PSA:

For those using Firefox as a browser, you might be interested to know that a more secure, and more stable version, 1.0.1 is now available. You can get it here. (Note: When you download the modlue, do not put it in a folder where an existing Firefox install is present.)

For those not using Firefox, you might want to consider using it. In the last couple of weeks we've been assisting people who have had their Windows system totally corrupted by worms and hijacks that exploit MS Internet Browser vulnerabilities. We've seen problems on XP machines - even though they are supposed to be more secure. The damage can be severe and is not easliy repaired (if at all).

posted by Quiddity at 2/28/2005 06:23:00 PM

Where's Dick?

With the administration deploying all sorts of people, including the president, to support Social Security changes and foreign policy initiatives, we've noticed somebody missing: Dick Cheney. A quick check on Google news turns up practically nothing, except for an off-the-wall pundit who wrote:

... Dick Cheney has been in and out of the hospital in recent months ...

Is that true? We aren't aware of any health problem with the vice-president, but maybe he is ailing somewhat.

Many have said the Cheney is the dominant force within the administration and that without him running the show Bush tends to drift. If Cheney cannot manage the shop, perhaps Bush will be unable to get things done. That might translate into a defeat for the Social Security changes the president is eager for.

posted by Quiddity at 2/28/2005 06:07:00 AM

"Fascinating" - Mr. Spock

Digby has a good post about the current divisions in U.S. politics, and links to a fascinating essay by Michael Lind (originally published in Foreign Affairs in 1999). If you're familiar with U.S. history, you will be amazed to see how the pieces of the puzzle fall into place. Why various people took the positions they did. How persistent the divisions have been. And why they will continue to exist.

Must reading.

posted by Quiddity at 2/25/2005 09:27:00 PM

Hurry up!

"Justice delayed is justice denied."
Gladstone

Judge Sets Trial for Enron's Lay, Skilling
HOUSTON - The fraud and conspiracy trial of Enron Corp. founder Kenneth Lay, former CEO Jeffrey Skilling and chief accounting officer Richard Causey will begin Jan. 17, 2006, a federal judge said Thursday.

posted by Quiddity at 2/24/2005 08:53:00 PM

Welcome Slate readers!

Yes, for those of you who read the Slate article about Rappers and Bloggers, you've come to the right place. Rapping. Yes, that's just about all we do here. Rap.

Here's uggabugga's rap line of the day:

Yo! Da blown wigger from the Get Low wants to twurk the fly nappy dugout that came from the Boogie Down.

Word.

posted by Quiddity at 2/24/2005 02:02:00 PM

Bankruptcy bill information:

The Washington Post reports today that the bankruptcy bill is moving along in the Senate. We went to the Senate website to find out which 3 Democrats voted for the bill, but that information doesn't appear to be there at the moment. For those concerned, the Senate bill introduced by Grassley is S.256. And the effective date of the legislation is 180 days after it is passed. (At least that's what it looks like, we are not experts in these matters.)

posted by Quiddity at 2/24/2005 01:43:00 PM

What more do you need to know?

Inspired by a post over at Daily Kos.

NOTE: Our original post incorrectly linked Bobby Eberle to the "Operation Rescue" story. The Eberle in that case is Bruce, as shown in the corrected diagram. Our apologies for the error. Thanks to Basharov for pointing out the mistake.




posted by Quiddity at 2/23/2005 01:42:00 PM

Thar she goes!

The Left Coaster notes that the dollar is falling hard today. And gold is rising. Check out this chart.

We fully expected it, given the budget and trade deficits. This is something military might cannot stop. Although, since Bush said people concerned about the trade deficit should purchase U.S. made goods, maybe he will recommend Americans purchase dollars!

posted by Quiddity at 2/22/2005 01:18:00 PM

Getting ugly:

No doubt, you've read about the campaign to villify the AARP - brought to you by the same outfit that gave you the Swift Boat Veterans. One component of that program is an image/link which was found recently over at The American Spectator

Apparently, the ad has been pulled. So, we suggest that they consider the following as replacements:

posted by Quiddity at 2/22/2005 11:46:00 AM

Truly disgusting:

From the New York Times: Bush Budget Proposes Halt in Housing Aid for Disabled (emp add)

With little fanfare, the Bush administration is proposing to stop financing the construction of new housing for the mentally ill and physically handicapped as part of a 50 percent cut in its housing budget for people with disabilities.

