Obsidian Wings

Oh Dear.

by hilzoy

From the Washington Post:

"TEHRAN, June 25 -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hard-line mayor of Tehran who has invoked Iran's 1979 revolution and expressed doubts about rapprochement with the United States, won a runoff election Friday and was elected president of the Islamic republic in a landslide, the Interior Ministry announced early Saturday. Ahmadinejad defeated Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former two-term president who had won the first round of voting last week and was attempting to appeal to socially moderate and reform-minded voters.

Ahmadinejad's election stands to complicate Iran's gradual engagement with the West, including difficult negotiations over the country's nuclear program. The apparent victory completes the domination of Iran's elective offices by the religious fundamentalists who have long held ultimate authority in the theocracy.

"Today is the beginning of a new political era," Ahmadinejad said as he cast his ballot in a working class neighborhood of Tehran, the capital, where he been mayor for two years."

Living, Breathing, Redefining, Collectivizing

by Charles

First off, I'm not lawyer but I work in the eminent domain field, and the Kelo v. New London case was a big one.  The Washington Post:

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.

The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply is dwindling.

Opponents, including property-rights activists and advocates for elderly and low-income urban residents, argued that forcibly shifting land from one private owner to another, even with fair compensation, violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of property by government except for "public use."

But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, cited cases in which the court has interpreted "public use" to include not only such traditional projects as bridges or highways but also slum clearance and land redistribution. He concluded that a "public purpose" such as creating jobs in a depressed city can also satisfy the Fifth Amendment.

By redefining and broadening the term "public use", interchanging the phrase with "public purpose", the Supreme Court in effect snatched a chunk of property rights from private owners and handed them to cities and other local governments.  This ruling can't help but favor governments and corporations and developers, all at the expense of the little guy, loosening by another few notches yet again the constraints on governmental power.  Even with a good economy in the Puget Sound area, I know of too many cities strapped for cash.  This case will likely open the door to mischief.  McQ:

In essence the court found for collectivism and government and against individuals and their property rights. It found the needs of the group outweighed the rights of the individual to the point that the collective, through the monopoly force of government, could take the private property of an individual almost at their whim.

Stop Me Before I Spend Again!

by hilzoy

By a strange coincidence, the National Review had an article yesterday advocating the same approach to Social Security that the Republican Congressional leadership just adopted. It's too completely disingenuous to merit fisking, but it does contain one crucial falsehood that it's important to point out:

"The gradual phase-in of personal accounts funded by the surplus would force Congress to cut spending by the amount it currently takes from the surplus — about $85 billion a year, or roughly 3 percent of the total $2.5 trillion federal budget."

Taking the Social Security surplus and using it to create personal accounts does not force Congress to cut spending by one dime. The Republicans in Congress have rescinded the PAYGO rules, which would have required any new spending to be paid for. There is no other law or rule that requires that any new spending be matched either by tax hikes or spending cuts. So adding a trillion dollars' worth of new spending over the next ten years would not in any way require corresponding cuts in other government spending.

At present, the only thing that could force Congress to cut spending is their sense of fiscal responsibility. If members of Congress were unwilling to charge their spending to the national credit card, passing the costs on to the next generation with interest, then they would find some way to make up the costs of this new program. But if they had a sense of fiscal responsibility, they would not have to pass any ill-advised new programs in order to "force" themselves not to spend the Social Security surplus. They would exercise restraint all by themselves.

The same argument shows why Grover Norquist's idea of 'starving the beast' is misguided. Norquist thinks that we should cut taxes, since once we deprive the government of revenue, members of Congress will have no choice but to cut spending. It's one thing to say this when your party is in the minority, and therefore just can't pass the spending cuts it wants. It's another thing entirely when your party controls all three branches of government, and is therefore in a position to just cut government spending directly. When you hold power, you do not need to be forced.

