Centerfield

Plan to end the Welfare State as we know it. INTRIGUING New Book by Charles Murray.

What an intriguing book. As an Independent with a strong disdain for partisan ideology...for the sake of partisan ideology, I found Murray's ideas both thought provoking, encouraging and attractive to all voting blocs. I have a mixed voting history that leans slightly Democratic and the premise Murray puts forth buoyed all my varying sensibilities from libertarian to conservative to liberal to populist to free capitalist to humanist to idealist to pragmatist.

"The Plan", as Murray calls it, is simple. Everyone at the age of 21 receives $10,000 (tagged for inflation) per annum for life. No changes for marital status or any other demographic tag. Erring on the high side, this program will, at the most about 1.73 trillion to start and, according to demographics, will descrease over time in equal-valued dollars. This replaces all entitlement spending at all levels of government which Murray states in 2002 totaled almost 1.4 trillion dollars. This includes business and agricultural subsidies and means tested programs for the poor. According to Murray, "The Plan" will effectively eliminate involuntary poverty.

Seems radical but it isn't. It makes more sense than other policy innovation I've ever heard of.

The liberal skeptic needs to consider how much we spend on social assistance and take a sobering look at how far the battle over poverty is from being won. This plan gives every American, regardless of circumstances, the financial base to escape poverty. Failure is in "our hands". Virtually every extreme circumstance one can imagine is countered by "the plan". For the average and below average american it is a base to build from and protect oneself.

The conservative skeptic needs to see how much we spend already and what it does and doesn't do for the poor and the elderly. The funding of this program, erring on the high side, will be less expensive than the current system in a few short years...maybe sooner. By 2020, Murray estimates "The Plan" will cost over $500 Billion less annually than the current system. How's that for savings?

Some practical details: Murray also proposes smart healthcare reforms that will bring down the cost of healthcare. Most importantly, he proposes obligating all insurers to base rates on a single pool of applicants: the entire population. He also argues decoupling less expensive routine treatemenst from major doctor administered care. He estimates an annual premium cost per person of $3000 per year. The other $7000 per year is for the person to use to provide one's saftey net. He also suggests $2000 per year go into conservative retirement savings. It's important to note that $7000 after health insurance is the more important stat to Murray. If healthcare cannot be done for less than $3000, he demands increasing the 10,000 to a suitable number. At an anemic 4% annual growth over one's working life(unheard in America history except for someone who started working during the crisis of 1887 and retired at the Great Depression, in which case the return would have been 4%!) it gives a total of about $245,000, which in the form of an annuity will give a yearly income of about $20-24000 and you STILL get the $10,000! Double for an elderly COUPLE of limited means and you get a retirement income of at least $60,000 GUARANTEED. What government program can do that?! Save more, retire sooner!

Other important details: at 50,000 in income, you give back half the grant. Also keep in mind that all those FICA and Medicare withholding taxes are eliminated from payrolls...the most regressive wage taxes of them all.

People earn more, save more, retire better and when they want and the government averts fiscal crisis. Involuntary poverty is easily averted for virtually everyone. Some may argue that that is impossible. Maybe it is. But it is much easier to avoid poverty this way then by relying on the current system. Some people will always doom themselves to life of voluntary squalor...just like they do now. With the Plan, a minimum wage part-time job is all you need.

Murray leaves the details to the politicans. But he has painted the broad strokes of the idea so in can flourish into an intelligent national debate. The book is a quick, easy read. Read it, talk about it and pass it on.

This could be one of the influential policy innovations of our life time. It only needs the attention to give it its due scrutiny, which I'm sure it will pass.

This needs discussion on the Left, Right and Center.

Immigration (sort of)

An interesting article over on the theoildrum.com. Ostensibly they are talking about land oil drilling in Texas but this quote is telling.

Friends have been told point blank by a rig supervisor (with a Spanish accent) that he could hire two experienced Mexicans for the price of one untrained American. I am sending those friends to offshore contractors now. Offshore, you either speak some form of English (Mississippi stumpjumper or Louisianan or Texan) or you don't work.

I've never bought the "we only take jobs U.S. citizens don't want" line. Lots of interesting tidbits in the post about the mexican oil industry, korean steel and china. Check it out

It's Friday!

Most amazing juggling you've ever seen. No bowling pins, knifes, flaming batons, or chainsaws. Just one guy, 3 rubber balls, and a music score. Watch it, trust me. (Hat tip: Powerline)

It's been an open thread kind of week, so here's another one.

Random Quotes Thread

"In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were real men and women were real women and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri."

Because being serious all the time is really dull.

Maybe it's a real shakeup after all

Much of the initial reaction to Josh Bolten's replacement of Andy Card as White House Chief of Staff was summed up in Powerline's initial reaction: "Yawn." The Wall Street journal reported it was unlikely to be the start of a major shake-up in the administration.

But maybe first reports were wrong. The NY Times is reporting that Bolten wants to overhaul the economic policy team and the White House staff. First up appears to be moving John Snow out of Treasury and replacing him with someone who will more forcefully present the President's economic program. Rumored successors include: Henry Paulson, chief executive of Goldman Sachs; John Mack, chief executive of Morgan Stanley, and Richard Parsons, chairman of Time Warner. Scott McClellan confirmed what's going on in a very Washington-esque manner, by saying that the President appreciates the great job Snow is doing, without assuring him that no changes were in the offing.

Google Update

I loaded a Google sitemap, and I now see that the Googlebot reports an error from our blog, when it last crawled on March 22:

http://centristcoalition.com/blog Web General HTTP error Mar 22

I don't know why the blog page would have been down while the rest of the site was still working. I also don't know when Google will next crawl the site to get the blog pages back into their index. At least it doesn't look like they banned us for some strange reason.

Israeli Centrist Party wins

The centrist party just won in Israel.

I applaud the idea of unilateral withdrawal. The recent Hamas election in particular should highlight the difficulties of getting agreements with the PA, especially since many terror groups like bad conditions to continue so they can keep their numbers high.

Now, I do think they aren't going far enough. The biggest thing that's missing is leadership to end the racism against Arabs. Yeah, yeah, I know, Israel is a Jewish state, so it's gotta have a Jewish majority. Does it really? Plus, no matter what excuses you give, the fact is that the Arabs are people too. People used to excuse US racism with, well, but it's a white country. Did that make it right?

I'm deeply disappointed in Israeli Labor for missing the opportunity to lead on racism.

Unfortunately, I don't think Kadima's success means a Centrist party is likely to be a success here. Under parliamentary systems like Israel's, the coalitions are formed after the election rather than before like in the US, so a party with a splintered electorate can still gain power, as happened today. Plus, there was a particular failure of leadership from both traditional big Democrat-like and Republican-like parties there.

Navel gazing

I looked at our stats (you can too, with those 2 icons at the bottom of the left-hand column) today. We had hits just today from around the U.S. and several sites in the U.K. and Italy. Several readers accessed us through universities. But what I found most intriguing were the search terms which wound up leading to our page.

Some, you might expect. "'Sharon Stone' blow job" returned my recent post at the #8 position in Yahoo, for example. Others we definitely should appreciate leading to us, such as "democratic 'contract with america'", "andy card resigns", and "public sentiment of Bush". But others still were completely bizarre, such as "Pig skull" (which led to our recent spam discussion from the Italian Google site), and "causes of suicide" (which led to a discussion of the root causes of suicide bombers), and there was a high prevalence of hurricane-related searches.

This is much better than the last time I checked our search queries, which showed the dangers of spam accumulation. A BUNCH of dirty words were pointing to our nice, polite little site. The complete list of the last 20 search terms is below the fold.

P.S. Privacy caution to Netscape e-mail client users: When you click on a link to a website that's in an e-mail, your username on your own computer or network shows up in the referrer logs.

29 Mar, Wed, 14:40:08 Yahoo: scary words
29 Mar, Wed, 14:44:17 Yahoo: 2006 hurricane season
29 Mar, Wed, 14:50:14 Yahoo: 2006 named hurricanes
29 Mar, Wed, 14:59:55 Yahoo: hurricane season 2006
29 Mar, Wed, 14:59:55 Yahoo: causes of sucide
29 Mar, Wed, 15:02:29 Yahoo: Gangsta Kids
29 Mar, Wed, 15:11:19 Yahoo: supreme court for ronald reagan
29 Mar, Wed, 15:25:09 MSN Search: California Statute of Limitations for statuatory rape
29 Mar, Wed, 15:43:01 Yahoo: Public Sentiment of Bush
29 Mar, Wed, 15:56:51 Yahoo: 2006 hurricane season predictions
29 Mar, Wed, 15:57:57 Yahoo: democratic "contract with america"
29 Mar, Wed, 16:06:51 Yahoo: catastrophic health insurance plans high deductables
29 Mar, Wed, 16:11:43 Yahoo: 2006 hurricane season
29 Mar, Wed, 16:48:48 Google: Pig skull
29 Mar, Wed, 17:05:19 Yahoo: 2006 hurricane season
29 Mar, Wed, 17:19:11 Yahoo: PRO AND CONS OF SANCTION GUIDELINES
29 Mar, Wed, 17:45:37 Yahoo: 2006 hurricane season predictions
29 Mar, Wed, 17:45:40 Yahoo: worst pain, worst way of tortue
29 Mar, Wed, 17:55:19 Yahoo: "sharon stone" blow job
29 Mar, Wed, 17:59:19 Yahoo: andy card resigns

MAP-stravaganza

View the world from 56 different perspectives

Very cool. Takes a while to wrap your head around the way graphic representation is used to transmit information about trends, but worth it. Go round the world 56 times in a day....

