George Bush and Dick Cheney spoke with the September 11 Committee on Thursday in a meeting that was described as cordial. No word on whether Bush was hooked up to a lie detector during the meeting. Without one the commission should take what ever Bush says with a grain of salt as he has lied about the events of 9/11 for blatent political purposes.
On Thursday, Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post revisits an old column which reviews a Scott Paltrow article from Wall Street Journal wrote that the commission might review how long Mr. Bush remained in a Florida classroom just after the World Trade Center was hit strikes, whether there really was a threat to Air Force One that day, how effectively American fighter jets reacted to the attacks, and who activated the national-emergency-response plan."
Froomkin wrote that White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. had whispered in the president's ear, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack," previously said that Bush left the Florida classroom he was sitting in within seconds.
But Paltrow wrote that "uncut videotape of the classroom visit obtained from the local cable-TV station director who shot it, and interviews with the teacher and principal, show that Mr. Bush remained in the classroom not for mere seconds, but for at least seven additional minutes. He followed along for five minutes as children read aloud a story about a pet goat. Then he stayed for at least another two minutes, asking the children questions and explaining to Ms. Rigell that he would have to leave more quickly than planned."
Paltrow wrote: "Both Republican and Democratic commissioners have said they are focusing closely on what happened next -- and whether mere minutes could have affected the outcome on Sept. 11. The panel's investigators are looking at questions such as the timeliness of presidential orders about intercepting the jet that at 9:37 a.m. plowed into the Pentagon."
Paltrow also wrote that Bush could not have been telling the truth when he told a town-hall meeting in December, 2001: "I was sitting outside the classroom, waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly myself, and I said, 'Well, there's one terrible pilot.' "
There was no such video until late that night, and the TV wasn't even plugged in, Paltrow wrote.
So Bush lied about 9/11? So what's new, I'm sure the Wall Street Journal editorial page and FOX News will get to the bottom of this this story by doing another story on whether Sen. John Kerry threw away medals in 1971.
Friday, April 30, 2004
Thursday, April 29, 2004
Supreme Court reaffirms view that fair elections are not necessary
In a 5-4 decision the U.S. Supreme Court upheld their view that it is too much work to try to make sure American elections are fair and therefore threw out a Pennsylvania case challenging gerrymandered districts that disenfranchised Democrats. The net effect of Wednesday's ruling was to say that representational democracy is not necessary if it's too much work.
The ruling reaffirms the Court's 5-4 ruling in 2000 in Bush v. Gore that there wasn't enough time to make sure votes in Florida were counted correctly in the presidential election so the partial count provided by the state of Florida showing Bush ahead was good enough.
The Gang of Three (Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas) joined with Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy to reject Vieth v. Jubelirer. The Gang of Three plus O'Connor also wanted to overturn a 1986 decision, Davis v. Bandemer, under which "the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause also grants judges the power - and duty - to control that practice." But by a one vote margin (Justice Kennedy showing a slight interest in preserving democracy) declined to completely rule out all future challenges to gerrymandering. The foursome apparently believes that the practice of "to the victors go the spoils" was just fine in relation to American democracy.
Their actual statement was that they "concluded that political gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable because no judicially discernible and manageable standards for adjudicating such claims exist." Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said, while admitting he could not define hard-core pornography, "I know it when I see it." Gerrymandered districts are the same way, maybe you can't define it but you can sure see one, if you try.
One district in Pennsylvania under contention winds through the Philadelphia area and is only about 300 yards wide in places, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. But in their ruling the Supreme Court said to fix that would be too much work for judges. Well if judges are busy maybe they could ask for some help from elementary school students as even they could figure out this is a gerrymandered district.
Perhaps judges are too busy. During the 1990s the Republicans sat on judicial appoints, building up case loads. Today Democrats are loathe to confirm judicial appointments made by an unelected president, who by chance was elevated to the White House by a 5-4 vote by the same group that doesn't believe in democracy.
The Pennsylvania case came about following the 2000 census which reduced the size of the state's congressional delegation by two members, and the Republican-controlled state legislature drew new boundaries that favored GOP candidates. Republicans increased their majority on the state's House delegation from 11-10 to 12-7, even though the number of registered voters in Pennsylvania is almost evenly divided between the two parties. In Texas, Rep. Tom DeLay goaded the state legislature to redistrict to make the split in representation more reflective of the vote. In Pennsylvania the opposite occurred (moving away from representation reflected in the delegation) yet, surprise, surprise, the GOP again benefited.
While American lives are being lost overseas in a supposed effort to promote democracy, efforts by the ruling party in America are having the opposite effect. Democracy, with the approval of the President, Congress and Courts, is starting to die. Whether the public chooses to resuscitate it will be determined later this year. But Congress, with the Courts approval, may have altered the rules to prevent any such resuscitation.
The ruling reaffirms the Court's 5-4 ruling in 2000 in Bush v. Gore that there wasn't enough time to make sure votes in Florida were counted correctly in the presidential election so the partial count provided by the state of Florida showing Bush ahead was good enough.
The Gang of Three (Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas) joined with Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy to reject Vieth v. Jubelirer. The Gang of Three plus O'Connor also wanted to overturn a 1986 decision, Davis v. Bandemer, under which "the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause also grants judges the power - and duty - to control that practice." But by a one vote margin (Justice Kennedy showing a slight interest in preserving democracy) declined to completely rule out all future challenges to gerrymandering. The foursome apparently believes that the practice of "to the victors go the spoils" was just fine in relation to American democracy.
Their actual statement was that they "concluded that political gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable because no judicially discernible and manageable standards for adjudicating such claims exist." Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said, while admitting he could not define hard-core pornography, "I know it when I see it." Gerrymandered districts are the same way, maybe you can't define it but you can sure see one, if you try.
One district in Pennsylvania under contention winds through the Philadelphia area and is only about 300 yards wide in places, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. But in their ruling the Supreme Court said to fix that would be too much work for judges. Well if judges are busy maybe they could ask for some help from elementary school students as even they could figure out this is a gerrymandered district.
