December 23, 2004

9:00 AM
A Note For Our Readers: Taking a Break

MoJoBlog is taking a break for the holidays. We'll be back Jan. 3 relaxed, recharged, and ready to go.

In the meantime, Happy Holidays! See you in '05.

- MoJoBlog

Link this     E-mail this     Print this

 

December 22, 2004

4:51 PM
Another kind of energy crisis

Natural gas is one of the more obvious future replacements for oil, since it’s relatively inexpensive and supplies are plentiful (Qatar alone has enough to fuel the U.S. for decades). But, as Department of Energy officials reported Tuesday, natural gas carries with it a serious risk, with the tankers carrying the gas’ liquefied form becoming potential terrorism targets. As the Boston Globe reports:

The new Energy Department study, conducted by Sandia National Laboratories, found that a thermal blast from a terrorist attack on a tanker would ignite buildings more than a third of a mile away and cause second-degree burns on exposed skin for up to a mile -- far into the city.

In addition, the full study, which was released yesterday, warns of some previously unknown dangers related to LNG shipments.

Those include the likelihood that an LNG blast would cause cascading explosions in nearby power stations … and the small possibility that a large vapor cloud could extend more than two miles before igniting, thereby spreading destruction much farther than if it ignited immediately.

''The thermal radiation from the ignition of a vapor cloud can be very high within the ignited cloud and, therefore, particularly hazardous to people," the report stated.

As with any potential terrorist attack, it’s cautiously encouraging to see the authorities identifying the problem early and taking precautions. Already, New England gets roughly one-fifth of its energy from liquefied natural gas, so residents are resigned to the risks, the Globe reports:

Grappling with the fact that an LNG explosion could incinerate them in an instant, residents of East Boston and Charlestown are battling back with characteristic grit.

They joke about the dangers. They measure the distance from their homes to the possible blast zones. And they say there's little the city could do to protect them from a catastrophe. That's just the new reality in the neighborhood, as sure as the tankers loom on the horizon.

- Jeff Fleischer

Link this     E-mail this     Print this

 

2:57 PM
Three years on, states still suffering poor job growth

Yesterday, the Economic Policy Institute's "Job Watch" released more troubling economic news. Since the economic recession that began in March 2001 got going, job growth for nearly every state -- except Alaska, Hawaii, and Wyoming -- has declined. In fact, twenty-three states still have fewer jobs than they did three years ago and only nine states have experienced improved unemployment numbers. And the EPI makes a strong case that Bush's economic policies have failed to meet any of the benchmarks put forth by his own advisers:

"These labor market trends clearly point to one conclusion -- the Bush Administration's economic policies continue to fail to generate the jobs that it claimed would be created. When President Bush argued for this 'Jobs and Growth' tax cut plan last year, his Council of Economic Advisers predicted the creation of more than 5 million jobs. Thus far, the national economy has fallen short by nearly 3 million jobs, with only Hawaii and Wyoming meeting or surpassing projections."

President Bush does face an growing backlash from people hit with depressed wages and dwindling income. As an EPI policy analyst so aptly put it, "families don't eat GNP [Gross National Product]. They eat compensation, and that hasn't done so well."

- Tucker Foehl

Link this     E-mail this     Print this

 

2:44 PM
Seeing the forest through fewer trees

On Wednesday, the Forest Service announced its new rules for governing the 155 national forests. While couched in pure Bush administration-speak, the change is a potential boon to logging and other business interests.

As the Associated Press reports, the rules include:

-Give regional forest managers more discretion to approve logging and other commercial projects within two or three years by streamlining environmental reviews that now take up to seven years.

-Relax a requirement to protect fish and wildlife in national forests so species do not become threatened or endangered. Instead, the rules direct forest managers to take into account the best available science to protect air, water, wildlife and other natural resources at a landscape level.

-Require independent audits of all forest plans, using a process known as Environmental Management Systems. The Forest Service says the system accounts for changing forest conditions, while emphasizing science and public involvement.

