Comments on: The Sequence

By: emjayay

emjayay — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:28:00 +0000

Did anyone else see the Frontline about pensions that PBS has been running lately? Maybe working up some kind of bankrupcy/pension reform legislation would be a good thing to persue at this point. A pocketbook/cleaning up corporate greed issue that might appeal to a broad cross section of both conservative and liberal voters.

By: bighoss

bighoss — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:29:30 +0000

Ironic, I was in France just last week. While standing on Omaha beach a Frenchman thanked me, as an American, for the sacrifices of my father’s generation. Many of the French with whom I spoke would love to have the opportunity we have here. Even with all their government provided benefits, I would not trade my middle class standard of living for theirs.
It is because of economic opportunity provided by a capitalist free market economy that we have an illegal immigration problem. They want to be here to have the opportunity to make money and improve their lives. Government planned, highly regulated, high tax economies are at best stagnant if not outright failures. The Soviet Union imploded because its weak economy could not sustain a military buildup to compete with the United States. China has dumped communism and embraced capitalism, albiet with a facsist government. The economic, tax and regulatory evironment in China is such that American manufacturing can’t compete. What will poor Americans do when consumer goods prices double at Wal-mart so that somewhere, some other American can keep their low productivity, union scale, free health care, defined benefit pension plan job ? When was the last time anyone writing on this page deliberately purchased a signifcantly higher priced item over the same item at a lower price solely because it was made in the USA?
If the minimum wage was $10 or even $15, as some have suggested, my 16 year old son would not have been able to get a job last summer.
A percentage tax cut will always favor those who pay the most taxes. 10% of $1,000,000 will always return more dollars to the taxpayer than 10% of 10,000. But if the fat cat take his ill gottn gains and buys a Cadillac who benefits? The auto worker. If he builds a house on the beach? Carpenters, electricians, plumbers. If he plows it back into a business? His employees. If he sticks it in the bank? A borrower buying a home. If he gives it to the government? They can send it to some third world hell hole whose people’s hatred of each other is exceeded only by their hatred of us. Or maybe they can spend it on a bridge to nowhere. Or may be they can put it into to funding health care, nutrition and housing for the five illegitimate children by five different fathers of a 25 year old woman. ( but we all know that requiring birth control would violate her rights)
The truth is that the capitalist free market economy has provided the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the history of the world. Whatever is in second place has never even come close. Can the system be abused? of course. Are there greedy charlatans? Absolutely!.
But over all, if the people are sovereign in this country and can be trusted to govern, then it follows that they can make better economic decisions with their own money than some bureaucrat that has been handed a wad of money that doesn’t belong to him.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 03:36:59 +0000

Hey bighhoss – and with all due respect, perhaps you are the one who should be going to France, whose citizens seem sorely in need of some of that good old robber baron greed is good, if you’re poor it’s your fault, every man for himself, God bless the shareholders and screw labor, free market brainwashing too.

By: Kuff's World

Kuff's World — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 18:09:08 +0000

Exit polls

The 2006 exit polls are out (you can see this in PDF form here), and they give some insight into why the vote went the way it did. (See here for a guide on how to read the poll.) I…

By: bighoss

bighoss — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 14:58:07 +0000

To blindnomore: Nothing could be further from the vision of the Founders than your desires for the United States today. They believed in individual liberty, freedom of opportunity and limited government ( which is why we have a Constitution) You want your government to take care of you make all your decisions for you. Everything you want exists today in France. It’s called socialism. Maybe that is where you should be living.
As for the rest of the ideas in this blog let me point out that on Tuesday, 28 or so out of 435 congressional districts and 6 or so out 100 senate seats changed hands mostly by very slim margins. A very small shift indeed. I would hardly call this a mandate for the Democrats or an utter rejection of Republican policy. But with the very slim margin of political control held by Democrats, what I’m hearing proposed are payback politcal witchunts under the name of “oversight”. Economic policy based on increases in taxation but only on the rich. I never cease to be amazed at how low the “rich” threshold really is. Two teachers with a combined income of $90K per year can be “rich”. The fact is that the top 10% of income earners already pay 90% of the income taxes is a fact not often discussed among the “tax the rich” crowd.
That all of social security’s problems will be solved by just a slight increase in the tax. FDR promised the original tax rate would never go above 3%. It’s now abiout 7.5% with your employer paying that much again in matching payments. It’s about 15% if you are self emplyed. It is paid across the board by all wage earners with after tax income. Talk about your regressive taxation.
I could go on but I am reminded of two axioms:
1. The more things change, the more they stay the same;
2. When all is said and done, more will be said than done.