Perhaps judges are too busy. During the 1990s the Republicans sat on judicial appoints, building up case loads. Today Democrats are loathe to confirm judicial appointments made by an unelected president, who by chance was elevated to the White House by a 5-4 vote by the same group that doesn't believe in democracy.
The Pennsylvania case came about following the 2000 census which reduced the size of the state's congressional delegation by two members, and the Republican-controlled state legislature drew new boundaries that favored GOP candidates. Republicans increased their majority on the state's House delegation from 11-10 to 12-7, even though the number of registered voters in Pennsylvania is almost evenly divided between the two parties. In Texas, Rep. Tom DeLay goaded the state legislature to redistrict to make the split in representation more reflective of the vote. In Pennsylvania the opposite occurred (moving away from representation reflected in the delegation) yet, surprise, surprise, the GOP again benefited.
While American lives are being lost overseas in a supposed effort to promote democracy, efforts by the ruling party in America are having the opposite effect. Democracy, with the approval of the President, Congress and Courts, is starting to die. Whether the public chooses to resuscitate it will be determined later this year. But Congress, with the Courts approval, may have altered the rules to prevent any such resuscitation.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Lack of Leadership
At a recent event in Missouri Vice President Dick Cheney questioned whether Sen. John Kerry could lead as president. Based on Kerry's past experience it's difficult to believe he couldn't or wouldn't be a good leader.
The question, however, is why can't Bush or Cheney lead. It is ironic that Cheney would question whether another person could lead considering how he and George Bush seemed to have made a conscious effort not to lead.
Leadership involves showing the capacity or ability to lead, in short, getting others to follow you because they believe in you or your efforts. The Bush administration has taken a "follow or else" attitude to the country and world, and to those who disagree the administration has either attacked or ignored, basically saying "who cares what you think."
As a result the administration has trouble building coalitions. In Iraq they put together the "Coalition of the Billing," a group of countries who wanted to either get in the good graces of the Bush Administration or participate in the spoils of war (i.e. rebuilding Iraq). Countries such as Spain and Honduras apparently have decided its not worth it and are leaving. Friendly countries like Australia are declining to send additional troops.
In his acceptance speech in August 2000, Bush kept saying that the Clinton/Gore team had their chance to lead but didn't, but that they would. Instead, rather than led Bush & Cheney have bullied and scared people in going along with them in an attempt to keep them out of trouble. A type of Eddie Haskell diplomacy.
The question is why voters are snowed by this act. As a TV LAND review wrote "Eddie Haskell is nothing short of an operator. He's all talk and attitude - in other words, a real creep. Eddie's the kind of guy that everyone sees through, except Eddie."
Bush and Cheney are much the same way, except for some reason people are buying it. Like a bull in a china shop, Bush has made a mess, but rather than open the door and force him out too many voters appear to want to keep him in the shop with the belief that once the mess is cleaned up the shop will look better. Maybe they should consider instead what additional damage he could and will do.
The question, however, is why can't Bush or Cheney lead. It is ironic that Cheney would question whether another person could lead considering how he and George Bush seemed to have made a conscious effort not to lead.
Leadership involves showing the capacity or ability to lead, in short, getting others to follow you because they believe in you or your efforts. The Bush administration has taken a "follow or else" attitude to the country and world, and to those who disagree the administration has either attacked or ignored, basically saying "who cares what you think."
As a result the administration has trouble building coalitions. In Iraq they put together the "Coalition of the Billing," a group of countries who wanted to either get in the good graces of the Bush Administration or participate in the spoils of war (i.e. rebuilding Iraq). Countries such as Spain and Honduras apparently have decided its not worth it and are leaving. Friendly countries like Australia are declining to send additional troops.
In his acceptance speech in August 2000, Bush kept saying that the Clinton/Gore team had their chance to lead but didn't, but that they would. Instead, rather than led Bush & Cheney have bullied and scared people in going along with them in an attempt to keep them out of trouble. A type of Eddie Haskell diplomacy.
The question is why voters are snowed by this act. As a TV LAND review wrote "Eddie Haskell is nothing short of an operator. He's all talk and attitude - in other words, a real creep. Eddie's the kind of guy that everyone sees through, except Eddie."
Bush and Cheney are much the same way, except for some reason people are buying it. Like a bull in a china shop, Bush has made a mess, but rather than open the door and force him out too many voters appear to want to keep him in the shop with the belief that once the mess is cleaned up the shop will look better. Maybe they should consider instead what additional damage he could and will do.
Friday, April 23, 2004
But they must have had WMD. We have the receipts!
Faced with the possibility of being wrong about whether or not Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction, the Bush administration is trying a new tact. No, we haven't found any WMD but we know Iraq did have them. (We've got the receipts!)
Reading the polls that show a majority of people believe Iraq had WMD (although down from 69% in 2003 to 51% in 2004) the administration probably figures it can't hurt much to keep saying Saddam had WMD as the only way to lose public support on this issue would be for the public to admit they were wrong also. And for the public to admit they were wrong about WMDs the administration probably believes this would mean the public would have to also decide that they might have been wrong about supporting the invasion of Iraq. And if the public were to admit they were wrong about the war then that would mean they supported sending US troops to fight and die in a war of questionable purpose, and the public is not going to do that.
So now the administration has decided to take the "prove me wrong" position on WMDs and confuse the issue on whether Iraq had WMDs in 2003 or anytime in the past. "I look forward to hearing the truth as to exactly where [the WMD] are," Bush said at the press conference. Iraq, of course, at one time had WMD, but through the actions by the United Nations weapons inspectors may have forced Saddam to destroy them, which would be quite a success story, if it publicized.
Former UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has said that he now believes that Iraq did destroy most of its weapons 10 years ago.
"The more time that has passed, the more I think it's unlikely that anything will be found. In the beginning they talked about weapons concretely, and later on they talked about weapons programs," Blix told ABC. "I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed all almost of what they had in the summer of 1991."
