AP
By ROXANA HEGEMAN, Associated Press Writer
WICHITA, Kan. – For abortion opponents, the trial of one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers has been a long time coming, a chance for a little bit of justice after years of seeing their efforts thwarted.
To abortion-rights supporters, Dr. George Tiller's trial set to begin Monday is the culmination of repeated harassment, a witch hunt in which his foes have been willing to do anything and everything to gain a conviction.
Tiller and his Wichita clinic have been regular targets of anti-abortion demonstrations, including the 45-day "Summer of Mercy" event staged by Operation Rescue in 1991. His clinic was damaged by a pipe bomb in 1986, and in 1993 a protester shot him in both arms.
Abortion opponents contend Tiller illegally aborts fetuses that could survive outside the womb. Kansas law allows late-term abortions if two doctors agree that it is necessary to save a women's life or prevent "substantial and irreversible" harm to "a major bodily function," a phrase that's been interpreted to include mental health.
Tiller is charged with 19 misdemeanors alleging he failed to obtain the required second, independent opinion from an independent physician that a late-term abortion is necessary. If convicted, the Wichita physician could face a year in the county jail or a fine of $2,500 for each charge.
Sedgwick County District Judge Clark Owens has set aside three days, beginning Monday, for jury selection. Opening arguments and trial testimony are set to begin March 23.
Defense attorney Dan Monnat said he could not comment on specific trial evidence. "But we can say this: Dr. Tiller is innocent," Monnat added. "We expect the prosecution's evidence and any defense evidence to make that very, very clear."
Prosecutors contend Tiller had a financial relationship with the doctor he relied upon for his second opinion that an abortion is necessary, in violation of Kansas law. They expect to present their case in one day, and could call that physician, Dr. Ann Kristin Neuhaus of Nortonville, who has been granted immunity from prosecution.
"We are treating this case just like any other criminal case," said Ashley Anstaett, spokeswoman for Attorney General Steve Six, a Democrat who supports abortion rights.
Abortion opponents and abortion-rights activists plan to be out in full force for the trial.
Trucks emblazoned with graphic images of aborted fetuses are set to arrive at the courthouse an hour before jury selection starts. Operation Rescue President Troy Newman said the activists are not trying to influence jurors. Instead, he said, "We are hoping God will influence them."
Abortion-rights supporters plan to counter with their own demonstrations.
"This is just a continuation of the dog-and-pony show in trying to shut down (Tiller's) Women's Health Care Services (clinic) and trying to make women's reproductive health care inaccessible," said Julie Burkhart, a lobbyist with ProKanDo, a political action committee Tiller formed in 2002.
Opponents twice tried unsuccessfully to get grand juries to indict Tiller. Kansas is one of only six states that allow citizens to petition to create a grand jury.
They also watched as another case — brought by a former state prosecutor — was tossed out on jurisdictional grounds. Although that case was different than the current one, the medical records gathered by former Attorney General Phill Kline, a Republican, formed the basis of both prosecutions.
The current case has survived numerous legal challenges, mainly over the way in which Kline handled his investigation, which Tiller's attorneys contended was unconstitutionally selective and relied on evidence gathered illegally.
Even as Tiller's trial begins, abortion foes are pushing a bill in the Legislature that would threaten his medical license if he's convicted.
The bill would require the State Board of Healing Arts, which regulates Kansas doctors, to revoke a medical license for just one violation of the abortion law, unless two thirds of the board decides otherwise. Under current law, a license isn't revoked until a second or later offense.
"That was written specifically for him, for this case, because they are hoping to get a conviction and that would cause him to lose his license," Burkhart said.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Jon Stewart puts spotlight on CNBC and meltdown
AP
By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
NEW YORK – The feud between Jon Stewart and CNBC's Jim Cramer has been good for laughs — and ratings — but has also raised the serious question of whether the experts at TV's No. 1 financial news network should have seen the meltdown coming and warned the public.
Over the past two weeks, Stewart's "Daily Show" on Comedy Central has ridiculed CNBC personalities, including Cramer, the manic host of "Mad Money," by airing video clips of them making exuberantly bullish statements about the market and various investment banks shortly before they collapsed.
Stewart has charged that people at CNBC knew what was going on behind the scenes on Wall Street but didn't tell the public. He has accused CNBC anchors and pundits of abandoning their journalistic duties and acting like cheerleaders for the market.
"In a tremendous boom period, they covered the boom and people wanted to believe in the boom," said Andrew Leckey, a former CNBC anchor and now president of the Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Business Journalism at Arizona State University. "They didn't uncover the lies that were told to them. Nobody did. But they should be held to a higher responsibility."
But Don Hodges, chairman of Hodges Capital Management in Dallas, said he doesn't fault CNBC for not seeing the bust coming.
"I'm not sure that anybody had seen it coming," he said. "I've listened to all of the so-called experts, and it's obvious that everybody is very confused."
Cramer, for his part, appeared on "The Daily Show" on Thursday and was interrogated Mike Wallace-style by Stewart. Cramer acknowledged that he made mistakes but said that he and CNBC weren't alone.
Like other Wall Street professionals, Joe Saluzzi, co-head of equity trading at Themis Trading LLC, said it was plain CNBC was bullish during the run-up in the economy over the past few years. But he said his job was to do his homework and not to make decisions based strictly on what he heard on TV.
The questions raised about CNBC are similar to those journalists faced about what was reported during the months before the Iraq War.
CNBC spokesman Brian Steel noted that the network "produces more than 150 hours of live television a week that includes more than 850 interviews in the service of exposing all sides of every critical financial and economic issue." He added: "We are proud of our record."
All of the cable news networks recognize the growing popularity of shows with a strong point of view. But is there too much talking and not enough reporting?
"They need some adult supervision about what people get to pop off about over there, even if it is opinion," said Dean Starkman, managing editor of Columbia Journalism Review's The Audit, which focuses on the business press. "They need to look into the mirror and see how close they are intellectually and emotionally with the people they cover. They need to sit back and get some critical distance."
Some CNBC defenders have accused Stewart of taking some of the video clips out of context, or blowing them out of proportion.
"A politician stumbles over himself," MSNBC "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough said on his own program. "Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response. And you know what? It's really easy to be a comedian and take those cheap shots."
Some at CNBC believed, at least prior to Cramer's appearance on Thursday, that the controversy was ultimately good for the network because of the attention it drew. Some questioned whether the business professionals who make up the bulk of CNBC's daytime audience would be affected by Stewart's criticisms.
From Feb. 19 through March 9, CNBC averaged 361,000 viewers during the business day, compared with 328,000 the three weeks before, according to Nielsen Media Research. During the same period, the page views on CNBC's Web site went up 22 percent from 13.1 million to 15.9 million.
Similarly, a video clip of Stewart's original criticism of CNBC last week has been seen more than anything else the show has put online this year.
"Stewart's a comedian and Cramer is a showman," said Robert Howell, professor at Dartmouth University's Tuck School of Business. "If anybody takes seriously anything that (Cramer) says, they're stupid."
By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
NEW YORK – The feud between Jon Stewart and CNBC's Jim Cramer has been good for laughs — and ratings — but has also raised the serious question of whether the experts at TV's No. 1 financial news network should have seen the meltdown coming and warned the public.
Over the past two weeks, Stewart's "Daily Show" on Comedy Central has ridiculed CNBC personalities, including Cramer, the manic host of "Mad Money," by airing video clips of them making exuberantly bullish statements about the market and various investment banks shortly before they collapsed.
Stewart has charged that people at CNBC knew what was going on behind the scenes on Wall Street but didn't tell the public. He has accused CNBC anchors and pundits of abandoning their journalistic duties and acting like cheerleaders for the market.
"In a tremendous boom period, they covered the boom and people wanted to believe in the boom," said Andrew Leckey, a former CNBC anchor and now president of the Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Business Journalism at Arizona State University. "They didn't uncover the lies that were told to them. Nobody did. But they should be held to a higher responsibility."
But Don Hodges, chairman of Hodges Capital Management in Dallas, said he doesn't fault CNBC for not seeing the bust coming.
"I'm not sure that anybody had seen it coming," he said. "I've listened to all of the so-called experts, and it's obvious that everybody is very confused."
Cramer, for his part, appeared on "The Daily Show" on Thursday and was interrogated Mike Wallace-style by Stewart. Cramer acknowledged that he made mistakes but said that he and CNBC weren't alone.
Like other Wall Street professionals, Joe Saluzzi, co-head of equity trading at Themis Trading LLC, said it was plain CNBC was bullish during the run-up in the economy over the past few years. But he said his job was to do his homework and not to make decisions based strictly on what he heard on TV.
The questions raised about CNBC are similar to those journalists faced about what was reported during the months before the Iraq War.
CNBC spokesman Brian Steel noted that the network "produces more than 150 hours of live television a week that includes more than 850 interviews in the service of exposing all sides of every critical financial and economic issue." He added: "We are proud of our record."
All of the cable news networks recognize the growing popularity of shows with a strong point of view. But is there too much talking and not enough reporting?
"They need some adult supervision about what people get to pop off about over there, even if it is opinion," said Dean Starkman, managing editor of Columbia Journalism Review's The Audit, which focuses on the business press. "They need to look into the mirror and see how close they are intellectually and emotionally with the people they cover. They need to sit back and get some critical distance."
Some CNBC defenders have accused Stewart of taking some of the video clips out of context, or blowing them out of proportion.
"A politician stumbles over himself," MSNBC "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough said on his own program. "Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response. And you know what? It's really easy to be a comedian and take those cheap shots."
Some at CNBC believed, at least prior to Cramer's appearance on Thursday, that the controversy was ultimately good for the network because of the attention it drew. Some questioned whether the business professionals who make up the bulk of CNBC's daytime audience would be affected by Stewart's criticisms.
From Feb. 19 through March 9, CNBC averaged 361,000 viewers during the business day, compared with 328,000 the three weeks before, according to Nielsen Media Research. During the same period, the page views on CNBC's Web site went up 22 percent from 13.1 million to 15.9 million.
Similarly, a video clip of Stewart's original criticism of CNBC last week has been seen more than anything else the show has put online this year.
"Stewart's a comedian and Cramer is a showman," said Robert Howell, professor at Dartmouth University's Tuck School of Business. "If anybody takes seriously anything that (Cramer) says, they're stupid."
Report: Cuba, Venezuela could host Russian bombers
AP
By DAVID NOWAK, Associated Press Writer
MOSCOW – A Russian Air Force chief said Saturday that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has offered an island as a temporary base for strategic Russian bombers, the Interfax news agency reported.
The chief of staff of Russia's long range aviation, Maj. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev, also said Cuba could be used to base the aircraft, Interfax reported.
The Kremlin, however, said the situation was hypothetical.
"The military is speaking about technical possibilities, that's all," Alexei Pavlov, a Kremlin official, told The Associated Press. "If there will be a development of the situation, then we can comment," he said.
Zhikharev said Chavez had offered "a whole island with an airdrome, which we can use as a temporary base for strategic bombers," the agency reported. "If there is a corresponding political decision, then the use of the island ... by the Russian Air Force is possible."
Interfax reported he said earlier that Cuba has air bases with four or five runways long enough for the huge bombers and could be used to host the long-range planes.
Two Russian bombers landed in Venezuela last year in what experts said was the first Western Hemisphere touchdown of Russian military craft since the end of the Cold War.
Cuba has never permanently hosted Russian or Soviet strategic aircraft. But Soviet short-range bombers often made stopovers there during the Cold War.
Russia resumed long-range bomber patrols in 2007 after a 15-year hiatus.
Independent military analyst Alexander Golts said from a strategic point of view there was nothing for Russia to gain from basing long-range craft within relatively short range of U.S. shores.
"It has no military sense. The bombers don't need any base. This is just a retaliatory gesture," Golts said, saying Russia wanted to hit back after U.S. ships patrolled Black Sea waters.
Moscow and the new U.S. administration of President Barack Obama have appeared to want to mend their relations, which reached a post-Cold War low last year when Russia's invasion of U.S. ally Georgia compounded disputes on security and democracy.
U.S. plans initiated under former President George W. Bush to position defense missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic had particularly irked Russia, which has welcomed his successor's apparently more cautious approach to the divisive issue.
Venezuela and Cuba, traditionally fierce U.S. foes, have close political and energy relations with Russia.
By DAVID NOWAK, Associated Press Writer
MOSCOW – A Russian Air Force chief said Saturday that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has offered an island as a temporary base for strategic Russian bombers, the Interfax news agency reported.
The chief of staff of Russia's long range aviation, Maj. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev, also said Cuba could be used to base the aircraft, Interfax reported.
The Kremlin, however, said the situation was hypothetical.
"The military is speaking about technical possibilities, that's all," Alexei Pavlov, a Kremlin official, told The Associated Press. "If there will be a development of the situation, then we can comment," he said.
Zhikharev said Chavez had offered "a whole island with an airdrome, which we can use as a temporary base for strategic bombers," the agency reported. "If there is a corresponding political decision, then the use of the island ... by the Russian Air Force is possible."
Interfax reported he said earlier that Cuba has air bases with four or five runways long enough for the huge bombers and could be used to host the long-range planes.
Two Russian bombers landed in Venezuela last year in what experts said was the first Western Hemisphere touchdown of Russian military craft since the end of the Cold War.
Cuba has never permanently hosted Russian or Soviet strategic aircraft. But Soviet short-range bombers often made stopovers there during the Cold War.
Russia resumed long-range bomber patrols in 2007 after a 15-year hiatus.
Independent military analyst Alexander Golts said from a strategic point of view there was nothing for Russia to gain from basing long-range craft within relatively short range of U.S. shores.
"It has no military sense. The bombers don't need any base. This is just a retaliatory gesture," Golts said, saying Russia wanted to hit back after U.S. ships patrolled Black Sea waters.
Moscow and the new U.S. administration of President Barack Obama have appeared to want to mend their relations, which reached a post-Cold War low last year when Russia's invasion of U.S. ally Georgia compounded disputes on security and democracy.
U.S. plans initiated under former President George W. Bush to position defense missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic had particularly irked Russia, which has welcomed his successor's apparently more cautious approach to the divisive issue.
Venezuela and Cuba, traditionally fierce U.S. foes, have close political and energy relations with Russia.
PAC Reform
The Franklin States currently has a public financing system for its campaigns. Should this system be maintained or should parties be allowed to raise funds? Currently the NEC does not allow the formation or contributions of PACs. Should it? Below is a story about similar issues in the U.S.
THE INFLUENCE GAME: New record for number of PACs
AP
By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – More groups than ever are contributing money to presidential and congressional candidates as their strongest growth in a generation reflects the fervor over last year's White House election and a desire for access and clout on Capitol Hill.
The Federal Election Commission says that on Jan. 1 there were 4,611 political action committees, which are formed by companies, unions or other groups to raise and spend money to help presidential and congressional candidates. That was 9 percent more than the 4,234 PACs a year earlier.
Many of the ones created last year reflect the types of issues that President Barack Obama and Congress, now largely controlled by Democrats, hope to tackle this year.
Among those forming new committees were the National Asphalt Pavement Association and several local branches of the International Union of Operating Engineers, whose members could benefit from paving new roads; the Patriot Coal Corp. of St. Louis, a large coal producer concerned about energy issues; and Varian Medical Systems of Palo Alto, Calif., a producer of medical devices for treating cancer, which could be affected by Obama's health care plans.
One of the 540 committees started in 2008 was set up the National Association of Professional Employer Organizations, which represents businesses that handle human resources tasks for other companies. Its members hope lawmakers will make it easier for them to collect payroll taxes for their clients.
"It's achieved what we wanted to do," Milan Yager, the association's executive director, said of the $21,000 his group reported in contributions, a relatively tiny sum. "We've been able to go to some events" — fundraisers — "and meet members of Congress and their staff and have face time."
Such access is precisely why many groups form the committees, says Paul Herrnson, a professor of government at the University of Maryland who has written about campaign finance.
"The hope is that a member of Congress will consider them part of their policy team, in the sense that they'll take a phone call or meet with a representative of the group," Herrnson said.
While it is natural for the number of such committees to increase in presidential election years, last year's growth was the strongest in a presidential year since 1984, when there was a 14 percent boost.
The two-year election cycle of 2007 and 2008 also saw record spending of nearly $1.2 billion by PACs, compared with $1.1 billion the previous two years, the election commission said. In the previous presidential campaign of 2003 and 2004, PACs spent $843 million.
Of 2007-2008 spending, $234 million went directly to Democratic candidates and $178 million to Republicans. The rest went to indirect expenditures for candidates, contributions to parties or other PACs, and other expenses.
Most of the new committees spent small fractions of the huge sums expended by established groups. The PAC run by the National Association of Realtors contributed $3.9 million to candidates in 2008, the year's top amount, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
The strongest growth among committees was in those formed by ideological or political groups, which grew last year by 23 percent to 1,594. Largely reflecting activity in last year's campaigns, such new groups included OurGreatestFear.org, which raised money to oppose the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin, and PLR PAC, which helped finance conservative radio advertising aimed at the Hispanic community.