-Do not promote or discourage any particular forest use, such as recreation, grazing, timber harvest or mineral development. Decisions regarding such uses will be made on a forest-by-forest basis and will be informed by local conditions, science and public input, officials say.

That last one is most important. Historically, the Forest Service favors conservation as a particular use but, under the new rule, logging and "mineral development" are given equal importance under the law. The "independent audits" clause also eliminates the need for thorugh federal assessments -- giving private firms (read: industry) the same opportunity to make assessments, and to do so more quickly (and more cursory). All the aforementioned rules describe the actions as allowing local control, but they really just relax the federal restrictions put in place over the years to ensure these forests persevere. Roger Schlickeisen of Defenders of Wildlife put it best:

"The president's forest regulations are an early Christmas gift to the timber industry masquerading as a government streamlining measure."

- Jeff Fleischer

Link this     E-mail this     Print this

 

12:07 PM
Hollywood Entering the Iraq War

Universal Pictures has announced a plan to make the first movie about the current Iraq War. "The Battle for Falluja," will star Harrison Ford as General Jim Mattis, who led the first assault on Falluja before the White House abruptly halted it. The political slant of Hollywood's first foray into the war in Iraq will follow a yet-to-be-finished book, No True Glory: The Battle for Falluja by Bing West, a former marine and politician, and now war correspondent. The Guardian notes that the film "promises to depict the story from the point of view of U.S. soldiers and politicians" and, stating the obvious, argues that "it seems unlikely that the plight of the Iraqis will figure too prominently in Hollywood's take on the subject." Given the steady stream of media that rarely accounts for the "plight" of Iraqis, it's not surprising that Hollywood will not touch it.

More disturbing, though, is the fact that a book by former assistant Secretary of Defense Bing West -- an unabashed promoter of all things Marine Corps related -- is being used as the template for the film. Here are a few quotes from a recent article onSlate:

On the "strength" of the Corps: "If America needs a hard job done, the marines will do it, and they won't lose their humanity in the process or any sleep over pulling the trigger. Yes, they are 'the world's most lethal killing machine.' That's what America needs in battle."

Types of soldiers involved: "About one in 300 young Americans chooses to join the Marines. Most say they join for the discipline or to belong to a tough unit. These riflemen are a cross section of America. If they are at all different, it is because they have acquired the experience to be forbearing and to do their job of killing while retaining a keen appreciation for the sanctity of life and the tragedy of war."

How many people will turn out to see a film hyping the U.S. military and the battle in Falluja if soldiers and Iraqi civilians are still dying in Iraq? And how can you put a Hollywood ending on such an awful situation? Those seem bigger problems than even Indiana Jones can solve.

- Tucker Foehl

Link this     E-mail this     Print this

 

11:32 AM
Happy XMas (food is over)

Just in time for the holiday season comes this heartwarming report in the New York Times, looking at the massive cuts the administration has made in sending food to the world’s impoverished:

With the budget deficit growing and President Bush promising to reduce spending, the administration has told representatives of several charities that it was unable to honor some earlier promises and would have money to pay for food only in emergency crises like that in Darfur, in western Sudan. The cutbacks, estimated by some charities at up to $100 million, come at a time when the number of hungry in the world is rising for the first time in years and all food programs are being stretched.

As a result, Save the Children, Catholic Relief Services and other charities have suspended or eliminated programs that were intended to help the poor feed themselves through improvements in farming, education and health.

"We have between five and seven million people who have been affected by these cuts," said Lisa Kuennen, a food aid expert at Catholic Relief Services. "We had approval for all of these programs, often a year in advance. We hired staff, signed agreements with governments and with local partners, and now we have had to delay everything."

The Times reports the cuts amount to $600 million less in food aid for this fiscal year, and some $100 million in expected food was not delivered in November and December.

At a time when the U.S. needs to win "hearts and minds" more than ever, the decision to drop food aid sends a poor message. While keeping emergency aid somewhat softens the blow, the best way to ward off emergencies like famine and disease is for the poor to have access to a nutritious diet in the first place. And while this is a sudden act of fiscal responsibility by the Bush administration, there are plenty of less valuable programs that spend far more money (think missile defense), not to mention Bush’s massive pork giveaways leading up to the election. And food aid also lets the U.S. deal with surplus food stocks in a valuable way instead of flooding the U.S. market or having the food go to waste.