But the Bush administration hardly wants to admit to the world, "Yes, the inspections worked. The UN forced Saddam to destroy his WMD." Kinda cuts down the reasons for go to war doesnt' it? So now the Bush administration asks why Saddam wasn't willing to come clean about being free of WMDs. Gee, I don't know, why would a murderous dictator not want his enemies to know he didn't actually have WMDs? Maybe because they might try to overthrow him....
"You can put up a sign on your door, 'Beware of the Dog', without having a dog," Blix said.
By saying that Saddam still had WMD, the Bush administration, in a weird way, is in effect promoting Saddam's legacy. With WMDs Saddam was a leader to be dealt with. And if Saddam was a leader that needed to be dealt with, then he was standing up to the US and the West.
Otherwise Saddam was just another murderous dictator, and unfortunately the world has too many of them, but you don't see Bush going after them.
Reading the polls that show a majority of people believe Iraq had WMD (although down from 69% in 2003 to 51% in 2004) the administration probably figures it can't hurt much to keep saying Saddam had WMD as the only way to lose public support on this issue would be for the public to admit they were wrong also. And for the public to admit they were wrong about WMDs the administration probably believes this would mean the public would have to also decide that they might have been wrong about supporting the invasion of Iraq. And if the public were to admit they were wrong about the war then that would mean they supported sending US troops to fight and die in a war of questionable purpose, and the public is not going to do that.
So now the administration has decided to take the "prove me wrong" position on WMDs and confuse the issue on whether Iraq had WMDs in 2003 or anytime in the past. "I look forward to hearing the truth as to exactly where [the WMD] are," Bush said at the press conference. Iraq, of course, at one time had WMD, but through the actions by the United Nations weapons inspectors may have forced Saddam to destroy them, which would be quite a success story, if it publicized.
Former UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has said that he now believes that Iraq did destroy most of its weapons 10 years ago.
"The more time that has passed, the more I think it's unlikely that anything will be found. In the beginning they talked about weapons concretely, and later on they talked about weapons programs," Blix told ABC. "I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed all almost of what they had in the summer of 1991."
But the Bush administration hardly wants to admit to the world, "Yes, the inspections worked. The UN forced Saddam to destroy his WMD." Kinda cuts down the reasons for go to war doesnt' it? So now the Bush administration asks why Saddam wasn't willing to come clean about being free of WMDs. Gee, I don't know, why would a murderous dictator not want his enemies to know he didn't actually have WMDs? Maybe because they might try to overthrow him....
"You can put up a sign on your door, 'Beware of the Dog', without having a dog," Blix said.
By saying that Saddam still had WMD, the Bush administration, in a weird way, is in effect promoting Saddam's legacy. With WMDs Saddam was a leader to be dealt with. And if Saddam was a leader that needed to be dealt with, then he was standing up to the US and the West.
Otherwise Saddam was just another murderous dictator, and unfortunately the world has too many of them, but you don't see Bush going after them.
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Foreign Policy Failure
When the attacks against New York and Washington D.C. occurred on September 11, 2001 many Americans believed we needed to fight back against terrorism. While some initial progress was made in Afghanistan, the mission was overwhelmed by the administration's interest in attacking Iraq, whether or not Iraq had any role in the 9/11 attacks.
So nearly three years later Osama bin Laden remains uncaptured and with the Administration more interested in Iraq and devoting 10 times the number of troops to Iraq the war on terrorism appears forgotten. While the administration likes to pretend that Iraq was involved, the lack of WMDs and the lack of a connection to bin Laden shows little backing for the administration's claims.
Instead of spending $87 billion on Afghanistan to make America and the world more safer, the Bush administration embarked on a misguided war that has turned the world against America and has not reduced terrorism, but rather possibly increased it as new terrorists are developed daily because of their hatred of America. Today, as a result of our action in Iraq, there probably is a connection between Iraq and terrorism as Iraq may have become a gathering point in the war against America.
Bush may believe in the Soviet Union form of foreign policy; take over countries and not worry if the world turns against them. One difference is that the Soviet Union was able to not care because it couldcontrol its friends through force. As a democracy America doesn't have that option and protests in Britain and other countries show the lack of real support for America's war.
After September 11 Bush and America had the opportunity to unite the country and the world in a battle against terrorism. People realized they needed to unite to fight terrorism (even the French were with us!). In the 2000 campaign George Bush promised to be a "uniter not a divider," and he is delivering on that promise, uniting the world against America.
As a result, when we are look for friends to help us in Iraq, we are find few takers. This should come as no surprise as one reaps what one sows and the Bush administration has sowed disdain and disunity. Based on the lack of world support it's surprising that anyone would question Sen. John Kerry's supposed statement that a number of leaders have said the US needs to get Bush.
While other world leaders have figured out that Bush has to go, will America figure that out?
So nearly three years later Osama bin Laden remains uncaptured and with the Administration more interested in Iraq and devoting 10 times the number of troops to Iraq the war on terrorism appears forgotten. While the administration likes to pretend that Iraq was involved, the lack of WMDs and the lack of a connection to bin Laden shows little backing for the administration's claims.
Instead of spending $87 billion on Afghanistan to make America and the world more safer, the Bush administration embarked on a misguided war that has turned the world against America and has not reduced terrorism, but rather possibly increased it as new terrorists are developed daily because of their hatred of America. Today, as a result of our action in Iraq, there probably is a connection between Iraq and terrorism as Iraq may have become a gathering point in the war against America.
Bush may believe in the Soviet Union form of foreign policy; take over countries and not worry if the world turns against them. One difference is that the Soviet Union was able to not care because it couldcontrol its friends through force. As a democracy America doesn't have that option and protests in Britain and other countries show the lack of real support for America's war.
After September 11 Bush and America had the opportunity to unite the country and the world in a battle against terrorism. People realized they needed to unite to fight terrorism (even the French were with us!). In the 2000 campaign George Bush promised to be a "uniter not a divider," and he is delivering on that promise, uniting the world against America.