McCain's Flip-Flop?

EJ Dionne has an interesting piece on McCain's recent attempt to get cozy with Republican primary voters, and points out recent "flip-flops" like his vote to continue the President's dividends and capital gains tax cuts last February that he once so adamantly opposed in the name of fiscal responsibility. Dionne writes:

The prevailing view among McCain's lieutenants — it's also the conventional political view — is that since the main obstacle to his nomination in 2008 comes from the right and from Bush partisans, McCain's main task is to appease the right and make nice with Bush on issues (such as Iraq) where McCain actually agrees with the president. Liberal attacks can be ignored since most liberals will eventually vote against McCain anyway. There will be plenty of time after he's nominated for McCain to don his maverick apparel again for the benefit of moderates and independents.

All terribly logical, but it's a more dangerous strategy than it seems. McCain's central appeal, even to people who disagree with him, has always been his willingness to do the nonpolitical thing — for example, to defend Kerry that day in 2004 simply because he thought the attacks on Kerry were wrong. If McCain spends the next two years obviously positioning himself to win Republican primary votes, he will start to look like just another politician. Once lost, a maverick's image is hard to earn back.

Moreover, McCain is winning a hearing from previously reluctant Republicans as the one person who might save the party if Bush's popularity continues to sink. But if McCain gets too close to Bush in the next two years, he will no longer have his independence as a selling point. And if Bush should make a comeback, a lot of Republicans flirting with McCain now out of necessity will happily abandon him for someone more to their liking.

A bit of Dionne's analysis is unfair for two reasons. First, he doesn't give McCain the opportunity to defend his vote for the tax cuts, and second, he fails to point out that in order to win the Presidency one must first win their party's nomination. That is reality.

I will say that McCain's vote seems very convenient as the biggest sticking point that has hurt his relationship with the party faithful is his view that we ought not to cut taxes without cutting spending, a view I strongly agree with BTW. If he abandons that position to make friends with the wing nuts, and I am not absolutely sure that is what he did, is he still the guy that I think would make an excellent President?

Dionne raises a fair question without technically asking it. How far do centrists allow those politicians we like stray from their independence in order to win the party's faithful? Let's face it, to an extent this is going to happen whether we like it or not, but how far is too far?

McCain isn't the only one. Evan Bayh has taken some votes recently that have made his centrist supporters shake their head and we have all watched with wonder as HRC has danced between the left and the center. This is all more reason why being a U.S. Senator and a Presidential candidate is a very difficult thing to do, but these possible contenders have no choice but to deal with it. When is the line crossed? When do political realities stop being an acceptable excuse?

When the GOP borrows and spends like a drunken sailor

You not only run your national debt up past 8 trillion dollars (I say we reach 9 trillion in 30 months tops), you get a disaster. Not a lot of big disasters at first, just a lot of little ones that will grow into big ones. Like cutting funding for the CDC when we have to deal with West Nile virus, avian bird flu, new strains of TB and other little pleasant things. Is that short-sighted or what?!? Or may this item which caught my attention this morning in the SF Chronicle

"...starting next month, about 1,000 low-income seniors in San Francisco will lose their monthly food boxes as cutbacks in a U.S. Department of Agriculture program trickle down to beneficiaries. Tens of thousands of other seniors across the country are also losing their boxes.

More than that, pending before Congress is a Bush administration proposal to completely eliminate the food program in the coming fiscal year. It is a move administration officials say is necessary in tight budgetary times. They say the food boxes duplicate other federal nutrition programs, but advocates for seniors say that older Americans will be left with empty pantries.

The rest of the article is in the extended entry. As for my own bleeding-heart liberal (oh isn't it nice how Republicans turned compassion into a negative?) feelings about this, here they are. The "Christian Right", which dominates this party's politics, has politically allowed the cutting of food programs for seniors. Do we hears any outcries at all? None. Jesus would certainly be appalled but he's dead and his teachings seem forgotten by those in power. How can hypocrites like Frist strut around, wearing crosses on their sleeves and call this a "Christian" nation when all of the Christian virtues are absent from this government?? You have a political machine that is loathe to help the sick (more people without health insurance), feed and clothe the poor (see article) because not only are they too busy giving away billions in tax breaks to wealthy yacht buyers, they're even giving them tax breaks when they BUY a yacht!

It's not like choices are being forced on the GOP controlled Congress to cut these small but important programs, especially when they seem to have plenty of money for no-bid contracts, even more tax breaks, and refuse to revisit royalties paid to this country from oil and mineral resources. They are adept at looking after the financial interests of those who contribute millions to the GOP. This is the epitomy of moral bankruptcy. What's even sadder is that the whole of the moderate wing of the Republican party has been so effectively castrated and have gone along with reckless and feckless borrowing and spending. They were AWOL when the nation needed them the most to rein in this bankrupting juggernaut. They were the ones that could have pulled us out of what I'm starting to believe is a nose dive. Don't look to McCain to really alter this, he's too busy whoring around on K Street gathering funds for his presidential campaign.

Kevin Phillips in ""American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century," --

"It is as if the United States, like the poet Oliver Wendell Holmes's 'One-Hoss Shay,' is about to lose all its wheels at once."

Additional excerpt and additional comment are in the extended section.

One other note before the article, I've been pretty busy lately so that I haven't been able to post as much as I'd like to. So if this seems "trollish" well you can go ahead call it that. Yes it is a rather partisan rant. What is appalling is that so many so-called centrists sit around while even this kind of outrage goes on. I would like to believe that most if not all moderates would place a premium on making sure that the nutritional needs of out seniors is met, especially since everyone of them will become a senior eventually, unless they croak early on. I wonder if there will be more outrage by my comments then there will be about what happened to this food program and AND the underlying reasons why.

As for this plane spinning out of control. Well maybe the Democrats can win in November, apply some left rudder, back off on the elevators, and maybe guide this country into recovery. But even that I feel pssimism, from the feeling that this election will be tampered with and that the WH and the GOP will stop at nothing to keep Democrats from having any kind of subpoena power and thus keep themselves from having to be accountable for their actions. I can only hope for an electorate that has enough "Republican fatigue" to overcome the obstacles I see.

- Marcus

Low-income S.F. seniors to lose food boxes to federal cutbacks
- Elizabeth Fernandez, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 28, 2006

shortened excerpt.

....
Last year, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program provided food packages to about 512,000 people each month, including 57,000 in 11 counties in California. This year, due to budget cutbacks and higher food costs, the federal program is supporting about 477,000 people, USDA figures show.
....

The food boxes, with a retail value of about $42 apiece, cost the USDA about $18, not including administrative costs of the $111 million program...

"il Elizabeth Fernandez at efernandez@sfchronicle.com.

Out of a 2.5TRILLION dollar budget, feeding seniors takes less priority than no-bid contracts.

WHat a radical agenda eh?

How Many Teenagers Will Fit Under MA's Thumb?

Massachusetts Considers Highest in Nation Driving Age

The Massachusetts proposal, still being drafted by the Joint Transportation Committee, would keep young drivers off the road until they are 16 1/2, when they could apply for a learner's permit. That is six months later than the current system allows.

The proposal also calls for extending the time that teenagers would be required to drive under a learner's permit from six months to one year. Drivers with learner's permits must be accompanied by a licensed driver who is at least 21.

It also would require teenagers to wait until they are at least 17 1/2 before receiving a junior operating license, rather than the current 16 1/2. Until they turn 18 and get a full license, as now, they would face higher penalties for some offenses such as speeding and drunken driving.

Although there are no studies about the effects of making drivers wait until they are 17 1/2 to drive alone, some specialists said yesterday that it is a surefire way to reduce fatalities. Fewer young drivers on the road means fewer deadly accidents, they say.

I'm interested about what others think about this, especially parents. It occurs to me that while some parents are so ineffectual that they need a law to back them so they don't have to say no, other parents are looking forward to the day when their responsible children can drive themselves around, and the Maw and Paw taxi service can fold.

Random Open Thread

For no particular reason.

Andy Card Resigns

The Moderate Voice has the coverage.

What an awful message...

Warning: The following contains frank discussion about sexuality, using blunt terms. Read at your own risk.

If you're in a situation where you cannot get out of sex, offer a blow job. I'm not embarrassed to tell them.

What does she mean "when you cannot get out of sex"? One presumes she is not suggesting offering a blowjob to avoid rape. No, she means for the girl to give out a blowjob to placate a boyfriend who is pressuring her for sex. That's the unspoken culture. If a girl has a boyfriend, she has certain duties to perform if she wants to keep him. Good girls may be able to avoid "sex sex", but even good girls must "put out" somehow or other if they want to be popular and date the popular boys.

I have 6 younger siblings (3 of each gender), most around college age right now. We've had some frank (and uncomfortable) conversations. I have a pretty fair idea of what's going on out there. I know that in the popular teen mind, oral sex is absolutely not sex. I know there are expectations. I know both boys and girls have desires. I know sometimes boys put pressure on girls, and sometimes girls put pressure on boys. And sometimes no pressure is necessary and both parties want the same thing, right now.