The "moral values" crusaders and "saving Christmas" crew have been strangely silent on the administration's decision. They might want to read the bible at some point -- there's a whole lot in there about helping the poor.

- Jeff Fleischer

Link this     E-mail this     Print this

 

10:02 AM
The K Street connection

Last week, MotherJones.com noted retiring Rep. Billy Tauzin's shiny new $2 million contract to lobby on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry (just months after authoring a pharma-friendly prescription drug bill). Today, Knight Ridder looks at other members "sifting through" offers to move a few blocks from the Capitol to K Street, noting that 272 former members of Congress have become registered lobbyists in the past decade.

"It makes sense that people who understand the legislative process, lived that life and know the players are experts," said one former lawmaker who's now a lobbyist and who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Just as in any other field, you want to get somebody who knows what they're doing. That happens to be former members."

Yeah, it makes sense for the lobbying firms. While so much public attention has focused on campaign contributions and their potential influence, it's worth noting that lobbying efforts pump far more money into the political system. According to the Center for Public Integrity, between 1998 and mid-2004, about $4.7 billion was spent on campaign contributions -- and about $12 billion on lobbying efforts. K Street is the overlooked part of the money-in-politics equation, and situation's like Tauzin's might finally bring it to the public's awareness.

- Jeff Fleischer

Link this     E-mail this     Print this

 

December 21, 2004

3:25 PM
Attention Holiday Shoppers! Wal-Mart and Consumer Culture

For some good mental fodder on America's consumer culture, check out Liza Featherstone's latest exposé on Wal-Mart and the politics of shopping inside the world's largest superstore. Adapted from her recent book, Selling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Workers' Rights at Wal-Mart, the article delves into the complex relationship that the retail behemoth has with the workers it exploits by detailing the intimate rapport these workers have with customers as they bond over accessible plus-size clothing, in-common poverty, and, most importantly, extremely low prices. As Featherstone argues, founder Sam Walton brilliance was a "chilling reversal" of Henry Ford's $5 wage strategy -- which allowed workers to actually buy Ford cars and enter the middle-class. Instead, Wal-Mart feeds and grows off poverty, and their stingy compensation policies guarantee that workers can only afford to shop at Wal-Mart.

The quotes from workers, customers, and opponents -- almost all of them women -- also reflect the difficulty in changing the culture of exploitation that Wal-Mart advances in the global marketplace. Featherstone challenges the notion that solely directing one's shopping dollars elsewhere will transform Wal-Mart, and reminds readers that these problems -- unlike many others in the news -- cannot be attributed to President Bush and has more Clinton (Hillary and Bill) influence than any other politicians:

"It is crucial that Wal-Mart's liberal and progressive critics make use of the growing public indignation at the company over sex discrimination, low pay and other workers' rights issues, but it is equally crucial to do this in ways that remind people that their power does not stop at their shopping dollars. It's admirable to drive across town and pay more for toilet paper to avoid shopping at Wal-Mart, but such a gesture is, unfortunately, not enough. As long as people identify themselves as consumers and nothing more, Wal-Mart wins.

... To effectively battle corporate criminals like Wal-Mart, the public must be engaged as citizens, not merely as shoppers. What kind of politics could encourage that? It's not clear that our present political parties are up to the job. Unlike so many horrible things, Wal-Mart cannot be blamed on George W. Bush. The Arkansas-based company prospered under the state's native son Bill Clinton when he was governor and President. Sam Walton and his wife, Helen, were close to the Clintons, and for several years Hillary Clinton, whose law firm represented Wal-Mart, served on the company's board of directors. Bill Clinton's 'welfare reform' has provided Wal-Mart with a ready workforce of women who have no choice but to accept its poverty wages and discriminatory policies."