The proposal, which has been overshadowed by the administration's plans to shrink its community development programs, affects what is known as the Section 811 program. Since 1998, Section 811 has helped nonprofit developers produce more than 11,000 units of housing for low-income people with disabilities, including more than 700 in New York State.

Until now, Section 811 has provided equal amounts each year, roughly, for financing for new construction, and rent subsidies for disabled tenants. But under the 2006 budget proposal, the capital allocation would be eliminated and the overall budget would shrink by half, to $120 million from $238 million.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development did not respond to repeated requests for comment over the last week. But the proposal appears to comport with the administration's broader determination to trim domestic programs in the face of record deficits.

The proposal is reminiscent, though on a much smaller scale, of what happened to public housing decades ago. That was when the federal government retreated from building public housing in favor of providing vouchers under programs like Section 8, which allows poor tenants to redeem those vouchers with private landlords.

This time, the federal government would discontinue financing housing for people with spinal cord injuries or psychiatric illnesses who are not necessarily homeless but may live in nursing homes or psychiatric hospitals.

By relying exclusively on vouchers, the federal government would essentially be lumping these people with able-bodied Section 8 recipients in competing for some of the same apartments.

To clarify:

• No more houses built for the disabled.
• The voucher program stays the same size - with twice as many people competing for vouchers. (approx.)
• Savings: $120 million = less than a day's cost for the Iraq war.

When will people call Bush on his bogus "compassionate conservative" stance?

posted by Quiddity at 2/22/2005 08:28:00 AM

Proof against Ralph Reed:

It has been commonly assumed that Ralph Reed was directly behind a whispering campaign against John McCain during the 2000 presidential campaign. But where was the proof? Take, for example, these excerpts from a Josh Marshall report in the American Prospect:

[Weekly Standard publisher Bill] Kristol said he believed the Bush campaign was already trying to curry favor with South Carolina conservatives by getting out the word about McCain's meeting with Log Cabin Republicans.

Whispering campaigns are difficult to track down. But it's easy to see why people are suspicious. Roughly a week after McCain's meeting with the Log Cabin Republicans on November 9, a series of anonymous letters appeared in the mailboxes of 23 South Carolina state representatives who have endorsed McCain and an undetermined number of other Republican activists around the state. The envelopes contained a photocopy of a November 10 Washington Times article describing McCain's meeting with Log Cabin Republicans, with an introduction that read: "Log Cabin Republicans said yesterday that Arizona Sen. John McCain is going after the homosexual Republican vote as no other serious presidential nomination contender has in his party in recent memory." Little typed notes clipped to the article read, "So this is the candidate you're supporting? Hmmmm?"

[...]

So who sent the letters?

[...]

Much of the suspicion has fallen on Ralph Reed, in part because he has a history of doing this sort of thing. Back in 1996 Reed was the one who helped save Bob Dole in Iowa by orchestrating a campaign of so-called "push-polls" attacking rival candidate Steve Forbes for, among other things, tolerating his father's "alternative lifestyle." But when I spoke to Reed, he denied that he, or any-one working for him, had any role in the mailing.

That report was dated 20 January 2000. Since then, we do not recall reading about any hard evidence against Reed.

Until now.

Marshall Whitman (aka The Bull Moose) writes today:

During this controversy, the Moose received a call from the current candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Georgia - righteous Ralph Reed (sorry, no tapes). Since McCain indicated that he would meet with the Log Cabin folks, Reed told the Moose that he would orchestrate a phone call campaign on this topic against the Senator, if necessary.