By: Oxonhoya

Oxonhoya — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:56:30 +0000

None of the reforms that concern lobbying and ethics suggested above are likely to occur with Steny Hoyer in place as Pelosi’s second-in-command. He is as resistent to lobbying/ethics reform as any republican. I’m not sure Murtha is any better on this issue but at least he (unlike Hoyer) won’t be actively working to bring Pelosi down.
As a former Marylander, I say, beware Hoyer. And as one of your current constitutents, I say, Nancy, watch your back!!!

By: Birdman

Birdman — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 05:24:51 +0000

The looming Federal budget and debt crisis could be eased with a war tax, levied against the corporate military indutrial complex-rate 99% of net profits. Those military contractor executives should be taxed 100% of all income/benefits above 300k annual income… for the good of our country. In addition, Those who have benefitted the most from our great Country, those who stand to lose the most if we are over run by invaders…should be assesed an emergency war tax: 50% of all earned and investment gain above $200k/year. We shall see who wants war when it is not so profitable…We may as well make solar panels and construct more energy efficient transportation systems. Or we could pay down the debt…Or both.

By: Birdman

Birdman — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 05:23:50 +0000

By: lily

lily — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:07:28 +0000

Great thoughts except for one really foolish comment: yes we absolutely must blame this mess (Iraq)on the Republicans. Do not undermine or interfere with the blame-Republicans message. Three reasons:
1. It is their fault.
2. No matter what the facts may be, they have in the past and will in the future blame us. Don’t b naive about it.
3. They have to blame us because their only selling point is the myth of their superiority in defense and foreign affairs. They got this rep by blaming us for Vietnam. Now we can see what they do when they have the power. They deserve to lose their reputation for superiority in this area. Don’t be an enabler.
We shouldn’t be unfair and vengeful to thhe Republicans. But we shouldn’t be naive about them either. The bully is only temporarily chastened. They need to be labeled as wrong in the areas where they in fact were wrong and Iraq is their biggest fuck up of all.

By: SocraticGadfly

SocraticGadfly — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 22:27:43 +0000

Not just a minimum wage bill, but a min wage bill with built in COLA, is the ticket. C’mon, Teles, show some actual progressive bones about doing something because it’s right, not because “it appeals to the base.
Geez

By: blindnomore

blindnomore — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:19:04 +0000

I am a single female middle aged middle income moderate Republican voter. I exercised my franchise on behalf of the Democrats in this election to protest not only the mess that is Iraq and filthy partisan slandering wedge-baiting politics, but to declaim against economic and taxation policies and laws that have favored the wealthy and the corporations and caused stagnation in wages and marginalized my income group and forced me and many others to the edge of bankruptcy as a result. I want a repeal of the banking legislation that raised credit card interest rates and nearly doubled payments and forced many middle income families to live from hand to mouth. I want the United States to stop the “we’re an information economy” crap and bring back our manufacturing base from the brink of extinction. I want job opportunities that will pay decent wages and re-regulation of public utilities and socialized medicine to make the basic necessities of living here accessible to all. I want laws against illegal immigration enforced. I want the American Dream to represent what the Founders meant it to be – that this not be a country where only aggressive elites and their progeny and the special interests may prosper, but a place that is a very good home to us all.

By: Ricahrd Jacobs

Ricahrd Jacobs — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:04:14 +0000

I agree with everything you say. Our new Democratic Congress has to act quickly to start cleaning up the mess the WH and 109th congress left behind.
I would like to make on comment about Social Security. I am (too) rapidly approaching the point where it kicks in for me and the most glaring problem with SS is that congress has used it as their personal piggy bank for decades. I understand that the money my generation paid into SS went to support my parent’s generation, but not all of it. There are a lot more ‘boomers’ then there were greatest generation people, so it stands to reason that there should be money left over to off set the fact that the boomer’s kids are fewer then us. Except congress used that extra money for God only know what. That is the first thing that has to be changed with SS. Lock the safe and keep the congress out of our money.
Just my opinion…
Rick Jacobs

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:21:09 +0000

“Gain the trust of the voters by doing things with broad-based support, and that put Republicans in a bad light. Then start thinking Second New Deal in 2009.”
Bait and switch, in other words.