THE INFLUENCE GAME: New record for number of PACs
AP
By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – More groups than ever are contributing money to presidential and congressional candidates as their strongest growth in a generation reflects the fervor over last year's White House election and a desire for access and clout on Capitol Hill.
The Federal Election Commission says that on Jan. 1 there were 4,611 political action committees, which are formed by companies, unions or other groups to raise and spend money to help presidential and congressional candidates. That was 9 percent more than the 4,234 PACs a year earlier.
Many of the ones created last year reflect the types of issues that President Barack Obama and Congress, now largely controlled by Democrats, hope to tackle this year.
Among those forming new committees were the National Asphalt Pavement Association and several local branches of the International Union of Operating Engineers, whose members could benefit from paving new roads; the Patriot Coal Corp. of St. Louis, a large coal producer concerned about energy issues; and Varian Medical Systems of Palo Alto, Calif., a producer of medical devices for treating cancer, which could be affected by Obama's health care plans.
One of the 540 committees started in 2008 was set up the National Association of Professional Employer Organizations, which represents businesses that handle human resources tasks for other companies. Its members hope lawmakers will make it easier for them to collect payroll taxes for their clients.
"It's achieved what we wanted to do," Milan Yager, the association's executive director, said of the $21,000 his group reported in contributions, a relatively tiny sum. "We've been able to go to some events" — fundraisers — "and meet members of Congress and their staff and have face time."
Such access is precisely why many groups form the committees, says Paul Herrnson, a professor of government at the University of Maryland who has written about campaign finance.
"The hope is that a member of Congress will consider them part of their policy team, in the sense that they'll take a phone call or meet with a representative of the group," Herrnson said.
While it is natural for the number of such committees to increase in presidential election years, last year's growth was the strongest in a presidential year since 1984, when there was a 14 percent boost.
The two-year election cycle of 2007 and 2008 also saw record spending of nearly $1.2 billion by PACs, compared with $1.1 billion the previous two years, the election commission said. In the previous presidential campaign of 2003 and 2004, PACs spent $843 million.
Of 2007-2008 spending, $234 million went directly to Democratic candidates and $178 million to Republicans. The rest went to indirect expenditures for candidates, contributions to parties or other PACs, and other expenses.
Most of the new committees spent small fractions of the huge sums expended by established groups. The PAC run by the National Association of Realtors contributed $3.9 million to candidates in 2008, the year's top amount, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
The strongest growth among committees was in those formed by ideological or political groups, which grew last year by 23 percent to 1,594. Largely reflecting activity in last year's campaigns, such new groups included OurGreatestFear.org, which raised money to oppose the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin, and PLR PAC, which helped finance conservative radio advertising aimed at the Hispanic community.
Budget Reform
Should the General Assembly ban earmarks? Below is an article about the U.S.'s current debate over the issue.
Reform, don't ban, earmarks
Politico
John Feehery
I was talking to a Republican mayor of a fairly large city in the southern part of the United States, and the subject of earmarks came up. He was a big fan. “It is a lot easier for me to get the attention of my local congressman than it is to get the attention of a bureaucrat here in Washington.”
And that is the fundamental conundrum of the Republican attack on the earmarking process.
Lots of Republicans not only love earmarks, they rely on earmarks to get the attention of an indifferent and sometimes hostile bureaucracy.
Getting rid of earmarks is not only impractical; it gives way too much power to the executive branch.
Earmarks are a small, but essential, price to pay to protect democracy and our form of representative government.
Our nation’s founders bestowed upon Congress the power of the purse as a reaction to the absolute power of King George and his fellow monarchs. But what good is the power of the purse without the right to actually direct some of the spending of the president.
Undoubtedly, Congress has abused their power to spend the people’s money, and unfortunately, corruption has become all too commonplace.
But the reaction to this corruption should not be the wholesale abdication of power to an all-powerful executive.
Rather, Congress should reform its spending ways to rebuild the taxpayer’s trust in the process.
First, it should insist on transparency. Last-minute deals to add special little projects, all to buy votes, should be prohibited.
Second, it should insist that the committee of jurisdiction authorize all appropriated projects. The authorization process should be revitalized to give each and every spending request the scrutiny it deserves.
Third, no member should be given the power to be able to both authorize and appropriate spending projects. The temptation is simply too great when members have that much power to spend taxpayers dollars.
Fourth, the Congress should use an outside accrediting agency (perhaps GAO or the CBO) to give a seal of approval that the spending requests are in the national interest, and not just in the parochial or private interest of the requesting member.
Of course, earmarking is not something that happens only with the Appropriations Committee. The Transportation Committee (because of the unique way it spends money from its various trust funds) and the Ways and Means Committee (tax provisions) also have been known to compel the bureaucracy to do things it might not normally do.
All of that is completely appropriate when it is done in the national interest. It is completely inappropriate when done at the behest and for the private benefit of a special interest.
That the earmarking process needs reform is obvious. But reforming earmarks will not suddenly make Congress fiscally responsible. In fact, as has often been mentioned before, earmarks made up only a tiny percentage of total spending in the budget. And the Congress can take out every earmark, dedicate those savings to deficit reduction, and still not make even a minor dent in the huge budget problems that face the nation.
But that doesn’t mean that reform of the earmark process is unimportant. The people have lost faith in the Congress because it has spent like a drunken sailor for far too long, on projects – like the infamous Bridge to Nowhere – that don’t pass the laugh test. If Congress can come up with a process on earmarks that can help restore faith in the institution, by insisting on transparency, on a vigorous authorization process, on a dispersal of power, and on outside accreditation for all spending, it will be in a better position to tackle the truly big spending issue of the next 30 years, the dangerous growth of entitlement spending.
Republicans like John McCain and John Boehner are right to shine a spotlight on the broken congressional spending system. But the answer is to fix that system, not give all the power to spend to President Obama.
A lot of Republican mayors, county executives and governors don’t want to just rely on the good graces of an Obama administration, no matter how much they might like the president. They are relying on congressional Republicans to help with their spending requests. It is neither good politics nor good policy to ignore those requests and give all the power to the executive branch to do with the money as they see fit.
Reform, don't ban, earmarks
Politico
John Feehery
I was talking to a Republican mayor of a fairly large city in the southern part of the United States, and the subject of earmarks came up. He was a big fan. “It is a lot easier for me to get the attention of my local congressman than it is to get the attention of a bureaucrat here in Washington.”
And that is the fundamental conundrum of the Republican attack on the earmarking process.
Lots of Republicans not only love earmarks, they rely on earmarks to get the attention of an indifferent and sometimes hostile bureaucracy.
Getting rid of earmarks is not only impractical; it gives way too much power to the executive branch.
Earmarks are a small, but essential, price to pay to protect democracy and our form of representative government.
Our nation’s founders bestowed upon Congress the power of the purse as a reaction to the absolute power of King George and his fellow monarchs. But what good is the power of the purse without the right to actually direct some of the spending of the president.
Undoubtedly, Congress has abused their power to spend the people’s money, and unfortunately, corruption has become all too commonplace.
But the reaction to this corruption should not be the wholesale abdication of power to an all-powerful executive.
Rather, Congress should reform its spending ways to rebuild the taxpayer’s trust in the process.
First, it should insist on transparency. Last-minute deals to add special little projects, all to buy votes, should be prohibited.
Second, it should insist that the committee of jurisdiction authorize all appropriated projects. The authorization process should be revitalized to give each and every spending request the scrutiny it deserves.
Third, no member should be given the power to be able to both authorize and appropriate spending projects. The temptation is simply too great when members have that much power to spend taxpayers dollars.
Fourth, the Congress should use an outside accrediting agency (perhaps GAO or the CBO) to give a seal of approval that the spending requests are in the national interest, and not just in the parochial or private interest of the requesting member.
Of course, earmarking is not something that happens only with the Appropriations Committee. The Transportation Committee (because of the unique way it spends money from its various trust funds) and the Ways and Means Committee (tax provisions) also have been known to compel the bureaucracy to do things it might not normally do.
All of that is completely appropriate when it is done in the national interest. It is completely inappropriate when done at the behest and for the private benefit of a special interest.
That the earmarking process needs reform is obvious. But reforming earmarks will not suddenly make Congress fiscally responsible. In fact, as has often been mentioned before, earmarks made up only a tiny percentage of total spending in the budget. And the Congress can take out every earmark, dedicate those savings to deficit reduction, and still not make even a minor dent in the huge budget problems that face the nation.
But that doesn’t mean that reform of the earmark process is unimportant. The people have lost faith in the Congress because it has spent like a drunken sailor for far too long, on projects – like the infamous Bridge to Nowhere – that don’t pass the laugh test. If Congress can come up with a process on earmarks that can help restore faith in the institution, by insisting on transparency, on a vigorous authorization process, on a dispersal of power, and on outside accreditation for all spending, it will be in a better position to tackle the truly big spending issue of the next 30 years, the dangerous growth of entitlement spending.
Republicans like John McCain and John Boehner are right to shine a spotlight on the broken congressional spending system. But the answer is to fix that system, not give all the power to spend to President Obama.
A lot of Republican mayors, county executives and governors don’t want to just rely on the good graces of an Obama administration, no matter how much they might like the president. They are relying on congressional Republicans to help with their spending requests. It is neither good politics nor good policy to ignore those requests and give all the power to the executive branch to do with the money as they see fit.
NEC Announcement
NEC Announcement -
The National Election Commission has several announcements concerning the 2009 election.
1) The date of the General Assembly elections has been moved to May 9th and 10th. This move has been made because it is clear that voting machine equipment will not be ready until early May.
2) The date of the first national debate will be March 24th, the second debate will be held April 1st, the third and final debate will be held on May 7th.
3) The second campaign spending finance report is due March 20th.
The National Election Commission has several announcements concerning the 2009 election.
1) The date of the General Assembly elections has been moved to May 9th and 10th. This move has been made because it is clear that voting machine equipment will not be ready until early May.
2) The date of the first national debate will be March 24th, the second debate will be held April 1st, the third and final debate will be held on May 7th.
3) The second campaign spending finance report is due March 20th.
TPP Trouble?
The Franklin Times -
It is never easy to be on top in the political game. When a party is leading, it becomes the target of all attacks. These are troubles the TPP is quickly realizing.
As this election cycle began, the TPP quickly emerged as the front-runner. Developing and spreading a message of political moderation, economic stimulus, equal rights, and political reform, the TPP built a formidable organization. Constructing headquarters throughout the country and holding huge rallies convinced many that this party was willing to compete everywhere. This commitment had a potential reward of racking up a huge political mandate in the upcoming elections. Yet, things now look differently.
The TPP, a party that was running an untouchable and highly disciplined campaign is currently sputtering. Today, the most recent poll numbers by Wallup were released showing some troubling news. For the first time this election the TPP's numbers have slipped. This slipping support, while moderate in its scope, comes after days of stagnate poll numbers. The verdict is still out as to the reasons for this change in political fortunes; but the question still remains: is the TPP heading in the wrong direction?
It is clear that the TPP's current problems are based in both structural changes and tactical mistakes.
The TPP has seemingly designed itself as a center-left party. It would appeal to the left in its energy and civil rights policies, while holding to a moderate and popular stimulus plan. Yet, the TPP has watched as its strength on the left has slipped with the emergence of the FP. In recent weeks the FP has seen tremendous growth in its political support. As its support has grown, the FP is beginning to undermine the voter base of the TPP.
Compounding this issue is the RKP. The RKP is clearly not threatening to steal away voters. The RKP has adopted a very conservative ideology which will not appeal to liberal or many moderate voters, but it currently has conservative voters to itself. No other party has made a challenge for these voters, meaning the RKP is beginning to fully cement its support on the right.
The emerging election's structure is clearly posing challenges, but the TPP has made its current problems worse through a series of tactical mistakes late this week. After championing clean energy technology and environmental protection, Party Leader Chaffins failed to attend the EPC Convention. "We were disappointed with the TPP's absence. It is clear that sometimes it is easier to campaign on an issue, than to actually lay out a plan to those knowledgeable of the issue," state EPC President Eric Greene. Greene added, "It is unlikely the executive council would endorse a party unwilling to speak at the convention." The TPP had seemingly made moves to court this interest group's endorsement, which made its absence bizarre.
Yet, the TPP's absence may be signs of growing message discipline problems. On Friday, while conducting a conference call with reporters, TPP Leader Chaffins was clearly overheard commenting to an aide that he was growing bored with the campaign. It is unclear if Chaffins knew the mic was catching his conversation, but the statement was clearly overheard by several reporters involved in the conference call. This paper doubts many voters will celebrate the fact that the campaign is boring the TPP and does raise questions as to the TPP's governing ability. Can the country afford to vote for a candidate who has grown so bored so quickly?
It is never easy to be on top in the political game. When a party is leading, it becomes the target of all attacks. These are troubles the TPP is quickly realizing.
As this election cycle began, the TPP quickly emerged as the front-runner. Developing and spreading a message of political moderation, economic stimulus, equal rights, and political reform, the TPP built a formidable organization. Constructing headquarters throughout the country and holding huge rallies convinced many that this party was willing to compete everywhere. This commitment had a potential reward of racking up a huge political mandate in the upcoming elections. Yet, things now look differently.
The TPP, a party that was running an untouchable and highly disciplined campaign is currently sputtering. Today, the most recent poll numbers by Wallup were released showing some troubling news. For the first time this election the TPP's numbers have slipped. This slipping support, while moderate in its scope, comes after days of stagnate poll numbers. The verdict is still out as to the reasons for this change in political fortunes; but the question still remains: is the TPP heading in the wrong direction?
It is clear that the TPP's current problems are based in both structural changes and tactical mistakes.
The TPP has seemingly designed itself as a center-left party. It would appeal to the left in its energy and civil rights policies, while holding to a moderate and popular stimulus plan. Yet, the TPP has watched as its strength on the left has slipped with the emergence of the FP. In recent weeks the FP has seen tremendous growth in its political support. As its support has grown, the FP is beginning to undermine the voter base of the TPP.
Compounding this issue is the RKP. The RKP is clearly not threatening to steal away voters. The RKP has adopted a very conservative ideology which will not appeal to liberal or many moderate voters, but it currently has conservative voters to itself. No other party has made a challenge for these voters, meaning the RKP is beginning to fully cement its support on the right.
The emerging election's structure is clearly posing challenges, but the TPP has made its current problems worse through a series of tactical mistakes late this week. After championing clean energy technology and environmental protection, Party Leader Chaffins failed to attend the EPC Convention. "We were disappointed with the TPP's absence. It is clear that sometimes it is easier to campaign on an issue, than to actually lay out a plan to those knowledgeable of the issue," state EPC President Eric Greene. Greene added, "It is unlikely the executive council would endorse a party unwilling to speak at the convention." The TPP had seemingly made moves to court this interest group's endorsement, which made its absence bizarre.
Yet, the TPP's absence may be signs of growing message discipline problems. On Friday, while conducting a conference call with reporters, TPP Leader Chaffins was clearly overheard commenting to an aide that he was growing bored with the campaign. It is unclear if Chaffins knew the mic was catching his conversation, but the statement was clearly overheard by several reporters involved in the conference call. This paper doubts many voters will celebrate the fact that the campaign is boring the TPP and does raise questions as to the TPP's governing ability. Can the country afford to vote for a candidate who has grown so bored so quickly?
Wallup Poll 3/13/09
Wallup Poll for 3/13/09
If the election were held today, which party would you support?
TPP - 25%
FP - 23%
RKP - 23%
MP - 12%
MDP - 6%
Don't Know - 11%
Analysis - Our most recent poll shows a tightening race. The TPP's early momentum has recently stalled and the party is now seeing serious competition for its lead in the polls. The TPP has not only stalled but is seeing its support down slightly from the last poll (27% to 25%). It appears the TPP is hurt by a number of factors. First, the RKP, which still has received no direct competition for right-of-center voters, is beginning to consolidate that demographic. This has resulted in a strengthening of their support. On the other end, the FP has organized a serious and direct effort to woo the left-of-center voters. It becomes clear from our poll, that the FP is doing extraordinary well with women and those voters identifying themselves as "liberals." Furthermore, the FP has built a 20% point lead amongst "wealthy liberal" (those voters earning over $250,000) voters. This is an interesting development due to the fact that these voters are very likely to vote. These voters seem drawn to the party's strong positions on the education and the environment. The MP has also experienced some growing support, but voters still remain confused as to the party's overall governing philosophy.
If the election were held today, which party would you support?