Well, sure enough, a vicious under the radar slime campaign was launched against McCain in the South Carolina primary.

posted by Quiddity at 2/22/2005 07:45:00 AM

Krauthammer's evasion:

Today, Charles Krauthammer weighs in on the Social Security debate. He says: (excerpts, emp add)

The Social Security system has no trust fund. No lockbox. When you pay your payroll tax every year, the money is not converted into gold bars and shipped to some desert island, ready for retrieval when you turn 65. The system is pay as you go. The money goes to support that year's Social Security recipients. What's left over is "lent" to the federal Treasury. And gets entirely spent. It vanishes. In return, a piece of paper gets deposited in a vault in West Virginia saying that the left hand of the government owes money to the right hand of the government.

These pieces of paper might be useful for rolling cigars. They will not fund your retirement. Your Leisure World greens fees will be coming from the payroll taxes of young people during the years you grow old.

... The really important date is 2018. That is when this pay-as-you-go system starts paying out more (in Social Security benefits) than goes in.   ... in 13 years the system begins to go into the red. To cover retiree benefits, the government will have to ... come up with the [money] -- by borrowing on the world market, raising taxes or cutting other government programs.

---

• If Krauthammer believes that the current surplus Social Security funds "vanish", then why doesn't he call for an end to such higher FICA taxes? Or does he believe that it's okay to have a clearly regressive tax paying for general federal expenditures?
  
  
• If the Bush tax cuts had not been implemented, this country's debt would not be so big, and might even be lower if surpluses were used to pay it down. In any event, it would be easier to redeem the Social Security bonds (aka "pieces of paper") by borrowing - which would smooth out the funding over time and not hit then-current workers with a big tax hike. Krauthammer does not call for a repeal of Bush's tax cuts (or mention them at all).
  
  
• Nice of Krauthammer to imply that Social Security recipients will be shaking down young workers in order to pay for "Leisure World greens fees." As if those elderly people who depend entirely on Social Security are the kind of folks who drive their new Cadillac to the country club for a round of golf.

posted by Quiddity at 2/18/2005 11:36:00 AM

Powerline sources:

There has been one of those back-and-forth debates recently, this time between Matthew Yglesias and those young lads over at the Power Line blog.

BACKGROUND: Hindrocket (yes, that's the handle) said, in reference to the war on terror, that Jimmy Carter was "on the other side." Yglesias said that was calling Carter a traitor, and that Hindrocket owed Carter an apology.

Yesterday, Hindrocket responded, and he's not backing down! In fact, he thinks he was "too kind" to Carter. And Yglesias responded to that.

We bring this up only to note the following point. In Power Line's response, they cited two items in their attack on Carter: A report, and an interview. Both came from Front Page Magazine, David Horowitz' right-wing, unreliable, and hysterical website.

And to think that Power Line was Time's Blog of the Year.

posted by Quiddity at 2/17/2005 02:57:00 PM

The invisible man:

Greenspan spoke about Social Security today as part of his twice-a-year report to Congress. It was shown on NBC's Nightly News. We didn't catch CBS, but on ABC there was no mention whatsoever of Greenspan. And nothing about Social Security either. Maybe since Greenspan testifies tomorrow as well, ABC will report then, but it was a surprise to see no mention on Wednesday's broadcast.

On NBC they were touting an NBC poll that showed 45% for Bush's plan, 51% opposed. Those opposed were strongly opposed. Those in favor, not strongly so.

posted by Quiddity at 2/16/2005 10:13:00 PM

Cartoon:

Fof those following the Jeff Gannon story, this current week's Troubletown might be worth checking out.

NOTE: Blogger is acting up lately and posts are difficult at times.

posted by Quiddity at 2/16/2005 01:29:00 PM

Betrayal:

Twenty years after engineering a system where people pay higher Social Security taxes, we now read in the Los Angeles Times: (emp add)

The individual investment accounts would contribute to national savings only if they could be financed by methods other than borrowing, and in order to slow the rate of borrowing by Social Security, benefits would have to be trimmed, Greenspan said.

"If we move to private accounts, which I approve of," the shift must be done cautiously, he said.