As a result, when we are look for friends to help us in Iraq, we are find few takers. This should come as no surprise as one reaps what one sows and the Bush administration has sowed disdain and disunity. Based on the lack of world support it's surprising that anyone would question Sen. John Kerry's supposed statement that a number of leaders have said the US needs to get Bush.
While other world leaders have figured out that Bush has to go, will America figure that out?
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Help IS on the way
In the 2000 election George Bush and Dick Cheney liked to denigrate the US military by implying it was in poor condition by saying "help is on the way." In reality the military was in excellent shape, witness the quick military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Changing the military doesn't happen overnight so it was Bill Clinton's military that won the wars. Keeping the peace is another matter and Bush has always said he doesn't believe in nation building.
So in 2000 help was already there but the Bush/Cheney comment was a cheap shot that won votes, and possibly enough to allow the GOP to steal the election. Four years later, in the midst of economic and other problems, people are loooking for solutions and if conservative New York Times columnist is correct, the people Sen. John Kerry would pick for his administration are heads and tails better than the people George Bush picked.
Among the names Safire guessed would be in a Kerry administration were Richard Holbrooke - Secretary of State; Sen. John McCain - Secretary of Defense (although Safire predicts he would turn it down); Rand Beers or Sandy Berger - National Security Advisor; and Bob Kerrey - Director of the CIA.
Compare those with Don Rumsfield, Defense; Don Evans, Commerce; Gail Norton, Interior; John Ashcroft, Justice; Rod Paige, Education; and Elaine Chao, Labor. Bush does have a few decent nominees, Colin Powell, but it's interesting that he is viewed as an outcast.
After reading Safire's list of predicted Kerry nominees one starts to think "can we just start the process now and put adults back in charge?"
With these individuals in charge, help indeed would indeed be on the way.
Changing the military doesn't happen overnight so it was Bill Clinton's military that won the wars. Keeping the peace is another matter and Bush has always said he doesn't believe in nation building.
So in 2000 help was already there but the Bush/Cheney comment was a cheap shot that won votes, and possibly enough to allow the GOP to steal the election. Four years later, in the midst of economic and other problems, people are loooking for solutions and if conservative New York Times columnist is correct, the people Sen. John Kerry would pick for his administration are heads and tails better than the people George Bush picked.
Among the names Safire guessed would be in a Kerry administration were Richard Holbrooke - Secretary of State; Sen. John McCain - Secretary of Defense (although Safire predicts he would turn it down); Rand Beers or Sandy Berger - National Security Advisor; and Bob Kerrey - Director of the CIA.
Compare those with Don Rumsfield, Defense; Don Evans, Commerce; Gail Norton, Interior; John Ashcroft, Justice; Rod Paige, Education; and Elaine Chao, Labor. Bush does have a few decent nominees, Colin Powell, but it's interesting that he is viewed as an outcast.
After reading Safire's list of predicted Kerry nominees one starts to think "can we just start the process now and put adults back in charge?"
With these individuals in charge, help indeed would indeed be on the way.
Monday, April 19, 2004
Commercials we'd like to see
In Sunday's Meet the Press, Tim Russert had one hour to ask questions of Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic Party nominee. You might think that during the hour Russert might ask about one of the major commercials that the GOP is currently running.
Afterall, one might think if the GOP is spending so much money on a subject that it was an important issue and an issue one would question the nominee. Unless the commercial is so ridiculous or blatantly false...
The commercial? The one talking about the "wacky ideas" people have about taxing gas sales and implying that Kerry supports this issue.
But what the ad doesn't say is that Vice President Dick Cheney actually introduced legislation to create new import tax that would have caused price of oil and gasoline to soar by billions of dollars per year and said at that time that low oil prices were not good for United States. Gregory Mankiw, President Bush’s Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, has argued that a 50 cent gas tax is a necessary component of income tax cuts. Kerry on the other hand, didn't vote for such legislation, only made a comment that he could support it.
Sounds like a good subject for a question. But then if Russert knows the ad is misleading then why bring it up? This way no one knows its misleading...
So how should Kerry respond? How about the following ad... (and it's just as honest as any Republican ad).
Voice Over:
Some people have wacky ideas.
Like taxing gasoline to raise oil prices.
That’s Dick Cheney
Graphic:
Dick Cheney's Gas Tax
VO:
Cheney once introduced legislation to create new import tax
If Cheney's tax increase were law, oil and gasoline would soar by billions of dollars per year
Graphic:
Cheny's Plan: Billions More a Year For Gas.
VO:
Cheney said that low oil prices were not good for the United States
Graphic:
Cheney: Low oil prices are not good for the United States
VO:
George Bush appointed Dick Cheney to develop his energy plan, so next time you fill your gas tank, think about Dick Cheney's gas tax plan.
Graphic:
George Bush & Dick Cheney, wrong for America
The GOP would scream about the accuracy but then considering their ad is misleading how could they complain? Yet they would because they believe only Democrats have to be accurate.
Afterall, one might think if the GOP is spending so much money on a subject that it was an important issue and an issue one would question the nominee. Unless the commercial is so ridiculous or blatantly false...
The commercial? The one talking about the "wacky ideas" people have about taxing gas sales and implying that Kerry supports this issue.
But what the ad doesn't say is that Vice President Dick Cheney actually introduced legislation to create new import tax that would have caused price of oil and gasoline to soar by billions of dollars per year and said at that time that low oil prices were not good for United States. Gregory Mankiw, President Bush’s Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, has argued that a 50 cent gas tax is a necessary component of income tax cuts. Kerry on the other hand, didn't vote for such legislation, only made a comment that he could support it.
Sounds like a good subject for a question. But then if Russert knows the ad is misleading then why bring it up? This way no one knows its misleading...
So how should Kerry respond? How about the following ad... (and it's just as honest as any Republican ad).
Voice Over:
Some people have wacky ideas.
