January 14, 2005

Fixing the Torture Mess

The longer I look at the circumstances surrounding whether or not the United States now has an official government policy regarding the use of torture to elicit information, the less I like it. There appears to be no really good answer to the question, despite the claims of both sides.

Emotionally, I'd like the President to follow Andrew Sullivan's advice and fire the supervisors of the people who committed horrors like Abu Ghraib and then forcefully renounce all forms of torture. While that would in no way resolve the problems we have now, at least we could head off additional problems and prevent the situation from getting any worse. Not to mention the personal relief I'd feel from knowing that at least the President understands the problem and is working to fix it. I don't expect him to get down in the weeds and resolve the issue directly, but I do expect him to set the tone, and in this area he seems sorely lacking to me.

Intellectually I know that we do capture some people who hold information that could save lives. The limits we set down for interrogation cost the lives of American soldiers and Iraqis. Conversely, as I've expressed several times, I dislike the idea of giving the government the power to torture (torture referring to physical abuse of detainees) both on ethical grounds and on restricting government power grounds. I would like to believe those who claim that torture never results in useful information, but that argument strikes me as inconsistent with what we know of the facts. Following Abu Ghraib, the government shut down many types of interrogation, and our intelligence dried up. This is probably because we clamped down on non-torture-related interrogation techniques, but if not, then if those who claim we've been systemically torturing suspects can't reasonably also claim that torture isn't effective. That doesn't mean we should use it, only that we need to understand that shutting that door has costs.

I'm also curious whether or not the uncertainty over whether or not we're using torture can be used to our advantage, as I noted a few days ago. Given that we do know that if our limits are clearly laid out the enemy will use those limits to ensure we can't get information out of them, is there a way to keep the question open? Sadly, I don't believe that there is. I didn't buy into the 'Bush lied' claims and I don't know whether or not President Bush bears proximate responsibility for the abuses of captives that have surfaced since the war began.

But I do know that I am not comfortable simply trusting anyone in government to be given carte blanche to not come clean about these issues. The people at the top levels of government simply have access to too much power to be trusted to use it wisely. Not because they're all bad people, but because the damage they can cause if they do abuse the power is so great. Given that, I see little choice but to continue to press the White House to come completely clean on this issue: not only what happened, but what the policies are going to be in the future.

Posted at 12:35 PM · Politics · Comments (3) · TrackBack (0)

January 09, 2005

Armstrong Williams and Bush Administration Payola

Most of the blogosphere has already chewed over the news that the Department of Education paid commentator Armstrong Williams some $240,000 to promote its No Child Left Behind legislation, but I've never let being late stop me from piling on. Most of what I've read focuses on the ethical questions, however, without getting into what I consider far more serious.

As far as ethics go, Williams is finished as a serious pundit. Now that he's admitted taking money to promote a particular product, it's going to be impossible to take his opinions as his own ever again. This means that even good arguments will be tossed aside due to Williams' breach of ethics, which is unfortunate, but it is also how the world works. As nice as it would be if we were all able to judge peoples' arguments based strictly on the merits, human beings are emotional creatures, and questions of motive are often quite enough to discredit arguments that are otherwise sound.

Personally, however, I'm more curious about how often my tax dollars are being spent on pundits to buy their voices. For that matter, I don't think it's appropriate for tax dollars to be spent on any advertising for or against particular government projects. If the government decides to enact a program, it has people already designated to sell the project: they're called our elected representatives. If they cannot find a way to convince the American people the idea was a good one, then they get voted out of office (theoretically). It is wholly inappropriate for the government to be spending money on any form of advertising intended to promote its programs.

Not that this revelation will stop such practices. At the risk of beating the same old drum, I'll point out that this is simply another consequence of the abandonment of the Constitution. As long as we treated the Constitution as a binding document, government abuses could be kept to manageable levels because the federal government simply didn't have the authority to do very much. With the country's continued slide towards democratic rather than republican government, those limits have been tossed aside and Congress today has the ability to pass laws almost without restriction. This makes it far more difficult to block utterly worthless government spending like advertising intended to promote government projects or the massive amounts of pork our government routinely doles out, because the limits to prevent such spending have simply eroded away.

Unfortunately, we're not putting the genie back in the bottle. Each individual piece of pork is too small to draw widespread condemnation, while it's large enough that the people who do benefit from it will scream bloody murder if it's taken away. But this particular use of government largesse, due to its rather precise focus, might actually be forced out of the budget if enough interest is paid to it. If only the news hadn't come out at the same time as the Gonzales hearing; I think the Democrats could be much more successful hurting the Bush administration going after this kind of waste.

Posted at 08:33 PM · Politics · Comments (9) · TrackBack (0)

December 30, 2004

Social Security: BS for Everyone

It would appear that both sides have determined their talking points for the coming fight over Social Security.

On the right: we have in Social Security a program that is in crisis due to its pay-as-you-go system and its failure to tie contributions made to the earnings taken away from people during their working years. Beginning in 2017 or 2018, Social Security will start sending out more money than it takes in, requiring either more and more borrowing, reduced benefits, or higher and higher taxes to cover the benefits. Furthermore, Social Security is a fundamentally unjust system: what you take out of the system has only the slightest connection to what you take out. If you die at age 60, your family has no claim on what would have been your Social Security benefits. This unjustly harms the poor and minorities, both of whom have shorter life expectancies than whites. By shifting to a system of private accounts, the system would eventually be funded in advance, avoiding the need for benefit cuts or increased taxes. By making the accounts real property of workers, we would guarantee that workers could pass something on to their families even in the event of an early death. Why not shift Social Security from a program that will always face the potential for a crisis because of its funding structure to one that will be far more secure?

On the left: Social Security is not in a crisis. Once 2017 arrives, the excess monies will be paid out of the trust fund, which was the plan since the 1986 Social Security reform. Yes, the trust fund is scheduled to run dry in 2042, but trying to predict what the economy will do in the intervening 38 years is impossible. The projected date the fund will run out has already moved back several times, suggesting that the fund could easily last even longer if strong economic growth continues. A change now means increasing taxes, borrowing more, or cutting benefits anyhow, because we have to make up for the shifting of Social Security taxes from paying current benefits to creating the private accounts. Private accounts also fail to address the issue of what to do for people whose private accounts are insufficient to get them through retirement. Social Security goes as long as you live, but long-lived people could easily burn through their private accounts long before they die. Private accounts would also not provide a guaranteed return: what do we do with people who fail to invest wisely, or whose investments take a bad turn? Private accounts also fail to address another aspect of Social Security: helping the disabled. Social Security currently also provides a safety net for disabled people. Private accounts would do nothing for those people, either leaving them out in the cold or requiring a new system be put in place to cover them. Why shift to a system that would present so many known risks based simply on the projection of crisis 38 years from now?

As readers can probably tell, I can sympathize with both sides. I think we'd be much better off if most of Social Security was treated as real property under the control of the beneficiaries rather than promises always at the mercy of Congress. Funding the accounts now for the future, rather than counting on ever-rising tax revenues to cover payments also seems a much more sensible base on which to build the program, although there would clearly have to be some type of additional safety net in place to address Social Security's other functions and the vagaries of the market. Conversely, the Democrats are correct that the program is not currently in crisis, and while the money for the so-called 'trust fund' will have to come from somewhere, it strikes me as highly implausible that the government will default on the bonds. On the other hand, I'd be more impressed with the lefties if they'd admit that we are going to have to find some way of paying for those bonds, rather than their more common glib dismissals of the problem. Of course, I'd feel a lot better about the arguments on the right if someone could explain to me how we're going to come up with all the money to pay the transition costs to a system of personal accounts. I understand that those costs are going to have to be paid sooner or later, as Arnold Kling points out, but the costs will be spread out over a significantly greater period simply by sticking with the status quo.

