Still fearful after all these years

Raise your hand if you remember where you were 10 years ago today.

I'll bet almost all of you remember it like yesterday. I sure do. Watching thousands of people murdered on live television is not something you can easily forget.

It was a time of strong emotion: confusion, fear, grief, anger. We mourned together as one country, and we plotted our revenge together.

But it has not been satisfying, nor have we obtained closure. We attacked two countries, but saw mostly quagmire. The economy has never regained its pre-attack strength. The unity after the attack was quickly replaced by the bitterest partisan bickering this country has seen in a long time. Even the taking down of the 9/11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden, didn't generate more than a momentary sense of satisfaction.

Thirty-two years ago, a President gave a speech in which he talked about our country's malaise. The voters hated him for it, choosing to fire Carter and bring in the optimist Reagan. But today, politicians are competing not to deny the malaise but to pin it on the other guy.

What happened to us 10 years ago? Why can't we get out of this funk? Did we take a bite of the apple, lose our innocence, and get tossed out of the garden? Or are we suffering from PTSD and showing symptoms of depression that just won't disappear?

W's last laugh

It's not totally correct to blame the pending tax increase on Bush. Although the 43rd President did push for and sign the law, it was Congress (primarily the Republicans) who came up with this clever scheme and wrote the laws that will raise all of our taxes on Jan. 1.

The tax acts of 2001 and 2003 included temporary tax cuts followed by corresponding increases. Republican marketing at the time focused on tax relief, but today's press focuses on the tax increase, conveniently while the other party holds the Presidency and Congress. The GOP gets all of the credit and none of the blame, in an election year to boot. Brilliant.

Of course, at the time there was no way to know Democrats would be in power when the tax increase was scheduled to tax place. That's just happy coincidence.

The sunset provision was purely a political ploy. By keeping the tax cuts in effect for fewer than ten years, Republicans could sidestep rules that would have required paying for them, a tacit admission that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

[more]

Deepwatergate

Eleven men dead. Wildlife dying. Livelihoods lost. Beaches fouled. Oceans polluted. Unknown deep-sea impact.

Someone must be to blame.

Some say this is President Obama's Katrina. But what can he do but fly to the Gulf, sound sympathetic, and talk tough to BP? Neither Obama nor anyone in his administration knows how to stop the flow of oil, much less eliminate the oil that has already spilled.

Some environmentalists and scientists say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is to blame and should resign. After all Salazar's Minerals Management Service was responsible for regulating the drilling operation and screwed up. Literally. MMS staffers were partying and sleeping with the people they were supposed to be regulating. Talk about strange bedfellows.

[more]

AIG on their Faces

So, whose fault is it that AIG is using their bailout money to pay huge (by most people's standards) bonuses to the very people who made the bad decisions that brought them to where they needed the bailouts?

Well, clearly there is plenty of fault for Bush and the 110th Congress, as well as Obama and the 111th Congress. They tell us that these bonuses were required by contract and had to be paid.

But didn't the big automakers just get some bailout money, and wasn't one of the conditions that they had to renegotiate union contracts? Clearly it can be done.

Also, retention bonuses are paid to keep good employees on board. What's the worst that would have happened? These great employees would have left?

But I think a huge part of the blame falls to all of us, who seem to require quick action from our government in preference to correct action. We've seen it many times, and rarely do the legislators involved ever get called to task for responding to this primal fear.

It seems to me that the best time to enact protections against the things that contributed to the current economic crisis is when writing "emergency" legislation. Wouldn't it make sense to tie any stimulus or bailout money to regulations and protections against financial abuses, rather than spending the money and then going back later and trying to pass the new regulations when memories have dimmed?

A Third of Americans Still Like Him?

[Iraq] not having weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment. I don't know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but they were -- things didn't go according to plan, let's put it that way.
- George W. Bush, Jan. 12, 2009

This man is our President. And here he is admitting that he is disappointed Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

He wishes, no he planned, that Saddam would have massive weapons. It was a mistake that the weapons weren't there.

Why?

He didn't say why he's disappointed. I hope it's not because it would have made the war more exciting, or that it would have made it more of a fair fight.

I hope it's not because he sold those weapons to Saddam and can't figure out where they went.

I assume he's disappointed there were no WMDs because he sold the war based on them and he's being judged.

