, the Republicans behind the Obama support group express dismay with how his candidacy has evolved.

Mr. [Lincoln] Chafee said that he supported Sen. McCain on a number of issues while he was in the Senate but said he's seen a sharp change. "It's a different John McCain," Mr. Chafee said, pointing to the candidate's reversal from previous stances to support offshore drilling and Bush tax cuts. "Seeing the two different John McCains is a fracture in his credibility."

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

after 8 years of a Republican President America is a different place...

This is why i'm voting for the lesser of two evils

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

The Onion gets it right on Bush... in January of 2001

Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'
January 17, 2001 | Issue 37•01


April 6, 2005
WASHINGTON, DC–Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."


Enlarge Image
President-elect Bush vows that "together, we can put the triumphs of the recent past behind us."
"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"

On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.

Wall Street responded strongly to the Bush speech, with the Dow Jones industrial fluctuating wildly before closing at an 18-month low. The NASDAQ composite index, rattled by a gloomy outlook for tech stocks in 2001, also fell sharply, losing 4.4 percent of its total value between 3 p.m. and the closing bell.

Asked for comment about the cooling technology sector, Bush said: "That's hardly my area of expertise."

Turning to the subject of the environment, Bush said he will do whatever it takes to undo the tremendous damage not done by the Clinton Administration to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He assured citizens that he will follow through on his campaign promise to open the 1.5 million acre refuge's coastal plain to oil drilling. As a sign of his commitment to bringing about a change in the environment, he pointed to his choice of Gale Norton for Secretary of the Interior. Norton, Bush noted, has "extensive experience" fighting environmental causes, working as a lobbyist for lead-paint manufacturers and as an attorney for loggers and miners, in addition to suing the EPA to overturn clean-air standards.

Bush had equally high praise for Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, whom he praised as "a tireless champion in the battle to protect a woman's right to give birth."

"Soon, with John Ashcroft's help, we will move out of the Dark Ages and into a more enlightened time when a woman will be free to think long and hard before trying to fight her way past throngs of protesters blocking her entrance to an abortion clinic," Bush said. "We as a nation can look forward to lots and lots of babies."



Soldiers at Ft. Bragg march lockstep in preparation for America's return to aggression.
Continued Bush: "John Ashcroft will be invaluable in healing the terrible wedge President Clinton drove between church and state."

The speech was met with overwhelming approval from Republican leaders.

"Finally, the horrific misrule of the Democrats has been brought to a close," House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert (R-IL) told reporters. "Under Bush, we can all look forward to military aggression, deregulation of dangerous, greedy industries, and the defunding of vital domestic social-service programs upon which millions depend. Mercifully, we can now say goodbye to the awful nightmare that was Clinton's America."

"For years, I tirelessly preached the message that Clinton must be stopped," conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh said. "And yet, in 1996, the American public failed to heed my urgent warnings, re-electing Clinton despite the fact that the nation was prosperous and at peace under his regime. But now, thank God, that's all done with. Once again, we will enjoy mounting debt, jingoism, nuclear paranoia, mass deficit, and a massive military build-up."

An overwhelming 49.9 percent of Americans responded enthusiastically to the Bush speech.

"After eight years of relatively sane fiscal policy under the Democrats, we have reached a point where, just a few weeks ago, President Clinton said that the national debt could be paid off by as early as 2012," Rahway, NJ, machinist and father of three Bud Crandall said. "That's not the kind of world I want my children to grow up in."

"You have no idea what it's like to be black and enfranchised," said Marlon Hastings, one of thousands of Miami-Dade County residents whose votes were not counted in the 2000 presidential election. "George W. Bush understands the pain of enfranchisement, and ever since Election Day, he has fought tirelessly to make sure it never happens to my people again."

Bush concluded his speech on a note of healing and redemption.

"We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two," Bush said. "Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there's much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."

"The insanity is over," Bush said. "After a long, dark night of peace and stability, the sun is finally rising again over America. We look forward to a bright new dawn not seen since the glory days of my dad."


--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Buch/McCain and 4 more years of the same...

oooppps

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

WTF???

So I've been reading newspapers since about 5:10 this morning... its now 6:36 and I just came across this in the Jeruselam Post: 'Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term'

I don't know anything about the Jerusalam Post. Is this just Bush PR going to Isreal? Is it legit--and if so why isn't in the Financial Times or New York Times??? My hunch is Bush PR but gee I never thought the American public would think invading Iraq was a good idea--so what do I know.

This is what brings peace... Bush might learn from it...

Whether it was petty partisanship... or just not understanding forigen policy. Bush's statement on diplomacy with enemies was unacceptable and should be vocally condemned here at home.

If you want to create peace. If you truly want to win over the Arab "street." You have to show up at the table and talk. Dictators can't undermine you as well when you are actively engaging them.
In Qatar, Muslim, Jewish clerics meet

DOHA, Qatar (AP) — More than a dozen rabbis, including two from Israel, were in attendance this week as this conservative Muslim sheikdom opened one of the Gulf's first scholarly centers dedicated to interfaith dialogue.