Neither side has impressed me with a willingness to honestly discuss the problems Instead both sides have marshalled their talking points in hopes of winning the political argument. I suppose that's a logical decision; whoever wins that battle is going to get what they want, regardless of the merits of the respective arguments. Yet it remains frustrating for those of us who enjoy trying to chew on the arguments in the hope of nugging out a better solution.

As to this battle, my sentiments will almost certainly be with the Democrats, since I think the Republican plan will cause more problems than it will solve.

Posted at 04:23 PM · Politics · Comments (3) · TrackBack (0)

December 12, 2004

There Is Just One More Thing...

Over at the Angry Bear you can see a graph displaying the projected surpluses and deficits in Social Security and the General Fund (i.e., the rest of the federal budget) through 2012. The Bear's point is well taken: for the next fifteen years, at least, the bigger problem we're facing is the fact our government is spending a lot more every year than it takes in in taxes, a spending plan that seems a bit more urgent to address.

On the one hand, this can be construed as another example of the you're f'd up syndrome I discussed the other day. The fact that we've got a serious problem living within our means doesn't mean we can't also address the question of how to deal with Social Security's problems.

On the other hand, if we don't get federal spending under control, we're probably going to run off the rails well before 2017. In this instance, I think the Bear wins on points. I'd prefer to fix both problems, but we don't live in a perfect world, and the budget problem is more significant than the Social Security problem.

Posted at 07:14 AM · Politics · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)

Letting Social Security Go

Possibly because he senses that any changes in Social Security will go in directions he wouldn't prefer, Matt Yglesias is now advocating doing nothing about the program, at least for now. While I think that Matt's analysis sidesteps some rather important differences between Social Security and the Defense Department (most notably the fact we're not committed to anything in the DoD's 2050 budget, but we are already committed to a great deal of spending in SS's 2050 budget), I'm not so sure he's wrong on the larger point.

While I think Jane Galt has an excellent point regarding privatization of Social Security, I think we're lacking one thing vital to lasting reform. Without some bipartisan agreement on where to go with the program, it's hard to see any changes being accepted. The Democrats are clearly willing to go to any lengths to torpedo Republican attempts to alter the program (depending on how charitable one feels, because they honestly believe the Republicans are doing SS a disservice or, if you're less charitable, because they're simply ideologically opposed to less government involvement in the program), meaning it will be difficult to get a great deal of public support for the changes. President Bush may not care as much about that, since he's now a lame duck, but the Congressmen and Senators who must pass such changes all have to worry about getting reelected. A large public backlash against would likely be sufficient to prevent the Republicans from passing their changes. Unless the Republicans can either develop a compromise that draws moderate Democratic support or find a way to convince the public that SS is in dire peril, the hopes for change are doomed to failure.

The question that remains is, is this necessarily such a bad thing? As Matt points out, we don't know what the situation is going to be like in 2042 when the 'trust fund' runs out. Between now and then we'll elect half-a-dozen Presidents and who knows how many Congressmen and Senators. Our current war will hopefully be over, but we may have fought others. The economy may be based on things we cannot even today imagine. The United States will, in short, be a very different place in 2042 than it is today. It's possible that Social Security won't even need a fix by then, or that any fix implemented today won't address the problems the program will actually face at that time. We certainly wouldn't try to make any other policy decisions based on projections 37 years from now; why do so on Social Security?

Conversely, there are some facts that will pertain in 37 years regardless of the changes over the intervening years. If we continue on our current path, then Social Security will continue to be an intergenerational transfer tax: a redistribution of property from workers to the elderly. If we move to a system of private accounts, the redistributive effects will be reduced markedly (albeit I'm confident that another system would be put into place to address those people who mismanaged their personal accounts) and the system would be on far more stable financial footing over the long run. Over the short run, however, a move to privatization would mean significant borrowing or tax increases or benefit cuts or some combination of the three. But in 37 years, most of those effects would likely have shaken themselves out. Unfortunately, the rest of us can't just skip over those intervening years; the changes necessary to shift the system to private accounts would certainly cause disruptions in our economy (although nobody knows just how bad the disruptions would be), and we'd have to live with those growing pains.

Are the changes worth the economic and political pains we'd endure trying to put them in place? Even assuming Republicans could force changes through, they might be relegating themselves to minority status again in the wake of the political and economic disruption we'd see. Which could mean that any changes made would be reversed in short order, raising the question, why bother?

If Kevin Drum is correct, us righties just want to kill Social Security anyhow, (he's correct in my case, of course; I can't speak for anyone else), so why endure the political pain involved in trying to fix it? Let's get down to hard truths: even if the Republicans devise a good plan, implement it, and it works, it will pay them zero political dividends. Since the projected disaster wouldn't occur under that system, few would realize what the changes averted, and there would be no political gain from the changes. Balance that against the known political costs of change, and this seems like a no-brainer from a political perspective. Why take the hit when there's no benefit to be had? (Yes, yes, to do the right thing. Now sit back down, Pollyanna.) Why not let the program go forward as it is and deal with the problems as they come? Granted, the problems will get harder and harder to address as the 'trust fund' bills come due, but look on the bright side: there's a chance the Democrats will be in power when that time comes, at which point Republicans can make political hay of the issue.

And for those who would prefer to see Social Security go the way of the dinosaur, this option has a significant potential upside. Private accounts would enshrine Social Security in our society permanently. Leaving the system as it is could allow the problem to grow so bad that killing it might no longer be political suicide. Probably not, but it's really the only hope of eventually killing the program. So perhaps it's a chance to do good while doing well, as it were.

Posted at 06:28 AM · Politics · Comments (4) · TrackBack (0)

December 11, 2004

You're F'd Up, I'm Squared Away

So now HughHewitt believes that anyone who wants to complain about the Daschle v. Thune bloggers having been paid by the Thune campaign should also be demanding that any blogger who raises money should reveal the sources of that funding. While that argument probably has some merit, it is irrelevant to the question at hand.

For those who aren't familiar with it, during the campaign two blogs took a very close look at Tom Daschle's reelection campaign: Daschle v. Thune and South Dakota Politics. I never saw the latter, but the former was a great resource for reading about the election and the biases in the South Dakota press that were working to Daschle's advantage. I probably still would have used Daschle v. Thune had I known that its proprietor was being paid by the campaign, but it certainly would have changed how I viewed the site. Nor do I think I'm alone.

I'm not aware of many sites in the blogosphere that don't present a point of view and try to defend it. That's a big part of what blogging is for us. But implicit in that is the understanding that we're all pushing our points of view because that's what we believe. I didn't really bother checking out the official campaign blogs, for example, because those were people being paid to blog about their subjects, and to put them in the best possible light. With bloggers, I generally expect a little better; I was favorably impressed with the reaction of many on the left to Kos's "screw 'em" remarks, and I try to reciprocate by noting when and how candidates I have favored screw up. It's about intellectual honesty. That's a component that is necessarily missing once you start taking money from specific interests.

Nobody is suggesting that the two blogs in question didn't already dislike Daschle. I'm willing to take their word that they didn't pen a single word differently because of the money. That doesn't change the fact their audiences had a right to know that the money was out there. If you can't respect your reader enough to point out a possible conflict of interest up front, how can you expect your reader to respect you? We're not talking about a minor point here; Daschle v. Thune was clearly focused on one very specific race, and it received money from one of the two contenders. I can see no way in which it could be proper not to disclose that.