TPP - 25%
FP - 23%
RKP - 23%
MP - 12%
MDP - 6%
Don't Know - 11%
Analysis - Our most recent poll shows a tightening race. The TPP's early momentum has recently stalled and the party is now seeing serious competition for its lead in the polls. The TPP has not only stalled but is seeing its support down slightly from the last poll (27% to 25%). It appears the TPP is hurt by a number of factors. First, the RKP, which still has received no direct competition for right-of-center voters, is beginning to consolidate that demographic. This has resulted in a strengthening of their support. On the other end, the FP has organized a serious and direct effort to woo the left-of-center voters. It becomes clear from our poll, that the FP is doing extraordinary well with women and those voters identifying themselves as "liberals." Furthermore, the FP has built a 20% point lead amongst "wealthy liberal" (those voters earning over $250,000) voters. This is an interesting development due to the fact that these voters are very likely to vote. These voters seem drawn to the party's strong positions on the education and the environment. The MP has also experienced some growing support, but voters still remain confused as to the party's overall governing philosophy.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Wallup Poll 3/10/09
Wallup Poll 3/10/09
If the election were held today, who would you support?
TPP - 27%
FP - 19%
RKP - 19%
MP - 10%
MDP - 8%
Don't Know/No Opinion - 17%
If the election were held today, who would you support?
TPP - 27%
FP - 19%
RKP - 19%
MP - 10%
MDP - 8%
Don't Know/No Opinion - 17%
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Stem-cell policy change liberating to researchers
The Franklin Times -As of now, the Franklin States has no national policy in regards to stem-cell research. As the research expands it may become necessary for the new government to develop a clear policy in regards to this issue. Below is a story about recent changes in stem-cell policies within the United States.
By BEN FELLER and LAURAN NEERGAARD, Associated Press Writers Ben Feller And Lauran Neergaard, Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON – Eight years of frustration are close to an end for scientists seeking ways to use embryonic stem cells to combat illness and injury.
On Monday, President Barack Obama plans to reverse limits imposed by President George W. Bush on using federal money for research with embryonic stem cells.
The long-promised move will allow a rush of research aimed at one day better treating, if not curing, ailments from diabetes to paralysis — research that is has drawn broad support, including from notables like Nancy Reagan, widow of the late Republican President Ronald Reagan, and the late Christopher Reeve.
But it stirs intense controversy over whether government crosses a moral line with such research, and opponents promptly denounced the move.
Obama will hold an event at the White House to announce the move, a senior administration official said Friday. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the policy had not yet been publicly announced.
Embryonic stem cells are master cells that can morph into any cell of the body. Scientists hope to harness them so they can create replacement tissues to treat a variety of diseases — such as new insulin-producing cells for diabetics, cells that could help those with Parkinson's disease or maybe even Alzheimer's, or new nerve connections to restore movement after spinal injury.
"I feel vindicated after eight years of struggle, and I know it's going to energize my research team," said Dr. George Daley of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Children's Hospital of Boston, a leading stem cell researcher.
"I feel vindicated after eight years of struggle, and I know it's going to energize my research team," said Dr. George Daley of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Children's Hospital of Boston, a leading stem cell researcher.
But the research is controversial because days-old embryos must be destroyed to obtain the cells. They typically are culled from fertility-clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away.
Under Bush, taxpayer money for that research was limited to a small number of stem cell lines that were created before Aug. 9, 2001, lines that in many cases had some drawbacks that limited their potential usability.
But hundreds more of such lines — groups of cells that can continue to propagate in lab dishes — have been created since then, ones that scientists say are healthier, better suited to creating treatments for people rather than doing basic laboratory science.
Work didn't stop. Indeed, it advanced enough that this summer, the private Geron Corp. will begin the world's first study of a treatment using human embryonic stem cells, in people who recently suffered a spinal cord injury.
Nor does Obama's change fund creation of new lines. But it means that scientists who until now have had to rely on private donations to work with these newer stem cell lines can apply for government money for the research, just like they do for studies of gene therapy or other treatment approaches.
The aim of the policy is to restore "scientific integrity" to the process, the administration official said.
"America's biomedical research enterprise experienced steady decline over the past eight years, with shrinking budgets and policies that elevated ideology over science. This slowed the pace of discovery and the search for cures," said Sean Morrison, director of the University of Michigan's Center for Stem Cell Biology.
Critics immediately denounced the move.
"Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for experiments that require the destruction of human life," said Tony Perkins of the conservative Family Research Council. "President Obama's policy change is especially troubling given the significant adult stem cell advances that are being used to treat patients now without harming or destroying human embryos."
Indeed, there are different types of stem cells: So-called adult stem cells that produce a specific type of tissue; younger stem cells found floating in amniotic fluid or the placenta. Scientists even have learned to reprogram certain cells to behave like stem cells.
But even researchers who work with varying types consider embryonic stem cells the most flexible and thus most promising form — and say that science, not politics, should ultimately judge.
"Science works best and patients are served best by having all the tools at our disposal," Daley said.
Obama made it clear during the campaign he would overturn Bush's directive.
During the campaign, Obama said, "I strongly support expanding research on stem cells. I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations."
He said he would lift Bush's ban and "ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight."
"Patients and people who've been patient advocates are going to be really happy," said Amy Comstock Rick of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research.
The ruling will bring one immediate change: As of Monday, scientists who've had to meticulously keep separate their federally funded research and their privately funded stem cell work — from buying separate microscopes to even setting up labs in different buildings — won't have that expensive hurdle anymore.
Next, scientists can start applying for research grants from the National Institutes of Health. The NIH already has begun writing guidelines that, among other things, are expected to demand that the cells being used were derived with proper informed consent from the woman or couple who donated the original embryo.
Wallup Poll 3/6/09
Wallup Press Release: Poll results for Friday, 3/6/09
"If the election were held today, who would you support?"
TPP - 27%
FP - 16%
RKP - 15%
MDP -8%
MP - 8%
Don't Know/No Opinion - 26%
Analysis -
Our poll yesterday demonstrates some old and new trends.
The TPP continues to lead in the poll and its popularity continues to be growing. Our internal numbers show strong name recognition for the TPP and its leader, Blake Chaffins. The party shows strong support amongst voters labeling themselves liberal and moderate. The growth of TPP support may spell bad news for the other parties. The TPP is approaching the infamous 35% support mark. This mark, when reached in past elections, seems to foreshadow electoral victory.
The RKP appears to be suffering from a public relations slip-up earlier in the week. While not losing much support, its growing appeal appears to have stagnated, likely as a result of negative coverage during the week.
The clear beneficiary of the comments is the FP. Our internal numbers show a dramatic swing by women voters to this party. While the FP has not cast itself as a "women's" party, the week's exchange has translated into sympathy from women voters.
The MDP and MP remain behind. Our numbers show little knowledge of these parties or their stances. At this point in the campaign name recognition is critical and these parties have yet to establish it. Neither party has really challenged the RKP for center-right voters. This means that while the RKP had a bad week, little political competition leaves the door open for them to reassert themselves with more conservative voters. Unless the MDP and MP develop a clear electoral stategy they face the real possibility of being squeezed out of the election.
Upcoming events this week could prove pivotal for parties to consuladate their support and appeal to new voter groups.
"If the election were held today, who would you support?"
TPP - 27%
FP - 16%
RKP - 15%
MDP -8%
MP - 8%
Don't Know/No Opinion - 26%
Analysis -
Our poll yesterday demonstrates some old and new trends.
The TPP continues to lead in the poll and its popularity continues to be growing. Our internal numbers show strong name recognition for the TPP and its leader, Blake Chaffins. The party shows strong support amongst voters labeling themselves liberal and moderate. The growth of TPP support may spell bad news for the other parties. The TPP is approaching the infamous 35% support mark. This mark, when reached in past elections, seems to foreshadow electoral victory.
The RKP appears to be suffering from a public relations slip-up earlier in the week. While not losing much support, its growing appeal appears to have stagnated, likely as a result of negative coverage during the week.
The clear beneficiary of the comments is the FP. Our internal numbers show a dramatic swing by women voters to this party. While the FP has not cast itself as a "women's" party, the week's exchange has translated into sympathy from women voters.
The MDP and MP remain behind. Our numbers show little knowledge of these parties or their stances. At this point in the campaign name recognition is critical and these parties have yet to establish it. Neither party has really challenged the RKP for center-right voters. This means that while the RKP had a bad week, little political competition leaves the door open for them to reassert themselves with more conservative voters. Unless the MDP and MP develop a clear electoral stategy they face the real possibility of being squeezed out of the election.
Upcoming events this week could prove pivotal for parties to consuladate their support and appeal to new voter groups.
Educational Forum
The Franklin Times -
The National Teachers Rally, the nation's largest teachers union, is organizing an educational forum. The forum's purpose, as explained by NTR's President Lauren McDonald, is to provide an opportunity for a free ranging and thought provoking discussion on the current issues facing education.
"As the educators of Franklin, we believe that education is a prime issue for our nation. It is also a complex issue that cannot be discussed in soundbites and press releases. A real discussion and debate is needed if we are ever to see progress. That is the purpose of this forum," explain McDonald.
The NTR invites all parties to participate in the forum. Parties are invited to participate through an internet discussion room sponsored by Nicenet. Parties willing to participate are encouraged to access the forum through the Nicenet link on the NECs election wiki and comment on the "Future of Education" thread.
The National Teachers Rally, the nation's largest teachers union, is organizing an educational forum. The forum's purpose, as explained by NTR's President Lauren McDonald, is to provide an opportunity for a free ranging and thought provoking discussion on the current issues facing education.
"As the educators of Franklin, we believe that education is a prime issue for our nation. It is also a complex issue that cannot be discussed in soundbites and press releases. A real discussion and debate is needed if we are ever to see progress. That is the purpose of this forum," explain McDonald.
The NTR invites all parties to participate in the forum. Parties are invited to participate through an internet discussion room sponsored by Nicenet. Parties willing to participate are encouraged to access the forum through the Nicenet link on the NECs election wiki and comment on the "Future of Education" thread.
Gun Gala
The Capital Courier -
Gun Gala - Next weekend, thousands of gun owners will meet at the Gun Gala, the largest gun show held in Franklin. The annual event, held this year in the nation's capital, represents not only a prime opportunity for gun buyers and sellers to do business, but also represents a political event.
"As our nation moves into its democratic future, it is critically important that our government respect the rights of gun owners," explained Greg Godsen, President of the Franklin Rifle Association (FRA). "Our members will be looking closely at the parties' policies and views when it comes to gun ownership."
Godsen went on to explain that while the group will not be extending direct invites to the parties, they encourage the parties to submit clear policies and views to the FRA's Executive Council that can be considered when making endorsement decisions. This can be done by both responding to the story and submitting comments on the "Campaign Events" page on the election wiki.
Many political analysts agree that gun rights will not play a pivotal role in the 2009 election, but this interest group and its supporters could play crucial roles in key states. "This will force many political parties to develop a delicate balancing act," stated Kyle Smithson, a political analyst.
Gun ownership is extremely high in the western States, while gun control remains a popular issue in urban areas of the East.
Gun Gala - Next weekend, thousands of gun owners will meet at the Gun Gala, the largest gun show held in Franklin. The annual event, held this year in the nation's capital, represents not only a prime opportunity for gun buyers and sellers to do business, but also represents a political event.
"As our nation moves into its democratic future, it is critically important that our government respect the rights of gun owners," explained Greg Godsen, President of the Franklin Rifle Association (FRA). "Our members will be looking closely at the parties' policies and views when it comes to gun ownership."
Godsen went on to explain that while the group will not be extending direct invites to the parties, they encourage the parties to submit clear policies and views to the FRA's Executive Council that can be considered when making endorsement decisions. This can be done by both responding to the story and submitting comments on the "Campaign Events" page on the election wiki.
Many political analysts agree that gun rights will not play a pivotal role in the 2009 election, but this interest group and its supporters could play crucial roles in key states. "This will force many political parties to develop a delicate balancing act," stated Kyle Smithson, a political analyst.
Gun ownership is extremely high in the western States, while gun control remains a popular issue in urban areas of the East.
Environmental Convention
The Franklin Times -
The Environmental Protection Council (EPC), one of the certified interest groups, has announced its 3rd Annual National Convention will be held March 12th through the 15th. It is inviting representatives from the five political parties to speak at its convention. Any party interested in speaking is to reply by March 10th and post a speech to the "Campaign Events" page on the election wiki by March 12th.
"We hope all the parties will attend and inform our members of their plans to protect and defend our precious environment," said Eric Greene, President of EPC.
The Environmental Protection Council (EPC), one of the certified interest groups, has announced its 3rd Annual National Convention will be held March 12th through the 15th. It is inviting representatives from the five political parties to speak at its convention. Any party interested in speaking is to reply by March 10th and post a speech to the "Campaign Events" page on the election wiki by March 12th.
"We hope all the parties will attend and inform our members of their plans to protect and defend our precious environment," said Eric Greene, President of EPC.
Analysts: Job losses could drown stimulus
Obama's response to economic crisis is tested as unemployment soars
Washington Post
By Neil Irwin and Annys Shin
updated 3:55 a.m. ET, Sat., March. 7, 2009
The nation is losing jobs so quickly that the government, racing to deal with the crisis, is having trouble keeping up.
The U.S. unemployment rate last month leapt half a percentage point, to 8.1 percent, the highest level since 1983, according to data released yesterday. The stunning pace of job losses raises the possibility that, perhaps as early as this summer, one in 10 Americans will be out of a job even though they are actively looking for work. It also means that the government faces even more pressure to take further action to stabilize the economy and the financial system.
President Obama, speaking in Columbus, Ohio, to police cadets whose jobs were saved with money from the $787 billion stimulus package, called the new unemployment figures "astounding."
"We have a responsibility to act," he said, "and that's what I intend to do."
Analysts increasingly view the administration's actions so far as insufficient given the scope of the problem. The stimulus package was designed to "save or create" 3.5 million jobs, according to the administration. But the nation has already lost 4.4 million jobs since the start of the recession. Many banks and other financial institutions, whose health is critical to the economy, are teetering, and the Treasury Department has yet to finalize the details of its plans to remove from their balance sheets the toxic assets dragging them down.
'A step behind'"It's premature to say we need another stimulus, but the economy is performing much worse than when [the law] was signed, and the odds are increasing that we'll need a bigger policy response," said Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com, who has advised Democratic lawmakers. "What we've learned is policy has been a step behind this whole downturn. It's important to get a step ahead."
The International Monetary Fund yesterday urged governments worldwide to consider additional fiscal stimulus, noting that the public sector must help prevent a collapse of confidence.
Consumer confidence in the U.S. economy has already been driven dangerously low by layoffs across nearly every sector. Last month alone, employers slashed 651,000 jobs from their payrolls, and job losses in December and January were far worse than originally reported, according to revised data released yesterday. Since December, employers have cut jobs at the sharpest pace since 1975.
But even the current job-loss figures mask the degree of pain among American workers. A broader measure, which includes people who want a job and have given up looking and those working part time but who want full-time work, rose nearly one percentage point, to 14.8 percent.
"I think what it shows is neither the government nor many economists have a grasp yet of how bad the economy really is right now," said Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist at the Economic Outlook Group. "We can't get our arms around what's going on."
There is little reason to think conditions for workers will get better in the coming months and many reasons to think the steep decline will continue; employment tends to lag behind overall growth in the economy by several months, and the nation, by all accounts, remains in recession. There have been some signs lately that consumer spending is stabilizing at low levels, but even if that trend holds up, it would probably take until summer for job losses to slow.
Bold enough?Economists are now calling into question whether the intricate suite of policies crafted by Congress, the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve are bold enough to deal with the scope of the economic damage.
"Up until the third quarter, we thought we were on track for a relatively moderate recession, but then in the fourth quarter, everything fell apart," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's.
The Obama administration's budget, released in late February, assumes that the jobless rate will average 8.1 percent this year. That now appears unlikely, which in turn could make officials rethink their approach to the crisis.
Regulators, for instance, are conducting "stress tests" of major banks so that the Treasury Department can better determine what kind of financial support they might need. Those tests assume that, in a particularly bleak scenario, the unemployment rate will average 8.9 percent this year and 10.3 percent next year. But if the government projections on unemployment turn out to be too rosy, officials could underestimate the trouble banks are in. A higher unemployment rate means greater losses for banks because more people default on their loans.
The worsening employment picture, meanwhile, could also create a hole too big for the stimulus package to fill.
As a result, government needs to step up and do more, said Heather Boushey, senior economist with the liberal Center for American Progress.
"It's not going to be enough, folks. I hate to break it to you," she said.
Foreclosure threatAnalysts generally expect stimulus spending to have a noticeable impact on the economy during the second half of this year. The money will continue to spur large-scale economic activity through the end of next year, with lesser impact in 2011 and beyond. But for many Americans, the need is urgent now.
That's particularly true for homeowners, more and more of whom are facing the threat of foreclosure. Rising unemployment will exacerbate their problems and could undermine the effectiveness of the Obama administration's plan to make mortgages more affordable.
"Last year, the role of unemployment was a factor in foreclosures, but it is undoubtedly more important now," said Paul Willen, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. "If you have no income, it's hard to pay any mortgage at all."
Andrew Tilton, a senior economist at Goldman Sachs, offered some reasons for optimism. The stimulus money has already started to flow, after all, and a joint Treasury-Fed program to prop up lending launched this week. "For the first time in a while, at least, it's possible to at least see how things could turn out better," Tilton said.