By: SezMe

SezMe — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 07:59:21 +0000

I want to support a previous poster to suggest that voting reform should be high on the Dems agenda. ALL software should be open source and all hardware should be under 24/7 control during the election season. And breaches of protocol should not be punishable by fine but by loss of office. Well, OK, that might need some refinement, but you get my drift.

By: PamelaInParis

PamelaInParis — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 05:44:20 +0000

I'm all for some moderation, even though I'd like nothing more than to see Bush impeached. I grudgingly concede that it wouldn't do for the Dems to appear (too) vindictive. However, I don't know why habeas corpus, torture, and illegal surveillance of citizens aren't high on your list. I can't see how tackling those immediately could be perceived as vincictive. A little outrage is in order, don't you think? The Dems would appear heroic if they addressed those issues right away, if you ask me. If they ignore them, they'll seem as spineless as they have for a good long while. http://pamela.poole.free.fr/frogblog/

By: johnson

johnson — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 05:07:54 +0000

Uhhhh…anyone wanna do something about the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act or NSA domestic wiretapping, or posse comitatus or New Orleans????

By: Lawrence Lundy

Lawrence Lundy — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 04:01:52 +0000

This line of comments demonstrates what happens if the Dems bring up SS now. The discussion just goes ’round and ’round while other issues get dropped. Later with SS changes, if needed.

By: liberal

liberal — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 21:15:25 +0000

Maynard Handley wrote, “Given that the media have been so relentlessly pro-Republican and given that the majority of Americans have no great love these conglomerates, I think the time is right, on moral, political and payback grounds, to go back to the status quo ante — limited ownership of newspapers, TV and radio stations and so on.”
I agree, though I think the most important thing is to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. That would really screw with the right-wing agitprop process.
(Payback may seem like a poor basis for public policy, but a media that is aware that it can get bitten when the wind changes might be a media that is a little more interested in telling the truth.)
As I’ve said on a few blogs, iterated Prisoner’s Dilemmas are a basic fact of human existence, and when the other guy defects repeatedly, a reasonable and fair strategy (Tit for Tat) says you have to defect also.

By: Maynard Handley

Maynard Handley — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:09:27 +0000

How about adding media reform to the list?
OK, we’ve had quite a few years now of media conglomerates with pretty much no limits on what they can own, and I think it’s pretty clear the result has been a disaster.
All the various advances and whatnot that we were promised would be the result of “increased efficiencies”" that have happened since then we owe to the googles, amazons, youtubes, and most especially bloggers of the world, not to the media conglomerates.
Meanwhile the groupthink single-simple-minded presentation of events that was predicted has indeed occurred.
Given that the media have been so relentlessly pro-Republican and given that the majority of Americans have no great love these conglomerates, I think the time is right, on moral, political and payback grounds, to go back to the status quo ante — limited ownership of newspapers, TV and radio stations and so on. (Payback may seem like a poor basis for public policy, but a media that is aware that it can get bitten when the wind changes might be a media that is a little more interested in telling the truth.)

By: Prup (aka Jim Benton)

Prup (aka Jim Benton) — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:08:38 +0000

