Mojo - May 2009

Should We Go Dutch?

| Mon May. 4, 2009 9:11 AM PDT

If you haven't already, read Russell Shorto's profile of the Dutch social welfare state. He extols the system's virtues—health care, subsidized child care, and not only a month of paid vacation, but a check (8 percent of your annual salary) from the government to pay for that trip to the Swiss Alps—before tugging us back to earth:

Then, too, one downside of a collectivist society, of which the Dutch themselves complain, is that people tend to become slaves to consensus and conformity. I asked a management consultant and a longtime American expat, Buford Alexander, former director of McKinsey & Company in the Netherlands, for his thoughts on this. “If you tell a Dutch person you’re going to raise his taxes by 500 euros and that it will go to help the poor, he’ll say O.K.,” he said. “But if you say he’s going to get a 500-euro tax cut, with the idea that he will give it to the poor, he won’t do it. The Dutch don’t do such things on their own. They believe they should be handled by the system. To an American, that’s a lack of individual initiative.”

Another corollary of collectivist thinking is a cultural tendency not to stand out or excel. “Just be normal” is a national saying, and in an earlier era children were taught, in effect, that “if you were born a dime, you’ll never be a quarter” — the very antithesis of the American ideal of upward mobility.

I read those two paragraphs and immediately thought, "Knowing that, can we really achieve something like universal health care here?" For a second, my answer was "No, we can't." Even a lefty like me shudders at the idea an individual born a dime can't become a quarter, to borrow Shorto's phrase. Most Americans, myself included, believe in an equality of opportunity, but not of outcome. I like the idea that I do not have to be normal; I can take risks and excel.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

WhiteHouse.gov's Newest Facelift

| Fri May. 1, 2009 6:15 PM PDT

Ok, maybe it's more of a brow lift.

From ProPublica today:

Our ever-watchful ChangeTracker tool spied a flurry of activity at whitehouse.gov yesterday—the administration updated more than two dozen web pages. Changes included some sweeping edits and complete rewrites to "The Agenda" area of the site, now renamed as "Issues."

I guess "Issues" sounds better. But check this out:

The Iraq page was deleted and replaced with a single paragraph on the foreign policy page.
Like many issues pages the civil rights page was dramatically cut. 756 words devoted to supporting the LGBT community have been replaced with two sentences.

Read more on ProPublica about that.

And if you haven't played with this yet, check out ProPublica's ChangeTracker. It's a nifty web tool that, you guessed it, tracks changes—to whitehouse.gov and a few other gov sites. Even cooler: They tell you how to create your own change tracker for any site you like.

Video: David Corn Talks Souter on Hardball

| Fri May. 1, 2009 5:32 PM PDT

Just how politicized will the choice of the next Supreme Court Justice get? Watch David Corn and Voto Latino's Maria Teresa Petersen debate that and other flashpoint issues on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews tonight. Video below.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Goodbye, MoJo-land!

| Fri May. 1, 2009 1:09 PM PDT

Folks, sad news. Today marks my last day at Mother Jones. I'll be leaving the magazine after four happy years to attend the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. It has been an absolute privilege to write for you in this space for the last two and a half years. Even now, I'm still a bit shocked that I was paid to express my thoughts and opinions on the day's headlines, something I had been doing loudly and proudly without pay for years. It's been a blast.

The editors here at the magazine have my eternal gratitude for the opportunities they bestowed upon me. They work extremely hard to put together a serious, compelling, and thought-provoking product (which, by the way, they sell at a very affordable price), and still made time to advise and nurture me. I hope you'll find space in your increasingly cluttered media tableau for a print subscription to the magazine. I'll have one. Maybe we can meet up in the comments section online.

I could wax on for a long time, but instead, I'll do this. If anyone out there in the wide world of MoJo is interested in my unvarnished thoughts on blogs, the media, and their ability to cover policy and politics, just ask for them in the comments section of this post over the next couple days. If we get a good conversation going, you can expect a fair amount of self-reflection and even some self-criticism from me.

Thanks for indulging me, everyone. Take care.

Chrysler, the UAW, and a Small Car Named Desire

| Fri May. 1, 2009 10:26 AM PDT

What’s news about Chrysler is not that the big auto maker was pushed into bankruptcy or that a small number of greedy mutual and hedge fund operators tried to screw the deal–but that the United Auto Workers Union  has emerged with a 55 percent stake in the new company. Even amidst all the concessions and temporary plant closures, this is a victory of sorts for labor and for this union, which once stood at the forefront of progressive politics in the United States. 

The deal, of course, also has serious downsides for the UAW, which took deep cuts in pay and benefits, especially for new workers, and gained its 55 percent stake by accepting Chrysler equity for half the $10.6 billion obligation that the automaker owes a retiree health-care trust. Harley Shaiken, a labor expert at UC Berkeley, cautioned that if Chrysler fails in the long run, the equity could turn out to be worthless. Shaiken told Bloomberg News today: “The union will have a tough fight in the future to make sure competitiveness results in high-wage jobs rather than coming at their expense.”

Yet the deal was approved by an overwhelming majority of union members. And Obama’s announcement of an agreement that effectively includes union ownership is not just a strike at Wall Street; it could reach far beyond, to hit at the heart of the ruinous policies of our celebrated corporate industrial complex. 

Supreme Court Bingo: Who Should Replace Souter?

| Fri May. 1, 2009 9:45 AM PDT

Here's Salon's list of (the weirdo) Souter replacements.

Here's Slate's.

Here's Politico's.

Here are some hints from the NYT.

Yeah, lots of liberal overlap, but we'll all just have to stayed tuned. Obama is nothing if not inscrutable.

Been gleefully looking for Limbaugh-ian ones. Will post when their apoplexy lifts.

Tee hee.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Update: Billions Have Gone to TX in Federal Disaster Aid During Perry's Tenure

| Fri May. 1, 2009 7:13 AM PDT
rick-perry-headshot.jpg

Yesterday I mentioned that Texas Governor Rick Perry's secessionist rhetoric flies in the face of Texas' history of receiving gobs of federal money: the state has received federal disaster assistance more frequently than any other in the Union.

Today, I have some raw numbers, courtesy of FEMA's public affairs office in Denton, Texas. During Perry's tenure -- 2001 to the present -- FEMA alone has sent $3.45 billion to Texas. $3,449,142,397 to be exact. That figure does not include funding from any other federal agencies (of which there is plenty), nor does it include funding for Hurricane Ike recovery, which is still ongoing.

To get a sense of how much federal money goes to Texas every time a disaster strikes, consider the numbers in this FEMA press release from earlier this month: since Ike made landfall in September 2008, Texas has received over $2 billion in disaster relief funding from various federal agencies. That includes just $96 million from FEMA (to pay hotel bills for displaced citizens). The rest comes from the Small Business Administration and other agencies.

I want to be clear. I'm not saying Texas and its hurricane-weary citizens don't deserve this money. They do. I'm glad the federal government is able to step in and help states recover from natural disasters when local authorities are overwhelmed. But it's galling that Governor Perry, who reportedly has an eye on a presidential run, ginned up the GOP base by talking of splitting from the "oppressive" Obama administration (his words) when he knows full well that the federal government has bailed out his state repeatedly, and probably will do so again. Where does Perry think all this money would come from if Texas was its own state? He's probably have to raise taxes to the point where Texas would want to secede from itself.

Advertisement