Washington Post
By Neil Irwin and Annys Shin
updated 3:55 a.m. ET, Sat., March. 7, 2009
The nation is losing jobs so quickly that the government, racing to deal with the crisis, is having trouble keeping up.
The U.S. unemployment rate last month leapt half a percentage point, to 8.1 percent, the highest level since 1983, according to data released yesterday. The stunning pace of job losses raises the possibility that, perhaps as early as this summer, one in 10 Americans will be out of a job even though they are actively looking for work. It also means that the government faces even more pressure to take further action to stabilize the economy and the financial system.
President Obama, speaking in Columbus, Ohio, to police cadets whose jobs were saved with money from the $787 billion stimulus package, called the new unemployment figures "astounding."
"We have a responsibility to act," he said, "and that's what I intend to do."
Analysts increasingly view the administration's actions so far as insufficient given the scope of the problem. The stimulus package was designed to "save or create" 3.5 million jobs, according to the administration. But the nation has already lost 4.4 million jobs since the start of the recession. Many banks and other financial institutions, whose health is critical to the economy, are teetering, and the Treasury Department has yet to finalize the details of its plans to remove from their balance sheets the toxic assets dragging them down.
'A step behind'"It's premature to say we need another stimulus, but the economy is performing much worse than when [the law] was signed, and the odds are increasing that we'll need a bigger policy response," said Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com, who has advised Democratic lawmakers. "What we've learned is policy has been a step behind this whole downturn. It's important to get a step ahead."
The International Monetary Fund yesterday urged governments worldwide to consider additional fiscal stimulus, noting that the public sector must help prevent a collapse of confidence.
Consumer confidence in the U.S. economy has already been driven dangerously low by layoffs across nearly every sector. Last month alone, employers slashed 651,000 jobs from their payrolls, and job losses in December and January were far worse than originally reported, according to revised data released yesterday. Since December, employers have cut jobs at the sharpest pace since 1975.
But even the current job-loss figures mask the degree of pain among American workers. A broader measure, which includes people who want a job and have given up looking and those working part time but who want full-time work, rose nearly one percentage point, to 14.8 percent.
"I think what it shows is neither the government nor many economists have a grasp yet of how bad the economy really is right now," said Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist at the Economic Outlook Group. "We can't get our arms around what's going on."
There is little reason to think conditions for workers will get better in the coming months and many reasons to think the steep decline will continue; employment tends to lag behind overall growth in the economy by several months, and the nation, by all accounts, remains in recession. There have been some signs lately that consumer spending is stabilizing at low levels, but even if that trend holds up, it would probably take until summer for job losses to slow.
Bold enough?Economists are now calling into question whether the intricate suite of policies crafted by Congress, the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve are bold enough to deal with the scope of the economic damage.
"Up until the third quarter, we thought we were on track for a relatively moderate recession, but then in the fourth quarter, everything fell apart," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's.
The Obama administration's budget, released in late February, assumes that the jobless rate will average 8.1 percent this year. That now appears unlikely, which in turn could make officials rethink their approach to the crisis.
Regulators, for instance, are conducting "stress tests" of major banks so that the Treasury Department can better determine what kind of financial support they might need. Those tests assume that, in a particularly bleak scenario, the unemployment rate will average 8.9 percent this year and 10.3 percent next year. But if the government projections on unemployment turn out to be too rosy, officials could underestimate the trouble banks are in. A higher unemployment rate means greater losses for banks because more people default on their loans.
The worsening employment picture, meanwhile, could also create a hole too big for the stimulus package to fill.
As a result, government needs to step up and do more, said Heather Boushey, senior economist with the liberal Center for American Progress.
"It's not going to be enough, folks. I hate to break it to you," she said.
Foreclosure threatAnalysts generally expect stimulus spending to have a noticeable impact on the economy during the second half of this year. The money will continue to spur large-scale economic activity through the end of next year, with lesser impact in 2011 and beyond. But for many Americans, the need is urgent now.
That's particularly true for homeowners, more and more of whom are facing the threat of foreclosure. Rising unemployment will exacerbate their problems and could undermine the effectiveness of the Obama administration's plan to make mortgages more affordable.
"Last year, the role of unemployment was a factor in foreclosures, but it is undoubtedly more important now," said Paul Willen, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. "If you have no income, it's hard to pay any mortgage at all."
Andrew Tilton, a senior economist at Goldman Sachs, offered some reasons for optimism. The stimulus money has already started to flow, after all, and a joint Treasury-Fed program to prop up lending launched this week. "For the first time in a while, at least, it's possible to at least see how things could turn out better," Tilton said.
To execute or not: A question of cost?
States discover it's cheaper to imprison killers for life than to execute them
AP: 3/6/09
After decades of moral arguments reaching biblical proportions, after long, twisted journeys to the nation's highest court and back, the death penalty may be abandoned by several states for a reason having nothing to do with right or wrong:
Money.
Turns out, it is cheaper to imprison killers for life than to execute them, according to a series of recent surveys. Tens of millions of dollars cheaper, politicians are learning, during a tumbling recession when nearly every state faces job cuts and massive deficits.
So an increasing number of them are considering abolishing capital punishment in favor of life imprisonment, not on principle but out of financial necessity.
"It's 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive," though most Americans believe the opposite, said Donald McCartin, a former California jurist known as "The Hanging Judge of Orange County" for sending nine men to death row.
Deep into retirement, he lost his faith in an eye for an eye and now speaks against it. What changed a mind so set on the ultimate punishment?
'Waste of time and money'California's legendarily slow appeals system, which produces an average wait of nearly 20 years from conviction to fatal injection — the longest in the nation. Of the nine convicted killers McCartin sent to death row, only one has died. Not by execution, but from a heart attack in custody.
"Every one of my cases is bogged up in the appellate system," said McCartin, who retired in 1993 after 15 years on the bench.
"It's a waste of time and money," said the 82-year-old, self-described right-wing Republican whose sonorous voice still commands attention. "The only thing it does is prolong the agony of the victims' families."
In 2007, time and money were the reasons New Jersey became the first state to ban executions since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1972.
Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine commuted the executions of 10 men to life imprisonment without parole. Legal costs were too great and produced no result, lawmakers said. After spending an estimated $4.2 million for each death sentence, the state had executed no one since 1963. Also, eliminating capital punishment eliminated the risk of executing an innocent person.
Out of 36 remaining states with the death penalty, at least eight have considered legislation this year to end it — Maryland, Nebraska, Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, New Hampshire, Washington and Kansas — an uncommon marriage between eastern liberals and western conservatives, built on economic hardship.
"This is the first time in which cost has been the prevalent issue in discussing the death penalty," said Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center, a data clearinghouse that favors abolition of capital punishment.
DNA evidenceThe most recent arguments against it centered on the ever-increasing number of convicts cleared by DNA evidence.
Some of the worst cases occurred in Illinois. In 2000, then-Gov. George H. Ryan placed a moratorium on executions after 13 people had been exonerated from death row for reasons including genetic testing and recanted testimony. Ryan declared the system "so fraught with error that it has come close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life."
He commuted the sentences of all 167 death row convicts, most to life imprisonment without parole. His moratorium is still in effect.
Across the country, the number of prisoners exonerated and released from death row is more than 130, with thousands of appeals clogging the courts.
Death penalty trials are more expensive for several reasons: They often require extra lawyers; there are strict experience requirements for attorneys, leading to lengthy appellate waits while capable counsel is sought for the accused; security costs are higher, as well as costs for processing evidence — DNA testing, for example, is far more expensive than simple blood analyses.
After sentencing, prices continue to rise. It costs more to house death row inmates, who are held in segregated sections, in individual cells, with guards delivering everything from daily meals to toilet paper.
In California, home to the nation's biggest death row population at 667, it costs an extra $90,000 per inmate to imprison someone sentenced to death — an additional expense that totals more than $63.3 million annually, according to a 2008 study by the state's Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice.
The panel, which agreed with California Chief Justice Ronald M. George that the state's death penalty system was "dysfunctional," blamed exorbitant costs on delays in finding qualified public defenders, a severe backlog in appellate reviews, and a high rate of cases being overturned on constitutional grounds.
"Failures in the administration of California's death penalty law create cynicism and disrespect for the rule of law," concluded the 117-page report.
Some prominent Californians have asked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to get rid of executions. Especially now, as service cuts and tax increases are pegged to fill a $42 billion budget hole. But it appears that the Republican governor will not abandon capital punishment anytime soon.
Meanwhile, the nationwide number of death sentences handed down has declined over the past decade, from 284 in 1999 to 111 in 2008. Reasons differ significantly, depending on who's providing them: Pro-death penalty activists say it's because crime rates have declined and execution is a strong deterrent; abolitionists say it's because jurors and judges are reluctant to risk taking a life when future scientific tests could prove the accused not guilty.
Executions, too, are dropping. There were 98 in 1999; 37 in 2008.
Still, the costs of capital punishment weigh heavily on legislators facing Solomon-like choices in these dismal economic times.
In Kansas, Republican state Sen. Caroline McGinn is pushing a bill that would repeal the death penalty effective July 1. Kansas, which voted to suspend tax refunds, faces a budget deficit of nearly $200 million. McGinn urged fellow legislators "to think outside the box" for ways to save money. According to a state survey, capital cases were 70 percent more expensive than comparable non-death penalty cases.
In New Mexico, Gov. Bill Richardson recently said his longtime support of capital punishment was wavering — and belt-tightening was one the reasons. As the state tries to plug a $450 million budget shortfall with cuts to schools and environmental agencies, a bill to end executions has already passed the House as a cost-saving measure. The state supreme court has ruled that more money must be given for public defenders in death penalty cases, but legislators have yet to act.
In Maryland, a 2008 Urban Institute study said taxpayers forked out at least $37.2 million for each of five executions since the death penalty was re-enacted in 1978. The survey, which examined 162 capital cases, found that simply seeking the death penalty added $186 million to prosecution costs. Gov. Martin O'Malley, who disdains the death penalty on moral and financial grounds, is pushing a bill to repeal it.
'Calculate the cost'There are many, of course, who refuse to change their minds, believing execution is the ultimate wage of the ultimate sin. They also say that death penalty cases don't have to be so expensive.
Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a pro-capital-punishment group, said, "Having an effective appeals process might very well cost less."
States "calculate the cost as if these people are going to spend their whole lives on death row. We should be revamping the appeals process so that these cases move more quickly," Scheidegger said.
But court systems and their costs vary greatly among states, as does the time it takes to exhaust appeals. It's doubtful that change could come quickly enough to generate savings during this roiling recession.
"It's all about money," said McCartin, the former California judge. "The reasons I changed my mind were between that and how the victims' families just get raped during appeals."
But if convicted killers get life imprisonment instead of death, is that letting them off easy?
Not a chance, says 52-year-old Gordon "Randy" Steidl. He lived on death row and then in the general prison population, after his sentence was commuted to life. He preferred his former accommodations.
Steidl was released in 2004 after being exonerated of the 1986 stabbing deaths of a newlywed couple in Paris, Ill. He had an alibi for the night of the murders, corroborated by others. But he was convicted on eyewitness testimony provided by the town drunk and the town drug addict. Both later recanted.
The state of Illinois spent $3.5 million trying to execute him, "only to end up giving me a life sentence," Steidl said. "And then 5 1/2 years after that, I was exonerated."
He spent 12 years in a tiny cell on death row. Then he was thrown into "gen pop," with its snarling mass of an open cellblock, where the prospect of being stabbed, raped or worse loomed constantly, alongside deafening noise and psychotic cell mates.
"If you really want to kill someone, give them life without parole," Steidl said in an even voice. He speaks of his troubled past as if it was trapped under glass or locked behind bars — visible but no longer able to torture him.
"It's worse than dying."
AP: 3/6/09
After decades of moral arguments reaching biblical proportions, after long, twisted journeys to the nation's highest court and back, the death penalty may be abandoned by several states for a reason having nothing to do with right or wrong:
Money.
Turns out, it is cheaper to imprison killers for life than to execute them, according to a series of recent surveys. Tens of millions of dollars cheaper, politicians are learning, during a tumbling recession when nearly every state faces job cuts and massive deficits.
So an increasing number of them are considering abolishing capital punishment in favor of life imprisonment, not on principle but out of financial necessity.
"It's 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive," though most Americans believe the opposite, said Donald McCartin, a former California jurist known as "The Hanging Judge of Orange County" for sending nine men to death row.
Deep into retirement, he lost his faith in an eye for an eye and now speaks against it. What changed a mind so set on the ultimate punishment?
'Waste of time and money'California's legendarily slow appeals system, which produces an average wait of nearly 20 years from conviction to fatal injection — the longest in the nation. Of the nine convicted killers McCartin sent to death row, only one has died. Not by execution, but from a heart attack in custody.
"Every one of my cases is bogged up in the appellate system," said McCartin, who retired in 1993 after 15 years on the bench.
"It's a waste of time and money," said the 82-year-old, self-described right-wing Republican whose sonorous voice still commands attention. "The only thing it does is prolong the agony of the victims' families."
In 2007, time and money were the reasons New Jersey became the first state to ban executions since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1972.
Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine commuted the executions of 10 men to life imprisonment without parole. Legal costs were too great and produced no result, lawmakers said. After spending an estimated $4.2 million for each death sentence, the state had executed no one since 1963. Also, eliminating capital punishment eliminated the risk of executing an innocent person.
Out of 36 remaining states with the death penalty, at least eight have considered legislation this year to end it — Maryland, Nebraska, Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, New Hampshire, Washington and Kansas — an uncommon marriage between eastern liberals and western conservatives, built on economic hardship.
"This is the first time in which cost has been the prevalent issue in discussing the death penalty," said Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center, a data clearinghouse that favors abolition of capital punishment.
DNA evidenceThe most recent arguments against it centered on the ever-increasing number of convicts cleared by DNA evidence.
Some of the worst cases occurred in Illinois. In 2000, then-Gov. George H. Ryan placed a moratorium on executions after 13 people had been exonerated from death row for reasons including genetic testing and recanted testimony. Ryan declared the system "so fraught with error that it has come close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life."
He commuted the sentences of all 167 death row convicts, most to life imprisonment without parole. His moratorium is still in effect.
Across the country, the number of prisoners exonerated and released from death row is more than 130, with thousands of appeals clogging the courts.
Death penalty trials are more expensive for several reasons: They often require extra lawyers; there are strict experience requirements for attorneys, leading to lengthy appellate waits while capable counsel is sought for the accused; security costs are higher, as well as costs for processing evidence — DNA testing, for example, is far more expensive than simple blood analyses.
After sentencing, prices continue to rise. It costs more to house death row inmates, who are held in segregated sections, in individual cells, with guards delivering everything from daily meals to toilet paper.
In California, home to the nation's biggest death row population at 667, it costs an extra $90,000 per inmate to imprison someone sentenced to death — an additional expense that totals more than $63.3 million annually, according to a 2008 study by the state's Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice.
The panel, which agreed with California Chief Justice Ronald M. George that the state's death penalty system was "dysfunctional," blamed exorbitant costs on delays in finding qualified public defenders, a severe backlog in appellate reviews, and a high rate of cases being overturned on constitutional grounds.
"Failures in the administration of California's death penalty law create cynicism and disrespect for the rule of law," concluded the 117-page report.
Some prominent Californians have asked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to get rid of executions. Especially now, as service cuts and tax increases are pegged to fill a $42 billion budget hole. But it appears that the Republican governor will not abandon capital punishment anytime soon.
Meanwhile, the nationwide number of death sentences handed down has declined over the past decade, from 284 in 1999 to 111 in 2008. Reasons differ significantly, depending on who's providing them: Pro-death penalty activists say it's because crime rates have declined and execution is a strong deterrent; abolitionists say it's because jurors and judges are reluctant to risk taking a life when future scientific tests could prove the accused not guilty.
Executions, too, are dropping. There were 98 in 1999; 37 in 2008.
Still, the costs of capital punishment weigh heavily on legislators facing Solomon-like choices in these dismal economic times.
In Kansas, Republican state Sen. Caroline McGinn is pushing a bill that would repeal the death penalty effective July 1. Kansas, which voted to suspend tax refunds, faces a budget deficit of nearly $200 million. McGinn urged fellow legislators "to think outside the box" for ways to save money. According to a state survey, capital cases were 70 percent more expensive than comparable non-death penalty cases.
In New Mexico, Gov. Bill Richardson recently said his longtime support of capital punishment was wavering — and belt-tightening was one the reasons. As the state tries to plug a $450 million budget shortfall with cuts to schools and environmental agencies, a bill to end executions has already passed the House as a cost-saving measure. The state supreme court has ruled that more money must be given for public defenders in death penalty cases, but legislators have yet to act.
In Maryland, a 2008 Urban Institute study said taxpayers forked out at least $37.2 million for each of five executions since the death penalty was re-enacted in 1978. The survey, which examined 162 capital cases, found that simply seeking the death penalty added $186 million to prosecution costs. Gov. Martin O'Malley, who disdains the death penalty on moral and financial grounds, is pushing a bill to repeal it.