But I also know that very often girls with self esteem issues, with body image issues, girls struggling to fit in and "be popular", submit to things they don't really want to do because of that peer pressure and that boyfriend pressure. It is the height of irresponsibility for a popular female celebrity, who should be a role model for young girls, to tell girls they should give in to sexual pressure from a boy.

Except for rape, there is NO circumstance in which a young woman "cannot get out of sex". No means no, and any man who refuses to accept that, by force or emotional pressure, is not worth being given the time of day, let alone a blow job. If she "cannot get out of sex", the boy needs a knee, not a mouth, to his groin.

Meet the Next President?

Economist Eric Janszen makes a bold prediction:

I liked what I heard and was impressed by Warner. The fact is, America needs an accomplished, honest, competent, effective and elect-able candidate for president....

My prediction is that Mark Warner will win the 2008 presidential election. I believe he'll do this on a platform of Honesty, Competence and Passion for his country and its people. Considering how early we are in the election cycle, and the fact that Governor Warner came in second behind Hillary Clinton by a two-to-one margin in a recent straw poll, you might find my prediction farfetched. I'll tell you why it isn't in a later commentary. But remember, as usual, you heard it here first.

I'm waiting for Eric's explanation, but I will say that in part I agree. I would argue that if Warner gets past the Democratic nomination, and listens to Carville and Begala and not Shrum and Trippi, he will be the next President. Let me make myself clear, I don't think it matters who the Republicans nominate. I believe that Mark Warner is the only Democrat with the potential to beat both Giuliani and McCain. Moreover, he is the only Democrat, of the current contenders, that I would consider voting for over both.

Here is why Warner could win:

Bill Clinton won the Presidency, IMO, because he took the typical rhetorical arguments of the Republican Party head on, and provided Americans with a wonkish policy alternative, put in simple terms, that made sense to the average citizen. Bubba didn't walk away from the tax cut, gun control, abortion, and gay rights debate, but rather spoke of those issues in a manner that made moderate and independent red Americans feel like he was with them, even if technically he wasn't.

Take the abortion issue. Clinton clearly stated his pro-choice postion over and over again out of one side of his mouth, and then out of the other he pointed out that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. He once chastised a group of supporters who cheered when he told them he was pro-choice, stating that his position should not be celebrated and that we should work to lessen the number of abortions in this country by improving health care and benefits to single mothers. Then he went and backed up his rhetoric.

One could argue that it had little to do with Clinton's policies and more to do with economic progress well outside of his control, but under the administration of a pro-choice, moderate Democrat the rate of abortions plummeted and under Bush they have increased. That is a fact. The Democrats could argue that they did more to eliminate abortion in the nineties than any conservative Republican President has ever done, but out of fear of backlash from NARAL and NOW, they back down. Instead, the party continues to tack to the farthest left and take the most extreme positions, opposing parental notification and supporting late term abortions that are for all intents and purposes already illegal.

John Kerry would be President today if he had tackled the tough issues and taken Bush on in regards to gay rights, gun control, Iraq, abortion, and taxes from the center. Rather, he chose to ignore those issues when possible or resort to cloudy one-liners intended specifically to divert taking any real position while keeping quiet those voters that were going to vote for him regardless. That isn't leadership, and most of the American people knew it.

Warner is the only current contender within the Democratic Party that has used the Clinton-like strategy effectively. In a bright red Republican state, after forecasting the success of cell phones and becoming a wealthy former CEO, Warner ran for Governor as a pro-business, pro-NASCAR, pro-gun, centrist southern-Democrat and won. He then proceeded to break a campaign pledge, raise taxes, and go out of office with high approval ratings.

I was living in Virginia when Warner proposed his tax plan. The attacks from most conservatives came from the typical, populist, free lunch play book that we saw Karl Rove use effectively in both 2000 and 2004. Unlike Kerry, Warner took the Republicans on, presented a sensible case that a majority of Virginians and many Republicans couldn't find fault with, and won handily. Since, Virginia has received a AAA bond rating and Government Magazine's #1 ranking as the best managed state in the Union, another centrist Democrat has been elected to replace Warner, and the man himself was named one of Time's five best Governor's in America. FYI, the other five were Kathleen Sebelius and Janet Napolitano, both centrist Democrat executives in Bush supporting states, Kenny Guinn of Nevada and Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, my dark horse pick for the Republican nomination. Can you picture the strength of a Warner/Napolitano or Warner/Sebelius ticket… Two moderate success stories from red states?

The question IMO isn't whether or not Warner will be President if he stays on the same course and listens to the right people, and IMO the right people are Carville and Begala, but rather or not the Democrats will give him the opportunity. I will say, at this point, it is more likely we will see Warner before McCain or Giuliani. The conservatives are drunk with power and will not negotiate away their stronghold over the issues without a fight, and the skepticism about Hillary's elect-ability seems to be growing legs.

I have my doubts that the Deaniacs will warm up to a moderate southern Governor who supports nuclear energy, staying in Iraq for the time being, gun rights, and would rather focus on Bush's policies rather than Bush himself, but political parties do strange things when they are out of power for a long period of time, like nominate the Governor of Arkansas or Georgia to be President. Also, I am not so sure that in the end the establishment will be able to resist nominating the former first lady; however, if the party of FDR has the brains to unite behind Governor Warner, the next President will more than likely be a Democrat.

Tax Plan from New America Foundation. Best or Worst of Centrism?

Tax policy is such a crucial part of government does. Few things influence citizens in so many ways. It's a policy area that so many want to see changed and one that stays shrouded in mystery, complicated details and bylaws and leaves few people satisfied.

Whether you visit the Center for American Progress or the CATO Institute you see "solutions". Be it a highly progressive income tax policy or one based on a flat tax or consumption tax, they're all so contraversial that none stand a chance of getting enacted because they cater so much to ideological bias. I'm not claiming that they wouldn't work...who knows?...I'm not an economist but they don't seem politically viable.

Enter the New America Foundation with an innovative hybrid style plan that addresses all kinds of taxation...not just federal or sales tax.

"Our nation’s current approach to tax and spending fails all three of the most important tests of sound fiscal policy: the tests of efficiency, sufficiency and fairness. In particular, our largest taxes punish work and saving, the revenues raised are far short of those needed, and even as income inequality has grown, our overall tax code has become less progressive. Our tax code has also become more complex, while suffering from a failure of coordination between different levels of government and an overall lack of transparency.

The purpose of New America’s Fiscal Policy Program is to reframe the national debate and put forth concrete reform proposals in order to pave the way for a tax system that is simultaneously more fair and efficient, and a budget that better serves our most important national priorities."

I found their plans worthy of consideration but they still leave much to debate since they raise as many questions as they offer answers.

Here's the link:

http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=sec_home&secID=26

you'll see the pdf link under featured publications.

In a nut shell, they propose:

1. Replacing payroll tax with a PROGRESSIVE consumption tax.
2. Integrating individual and corporate income taxes in exchange for taxing all income the same.
3.Reduce and reform tax expenditures (deductions).
4.Replace estate tax with inheritance tax.
5.Create a new revenue stream from environmental taxes.

Why?

#1: payroll taxes are regressive and inefficient. The majority of non-wage pre-tax compensation benefits go to upper-income earners. It's a tax labor creating disincentives to hire new people and expand payrolls. And, it insufficient to meet future demands of SS and Medicare...(They have a separate plan for this elsewhere on their site). Switching to progressive consumption tax combines the economic benefits of a consumption tax with the fairness of progressivity. It encourages saving, which would be tax-free. Higher levels of spending would be taxed at higher rates.

It all sounds good to me but I question the last point. Wouldn't that discourage high spending? Maybe, maybe not. I like it but it needs more detail.

#2: Corporate taxes render us less competitve in a global market and is very complex (believe me, it is). They also claim it drains as much as it takes from the economy. And, they claim any of these taxes are ultimately passed on to consumers anyway thru lower wages and less hires. This tax should eliminated or integrated into one's individual taxes for the sake simplicity, transparency, closing loopholes anf fairness since all income in all forms would be taxed only once and at the same progressive rate.

I like it. Needs more data and detail but I like it. Taxation has a way repeatedly taxing the same thing at all points in the process to the end consumer. Not good.
I'm all for something alonf these lines.

#3: Too many deductions. They need to be reduced and reformed. They're regressive since wealthier people see most of the benefit of tax breaks. In some years, they claim, these expenditures cost more than the entire discretionary budget. Multiple breaks should consolidated and simplified and capped. These expenditures should also be listed as a government outlay to better reflect their effect on government operations and its real size.

This one's a bit complex. I agree with the premise but I could see a lot of backlash from this one. But then again, in conjunction with other reforms, it may be better than it seems.

#4. In a society that values work, the taxing of the first dollar of income of a poorer person and the huge breaks on inherited income is the opposite of what it should be. Estate tax should repealed and replaced with an tax that treats inherited income like earned income with exemptions and progressive rates to ease the taxation of small inheritances versus large ones.

Sounds good to me. I'd like to see the exemptions details though.

