Robert J. Barro must have been disappointed to see his column, promoting a study that purported to show a liberal bias in the media, was included in the June 14 issue of Business Week whose cover story asks “Does Your Vote Matter?”
The study Barro promoted determined whether a media source was liberal by coming up with a rating comparable to the ADA rating of a congressman’s voting record. Barro said the median ADA rating of U.S. House members of 39 “is a reasonable measure of a centrist position.”
The problem, as Business Week pointed out, is that gerrymandering of House districts has forced out moderates and made districts less representative. Business Week pointed out that Al Gore received nearly half of the votes in Florida in 2000 yet led in only 8 of the state’s 25 congressional districts.
With congressional districts drawn unrepresentatively, 39 is NOT a reasonable measure of a centrist position, and claiming a media source is liberal based on a score higher than 39 is questionable.
In addition, leaving editorial pages out of the study also skews the results. Will the Wall Street Journal, with its extremist editorial page, be classified as “moderate” because of its news pages?
Friday, June 18, 2004
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Dishonesty Watch or Stupidity Watch
The Wall Street Journal's editorial (idiotorial?) page has a column called Best of the Web where they take cheap shots at Democrats through links to articles on other websites. Many times the headline the Journal slaps on their "analysis" of the item is "Stupidity Watch."
After reading Tuesday's Best of the Web, one wonders whether the Journal's column should call it column Stupidity Watch or Dishonesty Watch.
In a ridiculous and dishonest report, the Journal attempts to say that when Democrats bring up the disgusting, but successful, attempt by the GOP to question former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland's patriotism in his 2002 election then the Democrats are only making more people question Cleland's patriotism.
For background, the Washington Post has noted that "Cleland, 60, is still livid over a now-infamous TV commercial that Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss ran against him. It opened with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, then attacked Cleland for voting against President Bush's Homeland Security bill. It didn't mention that Cleland supported a Democratic bill that wasn't radically different.
"That was the biggest lie in America -- to put me up there with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and say I voted against homeland security!" he says, his voice rising in anger."
The reason the Journal brought this up again because the AP (and others) reported that Theresa Heinz Kerry said she left the GOP over the treatment of Cleland.
"Shame on the AP for repeating as if it were a fact the canard that Republicans "raised questions about Cleland's patriotism." In fact, it was Democrats who did this because they could not defend the man's voting record" the Journal spewed.
According to the Journal, Democratic complaints about GOP dishonesty only reinforces the dishonesty so Democrats shouldn't complain and try to make sure the public knows the facts.
Isn't it odd that a newspaper would be against informing the public. So is the Journal dishonest or just stupid?
After reading Tuesday's Best of the Web, one wonders whether the Journal's column should call it column Stupidity Watch or Dishonesty Watch.
In a ridiculous and dishonest report, the Journal attempts to say that when Democrats bring up the disgusting, but successful, attempt by the GOP to question former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland's patriotism in his 2002 election then the Democrats are only making more people question Cleland's patriotism.
For background, the Washington Post has noted that "Cleland, 60, is still livid over a now-infamous TV commercial that Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss ran against him. It opened with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, then attacked Cleland for voting against President Bush's Homeland Security bill. It didn't mention that Cleland supported a Democratic bill that wasn't radically different.
"That was the biggest lie in America -- to put me up there with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and say I voted against homeland security!" he says, his voice rising in anger."
The reason the Journal brought this up again because the AP (and others) reported that Theresa Heinz Kerry said she left the GOP over the treatment of Cleland.
"Shame on the AP for repeating as if it were a fact the canard that Republicans "raised questions about Cleland's patriotism." In fact, it was Democrats who did this because they could not defend the man's voting record" the Journal spewed.
According to the Journal, Democratic complaints about GOP dishonesty only reinforces the dishonesty so Democrats shouldn't complain and try to make sure the public knows the facts.
Isn't it odd that a newspaper would be against informing the public. So is the Journal dishonest or just stupid?
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Just Desserts
Tom DeLay, called the "meanest man in Congress," and one who has been working on reducing the role of democracy and Democrats in America, apparently has been unable to completely install a one party (Soviet styled?) system of government in Washington.
According to the Washington Post, Rep. Chris Bell (D-Tex.) said he will send a complaint to the House ethics committee accusing the House's second-ranking Republican of soliciting campaign contributions in return for legislative favors; laundering illegal campaign contributions through a Texas political action committee; and improperly involving a federal agency in a Texas partisan matter.