The rare meeting of Muslim, Christian and Jewish scholars in the heartland of conservative Islam is another sign of Qatar's efforts to present a moderate image as it bids for the 2016 summer Olympic Games. It's also part of a broader push by Arab governments for interfaith dialogue, even though most still do not recognize Israel.

The talks were not entirely smooth, and politics and disputes over the Palestinian issue did inevitably intrude, said Rabbi David James Lazar, leader of a synagogue in Tel Aviv.

Yet, the benefits for him were huge, he said — especially the ability to make personal connections with Arabs and Muslims "who otherwise I would have no contact with."

"For some it's their first chance ever to hear, not only an Israeli but to hear a Jewish rabbi speak ... And so one of my responses is trying to tell them the story of the Jewish people, which often they have not heard. The Holocaust," he said.

"I hear their story as well," he said. "It's an exchange of stories."

Another attendee, Rabbi Herschel Gluck, chairman of the Muslim Jewish Forum in Britain, commended Qatar for "being brave" by holding the conference.

"We know that hosting rabbis and an interreligious forum can be controversial in the region," said Gluck, whose group is based in a part of London where Jewish and Muslim communities sit side by side.

Some Qataris did criticize the gathering.

"This openness to other faiths creates confusion among our people and jeopardizes our identity," said one preacher at the local Fanar Islamic center, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

But other Qataris consider this and other changes made by Sheik Hamad bin Jassem bin Jabr al Thani as progressive and credit him for social and economic reforms since 1995.

Two months ago, the country also allowed the opening of its first-ever Catholic church. It has had low-level ties with Israel through a trade office for 12 years although it does not recognize Israel, and recently also invited Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to speak at a conference on democracy.

Ibrahim al-Nuaimi, the director of the interfaith center sponsored by the ruling family, said the goal is to "promote joint studies of academics from three faiths to foster understanding and peace."

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, who heads Vatican's council for inter-religious dialogue and attended the conference, praised Qatar's efforts to include Jews.

"As religious leaders, let us promote a sound pedagogy of peace, which is taught in the family, mosques, synagogues and churches," Tauran said.

Efforts at interfaith dialogue got one of their biggest boosts when Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah met with Pope Benedict XVI last November at the Vatican.

In March, the Saudi king then made an impassioned plea for dialogue among Muslims, Christians and Jews — the first such proposal from a nation with no diplomatic ties to Israel and a ban on non-Muslim religious services and symbols.

The moves, however, come amid rising tensions in the region and with peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians stalled. Many also believe there is a growing gap of understanding between the Muslim Arab world and the West.

Muslims have been angered by cartoons published in European papers seen as insulting the Prophet Muhammad and by the pope's baptizing on Easter of a Muslim journalist who had converted to Catholicism.

The specifics of the Saudi king's initiative — and who would participate — still remain unclear, in particular whether Israeli religious leaders would be invited to a Saudi-brokered dialogue.

It also is unclear if the Saudi efforts would have any political component, or any eventual impact on stalled Arab-Israeli and Palestinian peace talks.

Lazar, the Tel Aviv rabbi, said he is no politician but will carry his warm impressions from the conference back to his students and synagogue — as he hopes Muslim clerics will, too.

Lazar said one Palestinian researcher at the conference confronted him about Israeli textbooks that were, in his words, promoting hatred of Palestinians among Israeli Jewish children.

"My challenge to him was, let us meet together ... and together we'll look at our textbooks, the Jewish textbooks, the Muslim textbooks and the Christian textbooks in Palestine and Israel — and together we'll find if they're educating children toward hate," he said.

A sucker is born every day...

So I guess I should have known better. But my stimulus package check was dropped into my account yesterday. I got $400. Both my fiance and I thought it was going to be $600--thats what you keep hearing in the news. Now I don't exactly know why I thought that the Bush Administration would lead me wrong... and I very clearly remember arguing with people that the average tax cut went to middle income people in the Bush Tax Cut plans. But gee's that sucks.

Now granted I didn't like the stimulus package to begin with cause it wasn't very effective way of stimulating the economy. Increasing food stampms/tanf would be the quickest and easiest way to jumpstart the economy. You don't have to change anything or pay for extra stuff... so there isn't a delay. All you do is immediately up the amount given out. And more importantly it goes to the people who need it the most in a down turn and they will put the money right back into the economy. You don't put a lot away into your roth ira when you don't have enough food to eat and such.

But nonetheless it passed so I'll take it. And like others I will put it towards paying medical bills... which isn't exactly the shot in the arm the economy needs. oh well such is life.

tax's cut that go to the top 1%... no kidding

It is no accident that the President managed to use the t-word at least twenty and as many as 36 times in each of his post-9/11 State of the Union addresses (as opposed to only once in January 2001).

--John Mueller Terrorphobia

update: I need to give you more of the juicy quotes from this one...

Since when does it take political courage to defend a rational approach to public policy against an hysterical one?