A combined engagement as both citizen and shopper is an important objective not only during the holiday season, but also needed when fighting a corporate service industry so reliant on low wages and worker exploitation to make profits. Wal-Mart is a healthy reminder that the overwhelming majority of politicians are not invested in fighting corporations or battling these practices. And that reality, for Featherstone, begs the question of what kind of movement can build the "social and political (and I would add cultural) power for workers and citizens that can balance that of Wal-Mart."

- Tucker Foehl

Link this     E-mail this     Print this

 

3:03 PM
As for Afghanistan...

The nation’s newspapers have already combed over George Bush’s comments yesterday on the Iraq war, including his open-ended answer to the question of when troops there will be coming home:

"We would like to achieve our objective as quickly as possible. It is our commander -- again -- I can -- the best people that reflect the answer to that question are people like Abizaid and Casey, who are right there on the ground. And they are optimistic and positive about the gains we're making…I'm also wise enough not to give you a specific moment in time because, sure enough, if we don't achieve it, I'll spend the next press conference I have with you answering why we didn't achieve this specific moment."

On Tuesday, it was ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad’s turn to answer the same question as it pertains to Afghanistan, that other, often overlooked front:

"They will need our help for some time to come. But the trend is clearly towards Afghans taking more and more responsibility. ... Over the longer term, I'm projecting lesser need for lesser numbers."

"There may be, either in a NATO context or a bilateral context, some residual presence indefinitely."

- Jeff Fleischer

Link this     E-mail this     Print this

 

2:44 PM
It's not the microwaves...

You often hear conservatives—here, for example—talk about how yes, there may be a few poor Americans here and there, but they're so much better off today than they were years ago. They have refrigerators, microwaves, TVs, cell phones… what's not to love? Well, quite a bit, according to a new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The statistics rattle by so quickly, it's almost easy not to notice: About 4 million children live in households that have experienced either hunger or severe crowding over the past year. Most distressingly, about half of all poor families faced multiple hardships—from food insecurity to utility shutoffs—each year between 2001-2003. One thing that often gets lost in the discussion here is that it's not just that families have to deal with a severely ill child, or a missed credit card payment, or a layoff that puts them into high straits—these things often pile on all at once, and end up feeding off each other. Owning a microwave is pretty small consolation in these cases.

- Bradford Plumer

Link this     E-mail this     Print this

 

1:52 PM
Protestors getting set for D.C.

Remember George W. Bush’s inaugural parade in 2000? The eggs thrown at his limo? Bush staying in his limo instead of taking the traditional walk down the parade route? The Secret Service guys jogging to keep up with the limo as it sped away from the protestors?

Activists are planning to again send a message to Bush, with thousands of demonstrators expected to attend the week of protests around the Jan. 20 inaugural. Some groups are still trying to secure permits for the parade route, with even conservative protestors getting into the act. As the Boston Herald notes:

Among planned events are an anti-war rally and three-mile march to the White House, a massive bike ride similar to those that disrupted traffic in New York City before the Republican National Convention, and a "die-in" to remind the nation of more than 1,200 U.S. dead in Iraq.

Through the Web site www.turnyourbackonbush.org, organizers are urging demonstrators to leave political buttons and placards at home, join other parade-goers on the afternoon of the inauguration and then, as Bush's motorcade passes, show the president their backs.

One group plans to make a documentary of the protests to play online that evening, and organizers say their goal is to have more protestors than supporters at the event. Given Bush's shrinking popularity, that seems pretty realistic.

- Jeff Fleischer

Link this     E-mail this     Print this

 

12:15 PM
Measuring the insurgency

After the horrific attacks in Mosul earlier today, it's time to ask, honestly, if the United States is making any headway in defeating the Sunni insurgency. Last week, Knight Ridder reported that officials in the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the State Department think we "aren't winning the battle". On the other hand, the New York Times talked to military officials in Mosul, who ticked off a few optimistic indicators—namely, that they were getting more tips from the locals, and that the price of arms was rising. Unfortunately, as the always-alert Swopa points out, the military has been recycling these same indicators for over a year and a half. That's not at all encouraging.