To many people, it couldn't happen to a more deserving person.
Bell, a first-term lawmaker from Houston, lost his reelection bid in the March Democratic primary after his district was substantially redrawn in a contentious 2003 redistricting process backed by DeLay, according the Post.
Earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court, on a 5-4 vote, decided that the shenanigans that DeLay and his ilk are pulling in several states are OK. In effect the Supreme Court ruled that democracy is messy and that fair elections are not necessary.
By sidestepping this case and deciding the Presidency in 2000, the court in effect said courts should only get involved when Republicans are harmed.
The Court may have been able to throw the 2000 Presidential election to the GOP and approved the dilution of voting rights for members of certain political parties, but until it is able to rig the entire system the GOP, and Supreme Court majority, must understand they are subject to the rule of the people.
While the day of rule by the people may be coming to an end, some rules remain. As a result, DeLay, also known as the "Hammer," may find a judicial hammer coming down on him.
But then again, just as George W. Bush escaped punishment for going AWOL and his questionable stock sale, there is always a good chance the system will give DeLay a pass.
According to the Washington Post, Rep. Chris Bell (D-Tex.) said he will send a complaint to the House ethics committee accusing the House's second-ranking Republican of soliciting campaign contributions in return for legislative favors; laundering illegal campaign contributions through a Texas political action committee; and improperly involving a federal agency in a Texas partisan matter.
To many people, it couldn't happen to a more deserving person.
Bell, a first-term lawmaker from Houston, lost his reelection bid in the March Democratic primary after his district was substantially redrawn in a contentious 2003 redistricting process backed by DeLay, according the Post.
Earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court, on a 5-4 vote, decided that the shenanigans that DeLay and his ilk are pulling in several states are OK. In effect the Supreme Court ruled that democracy is messy and that fair elections are not necessary.
By sidestepping this case and deciding the Presidency in 2000, the court in effect said courts should only get involved when Republicans are harmed.
The Court may have been able to throw the 2000 Presidential election to the GOP and approved the dilution of voting rights for members of certain political parties, but until it is able to rig the entire system the GOP, and Supreme Court majority, must understand they are subject to the rule of the people.
While the day of rule by the people may be coming to an end, some rules remain. As a result, DeLay, also known as the "Hammer," may find a judicial hammer coming down on him.
But then again, just as George W. Bush escaped punishment for going AWOL and his questionable stock sale, there is always a good chance the system will give DeLay a pass.
Friday, May 21, 2004
The Tipping Point
In any political or military campaigns there can come a point where the hearts and minds of the public are up for grabs.
At that point people's views can go decisively one way or the other. In 1980 in the Reagan - Carter presidential campaign it occurred when Reagan asked the public if they were better off than four years ago.
The public said "No" and Carter was toast. In 2000 with the release of George W. Bush's DWI, the public swung toward Gore and gave him the election. (Upset about how the public rejected their candidates, the right wing conspired to overturn the election results and were able to do so.
In 2004 the tipping point may have occurred with the stories of abuse in Iraq. Ever since his forced installation as president by a questionable 5-4 vote by the Supreme Court George Bush approval rating has been on a downward trend, with only 9/11, the Iraqi war and Saddam's capture preventing a total meltdown.
From a high of 56% in April 2001 to his current 48% in May 2004 the public has turned against him and with the election a little over five months away things don't look good.
Short of capture of Osoma Bin Laden or another attack on America, Bush is toast, and even Republicans have figured that out.
Sean Hannity on his radio show said Bush was a man of principles and may end up paying for having principles (Help the rich, go to war, screw the environment).
So basically the GOP is already making excuses on why Bush lost. It's not that he was wrong, but he was willing to stand up for his principles. HAH!
At that point people's views can go decisively one way or the other. In 1980 in the Reagan - Carter presidential campaign it occurred when Reagan asked the public if they were better off than four years ago.
The public said "No" and Carter was toast. In 2000 with the release of George W. Bush's DWI, the public swung toward Gore and gave him the election. (Upset about how the public rejected their candidates, the right wing conspired to overturn the election results and were able to do so.
In 2004 the tipping point may have occurred with the stories of abuse in Iraq. Ever since his forced installation as president by a questionable 5-4 vote by the Supreme Court George Bush approval rating has been on a downward trend, with only 9/11, the Iraqi war and Saddam's capture preventing a total meltdown.