Like taxing gasoline to raise oil prices.
That’s Dick Cheney
Graphic:
Dick Cheney's Gas Tax
VO:
Cheney once introduced legislation to create new import tax
If Cheney's tax increase were law, oil and gasoline would soar by billions of dollars per year
Graphic:
Cheny's Plan: Billions More a Year For Gas.
VO:
Cheney said that low oil prices were not good for the United States
Graphic:
Cheney: Low oil prices are not good for the United States
VO:
George Bush appointed Dick Cheney to develop his energy plan, so next time you fill your gas tank, think about Dick Cheney's gas tax plan.
Graphic:
George Bush & Dick Cheney, wrong for America
The GOP would scream about the accuracy but then considering their ad is misleading how could they complain? Yet they would because they believe only Democrats have to be accurate.
Friday, April 16, 2004
Paying for the '80s
Looking back at the economic statistics from the 1980s one is struck by a number of things but most of all by the growth in our nation's debt. When Ronald Reagan took office in January 1981 he decried deficits and promised to fix them.
"You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding, we are going to begin to act, beginning today," Reagan said.
Instead, under Reagan, the deficit ballooned from $930 billion to $2.6 trillion over his term, a 280 percent increase. To put that in perspective, imagine today's deficit increasing from $7 trillion to nearly $20 trillion over the next eight years. People would be outraged. Yet many on the conservative side continue to justify the overwhelming debt we have laid at the feet of future generations.
Robert Bartley (see April 15 issue), former editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, wrote Seven Fat Years: And How to Do it Again said the 1980s boom was built by supply side economics. Paul Krugman, a columnist for the New York times, disagreed pointing out "that skeptics say that rapid growth after 1982 proves nothing: a severe recession is usually followed by a period of fast growth, as unemployed workers and factories are brought back on line...by the late 1980's the U.S. economy was about where you would have expected it to be, given the trend in the 1970's. Nothing in the data suggests a supply-side revolution."
While George W. Bush has managed to turn surpluses into deficits and set the groundwork for large deficits as far as the eye can see, he hasn't approached Reagan levels. However, distressingly few in the administration seemed to have learned any lessons from the Reagan administration, unless the lesson was that deficits caused by tax cuts reward the rich but crowd out spending on regular Americans.
When former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill questioned the need for yet another tax cut, Dick Cheney dismissed him "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the midterm elections. Our due is another big tax cut."
Apparently Cheney doesn't understand, or care to understand, that the only reason the nation was in shape to consider tax cuts was that Clinton balanced the budget. (According to the New York Times, in 2003 the Cheney's paid 19 percent of their adjusted gross income, though when their income from tax-exempt bonds is considered, the Cheneys' effective tax rate was 12.7 percent.)
How ironic would it be that a failure of the Clinton administration may have been their ability and willingness to balance the budget. Without a balanced budget the GOP would have been unable to consider tax cuts and without those tax cuts the nation would be facing a better economic future.
What a mixed up world!
"You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding, we are going to begin to act, beginning today," Reagan said.
Instead, under Reagan, the deficit ballooned from $930 billion to $2.6 trillion over his term, a 280 percent increase. To put that in perspective, imagine today's deficit increasing from $7 trillion to nearly $20 trillion over the next eight years. People would be outraged. Yet many on the conservative side continue to justify the overwhelming debt we have laid at the feet of future generations.
Robert Bartley (see April 15 issue), former editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, wrote Seven Fat Years: And How to Do it Again said the 1980s boom was built by supply side economics. Paul Krugman, a columnist for the New York times, disagreed pointing out "that skeptics say that rapid growth after 1982 proves nothing: a severe recession is usually followed by a period of fast growth, as unemployed workers and factories are brought back on line...by the late 1980's the U.S. economy was about where you would have expected it to be, given the trend in the 1970's. Nothing in the data suggests a supply-side revolution."
While George W. Bush has managed to turn surpluses into deficits and set the groundwork for large deficits as far as the eye can see, he hasn't approached Reagan levels. However, distressingly few in the administration seemed to have learned any lessons from the Reagan administration, unless the lesson was that deficits caused by tax cuts reward the rich but crowd out spending on regular Americans.
When former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill questioned the need for yet another tax cut, Dick Cheney dismissed him "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the midterm elections. Our due is another big tax cut."
Apparently Cheney doesn't understand, or care to understand, that the only reason the nation was in shape to consider tax cuts was that Clinton balanced the budget. (According to the New York Times, in 2003 the Cheney's paid 19 percent of their adjusted gross income, though when their income from tax-exempt bonds is considered, the Cheneys' effective tax rate was 12.7 percent.)
How ironic would it be that a failure of the Clinton administration may have been their ability and willingness to balance the budget. Without a balanced budget the GOP would have been unable to consider tax cuts and without those tax cuts the nation would be facing a better economic future.
What a mixed up world!
Thursday, April 15, 2004
Why taxes are so high
When you file your taxes this year, you may wonder why you pay so much. One place to look is the Wall Street Journal and its former editorial page director, the late Robert Bartley.
Bartley was an early proponent of supply side economics and is credited with pushing President Ronald Reagan to adopt the economic policy. The resulting exploding deficits, crushing national debt, and huge amounts of interest paid out by the government each year is testament to Bartley's success. With the current resident of the White House also a proponent, Americans will continue to reap the rewards of Bartley's legacy on future tax days.
If you wonder whether one person, who many may have never heard of, could be responsible for the government's poor economic situation, consider what Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes said "How many other editorial pages can say they created the economic policy for an administration and for an era? Without The Wall Street Journal editorial page, there is no supply side economics."
When Reagan took office the national debt was around $930 billion dollars. When he left it was $2.6 TRILLION, a 280% increase. For comparison, the debt was around $4 trillion when Bill Clinton took office and around $5.6 when he left, a 40% increase over eight years. Today the debt is $7.1 trillion, a $1.5 trillion increase in THREE years. Most of the increase during Clinton's term was left over from Bush I, which was a hangover from Reagan. In Clinton's final THREE years the debt only increased by $260 billion or 4.8%.
