Emptying the Lockbox

When George Bush was on his ill-fated campaign to privatize Social Security in 2005 one of his campaign stunts was to visit the Office of Public Debt Accounting to find the collection of Treasury Securities that make up the Social Security trust fund.

During his visit Bush said that there was "There is no trust fund -- just IOUs." Other conservatives pointed out that the Social Security payroll taxes are collected, but spent by the government and that privatization was needed to strengthen Social Security.

One might think Bush would have thought more about why those hard-earned payroll taxes were not being saved. Instead this week Bush signed into law a $70 billion tax cut, which will only lead to increased deficits and a less solvent Social Security.

This comes only two weeks after the government released reports showing both Social Security and Medicare would start taking in less money than it spends earlier than previously projected.

Even with the Social Security Administration taking in more money than it spends, it still isn't enough to cover the GOP's drunken sailor spending habits so all the tax bill does is increase the national debt. Conservatives try to claim that tax cuts actually bring in more revenues but that has been discredited.

The Washington Post pointed out that even conservative economist dispute the claim, one saying that tax cuts only replace 22 percent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 percent in the second five.

Conservatives also like to point out that taxes are predominately paid by the rich, without considering their share of income or factoring in payroll taxes. Even when one doesn't factor in payroll taxes, the conservative Tax Foundation's promotes government statistics that show only the very, very rich pay more than their share.

For instance the top 6-10% of tax payers receive 11.18% of income and pay 11.48% of taxes; the top 11-25% receive 22.5% of income and pay 18.04% of taxes; and the top 26-50% receive 21.15% of income and pay 12.6% of taxes.

So why are we mortgaging our future to make the very, very rich richer?

Papers? What Papers?

In 2004 when former Clinton advisor Sandy Berger was accused of taking papers from the National Archives the Right was indignant, yet today there doesn't seem to be much of a concern about Republican lawyers taking papers to prevent them being reviewed by the public.

According to the Washington Post, a newly released report from the National Archives inspector general's office shows that federal investigators failed in their first attempt to nail down what happened to the file, which became a flashpoint in Roberts' otherwise smooth confirmation process.

The Post added that the lawyers working for the White House were allowed to bring personal belongings with them into the room while they worked, investigators wrote. The lawyers also were left alone in the office with the records for as long as 30 minutes while they participated in conference calls with the White House, the report said. All of which is unusual.

Berger was fined $50,000 by a federal judge for illegally taking classified documents dealing with the terror threats during the 2000 millennium celebration out of the National Archives. And the Republican lawyers? The Post points out that the White House has declined to reveal the identities of the lawyers who conducted the document review, and their names and those of archives officials were redacted in the inspector general's report.

In addition, in the Roberts case, officials had to try to figure out what was in the missing papers. In the Berger case, he returned copies of the papers he took.

So in both cases people take papers from the National Archives that they weren't supposed to. One gets fined. The others? The White House says that there’s no evidence that anybody reviewing the files engaged in wrongdoing.

Maybe they were just smarter about taking and destroying the paper trail.

Party Like It's 2000

If you listen to conservatives bray about the economy one would think that we are approaching Clinton era economic prosperity. Instead, more than five years after taking over the White House, a few economic indicators are approaching levels last seen in 2000.

Last week the Dow Jones Industrial average reached a high of 11,640 and the Treasury Department announced that the difference between revenue and expenses in April was $118.9 billion, leading conservatives to complain that Bush is not getting credit for the current economic situation.

Yet any in-depth look at the complaints show that at best the economy is producing some numbers similar to the end of the Clinton-Gore era. The Dow Jones hit its all-time high of 11,723 January 14, 2000, nearly 100 points above the recent high.

While it is easy to look at the Dow figures, the surplus number are harder to examine and so the latest conservative "complaint" is that the media is underreporting the April budget surplus numbers issued by the Treasury. Yet a number of media outlets took the Treasury numbers hook, line and sinker and proclaimed that at $118.9 billion the government had a huge surplus.

However in 2001 the Government had a surplus of $189 billion so the $118.9, while encouraging, is nothing to write home about. (See chart for comparison of April surplus to overall annual revenue, compared to the increase in the national debt.)

Also in 2000, before Bush could this program of tax cuts and spending spree, the national debt increased by only $18 billion. So far this year the debt has increased $427 billion with five months to go. With the best tax collection month in the books, is a $700 billion increase in the national debt possible?

(Yes, the media says the deficit is only up $184 billion so far this year and may come in under $350 billion, but since conservatives always complained during the surplus years of the Clinton administration that one should really look at the increase in the national debt, surely they would want us to do the same now. (And for an even more bizarre view, see the views of Treasury Secretary John Snow.)

When someone mentions the increase in gas, conservatives are always quick to point out that according to inflation it has not increased that much, if at all. So how come no one wants to adjust the April surplus numbers? Perhaps it wouldn't make Bush look that good?

The only reason the April surplus numbers look as good as they do is that federal revenue has been down in recent years so comparing the April surplus to Annual revenue, the $118 billion surplus represents a larger percentage than if federal revenue had been increasing over the past few years.

So are we back to Clinton era prosperity? No, only by borrowing heavily and mortgaging the future are we getting decent economic numbers, as opposed to responsible economic policy setting the stage for long term progress.

Can't Handle Colbert

After ignoring Stephen Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondents Association dinner on Saturday night (try to find any mention of Colbert in the Times article) but finding the public flocking to the Internet to view the clip, the Washington Typists have decided to say Colbert "fell flat" perhaps in hopes that public won't be tempted to check it out.

Instead, just as Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire signaled the end of that show, could Colbert's performance may change the way the media acts?

The problem with Colbert's talk was that it hit too close to home for Bush and the media, leaving them unamused. But what did people really expect? Colbert's shtick is to act like a conservative blowhard who thinks he knows a lot but in reality is clueless, perhaps a little too much like Bush and the many in the media.

And so when Colbert makes the follow statement, media people are not amused.

"Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!"

The reaction of the press was probably similar to Tucker Carlson on Stewart after he had reduced the show to ashes.

"Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny," Carlson pleaded to Stewart.

Anyone who has watched The Daily Show probably has seen a skit that may have been over the top and one ends up feeling slightly sorry for the person being interviewed because of their cluelessness. Saturday night was not one of those days. Perhaps the video skit, replayed on The Colbert Report Tuesday night to good reviews, went on too long, but the speech was funny.

The problem conservatives and the Washington Typists face is that the Internet gives people the chance to both view the performance and read the transcript. So while the media can claim it wasn't funny, just as thousands later viewed Stewart's appearance on Crossfire, thousands have also viewed Colbert's performance and found the following comments to be funny or satirical.

I give people the truth, unfiltered by rational argument. I call it the "No Fact Zone." Fox News, I hold a copyright on that term.

I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq.

But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias.

I've never been a fan of books. I don't trust them. They're all fact, no heart. I mean, they're elitist, telling us what is or isn't true, or what did or didn't happen. Who's Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was built in 1914? If I want to say it was built in 1941, that's my right as an American! I'm with the president, let history decide what did or did not happen.

But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason: they're super-depressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished. Over the last five years you people were so good -- over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.

It's like boxing a glacier. Enjoy that metaphor, by the way, because your grandchildren will have no idea what a glacier is.

We can't forget the man of the hour, new press secretary, Tony Snow. Secret Service name, "Snow Job."