This matters because if one wants to reduce the size of government, cutting spending is a much better way to do it than cutting taxes in the hopes that eventually you will be "forced" to cut spending. What does the "forcing", here, is the thought that our national debt has gotten large enough that we risk very serious economic problems. "Starving the beast" means taking our country to the brink of those problems in the hope that we will be sufficiently scared once we get there to cut government spending. It's like trying to lose weight by giving up on exercise, hoping that once you are no longer able to eat much of anything without gaining weight, your weight will shoot upwards, you'll develop serious health problems, and then you'll finally develop enough motivation to go on a diet. That's a stupid thing to do to yourself, and an even more stupid thing to do to your country. And if a Congressional Representative's only excuse for doing it is that s/he doesn't have the willpower to cut spending directly, then maybe s/he should resign in favor of someone who does.

Social Security: The Second Time As Farce

by hilzoy

Today's Washington Post reports on a new Republican Social Security proposal:

"After watching the Social Security debate from the sidelines, House Republican leaders yesterday embraced a new approach to Social Security restructuring that would add individual investment accounts to the program, but on a much smaller scale than the Bush administration favors.

The new accounts would be financed by the Social Security surplus -- the amount of payroll tax revenue not needed to pay current benefits. That money is now used to fund other government activities and is expected to run out after 2016 as the baby-boom generation retires.

By contrast, President Bush's proposed accounts would divert payroll taxes used to fund existing Social Security benefits, which would force the government to borrow to prevent cuts in retirees' monthly checks. Once fully phased in, the Bush plan would allow workers to sock away $3,600 a year in today's dollars. Even in its peak year, the new plan could limit average account contributions to as little as $588.

Still, Republicans hope the new proposal will shift the debate away from future benefit cuts, as Bush envisions, to ending what they call the "raid" on the current Social Security surplus. But the plan, unlike Bush's, would do nothing to remedy the New Deal-era program's long-term fiscal problems. (...)

Under the new proposal, those bonds would go to private investment accounts that would be opened for workers unless they chose not to participate.

After a holding period, holdings could be diversified into other options such as stocks, based on a plan to be submitted to Congress by an administrative board that would manage the accounts. The balance of the accounts, plus interest, would eventually be subtracted from a retiree's traditional Social Security benefit. The system, as proposed, would operate only as long as Social Security ran a cash surplus -- or just more than a decade. The accounts would remain, and they could be inherited.

A nearly identical bill will be introduced in the Senate today. Republican strategists said the new plan is a way to pressure Democrats to negotiate, and to portray movement. The idea was embraced as a palatable step by House leaders, most of whom have been jittery about pursuing a restructuring of Social Security as they head into midterm elections that Republicans believe may be the toughest the party has faced in 10 years.

"We just simply take the surplus that's coming into the Social Security trust fund now, and we convert it to Treasury bills for all the American workers," said Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (R-Fla.), senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.

But critics say there is not enough money to make the plan viable. About 130 million Americans who pay into Social Security and are under 55 would be entitled to personal accounts. Excluding interest owed on borrowed Social Security funds, the cash surplus from Social Security taxes this year will leave enough for an average of $434 available for each account.

The Social Security Administration projects that, at its height in 2008, the cash surplus will reach $97 billion, an amount that about 165 million workers would have to share, leaving an average of $588 each. But that cash surplus would decline rapidly to zero after a decade. By 2016, all that would remain is $40 per account."

This is a really dreadful idea. First of all, the private accounts are tiny: money would be paid into them only as long as Social Security runs a surplus; current projections put that at ten years. If, over those ten years, the average account had more than three or four thousand dollars put into it, I'd be very surprised. Second, note this sentence: "The balance of the accounts, plus interest, would eventually be subtracted from a retiree's traditional Social Security benefit." So these private accounts aren't added to your Social Security benefit; the amount you put in, plus interest, is deducted from your benefits. This, in turn, means that you could lose money, although since the accounts are so small, the risks aren't all that great. Third, as the Post article notes, this proposal would do nothing to strengthen Social Security's financing over the long run. In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal, "an analysis from the Social Security Administration's chief actuary shows the DeMint proposal would worsen the system's projected shortfall by 2079."