Disgusting. This guy is a complete tool for the finance boys. He casually dismissed conderns about the late 90's bubble, saying that a New Era had arrived, or conversly, that Internet stocks were a lottery ticket. No mention of hype and scams. Now Greenspan is cheerleading a program, individual private accounts, that will enrich Wall Street.

posted by Quiddity at 2/16/2005 11:47:00 AM

Name change:

In a Los Angeles Times story that wonders what Greenspan will say about Social Security plans, we read:

Some lawmakers hope that Greenspan will tip his hand when he testifies before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee on Wednesday and the House Financial Services Committee on Thursday.

The hearing in the Senate has the title:

The Federal Reserve's First Monetary Policy Report to Congress for 2005

Here is a backgrounder on these hearings from TheStreet.com:

Until mid-2000, when it expired, a piece of legislation known as Humphrey-Hawkins required the Federal Open Market Committee to report to Congress on the economy and monetary policy twice a year. While Congress wrangles over new legislation, the practice continues, with reports in February and July. While they're no longer officially Humphrey-Hawkins reports, they're still colloquially called that.
[...]
The original legislation, the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978, was named for its sponsors, Sen. Hubert Humphrey and Rep. Augustus Hawkins.

Hubert Humphrey - a well known Democratic politician.
Augustus Hawkins - a Democratic congressman representing Los Angeles (African-American district, in case you were wondering)

It's too bad the name Humphrey-Hawkins has been dropped. They started it. They should continue to get credit for it.

posted by Quiddity at 2/15/2005 02:54:00 PM

Keeps on being worse than the year before:

Haven't heard much about U.S. casualties recently? February seems kind of quiet, right? Well, February does have a much lower fatality count of U.S. troops compared to January. But with the total for this month so far at 22, it means that excepting March '03, every month has had a greater fatality count than the year before. Here is a chart. Maroon is the last 12 months. Blue is the 12 months before that.



Source: Iraq Coalition Casualties.

posted by Quiddity at 2/15/2005 09:40:00 AM

Is this true? Does it have legs?

In the wake of the Jeff Gannon story, we find this from 365gay.com: Is Bush Press Aide Gay? which claims that Scott McClellan frequented gay bars.

In light of this new information, we call for a return of decency to the White House press operation. Bring back Ari Fleischer!

(not really)

posted by Quiddity at 2/15/2005 05:15:00 AM

Seven days later:

Bush's budget is announced on Monday, February 7. Now, seven days later, we read: Bush Requests $81.9B for Iraq, Afghan Wars. Why this could not have been included in the original budget is hard to figure. It's all very mysterious. For instance:

The $2.57 trillion budget Bush sent Congress last week projected a record $427 billion deficit this year and $390 billion in red ink in 2006. While it included Bush's latest request, the budget omitted any new war funds next year, which are considered certain to be needed.

So the projected deficit included the latest request, but now we're reading about a supplemental which wasn't included in, what, the initial budget. Confusing.

In any event, we're getting a new round number:

Approval would push the total spent in Iraq and Afghanistan and other efforts against terrorism beyond $300 billion, including the costs of fighting and reconstruction. It stood at about $228 billion before Bush's latest request, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which writes reports for Congress.

$300 billion. US population: 293,027,571 (Jul 2004 est). Comes to $1000 per person. (Even more on a household basis.)

posted by Quiddity at 2/15/2005 04:31:00 AM

2005 Iraqi parliment pie chart:

From Juan Cole's report on the likely distribution of seats in the Iraqi parliment following the election last month, a graph showing the distribution based on ethnicity. (e.g. Shiite secular and religious lumped together as blue colors. Kurdish parties orange. Sunni yellows. Minor parties are reds.)



Strongly Shiite.

posted by Quiddity at 2/13/2005 08:11:00 PM

Don't get cable TV? Then to hell with you!

From the Washington Post story on Bush's budget cut backs:

Health and Human Services programs would face significant cuts. ... Despite the national rise in child obesity, the White House wants to eliminate a $59 million media campaign to encourage children ages 9 to 13 to be more physically active, judging it redundant given similar drives by Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel.