Having said that, I find Hugh's comments more than a little annoying. I've seen this many times in the Army, as there are a disturbing number of so-called leaders who use this trick. It's called 'you're fucked up so I'm squared away,' and it's simple enough to use. Whenever anyone points out where you have a problem, you take a long look at his organization and point out a problem that guy has. Then you wait for him to fix his problem first, the implication being that somehow the fact he's got a problem too invalidates your problem. It's childish, it's annoying, and it means we end up wasting time trying to point out faults in others rather than fixing what we can fix. It's not endearing in the military, and it is no more so in the blogosphere. The decision not to disclose a funding source that was so clearly relevant to the topics of the blogs in question was a serious ethical breach, and pointing out the possible flaws in other blogs takes nothing away from that breach.

Posted at 09:27 AM · Politics · Comments (2) · TrackBack (0)

December 09, 2004

Moving Beyond the 'Ick' Factor

Ramesh Ponnuru offers an interesting look at some new methods for extracting stem cells for use in medical research. As most probably already know, stem cells are currently considered an excellent avenue for medical research into many medical problems, to include Parkinson's disease and spinal injuries among others. Because some prominent celebrities suffered from these ailments, stem cells received perhaps more attention than they otherwise would have, given that their potential remains still almost entirely potential at this point. Since their rise to prominence, however, they have become another heated front on the pro-life/pro-choice battlefield, as the pro-life activists fight to save the lives of what they consider people and the pro-choice activists rail against what they see as snatching potential miracle cures away from other people. As with just about all discussions that involve when life begins, the rhetoric gets pretty heated on all sides.

Ponnuru points to two instances where activists on both sides may be able to agree: there are some embryos that are no longer viable, and whose stem cells can therefore be harvested without causing the unnecessary loss of life (from the pro-life standpoint; to the pro-choice side, the argument is that no loss of life is occurring in the first place). Also, it may be possible to create clones that are not viable, but which still possess stem cells that could be used for research. Ponnuru is pro-life, but he notes that he can see no moral objections to the use of either of these techniques.

Pro-choice activists may not see this as much of a concession, since they see no reason to object to any use of stem cells. They would be unwise not to use this concession in the spirit in which it is offered. I often hear pro-choice proponents argue that pro-life people care more about the lives of the unborn than the lives of the already born (and please, spare me your examples and we'll just agree to disagree). Ponnuru is clearly trying to find a way around this impasse that would address the concerns of both sides. Maybe it's not enough; maybe it's just an empty gesture (although I don't think so). But it is a concession that would permit greater use of stem cells for medical research. As I understand it, the real issue here is whether or not medical research can find new cures for some of the maladies that plague mankind. Jumping on any opportunity to improve those chances without a prolonged political fight seems a wise option.

Posted at 07:28 AM · Politics · Comments (3) · TrackBack (0)

December 07, 2004

The CIA Game

Matt Yglesias suggests that the fact the CIA is still leaking reports that contradict the administration position in Iraq proves that the CIA isn't leaking the reportsfor partisan reasons. After all, Matt reasons, President Bush will never run for office again, so if the leaks were partisan, they would have stopped after the election. Apparently it has not occurred to Matt that the CIA personnel leaking the information think that they can still be used by partisans to attack the administration. As we've seen for years, partisan battles don't end with elections; elections simply change the conditions of the battlefield. If the leakers are using these reports in an attempt to undermine administration policy, they will have some success with them. The Grey Lady has already proven that they'll take the ball and run with it, and guys like Yglesias will do their best to prove that these are facts and not partisan accusations.

Nor does it ever seem to occur to anyone on the left that these leaks are a bad thing regardless of what they say. I've spoken on more than one occasion of my dislike for the Bush administration's fetish with secrecy, and I stand by that. There are far too many things the administration attempts to hide behind walls of Secret and Top Secret cover sheets. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and the Bush administration is absolutely correct to try and stop leaks coming out of Langley.

The CIA is supposed to be America's premiere intelligence gathering agency. We expect them to go out and gather disparate bits of information from all over the globe, collect that data, analyze it, and use it to tell us how and where we can most effectively strike at our enemies. As with all wars, this is a dynamic battle where each side has to constantly update tactics in order to gain temporary advantage. Every leak is a boon to our enemies, because they help tell the enemy how we're gathering information on them, which allows them to plug leaks. Remember the idiots who told us that bin Laden's voice had been heard on cell phone traffic in Tora Bora? Guess what happened after that? The enemy stopped using his cell phones, and we lost a valuable source of intelligence. That's an infamous example, but it's far from alone. Even if the leak doesn't reveal how the U.S. came by the data, the very knowledge we know have the data tells the enemy to change whatever plans he based on that data and will help him determine how we acquired the data. Every leak helps dry up one more source of intelligence on our enemies. The leakers may soothe their consciences by telling themselves that they're doing the right thing, but they're lying to themselves.

Our system of government is very simple: we elect a President, 100 Senators, and 435 Representatives to pass and administer our laws. It is the responsibility of those 536 men and women to run the government based on their personal beliefs and their understanding of their constituents' wants and needs. And that is where the authority for running our government stops. It is not the place of some CIA analyst or administrator to decide that he knows better than everyone else, and so run policy on his own--even if he is right and the administration is wrong. He has neither the mandate nor the authority to do so. And the people who decide that their position in government somehow gives them the right to decide American policy in defiance of the duly elected representatives of the people are no better than any other dictator in history, deciding that the ends justify their means.

I don't know if the CIA is leaking reports because agents have personal or political agendas they're trying to fulfill, or if they're leaking because they honestly believe that the U.S. is on the wrong course. Nor do I care, because neither reason justifies their leaks. Not only are they jeopardizing America's ability to gather vital intelligence on her enemies, they are contributing to the very problem they claim they're trying to address: if the administration knows that people inside the CIA are willing to violate their oaths in order to press their own agendas, how can the administration trust anything that comes out of Langley? After all, if you're willing to release classified data to the public when you job is keeping secrets because of some 'greater good,' it's not hard to imagine how you'll slant your reports.

Fixing the leaks coming out of the CIA ought to be an area where both Republicans and Democrats can agree. The fact that it isn't speaks volumes to our near-term chances for success in this war.

Posted at 06:53 AM · Politics · Comments (2) · TrackBack (0)

November 30, 2004

Ridge Leaving

Tom Ridge is stepping down as Director of Homeland Security. The man had a thankless job and, since I believe the DHS is a bad idea from start to finish, I wasn't going to be overly impressed with anything he did. But he will leave knowing that the United States did not suffer a terrorist attack on his watch. How much of that is actually due to his actions is debatable; I'd say his influence was pretty slim. But it certainly beats the alternative.

Posted at 01:00 PM · Politics · Comments (2) · TrackBack (0)

Dirty Tricks Report

For those readers who haven't already seen this, it appears that Swift Boat Vet Steve Gardner has paid a hard price for his decision to speak out against John Kerry. During the campaign he was harrassed by Kerry campaign surrogates, and his employer terminated him, leaving him without a job and still holding plenty of bills. The guys at Power Line have lots of information on how people can help. As always, there are more causes out there than any of us have money, but if you have the inclination, I'm sure the Gardner family would appreciate a little help.

There is, to the best of my knowledge, no hard evidence that the Kerry campaign is responsible for Gardner's situation. It's just one Hell of a coincidence.