I agree with a lot of your suggestions, but some I have to qualify, and two I have to reject or substantially change.
I would argue that investigations should be staggered, maybe even a general schedule made that would release a ‘bombshell a month.’ There’s certainly enough targets. But I would start almost at once on two subjects, military procurement in Iraq and the Haliburton style corruption in Iraq. Both can and should be portrayed as supporting the troops and correcting some of the messes we caused there, and can easily enlist both supporters of and opponents of the war. (Whatever you think of whether we should have gone, we shouldn’t have cut corners at the expense of our troops, and our failure to ‘rebuild Iraq’ is one of the stronger arguments that is being used against us.)
[As a side note, if I were Nancy P. I would assign a number of the Representatives to reading Iraqi bloggers to get a better view of what is going on there, and I might even try and get a number of them to testify, particularly those who were driven out of the country by the violence.]
I would pass lobby reform, earmark reform, and ethics reform — and make sure to tell the ethics committee to go after members of both parties when necessary.
Agreed on Plan D, on minimum wage, on 9-11 commission.
I’d also repeal the ‘faith-based initiative’ in the process detailing its use for political purposes and the way it was biased against any but conservative to radical Christian groups.
I’d start work on health care coverage for all, and if a sensible and radical bill could be created, force Bush to veto it. (We NEED a radical bill to get universal coverage.)
A VERY cl0ose watch should be put on Bush’s judicial nominees, so the courts are not clogged with Christianist ‘strict constructionist’ anti-abortion, anti-gay groups.
Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
And finally, I have to strongly disagree with they type of Immigration Reform bill that would likely to come out, even from the Democrats. Immigration has been one of the most powrful forces for good in the history of this country, it still is, and any ‘reform’ should make immigration easier, citizenship easier, and welcome most of the immigrants already here. (The only area I’d agree with most writers would be controls on those with criminal records, and making it harder to come and work here without starting the citizenship process.)

By: Barry

Barry — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 17:09:55 +0000

Steve Teles: “Re. the point above on Rumsfeld. There’s lots of blame to go around, of course, but (and here I think I differ from many of our readers) I think that the key error was the way the war was fought and not the decision to fight it (which was questionable, but I still think arguable). Even if you think the war was a mistake from the start, I think it is hard to argue that much of why it has turned out so disastrously has to do with implementation decisions made directly by Rumsfeld. ”
Implementation mistakes by Rumsfield which we know of are:
(1) too few troops.
(2) absolutely no planning or prep for what to do after the initial blizkrieg [1], up to and including threatening officers when they tried to, not using the State Department’s plans, and not even using Desert Crossing plans.
(3) absolute failure to adapt, at the highest levels, to facts on the ground, as this became obvious during Summer-Fall, 2003.
(4) De-Baathification, including laying off the Iraqi Army.
(5) Apparently no effort to secure ammunition depots, or those alleged ‘vast stockpiles of WMD’s’. It must be nice for a guerrilla force to literally have more ammunition than they can expend.
(6) Neo-con dumbf*ckery such as crash privatization and destruction of as much of the Iraqi economy as possible, thereby making sure that the supply of guerrillas wouldn’t fall short.
(7) Not even a half-way decent *attempt* to preserve law and order during the Summer of 2003, thereby destroying the reputation of US forces.
And that’s just what has become public knowledge, despite the efforts of the administration to keep everytyhing secret.
[1] Given how few troops there were, and how little planning was done, it’s questionable as to whether Rumsfield’s scheme would have survived the feared urban warfare in Baghdad, if that had happened in May, 2003.

By: Barry

Barry — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 17:01:59 +0000

Adding on:
5) The Greenspan Plan for Social Security, enacted in the early/mid 1980′s, was that Baby Boomers would pay extra into the Social Security Fund, above the then-currently needed amount. This would be put into bonds, and then cashed in. Basically, the Baby Boomers would pay extra, some for their parents’ retirements, plus some of their own. Reagan eagerly used this extra income to cut taxes on the rich. So has Bush II.
In retrospect, given that Greenspan endorsed the Bush II deficit fraud, it’s clear that the original plan was to try to screw us out of that money. Now, if I try that with my credit card debt, that don’t play – the credit card company will take the money that I owe them, by court order if they have to.
Sauce for the ordinary American goose is sauce for the Republican gander.

By: Barry

Barry — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:58:00 +0000

Posted by: Steven Teles :
“Barry,
Calling someone a liar on a blog is pretty par for the course, isn’t it? No hard feelings.
steve”
Thanks, Steven, that’s gracious of you.
There are three big reasons why I tend to flip out when people blithely dismiss Social Security as needing to be ‘privatized’:
1) As has been noted above, privatization in and of itself solves nothing. Privatization only ‘helps’ if it involves screwing people out of their money. We don’t need that sort of ‘help’.
2) A big and enduring goal of the GOP for decades has been to destroy Social Security. Trying to reform something is very dangerous when one of the parties has destruction, rather than reform, as their goal.
3) Any economic scenario that I’ve seen in which it would be difficult to pay Social Security over the next several decades is one in which economic growth and productivity growth in the USA slows down sharply, *below any measured historical trend*, and stays down for multiple decades. Such a scenario bodes ill for money invested in US stocks; considering that the USA is still the single biggest playerin the global economy, it also bodes ill for many international stock funds.
4) The whole d*mn point of GOP deficits is to spend the money, as much as possible on what they want, and then to use the resulting deficits as an excuse to cut spending that they don’t want. If they commit economic fraud (as they have been since Reagan), we are under no obligation to go along with that.