Next question: if the United States Army and Marine Corps—the best forces on the face of the planet—can't stop the insurgency, how much of a chance will the new Iraqi government have when/if the U.S. pulls out? We've often noted that the Iraqi military (the competent wing, anyways) is smaller than the entire Sunni insurgency. Well, here's one other solution: In a press conference yesterday, Abdul Aziz Hakim, a leading Shiite candidate, claimed that his party could field up to "100,000 [Shiite] militia fighters" to protect voters on election day. As Spencer Ackerman says, it's hard to see how Shiite-guarded voting booths could possibly make the Sunnis feel less marginalized. And it's even harder to see how a new Iraqi government that needs to rely on Shiite militias for protection will lead to anything but full-scale sectarian conflict.

- Bradford Plumer

Link this     E-mail this     Print this

 

12:06 PM
GOP promotes anti-abortion forces

Buried in today’s Washington Post comes news that the GOP is once again getting its pawns in place for another looming challenge to Roe v. Wade.

With William Rehnquist’s seemingly inevitable retirement -- and the president’s predilection for justices in the Scalia-Thomas mode -- it seems fitting that the GOP would choose Sam Brownback and Tom Coburn for its two open seats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Coburn, of course, has repeatedly said abortion providers should get the death penalty. Brownback’s just as intractable, having introduced a failed bill last year that would have required doctors to offer mothers anesthesia for the fetus. And there’s his legendary, Alan-Keyes-like way of working abortion into debate over other subjects, like this 1999 response to high-school students about how to save Social Security:

"A lot of people won't like this comment. You can see a real impact in the abortion policy we've had in this country. We have a lot fewer people out here. You can see we have a lot fewer workers coming on board…You all can have a lot more kids. You need to think about having five or six more children in the family, instead of two or three."

Meanwhile, in the Democratic camp, some of the post-election hand-wringing involves criticizing the party’s general support of abortion rights, presumably in response to the (oft-debunked) notion that "moral values" swung the election to Bush. That’s hardly a fair assessment, with John Kerry taking ample pains to talk about his personal dislike of abortion, and the party choosing Harry Reid (no fan of the practice) as its Senate leader. Polls consistently show the public generally supports the right to an abortion, even if most view it uncomfortably. And, while often lost in the debate, Roe v. Wade has become about much more than abortion, as the Court established a constitutional right to privacy in that case, which has since served as precedent on other issues (such as last year’s overturning of anti-sodomy laws).

The "values-crusader" Republicans continue to play (or overplay) their hand early, and Democrats are better off standing up to them here than ceding and equivocating.

- Jeff Fleischer

Link this     E-mail this     Print this

 

11:18 AM
Regime change in Iran?

The newly reconstituted Committee on Present Danger has issued their long-awaited policy paper (PDF) on Iran. For a supposedly hawkish organization it's a surprisingly mild paper, mostly advocating engagement with the Iranian people in order to undermine clerical rule in Tehran. At points, though, the authors seem to be way too optimistic about the prospects of regime change:

To remain in power, [Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei relies upon his security services. In 1978-79 the Shah's largely peasant-based army disintegrated in the face of massive street demonstrations. The Shah's hated secret police, SAVAK, was overwhelmed. Faced with demonstrations in 2002, Khamanei was unsure the army would obey orders and resorted to using hired paramilitary thugs.

Interesting parallel, sure, but let's be realistic about these comparisons. During the last days of the Shah, his army was facing defections of over 1,000 a day. Khamane'i's security forces suffer no such thing. Back in December of 1978, meanwhile, the demonstrations had grown to over 9 million people. The 2002-2003 protests in Iran, meanwhile, amounted to no more than a couple thousand students. Most importantly, though, the Shah abdicated in 1979 because he refused to crack down hard on the Iranian protestors. Khamane'i is considerably less weak-willed—his baseej thugs attacked student rioters quickly and ruthlessly in 2002 and 2003.