Update: Gardner's former employer responds.

Posted at 09:04 AM · Politics · Comments (1) · TrackBack (0)

November 24, 2004

Who Needs the Democrats

I'll admit that I was a little concerned at the idea of all three branches being controlled by the Republicans in the wake of the elections. When any group has nominal control of the government like that, they're likely to pass any number of dumb laws in the vain hope they will pay back their base or lock in some change the governing party favors.

Fortunately, the Republicans appear to have discovered a way to be both the majority party and the opposition party. Today's example comes from Winning Argument, where it turns out the intelligence bill vote was held up in part because the House leadership didn't want the bill to only pass with Democratic support. Now I'll grant that the Republicans might fear that such an outcome would undermine the perceived value of holding the House and Senate, but aren't we taking things just a little far now? Just get your people on the street first spinning the bipartisan aspects of the bill, and I suspect the problem would take care of itself. Instead, regardless of the merits of the intelligence bill, now you've handed the Democrats a cudgel just in time for Christmas.

Suddenly I feel much better about the Republican majority. As David Brooks pointed out yesterday, being in the majority involves as many headaches as it does triumphs.

Posted at 09:38 AM · Politics · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)

November 23, 2004

For The Record

Just in case it will make a difference, a brief explanation of my position on social security.

I'm doubtful that privatization is an answer, both because I'm uncertain that pouring some fraction of payroll taxes into the private sector can generate anything close to the returns necessary to bring the system into solvency and because privatization still requires us to either develop some new safety net or put such restrictions on the private accounts to render them functionally public.

I think it's important to remember that we're going to have to come up with money to cover the trust fund beginning in 2017.

I do not advocate defaulting on the trust fund bonds.

I consider the trust fund something of a fiction because we haven't addressed how we're going to pay for it. That doesn't make it worthless, since I don't think we should nor do I think it is politically possible to default on the bonds, but it does mean that we're not addressing an issue that will be unavoidable in short order.

I think social security should be used as a safety net for the elderly rather than as a retirement plan for everyone. That means imposing means testing to reduce expenditures and encouraging people to save for retirement on their own.

I think we're stuck with the designated hitter.

I think that we need to decide what we want social security to be before we can determine how to fix it.

I think that, once we have some kind of consensus as to what social security should be, we ought to puzzle out the best solution rather than just trying to sell our own favored solution or shoot down the ideas of our political opponents.

I think there's no way in Hell that will happen.

I think it's time for me to get ready for bed.

Posted at 08:51 PM · Politics · Comments (1) · TrackBack (0)

Puzzling Out the Social Security Problems

Apparently I've discovered the secret to getting noticed: write one post about Social Security and its problems, and the world will beat a path to your weblog. Brad DeLong explains that my post regarding social security is not an analytical insight, while PGL is kind enough to suggest that my comment is not as bizarre as he might like to believe. (Of course, the down side to being noticed is that when the better-known bloggers don't understand your argument, you end up with a horde of people who assume you're a dumbass based on a misrepresentation of your argument, when all it would take is a cursory review of this site to discover plenty of areas to call me a dumbass without misrepresenting me.)

I believe I can now see the problem of social security: it's the young woman/old woman syndrome. Conservatives (yes, it's a huge oversimplification, but work with me) look at social security and see the IOUs coming due in 2017 and see a problem making good on those debts. Liberals look at social security and see the trust fund running out in 2042 and see a problem sustaining the program past that point. Both sides are correct from their point of view: DeLong is absolutely correct that social security itself is in no danger in 2017 as long as the government makes good on the bonds that will be needed to cover it at that time. On the other hand, I'm correct that the $52 billion (and climbing) that will require has to come from somewhere, and trying to fix that issue now will be less painful than putting off the problem. Because we're both looking at different problems, it's hardly surprising that we see different solutions.

The bottom line for me is pretty simple: every year the social security surplus shrinks. We're already deficit spending ourselves into a deep hole, and social security is a big part of the hole that we have, in effect, already dug. We just don't see the hole clearly yet, because we haven't reached it. In 2017, we'll hit the first part of it, as funding for social security will have to come from something in addition to payroll taxes. In 2042, the hole will be grossly apparent, as we won't even be able to sustain social security on the IOUs of previous generations. If we reform social security now, we can reduce the impact of those debts less painfully by reducing the financial outlays required of social security.

Look at it this way: consider the social security trust fund as a credit card. We've been collecting money to pay our social security bill for years, but instead of putting the money away for the day when we have to pay the bill, we've been spending it. That's allowed us to live above our means, but eventually we're going to have to pay back the money. Our options include: paying the money as it comes due, which means we're going to have to find a way to come up with the cash every year but also means we don't have to do anything until those first bills come due. We can default on the bills. We can start putting money away now so we've got at least a little set aside to pay those bills later. Or we can make a deal with the guys we owe money to allow us to pay it off over an extended period.

Right now, our government is plowing ahead towards option one: paying the bills as they come due. I'm not an economist, so I have no idea how long we can go on incurring larger levels of debt before our economy comes crashing down. I'm going to suggest that if we stay on the current glide path, though, that day will eventually come. Granted, if we don't fix a number of other problems, that day's going to come anyhow, but accounting for the social security debt is going to have to be part of the solution. This option might conceivably work if we were willing to shut down large parts of the federal government to cover our social security costs, but that's unlikely. We could also increase taxes, but that is both politically difficult and economically damaging. That doesn't mean that a tax increase won't be part of the solution, but if we can't fix the problem of spending too much, tax increases don't really do much for us.

Option two isn't a real option. We aren't going to default on the bonds, so the question becomes how are we going to pay them.

President Bush is looking at option three: start putting money aside to pay future social security obligations. This will still require us to cover current obligations, but by bringing in money from outside the current system (i.e., from investments rather than taxes), it does gradually ease the burden of taxes if (and this is a big if) the investments do bring in a good rate of return. Privatization of social security means dumping a lot of money into the investment market. I'm not sure that this wouldn't help to create some bubbles. My own objections to privatization I've already summarized, in any case.

Then there's option four, restructuring social security so that we don't have to pay out as much. If some means-testing were implemented with social security, payroll taxes would cover a larger fraction of benefit payments, requiring less of a burden on the general fund. This wouldn't eliminate our requirement to pay off those bonds (nor should it), but it could spread the burden over a longer period. We'd still need some combination of other solutions, but this would at least reduce the pain involved.

I don't know what the best solution is. But I do believe that we're better off trying to figure out how to fix the problem now than waiting until we have no choice.

Posted at 09:18 AM · Politics · Comments (6) · TrackBack (0)

November 21, 2004

Congress Wants You...Or Your Tax Return

Josh Marshall has picked up a rather disturbing proviso in the omnibus spending bill passed as Congress tries to straighten out the fiscal 2005 budget. The Istook Amendment would permit the chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations committee to access any American's tax returns, regardless of the privacy laws.

The obvious question here is why the Hell any member of Congress should have access to a private citizen's tax return. This is just one more example of the breakdown of the American system: instead of the government existing to serve the people, the people increasingly exist only to serve the government, and it's duly elected representatives. Now it is true that we do still have the power to elect our representatives, but thanks to gerrymandering our choices are increasingly limited as representatives choose who will elect them rather than electors choosing who will represent them.

Apparently Tim Russert got on John McCain about the amendment, and McCain now claims it will be eliminated. That's good news, if true, but it is unlikely to happen unless constituents get on their representatives now to tell them that we're unhappy with this little addition.