Once again, the parallel with the post-World War II Red Scare is instructive. In that atmosphere politicians scurried to support spending billions upon billions of dollars to surveil, screen and protect, and to spy on an ever-expanding array of individuals who had aroused suspicion for one reason or another. Organizations were infiltrated, phones were tapped (each tap can require the full-time services of a dozen agents and support personnel), letters were intercepted, people were followed, loyalty oaths were required, endless leads (almost all to nowhere) were pursued, defense plants were hardened, concentration camps for prospective emergency use were established (an idea desperately proposed by Senate liberals in 1950), and garbage was meticulously sifted in the hope of unearthing scraps of incriminating information.


[credit: Associated Press] At the time, critics of this process focused almost entirely on the potential for civil liberties violations. This is a worthy concern, but hardly the only one. As far as I know, at no point during the Cold War did anyone say: “Yes, many domestic Communists adhere to a foreign ideology that ultimately has as its goal the destruction of capitalism and democracy by violence if necessary, but they’re so pathetic they couldn’t subvert their way out of a wet paper bag. So why are we expending so much time, effort and treasure over this issue?” It is astounding to me that this plausible, if admittedly debatable, point of view seems never to have been publicly expressed by any politician, pundit, professor or editorialist (although some may have believed it privately). On Stouffer’s survey, only a lonely and obviously politically insignificant share of the population (about 2 percent) professed to believe that domestic Communists presented no danger at all.....

Criticisms of the Patriot Act and of the Bush Administration’s efforts to apprehend prospective terrorists focus almost entirely on concerns about civil liberties, worrying that the rights of innocent Americans might be trampled in the rush to pursue terrorists. This is a perfectly valid concern, but from time to time someone might wonder a bit in public about how much the quest to ferret out terrorists and to protect ourselves is costing, as well as about how meager the results have been. In their valuable recent book, Less Safe, Less Free (2007), David Cole and Jules Lobel ably detail and critique the process. As their title implies, they suggest that we are less safe in part because the FBI and other agencies have failed in their well-funded quest to uncover the enemy within. There’s an alternative explanation, however: They have not failed, and we are not less safe; investigators haven’t found much of anything because there isn’t much of anything to find... All this may help to explain why there have been no al-Qaeda attacks in the United States for so many years, contrary to almost all anticipations. Perhaps the group’s goal is not to destroy the United States with explosions, but to have the Americans destroy themselves by wallowing in fear and by engaging in counterproductive policy overreaction. Thus, shortly after 9/11, Osama bin Laden happily crowed that “America is full of fear, from its north to its south, from its west to its east. Thank God for that.” And in 2004 he proclaimed his policy to be “bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy”, noting with consummate glee that, “It is easy for us to provoke and bait. . . . All that we have to do is . . . raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses.” The 9/11 attacks, he calculated, cost only $500,000 to carry out, “while the attack and its aftermath inflicted a cost of more than $500 billion on the United States.”

Bush blunder...

Krugman citing Juan Cole on recent Iraq news

The entire episode underlines how powerful Iran has become in Iraq. The Iranian government had called on Saturday for the fighting to stop. And by Sunday evening it had negotiated at least a similar call from Sadr (whether the fighting actually stops remains to be seen and depends on local commanders and on whether al-Maliki meets Sadr’s conditions).

Notes the very cold reality of our Foreign Policy blunder

So America is spending $12 billion a month to sustain what has, in practice, become an Iranian sphere of influence.

"I see our country going off a cliff, and I feel bad about it."

The Rise of American Incompetence: We used to be the world's most skillful entrepreneurs and managers. Now we're laughingstocks. What happened? by Daniel Gross


One thought... in 27 years we've had 24 years of Republican Presidential Rule... and we currently have a Harvard Business School graduate at the helm. We've got a culture that tells people "its your money" and a political movement to cut taxes--all in spite of the fact that an economy is a collective effort. Pathologies are high and education levels low...

go figure.

Interesting take on the Bush tax cuts...

From Brad Delong back in July of 2004

First, can we please please please please please please PLEASE!! stop talking about Bush's "tax cuts." There are no tax cuts. There's a tax shift--current taxpayers pay less, and future taxpayers pay more. Only by pretending that nobody has to service and amortize the growing federal debt can you talk about Bush's "tax cuts." They aren't there, any more than a $5,000 increase in your VISA limit is an increase in your income.

.

Krugman on movement conservatism and the thesis of his new book (which I highly recommend)

What the movement is about is economics: the core goal is, as Heritage says in its fundraising letters, to roll back the New Deal and the Great Society — or as Grover Norquist puts it, to get things back to the way they were “up until Teddy Roosevelt, when the socialists took over.”

Race and other distractions aren’t the goal, they’re a tactic — they’re how an anti-populist movement wins elections.

The 2004 election was a perfect example. Bush won by portraying himself as the nation’s defender against gay married terrorists — then, immediately after the election, declared that privatizing Social Security was his first priority.