#5: The tax code subsidizes envirnmentally harmful policies and does nothing to encourage energy indpendence and conservation...which in turns weakens us internationally. This tax is consistent in taxing what we don't want and rewarding tax-free what we do want. It will cut down on pollution and push us in a better direction.

Sounds great but it could ADVERSELY affect the economy without sufficient warning increasing the cost of doing anything and slowing down the economy. While I support the principle, pragmatically, it needs much more detail to sell itself to the public. The jury's out on this one.

Well, that's the gist of it. What do you think? Good and sensible compromise or a step sideways thru bad pandering to the establishment that avoids real reform that helps us? I tend to think it's a more the former than the latter but it's far from perfect. I'd like to look into their SS reform ideas as well as their budget priorities to see how well they go along with this plan. A better tax system isn't that effective if budgeting and spending does not match it to produce positive and fair results for everyone.

Google Mystery

I've completed purging the old posts from the database. They are still accessible from the archive links on the right. I've also changed the search box on the right to use Google search rather than the Movable Type search.

In doing so, I've found that Google does not appear to be indexing the pages of the Centerfield weblog. They used to, but it now appears that they've done something to consolidate us under the Centrist Coalition, and no longer index our individual pages.

This does not seem right to me. It appears to me that words entered in the Centerfield blog are simply not reachable from Google search. See for instance, this search for Tully. It doesn't pick up any blog pages. It does pick up some comments, because apparently it does still index the cgi-bin directory. (those links come up invalid if you click on them because I deleted them out of the database).

Has anyone heard of this before? I think we need to contact Google. What should we do?

The Sioux Step Up

We've all heard about South Dakota's attempt to almost totally outlaw abortion.

Tribal leader rallies for abortion clinic on reservation

Oglala Sioux Tribe President Cecelia Fire Thunder says a clinic on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation could provide abortions if South Dakota’s new abortion ban goes into effect.

“We’re working on it,” Fire Thunder said in a telephone interview Friday. “This is a free-choice issue. If I were in that situation, I’d want somewhere to go where I’d be taken care of.”

The new South Dakota law bans all abortions except to save the life of the mother — with no exceptions for rape or incest.

Fire Thunder said the state law would not apply to the reservation. “We’re a sovereign nation.”

Yup.

R E S P E C T

LSU continues its march into madness with back-to-back victories over the #1 and the #2 seeds to reach the Final Four. Read more about this phenomenal bunch of young players who might finally get the respect they deserve. It's a really interesting team. In addition to being all freshmen and sophmores (with one senior), 8 of them are from Louisiana, and 6 were born and raised right here in Baton Rouge. This could be a magic season, but I suspect it's the beginning of a 4-year dynasty.

And by no means can we forget the LSU Lady Tigers, who earned a berth in the Elite Eight this morning. Head Coach Pokey Chatman is just the best in the country right now, and the team is incredible. While the men's team being in the Final Four comes as a surprise to many, at least some of the individual women players like Seimone Augustus have long gotten the respect they deserve, although many thought LSU would suffer more from the loss of last year's biggest star, Temeka Johnson. They play #3 seed Stanford on Monday for a berth in the Final Four.

Oh, and consider this an open thread for tournament discussions over the weekend...

UPDATE: Congratulations to George Mason on a phenomenal tournament thus far. They just knocked off U.Conn. for a spot in the Final Four.

Mr. Smith, come back to Washington!

Building on the success of Fahrenheit 9/11 and other political films we enter this mid-term election cycle with some "fun" films coming up. In May we'll be treated to a new "Rudy" and a lecture by Big Al. And of course we'll get our periodic dose of GWB ridicule.

PS No, I haven't seen any of these films and no I didn't appreciate Ben Stein's conservative jag on Hollywood I just like to go the movies for entertainment.

Purging Old Posts

What I plan to do over the weekend is to delete most of the old posts from the Centerfield blog. That is, I will be purging them from the database. I've created a copy of all the posts, so after purging them, I'll be able to restore them from the backup. But this means they'll be frozen in time, and will be out of the database, and will no longer be dynamically rebuilt. Links to them should still work (but they may be missing for a day or so).

This will make the blog more efficient, and I hope will help fight spam.

Does anyone have any concerns?

Avlon on NOW

Centrist columnist John Avlon was on PBS's NOW program tonight to speak about the centrist movement. Here is a link to the program. I expect the video will show up eventually

I think they're turning Portuguese

Earlier in the week, Jon posted this summary of a bill before Parliament in England. I grew up in England, and I still have friends and relatives there, which makes me anything but a disinterested observer.

For those reasons, and a few others, I read the bill with great concern, concerns I have put together in I think they’re turning Portuguese: The stealthy emasculation of the royal prerogative and the expansion of executive power in Britain. This essay examines the scope of the bill, its internal protections, and its effect, concluding that this represents a major (and unwise) change in the British Constitution, undertaken either by stealth or without consideration of the consequences, depending on whether its consequences are intentional or accidental. I also examine the Constitutions of Britain's twelve Maasctricht co-signatories and find that such a commingling of the legislative and executive functions is so far beyond the mainstream of European constitutional norms that it would be unconstitional in every other Maastricht signatory but Portugal (hence the title)

This is still very much a draft, and I would welcome feedback and comments.

We are so used to the idea that human progress is an "excelsior ratchet," a constant process of moving onwards and upwards, that we are loath to contemplate the idea that a major western country in this day and age could become more authoritarian, but however well-intentioned its genesis, I think that is exactly what this bill opens the door to.

"Pro-Business" Centrism: An oxymoron?

I am self-employed. I own a small business that employs about 15-17 people year round with extra staffing during peak season my education background is a BA in French/Modern Language. I considered being a Teacher but decided on Law School but then changed course again before graduation and went and got an MBA. My dreams were always in International Business. After 2 positions in that field, I decided to buy a business and here I am.

The other day, I got a visit from the NFIB (National Federation of Independent Businesses), a group that lobbies for the interests and needs of small business. I thought it was great. I stressed to the person that my needs were not the same as Dow-movers and big business and that it was encouraging to hear about a lobby that fought for the little guy. I became a member.

I explained that I felt neither party was keenly in tune with our needs. "Joe's Pizza" and Pizza Hut are two different animals and while a lot of "pro-business" legislation gets passed, I fail to see how it helps people like me. Slashing capital gains, corporate taxes and federal income tax may sound good on TV but it doesn't address my ability to prosper. The Rep agreed 100% saying that they're not interested in what works for Microsoft or Wal-Mart...only smaller guys trying to make a living.

Then she showed me the policies and issues that they're fighting for and against. Some were quite obscure though not unimportant involving regulatory details and legal matters. But much of the rest seemed quite partisan, quite frankly. They graded politicians on relevant issues and the more hard-right they were, the better they scored, the more liberal, the lower they scored. I was a bit puzzled by all this since my views on what mattered to small business seemed scattered between the 2 trains of thought.

As a middle class business owner, eliminating the death tax, slashing federal corporate taxes and franchise taxes, limiting law suits and pushing personal savings health accounts aren't going to help me much.

I told the rep this. I further stated that radical changes in health care was the only route I supported. The way they advocated (savings accounts) was a lollipop that didn't fix the system.

In short, while I am pro-business, I didn't feel that some of these tax issues really helped my position. My needs aren't much different from people working for a middle class income for someone else. Fixing health care, doing something about energy costs and simplifying the tax code (if not lowering taxes on the bottom 60% even further) would go much further to reducing my costs of doing busness, making me more profitable, giving my customers more disposable income which in turn allows me to hire more people and further help the economy. How do we pay for it? I can think of a lot of powerful and wealthy interests getting big breaks that I don't get whose special treatment could be cut.

What's good for Gates, Jobs, Trump, Buffet and Forbes isn't always what's good for me. But looking at the perspective of NFIB on certain issues, they seem to think it is. Am I wrong here? By not 100% supporting a nakedly Republican agenda, am I going against my own interests?

Democracy and Violence

The assumption in much political science literature and, obviously, within the Bush Administration, is that of the "democratic peace," i.e., that democracies are inherently peaceful, or at least that they do not fight each other. But, in this article in The National Interest, two political scientists, Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder, argue that encouraging premature democratic transitions can be extremely dangerous.

These episodes are not just a speed bump on the road to the democratic peace. Instead, they reflect a fundamental problem with the Bush Administration's strategy of forced-pace democratization in countries that lack the political institutions needed to manage political competition. Without a coherent state grounded in a consensus on which citizens will exercise self-determination, unfettered electoral politics often gives rise to nationalism and violence at home and abroad.

Essentially, their argument is that leaders and potential leaders in states without strong institutions are likely to use extreme nationalism first to attract support and then to hold the country together. Thus, they claim that elections in such states are "an ethnic census, not a deliberation about public issues." And this problem is worse the earlier the elections come during the process of democratization. They give a number of examples, including Yugoslavia, Pakistan, and Africa, where early democratization led, not to peace, but to mobiliation of ethnic groups, leading to violence and, in some cases, mass murder.

They do not believe that the Islamic countries will be different.