In addition to contributing to America's national deficit, Bartley played a large role in developing today's divisive political landscape. As editorial page editor of the Journal, Bartley helped develop a mean and nasty strain of commentary that has permeated American society. Quick to blame his opponents for society's problems, he was unwilling to consider his role in the resulting mess.
During Bill Clinton's presidency, Bartley lead an ugly, nasty campaign against Clinton, highlighted by possibly playing a role in leading White House aide Vince Foster to commit suicide following a series of editorials attacking him. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) noted that "after a torn-up note in Foster's briefcase complained that "the WSJ editors lie without consequence," the Journal's editors questioned the suicide rulings of the Park Police and a Virginia coroner."
Jack Shafer wrote in Slate "There's a thin line between hard-hitting opinion journalism and character assassination, a line that Bartley frequently erased."
Slate founding editor Michael Kinsley called Bartley's Wall Street Journal editorial page "a central cog in the vast right-wing conspiracy" and its editorials often "irresponsible" and "intellectually dishonest."
The Arkansas Times saw much of Bartley's work up close and noted "Former Boston Globe columnist David Warsh sums up Bartley's career: "Bob Bartley was a corrosive force in American life. Almost single-handedly, he made extremism respectable."
Bartley's methods were well known in the journalism world but for the most part were excused and tolerated. However in 1996 the Columbia Journalism Review reviewed the Journal's editorial page and wrote:
"Unlike the Journal's meticulously researched in-depth news columns, which many consider a model of journalistic excellence, the editorial page rarely offers balance, is often unfair, and is riddled with errors -- distortions and outright falsehoods of every kind and stripe. And when the errors are challenged, the Journal is less than eager to set the record straight. The page might stand accused of sloppiness except that the errors always seem to bolster the Journal's point of view. Under editor Robert Bartley, the policy seems to be ideology above all else."
When Bartley died at 66 in December 2003 reaction was mixed with mainstream press treating him with respect and on-line press pointing out his faults. Whether one wants to forgive him for his actions, it will be difficult to forget his corrosive impact on America and nearly impossible to escape his harmful impact on America's economic scene.
Bartley was an early proponent of supply side economics and is credited with pushing President Ronald Reagan to adopt the economic policy. The resulting exploding deficits, crushing national debt, and huge amounts of interest paid out by the government each year is testament to Bartley's success. With the current resident of the White House also a proponent, Americans will continue to reap the rewards of Bartley's legacy on future tax days.
If you wonder whether one person, who many may have never heard of, could be responsible for the government's poor economic situation, consider what Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes said "How many other editorial pages can say they created the economic policy for an administration and for an era? Without The Wall Street Journal editorial page, there is no supply side economics."
When Reagan took office the national debt was around $930 billion dollars. When he left it was $2.6 TRILLION, a 280% increase. For comparison, the debt was around $4 trillion when Bill Clinton took office and around $5.6 when he left, a 40% increase over eight years. Today the debt is $7.1 trillion, a $1.5 trillion increase in THREE years. Most of the increase during Clinton's term was left over from Bush I, which was a hangover from Reagan. In Clinton's final THREE years the debt only increased by $260 billion or 4.8%.
In addition to contributing to America's national deficit, Bartley played a large role in developing today's divisive political landscape. As editorial page editor of the Journal, Bartley helped develop a mean and nasty strain of commentary that has permeated American society. Quick to blame his opponents for society's problems, he was unwilling to consider his role in the resulting mess.
During Bill Clinton's presidency, Bartley lead an ugly, nasty campaign against Clinton, highlighted by possibly playing a role in leading White House aide Vince Foster to commit suicide following a series of editorials attacking him. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) noted that "after a torn-up note in Foster's briefcase complained that "the WSJ editors lie without consequence," the Journal's editors questioned the suicide rulings of the Park Police and a Virginia coroner."
Jack Shafer wrote in Slate "There's a thin line between hard-hitting opinion journalism and character assassination, a line that Bartley frequently erased."
Slate founding editor Michael Kinsley called Bartley's Wall Street Journal editorial page "a central cog in the vast right-wing conspiracy" and its editorials often "irresponsible" and "intellectually dishonest."
The Arkansas Times saw much of Bartley's work up close and noted "Former Boston Globe columnist David Warsh sums up Bartley's career: "Bob Bartley was a corrosive force in American life. Almost single-handedly, he made extremism respectable."
Bartley's methods were well known in the journalism world but for the most part were excused and tolerated. However in 1996 the Columbia Journalism Review reviewed the Journal's editorial page and wrote:
"Unlike the Journal's meticulously researched in-depth news columns, which many consider a model of journalistic excellence, the editorial page rarely offers balance, is often unfair, and is riddled with errors -- distortions and outright falsehoods of every kind and stripe. And when the errors are challenged, the Journal is less than eager to set the record straight. The page might stand accused of sloppiness except that the errors always seem to bolster the Journal's point of view. Under editor Robert Bartley, the policy seems to be ideology above all else."
When Bartley died at 66 in December 2003 reaction was mixed with mainstream press treating him with respect and on-line press pointing out his faults. Whether one wants to forgive him for his actions, it will be difficult to forget his corrosive impact on America and nearly impossible to escape his harmful impact on America's economic scene.
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Weapons of Mass Distortion Alert
Today and tomorrow one of the main stories will be tax day and how much is collected and how much people pay. One thing that won't be included will be any real discussion of the effective tax rate, which is one's real tax rate.
Oh sure, there will be lots of discussion of marginal tax rates (basically the rate at which one's final dollar earned is taxed) but not much about effective tax rate, which is what you get if you divide one's total income by tax paid. For example if your total income is $80,000 and you end up paying $8,000 in taxes that is an effective (or real) tax of 10%.