By: neil

neil — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:49:59 +0000

Immigration reform? Really? When I looked at the exit polls from ’06 and compared them to ’04, the biggest change was in Latino support. In ’06, Latinos (8% of the electorate) went for Democrats 69% to 30%. In ’04 it was 55% to 44%. This may be enough to explain the more modest shifts in other groups like married and Catholic voters. And it seems like any immigration reform bill would probably jeopardize the trend here.

By: goethean

goethean — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:31:32 +0000

What about election reform?

By: liberal

liberal — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:30:52 +0000

Steven Teles wrote, “I think that the key error was the way the war was fought and not the decision to fight it (which was questionable, but I still think arguable). Even if you think the war was a mistake from the start, I think it is hard to argue that much of why it has turned out so disastrously has to do with implementation decisions made directly by Rumsfeld.”
Have to strongly disagree with that. While certainly the various tactical screwups you allude to (including, I assume, having too small an occupation force, disbanding the Iraqi army, too complete a de-Ba’athification, etc) made the situation worse, the twin facts that (1) America had no fundamental strategic interest in deposing Hussein, and (2) post-Hussein Iraq would likely lead to any number of problems (Iraqi civil war, regional destabilization due to Kurdish populations in nearby states, etc) were quite obvious before the invasion.
And even if you disagree on those points, there’s always Daniel Davies point, surely to go down as a classic, that the choices weren’t “invade or never invade,” but also in addition “wait and perhaps invade later, after Bush is gone”.
It was obvious from Bush’s lack of interest in the lack of findings by the inspectors shortly before the invasion that the claimed evidence for WMD was weak or non-existent, and that the WMD rationale was just a ruse. And re the humanitarian and “spreading democracy” rationales, it _should_ have been obvious to anyone with an understanding of history that states simply do not go to war for humanitarian reasons, whatever they might say.

By: liberal

liberal — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:21:27 +0000

marcel wrote, “If I had to identify ‘the most important architect’ I’d point to Cheney, Rumsfeld was more the general contractor.”
I was thinking similar things earlier this morning.
Rumsfeld is certainly to blame for much of the problem with the execution, but it seems to me that Cheney is partly to blame for that, and also for the decision to invade Iraq in the first place.
Maybe Rumsfeld is partly neocon-ish, but not nearly as much as Cheney. His decision to play along quite willingly always seemed to me to be because of a desire for a test of his high-tech military reform plans.
Not that that exculpates him or anything, or that I’m sorry to see him go. But in some fundamental sense I think the bulk of the blame for the strategic disaster of Iraq should fall on Bush and Cheney’s shoulders.
Reminds me of the “Impeach Cheney first!” notion.

By: Steven Teles

Steven Teles — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:17:51 +0000

Re. the point above on Rumsfeld. There’s lots of blame to go around, of course, but (and here I think I differ from many of our readers) I think that the key error was the way the war was fought and not the decision to fight it (which was questionable, but I still think arguable). Even if you think the war was a mistake from the start, I think it is hard to argue that much of why it has turned out so disastrously has to do with implementation decisions made directly by Rumsfeld.

By: liberal

liberal — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:15:20 +0000

SamChevre wrote, “If the SS Trust Fund is to be paid back, the money has to come from somewhere. That ‘somewhere’ is currently the general fund, which is in deficit; to pay back the SS Trust Fund will mean spending less on other things.”
It can also come from increased taxation.
There’s all sorts of economic rent collection in the top brackets that can be taxed heavily with no ill effect, efficiency-wise or distribution-wise.

By: liberal

liberal — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:12:12 +0000

Ty Wittstruck wrote, “As far as Social Security, the accounts do need to be privatized. There simply is not enough workers to fund the program, pay for ‘Baby Boom’ expenses and expect money to be their for my retirement.”
But privatization doesn’t solve or even address any of those ostensible problems.