Many Islamic countries that figure prominently in the Bush Administration's efforts to promote democracy are particularly hard cases. Although democratization in the Islamic world might contribute to peace in the very long run, Islamic public opinion in the short run is generally hostile to the United States, ambivalent about terrorism and unwilling to renounce the use of force to regain disputed territories. Although the belligerence of the Islamic public is partly fueled by resentment of the U.S.-backed authoritarian regimes under which many of them live, renouncing these authoritarians and pressing for a quick democratic opening is unlikely to lead to peaceful democratic consolidations. On the contrary, unleashing Islamic mass opinion through sudden democratization might raise the likelihood of war.

They reject the notion that external powers can successfully provide the ingredients for a stable democracy, absent previously existing institutions (i.e., Japan and Germany). Moreover, when an external power tries to bring democratic rule, it often ends up working through local elites whose support is based upon "traditional authority or ethnic sectarianism." This increases the risk of the kind of sectarian split that fuels violence. They worry that the same thing is happening to the U.S.

The United States risks falling into the same trap as it tries to promote democracy in the wake of military interventions. In Iraq, the United States must rule through Shi'a clerics and Kurdish ethnic nationalists. In Afghanistan, as a second cousin of President Hamid Karzai stated on the eve of the September election, the newly elected Parliament "will have tribal leaders, warlords, drug lords" alongside the new democrats. And this is the view of an optimist.

They do not argue that we should not try to promote democracy, but that it is better promoted through positive inducements (e.g. EU membership) and should work in tandem with developing liberal institutions. They suggest that the United States and Europe should work together to promote stable democracy because each has strengths and weaknesses.

Premature democratization (through elections) is dangerous.

The danger is not just that the transition will be chaotic and violent, but also that anti-democratic groups and ideas will be mobilized and will become a long-lasting fixture on the political scene, as in much of former Yugoslavia and the Caucasus. Out-of-sequence, incomplete democratization often creates an enduring template for illiberal, populist politics--for example, the cycling between military dictatorship and illiberal democracy in Pakistan, the theocratic populism of Iran, and ethnic tyrannies of the majority in many transitional states. These political habits, once rooted in ideologies and institutions, are hard to break. Once an ethnic nationalist movement takes hold in a fairly literate society with a politically active population, that identity almost always becomes a permanent fixture of the political landscape. It is better to strengthen state institutions that can serve as the basis for an inclusive, civic form of national loyalty before spurring popular political action that could, in their absence, play into the hands of exclusionary ethnic national movements.

It's rather pointless now to talk about whether invading Iraq was an appropriate way to bring democracy (assuming that was the goal) because that horse has left the barn. And I doubt that this Administration is about to embark on any more crusades to bring democracy at the point of American bayonets. But I think this article has some cogent points to make, to both liberals and conservatives, that think democracy will automatically equate to peace and stability. Even the kind of democracy promotion of which the authors approve must be addressed carefully and must recognize that the dynamics of democratic transition are different in the rest of the world than they were in the 18th and 19th century United States. Democracy often means quite different things to Americans than it does to Muslims, Africans, etc.

Belarus Update

TENT CITY STORMED

Police stormed the opposition tent camp in the Belarusian capital early Friday and rounded up hundreds of demonstrators who spent a fourth night protesting President Alexander Lukashenko's victory in a disputed election....

...In Moscow, Russia's foreign minister said there was no reason to doubt the election results, and he took issue with the media description of police storming the tent camp.

"I would not call the scenes I saw on TV today the use of force," Sergey Lavrov was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

What would you call it, Mr. Lavrov?

Back to the Future in Tehran?

There are a number of intersting articles on the Iranian situation from a variety of perspectives. In The National Interest, an International Relations journal that bills itself as "conservative realist," Ray Takeyh has a very sobering sketch of Ahmadinejad that doesn't give a lot of hope to pragmatists. Takeyh sees Ahmadinejad (I wish he would change his name so it's easier to spell) as part of a cohort of Iranian revolutionists that came of age during the Iran-Iraq War.

This was a war waged for the triumph of ideas, with Ba'athi secular pan-Arabism contesting Iran's Islamic fundamentalism. As such, for those who went to the front, the war came to embody their revolutionary identity. Themes of solidarity, sacrifice, self-reliance and commitment not only allowed the regime to consolidate its power, they also made the defeat of Saddam the ultimate test of theocratic legitimacy. War and revolution had somehow fused in the clerical cosmology. To wage a determined war was to validate one's revolutionary ardor and spiritual fidelity--the notions of compromise and a "ceasefire" were anathema to this point of view.

What's especially disturbing is that, like German nationalists after WWI, these Iranian revolutionaries view the West as the reason why the war did not turn out satisfactorily for Iran--and they aren't completely incorrect. This has shaped Ahmadinejad's view of relations with the West, especially the United States. Unlike some pragmatists in Iran, he does not particularly care about improving relations with the West and sees things like the nuclear program as a test of nationalist resolve. And he certainly is not interested in copying western political systems. Takeyh claims that these Iranian conservatives see the western stance on Iran's nuke program as being aimed not at the nukes themselves but at the regime itself and that makes them even more determined not to give in.

In a peculiar manner, the nuclear program and Iran's national identity have become fused in the imagination of the hardliners. To stand against an impudent America is to validate one's revolutionary ardor and sense of nationalism. Thus, the notion of compromise and acquiescence has limited utility to Iran's aggrieved nationalists.

Takeyh thinks that American rhetoric, both from the government and from neocons have exacerbated Iran's sense of grievance and validated their sense that the U.S. is opposed not so much to Iran's nukes as to Iran's government. At any rate, it's not a pretty picture.

Takeyh's article calls into serious question the utility of negotiating with Iran. In the New York Times, Jessica Mathews, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, states, unlike some others, that an Iranian bomb would be a disaster, in large part because of the likelihood that it would cause others in the region to seek the bomb. She believes that it is possible to get Iran to give up its program but that the West must speak with one voice and

[t]he administration must, finally, hold its nose and recognize that the nuclear challenge is the indisputable priority. It must get off the sidelines and into negotiations with Tehran. It must solidify agreement among its fellow permanent council members by working closely with Russia, not least by concluding a long overdue pact on civil nuclear cooperation. Russian participation would make it possible to provide Iran with a credible international guarantee of uranium enrichment and reprocessing services.

Of course, if Takeyh is correct, it's going to take a hell of a lot more than just talking to get Ahmadinejad to even think about making concessions. On the other hand, an earlier article in the New York Times suggests that some in Iran are having second thoughts about confronting the West so directly in the nuke issue. (Unfortunately, this article has been placed in "Times Select" so I guess I cannot link to it.) And, still others believe that we should just let Iran have the bomb and count of deterrence to keep it in check.

What of the fear that Iran might pass a weapon to Hezbollah or to Al Qaeda in Iraq? Those arguing for a containment strategy say Iran knows that the origins of any detonated bomb would be traced sooner or later, so the mullahs would not be foolish enough to trust proxies with such a weapon.

Of course, even if this position is correct (which is, obviously, pretty speculative at best), it entirely ignores the issue of additional proliferation in the region. There seem to be no good options for dealing with Iran. At this point, Iran is simply playing the US and Western Europe off against each other. Clearly, the Europeans have no stomach to confront Iran and don't trust the US enough to follow us. The question is, of course, whether Iran is amenable to compromise at all and that likely depends on how strong Ahmadinejad's position is. The Times article that I can't link to suggested that his confrontational policy was very popular when it appeared to be working, but the more that it seemed to be backfiring, the more questions were being raised. Thus, if the West can forge some kind of united front (along with China and Russia), Ahmadinejad's position may begin to weaken. Big IF, however.

Geaux Tigers!

Geaux Tigers! So sorry, Duke, but bye-bye! That's all I've got to say. The rest of you, here's your Friday open thread.

P.S. If LSU hosed your Final Four picks, I'm delighted we ruined your day!

Rush to Judgement: Don't

It was bound to come around. I waited for the start of MSM vetting, not trusting the wings to impartially judge context or add perspective. ABC done good in that regard, by my standards.

Did Russian Ambassador Give Saddam the U.S. War Plan?

This article covers just seven of the documents released so far. Those who religiously insist that there was no link between Iraq and terrorism, much less Al Qaeda, that our "allies" the Russians and the French would never covertly act against us for mere lucre, should stick their fingers in their ears and cry "La la la la la!" about now.

ABC does a good job of noting what the seven documents do and do not show. Read the article for the meat, but here's the titles ABC added:

[1-2] "U.S. War Plan Leaked to Iraqis by Russian Ambassador"

[3] "Osama Bin Laden Contact With Iraq"

[4] "Osama bin Laden and the Taliban"

[5] "Election Campaign Laws in France"

[6] "Hiding Docs from the U.N. Team"

[7] "Al Qaeda Presence in Iraq"

This just a taste of things to come. There will be MUCH more of this in the future. The info-dump and translations from the Iraq Archives is just now beginning. What all it will show, nobody knows. But I'm willing to bet there are surprises for just about everyone.

Torture: A Centrist Position?

Americans approve of torturing terrorists under some conceivable circumstances, according to a poll pointed out by Andrew Sullivan

Is the American public apathetic about charges its government uses and sponsors torture in its fight against terrorism? Not apathetic, according to surveys. Fact is, a majority of Americans actually approve of the use of torture under some circumstances.