This is, by the way, a perfect example of why I would love to impose Constitutional limits on the federal government. It has grown to such disturbing proportions, a large number of people who voted on the bill in question don't know very much about what went into it. The bill is just too big for anyone to keep track of, meaning most representatives vote based on what their party tells them to do. Only by stripping government down to a more restricted level can we hope to have some real control over our government. Not that I'm expecting that to happen.

Posted at 11:38 AM · Politics · Comments (2) · TrackBack (0)

November 20, 2004

Won't Somebody Please Mind Their Own Business?

I'm not sure whether to be annoyed or happy that Congress is spending time studying the addictive effects of pr0nography.

On the plus side, they do a lot less damage when they talk about foolishness like that than when they decide to cook up some massive new government program to 'cure' some perceived ailment or other. On the minus side, they may well end up spending our tax dollars on yet another ridiculous boondoggle.

Maybe pr0n is bad for you. Perhaps I would be a happy, well-adjusted guy if not for my exposure to dirty pictures. But I doubt it. More importantly, even if that is the case, unless and until someone can demonstrate that looking at pr0n causes people to rush out and commit crimes, the government has no business getting involved.

Now leave me alone so I can go do some research of my own.

Hat tip: Bill Quick.

Posted at 12:48 PM · Politics · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)

November 19, 2004

Secrecy for the Sake of Secrecy

One problem with politics is that the opposition party tends to complain about everything the party in power does, creating a boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome that can make it difficult to see when they're trying to raise an important point. (The party in power makes this worse by trying to defend the actions of their guys regardless of the relative merit of the position.)

I can think of no better area where this is illustrated than in the Bush Administration's fascination with secrecy. Granting that, especially in wartime, it's important to keep certain pieces of information shielded from the enemy, the Bush administration seems to take this to rather ridiculous extremes. Case in point: the TSA's refusal to even let people see the law that renders airline passengers subject to search. This is a particularly asinine issue, so it's garnering some attention (it also involved a former Congresswoman). But it's just an illustration of a bigger problem.

One of the reasons we failed to detect the preparations for 9/11 was that the right people didn't have the right information in front of them. It would be simplistic to point to any one reason for this, but one thing that severely restricts information flow is secrecy requirements. Once somebody decides that a particular piece of information is classified, finding it requires significantly greater effort. Since analysts frequently don't know precisely what information they need into order to uncover an enemy plan, classified information is almost certain not to reach them. Leaving us back where we started on 9/11, asking why we didn't know that the attack was coming.

I do not advocate declassifying everything. As I've said, some things do need to remain secret. However, I think we do need to change our policy from one of presumed secrecy to presumed openness. The burden of proof should be on the government to hide information, rather than on the citizen to try and extract information. Get as much information as possible out in the open, because once it's out there, bureaucrats might be surprised what people can get out of it. Will an army of citizen-analysts break up the next terrorist plot? Probably not, but that doesn't mean that they might uncover other valuable information buried in the dross.

We face a terrible signal-to-noise ratio in trying to sort through all the data we're able to take in for the rare nuggets of real information. The more information we classify, the fewer people see it, and the more likely we'll lose the signal because we don't have the right people listening for it. This isn't a question of politics, it's a question of survival.

Posted at 01:40 PM · Politics · Comments (3) · TrackBack (0)

Three Cheers for the Post

Via Captain's Quarters comes words that the Washington Post will no longer publish Ted Rall's editorial cartoons. Kudos to the Post for a wise decision; Rall isn't about dialogue, he's about vitriol, and cutting back on vitriol is an excellent decision by a paper that seems well-positioned to eclipse the New York Times as the paper of record.

Posted at 08:18 AM · Politics · Comments (1) · TrackBack (0)

November 18, 2004

Social Security "Fixes"

Edith U. Fierst, who served on President Clinton's social security panel, has come up with an easy way to fix social security. It certainly sounds appealing: hike the maximum income subject to social security taxes, keep the death tax on the books and shuffle the revenue to social security, bring public sector employees into social security and use a more accurate cost-of-living adjustment to alter benefits. These changes would, according to Ms. Fierst, eliminate 75% of the shortfall under the CBO's intermediate forecast. Besides, Ms. Fierst notes, the program won't run out of money before 2042 in any case.

I'm going to give Ms. Fierst the benefit of the doubt and assume that is an honest mistake on her part. Although if it is, it does explain why President Clinton got lousy advice on social security; his advisors weren't doing any research.

Unfortunately, as you can see in this CBO document, outlays begin to outpace inflows in 2017, only fourteen short years from now. So how does Ms. Fierst justify her claim that payments won't be threatened until 2042? (Technically, she doesn't even bother, but I'll help her out because that's just the kind of guy I am.) Because of Al Gore's infamous 'lockbox.'

As a growing number people are coming to realize, social security taxes have been taking in more money than is being paid in benefits for most of the program's history. That money has been used to reduce the rest of the federal deficit. Remember the budget surpluses of the Clinton years? There weren't any. The budget was just close enough to balanced that the additional social security receipts made up the difference. If the government honestly accounted for the liabilities of the social security bonds, our deficit would be even worse than it appears. Starting in 2017, in order to pay the social security benefits currently being projected, we'll need 0.5% of GDP in additional funds to cover the costs.

Only half a percent; no big deal, right? Let's see, last year's GDP was $10.4 trillion, so half a percent of that is...carry the two...ah yes, $52 billion dollars. That assumes no growth in GDP, of course. If GDP continues to grow at 3.1% over the next fourteen years, the bill will be just a little higher. Some readers may say that an additional $52 billion isn't that big a deal. After all, we're spending more than that every year on the war. True enough, and there are certainly economic consequences for that. I don't know what the effect of hundreds of billions of additional liabilities will be on the U.S. economy, although it doesn't seem too uncontroversial to argue it's unlikely to be a good thing.

What I do know is that Ms. Fierst's sunny scenario doesn't take those requirements into account. Perhaps it will make up for the projected shortfall in 2042; that still leaves us with roughly a trillion dollars in social security costs we've got to cover from 2017 until 2042. I don't think a few minor adjustments are going to fix those.

Update: Note to self: Kevin Drum has a sense of humor after my own heart. Kevin points out that regardless of how we got ourselves into this mess (and he's got some useful additional detail), the fact remains that the trust fund is going to have to be made good one way or the other. He's absolutely right. And since we're as far from the next presidential election as we're ever going to get, President Bush could do a lot to make up for his first term errors by making fixing social security the hallmark of his second term. I'll have more thoughts on how I'd like to see it done tomorrow.

Update 2: Where are my manners? Welcome to Kevin's readers, and please feel free to look around. You'll find that there's plenty more to disagree with than just this post.

Update 3: Please check out my extended thoughts on social security.

Update 4: Hello to visitors from Angry Bear and Brad DeLong. More on social security here, and feel free to check out the other articles while you're in town.

Update 5: Brad asks what the difference is between stupidity and making mistakes or giving lousy advice. My response is found in the comments, but I'd love to hear other perspectives.

Posted at 01:58 PM · Politics · Comments (17) · TrackBack (1)

Stopping Voter Fraud

I don't know how common voter fraud really is, but it does seem that both sides can agree that any is too much. Captain Ed's recommendation seems like a pretty obvious and good idea to the news of some admitted double voters from the state of Ohio.

One couple has admitted to having cast ballots in person after having submitted absentee ballots. Yet local prosecutors are trying to decide whether or not to charge them with a crime. This is exactly the kind of attitude that encourages vote fraud. If the couple really was told by someone that their absentee ballots were lost, then they can produce that person to vouch for them. Otherwise they need to pay a price for breaking the law.