Revolutions are notoriously hard to predict, but by almost any measure, the current Iranian regime looks pretty secure on its perch. Regime change almost certainly won't come in time to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Thankfully, the CPD recognizes this and in a final, very brief point, they actually recommend meeting with Iranian officials, talking about nukes, human rights, and terrorism, and raising the possibility of lifting sanctions as a reward for good behavior. True, this is exactly the sort of "weak-kneed" policy John Kerry proposed on the campaign trail, but it's a smart and sensible one, and it's good to see conservatives come around to it.

- Bradford Plumer

Link this     E-mail this     Print this

 

9:54 AM
It's Bush's world, we just live in it!

Call me mean-spirited, but I've been reading these stories about President Bush's sputtering popularity with a wide grin on my face. As Eric Boehlert gleefully puts it, Bush's approval rating is "arguably the worst for any president about to be sworn into office."

Of course, that doesn't mean Bush won't be able to get some of his second-term agenda passed—like Social Security Abolition. After all, every day brings yet another Chicken Little Republican out to the cameras, trying to rustle up a fake crisis over Social Security. But it's also striking to see how far the president is trying to distance himself from the whole ordeal. As Timothy Noah deftly observed yesterday, when Bush cryptically says that he won't "negotiate with myself in public" about the program, he's trying to heft all the painful details of Social Security Abolition entirely onto Congress' shoulders.

That should not be allowed to happen. I've been reading with great interest Paul Starr's 1995 account of how the Republicans sunk health care reform, and one of the strikingly simple things the GOP did was simply to call it the "Clinton health plan", and make reform a referendum on the president himself:

[T]he identification of the Clintons with the reform of health care became so strong that sentiments crossed over. The Wall Street Journal reported showing the same description of a health reform plan to focus groups with and without the Clinton label. Without the label, the plan won more than 70 percent support; with the label, approval dropped 30 to 40 points. It seems likely, therefore, that when polls asked for opinions about the "Clinton health plan," they tapped general feelings of confidence in President Clinton rather than preferences about the specifics of health policy.

And Bush, note, is personally even more unpopular than Clinton was back then. So let's give it a name! The Bush Retirement Plan? The Bush Pension Fraud? Hmm…

- Bradford Plumer

Link this     E-mail this     Print this

 

December 20, 2004

4:16 PM
Public souring (even more) on Bush

The latest polls are out today, and what George Bush gets for Christmas is a record approval rating. Just not the kind he wanted.

In fact, Bush has the lowest approval rating ever for a re-elected president this soon after voters decided. According to a poll released Monday by ABC and the Washington Post, Bush’s approval rating sits at 48 percent, with 49 percent of Americans disapproving of his performance. As ABC notes:

Comparisons to past year-end polls underscore the difficulties confronting Bush in his second term. His job approval rating is 11 points lower than a year ago, and 18 points lower than two years ago. His rating on terrorism is 17 points lower than at this time last year. There's been a 17-point drop in the number of Americans who say the Iraq war was worth fighting, and a 10-point rise in the number who call U.S. casualties "unacceptable."

A CNN/Gallup poll gave Bush similar news, with a 49 percent approval rating, down from 55 percent a month ago. Even accounting for the margin of error, it’s an impressive feat to fall that far during the month after a particularly bruising presidential election.

Still, Bush remains more popular than Donald Rumsfeld. That "caring fellow" could muster only 36 percent approval in the first poll, and 41 in the other. Oh, and a majority wants Rummy fired. Happy holidays, guys, the honeymoon’s apparently over already.

- Jeff Fleischer

Link this     E-mail this     Print this

 

2:42 PM
The U.N. treaty Big Oil can agree on

The fact that the United States has never signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea isn’t terribly surprising -- when President Clinton pushed for ratification in 1994, Jesse Helms quickly derailed the effort on an anti-U.N. basis. But, as the Center for Public Integrity reports in a good story out today, Congress is expected to renew ratification efforts in its next session -- with the goal of pleasing the oil industry.