In my view, the Bush Administration's practice is in the "sometimes" camp. We sometimes, but not often, use harsh tactics that amount to torture. I'd prefer it was done much more rarely, only to the highest value Al Qaeda commanders like Khalid Shaikh Muhammed, the architect of 9/11, who was caught while in the midst of planning new attacks.

I don't think it should be legalized for these rare occasions. Rather, anyone who commits torture should be prepared to go to The Hague to justify their actions.

Texas Arresting Drunks in Bars

Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk, a spokeswoman for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said Wednesday.

The first sting operation was conducted recently in a Dallas suburb where agents infiltrated 36 bars and arrested 30 people for public intoxication, said the commission's Carolyn Beck.

Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkenness, Beck said.

The goal, she said, was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car.

When Texas slides such unashamedly invasive policies under the easy umbrella of public safety, it's time to go up a defcon level if you are really concerned about civil liberties. I'd expect a policy like this in a place like the people's republic of Cambridge, in my home state of Massachusetts. But in Texas? Texas, have you been importing our puritans? If we're exporting them, then that's fine, but if they are spreading, then Yikes!

How soon until the cops start bringing breathalyzers into bars? The petty oppressions are coming hard and fast. I think with drinking they are threatening to jump the shark. We'll have carstart breathalyzer tests as lifetime punishment for anyone ever caught driving drunk in the majority of states within a decade. (I actually think these are a great idea except for the lifetime part).

Then, if Texas is any judge, we'll soon have every person who dares go to a bar blowing into a policeman's breathalyzer hose. Never mind that some of the patrons may have walked to the bar, the risk is too great. 4 beers? Protective custody! What's next after that? Well, why not have carstart breathalyzer tests for EVERY car as a public safety device? It's undeniably safer for everyone!!

Who Needs That Useless Old Parliament?

According to the UK Guardian and London Times, Tony Blair seems to be crafting means by which he can change law with minimal or possibly no reference to that slow, boring old Parliament. The gist, according to saveparliament.org.uk, is that

It grants any minister the ability to amend, replace, or repeal existing legislation. The frightening thing is this: they would be able to make major changes to the law without Parliament being able to examine it properly, taking away the ability of Parliament to meaningfully represent the citizens of this country.

Of course, Tony Blair has already seriously whittled away at that annoying freedom of speech stuff and those pesky juries.

There's an interesting and informative discussion on slashdot

This is pretty horrifying. It's even more horrifying that it hasn't been laughed out of Commons. If it passes, will the maximal interval between elections come up in the fast track? Will we need violent regime change in the UK?

UPDATE: Thanks to Simon, a pointer to the bill text.

Some Days Are Slow News Days

What A Bird-Brain! Rooftop Pigeon Shooter Causes Downtown Scare

The story itself is only vaguely amusing--man with pellet gun shooting pigeons from multi-story building roof causes massive panic reaction. Well, crackpot snipers have turned up before. Why take chances? The funny part is buried deeper in the story.

The building in question is used by the Pittsburgh Culinary Institute...

South Park & Scientology

It just gets better!

Chef's "South Park" Homecoming?

Tonight's 10th season debut kicks off with an all-new episode titled "The Return of Chef!"

Of course, that's not to say the episode necessarily heralds the return of Hayes, and the network was coy when it came to commenting on what part, if any, his vocals would play in the episode.

"I'm going to be maddeningly, frustratingly vague," Comedy Central spokesman Steve Albani told E! Online with regard to the episode's content.

Nine seasons gives you a LOT of sound files to have fun with, and I'm sure Parker & Stone did just that. 9pm Central, 10PM Eastern. Enjoy.

GM Workers, Pick a World

GM offers workers up to $140K to leave

General Motors Corp. is offering its hourly workers as much as $140,000 each to leave the company as the embattled automaker made its latest effort to cut labor costs and end billions of dollars in losses.

GM announced an agreement with the United Auto Workers union Wednesday, although it did not give the details of the offer extended to all 113,000 U.S. hourly employees. But a source familiar with terms of the offer confirms that those UAW members with 10 years or more service with the automaker will get $140,000 if they agree to forsake the retiree health care coverage that has become a crippling burden for GM. The workers will keep their accured pension benefits, though.

Read the whole thing. I am sympathetic to all workers who have been promised something and now may not get it. A promise is, after all, a promise. Right? To paraphrase Seinfeld:

JERRY: I don't understand, you made a promise, do you have my health insurance?

GM: Yes, we did, unfortunately we may not be able to keep it.

JERRY: But the promise keeps the healthcare. That's why you have the promise.

RENTAL CAR AGENT: I know why we make promises.

JERRY: I don't think you do. If you did, I'd have healthcare. See, you know how to make the promise, you just don't know how to *keep* the promise and that's really the most important part of the promise, the keeping. Anybody can just make them.

Unfortunately, Jerry was left living the real world, the one where no rental cars were left. Not the ideal one where the reservation literally held the car. Here's the thing...Jerry was 100% in the right, and he still got the shaft.

GM workers are facing a decision about the world they think they'll be living in when they retire. I doubt that anyone disputes that in a perfect world, GM workers would get everything that they thought was promised to them. But in the real world, does the promise still hold if GM ceases to exist as a company? If GM goes under, are the taxpayers going to foot the entire bill for the exact same coverage, at absolutely no cost?

So if you're offered the 140k, don't say no without making your own judgement about how likely it is that GM will still be around when you retire, and what will happen to you if they aren't. And spend a little time asking yourself whether you think this is the last time GM is going to come to its workers with its hat in its hand, asking for concessions to keep the company alive.

Here's the thing: sometimes the first offer is the best offer, or the only offer. If you want some eyewitness testimony about what you might be facing, you might want to google Polaroid, or find some ex-Polaroid workers to talk to.

Remember the flick Unforgiven? Gene Hackman's on the ground dying, and Clint Eastwood's holding a gun on him. Hackman says something like, "This isn't fair." Clint says, "Fair's got nothing to do with it," and then he kills him.

The Undisputed Facts

Let it be known first off that I am, for all intents and purposes a supporter of the war in Iraq. I supported the war in the beginning (with some reservations about timing), and my support really has not wavered. That being said, I recognize that a lot of mistakes have been made in Iraq, and a lot of things went down in a way they shouldn't have. Regardless, it is clear to me that we were justified in removing Saddam, and while he was not directly involved in 9/11, he was a long-term threat the needed to be dealt with. The debate over this war, and the justifications will rage on for years to come. There is plenty of room for debate on the war, pro or con, but I submit that in order to have an honest and serious debate of this war (and the larger War on Terror), reasonable people must recognize these seven facts to be undisputed:

1. America was hit with an unprovoked attack on 9/11, by radical Islamists who want to destroy us. Nearly 3,000 Americans were killed. America did NOTHING to deserve this attack.

2. America has an obligation to confront all clear terrorist threats. This does not always mean open war, but if military force is required, we must be ready.

3. Saddam Hussein was a brutal, murderous dictator, who committed genocidal acts against his own people. He invaded his neighbors, and at one point had WMDs. He used them against his own people, and had clear designs to use them against us at one point.

4. Saddam's removal is a good thing for the free world, and for the Iraqi people.

This is a value judgment, but one I think all of us should agree on.

5. The war was not illegal, as it was backed by U.N resolution, and the Iraq War Resolution in Congress.

6. Our troops, all of them, are heroes, who are fighting for a noble cause.

Again, another value judgment, but also one I think reasonable people can agree upon.

7. Criticism of the war is not treason, and support for the war is not apology for war crimes. Iraq is not a war crime.

These are things the all of us ought to agree upon, regardless of ideology, if we really serious about fighting terror. Just so you know, I'm not the biggest fan of this Administration, and one could say that I support the war in spite of Bush. Many on the Left in this country really can't seem to move beyond Bush, and many on the right can't seem to suffer any criticism of him. This war on terror isn't about Bush. This war doesn't end when his term is up. We're in this for the long haul.

Considering Iraq, it's my view that a premature withdrawal is bad for everybody. I respect those who sincerely believe the contrary, but I fail to see how pulling out now helps. Perhaps gradual drawdowns can happen in the future, but many people are calling for immediate pullouts or artificial timetables. This is a flawed approach. Especially when this is real progress being made.

Before you accuse me of carrying the water for the GOP, I recognize that there are real problems. Civil war may very well come. However, real work has been done by Allied and Iraqi troops. It seems that many in the press can't resist the "if it bleeds, it leads" impulse, and only seem to focus on the negative. Some take this further, imposing their own antiwar biases on their reporting. This really does happen. Of course, the Bush-friendly press seems to only focus on the favorable coverage, and is less inclined to report the negative. Often these stories are less focused on Iraq, than trying to make Democrats look like the enemy. Their coverage is tainted with pro-war (and pro-Bush) bias, and is just as bad.

The fact is, a lot of great journalists of all stripes are doing good reporting in Iraq, that's balanced. This needs to increase.

The point of all this that all of us need to deal in sense when dealing with these issues. I've had enough of both the "Liberals are traitors" mantras, and the "Bush lied, millions died" mantras. Enough of this talk of impeachment. Enough of this talk about prosecuting journalists. This has been said to death but it bears repeating: This war is the central front on the war on terror. It doesn't matter how we got there, we're here now, and we must focus on the here and now.