If you pay for cable TV, then presumably you are informed about child obesity. If you don't pay for cable TV, then Bush says you should - no matter how dire your financial situation is.

posted by Quiddity at 2/12/2005 06:25:00 AM

Troubletown:

This week's Troubletown cartoon is pretty good. The final panel is okay, but the ones leading up to it are better - for the general attitude portrayed.

posted by Quiddity at 2/11/2005 06:10:00 AM

Blast from the past:

Now that North Korea has announced that it has nuclear weapons, you might want to visit a post we made two years ago. Let's Play North Korean Brinksmanship!

It's a game where everybody loses.

posted by Quiddity at 2/10/2005 01:55:00 PM

Approaching critical mass?

Even though everything so far is just talk, it does seem like we are in unstable fiscal territory.

• General unhappiness with Bush's proposed budget. Cuts that are for show; unlikely to be realized. Other cuts that don't do anything to help the deficit.
• Hidden costs, to be revealed later (mostly for the Defense Department and the war)
• A budget that includes yet-to-be-realized "proposals", allowing for all manner of fictions.
• The latest on the Medicare Drug Benefit. Costs are likely to be much, much higher: $600 billion? $1.2 trillion?
• Bush implying a default on trillions in bonds.
• Claiming to get revenue when that's not certain.
• The ever-present current account deficit. (Trade deficit.)

That's a partial list. But underlying all of it are two basic facts:

• Bush's absolute refusal to look at revenue increases - in other words, taxes.
• A frantic effort to paper-over the resulting shortfalls or budgetary pain.

When will the international community say, "Enough!"

posted by Quiddity at 2/09/2005 03:11:00 PM

Twisting words:

Via Political Animal, we learn that the Al Franken blog has commented on misleading statements by Brit Hume (first caught by Media Matters). Read the Franken blog for the best summary. We decided it merited a diagram. Watch how Brit Hume moves the logical furniture around.



Hume took FDR's overview statement, applied it to Social Security ("should include ... voluntary"); took a phase-out element from Old Age Pensions and applied it to Social Security ('ought ultimately to be supplanted"); and finally implied that the "government funding" to be supplanted was Social Security's (not the OAP), leading to a 100% private accounts system.

Amazing.

posted by Quiddity at 2/09/2005 02:33:00 PM

Podhoretz writes; Hiatt parrots:



Podhoretz writes in the New York Post on January 31. Topic is foreign affairs: (emp add)

... the junior Eeyore from Massachusetts, John Forbes Kerry, ... had the distinct misfortune of being booked onto "Meet the Press" yesterday only 90 minutes after the polls closed in Iraq ? and couldn't think of a thing to say that didn't sound negative.

Get it? Democrats are sad sacks. Eeyores.

Now here's Fred Hiatt, editor of the Washington Post editorial page, seven days later, February 7. Topic is the economy and the budget: (emp add)

... Bush is offering younger voters something that seems quite appealing: a personal savings account that they will control, a 401(k) plan in every pot. The Democrats are putting themselves in the position of telling those voters that they don't want that shiny present as much as they think they do, or that they'll be disappointed when they tear off the paper and see what's inside the box. This is as much a winning strategy as telling them that they ought to feel worse than they do.

Eeyore's friends never doubted his good intentions. But none of them would have chosen him first for a playmate, either.

Isn't it nice when the person in charge of the editorial page of the Washington Post is in sync with one of the most aggressive neocons out there?

posted by Quiddity at 2/08/2005 09:39:00 AM

Progressive radio comes to Los Angeles:

After having nothing but right-wing radio (KFI, KABC, KRLA) for years, a new station has come to Los Angeles, KTLK, 1150 AM.   A Clear Channel station, no less. The line-up includes The Morning Sedition (5 a.m.-9 a.m.), Al Franken (9 a.m.-noon), Ed Schultz (noon-3 p.m.), Randi Rhodes (3 p.m.-7 p.m.) and Janeane Garofalo (7 p.m.-10 p.m.).

posted by Quiddity at 2/08/2005 08:03:00 AM

You forgot something:

In the New York Times article, President Offers Budget Proposal With Broad Cuts, we read:

Spending on that category - in budgetary language, nondefense, nondomestic-security discretionary spending - would be trimmed by almost $3 billion, or about seven-tenths of 1 percent, for the year starting Oct. 1, to $389 billion from $392 billion. It would then be frozen at $389 billion for four years, effectively imposing a further cut each year after taking account of inflation.