The UNCLOS agreement covers all kinds of international activity on the open seas, such as navigation rights and conservation. And it also provides a way for countries to potentially claim more territory, as CPI explains:

The treaty defines national maritime territory as extending 200 nautical miles from shore—roughly the length of the continental shelf, the extension of continental land that stretches out from the coastline before dropping to the ocean floor. The treaty allows signatories to file claims with the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf that would expand their territorial zone by proving that the continental shelf stretches beyond 200 miles. Countries are rushing to file their claims before the treaty’s 2009 deadline so they can gain control of valuable oil and gas deposits beneath the ocean’s waters.

As a non-member, the United States has no input into the claims review process. This is especially perturbing considering that Russia filed a claim three years ago to add nearly 400,000 square miles to its Arctic boundary, territory that could potentially overlap with U.S. claims. Although its initial request was rejected, Russia reportedly plans to try again; Denmark has also announced its intention to claim the North Pole as an extension of its continental shelf. The United States has already begun mapping the sea floor off the shores of Alaska and New England in anticipation of ratifying the treaty.

So the energy industry now wants the U.S. to ratify, part of a larger industry strategy to create more areas for drilling.

- Jeff Fleischer

Link this     E-mail this     Print this

 

1:55 PM
The War in Iraq and the Social Security Fight at Home

Today's editorial in the Los Angeles Times on President Bush's conflated rhetoric for going to war in Iraq and privatizing Social Security emphasizes the administration's mounting credibility gap and portrays Bush, once again, as the "president who cried wolf":

"President Bush is setting out to convince the nation that the danger is imminent and can be addressed only with bold action. Sound familiar?

The White House is deploying the strategy it used to sell the war in Iraq to sell its plan for partial privatization of the Social Security system.

The intelligence might not be as flawed, but the spin is equally disingenuous. If no changes are made to Social Security, according to the latest educated guesses, the program will not be able to pay out all its commitments by 2042. But it's absurd for Bush to equate this long-term actuarial shortfall - which could change dramatically over the years - with real deficits that make financial markets wary.

... Bush's argument is that borrowing $2 trillion now to cover the cost of allowing individuals to directly invest a portion of their own contributions is prudent because it would avoid borrowing trillions more later. If you buy that argument, there are some weapons of mass destruction in Iraq you might want to acquire as well."

Kudos to the L.A. Times for making this obvious connection in print -- other mainstream outlets should also challenge Bush's numbers on Social Security instead of, as will likely be the case, running apologies after the privatization plan has already passed. As Eric Alterman and Paul McLeary recently noted, the Bush administration is receiving major backing from the mainstream press in selling Social Security privatization as a "needed" remedy to avoid the "pending crisis." The article is well worth reading and, hopefully, the media is beginning to redeem themselves as Bush continues his domestic offensive against yet another fictitious imminent threat.

- Tucker Foehl

Link this     E-mail this     Print this

 

1:16 PM
Multiple cases of hot air

With global warming back on the public radar thanks to last week’s U.N. meeting on climate change in Buenos Aires, the U.S. still isn’t taking steps to curb emissions. Sure, George Bush promised to do so in his 2000 campaign. Sure, the government could take steps on its own without signing an international agreement. So what is the U.S. going to do?

''The United States has a very clear position,'' Raúl Estrada Oyuela, author of the proposal for the 2005 seminar, said as the conference came to an end. ''They don't believe in the Kyoto Protocol, but agreed to participate in an exercise of information exchange, and I think that is a positive step.''

While the Buenos Aires conference was going on, The Hill talked with outgoing Energy Sec. Spencer Abraham about climate change and, well, the exchange pretty succinctly sums up the administration’s approach to global-warming science:

The Hill: Do you believe greenhouse-gas emissions are creating global warming?

Abraham: Clearly we believe there is enough evidence to warrant us to do the sorts of things to address greenhouse-gas emissions that this department has launched.

So that’s a no, right?

- Jeff Fleischer

Link this     E-mail this     Print this

 

10:42 AM
The joys of mandatory risk

Sebastian Mallaby—yes, that Sebastian Mallaby—is making sense:

[P]ro-market, government-cutting schemes cannot be justified by a presumed moral superiority. When it comes to their retirement, most Americans probably want a mix of a government safety net and the opportunity to accumulate their own savings. The current system, featuring a government program that guarantees a pension equal to about a third of the average worker's salary, plus a variety of tax-favored opportunities to save individually, may already be quite close to most citizens' sense of the right balance.