Bush and the Republicans will take a hit of the prosecution of the war, and the numerous other GOP screw-ups. Most of this the GOP brought on themselves, but not political outcome should lead to a pullout of troops too early. Bush has said that he's leaving the troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future. I support him on that. Not for his sake, but for the sake of the mission, and our brave troops fighting it.

Changes To The Blog

You'll notice some changes to the blog, in the right-hand column. I've added an ad for New Partisan, a radical center online magazine. Please visit it.

I've also highlighted some blogs in a prominent box as being part of the Centrist Coalition. The bloggers at these blogs actively participate with the Centrist Coalition, for instance by joining our monthly conference call. This distinguishes them from other blogs listed on our blogroll which are centrist, but which don't actively participate in the Centrist Coalition. If I've overlooked anyone, let me know.

Finally, I plan to move the old archive posts out of the database. If all goes well, they will still be accessible from existing links, but they will no longer be rebuilt every time I change a template. This should reduce the burden on the host, and make us less of a target for spammers.

Oil from garbage

I've posted about Changing World Technologies thermal depolymerization process before. Here is an article reproduced from Discover magazine (probably in violation of the copyright laws) that updates the progress being made. Bottom line is that the regulatory environment is more favorable in Europe than the USA. Looks like all future expansion will occur overseas. Although the big three automakers may be interested.

First two articles in the series here and here .

Attack On The Blog?

We received a complaint from our host that the blog used an excessive amount of system resources on Wed 03/15/2006 at around 3PM ET.

I know it was not due to the periodic maintenance I do on the blog to remove spam and rebuild it, because I have an "alibi" for the Ides of March.

The host says the process that was using resources was a large number of threads of mt-tb.cgi running in parallel. This sounds like trackback spam gone wild.

I periodically close our trackbacks except for the last 5 days or so, so I don't think the trackback pings are succeeding, but they may be taking resources.

The user activity log shows nothing unusual for that period.

Any idea of what's going on? I don't think we're prominent or offensive enough to generate a DoS attack.

The coindence of comments and trackback execution going down last Friday could be related. Someone changed their permissions not to execute. It could have been someone at the host who did it to stop excessive instances of execution, though they didn't inform us of it.

Shortest. Blogpost. Ever.

!

Gore in '08? Moderate or Moonbat?

OK. I'm not one to look too far ahead but I could help but find strong rumors of Gore running in 2008 somewhat interesting....especially since I'm no fan of Hillary. I stumbled across a diary at RedState and they all seemed gitty at the idea.
As I read the comments, it was clear that the GOP base at RedSate sees Gore as "off the charts to the Left of Kerry" though he ran, according to some RSers, to the Right of W on some issues in 2000. Is this "Leftwinger" image a media product of political enthusiasts watching his every move and environmental/Global Warming speeches? OR, is this Far Left push for real? Personally, I really don't know. Aside from his strong position on Global Warming, I haven't seen him take any radical positions. If his history and the Clinton influence are any indicator, he's no radical....maybe more populist than his old boss but not on the fringe. Where? I dunno. If DKos opinion is a fair indicator of a candidate's position check out this poll:

With over 3300 votes at post time here's the tally: (notice McCain got 6 votes!)

Bayh 7 votes - 0 %
Biden 9 votes - 0 %
Clark 301 votes - 9 %
H. Clinton 26 votes - 0 %
Daschle 4 votes - 0 %
Edwards 90 votes - 2 %
Feingold 846 votes - 26 %
Gore 1607 votes - 49 %
Kerry 33 votes - 1 %
Richardson 23 votes - 0 %
Vilsack 2 votes - 0 %
Warner 153 votes - 4 %
McCain 6 votes - 0 %
Other 26 votes - 0 %
No Frickin' Clue 85 votes - 2 %

Very interesting indeed. Does this make Gore a fringe candidate or just a savior (views aside) for the anti-Hillary crowd at DKos?

I didn't vote for Gore in 2000. I actually didn't vote out of sheer ambivilance and indifference to the two candidates. Neither seemed appealing or threatening and truly either would just "keep things moving along". Bush seemed kinda dim and Gore very uptight.

According to Dick Morris, the GOP base won't nominate a Hillary-beater like McCain or Rudy and instead will put out a pure-bred Righty who will lose to Hillary....like Allen. RS debunks that claim saying Romney has the goods to beat Hillary and that Morris can't see it. That remains to be seen. But, I can't help but look at Gore see someone who can beat out Hillary for the nomination rendering "Hillary vs. Whoever Theories" moot.

What do you all think this does for the poltical landscape in terms of a win-win for moderates? Is Gore a "Centerfield Kinda Guy" or does this leave moderates holding their breath for a decent GOP entry? The jury's out on my opinion...

Bad day for the FBI

Some pretty damning evidence given by FBI agent Harry Samit, during the Moussaoui Trial. Not against Moussaoui mind you, but against the FBI.

But MacMahon made clear the Moussaoui's lies never fooled Samit. The agent sent a memo to FBI headquarters on Aug. 18 accusing Moussaoui of plotting international terrorism and air piracy over the United States, two of the six crimes he pleaded guilty to in 2005.

Looks like Moussaoui just got a “get out of execution free” card. Just as well, executing a man who wants to be a martyr seem kind of silly. Let him rot in jail for 40 years and miss out on the 70 virgin.

My reply from the "Main St. Republicans"

I recently emailed the Main St. Republicans, a centrist Republican group, about why there is little cooperation with the DLC and New Dems to form a new movement.

Here's my original email:

"I support your efforts as I support the efforts of New Democrats and the DLC.

I see little difference in the points of view, just the prevailing party label. Why is there no serious consideration given to uniting resources to form a centrist party?"

Well, they actually responded:

Thanks for your comments. I think we do have some difference in policy with the DLC and other centrist Democrat groups. Many of them voted against CAFTA and NAFTA, for example. As far as joining together, we do on some issues, but I think the two-party system is so ingrained in this country, it would be difficult for a new party to emerge.

Well, I was a little miffed. All that said to me was:

"Yeah, our positions have much in common with Centrist Dems (and they REALLY do) but we're Republicans and we'd rather fight on a multitude of issues within our party than iron out few differences on some hot-button issues with our counterparts on the other side and form a cohesive unit. We're centrists but we're republicans first and partisan politics stills rules. We're all for moderation but it's gotta come from OUR party...not the Dems and definitely not a new centrist party."

Centrist Dems opposed CAFTA and NAFTA?? Well, sure as did and do many Republcians from the center to the right. I know some of them.

It's sad. even self-proclaimed centrist organizations cannot see past the party label when push comes to shove. When centrist leadership groups can't get past the partisanship, it doesn't bode well in forming a new and much bigger tent.

I'm sure I'd get the same answer from the DLC or PPI.

Iraq

Over at National Review, conservative blogger Bill Crawford picks up where Chrenkoff left off.

After I recently wrote a piece for NRO reporting on some good news from Iraq, I got a fair number of e-mails criticizing me for trying to distort the actual situation. I never meant to give a comprehensive account of how things are going in Iraq. I’m not, as my grandmother used to say, “trying to put lipstick on a pig.” There is a lot of bad news to report, and I understand that. But the bad news is already being covered in the mainstream media just fine. What’s not being covered adequately is the good news. It is impossible to form an accurate opinion of the situation in Iraq unless both the progress and the failures are taken into account. My aim is only to tell the rest of the story — the part most people are not so well acquainted with.

Belarus

EU denounces Lukashenko’s poll victory

Alexander Lukashenko, Belarus’ authoritarian president, declared on Monday that foreign-backed attempts to overthrow him had failed, claiming a crushing victory in elections that international observers condemned as seriously flawed.

Exit polling indicated that Lukashenko garnered only 40% or so of the vote, less than the 50% needed to avoid a runoff. The "official" results gave him 80%-plus. Russia, which backed Lukashenko, called the elections "free and fair." Others called them "an unconstitutional seizure of power." And those were the observors being kind.

The USSR may have fallen, but the last several years have highlighted what students of Russian history have known all along. The Russian government remains the same viciously paranoid power-hungry bureaucratic structure it has been since long before the October Revolution.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

UPDATE: Tech Central has more. And Publius has live-blogging from Belarus.

Laughing at the madness.

If you loved the Dubai ports circus, you're going to love the sequel.

Dubai's $1.2 Billion Bid for U.S. Weapons Maker.

If you keep telling the Arabs they can't buy anything with their petrodollars, they are going to get really annoyed. What do you think would happen if you kept insulting the owner of your local gas station? At a certain point he would tell you to take a hike.

Basketblogging

Interviews with athletes are boring. Especially college athletes. But just once I'd love to see a big-time college athlete say something along the lines of "I played poorly today because I was up all night writing a term paper."

And as much as I love March Madness, I'll never understand athletic scholarhips. If some guy lacks the brains and grades to go to Duke, but can swim really fast, why does Duke not only accept him as a student but also gives him a free $150,000 education?

Skunky

That's what The Moderate Voice thinks about the GOP's 2006 electoral strategy.

Iraq

On Friday, the Newshour interviewed the authors of a new book about Iraq (“Cobra II”). They followed it up with a discussion by Tom Oliphant and David Brooks.