What many people don't understand is that different parts of income are taxed at different levels. People understand that there are different tax rates on different income levels (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%), but conservatives have deceived the public into thinking that if they earn over a certain amount ALL of their income will be taxed at the higher level.
In reality, different parts of a person's income are taxed at the different levels.For example, for singles, currently taxable income (AGI minus deductions) up to $7,000 is taxed at 10%, income from $7,001 to $28,400 is taxed at 15%, and so forth. For a complete listing of rates see Yahoo's tax center.
So a single person (with a simple return) making $38,200 has taxable income of $30,200 and pays $4,360 in taxes ($700 (10%) on income up to $7,000, $3,210 (15%) on income between $7,000 and $28,400; and $450 (25%) on the income over $28,400). While the marginal rate is 25% (tax on last dollar earned) the effective (or real) tax rate ($4,360/$38,000) is 11.47%.
A married couple (with no kids) with income of $38,000 would pay $2,660 as the 10% rate extends up to $20,000, instead of $14,000, which results in an effective tax rate of 7%. A married couple with two children making $100,000 would pay around $11,100, for an effective tax rate of 11.2%.
To see taxes on different levels of income, check out this tax site. After looking at the site you will understand why you will hear a lot about 35% marginal tax rates but not much about 11.47 effective tax rates.
Oh sure, there will be lots of discussion of marginal tax rates (basically the rate at which one's final dollar earned is taxed) but not much about effective tax rate, which is what you get if you divide one's total income by tax paid. For example if your total income is $80,000 and you end up paying $8,000 in taxes that is an effective (or real) tax of 10%.
What many people don't understand is that different parts of income are taxed at different levels. People understand that there are different tax rates on different income levels (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%), but conservatives have deceived the public into thinking that if they earn over a certain amount ALL of their income will be taxed at the higher level.
In reality, different parts of a person's income are taxed at the different levels.For example, for singles, currently taxable income (AGI minus deductions) up to $7,000 is taxed at 10%, income from $7,001 to $28,400 is taxed at 15%, and so forth. For a complete listing of rates see Yahoo's tax center.
So a single person (with a simple return) making $38,200 has taxable income of $30,200 and pays $4,360 in taxes ($700 (10%) on income up to $7,000, $3,210 (15%) on income between $7,000 and $28,400; and $450 (25%) on the income over $28,400). While the marginal rate is 25% (tax on last dollar earned) the effective (or real) tax rate ($4,360/$38,000) is 11.47%.
A married couple (with no kids) with income of $38,000 would pay $2,660 as the 10% rate extends up to $20,000, instead of $14,000, which results in an effective tax rate of 7%. A married couple with two children making $100,000 would pay around $11,100, for an effective tax rate of 11.2%.
To see taxes on different levels of income, check out this tax site. After looking at the site you will understand why you will hear a lot about 35% marginal tax rates but not much about 11.47 effective tax rates.
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
Fuzzy Math
In recognition of tax week, the media is embarking on a number of stories on the current tax situation. But by telling only part of the story the media paints a dishonest and distorted view of our tax system.
As expected, the Wall Street Journal leads the pack with its April 10 editorial Kerry as Fiscal Conservative - Following Clinton's lead, he would raise everyone's taxes. The editorial only tells part of the story on taxes. While pointing out the increase in taxes paid by the top fifth the Journal ignores their large growth in income.
The Tax Foundation shows that the top 25% saw their tax payments increase from 17.5% to 18% of income from 1984 to 2001, yet that group's share of overall income went from 57.5% to 65.2%. So for a small increase in taxes they got a huge increase in the overall share of U.S. income.
What conservative like to point out is how the top 1% of Americans pay a lot of taxes as their goal is to get people to think about how large of share of income they receive. And it works. One of the online responses to WSJ column included this gem -
"I understand that the top 1% currently pays about 33% of income taxes. John Kerry says this is not their fair share. Even with my poor math skills I can tell it is 33 times their equal share. So how much is their fair share?" Apparently this individual has bought the idea that has bought the idea everyone should pay an equal share of income taxes regardless of income, i.e. the top 1% should pay 1% of taxes, regardless of income.
The top 1% does pay around 34% of income taxes but they receive 17.5% of all income. In addition, these figures don't include social security tax which brings in close to two-thirds of the money the income tax does and the SSI tax is on income less than around $88,000 (Medicare does go higher) meaning it hits lower earning people a lot harder.
So in the end the top 1% of Americans share of income probably is close to their share of taxes. How is that unfair?
As expected, the Wall Street Journal leads the pack with its April 10 editorial Kerry as Fiscal Conservative - Following Clinton's lead, he would raise everyone's taxes. The editorial only tells part of the story on taxes. While pointing out the increase in taxes paid by the top fifth the Journal ignores their large growth in income.
The Tax Foundation shows that the top 25% saw their tax payments increase from 17.5% to 18% of income from 1984 to 2001, yet that group's share of overall income went from 57.5% to 65.2%. So for a small increase in taxes they got a huge increase in the overall share of U.S. income.
What conservative like to point out is how the top 1% of Americans pay a lot of taxes as their goal is to get people to think about how large of share of income they receive. And it works. One of the online responses to WSJ column included this gem -
"I understand that the top 1% currently pays about 33% of income taxes. John Kerry says this is not their fair share. Even with my poor math skills I can tell it is 33 times their equal share. So how much is their fair share?" Apparently this individual has bought the idea that has bought the idea everyone should pay an equal share of income taxes regardless of income, i.e. the top 1% should pay 1% of taxes, regardless of income.
The top 1% does pay around 34% of income taxes but they receive 17.5% of all income. In addition, these figures don't include social security tax which brings in close to two-thirds of the money the income tax does and the SSI tax is on income less than around $88,000 (Medicare does go higher) meaning it hits lower earning people a lot harder.
So in the end the top 1% of Americans share of income probably is close to their share of taxes. How is that unfair?
Monday, April 12, 2004
Tax Week - AMT
It's tax week and get ready for a week's worth of tax stories that only tell you part of the story. To recognize the media's shortcomings, this week we will focus on a number of issues, starting with the Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT.