Posted at 12:06 PM · Politics · Comments (2) · TrackBack (0)

November 17, 2004

Rules for Thee, But Not for Me

It's official. Congressional Republicans, who had a proud history in the early to mid-1990s, have decided that power is more important than principle. I realize that for many readers, that was obvious a long time ago, and there's certainly a case to be made there. But to have gone from the party that rightly castigated Dan Rostenkowski for his refusal to step down from a House leadership position when he was indicted by a grand jury to now rescind that rule when it might bring down one of their own is the worst form of hypocracy.

When Newt Gingrich led the Republicans to power in Congress, he did so by promising to rule more justly than a Democratic majority that had, over decades in power, become complacent and arguably corrupt. Agree or disagree with Gingrich's ideas, he did just what he promised to do, bringing every element of his Contract with America to a floor vote and getting nine of ten provisions passed in the House. Now, after a decade in power, it appears the Republicans have decided to emulate the very people they castigated when they were out of power.

I realize that Tom Delay may be indicted on what is effectively a political charge. That shouldn't matter. If the Democrats are truly abusing the criminal justice system to push a political agenda, the Republicans stood to gain greatly in the court of public opinion from it. Instead they've decided to affirm Lord Acton's dictum that power corrupts. Would it harm the Republicans materially if Delay were to step down from his position as Majority Leader should he be indicted? Maybe a little, as Delay is clearly a highly effective legislator, but the benefits from illustrating the higher ethical standards of Republicans (real or feigned) would far outweigh the loss of Delay as Majority Leader.

The Republican Party should be ashamed of its Congressional leadership. They let down their supporters today. More importantly, they let down all of us.

Posted at 06:38 PM · Politics · Comments (3) · TrackBack (0)

November 10, 2004

Specter Under the Gun

As regular readers of the blogosphere are no doubt aware, there has been an intense debate regarding Senator Arlen Specter waging across the right side of the blogosphere for the past few days. The Corner has led a charge arguing for the Republican Party to not give Specter the chair of the Judiciary Committee, as would normally occur due to his seniority, because Specter is likely to oppose more conservative nominees for the courts. (Specter was a leading figure in stopping the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork, and he is on the record as regretting his vote to confirm Clarence Thomas.) In Specter's corner stands Hugh Hewitt, who argues that the Republicans will cause more harm than good in blocking Specter's ascension to the chair.

If you've read this far, I'll assume that you're dying to know my opinions on the matter. Last chance to bail out. Still with me? OK.

I've got to side with Hugh on this matter. While I would prefer to see President Bush send another Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, I don't think a fight to unseat Senator Specter would be worth the possible rewards.

As longtime readers are probably aware, I opposed the infamous Roe v. Wade court decision while still believing that women should have the right to an abortion if they so choose. I won't get into the reasons for either of those beliefs right now, as they're not the issue. I mention that particular combination of beliefs because they are a very effective means of keeping me out of politics. My prochoice views mean I would have a great deal of difficulty running for office on a Republican ticket, while my refusal to support Roe would make me unacceptable in the Democratic Party. I'm not planning on running for anything, but the abortion dichotomy applies to anyone hoping to run for high office. Examine Dick Gephardt and George Bush Sr., for example; Gephardt came to Congress as a staunch prolife advocate, while Bush Sr. was prochoice early in his career. When they entered Presidential politics, however, both reversed their field to make their positions acceptable to their chosen party. Perhaps they chose to change their positions because they reexamined the question and honestly decided that their earlier position was wrong. Or maybe they flipped because they wanted the nomination. The reason doesn't really matter, the fact remains, if your position on abortion isn't correct, you're not getting the nod from either party.

I happen to find that more than a little offensive. I agree with the Democrats on a number of issues, but because I'm not convinced Roe is good Constitutional law, they don't want me around. The Republicans aren't a lot better. On the other hand, they do have a number of prominent spokesmen who are prochoice. Two of the most well-known Republicans in America are prochoice: Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger. So what, I hear you ask? So the Republicans at least are letting some of their prochoice voices be heard. Which suggests that maybe they're a little more open to opposing voices than the Democrats, who would rather slit their wrists than permit a prolife speaker be heard at one of their events. I suspect that the real differences between the parties aren't all that great, but the Republicans do have the advantage of appearances in this case, and appearances go a long ways in politics.

Tossing Arlen Specter out on his ear would quite thoroughly undercut that advantage. With the retirement of Zell Miller, I can't think of a single conservative Democrat in the Senate. But I can think of four liberal Republicans without even trying: Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chaffee, and Arlen Specter. I've heard some of the ideologically pure saying that they'd be just as happy without Chaffee or Specter. Doubtless they're happy with Jim Jeffords gone as well. But I suspect the Republicans who had to endure eighteen months in the minority when Jeffords jumped to the Democrats might feel a little differently. Furthermore, the simple fact the Republican Party still contains members like Chaffee and Specter helps to undercut the notion that Republicans are all evil right-wingers looking to roll back civil rights, etc. Tossing them out (or forcing them out) would do just the opposite: confirm that the Republican Party is really a right-wingers only club that wants nothing to do with anyone not sufficiently ideologically pure.

It might seem odd that I'm arguing that a negative perception is to avoided in this case, since I'm not too concerned about international opinion of the United States' intervention in Iraq. But politics is about getting coalitions together to accomplish things, and coalitions by their nature never agree on everything. If the Republicans are serious about maintaining a governing coalition, they've got to demonstrate that they're willing to listen to those of us who (for example) voted for the President because we agree with him on terrorism, but aren't that thrilled with many of his domestic policies. That means there's going to have to be some compromise, or there will be electoral payback.

The flip side is that some members of the Republican coalition happen to consider getting the right judges into the courts a deal-breaker. They would rather force as many of their judges into the courts while they have the power, and worry about the electoral consequences later. That's fair enough, but they may want to ask themselves just how many judges they'll get in two years. Because if they push the issue hard enough, there could be an ugly backlash in the 2006 elections, possibly enough to push the Senate back to the Democrats. It's the curse of our system: it's always only two years away from changing significantly. And some of the voters Republicans lose because they push social issues too hard may never come back. So the hardliners might want to ask, just how much are they prepared to sacrifice for their moment in the sun?

Posted at 03:38 PM · Politics · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)

Ashcroft Leaves

I never really understood what it was about John Ashcroft that so frightened people. Yes, he's much more religious than I am, and I probably wouldn't really enjoying spending time with the man, but I never saw anything about him that suggested he would be a bad Attorney General. Nor has his tenure changed that view in the slightest for me. He has enforced the laws as written, and he has generally done what the AG is supposed to do. I haven't always agreed with his actions, but my disagreement is with the laws, not with Ashcroft's enforcement of them.

Matt Yglesias (whom I enjoy reading, despite his silly 'reality-based community' header) has a nicely-written piece that discusses this in more detail, and, since Matt is a card-carrying liberal, may do a better job convincing my readers than my own far-right, homophobic rantings.

Posted at 02:54 PM · Politics · Comments (5) · TrackBack (0)

November 08, 2004

Gaming a Complex System

The post-election assessments continue to roll in, and most of them share one characteristic: they point to one area and declare it to be the reason Bush won/Kerry lost.

On the Left, it's the Jesus-freaks, who hate homosexuals and therefore voted for the candidate who endorsed civil unions. Or it's the fact the voters are simply ignorant and in need of reeducation to help them understand what really matters.