'Calculate the cost'There are many, of course, who refuse to change their minds, believing execution is the ultimate wage of the ultimate sin. They also say that death penalty cases don't have to be so expensive.
Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a pro-capital-punishment group, said, "Having an effective appeals process might very well cost less."
States "calculate the cost as if these people are going to spend their whole lives on death row. We should be revamping the appeals process so that these cases move more quickly," Scheidegger said.
But court systems and their costs vary greatly among states, as does the time it takes to exhaust appeals. It's doubtful that change could come quickly enough to generate savings during this roiling recession.
"It's all about money," said McCartin, the former California judge. "The reasons I changed my mind were between that and how the victims' families just get raped during appeals."
But if convicted killers get life imprisonment instead of death, is that letting them off easy?
Not a chance, says 52-year-old Gordon "Randy" Steidl. He lived on death row and then in the general prison population, after his sentence was commuted to life. He preferred his former accommodations.
Steidl was released in 2004 after being exonerated of the 1986 stabbing deaths of a newlywed couple in Paris, Ill. He had an alibi for the night of the murders, corroborated by others. But he was convicted on eyewitness testimony provided by the town drunk and the town drug addict. Both later recanted.
The state of Illinois spent $3.5 million trying to execute him, "only to end up giving me a life sentence," Steidl said. "And then 5 1/2 years after that, I was exonerated."
He spent 12 years in a tiny cell on death row. Then he was thrown into "gen pop," with its snarling mass of an open cellblock, where the prospect of being stabbed, raped or worse loomed constantly, alongside deafening noise and psychotic cell mates.
"If you really want to kill someone, give them life without parole," Steidl said in an even voice. He speaks of his troubled past as if it was trapped under glass or locked behind bars — visible but no longer able to torture him.
"It's worse than dying."
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Rallies in Wayne
The Capital Courier -
Wayne marked the epicenter of the political world today. In less than three hours time the citizens of this state were treated with two political rallies. Both the FP and TPP held events hoping to draw political support in this traditionally swing state. Wayne with is large and diverse population has long favored a moderate political message. However, recently the economic downturn has hit Wayne hard leaving a door open for a party with a strong economic message. It is clear that both the FP, which held a rally for the opening of their state headquarters, and the TPP, which held a rally as part of their nationwide barnstorm, view the state as prime political real estate.
Wayne marked the epicenter of the political world today. In less than three hours time the citizens of this state were treated with two political rallies. Both the FP and TPP held events hoping to draw political support in this traditionally swing state. Wayne with is large and diverse population has long favored a moderate political message. However, recently the economic downturn has hit Wayne hard leaving a door open for a party with a strong economic message. It is clear that both the FP, which held a rally for the opening of their state headquarters, and the TPP, which held a rally as part of their nationwide barnstorm, view the state as prime political real estate.
Sexism in the Race
The Franklin Times -
Gender issues can be tricky, and this is quickly becoming apparent as the election cycle heats up. Today, the Franklin Organization of Women (FOW) issued a stinging press release demanding an apology from RKP Spokesman Scott Trammell for comments he made yesterday. In a statement to reporters, Trammell had stated, "Women do have the right to choose what happens to their own bodies. If a woman doesn't want a baby, she should give it up for adoption or keep her clothes on. Decisions have consequences. " Trammell had been responding to recent FP criticism of RKP policies. The comment drew instant outrage from the FOW - "Mr. Trammell, as spokesman for one of our nation's political parties, has a responsibility to represent all Franklinites no matter their gender. His comments yesterday reveal a deficiency in this responsibility. We surely hope his comments do not reflect the official views of his party toward women, for they display an utter disregard for women who are violently sexually assaulted. We believe it is appropriate for Mr. Trammell to apologize for his insensitive comments and ask for clarification from his party in regards to gender rights and equality." While the RKP and FOW surely differ in their political views, Trammell's comments could alienate women voters.
Gender issues can be tricky, and this is quickly becoming apparent as the election cycle heats up. Today, the Franklin Organization of Women (FOW) issued a stinging press release demanding an apology from RKP Spokesman Scott Trammell for comments he made yesterday. In a statement to reporters, Trammell had stated, "Women do have the right to choose what happens to their own bodies. If a woman doesn't want a baby, she should give it up for adoption or keep her clothes on. Decisions have consequences. " Trammell had been responding to recent FP criticism of RKP policies. The comment drew instant outrage from the FOW - "Mr. Trammell, as spokesman for one of our nation's political parties, has a responsibility to represent all Franklinites no matter their gender. His comments yesterday reveal a deficiency in this responsibility. We surely hope his comments do not reflect the official views of his party toward women, for they display an utter disregard for women who are violently sexually assaulted. We believe it is appropriate for Mr. Trammell to apologize for his insensitive comments and ask for clarification from his party in regards to gender rights and equality." While the RKP and FOW surely differ in their political views, Trammell's comments could alienate women voters.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Tax Revenue Projections Revised
Official Statement: Ministry of the Treasury -
Due to current economic pressures, the tax revenue projections have been revised downward. The currently used progressive income tax structure will only generate $80 billion dollars in revenue, instead of the current $120 billion. This severely changes the nation's tax and debt burdens and will have to be figured in any recalculations of tax policy.
Due to current economic pressures, the tax revenue projections have been revised downward. The currently used progressive income tax structure will only generate $80 billion dollars in revenue, instead of the current $120 billion. This severely changes the nation's tax and debt burdens and will have to be figured in any recalculations of tax policy.
Mobley Final Legislative Push Fails
The Capital Courier -
Prime Minister Mobley's last legislative effort, a fiscal bill designed to shore up the growing budget deficit, went down in defeat today on the floor of the General Assembly. Losing by two votes, the bill was unable to garner the support of key coalition MPs (members of parliament). When these members' votes were combined with the united votes of the opposition success was impossible.
The legislation looked to remove troops from Iraq and cut pay to public sector employees as means to close the growing budget deficit now projected at over $80 billion. Recent deficit figures have increased as tax revenue has fallen due to the economic recession now gripping the country.
Clearly tired and frustrated by the bills failure, the Prime Minister thanked all who had served in the government in the last year. The bill's defeat marks the official end to the 2nd General Assembly. The Prime Minister and major cabinet ministers will stay in place in a care taking role as elections are held and a new government is chosen. What remains unclear is how current General Assembly members will proceed. Many will be looking to join the new parties and run again. This could shape the electoral outcome along with the biggest wild card still unplayed - a endorsement from the current Prime Minister.
Prime Minister Mobley's last legislative effort, a fiscal bill designed to shore up the growing budget deficit, went down in defeat today on the floor of the General Assembly. Losing by two votes, the bill was unable to garner the support of key coalition MPs (members of parliament). When these members' votes were combined with the united votes of the opposition success was impossible.
The legislation looked to remove troops from Iraq and cut pay to public sector employees as means to close the growing budget deficit now projected at over $80 billion. Recent deficit figures have increased as tax revenue has fallen due to the economic recession now gripping the country.
Clearly tired and frustrated by the bills failure, the Prime Minister thanked all who had served in the government in the last year. The bill's defeat marks the official end to the 2nd General Assembly. The Prime Minister and major cabinet ministers will stay in place in a care taking role as elections are held and a new government is chosen. What remains unclear is how current General Assembly members will proceed. Many will be looking to join the new parties and run again. This could shape the electoral outcome along with the biggest wild card still unplayed - a endorsement from the current Prime Minister.
Massive Rally in Bordeaux
The Franklin Times -
On the steps of the newly opened party headquarters, in Pennyroyal's capital, Bordeaux, TPP Party Leader Chaffins, Deputy Leader Zornes, and Party Spokeswoman Hensley greeted a large crowd of some 15,000. In prepared remarks, the TPP highlighted a legislative agenda that it clearly believes to be a winner. Speaking to the crowd, Chaffins highlighted his party's stimulus plan and quest for alternative energy. It is clear that the TPP views the economy as the winning issue and recent polls appear to bare this out. This has only become more acute as new unemployment figures put the nation's rate at 9.8%. This represents a dramatic jump marked by layoffs in the manufacturing and service industries.
The stop in Bordeaux is no accident, for this is the heart of liberal ideology in Franklin. Long a liberal bastion, Bordeaux and much of the state of Pennyroyal have lent their political support to center-left parties. In the 2008 elections, Pennyroyal voters gave center-left parties 53 of their 68 legislative seats. A play is being made and so far no organization can rival the program being created by the TPP.
On the steps of the newly opened party headquarters, in Pennyroyal's capital, Bordeaux, TPP Party Leader Chaffins, Deputy Leader Zornes, and Party Spokeswoman Hensley greeted a large crowd of some 15,000. In prepared remarks, the TPP highlighted a legislative agenda that it clearly believes to be a winner. Speaking to the crowd, Chaffins highlighted his party's stimulus plan and quest for alternative energy. It is clear that the TPP views the economy as the winning issue and recent polls appear to bare this out. This has only become more acute as new unemployment figures put the nation's rate at 9.8%. This represents a dramatic jump marked by layoffs in the manufacturing and service industries.
The stop in Bordeaux is no accident, for this is the heart of liberal ideology in Franklin. Long a liberal bastion, Bordeaux and much of the state of Pennyroyal have lent their political support to center-left parties. In the 2008 elections, Pennyroyal voters gave center-left parties 53 of their 68 legislative seats. A play is being made and so far no organization can rival the program being created by the TPP.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Wallup Poll 3/1/09
Wallup poll 3/1/09
If the election were held today, which party would you support?
TPP - 21%
RKP - 15%
FP - 8%
MAD - 7%
MP - 7%
Don't Know/No Opinion - 42%
Analysis:
The TPP is clearly benefiting from early organizational and campaign investments. These early moves have resulted in higher name recognition amongst the voting population and positive news coverage. The RKP appears to be consolidating a conservative base through its appeals to conservative economic philosophy and has benefited from no direct challenge on the right. The FP, MAD, and MP find growing support but as of this point are behind. What remains unclear is if any party will compete for the center-right voting bloc with the RKP or if the TPP will be forced to move to the far left or toward the center as it tries to crowd out the FP, MAD, or MP. These undetermined outcomes will depend on the strategy adopted by all five parties and how each responds to the others in the coming weeks. Also, as social policies develop the political landscape could change dramatically. There also remains a huge undecided bloc of voters who simply have not seen or heard enough to make a commitment. This creates a fertile electoral field for any party to target.
If the election were held today, which party would you support?
TPP - 21%
RKP - 15%
FP - 8%
MAD - 7%
MP - 7%
Don't Know/No Opinion - 42%
Analysis:
The TPP is clearly benefiting from early organizational and campaign investments. These early moves have resulted in higher name recognition amongst the voting population and positive news coverage. The RKP appears to be consolidating a conservative base through its appeals to conservative economic philosophy and has benefited from no direct challenge on the right. The FP, MAD, and MP find growing support but as of this point are behind. What remains unclear is if any party will compete for the center-right voting bloc with the RKP or if the TPP will be forced to move to the far left or toward the center as it tries to crowd out the FP, MAD, or MP. These undetermined outcomes will depend on the strategy adopted by all five parties and how each responds to the others in the coming weeks. Also, as social policies develop the political landscape could change dramatically. There also remains a huge undecided bloc of voters who simply have not seen or heard enough to make a commitment. This creates a fertile electoral field for any party to target.
To Subsidize or Not To Subsidize
Franklin News Service -
Central to any key economic philosophy is the subsidies question. Yet, sometimes geographical or regional concerns override ideology when it comes to the actual subsidy in question. Agricultural subsidies often have this effect. How should the government handle farmers and the subsitizing of their crops?
Below: the current battle in the United States...
Criticism rains on Obama's farm subsidy cut idea
Reuter News Service
By Charles Abbott Charles Abbott – Sun Mar 1
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Wally Darneille has two words for President Barack Obama's proposal to end the so-called direct payment subsidy to large U.S. farmers: "That's insanity."
"I think we're really going down the wrong path here," said Darneille, the head of a farmer-owned cotton marketing cooperative in Lubbock, Texas.
An array of lawmakers and farm groups agree, suggesting poor odds for the idea to become law.
Foes say the idea is poorly timed and aimed at growers who account for three-fourths of farm production. Two longtime Senate backers of farm subsidy reform oppose Obama's proposal.
As part of his 2010 budget, Obama proposed phasing-out direct payments to farmers with sales of more than $500,000 a year, to save $9.8 billion over 10 years.
Direct payments, which total $5.2 billion a year, are paid regardless of crop prices.
"Large farmers are well-positioned to replace those payments with alternate sources of income from emerging markets for environmental services, such as carbon sequestration, renewable energy production and providing clean air, clean water and wildlife habitat," the White House budget documents said.
Criticism of the direct-payment plan eclipsed a companion White House proposal for a $250,000 a year cap on farm subsidy payments, the usual battleground for controlling subsidies.
"Most full-time farmers, commercial farmers ... it looks to me like they're going to get hit," said Daryll Ray, a University of Tennessee agricultural economist.
"It will include any livestock operations you have. You might even go over (the sales limit) on livestock alone."
A farmer could reach $500,000 in sales with 885 acres of corn or 2,250 acres of lower-yielding wheat.
Roughly 126,000 U.S. farms have sales over $500,000 a year, according to the Agriculture Department.
"We did some figuring, and it would not take much to get to that cap, said Tim Bartram, who farms 400 acres of wheat in Guthrie, Oklahoma. "They are showing a real lack of understanding of agriculture."
FAMILY BUSINESS
Gregory Guenther, a farmer from Belleville, Illinois, said the "agribusinesses" are actually family operations.
"Brothers or a father and son or whatever have combined their resources, their acreage, into one big operation in order to capture volume discounts on seed, fertilizer, chemicals, or things like that which make them more efficient," he said.
"Each of those individuals that are involved in this so-called corporate farm, they only have the income off of a few hundred of those acres," said Guenther.
Bartram and Guenther were interviewed at a farm conference in Grapevine, Texas. Darneille spoke at an USDA meeting.
The Obama proposal faces opposition in Congress, which has taken the lead in farm policy in recent years.
Lawmakers overrode two presidential vetoes last year to enact a five-year farm law that bans crop subsidies to people with more than $500,000 in income from off the farm and tightened subsidy rules somewhat.
They rejected a $250,000 payment cap.
"We just passed a fiscally responsible Farm Bill that made cuts to farm programs, so now is not the time to reopen it," said House Agriculture Committee chairman Collin Peterson.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, said he opposed any effort to cut support for the farm safety net, especially when the economy was so weak.
The two most direct ways to cut direct payments would be for the House and Senate Agriculture committees to pass a bill or for the budget panels to order long-term cuts.
Opposition by Peterson and Conrad would make those routes more difficult.
"While it aims for the right goal, the approach outlined in the president's budget is not the best way to ensure farm payments go to those who need it most," said Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican who favors a $250,000 cap on payments.
"I'm a farmer and I know that gross income or sales revenue does not reflect your ability to pay."
Jay Hardwick, chairman of the National Cotton Council, said "the direct payments are critical to a producer's ability to secure financing."
Bob Young, an economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said farmers often feel under attack from their city cousins and that it was time to build connections with them. "I think we need a renewed emphasis on what is involved in agriculture today," he said.
Central to any key economic philosophy is the subsidies question. Yet, sometimes geographical or regional concerns override ideology when it comes to the actual subsidy in question. Agricultural subsidies often have this effect. How should the government handle farmers and the subsitizing of their crops?
Below: the current battle in the United States...
Criticism rains on Obama's farm subsidy cut idea
Reuter News Service
By Charles Abbott Charles Abbott – Sun Mar 1
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Wally Darneille has two words for President Barack Obama's proposal to end the so-called direct payment subsidy to large U.S. farmers: "That's insanity."
"I think we're really going down the wrong path here," said Darneille, the head of a farmer-owned cotton marketing cooperative in Lubbock, Texas.
An array of lawmakers and farm groups agree, suggesting poor odds for the idea to become law.
Foes say the idea is poorly timed and aimed at growers who account for three-fourths of farm production. Two longtime Senate backers of farm subsidy reform oppose Obama's proposal.
As part of his 2010 budget, Obama proposed phasing-out direct payments to farmers with sales of more than $500,000 a year, to save $9.8 billion over 10 years.
Direct payments, which total $5.2 billion a year, are paid regardless of crop prices.
"Large farmers are well-positioned to replace those payments with alternate sources of income from emerging markets for environmental services, such as carbon sequestration, renewable energy production and providing clean air, clean water and wildlife habitat," the White House budget documents said.
Criticism of the direct-payment plan eclipsed a companion White House proposal for a $250,000 a year cap on farm subsidy payments, the usual battleground for controlling subsidies.
"Most full-time farmers, commercial farmers ... it looks to me like they're going to get hit," said Daryll Ray, a University of Tennessee agricultural economist.
"It will include any livestock operations you have. You might even go over (the sales limit) on livestock alone."
A farmer could reach $500,000 in sales with 885 acres of corn or 2,250 acres of lower-yielding wheat.
Roughly 126,000 U.S. farms have sales over $500,000 a year, according to the Agriculture Department.