But consider this. Which is the better outcome? You go to war because you think Saddam has WMDs and he doesn't have them, or you go to war because you think Saddam has WMDs and he really does? Isn't the former preferable? Wouldn't the latter have led to many more deaths on all sides?

One more week.

The Bush Tax Increase

One of John McCain's biggest campaign issues this election, and a favorite talking point among conservatives is the so-called Obama tax increase. But what I don't get is why they are blaming Obama, when it was their own man George W. Bush who signed the tax increase into law.

That's right. Our very own President Bush signed into law the tax plan that will result in taxes increasing after he leaves office. The only way he could make the budget math even sort of work was to put an end date on each of his tax cuts, expiration dates at which taxes would increase. Otherwise, the fiscal damage would have been even more obvious at the time and they never would have passed Congress.
And now the conservatives are blaming Obama for raising taxes even if he does nothing and lets some of the tax cuts expire. That's just plain dumb. George W. Bush and the Republican Congress are totally responsible for raising taxes.
So, Bush is a tax hiker. And we already know that John McCain is as well.
Barack Obama is proposing to follow the Bush tax plan -- letting the Bush tax cuts expire as Bush put into place. Meanwhile, John McCain has proposed a brand new tax (his tax on health care benefits). But don't worry, he tells us, it will only be a net increase on 5% of people, the people who can most afford it.

I smell hypocrisy here.

The Good Deal -- A Parable

Your Flag Lapel Pin Won't Keep You in Office Anymore

While digesting Congressional Digest
In the airport bathroom stall,
With a tap a flag with a pin on the back
was kicked under the wall.
I peeled that flag up off the floor
And stuck on my lapel,
And if I could have old Betsy Ross
I'd tell 'em all to go to Hell!

But your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office anymore.
They're already overcrowded with liars, cheats and whores.
Now Jesus don't like hypocrisy, no matter what the reasons for,
And your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office any more.

I popped in the Senate this morning
And the lobbyist said to me:
Said, if you vote for my silly bridge
I'll give you ten of them flags for free (plus a boat).
Well, I didn't hestitate a bit,
I took him up on what he said.
And I stuck those flags all over my suit
And one on my wife's forehead.

But your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office anymore.
They're already overflowing with lyin', cheatin' whores.
Now Jesus don't like thievin', no matter what the reasons for,
And your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office any more.

Well, I got my suit lapel so filled
With flags I could not breathe.
So when I wiped my nose upon my shirt
I poked my eye out with my sleeve.
By the time they calmed the doctor down
I was already dead.
And I'll never understand why the man
Standin' at the Pearly Gate said:

That your flag lapel pin won't get you in heaven anymore.
We're already overcrowded from your 100-year-long war.
Now Jesus don't like killin', no matter what the reasons for.
And your flag lapel pin won't get you in heaven any more.

And your flag lapel pin won't keep you in office any more.

Any your flag lapel pin won't get out of China
Any
More

McCain Plays to his Base and Tortures Constitution

I wrote earlier about the positions that the Democratic Presidential candidates had taken in support of requiring the Commander in Chief to follow the dictates of the U.S. Constitution. Although I haven't seen a specific response from Senator McCain, his recent statements give a sense of where he stands on some of the issues.

A few days ago the Senator from Arizona, who himself was tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, urged President Bush to veto a bill that would have made it clear that waterboarding and other torture techniques can't be used by the CIA. So, the presumptive Republican candidate thinks it important enough to play up the conservative base that he is willing to compromise his own principles and make this statement, claiming at the same time that it is consistent with his previous positions.

I'm sorry, John, but this doesn't bode well for your ability to convince independents that you truly think outside the Bush bubble.

So, how in the world did we get to the situation that the right to torture has become a liberal vs. conservative question? Isn't it obviously a question of common sense along with the guiding principles of the Constitution?

Well, one point in Sen. McCain's favor. He has promised not to follow the Bush lead of issuing signing statements on legislation he disagrees with and usurping the Constitutionally-granted powers of the legislative branch.

So now we know McCain's position on two of the ten issues on the Constitution-protection hot list. He's against torture but doesn't think that should be written into law. And he is against signing statements. Let's see if we can find out where he stands on the other eight points.