From a high of 56% in April 2001 to his current 48% in May 2004 the public has turned against him and with the election a little over five months away things don't look good.
Short of capture of Osoma Bin Laden or another attack on America, Bush is toast, and even Republicans have figured that out.
Sean Hannity on his radio show said Bush was a man of principles and may end up paying for having principles (Help the rich, go to war, screw the environment).
So basically the GOP is already making excuses on why Bush lost. It's not that he was wrong, but he was willing to stand up for his principles. HAH!
Monday, May 17, 2004
Episode suggestion for JAG
With the television season over and writers probably thinking about topics for next year, here's a suggestion for the writers for JAG.
How about an episode about a politician who served in the National Guard to get out of going to Vietnam and new information comes up on whether he completed his service or went AWOL.
Such a show would be very timely, interesting and informative. Over the years it seemed that JAG would take shots at President Clinton, including Episode 94 where Harm faces a court-martial when a letter critical of the President appears on the Op-Ed page of a newspaper and is traced to his computer.
Harm wasn't at fault but he gets to say "It does not matter what I think of him, (referring to President Clinton) he's my Commander-in-Chief."
Nice little quote. Now how about a similar examination of Bush.
How about an episode about a politician who served in the National Guard to get out of going to Vietnam and new information comes up on whether he completed his service or went AWOL.
Such a show would be very timely, interesting and informative. Over the years it seemed that JAG would take shots at President Clinton, including Episode 94 where Harm faces a court-martial when a letter critical of the President appears on the Op-Ed page of a newspaper and is traced to his computer.
Harm wasn't at fault but he gets to say "It does not matter what I think of him, (referring to President Clinton) he's my Commander-in-Chief."
Nice little quote. Now how about a similar examination of Bush.
Thursday, May 13, 2004
GOP hits new low
Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay an have hit a disgusting new low. In an attempt to deflect attention away from the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal and growing dissatisfaction with George Bush, they have decided to attack the formatting of Sen. John Kerry's campaign emails.
Sen. Kerry's emails include an option to donate, a necessity given the GOP's effort to purchase the 2004 election after they stole the 2000 election. (On Thursday Bush's campaign announced they had raised $200 million.) Since Kerry's emails include the donation option, the GOP decided that the emails must not discuss serious topics, such as the abuse scandal.
In the Kerry campaign's e-mail, supporters were thanked for their "amazing" response to a previous e-mail which called for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation. As all campaign email include an option for contributions, this one did too. (Actually this email only had one "donate now," compared to two on a more recent email.)
In his attempt to attack Kerry for Bush's failures, Gillespie said the photographs of prisoner abuse are "clearly disgusting, but it's harder to find words to describe those whose first instinct upon seeing them is to raise campaign cash with them."
No, what's disgusting is an attempt to buy an election then attempt to deflect criticism for one's failures on another. But Mr. Gillespie knows the press are suckers and will run his complaints, accurate or not. And judging by the amount of press this story has recieved he is correct.
Sen. Kerry's emails include an option to donate, a necessity given the GOP's effort to purchase the 2004 election after they stole the 2000 election. (On Thursday Bush's campaign announced they had raised $200 million.) Since Kerry's emails include the donation option, the GOP decided that the emails must not discuss serious topics, such as the abuse scandal.
In the Kerry campaign's e-mail, supporters were thanked for their "amazing" response to a previous e-mail which called for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation. As all campaign email include an option for contributions, this one did too. (Actually this email only had one "donate now," compared to two on a more recent email.)
In his attempt to attack Kerry for Bush's failures, Gillespie said the photographs of prisoner abuse are "clearly disgusting, but it's harder to find words to describe those whose first instinct upon seeing them is to raise campaign cash with them."
No, what's disgusting is an attempt to buy an election then attempt to deflect criticism for one's failures on another. But Mr. Gillespie knows the press are suckers and will run his complaints, accurate or not. And judging by the amount of press this story has recieved he is correct.
Cheap Shot
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post took an unfair, or unbalanced shot at Teresa Heinz Kerry in Wednesday's Media Notes column. Kurtz reviewed a story on Heinz Kerry's taxes and said Fourteen point seven percent! Hey, I'd like to pay fourteen point seven percent. Where do I sign up?
Heinz Kerry paid a low rate of taxes because, as I understand it, much of her income came from in tax-exempt instruments, similar to Dick Cheney, which a co-worker acknowledged in the very last paragraph of his article.