"We did some figuring, and it would not take much to get to that cap, said Tim Bartram, who farms 400 acres of wheat in Guthrie, Oklahoma. "They are showing a real lack of understanding of agriculture."
FAMILY BUSINESS
Gregory Guenther, a farmer from Belleville, Illinois, said the "agribusinesses" are actually family operations.
"Brothers or a father and son or whatever have combined their resources, their acreage, into one big operation in order to capture volume discounts on seed, fertilizer, chemicals, or things like that which make them more efficient," he said.
"Each of those individuals that are involved in this so-called corporate farm, they only have the income off of a few hundred of those acres," said Guenther.
Bartram and Guenther were interviewed at a farm conference in Grapevine, Texas. Darneille spoke at an USDA meeting.
The Obama proposal faces opposition in Congress, which has taken the lead in farm policy in recent years.
Lawmakers overrode two presidential vetoes last year to enact a five-year farm law that bans crop subsidies to people with more than $500,000 in income from off the farm and tightened subsidy rules somewhat.
They rejected a $250,000 payment cap.
"We just passed a fiscally responsible Farm Bill that made cuts to farm programs, so now is not the time to reopen it," said House Agriculture Committee chairman Collin Peterson.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, said he opposed any effort to cut support for the farm safety net, especially when the economy was so weak.
The two most direct ways to cut direct payments would be for the House and Senate Agriculture committees to pass a bill or for the budget panels to order long-term cuts.
Opposition by Peterson and Conrad would make those routes more difficult.
"While it aims for the right goal, the approach outlined in the president's budget is not the best way to ensure farm payments go to those who need it most," said Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican who favors a $250,000 cap on payments.
"I'm a farmer and I know that gross income or sales revenue does not reflect your ability to pay."
Jay Hardwick, chairman of the National Cotton Council, said "the direct payments are critical to a producer's ability to secure financing."
Bob Young, an economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said farmers often feel under attack from their city cousins and that it was time to build connections with them. "I think we need a renewed emphasis on what is involved in agriculture today," he said.
A War on Education?
Franklin Times
Letter to the Editor
The global meltdown is upon us. Economies here at home and across the globe are faltering and shrinking. The U.S. economy is reported to have shrunk 6.2 % in the fourth quarter of 2008 and numbers coming out this week for our nation are expected to show similar results. There can be no doubt that our economy, like that of our neighbors, is headed in the wrong direction.
Time can be spent pointing fingers later, but now we must no longer ignore an issue that has for too long been neglected. Since the absolute monarch fell three years ago we have witnessed a great democratic transition. Yet, we have also seen two consecutive democratically elected governments fail to address the issues facing education today.
Through two election cycles parties have promised veiled promises wrapped in empty rhetoric on the education issue. Furthermore, in the past two governments little effort has been made to confront the problems facing our nation's educational system.
Now with our nation facing a crippling economic contraction, the fear has grown that education will once again move to the back-burner. I assert that this would be a fatal mistake. The road out of our economic crisis and the foundation of any long-term recovery rests in the creation and promotion of a sound educational system.
The economy of fifty years ago no longer exists. Our world is more interconnected then ever before, and as a result we must adjust. To be competitive in this new global environment an educated work force is a necessity.
The need for help will also become more acute if this crisis continues. As tax revenue falls, funding for public services (like education) will surely fall too; as states are forced to cut back. The future government must not let this happen. To cut funding in education is to sacrifice the future opportunities for our children.
The members I represent are looking for real solutions and answers as to how the educational system will be run by future governments. We are looking for honest and clear policies and look forward to seeing them in the coming days.
Lauren McDonald
The National Teachers Rally President
Franklin Workers Alliance Co-Chair
Letter to the Editor
The global meltdown is upon us. Economies here at home and across the globe are faltering and shrinking. The U.S. economy is reported to have shrunk 6.2 % in the fourth quarter of 2008 and numbers coming out this week for our nation are expected to show similar results. There can be no doubt that our economy, like that of our neighbors, is headed in the wrong direction.
Time can be spent pointing fingers later, but now we must no longer ignore an issue that has for too long been neglected. Since the absolute monarch fell three years ago we have witnessed a great democratic transition. Yet, we have also seen two consecutive democratically elected governments fail to address the issues facing education today.
Through two election cycles parties have promised veiled promises wrapped in empty rhetoric on the education issue. Furthermore, in the past two governments little effort has been made to confront the problems facing our nation's educational system.
Now with our nation facing a crippling economic contraction, the fear has grown that education will once again move to the back-burner. I assert that this would be a fatal mistake. The road out of our economic crisis and the foundation of any long-term recovery rests in the creation and promotion of a sound educational system.
The economy of fifty years ago no longer exists. Our world is more interconnected then ever before, and as a result we must adjust. To be competitive in this new global environment an educated work force is a necessity.
The need for help will also become more acute if this crisis continues. As tax revenue falls, funding for public services (like education) will surely fall too; as states are forced to cut back. The future government must not let this happen. To cut funding in education is to sacrifice the future opportunities for our children.
The members I represent are looking for real solutions and answers as to how the educational system will be run by future governments. We are looking for honest and clear policies and look forward to seeing them in the coming days.
Lauren McDonald
The National Teachers Rally President
Franklin Workers Alliance Co-Chair
The War America Gave Mexico
Los Angeles Times
Tim Rutten
February 28, 2009
Early in the last century, near the end of his 34 bloody years in power, the aging Mexican strongman Porfirio Diaz mused that his country's great misfortune was to be located "so far from God and so near the United States."
The shrewd old thief's observation came to mind this week when U.S. officials announced they'd joined with Mexican authorities in arresting more than 730 people allegedly linked to the Sinaloa drug cartel. That gang is the most powerful of the numerous criminal organizations smuggling drugs into the United States. Their intramural quarrels and resistance to a government crackdown have plunged Mexico into a round of violence unseen since the Cristero Wars in the 1920s. Over the last year, about 6,000 Mexicans have been killed.
Many fear that Mexico could be sliding into civil instability because of the cartels' increasing willingness to use violence and bribery to protect their business. It's an old story in other parts of Latin America, and for that reason, three of the region's former heads of state -- including onetime Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo -- recently issued a report urging the U.S. to consider legalizing at least marijuana. Fat chance.
Similarly, at a news conference this week, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. set off a firestorm when he mentioned in passing that the U.S. should consider restoring its ban on the sale of military-style assault weapons. That prohibition, adopted in 1994, contained a clause requiring Congress to renew the ban after 10 years. To nobody's surprise, Congress didn't, and now assault weapons, semiautomatic pistols and .50-caliber rifles that are illegal in Mexico flow into the hands of the drug traffickers there from an estimated 6,000 American gun dealers in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.
Thus, America's political decisions to treat drug addiction as a crime rather than a public health problem, and to legalize AK-47s but not pot, fuel an incipient civil war in Mexico.
Mexico is a complex country with a resourceful and creative people. It also is -- like other Latin American nations ravaged by the drug trade -- burdened with a stunted civil society, chronic maldistribution of wealth, ingrained corruption and endemic political violence. These pathologies have made it painfully susceptible to the social and economic distortions created by America's seemingly insatiable desire for drugs.
For a country as proud of its cultural autonomy as Mexico traditionally has been, one of the bitter ironies must be the way in which the pseudo-romantic culture of drug trafficking has commandeered so much of the nation's popular imagination. In the cities of Mexico's northern and western states, traffickers and wannabe narcos mimic the dress and tattoos of Los Angeles' street gangs.
One of Mexico's most ubiquitous popular music genres is the narco-corrido, ballads built on traditional norteño dance music but with lyrics that romanticize the drug trade. It's a brand of music born in the cantinas, dance clubs and swap meets of L.A. and the Coachella Valley, in large part because of a gifted young composer named Rosalino "Chalino" Sanchez.
He was born on a ranch in Sinaloa, an epicenter of Mexico's drug trade, and had to flee as an illegal immigrant to California after killing a local drug trafficker who had raped his sister. Initially, he worked the Coachella fields, but soon found a place in Southern California's thriving underground Mexican music scene.
Sometimes, Sanchez simply set down the stories he heard from the dealers and smugglers in the bars and at the swap meets; sometimes, he worked on commissions from the narcos themselves, minor criminals who saw a chance for cassette-based immortality. In 1992, he returnedto Sinaloa for a concert and wasmurdered execution-style. His killers never were found, but his narcocorridos spawned an army of imitators.
Sanchez's strange and tragic story is a metaphor for the destructive symbiosis in which the U.S. and Mexico find themselves. As Times reporter Sam Quinones, who profiled Sanchez for his book, "True Tales From Another Mexico," puts it, "Los Angeles is Mexico's culture factory."
Mexico's drug war could escalate into widespread civil strife with incalculable consequences for the U.S. -- and, particularly, the Southwest. And we're kidding ourselves if we insist that this is a problem that can be wholly solved south of the border, or quarantined there if events spiral out of control. It's impossible to know how close either the United States or Mexico is to God, but geographically, culturally and economically, they've never been closer to one another.
If Americans really are concerned about the horrific toll inflicted by Mexico's narco-gangsters, we need to ask some tough questions about our own cultural and political delusions.
timothy.rutten@latimes.com
Tim Rutten
February 28, 2009
Early in the last century, near the end of his 34 bloody years in power, the aging Mexican strongman Porfirio Diaz mused that his country's great misfortune was to be located "so far from God and so near the United States."
The shrewd old thief's observation came to mind this week when U.S. officials announced they'd joined with Mexican authorities in arresting more than 730 people allegedly linked to the Sinaloa drug cartel. That gang is the most powerful of the numerous criminal organizations smuggling drugs into the United States. Their intramural quarrels and resistance to a government crackdown have plunged Mexico into a round of violence unseen since the Cristero Wars in the 1920s. Over the last year, about 6,000 Mexicans have been killed.
Many fear that Mexico could be sliding into civil instability because of the cartels' increasing willingness to use violence and bribery to protect their business. It's an old story in other parts of Latin America, and for that reason, three of the region's former heads of state -- including onetime Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo -- recently issued a report urging the U.S. to consider legalizing at least marijuana. Fat chance.
Similarly, at a news conference this week, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. set off a firestorm when he mentioned in passing that the U.S. should consider restoring its ban on the sale of military-style assault weapons. That prohibition, adopted in 1994, contained a clause requiring Congress to renew the ban after 10 years. To nobody's surprise, Congress didn't, and now assault weapons, semiautomatic pistols and .50-caliber rifles that are illegal in Mexico flow into the hands of the drug traffickers there from an estimated 6,000 American gun dealers in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.
Thus, America's political decisions to treat drug addiction as a crime rather than a public health problem, and to legalize AK-47s but not pot, fuel an incipient civil war in Mexico.
Mexico is a complex country with a resourceful and creative people. It also is -- like other Latin American nations ravaged by the drug trade -- burdened with a stunted civil society, chronic maldistribution of wealth, ingrained corruption and endemic political violence. These pathologies have made it painfully susceptible to the social and economic distortions created by America's seemingly insatiable desire for drugs.
For a country as proud of its cultural autonomy as Mexico traditionally has been, one of the bitter ironies must be the way in which the pseudo-romantic culture of drug trafficking has commandeered so much of the nation's popular imagination. In the cities of Mexico's northern and western states, traffickers and wannabe narcos mimic the dress and tattoos of Los Angeles' street gangs.
One of Mexico's most ubiquitous popular music genres is the narco-corrido, ballads built on traditional norteño dance music but with lyrics that romanticize the drug trade. It's a brand of music born in the cantinas, dance clubs and swap meets of L.A. and the Coachella Valley, in large part because of a gifted young composer named Rosalino "Chalino" Sanchez.
He was born on a ranch in Sinaloa, an epicenter of Mexico's drug trade, and had to flee as an illegal immigrant to California after killing a local drug trafficker who had raped his sister. Initially, he worked the Coachella fields, but soon found a place in Southern California's thriving underground Mexican music scene.
Sometimes, Sanchez simply set down the stories he heard from the dealers and smugglers in the bars and at the swap meets; sometimes, he worked on commissions from the narcos themselves, minor criminals who saw a chance for cassette-based immortality. In 1992, he returnedto Sinaloa for a concert and wasmurdered execution-style. His killers never were found, but his narcocorridos spawned an army of imitators.
Sanchez's strange and tragic story is a metaphor for the destructive symbiosis in which the U.S. and Mexico find themselves. As Times reporter Sam Quinones, who profiled Sanchez for his book, "True Tales From Another Mexico," puts it, "Los Angeles is Mexico's culture factory."
Mexico's drug war could escalate into widespread civil strife with incalculable consequences for the U.S. -- and, particularly, the Southwest. And we're kidding ourselves if we insist that this is a problem that can be wholly solved south of the border, or quarantined there if events spiral out of control. It's impossible to know how close either the United States or Mexico is to God, but geographically, culturally and economically, they've never been closer to one another.
If Americans really are concerned about the horrific toll inflicted by Mexico's narco-gangsters, we need to ask some tough questions about our own cultural and political delusions.
timothy.rutten@latimes.com
Gordon Brown must take the case for free trade into the lion's den
When the Gordon Brown addresses Congress this week, he must argue against the evils of protectionism, writes Malcolm Rifkind.
The Telegraph
March 1, 2009
The more battered a prime minister is at home the more he will relish the welcome and the accolades he will receive when he travels overseas. For ministers are honoured abroad while they are abused in their own country.
Even their lesser Cabinet colleagues have the same weakness. When I was minister of defence it was nice to be met with a guard of honour when arriving in Washington and Moscow. The pleasure of the latter was, I must confess, somewhat reduced when I was informed, as we landed, that I was expected to thank them in Russian.
Gordon Brown, this week, will be met by President Obama at the White House and will address both Houses of Congress. He is entitled to feel pleased at being the first European leader to make it to the Oval Office and one of only five British prime ministers to be so honoured by Congress. But before he gets carried away he should realise that these events will not seem quite so historic in Washington. The last foreign leader to address Congress was Ireland's Bertie Ahern. And President Obama has already welcomed to the White House the Japanese prime minister, Taro Aso, who is even more unpopular in Japan than Mr Brown is in Britain.
And while there will be the ritual endorsement of the "special relationship" between the United States and the United Kingdom, that, too, may not be all it appears. As President Obama welcomed his Japanese guest he described the relationship of their two countries as "extraordinarily important" and explained that that was why Mr Aso "is the first foreign dignitary to visit me here in the Oval Office". There is no shortage of flattery in Washington.
Much more important than the welcomes and the compliments will be the messages that Mr Brown takes with him to the White House and the Capitol. The three issues that Mr Brown must concentrate on are Afghanistan, Iran and, of course, the global economic crisis. His message on Afghanistan can be simple and clear. It can never again be allowed to be a base for al-Qaeda terrorists. We match our words with the valour of our soldiers. But other worthy objectives, like the elimination of corruption and the poppy trade, will take a generation and must be divorced from our immediate strategy, since failure to deliver will simply cause disillusion and the appearance of total failure.
On Iran, Mr Brown should warmly endorse the President's proposed dialogue with Tehran. If George W Bush could normalise relations with Colonel Gaddafi's Libya then a comparable deal can be done with Iran. The Prime Minister should also canvass the excellent proposal, put forward by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, that Iran's neighbours, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt, should be invited to join the UN Security Council's negotiations with Iran to halt its nuclear weapon ambitions. They have more to fear than anyone else and must play their part in finding a solution.
When it comes to the world economic crisis, what Gordon Brown says to Congress will matter more than his discussions in the White House. May I offer two pieces of advice? He needn't remind the senators and congressmen that he has been responsible for helping to save the world. We must assume that they are already aware of that. Nor should he repeat his regular claim that our economic mess was created in the US and that he, having had responsibility for the British economy for the last 12 years, bears no share of the blame. That might come across as rather self-serving.
The real message he has to give Congress is about maintaining free trade and the crucial need to avoid a lurch into protectionism. There has always been a strong element within Congress, especially in the Democratic Party, that has distrusted free trade and open markets, and would like to curb imports from abroad. We know from the 1930s that it is exactly that response that turned a serious recession into a major depression. As a result it took the world years longer than would otherwise have been necessary to recover.
Even in Europe there are those who will not learn the lessons of history. President Sarkozy has called on French carmakers to close their factories in eastern Europe and transfer them back to France, which, to put it mildly, would not do much for European solidarity.
Britain has been the global champion of free trade for over 100 years. Breaking down trade barriers has served the world well and created unprecedented prosperity, jobs and economic growth. British prime ministers are, therefore, better qualified than any other heads of government to proclaim its virtues. For its part, the US Congress is the most powerful audience in the world that one could address on this subject.
That, therefore, is Gordon Brown's task this week. If he can ensure that Congress does not go protectionist he might not have saved the world, but he would have made a very useful contribution.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind was foreign secretary, 1995-97, and is MP for Kensington and Chelsea
The Telegraph
March 1, 2009
The more battered a prime minister is at home the more he will relish the welcome and the accolades he will receive when he travels overseas. For ministers are honoured abroad while they are abused in their own country.