An Oath and a Pledge

When our next Commander in Chief is sworn in, he or she will make the same oath as George Washington:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Yes, our founding fathers thought it so important that they made it explicit in this oath. Protecting the Constitution is more important than protecting the Flag, protecting the Citizens, and protecting the national interest.

And yet, not all Presidents have taken this oath seriously. Our current President, George W. Bush, has taken abuses against the Constitution to new lows. Yes, you can argue that he is doing the same things as his predecessors. No doubt that is true, although he has gone much further than any in recent memory.

That is why, to me, the most important issue in the Presidential race this year is the candidates' stands on protecting the Constitution. If a candidate can only keep us safe from terrorists by locking us all up, then I say, don't bother we'll take our chances with the bad guys. If the only way to maintain a healthy economy is by scrapping freedom, then we'll scrounge for bread crumbs. Remember, our founding fathers were willing to give up their security and risk dying to create this institution. We shouldn't be so ready to give it up to keep the securities we have collected over the years.

And that is why it's not surprising that a liberal group and a conservative group with very similar names have taken on this very issue. The right-wing American Freedom Agenda and the left-wing American Freedom Campaign have both created 10-point pledges for the candidates, outlining specifically how they will undo the damage done to our founding document by the current administration.

Rep. Ron Paul, whose campaign has gotten lots of interest but few votes, was the first to sign on. He even introduced a version of the pledge as a bill on the House floor. None of the other Republican candidates (neither McCain nor Huckabee) has followed. However, all of the Democratic candidates have signed the pledge (Obama) or issued similar statements (Clinton).

Here's the bottom line, and why the founding fathers felt so strongly about this. When it's your guy (or gal) in the White House, then abuses of power are all for a good cause. No harm, no foul. But beware. The other team is bound to get a turn in control. And when that happens, they are sure to use all of the same new powers, and are likely to push them even further.

So, if you trust George Bush to decide who is an enemy combatant, would you also trust Hillary Clinton to make the same determination?

Here's the list from the conservative group. See if there's anything on here that's not a no-brainer:

• Prohibit military commissions whose verdicts are suspect except in places of active hostilities where a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony or to prevent anarchy;
• Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture or coercion in military or civilian tribunals;
• Prohibit the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants without proof of criminal activity on the President’s say-so;
• Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien enemy combatants, i.e., non-citizens who have allegedly participated in active hostilities against the United States, to protect the innocent;
• Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President’s say-so in violation of federal law;
• Empower the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively to challenge in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of signing statements that declare the intent of the President to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills he has signed into law because he maintains they are unconstitutional;
• Prohibit the executive from invoking the state secrets privilege to deny justice to victims of constitutional violations perpetrated by government officers or agents; and, establish legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate to adjudicate the withholding of information from Congress based on executive privilege that obstructs oversight and government in the sunshine;
• Prohibit the President from kidnapping, detaining, and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments;
• Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution; and;
• Prohibit the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on secret evidence.

Now, go vote based on your candidate's willingness to follow the Presidential Oath of Office.

How Are You Going to Spend My Social Security Check?

Our government is working out the details of an economic stimulus package. But three things are clear already. One, lots of politicians are going to be claiming that they did something about the economy (ignoring the question of whether it was the right thing). Two, impacts will be small and temporary. And, three, the deficit will increase significantly, taking a bite out of our economy a few years down the line and seriously impacting our future ability to fund government programs (like paying my Social Security check some day).

Families are going to get checks, and will be urged to go out and spend them to spur the economy. But what will people actually do? And what impact will it have?

• Some people will pay down their credit cards. So, now we are rewarding them for living beyond their means, and teaching people that they don't have to spend responsibly. Don't worry, go into debt, we will bail you out. And hopefully the paying down of debt will be temporary -- they'll go out and do extra stimulating as soon as the dunning letters slow down.
• Some will add the money to their savings. Not much help for the economy, but if the ability to pay future Social Security checks is being raided for this, people are going to have to make up for it somehow.
• Some people will do their civic duty and buy a big screen TV or take a nice vacation. But again, since this is coming out of my Social Security check, I'm going to have to put off my retirement for an extra couple months to pay for them all. You're welcome.

So, my retirement planning is that much more insecure, just so some politicians can claim to have done something, and so we can continue the enablement of people who can't seem to stop living beyond their means.

Thanks for the check. I'm pretty sure mine is going into my retirement account.