The AMT was devised as a way to make sure everyone pays some taxes. Over the years it hasn't been indexed leading to a number of middle class taxpayers falling into the AMT.
While there are a number a problems with the AMT, such as the way options are treated, many of the tax payers who fall under the AMT are not exactly being overtaxed.
In the April issue of SmartMoney (a Wall Street Journal publication) several families taxes are reviewed, such as the family from Missouri who under the AMT will pay 15.7% of their 182,300 adjusted gross income to the feds. Another family makes $90,000 finds themselves paying 9.2%. How are these people paying these amounts? Numerous exemptions bring their level well below the 21.4% paid by the top 10% of Americans (those making over $92,000 in 2001). See the Tax Foundation for breakdown of taxes paid.
For those opposed to flat tax, maybe it's time to reconsider, especially considering the way everyone seems to have gamed the tax system to pay as little as possible and forcing the deficit and national debt to huge levels and forcing future generations to pay our bills. It may be our money, but it's also OUR debts.
The AMT was devised as a way to make sure everyone pays some taxes. Over the years it hasn't been indexed leading to a number of middle class taxpayers falling into the AMT.
While there are a number a problems with the AMT, such as the way options are treated, many of the tax payers who fall under the AMT are not exactly being overtaxed.
In the April issue of SmartMoney (a Wall Street Journal publication) several families taxes are reviewed, such as the family from Missouri who under the AMT will pay 15.7% of their 182,300 adjusted gross income to the feds. Another family makes $90,000 finds themselves paying 9.2%. How are these people paying these amounts? Numerous exemptions bring their level well below the 21.4% paid by the top 10% of Americans (those making over $92,000 in 2001). See the Tax Foundation for breakdown of taxes paid.
For those opposed to flat tax, maybe it's time to reconsider, especially considering the way everyone seems to have gamed the tax system to pay as little as possible and forcing the deficit and national debt to huge levels and forcing future generations to pay our bills. It may be our money, but it's also OUR debts.
Thursday, April 08, 2004
The answer no one will consider
During the testimony of Condoleezza Rice the main question people everyone wanted an answer to was whether anything could have been done to prevent the attacks on September 11, 2001. The one answer no one was able to bring themselves to consider, or discuss, was whether a Gore administration would have been more focused, more apt, and more able to continue previous administration's antiterrorism efforts and whether those efforts might have prevented attacks.
An unlikely scenario? Possibly, but considering the Bush administration's whole focus was ABC (Anything But Clinton), a Gore administration more likely would have kept more Clintonites in place and they might have gotten around to putting an anti-terror plan in place well before September 4.
While the Gore answer wasn't discussed, you have to wonder if late at night Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy or the gang of three (Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas), or even the average Republican, ever have second thoughts on wrongly awarding the 2000 election to Bush. In reality, individually they are probably not at fault. Collectively they are.
Florida Republicans and House and Senate Republicans would have just as surely worked to overthrow the results of the election. And even if Gore was allowed to win, the right wing probably would have made it so difficult for him to govern that it's possible he would not have been able to put his plans into place.
Perhaps not, but it would have been nice, and right, to have given Gore the chance he earned to govern.
An unlikely scenario? Possibly, but considering the Bush administration's whole focus was ABC (Anything But Clinton), a Gore administration more likely would have kept more Clintonites in place and they might have gotten around to putting an anti-terror plan in place well before September 4.
While the Gore answer wasn't discussed, you have to wonder if late at night Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy or the gang of three (Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas), or even the average Republican, ever have second thoughts on wrongly awarding the 2000 election to Bush. In reality, individually they are probably not at fault. Collectively they are.
Florida Republicans and House and Senate Republicans would have just as surely worked to overthrow the results of the election. And even if Gore was allowed to win, the right wing probably would have made it so difficult for him to govern that it's possible he would not have been able to put his plans into place.
Perhaps not, but it would have been nice, and right, to have given Gore the chance he earned to govern.
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Stupidity Watch or Hypocrisy Watch?
OpinionJournal.com daily "Best of the Web" feature likes to include a "stupidity watch" item of some silly event or news report. However anyone reading the Journal's editorial page or OpinionJournal must wonder why they don't feature their own work more often.
Just look at their April 5 Best of the Web including the following gem criticizing Kerry's plan to create 10 million new jobs during his first term.
"Ten million new jobs? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are only 8.4 million unemployed people in America. As long as Kerry is promising to create more jobs than there are people to take them, why doesn't he go all the way and promise "billions and billions"?
What the Journal conveniently excludes is that the economy loses a number of jobs a month (currently an average of around 95,000) plus the workforce grows each year so just to keep even Kerry would have to create over 5 million new jobs.
So are the writers at OpinionJournal stupid, hypocrites or do they expect the economy to do SO WELL under President Kerry that no jobs will be eliminated?
Then again the Bush economic team announced in the summer of 2003 a plan to create 300,000 jobs a month. Over 4 years that would be over 14 million new jobs. So where is the criticism of Bush's plan to create "trillions and trillions" of new jobs?
Just look at their April 5 Best of the Web including the following gem criticizing Kerry's plan to create 10 million new jobs during his first term.
"Ten million new jobs? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are only 8.4 million unemployed people in America. As long as Kerry is promising to create more jobs than there are people to take them, why doesn't he go all the way and promise "billions and billions"?
What the Journal conveniently excludes is that the economy loses a number of jobs a month (currently an average of around 95,000) plus the workforce grows each year so just to keep even Kerry would have to create over 5 million new jobs.
So are the writers at OpinionJournal stupid, hypocrites or do they expect the economy to do SO WELL under President Kerry that no jobs will be eliminated?
Then again the Bush economic team announced in the summer of 2003 a plan to create 300,000 jobs a month. Over 4 years that would be over 14 million new jobs. So where is the criticism of Bush's plan to create "trillions and trillions" of new jobs?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)