What should have been written:

Spending on that category - in budgetary language, nondefense, nondomestic-security discretionary spending - would be trimmed by almost $3 billion, or about seven-tenths of 1 percent, for the year starting Oct. 1, to $389 billion from $392 billion. It would then be frozen at $389 billion for four years, effectively imposing a further cut each year after taking account of inflation and population growth.

posted by Quiddity at 2/08/2005 05:04:00 AM

No surprise:

So, Bush announces a stringent budget. When federal revenues are running at below 17% of GDP (to 1959 levels), what else can you expect?

UPDATE: Broken link corrected.

posted by Quiddity at 2/07/2005 06:13:00 PM

Behe on scientists:

In today's New York Times, Intelligent Design supporter Michael Behe writes in support of that notion. We find the Intelligent Design concept to be poorly reasoned. There may be a case for declaring some things, like the proverbial pocket watch, as being designed. But that's only because of our observations of what humans have designed. We are familiar with watchmakers and other craftsmen who work with small bits of brass and steel. So when we see a collection of gears and springs its natural to conclude a human made it. But "design" is contingent on what we know can be designed. If somehow a computer chip could be transported back in time, would Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, or anybody else for that matter, have been able to see the silicon for anything other than a pretty sliver of shiny metal with interesting patterns? No.

The purpose of this post isn't to wrestle with Intelligent Design, but to relate a fact. Way back in late 1999 on a Los Angeles talk radio program (host: Stephanie Edwards) the subject was Intelligent Design and the person being interviewed was Michael Behe. We were driving around and don't have a recording, so this is from memory. During the discussion the subject turned to the opposition of scientists to ID which Behe claimed was due to their rejection of religion. Then Behe went on to assert that,

If scientists had evidence of religion they would suppress it.

[Evidence of a laboratory experiment -type.]

Scientist wouldn't suppress it. If, for example, it could be repeatedly and reliably demonstrated that prayer could freeze a glass of water, scientists would be out there reporting the fact and trying to integrate it into some kind of model. Behe shows his disregard for the scientific approach, and scientist's devotion to it. Behe is making an ad hominem attack on his opponents.

posted by Quiddity at 2/07/2005 09:25:00 AM

Russert vs. Kennedy:

You had to see it to believe it. Here are excerpts from the exchange about Social Security: (emp add)

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Social Security. ... We have a situation where the number on people in Social Security is going to double. People, rather than spending 15 months, are going to spend 15 years. ... What is your plan? What will you do? ...
SEN. KENNEDY: ... The president's program to make his tax cuts permanent is three times what's necessary to fix the national--to fix Social Security. Let's start with that.
MR. RUSSERT: But we have...
SEN. KENNEDY: Let's start with that. You've asked the question and I'm giving you an answer.
MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, with Social Security, with Medicare, we have $5 trillion of unfunded mandates, and we are sitting here saying we simply roll back the tax cut on the top 1 percent or grow our way out of it?
SEN. KENNEDY: Well, wait a second now. You asked about Social Security. Now do you want to know on the Medicare how we ought to go to deal with the Medicare? I've given you a very good way to resolve the...
MR. RUSSERT: So you would roll back the president's tax cuts.
SEN. KENNEDY: That's a possible--for one-third, he wants to make it permanent. You can roll back just one-third of it and solve the Social Security problem. I think that ought to be on the table. It's interesting, when the president spoke the other night, Tim, he never mentioned what his answer was. He never told us what his solution was for the out years.
MR. RUSSERT: he...
SEN. KENNEDY: He talked about private savings accounts.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, he said everything should be on the table. [Quiddity: Bush ruled out higher taxes.]
SEN. KENNEDY: OK, well, I'm giving you a suggested way of doing it.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you...
SEN. KENNEDY: Now, can we go to the Medicare?
MR. RUSSERT: Let me finish.
SEN. KENNEDY: OK.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you agree with him that age eligibility should be on the table?
SEN. KENNEDY: Not at this time because I don't think we have a crisis.
MR. RUSSERT: Cost of living increases?
SEN. KENNEDY: I'm giving you my--one of the ways that we ought to do it. That's what your question...
MR. RUSSERT: Raise taxes?
SEN. KENNEDY: Roll back--or he wants to make permanent, and I say you can take a third of that part, at least solve--that is one of the alternatives.
MR. RUSSERT: But that's raising taxes.
SEN. KENNEDY: OK. That's rolling back.
MR. RUSSERT: That's honest.