Even their lesser Cabinet colleagues have the same weakness. When I was minister of defence it was nice to be met with a guard of honour when arriving in Washington and Moscow. The pleasure of the latter was, I must confess, somewhat reduced when I was informed, as we landed, that I was expected to thank them in Russian.
Gordon Brown, this week, will be met by President Obama at the White House and will address both Houses of Congress. He is entitled to feel pleased at being the first European leader to make it to the Oval Office and one of only five British prime ministers to be so honoured by Congress. But before he gets carried away he should realise that these events will not seem quite so historic in Washington. The last foreign leader to address Congress was Ireland's Bertie Ahern. And President Obama has already welcomed to the White House the Japanese prime minister, Taro Aso, who is even more unpopular in Japan than Mr Brown is in Britain.
And while there will be the ritual endorsement of the "special relationship" between the United States and the United Kingdom, that, too, may not be all it appears. As President Obama welcomed his Japanese guest he described the relationship of their two countries as "extraordinarily important" and explained that that was why Mr Aso "is the first foreign dignitary to visit me here in the Oval Office". There is no shortage of flattery in Washington.
Much more important than the welcomes and the compliments will be the messages that Mr Brown takes with him to the White House and the Capitol. The three issues that Mr Brown must concentrate on are Afghanistan, Iran and, of course, the global economic crisis. His message on Afghanistan can be simple and clear. It can never again be allowed to be a base for al-Qaeda terrorists. We match our words with the valour of our soldiers. But other worthy objectives, like the elimination of corruption and the poppy trade, will take a generation and must be divorced from our immediate strategy, since failure to deliver will simply cause disillusion and the appearance of total failure.
On Iran, Mr Brown should warmly endorse the President's proposed dialogue with Tehran. If George W Bush could normalise relations with Colonel Gaddafi's Libya then a comparable deal can be done with Iran. The Prime Minister should also canvass the excellent proposal, put forward by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, that Iran's neighbours, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt, should be invited to join the UN Security Council's negotiations with Iran to halt its nuclear weapon ambitions. They have more to fear than anyone else and must play their part in finding a solution.
When it comes to the world economic crisis, what Gordon Brown says to Congress will matter more than his discussions in the White House. May I offer two pieces of advice? He needn't remind the senators and congressmen that he has been responsible for helping to save the world. We must assume that they are already aware of that. Nor should he repeat his regular claim that our economic mess was created in the US and that he, having had responsibility for the British economy for the last 12 years, bears no share of the blame. That might come across as rather self-serving.
The real message he has to give Congress is about maintaining free trade and the crucial need to avoid a lurch into protectionism. There has always been a strong element within Congress, especially in the Democratic Party, that has distrusted free trade and open markets, and would like to curb imports from abroad. We know from the 1930s that it is exactly that response that turned a serious recession into a major depression. As a result it took the world years longer than would otherwise have been necessary to recover.
Even in Europe there are those who will not learn the lessons of history. President Sarkozy has called on French carmakers to close their factories in eastern Europe and transfer them back to France, which, to put it mildly, would not do much for European solidarity.
Britain has been the global champion of free trade for over 100 years. Breaking down trade barriers has served the world well and created unprecedented prosperity, jobs and economic growth. British prime ministers are, therefore, better qualified than any other heads of government to proclaim its virtues. For its part, the US Congress is the most powerful audience in the world that one could address on this subject.
That, therefore, is Gordon Brown's task this week. If he can ensure that Congress does not go protectionist he might not have saved the world, but he would have made a very useful contribution.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind was foreign secretary, 1995-97, and is MP for Kensington and Chelsea
The special relationship is going global
Prime Minister Gordon Brown
Sunday Times
March 1, 2009
Historians will look back and say this was no ordinary time but a defining moment: an unprecedented period of global change, and a time when one chapter ended and another began.
The scale and the speed of the global banking crisis has at times been almost overwhelming, and I know that in countries everywhere people who rely on their banks for savings have been feeling powerless and afraid. But it is when times become harder and challenges greater that across the world countries must show vision, leadership and courage – and, while we can do a great deal nationally, we can do even more working together internationally.
So now is the time for leaders of every country in the world to work together to agree the action that will see us through the current crisis and ensure we come out stronger. And there is no international partnership in recent history that has served the world better than the special relationship between Britain and the United States.
It is a relationship that has endured and flourished because it is based not simply on our shared history but on the enduring values that bind us together – our countries founded upon liberty, our histories forged through democracy and an unshakeable belief in the power of enterprise and opportunity.
But if it reflects our values and our histories, this special relationship is also a partnership of purpose, renewed by every generation to reflect the challenges we face. In the 1940s it found its full force defeating fascism and building the postwar international order; in the cold war era we fought the growth of nuclear weapons and when the Berlin Wall fell we saw the end of communism. In this new century, since the horrors visited on America in 2001, we have worked in partnership to defeat terrorism.
Now, in this generation, we must renew our work together once again. A new set of challenges faces the whole world, which summons forth the need for a partnership of purpose that must involve the whole world. Rebuilding global financial stability is a global challenge that needs global solutions. However, financial instability is but one of the challenges that globalisation brings. Our task in working together is to secure a high-growth, low-carbon recovery by taking seriously the global challenge of climate change. And our efforts must be to work for a more stable world where we defeat not only global terrorism but global poverty, hunger and disease.
Globalisation has brought great advances, lifting millions out of poverty as they reap the benefits of economic growth and trade. But it has also brought new insecurities, as this – the first truly global financial crisis – underlines. Globalisation is not an option, it is a fact, so the question is whether we manage it well or badly.
I believe there is no challenge so great or so difficult that it cannot be overcome by America, Britain and the world working together. That is why President Obama and I will discuss this week a global new deal, whose impact can stretch from the villages of Africa to reforming the financial institutions of London and New York– and giving security to the hard-working families in every country.
I see this global new deal as an agreement that every continent injects resources into its economy. I believe that central to this new investment is that every country backs a green recovery for the future, that every country that wishes to participate in the international financial system agrees common principles for financial regulation, coordinated internationally, and changes to their own banking system that will bring us shared prosperity once again. And that, together, we must agree to reform the mandate and governance of global institutions to recognise the changing shape of the world economy and the emergence of new players.
It is a global new deal that will lay the foundations not just fora sustainable economic recovery but for a genuinely new era of international partnership in which all countries have a part to play. This programme of internationally coordinated actions includes six elements:
First, universal action to prevent the crisis spreading, to stimulate the global economy and to help reduce the severity and length of the global recession.
Second, action to kick-start lending so that families and businesses can borrow again.
Third, all countries renouncing protectionism, with a transparent mechanism to monitor commitments.
Fourth, reform of international regulation to close regulatory gaps so shadow banking systems have nowhere to hide.
Fifth, reform of our international financial institutions and the creation of an international early warning system.
And last, coordinated international action to build tomorrow today – putting the world economy on an economically, environmentally and socially sustainable path towards future growth and recovery.
I have always been an Atlanticist and a great admirer of the American spirit of enterprise and national purpose. I have visited America many times and have many friends there, and as prime minister I want to do more to strengthen even further our relationship with America.
Winston Churchill described the joint inheritance of Britain and America as not just a shared history but a shared belief in the great principles of freedom and the rights of man – what Barack Obama has described as the enduring power of our ideals – democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope. Britain and America may be separated by the thousands of miles of the Atlantic, but we are united by shared values that can never be broken. And as America stands at its own dawn of hope, I want that hope to be fulfilled through us all coming together to shape the 21st century as the first century of a truly global society.
Sunday Times
March 1, 2009
Historians will look back and say this was no ordinary time but a defining moment: an unprecedented period of global change, and a time when one chapter ended and another began.
The scale and the speed of the global banking crisis has at times been almost overwhelming, and I know that in countries everywhere people who rely on their banks for savings have been feeling powerless and afraid. But it is when times become harder and challenges greater that across the world countries must show vision, leadership and courage – and, while we can do a great deal nationally, we can do even more working together internationally.
So now is the time for leaders of every country in the world to work together to agree the action that will see us through the current crisis and ensure we come out stronger. And there is no international partnership in recent history that has served the world better than the special relationship between Britain and the United States.
It is a relationship that has endured and flourished because it is based not simply on our shared history but on the enduring values that bind us together – our countries founded upon liberty, our histories forged through democracy and an unshakeable belief in the power of enterprise and opportunity.
But if it reflects our values and our histories, this special relationship is also a partnership of purpose, renewed by every generation to reflect the challenges we face. In the 1940s it found its full force defeating fascism and building the postwar international order; in the cold war era we fought the growth of nuclear weapons and when the Berlin Wall fell we saw the end of communism. In this new century, since the horrors visited on America in 2001, we have worked in partnership to defeat terrorism.
Now, in this generation, we must renew our work together once again. A new set of challenges faces the whole world, which summons forth the need for a partnership of purpose that must involve the whole world. Rebuilding global financial stability is a global challenge that needs global solutions. However, financial instability is but one of the challenges that globalisation brings. Our task in working together is to secure a high-growth, low-carbon recovery by taking seriously the global challenge of climate change. And our efforts must be to work for a more stable world where we defeat not only global terrorism but global poverty, hunger and disease.
Globalisation has brought great advances, lifting millions out of poverty as they reap the benefits of economic growth and trade. But it has also brought new insecurities, as this – the first truly global financial crisis – underlines. Globalisation is not an option, it is a fact, so the question is whether we manage it well or badly.
I believe there is no challenge so great or so difficult that it cannot be overcome by America, Britain and the world working together. That is why President Obama and I will discuss this week a global new deal, whose impact can stretch from the villages of Africa to reforming the financial institutions of London and New York– and giving security to the hard-working families in every country.
I see this global new deal as an agreement that every continent injects resources into its economy. I believe that central to this new investment is that every country backs a green recovery for the future, that every country that wishes to participate in the international financial system agrees common principles for financial regulation, coordinated internationally, and changes to their own banking system that will bring us shared prosperity once again. And that, together, we must agree to reform the mandate and governance of global institutions to recognise the changing shape of the world economy and the emergence of new players.
It is a global new deal that will lay the foundations not just fora sustainable economic recovery but for a genuinely new era of international partnership in which all countries have a part to play. This programme of internationally coordinated actions includes six elements:
First, universal action to prevent the crisis spreading, to stimulate the global economy and to help reduce the severity and length of the global recession.
Second, action to kick-start lending so that families and businesses can borrow again.
Third, all countries renouncing protectionism, with a transparent mechanism to monitor commitments.
Fourth, reform of international regulation to close regulatory gaps so shadow banking systems have nowhere to hide.
Fifth, reform of our international financial institutions and the creation of an international early warning system.
And last, coordinated international action to build tomorrow today – putting the world economy on an economically, environmentally and socially sustainable path towards future growth and recovery.
I have always been an Atlanticist and a great admirer of the American spirit of enterprise and national purpose. I have visited America many times and have many friends there, and as prime minister I want to do more to strengthen even further our relationship with America.
Winston Churchill described the joint inheritance of Britain and America as not just a shared history but a shared belief in the great principles of freedom and the rights of man – what Barack Obama has described as the enduring power of our ideals – democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope. Britain and America may be separated by the thousands of miles of the Atlantic, but we are united by shared values that can never be broken. And as America stands at its own dawn of hope, I want that hope to be fulfilled through us all coming together to shape the 21st century as the first century of a truly global society.
EDITORIAL: Preserving budget discipline
Washington Times
Sunday, March 1, 2009
President Obama's efforts to get Congress to reinstitute statutory budget rules forcing hard choices is being opposed by Republicans and Democrats alike. They will produce a law with so many loopholes opening the monetary floodgates that Mr. Obama may have to veto it the first time out. But he'd be absolutely right to do so.
Without pay-go rules - budget codes enforced by law that require every prospective dollar in expenditure added to be matched with a cut or another revenue stream - there is little chance of halving the $1 trillion-plus deficit by 2013 to $533 billion, as the White House has indicated it wants to do (ironically, President Bush had similar aspirations in 2004). But it's bait-and-switch, with deficit reduction the bait and the switch being tax increases (not spending cuts) to achieve the reduction, which is exactly where this is going with the liberals ruling the roost. This is something Republicans will not willingly stand for regarding pay-go, no matter how much the country "needs" the spending and thus "must" tax to reach a deficit reduction.
"My experience with Democrats and pay-go is you pay and they just go on spending," said Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference. "Republicans have not categorically opposed pay-go; we oppose pay-go that does not exclude tax increases." Mr. Pence said that in a recession no one should raise taxes on anybody. He is right about that. But Republicans should think hard before abandoning support for pay-go, despite the bait-and-switch potential. With budget controls, there must be a vote on every spending measure, every change to each spending measure, and any tax increases to offset spending increases. That makes it very difficult for Democrats to raise taxes at will without their fingerprints being on the measures, and it would be very easy for Republicans to hammer them at election time if new taxes are imposed.
Under the original Budget Enforcement Act passed in 1990, taxes went up but were largely unnoticed by the American people due to the booming high-tech market, the vast numbers of jobs it created, and the rising economy. There is no comparable new technology or situation today. Going back to the recessions and deficits of the 1980s, the economic slump was a mere speck compared to what the country is facing today. Tax increases today would primarily hit small businesses and their employees, who constitute nearly 90 percent of the workforce, and would only make matters worse than they are now.
Mr. Obama should work to get pay-go enforced. Democrats should keep in mind that raising taxes will not go unnoticed by the American people this time, and they will have an impact on future elections. Republicans will make sure of it.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
President Obama's efforts to get Congress to reinstitute statutory budget rules forcing hard choices is being opposed by Republicans and Democrats alike. They will produce a law with so many loopholes opening the monetary floodgates that Mr. Obama may have to veto it the first time out. But he'd be absolutely right to do so.
Without pay-go rules - budget codes enforced by law that require every prospective dollar in expenditure added to be matched with a cut or another revenue stream - there is little chance of halving the $1 trillion-plus deficit by 2013 to $533 billion, as the White House has indicated it wants to do (ironically, President Bush had similar aspirations in 2004). But it's bait-and-switch, with deficit reduction the bait and the switch being tax increases (not spending cuts) to achieve the reduction, which is exactly where this is going with the liberals ruling the roost. This is something Republicans will not willingly stand for regarding pay-go, no matter how much the country "needs" the spending and thus "must" tax to reach a deficit reduction.
"My experience with Democrats and pay-go is you pay and they just go on spending," said Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference. "Republicans have not categorically opposed pay-go; we oppose pay-go that does not exclude tax increases." Mr. Pence said that in a recession no one should raise taxes on anybody. He is right about that. But Republicans should think hard before abandoning support for pay-go, despite the bait-and-switch potential. With budget controls, there must be a vote on every spending measure, every change to each spending measure, and any tax increases to offset spending increases. That makes it very difficult for Democrats to raise taxes at will without their fingerprints being on the measures, and it would be very easy for Republicans to hammer them at election time if new taxes are imposed.
Under the original Budget Enforcement Act passed in 1990, taxes went up but were largely unnoticed by the American people due to the booming high-tech market, the vast numbers of jobs it created, and the rising economy. There is no comparable new technology or situation today. Going back to the recessions and deficits of the 1980s, the economic slump was a mere speck compared to what the country is facing today. Tax increases today would primarily hit small businesses and their employees, who constitute nearly 90 percent of the workforce, and would only make matters worse than they are now.
Mr. Obama should work to get pay-go enforced. Democrats should keep in mind that raising taxes will not go unnoticed by the American people this time, and they will have an impact on future elections. Republicans will make sure of it.
We Saw the Crisis Coming
David Ignatius
March 1, 2009
WASHINGTON -- The big mistakes we make in life aren't the ones that sneak up on us, but those we make with our eyes wide open. That bit of wisdom comes from my friend Garrett Epps, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Baltimore. And it's powerfully true about the financial crisis that has enfeebled our economy.
Nothing about this crisis is really a surprise. People have been warning about it for more than a decade, in academic studies, official reports, Wall Street analyses, even op-ed pieces. Our smartest financiers, Warren Buffett and George Soros, saw it coming clear as a bell.
Yet the authorities did too little in the early years, when they could have had some effect. And once the full force of the crisis hit, officials became caught in a reactive cycle of incrementalism -- with each intervention setting up the next one. We have been dragged into the future by the weight of past mistakes, rather than charting a new course.
This failure is especially clear in the case of three prominent people who are shaping the response to the crisis now: They saw the dangers building but failed to take decisive action -- for fear that a new financial architecture would frighten the markets.
The three who saw it coming are Robert Rubin, the treasury secretary during the Clinton administration; Lawrence Summers, Rubin's successor at Treasury and Barack Obama's chief economic adviser; and Timothy Geithner, who served under Rubin and Summers, then headed the New York Federal Reserve and now runs Treasury.
I admire all three, whom I got to know when I was the Post's business editor during the mid-1990s. I am looking backward here not to point fingers, but to argue for breaking the cycle of reactive mistakes.