Heinz Kerry's effective tax rate is similar to Vice President Cheney's. He and his wife, Lynne V. Cheney, reported an income of $1.9 million in taxable and nontaxable income for 2003 and paid $253,067 in taxes, an effective tax rate of 13.3%.
Hey, I make A LOT less than Cheney and I would love to pay only 13.3% in federal taxes. Both Heinz Kerry and Cheney use tax-exempt vehicles to lower their taxes. Is that right? I don’t know, but in a highly political season I do know it is unfair to take a shot at the wife of a candidate while not taking a shot at the candidate’s opponent (running mate) who is doing the same thing.
Granted this is a minor point but Kerry’s campaign seems to be defined by the media by these types of comments. Just look at the results of the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg recent election survey which showed that 56% believe Mr. Kerry "voted for higher taxes 350 times" and 46%, including a majority of independents, agree that "John Kerry wants to raise gasoline taxes by 50 cents a gallon."
This leads to mischaracterization by people, as shown in In Ohio, Building a Political Echo by John Harris. Throwaway statements like Kurtz's can contribute to people’s views of Heinz Kerry without considering she is no different than Dick Cheney. The same thing happened on weapons systems as Kerry got criticized for having similar views as Cheney.
The release the White House used on Cheney’s returns got the press to compare his taxable income (instead of overall income) to taxes paid. Maybe that should have been the gist of his item, that the GOP, through a limited news release, was able to get the media to downplay Cheney’s low taxes while the Democrats, through a large release of information made Heinz Kerry look like she didn’t pay much taxes.
The 2004 election has become so heated as it is a continuation of the 2000 election and it’s long way to November but it’s unfair just to criticize one party and not the other for doing the same thing.
Heinz Kerry paid a low rate of taxes because, as I understand it, much of her income came from in tax-exempt instruments, similar to Dick Cheney, which a co-worker acknowledged in the very last paragraph of his article.
Heinz Kerry's effective tax rate is similar to Vice President Cheney's. He and his wife, Lynne V. Cheney, reported an income of $1.9 million in taxable and nontaxable income for 2003 and paid $253,067 in taxes, an effective tax rate of 13.3%.
Hey, I make A LOT less than Cheney and I would love to pay only 13.3% in federal taxes. Both Heinz Kerry and Cheney use tax-exempt vehicles to lower their taxes. Is that right? I don’t know, but in a highly political season I do know it is unfair to take a shot at the wife of a candidate while not taking a shot at the candidate’s opponent (running mate) who is doing the same thing.
Granted this is a minor point but Kerry’s campaign seems to be defined by the media by these types of comments. Just look at the results of the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg recent election survey which showed that 56% believe Mr. Kerry "voted for higher taxes 350 times" and 46%, including a majority of independents, agree that "John Kerry wants to raise gasoline taxes by 50 cents a gallon."
This leads to mischaracterization by people, as shown in In Ohio, Building a Political Echo by John Harris. Throwaway statements like Kurtz's can contribute to people’s views of Heinz Kerry without considering she is no different than Dick Cheney. The same thing happened on weapons systems as Kerry got criticized for having similar views as Cheney.
The release the White House used on Cheney’s returns got the press to compare his taxable income (instead of overall income) to taxes paid. Maybe that should have been the gist of his item, that the GOP, through a limited news release, was able to get the media to downplay Cheney’s low taxes while the Democrats, through a large release of information made Heinz Kerry look like she didn’t pay much taxes.
The 2004 election has become so heated as it is a continuation of the 2000 election and it’s long way to November but it’s unfair just to criticize one party and not the other for doing the same thing.
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Who really needs to resign?
During the discussions today on the alleged abuses of Iraqi prisoners there was a suggestion that if the Congress doesn't get the answers it wants it may ask for resignations, including that of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield.
Throughout the Bush administration there has been a continual series of problems pop up, from lies about weapons of mass destructions, to disclosing the identity of a CIA operative, to harming the economy to benefit a small segment of society, yet the only one who has paid any price has been former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill. Yet reading his book makes one wonder if he got off lucky, getting to leave the insane asylum.
The person who seems to escape all judgment is George W. Bush and based on the scandals, perhaps he is the one who should resign. He was never elected and once the Supreme Court installed him, even though he lost by 500,000 votes, he has governed as if he won by 5 million votes, ignoring the public and thumbing his nose at the world.