Fourth, and most important, this program is funded using the current Social Security surplus. Jim DeMint, one of the bill's sponsors, says that the point is to "Stop the Raid on Social Security." But DeMint and his fellow Republicans could stop the raid on the Social Security surplus any time they wanted, by the simple expedient of either cutting spending or raising taxes enough that the federal government did not need to draw on that surplus. Creating new private accounts have nothing to do with that. What this plan means is, rather, that at a time of exploding federal deficits, they are going to add a huge amount to our national debt. To quote the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities:

"The analysis of the plan issued today by the Social Security actuaries shows that by diverting substantial sums from the Social Security trust fund to private accounts, the plan would worsen Social Security’s solvency problems — were it not for the inclusion in the plan of an assumption that large revenue transfers would somehow be made from the rest of the budget. The actuaries’ analysis shows that the plan would drain $1.1 trillion from the Social Security trust fund in the first decade of the proposal.

The plan’s designers have attempted to mask this adverse effect of their plan by assuming hefty transfers from the rest of the budget. The Social Security actuaries estimate that the transfers would have to equal $1 trillion (in today’s dollars) to prevent the plan from hastening the point at which Social Security would become insolvent. But the assumption of these very large general revenue transfers is essentially a budget gimmick. The rest of the budget has no surplus revenue to transfer; it is in deficit as far as the eye can see. The actuaries’ analysis shows that in the absence of these general revenue transfers, the plan would cause Social Security to become insolvent three years sooner than otherwise would be the case, in 2038 rather than in 2041. (...)

(T)he plan would increase the federal budget deficit every year for the next 75 years and beyond. For example, in fiscal year 2007, the deficit would be about $89 billion higher than it otherwise would be. The debt that the federal government owes to outside creditors would increase by $1.1 trillion by 2015."

So: we add 1.1 trillion dollars to the federal debt, in order to give today's workers private accounts that will have only a few thousand dollars in contributions, which we will then deduct, with interest, from their Social Security benefits. What a nifty idea! Recall that the point of it all (see Post article) is "to pressure Democrats to negotiate, and to portray movement." I trust my party will resist the temptation to negotiate, although the temptation to burst out laughing might be a bit more difficult. And as for "portraying movement", I guess it does do that. But the trick, I always thought, was not just to move somehow or other -- flailing, squirming, writhing, wriggling -- but to move purposively towards a worthwhile goal. And I don't quite see how this new proposal "portrays" that.

The Short Happy Life of Samson Agonistes

We are, of course, all familiar with Mr. Rove's recent remarks regarding "liberals":* 

Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.

Now, for myself, I'd generally chalk this up to cheap partisan hackery -- red meat for the red meat brigade.  A little rhetorical excess for the base never did no-one any harm, after all.  American as apple pie; speechifying like this has been with us since the Revolution (and before!).  Certainly, it's nothing to get worked up about, and doesn't require a response of any kind to the <i>pro forma</i> demands an apology. 

Yes, normally, I'd dismiss Rove's ramblings with the same bored wave as I dismiss Dean's babblings about evil Republicans or whatever Nancy Pelosi raged about last Tuesday.  (The mark of a true hack is that you can pick a day at random and still be certain that they said something that wasn't worth hearing.)

Yet, I have been advised that, in these thin-skinned times, it is vitally important that all rhetoric be proportional and based on sound evidence.  Red meat for the base must undergo a special USDA check; all analogies will be taken literally.  Accordingly, I'm compelled to ask:

If "[l]iberals [allegedly] saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," then it should be fairly easy for Mr. Rove to identify, by name, one example?

*  *  *  *  *

There used to be much talk about the death of outrage in America.  As the last few years have confirmed, such talk is completely misplaced.  Outrage has become a kind of political currency, a perpetual motion (and money) machine for a certain segment of society.  Outrage sells books, promotes personalities, and, sometimes, builds giant puppets.  It's the wonder of the age.