On the Right, it's the war. Iraq or Islamofascism, the voters looked at the candidates and decided that President Bush would fight the war more effectively than Senator Kerry. Or it's character; Bush is a better man than Kerry, and the voters saw that and voted for him.

Or maybe it's Michael Moore, whose self-aggrandizing antics enraged middle America. Or the British elites who wrote to Clark County voters trying to convince them to vote for Kerry.

I could go on, but I suspect readers can already see where I'm going with this. Some 120 million people cast a ballot for President in this election, and probably no two of them did so for precisely the same reasons.

Presidential politics is a complex equation. Some people do vote on a single issue, whether abortion or stem cell research or the war, but a great number of people vote after taking a look at the candidates as a whole. Going into this election, as I observed many times, each candidate had certain advantages. Neither, in my opinion, was a perfect candidate; whoever won was going to carry with him certain policies I would disagree with. So it became a question of trying to determine which would be better, or, if nothing else, less bad. That equation meant determining which issues were important to me, then determining which ones carried more or less weight, and then determining where each candidate stood on those issues. Worse, intelligent people could easily disagree on that last; I thought John Kerry wouldn't wage the war on terror aggressively enough, while Jeff Jarvis and Andrew Sullivan both thought he would. When the time came to cast a vote, all we could do was weigh the facts as best we could and vote based on what our knowledge and experience told us. So it was that people who held similar beliefs regarding what would be most important in a President could still end up voting for different candidates.

Now extrapolate that calculus over 100 million voters, and the arguments that gay marriage or the war or 100,000 votes in Ohio were the difference ring a little hollow. Sure, gay marriage affected votes, as did the war, the economy, values, character and a host of other issues. To argue that any one of them was necessarily decisive in an election that was so narrowly decided is an exercise in futility.

Which is why neither party can point to the results of the election as a sign of great things for the future. A shift of policy designed to entice that necessary 50.1% of voters to your side might cost as many or more votes as it acquired. Further, the conditions that surrounded this election will have changed dramatically over the next four years. Issues that may have provided a slim advantage to one party in 2004 could be a disadvantage in 2008.

For me, the bottom line is simple enough: each party should determine what it stands for and run on those principles rather than trying to fine-tune its policies to the voters. I don't expect that to happen. But both parties would be wise to ask which of the two major-party candidates tried to fine-tune his message to the electorate, and how that worked out for him.

Posted at 10:13 AM · Politics · Comments (1) · TrackBack (0)

November 06, 2004

Jumping the Gun

Donald Sensing has an essay that tries to give despondent Democrats a few recommendations on how to rebuild their party for electoral success in 2006 and beyond. While many of Donald's points are dead-on, I must take issue with #5: Tax and spend government programs alone = a losing slate.

I would personally love to believe that. I have argued in favor of a massive reduction of government power since I began this web site, and I continue to hope for a day when the government will stop taking away freedoms from its people in exchange for the false promise of security. But I think arguing that the Democrats' message is one that inherently won't win enough votes is an argument for watching do just that.

Prior to the election, I heard from our battalion Sergeant Major almost every day about what a bad person John Kerry is. SGM didn't like a damn thing about Kerry, going to far as to threaten to leave the country were Kerry elected. To say that the SGM would rather stick a hot poker in his eye than vote for Kerry might be hyperbole, but I'm not positive of that.

Yet just a month before the election, I overheard the SGM chatting with another senior NCO about health care. The two of them agreed that it was ridiculous that the United States didn't offer the kind of universal health care they had seen in Germany. I can't speak for the other NCO, but I'm quite confident that our SGM voted against the candidate interested in that kind of government control over health care. He did so because he doesn't like Kerry personally, not because he disagreed with the basic Democratic position regarding health care. That's a sign of impending doom for either Republicans or limited government, depending on how Republicans address it.

As Jim Henley has noted, while there is still the occasional politician willing to address limited government, both political parties have decided they'd rather have a powerful federal government at their beck and call than to pare back the size and scope of it. And the reason for that is simple enough: that's what the people want. Yes, there are many arguments to be made at the margins, but the success of President Bush and President Clinton suggests to me that expansive federal programs are a hit with the electorate. Certainly that has to be how you interpret President Bush's recent victory, as it seems highly unlikely the millions who voted for Senator Kerry were seeking a reduction in the size of the government.

For now, the Republicans have two things going for them: the Democrats' history of raising taxes, and the Democrats' insistence on nominating people like John Kerry, Mike Dukakis and Walter Mondale. People just don't connect to technocrats, yet they do remarkably well in the Democratic primaries. The success of Bill Clinton suggests that the Democrats can nominate candidates who reach the electorate quite effectively when they choose to do so, however. That just leaves taxes, and as President Bush has never met a spending bill he didn't like, sooner or later the Republican advantage on taxes will fade as well.

Republicans can be rightfully pleased with their performance on Tuesday. They did exceptionally well, a tribute to their efforts at improving their ground game. But sitting back and assuming that now they're home free is a recipe for disaster in the next election cycle.

Posted at 01:57 PM · Politics · Comments (3) · TrackBack (0)

November 05, 2004

Post-Election Reactions, Cont.

Glenn Reynolds has some pictures from a rally in San Francisco that suggest my pessimism about Americans' ability to work together was not misplaced.

Andrew at The Backseat Philosopher, however, does seem to get it.

Posted at 03:55 AM · Politics · Comments (7) · TrackBack (0)

November 03, 2004

And the Split Grows Ever Wider

It would be nice to believe that, with the election safely behind us, we could just get on with living. Unfortunately, life just doesn't work that way. Our federal government has grown far too powerful for people to simply shrug off a loss like yesterday's (and God help us if one party were to actually pull out a real landslide). So the hate has come pouring out.

Ken Layne explains to us how Bush won by mobilizing Jesusland.

Will Saletan explains that President Bush is still a moron, but he wins because America loves morons.

TBogg complains he's locked in a room with the slow learners.

Oliver Willis explains how we're endorsing evil and tells us that Republicans are monsters, so no strategy is too harsh.

Vanderveeken is certain we're now in Germany circa 1933.

Ken (in the comments) toasts the 'NASCAR racing fans who voted for the chimp.'

Even here on my own site, Heather declares those who voted in favor of bans on government-approved gay marriage as racist bigots.

I have no doubt I could find plenty of similar arguments on right wing sites, but I'm sick and tired of reading the bile floating around out there.

Even if I did buy into the whole bipartisanship shtick, there's not much room for it, because both sides hate each other far too much for there to be any acceptable compromise. You don't compromise with enemies, and that's what we have now.

Update: Of course, on the plus side, Bush's win meant this jackass got 'furious,' which makes it all worthwhile.

Posted at 07:26 PM · Politics · Comments (7) · TrackBack (0)

The Fetishization of Bipartisanship

As always in the wake of a Republican victory, the calls have begun for bipartisanship. I don't discount the sincerity of these calls, but I know that they're not looking for real bipartisanship. What these calls are really for is the Republicans adopting their agenda and calling it bipartisanship. Don't believe me? Look at how the conventional wisdom informs us that President Bush never tried to reach across the aisle after the 2000 election.