It's time for Bush to go. And if he goes, Dick Cheney needs to go also. It's time to restore honor and dignity to the White House and even more important, it's important to restore America's honor. No longer should the world look with disgust and disdain at America.
The United States has always promoted ourselves as the "city on the hill," but the Bush Administrators is getting the world to think of us as the "thugs in the gutter."
My suggestion is that George Bush resigns and Dick Cheney names Al Gore as his Vice President and then Cheney resigns, fulfilling the wishes of the American public, as expressed at the voting booth in 2000.
Maybe then the world won't have such a poor view of America and it will give us a chance to make the world better AND safer.
Throughout the Bush administration there has been a continual series of problems pop up, from lies about weapons of mass destructions, to disclosing the identity of a CIA operative, to harming the economy to benefit a small segment of society, yet the only one who has paid any price has been former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill. Yet reading his book makes one wonder if he got off lucky, getting to leave the insane asylum.
The person who seems to escape all judgment is George W. Bush and based on the scandals, perhaps he is the one who should resign. He was never elected and once the Supreme Court installed him, even though he lost by 500,000 votes, he has governed as if he won by 5 million votes, ignoring the public and thumbing his nose at the world.
It's time for Bush to go. And if he goes, Dick Cheney needs to go also. It's time to restore honor and dignity to the White House and even more important, it's important to restore America's honor. No longer should the world look with disgust and disdain at America.
The United States has always promoted ourselves as the "city on the hill," but the Bush Administrators is getting the world to think of us as the "thugs in the gutter."
My suggestion is that George Bush resigns and Dick Cheney names Al Gore as his Vice President and then Cheney resigns, fulfilling the wishes of the American public, as expressed at the voting booth in 2000.
Maybe then the world won't have such a poor view of America and it will give us a chance to make the world better AND safer.
Monday, May 03, 2004
The question he wouldn't answer
During his recent testimony before the September 11 commission George W. Bush apparently answered all the questions that were put to him. Except one, but then it apparently wasn't put to him by the Commission.
The question, why did he and Dick Cheney appear before the commission together? Bush was asked about it at his press conference, at a press gathering after the commission, and his spokesman was also asked about it, yet no one was quite able to answer.
All Bush was able to say was "If we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first place." Previously at a press conference he said "because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 Commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them."
Interesting possibly, but it doesn't answer why together. Oh, the comedians came up with suggested reasons (Bush is Cheney's puppet) and they wondered if Bush would show his independence by having Cheney drink a glass of water while Bush spoke.
But that's not to say Bush didn't take the meeting and the events of September 11 seriously. One commissioner, Jim Thompson, said "There was some laughter from time to time. The president is a bit of a tease."
In the end, the reason they testified together came out in a round about manner. In the press reports after the meeting it appears that Bush answered most of the questions and Cheney answered only a few. So if Bush didn't want Cheney, who was probably the leader behind the war, to testify, the way to accomplish that goal was to testify together. And with most of the commission wanting primarily to talk to Bush there would be little time or interest in talking to Cheney.
The panel met with former Gore for three hours in a private session. The also panel met with Clinton in private for three hours. So Gore and Clinton each testified for three hours a piece and didn't need to hold each other's hands, but then they weren't hiding anything.
The question, why did he and Dick Cheney appear before the commission together? Bush was asked about it at his press conference, at a press gathering after the commission, and his spokesman was also asked about it, yet no one was quite able to answer.
All Bush was able to say was "If we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first place." Previously at a press conference he said "because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 Commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them."
Interesting possibly, but it doesn't answer why together. Oh, the comedians came up with suggested reasons (Bush is Cheney's puppet) and they wondered if Bush would show his independence by having Cheney drink a glass of water while Bush spoke.
But that's not to say Bush didn't take the meeting and the events of September 11 seriously. One commissioner, Jim Thompson, said "There was some laughter from time to time. The president is a bit of a tease."
In the end, the reason they testified together came out in a round about manner. In the press reports after the meeting it appears that Bush answered most of the questions and Cheney answered only a few. So if Bush didn't want Cheney, who was probably the leader behind the war, to testify, the way to accomplish that goal was to testify together. And with most of the commission wanting primarily to talk to Bush there would be little time or interest in talking to Cheney.
The panel met with former Gore for three hours in a private session. The also panel met with Clinton in private for three hours. So Gore and Clinton each testified for three hours a piece and didn't need to hold each other's hands, but then they weren't hiding anything.
Friday, April 30, 2004
Where was the lie detector?
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.
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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)