First, Rubin: During the boom years of the 1990s, he was deeply worried about the risk of systemic failure in the financial markets. He was especially nervous about derivatives, the exotic financial instruments that were being created willy-nilly on Wall Street. Rubin hadn't run Goldman Sachs that way, and he feared the new crowd was taking risks they didn't understand. In the event of a crisis, would the window of transactions be wide enough to maintain orderly markets? Or would liquidity simply disappear?
Rubin pinpointed all the right issues. And yet when pressed in interviews about a new financial architecture to reduce these systemic risks, he would shy away like a skittish colt. Famously, he balked at the recommendation of Brooksley Born to regulate derivatives at the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.
Summers and Geithner had similar worries about systemic risk, and the same phobia about frightening the markets. Their skill was in crisis management -- the Mexican peso crisis in 1994, the Asian financial crisis in 1997, the Russian default and Long-Term Capital Management collapse in 1998. They were deft in nudging the markets away from meltdown, and that reinforced their confidence that ad hoc policies, negotiated privately with Wall Street leaders, were better than clunky regulatory regimes.
The paradox is that many reforms of those years have actually made things worse, by building in pro-cyclical forces that accentuate the downturn. This was true with the so-called "Basel II" capital standards. By requiring banks to maintain high reserves during crises, it forced them to sell assets into a falling market, compounding the downward pressure.
Other reforms had similar unintended consequences. The mark-to-market rules adopted by the accounting profession had the perverse effect of forcing banks to write down their portfolios daily as the market for securitized assets collapsed. These "marks" were often imaginary, since there was no real market. But banks had to take huge write-offs anyway, accelerating the death spiral.
Summers and Geithner now have a unique chance -- the best chance in a century -- to put the casino economy on a sounder footing. They don't have to worry as much about spooking the markets, which are already so traumatized they barely register a pulse. They can break with ad hoc policies.
The Obama team should build around what works, rather than shoring up the status quo: That means encouraging smaller, nimbler banks -- rescue Citigroup, if we must, but then break it up. It means putting technology and innovation at the center of plans to rebuild the auto industry; it means staking risk-takers. Where's the venture fund in the stimulus package? Summers and Geithner (with Rubin in the wings) have the rare chance to get it right, with their eyes wide open.
davidignatius@washpost.com
March 1, 2009
WASHINGTON -- The big mistakes we make in life aren't the ones that sneak up on us, but those we make with our eyes wide open. That bit of wisdom comes from my friend Garrett Epps, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Baltimore. And it's powerfully true about the financial crisis that has enfeebled our economy.
Nothing about this crisis is really a surprise. People have been warning about it for more than a decade, in academic studies, official reports, Wall Street analyses, even op-ed pieces. Our smartest financiers, Warren Buffett and George Soros, saw it coming clear as a bell.
Yet the authorities did too little in the early years, when they could have had some effect. And once the full force of the crisis hit, officials became caught in a reactive cycle of incrementalism -- with each intervention setting up the next one. We have been dragged into the future by the weight of past mistakes, rather than charting a new course.
This failure is especially clear in the case of three prominent people who are shaping the response to the crisis now: They saw the dangers building but failed to take decisive action -- for fear that a new financial architecture would frighten the markets.
The three who saw it coming are Robert Rubin, the treasury secretary during the Clinton administration; Lawrence Summers, Rubin's successor at Treasury and Barack Obama's chief economic adviser; and Timothy Geithner, who served under Rubin and Summers, then headed the New York Federal Reserve and now runs Treasury.
I admire all three, whom I got to know when I was the Post's business editor during the mid-1990s. I am looking backward here not to point fingers, but to argue for breaking the cycle of reactive mistakes.
First, Rubin: During the boom years of the 1990s, he was deeply worried about the risk of systemic failure in the financial markets. He was especially nervous about derivatives, the exotic financial instruments that were being created willy-nilly on Wall Street. Rubin hadn't run Goldman Sachs that way, and he feared the new crowd was taking risks they didn't understand. In the event of a crisis, would the window of transactions be wide enough to maintain orderly markets? Or would liquidity simply disappear?
Rubin pinpointed all the right issues. And yet when pressed in interviews about a new financial architecture to reduce these systemic risks, he would shy away like a skittish colt. Famously, he balked at the recommendation of Brooksley Born to regulate derivatives at the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.
Summers and Geithner had similar worries about systemic risk, and the same phobia about frightening the markets. Their skill was in crisis management -- the Mexican peso crisis in 1994, the Asian financial crisis in 1997, the Russian default and Long-Term Capital Management collapse in 1998. They were deft in nudging the markets away from meltdown, and that reinforced their confidence that ad hoc policies, negotiated privately with Wall Street leaders, were better than clunky regulatory regimes.
The paradox is that many reforms of those years have actually made things worse, by building in pro-cyclical forces that accentuate the downturn. This was true with the so-called "Basel II" capital standards. By requiring banks to maintain high reserves during crises, it forced them to sell assets into a falling market, compounding the downward pressure.
Other reforms had similar unintended consequences. The mark-to-market rules adopted by the accounting profession had the perverse effect of forcing banks to write down their portfolios daily as the market for securitized assets collapsed. These "marks" were often imaginary, since there was no real market. But banks had to take huge write-offs anyway, accelerating the death spiral.
Summers and Geithner now have a unique chance -- the best chance in a century -- to put the casino economy on a sounder footing. They don't have to worry as much about spooking the markets, which are already so traumatized they barely register a pulse. They can break with ad hoc policies.
The Obama team should build around what works, rather than shoring up the status quo: That means encouraging smaller, nimbler banks -- rescue Citigroup, if we must, but then break it up. It means putting technology and innovation at the center of plans to rebuild the auto industry; it means staking risk-takers. Where's the venture fund in the stimulus package? Summers and Geithner (with Rubin in the wings) have the rare chance to get it right, with their eyes wide open.
davidignatius@washpost.com
The Goldwater Myth
Al Frum
Friday, February 27, 2009
It's CPAC weekend - the grand rallying of the conservative clan here in Washington. It's a season where conservatives from across the country meet to compare notes, share stories, and seek political consensus.
The consensus forming this year however is an ominously dangerous one - ominously dangerous to conservatives themselves that is.Conservatives live in thrall to a historical myth, and this myth may soon cost us dearly.
The myth is the myth of the Goldwater triumph of 1964. It goes approximately as follows:In 1964, after years of watered down politics, Republicans turned to a true conservative, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater.
Yes, Goldwater lost badly. But in losing, he bequeathed conservatives a national organization – and a new champion, Ronald Reagan. Goldwater’s defeat opened the way to Reagan’s ultimate triumph and the conservative ascendancy of the 1980s and 1990s.
This (the myth continues) is the history we need to repeat. If we can just find the right messenger in 2012, the message that worked for Reagan will work again. And even if we cannot find the right messenger, losing on principle in 2012 will open the way to a more glorious victory in 2016.
The Goldwater myth shuts down all attempts to reform and renew our conservative message for modern times. And it offers a handy justification for nominating a 2012 presidential candidate who might otherwise seem disastrously unelectable. Altogether, the myth invites dangerous and self-destructive behavior by a party that cannot afford either.
What happened in 1964 was an unredeemed and unmitigated catastrophe for Republicans and conservatives. The success that followed 16 years later was a matter of happenstance, not of strategy.
That’s the real lesson of 1964, and it is the lesson that conservatives need most to take to heart today.
1964 was always bound to be a Democratic year. The difference between Barry Goldwater’s 38.5% candidacy and the 44% or 45% that might have been won by a Nelson Rockefeller or a William Scranton was the effect on down-ballot races.
Republicans lost 36 seats in the House of Representatives in 1964, giving Democrats the biggest majority in the House any party has enjoyed since the end of World War II. Republicans dropped 2 seats in the Senate, yielding a Democratic majority of 68-32, again the most lopsided standing in any election from the war to the present day.
This huge congressional majority - call it the Goldwater majority - liberated President Johnson from any dependence on conservative southern Democrats. In 1964, only 46 Senate Democrats voted for the great Civil Rights Act; 21 opposed. Without Republican support, the Act would not have passed. (And indeed while 68% of Senate Democrats voted for the Act, 81% of Senate Republicans did.)
While dependent on southern Democrats, President Johnson had to develop a careful, pragmatic domestic agenda that balanced zigs to the right (in 1964, Congress passed the first across the board income tax cut since the 1920s) with zags to the left (the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 which created Head Start among other less successful programs).
Then came the Republican debacle of November 1964. Goldwater's overwhelming defeat invited a tsunami of liberal activism. The 89th Congress elected in 1964 enacted both Medicaid and Medicare. It passed a new immigration law, opening the way to a surge of 40 million newcomers, the overwhelming majority of them from poor Third World countries. It dramatically expanded welfare eligibility and other anti-poverty programs that together transformed the urban poor of the 1950s into the urban underclass of the 1970s and 1980s.
Suppose history had taken a different bounce in 1964. Suppose somebody other than Sen. Goldwater had won the Republican presidential nomination. Suppose his narrower margin of defeat had preserved those 36 Republican seats in the House – or even possibly gained some seats. (The big Democratic gains in 1958 and 1962 were ripe for a rollback in 1964 – and indeed were rolled back in 1966, when the GOP picked up 47 seats in the House and 3 in the Senate.)
Under those circumstances, the legislation of 1965 might have looked a lot more like the more moderate legislation of 1964. The Voting Rights Act would surely have passed, and so too would some form of health insurance measure for the poor – a measure supported by the American Medical Association and health insurers as well as by congressional liberals. But Medicare might never have happened, or might have taken a less costly form. The immigration bill might have been more carefully written so as to achieve its declared purpose: eliminating racial discrimination in immigration without expanding the overall number of immigrants from the modest level prevailing in the 1950s and early 1960s.
True, the liberal triumph of 1964 set in motion the train of disasters that laid liberalism low in the 1980s. But those disasters followed from choices and decisions that liberals made – not from some multiyear conservative grand strategy for success in 1980. It was not Goldwater who made Reagan possible. It was Carter. Had Carter governed more successfully, the Goldwater disaster would have been just a disaster, with no silver lining. And there was nothing about the Goldwater disaster that made the Carter failure more necessary, more inevitable.
And anyway, as the years pass, the consequences of Reagan’s victory look more temporary and provisional, at least in domestic policy – while the consequences of Goldwater’s defeat look more enduring and more consequential. The Reagan tax cuts are long gone. Medicare is still here.
It’s important for Republicans to absorb and remember this history as they prepare to make their next political choices. Right now, Republicans are gripped by a strong martyr complex. They want to stand up for their beliefs, damn the consequences – in fact the worse the consequences, the more it proves the rightness of our beliefs. If this mood persists further into the 2012 cycle, we will pay a heavy price. 2010 is already shaping up as an inhospitable year for Republicans, especially in the Senate, where the map favors the Democrats. 2012 could be much better – unless we doom ourselves by our own bad choices.
It is this alternative possibility of success or failure down the ballot as well as up that makes it so urgent to disenthrall ourselves of the 1964 myth. Goldwater’s defeat was a prelude to nothing except defeats on the floor of Congress in 1965-66. As the next presidential cycle begins, our priority should be to identify presidential candidates who can run strongly in every region of the country – not because we expect to win every region of the country, but because we want to help elect Republican congressional candidates in every region of the country. Our present strategy is one that is paving the way not merely to another defeat at the presidential level, but to a further shriveling of our congressional party –and an utterly unconstrained Obama second term that will make LBJ’s ascendancy look moderate and humble in comparison.
Friday, February 27, 2009
It's CPAC weekend - the grand rallying of the conservative clan here in Washington. It's a season where conservatives from across the country meet to compare notes, share stories, and seek political consensus.
The consensus forming this year however is an ominously dangerous one - ominously dangerous to conservatives themselves that is.Conservatives live in thrall to a historical myth, and this myth may soon cost us dearly.
The myth is the myth of the Goldwater triumph of 1964. It goes approximately as follows:In 1964, after years of watered down politics, Republicans turned to a true conservative, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater.
Yes, Goldwater lost badly. But in losing, he bequeathed conservatives a national organization – and a new champion, Ronald Reagan. Goldwater’s defeat opened the way to Reagan’s ultimate triumph and the conservative ascendancy of the 1980s and 1990s.
This (the myth continues) is the history we need to repeat. If we can just find the right messenger in 2012, the message that worked for Reagan will work again. And even if we cannot find the right messenger, losing on principle in 2012 will open the way to a more glorious victory in 2016.
The Goldwater myth shuts down all attempts to reform and renew our conservative message for modern times. And it offers a handy justification for nominating a 2012 presidential candidate who might otherwise seem disastrously unelectable. Altogether, the myth invites dangerous and self-destructive behavior by a party that cannot afford either.
What happened in 1964 was an unredeemed and unmitigated catastrophe for Republicans and conservatives. The success that followed 16 years later was a matter of happenstance, not of strategy.
That’s the real lesson of 1964, and it is the lesson that conservatives need most to take to heart today.
1964 was always bound to be a Democratic year. The difference between Barry Goldwater’s 38.5% candidacy and the 44% or 45% that might have been won by a Nelson Rockefeller or a William Scranton was the effect on down-ballot races.
Republicans lost 36 seats in the House of Representatives in 1964, giving Democrats the biggest majority in the House any party has enjoyed since the end of World War II. Republicans dropped 2 seats in the Senate, yielding a Democratic majority of 68-32, again the most lopsided standing in any election from the war to the present day.
This huge congressional majority - call it the Goldwater majority - liberated President Johnson from any dependence on conservative southern Democrats. In 1964, only 46 Senate Democrats voted for the great Civil Rights Act; 21 opposed. Without Republican support, the Act would not have passed. (And indeed while 68% of Senate Democrats voted for the Act, 81% of Senate Republicans did.)
While dependent on southern Democrats, President Johnson had to develop a careful, pragmatic domestic agenda that balanced zigs to the right (in 1964, Congress passed the first across the board income tax cut since the 1920s) with zags to the left (the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 which created Head Start among other less successful programs).
Then came the Republican debacle of November 1964. Goldwater's overwhelming defeat invited a tsunami of liberal activism. The 89th Congress elected in 1964 enacted both Medicaid and Medicare. It passed a new immigration law, opening the way to a surge of 40 million newcomers, the overwhelming majority of them from poor Third World countries. It dramatically expanded welfare eligibility and other anti-poverty programs that together transformed the urban poor of the 1950s into the urban underclass of the 1970s and 1980s.
Suppose history had taken a different bounce in 1964. Suppose somebody other than Sen. Goldwater had won the Republican presidential nomination. Suppose his narrower margin of defeat had preserved those 36 Republican seats in the House – or even possibly gained some seats. (The big Democratic gains in 1958 and 1962 were ripe for a rollback in 1964 – and indeed were rolled back in 1966, when the GOP picked up 47 seats in the House and 3 in the Senate.)
Under those circumstances, the legislation of 1965 might have looked a lot more like the more moderate legislation of 1964. The Voting Rights Act would surely have passed, and so too would some form of health insurance measure for the poor – a measure supported by the American Medical Association and health insurers as well as by congressional liberals. But Medicare might never have happened, or might have taken a less costly form. The immigration bill might have been more carefully written so as to achieve its declared purpose: eliminating racial discrimination in immigration without expanding the overall number of immigrants from the modest level prevailing in the 1950s and early 1960s.
True, the liberal triumph of 1964 set in motion the train of disasters that laid liberalism low in the 1980s. But those disasters followed from choices and decisions that liberals made – not from some multiyear conservative grand strategy for success in 1980. It was not Goldwater who made Reagan possible. It was Carter. Had Carter governed more successfully, the Goldwater disaster would have been just a disaster, with no silver lining. And there was nothing about the Goldwater disaster that made the Carter failure more necessary, more inevitable.
And anyway, as the years pass, the consequences of Reagan’s victory look more temporary and provisional, at least in domestic policy – while the consequences of Goldwater’s defeat look more enduring and more consequential. The Reagan tax cuts are long gone. Medicare is still here.
It’s important for Republicans to absorb and remember this history as they prepare to make their next political choices. Right now, Republicans are gripped by a strong martyr complex. They want to stand up for their beliefs, damn the consequences – in fact the worse the consequences, the more it proves the rightness of our beliefs. If this mood persists further into the 2012 cycle, we will pay a heavy price. 2010 is already shaping up as an inhospitable year for Republicans, especially in the Senate, where the map favors the Democrats. 2012 could be much better – unless we doom ourselves by our own bad choices.
It is this alternative possibility of success or failure down the ballot as well as up that makes it so urgent to disenthrall ourselves of the 1964 myth. Goldwater’s defeat was a prelude to nothing except defeats on the floor of Congress in 1965-66. As the next presidential cycle begins, our priority should be to identify presidential candidates who can run strongly in every region of the country – not because we expect to win every region of the country, but because we want to help elect Republican congressional candidates in every region of the country. Our present strategy is one that is paving the way not merely to another defeat at the presidential level, but to a further shriveling of our congressional party –and an utterly unconstrained Obama second term that will make LBJ’s ascendancy look moderate and humble in comparison.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