It's not as if President Bush ever

• appointed Clinton judges to appellate courts after they had failed to win approval from the Senate during Clinton's term
  
• invited Ted Kennedy to the White House and worked extremely closely with the Senate's biggest name liberal to create the No Child Left Behind Act
  
• appointed a Democrat, Norm Mineta, to his Cabinet
  
• left a Democratic appointee, George Tenet, as Director of Central Intelligence

  You see, that's not bipartisanship. Why? Because it didn't go far enough. When Democrats call for bipartisanship, what they really mean is that they just want to get their way, but with Republicans in power, they'll need a little help from the other side of the aisle. In all seriousness, given President Bush's moves in 2000 and the response they garnered from the Democrats, who promptly moved to keep Bush judges off the bench and who worked extremely hard to stalemate his legislative agenda, just how far would President Bush have had to go in order to earn the Democratic seal of bipartisan approval?

  Put another way, what's more important, your principles or your procedures? Bipartisanship is a procedure, nothing more. If you had a choice of getting 75% of your agenda approved on a straight party-line vote, or 50% of your agenda and 50% of your political opponent's agenda approved on a 75-25 bipartisan vote, which would you choose?

  If you chose the latter, you're either lying or criminally naive. If getting more of your agenda passed into law requires less bipartisanship, you'd damn well be prepared to throw bipartisanship to the wolves, unless you don't really believe in your agenda. The men and women who go into politics generally honestly believe that their ideas are in the best interests of the country. Honest folk can disagree as to the accuracy of those beliefs, but there's no getting around the fact those beliefs are there. And if the choices are partisanship and getting those beliefs enacted, or bipartisanship and seeing your ideas cast aside, the only rational choice is partisanship.

  Bipartisanship is a process. If you can utilize it to get your programs enacted (as President Bush has done with many of his programs, to include tax cuts and education, as well as the vote to go to war in Iraq), that's great. But if it takes some party line votes to close the deal, then there's no profit in getting upset about it.

  Particularly when bipartisanship also gives people like this more opportunties to screw you.

  Posted at 02:44 PM · Politics · Comments (2) · TrackBack (1)

  
  
  

  The Day After

  Yes, I realize that it's technically the same day, but allow me a little poetic license.

  It would appear that the various models were more right than wrong this time around, as President Bush won a clear majority of the popular vote at a time when the economy was solid and the country was fighting in a war. Although I'm quite confident that the hard lefties will maintain that President Bush stole this election as well, it seems clear that Bush was the preferred candidate this time around.

  The Kerry campaign deserves a great deal of credit for properly targeting their efforts, however. Despite losing the popular vote by 3.5 million ballots, Senator Kerry fell only 137,000 votes short of victory in Ohio, the state that would have given him 272 EVs and the Presidency. George W. Bush was the first candidate since his father in 1988 to win a clear majority of the popular vote, but where George H.W. Bush won 426 EVs, his son will walk away with only 286 (granted, a landslide relative to 2000's 271). That's a very effective performance by the Kerry campaign.

  Doubtless the Bush administration will claim a mandate, given his three point win in the popular vote. That's unfortunate, as I'd bet money that the Bush win was ultimately predicated on the war, and not on his domestic agenda. Unfortunately, our two-party system leaves us with crappy choices like that. In some ways, Tom Daschle's loss in South Dakota may be regrettable, as he had an uncanny ability to hold the Democrats together in the Senate for filibusters. I didn't like his obstructionism, but it could turn out to be preferable to Republicans pushing a bunch of dumb bills through Congress.

  Once again, we don't have a definitive answer the morning after the election (though, once again, we do know the winner). At least this time, perhaps it will only take a fortnight to close the deal. If the Kerry campaign simply holds on until the provisional ballots are counted without filing a load of lawsuits, I think they can get away with it. If they start filing suits to flip states, I suspect Kerry will face some pretty sharp backlash.

  Time to go to work.

  Posted at 08:10 AM · Politics · Comments (3) · TrackBack (0)

  
  
  

  Good Night

  President Bush has won 286 EVs to Senator Kerry's 252. Unfortunately, nobody is going to call it that way tonight, despite some pretty clear evidence that the election is over. So, I'm going to get at least a little sleep, and see just how obnoxious the Kerry campaign plans to be tomorrow.

  Posted at 01:18 AM · Politics · Comments (8) · TrackBack (0)

  
  
  

  The Media Steps In

  You've got to hand it to CNN. Along with CBS and ABC they're refusing to call Ohio for President Bush, and CNN has Kerry with 242 EVs vs 249 for Bush. Although 98% of Ohio's precincts have reported and Bush leads by 130,000 votes, I can guarantee that CNN will not call Ohio until they can call Wisconsin for Kerry, so they can start showing us all that Kerry has the lead in the Electoral College. The media isn't going to let their candidate lose. Until and unless Kerry concedes, ABC/CBS/CNN will keep Ohio in the too-close-to-call column.

  Posted at 01:00 AM · Politics · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)

  
  
  

  Just End It, Please

  President Bush has opened up a 10,000 vote margin in Iowa and Nevada, but it sounds like Iowa has stopped counting due to exhaustion, so that state may not be decided until tomorrow. Still, with a 10,000 vote margin and 96% of precincts reporting, Kerry needs a miracle to pull out Iowa.

  Chalk New Mexico up for President Bush as well, as he has a 29,000 vote lead there with 93% of precincts reporting.

  Ohio's lead is still 128,000 for President Bush with 97% of precincts reporting. But they are reporting that the Kerry campaign is about to flood Ohio with lawyers, so the pain is only beginning there.

  Wisconsin and Michigan will go to Kerry, so this will not be a big win for President Bush, but it will be big enough.

  I don't think Kerry will be able to garner the popular support he needs to push the issue in Ohio or elsewhere. I believe Al Gore was wrong to contest Florida in 2000, but at least he could point to a mandatory recount and his victory in the popular vote. Kerry is almost certainly going to lose the popular vote, and President Bush's margin of victory in Ohio is 100 times greater than that he held in Florida. Kerry is going to prove that the voters made the correct decision in President Bush through his self-centered pursuit of his own goals to the detriment of the country.

  Posted at 12:28 AM · Politics · Comments (4) · TrackBack (0)

  
  
  

  November 02, 2004

  269 and Holding...

  Juan Williams is desperately trying to spin Ohio into the Kerry camp, but even he admits Kerry needs 75% of the outstanding votes to make up the Bush advantage. Bill Kristol asks the important question: will Kerry hold out until Ohio works its way through all of its provisional ballots? I hope not, but I have little faith in Kerry thinking of the country before himself.

  Thune holds a 5,000 vote edge over Daschle with 12% of precincts still outstanding. I don't think even the Indians can save Daschle tonight, but never underestimate the power of 110% voter registration. On the other hand, The Corner reports that the two outstanding counties are the same two that came in last in 2000 and produced just enough votes to send Tim Johnson to Washington over Thune.

  Meanwhile, Nevada keeps jumping back and forth between Bush and Kerry. Kerry, of course, desperately needs Nevada, but only just over half of the vote is in, so Nevada remains completely up for grabs.

  Iowa and New Mexico both appear to be on the brink of going to President Bush. That would come very close to killing Kerry, although ABC, CBS and CNN still refuse to call Ohio.

  Posted at 11:55 PM · Politics · Comments (1) · TrackBack (0)

  
  
  

  Waiting on the Fat Lady

  The Democrats finally get some good news, as Ken Salazar nips Pete Coors for Colorado's open Senate seat. That's a shame, only because I really wanted to be able to say that my Senator was Senator Beer Baron.

  The Kerry Campaign claims they will win Ohio. The Bush Campaign was right when they said that about Florida in 2000, so who knows? 10% of the vote is still outstanding in Ohio, so we'll be with you until it's over.

  Posted at 11:31 PM · Politics