“DAVID BROOKS: Well, the book is gripping reading, infuriating reading. You want to throttle Donald Rumsfeld and -- and Tommy Franks in particular, but a lot of other people, including the president and the vice president.

What you see is, first of all, how much they stifled debate. There were a series officers who knew better, knew what was going on. And, as -- as Gordon mentioned, one of them was -- they tried to fire. A lot now regret they didn't say something in meetings, because the atmosphere was so stifling of free debate. “

Read the transcripts, listen to the Podcast and form your own opinion, but remember reality always has the last word.

Q: What do you get when you when you ignore reality?
A: A 37% approval rating.

Feingold's Censure Motion

If there is any politician that truly makes me think about the issues and consider my positions, it is the junior Senator from Wisconsin. This is for two reasons.

First, there is probably no U.S. Senator that I have more respect for. Feingold is fearless. He has shown time and time again that he was elected to do what is right, not carry the flag for the Democratic Party. His votes to confirm John Ashcroft and John Roberts, and to move the impeachment articles to the floor on Bill Clinton, to me, are evidence of a man that has no problem with leading even if it makes him unpopular with his friends. Feingold has challenged progressives to think about balancing the budget in moral terms, arguing that leaving future generations with debt is simply wrong. He has backed it up with a record that no one in the U.S. Senate can better on fiscal matters, again often breaking with his party to do so. He has done more than pay lip service to campaign finance reform, and has imposed the limits he proposes on himself. One time it almost cost him an election.

Second, there is no elected official that at times I radically agree with and other times I adamantly oppose. On the environment, campaign finance reform, the budget, gun control (Feingold is a member of the NRA), the death penalty, poverty, and civil liberties, I am with Russ. On free-trade, defense, the Patriot Act, and the war in Iraq, I have often thought there is nobody that has been more wrong. This isn't necessarily out of total disagreement with Feingold's positions on these issues, but his methods.

For example, I do believe we should not send our troops into war without knowing how they are going to get out, but I don't believe that Congress and politics should determine that. Also, I agree with Feingold that there are serious issues with the Patriot Act that borderline threaten our civil liberties, but I do not think the right action to take was to vote against a bill that provided much needed support to the Homeland Security community at a time when our country had just been attacked. I would have, however, supported Feingold's recent efforts to block permanent approval of the Patriot Act because I see no reason why frequent congressional review and approval of any law is a bad thing.

Now Feingold has done this.

Last weekend I attended a training session in my community as a member of the Commission on Children and Youth and the Teen Action Committee, appointed by the local County Commissioners. The purpose of the training was to teach local youth, many of whom are disadvantaged, to lead and become more active in the world surrounding them. Politics came up frequently, and I picked up on an angry vibe regarding this President that was different than what we sometimes read in the blogosphere. One asked me if I thought the President cared about his country. This was real, it was human, and these young people did an incredible job expressing their point of view and backing it up. I had a clear understanding of where they were coming from.

I bring this up because I have looked at this Presidency differently in recent months than I ever have before, probably due to the fact that I am as unhappy with the President now than I have ever been. This is directly related to the wire tapping issue because it goes to the core of my problem... It isn't necessarily the vision but the approach, and more importantly, the arrogance.

When the wire tapping story broke my first reaction was to wonder why anyone would have a problem with spying on an individual linked to Al Qaeda. I thought that the President was taking action that was consistent with the findings of the 9/11 commission by creating new approaches to implementing a spy program without having to go through the court created by a FISA law that by all accounts was enacted in a time where current technologies and threats were far from reality. The President pointed to Constitutional war powers, an argument that individuals like Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and John McCain, from his own party, have outright disagreed with or at least seriously questioned.

I am not arguing whether or not Bush broke the law, whether or not FISA is even applicable, or if spying on Americans is right or wrong. We have gone over that enough. However, this issue is just another in the long line of evidence that his administration is awful at managing public policy and dealing with political realities, which has given legs to the argument, true or not, that they believe they are above the law. Did they really not think this story would break or that the FISA argument would come up?

The administration did the right thing by going to Congressional leaders, but it's approach should not have been to implement the spy program, but rather to discuss what was the proper method of doing so considering all unintended consequences, opposing arguments, and possible legalities. Rather, they told Congress we are going ahead with this, if you have any concerns get back to us, knowing that scare tactics regarding terrorism and 9/11 have been very effective and easy to fall back on in times of political strife. In other words, with little in regards to process, the President of the United States began spying on American citizens, which in some cases lead to imprisonment.

If there is any requirement of our legal system it is that we must take every step available and necessary to protect the rights of the innocent. The Bush administration didn't meet the criteria in this American's opinion. Did they break the law? I don't know, I am not a lawyer.

Feingold's move to censure the President for breaking the law is the wrong step to take because there has been no court case, no evidence filed, and no ruling that the administration acted illegally. For those who feel adamantly that Bush did in fact break the law, there are steps that can be taken. Furthermore, censuring the President doesn't fix the problem. The Senator would be advised to look at more progressive approaches, such as reviewing, amending, and updating FISA, taking into account the change in times and ensuring that right procedural steps are implemented in the future, balancing the government's ability to protect the American people while not trampling on their civil liberties.

It is well known that Russ wants to be President, and by all accounts he is a long shot to win the nomination. One could argue that a more pragmatic approach on this issue would be less sexy to the base, and that a censure motion will get a future candidate quality national face time, while rallying the loyal blue troops. Maybe that is his purpose, maybe not, but my impression of Feingold is that he doesn't make decisions unless he feels it is the right thing to do.

Regardless of whether or not you specifically agree with his proposed timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq and his recent move to censure the President, Feingold has properly asked what kind of Presidential leadership we want in this country. A question, considering recent events, that I think needs to be thoroughly debated before 2008.

I probably will not support a candidate before the primaries are over; waiting to see where the cards fall and not particularly fond of either side right now, but the Democratic Party can do worse than the honorable Senator from Wisconsin. Russ Feingold would make a great American President.

The Green Friday Open Thread

Green for St. Patrick's Day, of course.

South Park and Scientology

Following up on the story first posted here by Rafique Tucker, the bizarre flap continues.

Cable net abruptly pulls repeat of Scientology episode

The dust-up gained steam last week when Isaac Hayes, a practicing Scientologist who has long been the voice of the character Chef, quit after objecting to a "South Park" episode called "Trapped in the Closet," which lampooned both the religion and Tom Cruise.

The skirmish continued this week, when Comedy Central abruptly pulled a repeat of that episode that was scheduled to air Wednesday evening. Showing instead was another memorable seg which featured Hayes's character, called "Chef's Chocolate Salty Balls."

Blog reports pegged the mysterious episode switch to objections raised by Cruise...

But wait, it gets better! SOUTH PARK creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone have issued a statement on the flap.

"So, Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year war for earth has just begun! Temporarily anozinizing our episode will NOT stop us from keeping Thetans forever trapped in your pitiful man-bodies. Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail! Hail Xenu!!!" --[signed, "Trey Parker and Matt Stone, servants of the dark lord Xenu"]

It's enough to make me forgive them for TEAM AMERICA.

UPDATE: Trivia note. The recipe for Chef's Chocolate Salty Balls does not list salt as an ingredient.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Shortly after this post went up, comments function went DOWN. Paranoid Scientology theorizing may now commence--but you may not be able to post it! :-)

Judges Unable to Conclude

Appeals court OKs ‘Choose Life’ plates in Tennessee.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A federal appeals court Friday allowed Tennessee to offer anti-abortion license plates bearing the message “Choose Life.”

...

“Although this exercise of government one-sidedness with respect to a very contentious political issue may be ill-advised, we are unable to conclude that the Tennessee statute contravenes the First Amendment,” Judge John M. Rogers said in a 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

Yeah, well then maybe you're not working hard enough, John.

Question: if I write my own message on my Tennessee license plate, is that OK?

If not, and if instead only certain political/religious expression can receive the official imprimateur of the state, then we've got a problem. A First amendment problem, or an establishment clause problem, or both. This program is IMO extraordinarily ill-advised unless all groups that want to generate funds and spread their messages via state-approved special-interest license plates are allowed to do so.

What if here in MA, we decided to work on a petitition to allow people to buy a license plate that says "Tennessee Appears to Be Run by Morons." Were this challengeds in the courts, I wonder if a cowardly judge would say "we are unable to conclude that this contravenes..."

In the meantime, I encourage all Tennesseeans to write the message of their choice on their license plates. A healthy dose of civil disobedience and a helluva lot of free speech from dissenters to this grotesquerie is definitely warranted.

If worst comes to worst, Tennessee dissidents seeking political refuge are invited to join us here in Massachusetts. I'm hoping that some of my friends from South Dakota that I invited a few weeks back will be jumping into our cape cod white wicker handbasket to hell any day now. We have a lovely selection of Red Sox, Bruins, and Save the Whales license plates to choose from.

Why Do You Even Care?

It's no secret that the large majority of country music stars are conservative-leaning, or at least appeal to mainly red staters. I've never been more convinced of that fact. We all know about what happened to the Dixie Chicks, after they zinged Bush on one of the overseas tours (in England) right before the Iraq war. It was incedent at worst, but hardly worth the outrage it received. Nevertheless, country music fans turned on them, and many radio stations to this day openly ban their