Bush Appoints Self to Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced Monday that the EPA would have to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars. In response, President Bush added two conditions to the ruling. First, the EPA couldn't slow economic growth in its regulations. And second China and India can't be allowed to offset any improvements we make.

Never mind the stupidity of assuming that the EPA has any authority over what China and India do.

The more grievous insult to our intelligence is that the President still does not understand the basic separation of powers defined in the U.S. Constitution. The court gets to interpret the laws, not he. The President has absolutely no authority to attach any condition whatsoever to any court ruling.

Kind of like when the Congress passes a law and the President attaches conditions (a so-called signing statement) to the law, thinking that either he gets to write the laws or he gets to interpret them. He doesn't. Read the Constitution, Mr. Bush.

Reminds me of the right-wing charge that rulings they don't like are the result of "judicial activism." Judges do their jobs and interpret the law. If you don't like it, change the law or change the Constitution. (I thank the founding fathers every day that it is so hard to do that!)

What Do You Call Eight Fired U.S. Attorneys at the Bottom of the Ocean?

A Good Start. (Falsely attributed to Alberto Gonzales.)

Here's the deal. There's no doubt that U.S. Attorneys, like all other political appointees, serve to pleasure the President. That means, among other things, that he can hire them (subject to appropriate confirmation) and fire them at will.

However, if a U.S. Attorney is fired in order to stop an investigation that the administration doesn't like, that is called obstruction of justice. This would certainly qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor.

The Senate is responsible for making this determination, and if there is any evidence of this crime it should be allowed to do so.

Mr. Castro, Let Our Terrorists Go!

One of the major arguments for denying basic Constitutional rights (such as habeas corpus, due process, ban on cruel and unusual punishment, jury trial, confronting of witnesses, etc.) to the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay is that the prisoners are outside sovereign U.S. territory.

Well, if Gitmo isn't part of the U.S., then it must be part of Cuba. That means that we should be turning these prisoners over to the government of Cuba. Or at least we should be looking at Cuban law to determine how to treat these people.

To make it easy for those running Gitmo, I've summarized some of the relevant aspects of the Cuban constitution.

The Cuban constitution claims sovereignty over the entire island of Cuba, and the Cuban government does not recognize the jurisdiction of the U.S. government over the Naval base at Guantanamo Bay. According to the Cuban constitution, foreign residents within Cuba are equal to Cuban citizens in terms of rights provided by the constitution. This implies that Gitmo prisoners are due all of the rights guaranteed by the Cuban constitution.

According to the Cuban constitution, all prisoners are guaranteed inviolable personal integrity. Trials and sentencing must be by competent courts based on existing laws and as guaranteed by law. Every prisoner has the right to a defense.

Also, no violence or pressure of any kind can be used to force people to testify. If such violence or pressure is used, any statements used will be null and void, and those responsible for the violation will be punished.

So, as I see it, we have a few choices with regard to these prisoners. We can bring them to the U.S. and provide them with the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. Or we can turn them over to the Cubans and them them provide them with Cuban justice. Or we can treat them under the guarantees of the Cuban constitution. Or we can let them all go free.

Mr. Bush, your choice.

Tax and Spend Commie President Does It Again

President Bush, in his State of the Union address, claimed to want to cut taxes and cut spending. However, his specific proposals put the lie to his words.

Take, for example, his new health care plan. He is creating a brand new tax on employer-provided insurance plans. At the same time, he wants to increase funds to states to provide health insurance to their own citizens.

That's right, not just raising taxes, but creating whole new taxes.

His proposal also has a remarkably Marxian tone as well. Get this. The stated goals of his plan include not only providing better insurance to the poor, but also encouraging well-off Americans to get worse insurance.

As Bush's mentor once said, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

If Only All He Mangled Were Words...

You know, I don't really have a problem with a person that can't correctly pronounce the nucular weapon that he has the power to launch against our enemies, real or imagined. (Or to solve the global warming problem for the next 10 years.)

It's cute when he mispronounces the names of countries, because that's an additional cue as to which ones are the bad guys.

However, what I can't imagine is how the patriotic citizens of this country would ever elect as president a man who can't even pronounce the name of our country. I'm not sure I have the spelling right, but phonetically something like "the Unind States of Amerca".

Somebody get that man to a speech therapist!