So, make no mistake:  the calls for Rove to resign or lash himself thirty times or walk naked through the streets with a scarlet "A" tatooed on his chest are silly.  But also don't forget that we all deserve this silliness.  Outrage is the path that we've chosen.  (If you're interested in getting off the path, it means ignoring and lampooning the outrage mongers -- who, needless to say, seem overrepresented on the right of late.)

*See also our own Hilzoy, who has a different take.

Ethically Challenged

by hilzoy

Via TPM, a story from the (San Diego area) North County News:

"Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham and a Washington defense contractor continued their silence Tuesday about allegations that the Escondido Republican's relationship with the contractor may have influenced Cunningham to use his clout to help the company obtain millions of dollars in federal defense contracts. (...)

When a Congressional representative has strong reason to believe that a House member may have committed an ethics violation, any House member may request that the ethics panel investigate the matter. To date, no Congressional representative, Republican or Democrat, has filed such a request pertaining to Cunningham.

While Republicans may have partisan reasons for not asking the House Ethics Committee to investigate Cunningham's ties to the contractor, Democrats have no such excuse, said Naomi Seligman, deputy director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

"If Democrats are all about ethics and integrity, how can they not file a complaint?" she asked."

Josh Marshall is furious:

"Now, I've talked to various knowledgable folks. And the reasons are several. The ethics committee is shut down. So there's no point in filing a complaint. That's one of the main excuses. But the real reason seems to be this -- and the word comes down right from the House leadership: the Democrats don't want to start filing ethics complaints against the Republicans because they're afraid the Republicans will turn around and do the same to them.

They apparently want the 'truce' of the late 1990s back in force.

And just so we're clear, it's awfully hard to think of anything more pathetic than that. (...)

The Republicans are running a wildly corrupt Congress -- particularly on the House side. And the Democrats are so shorn of power that they couldn't even manage to be very corrupt if they tried. After all, this kind of corruption is about selling access and power. And the Democrats have no access or power!

So how is it exactly that the Democrats should be afraid that the Republicans are going to be able to give as good as they get if there's an 'ethics war' in the House when that is the case. Some are just scared. Others, particularly some of the veterans, don't want to clamp down too much because they've spent ten years out of power and they don't want all the fun to be over if and when they finally get back in the saddle.

If elected Democrats aren't able or willing to take a stand against the cash-n-carry legislative ethos of Tom DeLay's Washington they're simply not doing the job anyone sent them there to do. And they should be replaced too."

What he said. To be clear: I blame everyone who has not filed an ethics complaint on this one, Democrat or Republican. But while I can, sort of, understand what the Republicans might be thinking, without particularly liking it, I have no idea at all in what universe this is not an obvious thing for Democrats to do. It is, for them, both right and politically expedient. And they should do it now.

You can find your Representative's email address here. Whether your Rep is a Democrat or a Republican, write and ask him or her to refer Cunningham's case to the House Ethics Committee. If this isn't exactly the sort of case the Committee ought to be investigating, I don't know what is.

Zimbabwe Falling

by Charles

BBC has some disturbing before and after pictures of Robert Mugabe's Operation Drive Out Trash (the Swahili Shona word is Murambatsvina).

Update IV:  Despite the overwhelming case that president Robert Mugabe is precipitating a humanitarian meltdown in Zimbabwe (noted also here), the African Union turned its back. The BBC:

An AU spokesman told the BBC that it had many more serious problems to consider than Zimbabwe.

The UN says that 275,000 people have been made homeless. At least three children have been crushed to death.

[...]

"If the government that they elected say they are restoring order by their actions, I don't think it would be proper for us to go interfering in their internal legislation," AU spokesman Desmond Orjiako told the BBC's Network Africa programme.

His comments were backed up by South Africa, Zimbabwe's giant neighbour, which some see as the key to solving Zimbabwe's problems.

Presidential spokesman Bheki Khumalo said he was "irritated" by calls from UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to do more to end the "horrors" in Zimbabwe.