posted by Quiddity at 2/06/2005 09:14:00 AM

Sensible message board post:

From time to time we like to check out the messages posted under Yahoo news stories. Get a sense of the mood. Once in a while a really good post appears. Here is one we liked (especially the first half), having to do with Social Security: (emp add)

Social Security is an insurance program. Funded by wage earners and self employed, and set up after the great depression to protect and benefit workers. Like any other insurance program, workers pay in and expect benefits. And like any insurance program, not all participants get back what they contribute.

Social Security is not an investment program or a savings program. In 1983 the Reagan commission concluded that a sharp increase in payroll taxes was needed to fund the SS fund to at least 2018, and the excess funds generated by these increased taxes on workers was invested in US bonds. Everyone realized that these bonds would earn interest and would be paid back by the US govt with income tax revenue, which is mostly generated by the upper class wealthy. So, workers beefed up SS and the wealthy now don't like the idea of having to start paying up after 2018 to repay the SS purchased bonds. Bush doesn't care about the middle class and SS recipients welfare. What does concern him is the welfare of his "base" the rich and super rich. So, he blurs the distinction between SS funds and US income tax funds, and he confuses the purpose of SS as an insurance program with his proposals to help "the common man" keep his hard earned money and control his "investment." This president is really being dishonest, and he is misleading our country for the benefit of the upper class wealthy, just like he did with his tax cuts.

posted by Quiddity at 2/05/2005 04:19:00 AM

"Conservative" Zuckerman better than "liberal" Kristof on SS debate:

A week or so ago, Mort Zuckerman of US News penned an essay defending the current Social Security program. Most progressives would agree with him. But here comes Kristof with an essay titled, Social Security Poker: It's Time for Liberals to Ante Up

Ante up, you liberals! So says the NYTimes sage. Kristof should stop pretending he knows anything about Social Security and go back to his true love, rescuing sex-slaves in Asia. Here are some elements of his OpEd:

• "... life spans grew by 30 years in the 20th century ..."
  This is a misdirection. First of all, real gains were accomplished in the early decades of the 20th century (water and sewage). Second, the SS program did factor in growth of life expectancy upon reaching retirement age. Third, life expectancy at birth is a meaningless metric.
  
  
• "Mr. Bush is also right to try to promote savings"
  Bush is promoting savings as a substitute for Social Security. And savings does not an insurance program make.
  
  
• "Democratic senators in the 1990's like Charles Robb, Bob Kerrey, John Breaux and Daniel Patrick Moynihan championed Social Security reform."
  Wow, what a lineup. Kerry, co-chair of the Concord Coalition, John Breaux, former Democratic senator from Louisana and co-chair of Bush's tax reform commission, and Pat Monyhihan, safely dead.
  
  
• "True, there is one powerful objection to private Social Security accounts: We can't afford them now."
  No. The objection to private accounts is that they will destroy the insurance aspect of Social Security (lifetime benefit, disabilty benefit, pooling of risk). That's what's at stake.
  
  
• "... both parties are behaving irresponsibly."   "Democrats are trying to shout [Bush] down without offering solutions of their own."
  See Politcial Animal for a run-down on solutions out there.