Bush Lied, People Sighed

So, President Bush told us that he was going to keep on Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, while all along he was going to fire him. Isn't that just another lie to add to his resume?

I hate to admit it, but I actually support the president on this. It doesn't happen often, but I need to say so when I do.

Think about it this way. What CEO of any American company would be able to keep his job if he went and blabbed about every decision or potential decision before its time? What kind of respect would you give to any manager that announced that he was thinking about firing one of his employees? Especially if he hadn't yet lined up the replacement?

Let's get over this and get on to the big issues.

Bush Proposes Anarchy in the U.S.

President Bush, speaking at a recent campaign event, said, "There's a fundamental difference in this campaign and campaigns all across the country about who best to spend your money. We believe that the best people to spend your money is you."

Ignoring his disturbingly bad command of the English language, the message itself is flawed. If the government can't be trusted to spend money wisely, the government should be dismantled (or perhaps run by volunteers and donations). In nearly six years in office, Mr. Bush has clearly not shown by example that our government should spend less.

If you believe that a government at some level is necessary, then the real questions become:

1. What do we think the proper role of government is and what should it be spending money on?


2. How much does that cost?


3. What are the sources of revenue to cover these needs?


4. How much money should be collected from each source and how?

If the government is spending money it shouldn't be, make that argument and convince us (and Congress) to cut that spending. Don't argue that taxes need to be generically cut, which will result in a general failure of the government to be able to perform any of its functions.

And, if the President truly intends to put money back in people's pockets, he needs to consider all of the consequences of his policies:

• Calling something a fee rather than a tax does not reduce the cost to the taxpayer.


• Cutting a service that the taxpayer will have to pay for elsewhere is effectively a tax increase.


• Cutting a federal tax while forcing state and local governments to make up the difference is only shifting the tax burden.


• Paying for our government with borrowed money does not reduce total taxes, it only reduces them in the short term, while increasing the total amount of tax money required to be collected over time.

Calling something a tax cut does not automatically make it good. Even if reducing government revenue is a goal, there are lots of ways to cut taxes. If one disagrees with a particular tax cut proposal, this does not prove that one is in favor of higher taxes, only that one is not in favor of reducing that particular tax.

So, Mr. Bush (and friends): Please be honest in your arguments and in your characterizations of the opposition. If not, there is a (slight) chance that somebody will actually call you on it.

Only 60 Books?

Many people have expressed doubts about recent reports that President Bush has read 60 books so far this year. (Question: Is that calendar year, or fiscal year?) I have no doubt however that the reports are true.

It seems like our president shows all the signs of an obsessive/compulsive with addictive behavior. Now it's books. I'm sure he treats this as a competition and will drive himself until he can no longer keep it up. Before this, it was mountain bike riding, and before that it was running.

Before that? Well, we've had some rumors about Mr. Bush's obsessive behaviors prior to his presidency. However, I'm sure that is all in the past, just like his speed reading will be in another 6-24 months.

For some of us it's a hobby. For others of us, we can't do anything halfway.

President Bush, I only pray that you will stop this before your brain fills completely.

To Err Is Human, To Forgive a Divine Right

One of the absolute coolest things about being President is that you can pardon anybody you want to for any reason whatsoever. President Bush has been one of the stingiest with this power. With the 17 pardons he issued last week, his total is still just shy of 100 in over 5 years in office.

Of course, there is nothing that says pardoning more people is better. As long as Bush is using his God-given power for good, not evil...

Looking over the most recent list of lucky pardonees, one thing strikes me -- they are all safe. All were convicted long ago and none will be released from prison with the possibility of going on a rampage. In fact, almost all of them never did a day in prison.

So, who were the lucky winners this time? Well, there were four with firearms convictions, three with drug convictions, three theft/larceny cases, a couple of AWOL cases, a couple of liquor law violations, an embezzlement charge, someone who counterfeited postal orders, and a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Make of this what you will, but these old ex-criminals are just the types that can get sympathy from President Bush.

And get this. One of the moonshiners pardoned by W was Randall Deal, an actor who played a minor character in the movie "Deliverance". No, he didn't play that character. He played one of the brothers that guide the misguided group, and his one line was, "It ain't nothin' but the biggest fuckin' river in the state." Perhaps, given his success in navigating the path to his pardon, he would say the same thing about our President.