The idea of "balance" is a good one. Here's an oft-missed point about Social Security Abolition: It's not just that individuals can choose risk if they want to improve their well-being; they're basically forced into risk, whether they like it or not.

Suppose I'm a nervous nellie about the stock market, and I'm afraid of retiring right after a downturn (of the sort we saw four years ago) and watching all my hard-earned savings evaporate. Now it's true that I can "choose" to invest my private account in no-risk U.S. Treasury securities—the same bonds that Social Security invests in now. But since my guaranteed benefits have been slashed, this just means I'm "choosing" a vastly reduced version of Social Security. So I can't chose a safe option and retire decently; the no-risk option leads straight to the poorhouse. In order to make ends meet at all, I'm forced to gamble.

- Bradford Plumer

Link this     E-mail this     Print this

 

9:57 AM
So much for disability reform!

We'll have plenty to say later on about the Chicken Little Republicans who are trying to drum up a fake crisis over Social Security. But for now, let's look at a related, arcane-yet-important, issue: disability insurance. GovExec reports today that the Social Security Administration is developing a new computer system, to reduce disability "over-payments" to those workers who are making too much money to qualify for insurance.

Now overpayments are no doubt a problem; but that also assumes the program is already over-generous. It's not—and if anything, could use a good overhaul. At the moment, SSDI benefits are available only to those workers whose condition will either result in death or last at least twelve months. So, for instance, a worker with a heart condition that puts her out of commission for eight months would receive nothing—even though you can lose a lot of salary in eight months. Furthermore, a worker can qualify for insurance only if he or she is completely unable to work. A carpenter, for instance, who develops arthritis but can still work as a (low-paying) cashier would not qualify. Many of the "over-payments" are going to workers like these.

So the program could already stand a good deal of improvement—and I'd like to see Democrats get behind a reform movement here. But more importantly, under the various Social Security Abolition Plans now being considered, disability benefits would be reduced even further. According to the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), "most disabled beneficiaries with the characteristics we studied would receive lower benefits under reform than under… current law benefits."

So to recap. Disability insurance is already inadequate. But under SS Abolition, a carpenter who develops painful arthritis—so crippling, mind you, that he can't work for over a year—would have almost nothing in the way of a safety net. All to fix a "crisis" that doesn't even exist.

- Bradford Plumer

Link this     E-mail this     Print this

 

9:14 AM
The great Rumsfeld debate

It's becoming increasingly clear that the recent calls for Rumsfeld's head aren't really about competence, or screw-ups, or the use of autopens for condolence letters. They're about the future of the military. Rumsfeld reportedly wants to stay in the Pentagon to see his grand military transformation through—turning the armed forces into a light, quick, fighting machine. But neoconservatives at the Weekly Standard and AEI—from Frederick Kagan to Tom Donnelly—are now clamoring for a larger army, better equipped for grand nation-building projects like that in Iraq.

Two things to note here. First, the Weekly Standard tends to assume that we're going to need to keep troops in Iraq around for years before the country is stable. It's not a bad assumption, given that the insurgency can still strike at will even in heavily-guarded Shiite holy cities. Still, this decision mostly rests in the hands of Iraq's future government. The Shi'a are campaigning on a "USA must go" platform, and if they follow through on that promise, the Bush administration won't have much choice but to start drawing down troops—regardless of whether the insurgency has been licked or not. (And our intelligence agencies say it hasn't been.)

The second point is that liberals—and Democrats especially—have said nary a word about the future of the military lately. John Kerry may have been the first to suggest expanding our active-duty forces, but no one's said anything since. So the Democrats not only have fed the perception that they make national security proposals only when they need to look "tough" on the campaign trail, but they've also absented themselves entirely from an important debate.

- Bradford Plumer

Link this     E-mail this     Print this