"South Africa refuses to accept the notion that because suddenly we're going to a G8 summit, we must be reminded that we must look good and appease the G8 leaders," he said.

"We will do things because we believe they are correct and right."

If the African Union cannot see the goodness and rightness of standing up to democide, then this group lacks any semblance of moral authority or legitimacy. They are now part of the problem, not the solution.

(Other updates below the fold)

Retract Or Resign

by hilzoy

NYT, 6/23/2005:

"Karl Rove came to the heart of Manhattan last night to rhapsodize about the decline of liberalism in politics, saying Democrats responded weakly to Sept. 11 and had placed American troops in greater danger by criticizing their actions.

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State."

CNN, 9/14/2001:

"Congress overwhelmingly passed a resolution Friday authorizing President Bush to use force against those responsible for Tuesday's terrorist attacks, the same day it unanimously approved a $40 billion emergency spending package.

The House overwhelmingly passed the use-of-force resolution late Friday night by a 420-1 margin. (...)

The Senate approved the measure by a 98-0 margin earlier in the day.

In a statement, Bush praised the passage of the measures.

"I am gratified that the Congress has united so powerfully by taking this action. It sends a clear message -- our people are together, and we will prevail," he said."

Atrios, 6/23/2005: "We're all Dixie Chicks now."

*** Update: Washington Post:

"The White House defended Rove's remarks and accused Democrats of engaging in partisan attacks. Rove, said spokesman Scott McClellan, "was talking about the different philosophies and our different approaches when it comes to winning the war on terrorism." "

Had I been at that press briefing, my follow-up question would have been: can you or Karl Rove provide any evidence whatsoever that the liberal approach following 9/11 was to provide therapy to our attackers? If not, doesn't what you've just said amount to "defending" Karl Rove's comments by saying that he told a despicable lie?

*** Update 2: Sign the Petition.

***Update 3: Sign the other petition.

Condi Rising

by Charles

I've always been a fan of Condoleeza Rice.  Part of it has to do with her background and part has to do with her smarts, temperament, grace and charisma.  She reminds me a little of Margaret Thatcher, but better looking (sexist alert).  Another item in the plus column is her performance as Secretary of State.  Just in the last week, she has on multiple occasions lived up to the standards of the second inaugural address.  Let's recap.

Bedfellowing with Nancy

by Charles

In all the years of reading, watching and listening to Nancy Pelosi, I can safely say that we see eye-to-eye on just about nothing.  But after we reading this piece yesterday, the streak has ended.

The White House on Tuesday rejected the proposed creation of an independent commission to investigate abuses of detainees held at the U.S. military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the Pentagon has launched 10 major investigations into allegations of abuse, and that system was working well.

[...]

Democrats on Capitol Hill have increasingly called for an independent commission to look into detainee abuses. On Tuesday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said a commission is crucial to answering questions about the atmosphere that permitted abuses, troop training and the length of detentions at Guantanamo.

"These questions are important because the safety of our country depends on our reputation and how we are viewed, especially in the Muslim world," she said.

It is commendable that ten investigations are underway, but the problem is that they are a patchwork, conducted by various departments and having varying lines of authority.  As I wrote here, taking nothing away from the conduct and integrity of those performing the investigations, the US military is investigating the US military and it gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. Reporting to an independent bipartisan commission removes that appearance and gives the world greater assurance that the issue is being addressed.  Putting the disparate investigations under one umbrella (and perhaps adding a few more to fill in the holes) is an effective way clarify the hierarchy.  Instead of ten separate reports, they can be folded into one.  Once the commission has absorbed the investigations, analyzed the situation and made recommendations, the detainee issue is settled and we can move on. 

The 9/11 Commission performed a similar function.  Despite political maneuvering, grandstanding (Slippery Dick, for example) and other ins and outs, the 9/11 Commission Report was a positive and constructive contribution.  If put together right, a Detainee Commission could accomplish similar results.

(also at Redstate.org)