We've never liked Kristof much. This makes it official: We don't like Kristof at all.

posted by Quiddity at 2/05/2005 03:27:00 AM

Rejoinder:

To those who note that the current Social Security worker:retiree ratio is 3:1, and then argue that there will be a crisis when when it's 2:1, the proper response is:

Right now, with the 3:1 ratio, the program is running a substantial surplus. And it won't run a surplus when 2:1 ratio is in effect.

posted by Quiddity at 2/04/2005 07:13:00 AM

Minor point:

Some conservatives are expressing outrage over the fact that Democrats grumbled loudly when Bush was talking about Social Security in the SOTU.

In the 90's there was a dispute over budget projections - having to do with the deficit, if memory serves. Different numbers were coming out of the OMB and CBO. One was more 'political' than the other, and it was a topic of the day (who to trust). We don't recall the specifics, but during a Clinton SOTU speech, he said Congress should use the projections from one of the agencies. At that moment, the Republicans roared with laughter. Even Clinton grinned a bit.

But you can't do that to King George.

posted by Quiddity at 2/03/2005 01:23:00 PM

SOTU quick review:

• Not as well written as previous speeches.
• Social Security: Mentioning age 55 will not help Bush (anyone over will have guarantee). Bush speaks of 25 year-olds. That means everybody from 25 to 55 is going to be puzzled, worried, or both.
• Bush will get hammered for saying SS will be "bankrupt" in 2042. Bush's recitation of SS numbers was lacking form. 2018. Then a decade later. Then ten more years. Booooring!
• Reverse of typical Bush speech. Normally he starts out with foreign policy, then moves to domestic. This time domestic led and Bush ended with foreign.
• Extremely small amount of God-talk. No coded references either!
• Still flogging the old energy bill.
• Not as tightly structured as previous (or Clinton) speeches. For example, mentioned giving the soldiers what they need, then talked about Iraq and Middle East, then returned to praise soldiers. Would have been better if soldier part was unified.
• Too many cooks worked on the speech. It showed.
• Bush is no Reagan when it comes to telling stories.
• Highlighting parents of Marine that died in Iraq will work for some, but others will find it either manipulative, or very sad.
• Purple fingers: Slightly off-putting.
• Bush mentioned "terror" or variants a lot.

Overall grade: C+

posted by Quiddity at 2/02/2005 08:36:00 PM

Site feed:

Last summer we did the following for the Blogger site feed settings:

Publish Site Feed: YES
Description: FULL ( Select Full to syndicate the full content of your post. Select Short if you only wish to syndicate the first paragraph, or approx. 255 characters, whichever is shorter.)
Site Feed URL: http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/atom.xml

And then we got lazy and didn't update our template (the thing at the top). Sorry about that!

posted by Quiddity at 2/02/2005 02:43:00 PM

SOTU preview:

Freedom. Brave Iraqis. Purple fingers. Look in the gallery. Liberty. War justified. Other nations should join us. Freedom. Watch out, Iran! Tsunami. God works in mysterious ways. United States is generous. Private donations. Values. Family. God. Expand faith-based programs. Freedom. Ownership society. FDR a good man. Social Security past its time. Crisis. Freedom at home. Freedom of financial choice. It's your money. Nest egg. Bequeath to your children. Family values. Pat Moynihan! African-Americans. Common-sense judges. No (liberal) activists. Crisis. Warning to Senate Democrats. Culture of life. God's creatures. Compassion. Moving forward. Permanent tax cuts. Create jobs. Urgent. Liberty. Energy. Crisis. Solution is tax and environmental policy. Freedom to drill. ANWAR. Coal. Nuclear. Short laundry list. Working on the deficit. Already down. Tough budget. Hands are tied. Hard choices affect everybody. U.S. is stoic, virtuous nation. Liberty. Bill Frist needs the freedom to lead. Will work with Democrats that share our goals. Will work with nations that share our goals. U.S. leading the world. Don't try and stop me. Liberty. God. Freedom. Global freedom. Our mission. Liberty. God bless.

posted by Quiddity at 2/02/2005 01:01:00 PM