Too long a legacy

We need to remind people that Mr. Bush's narrow win of the Presidency should not translate into his automatically getting his way on everything — indeed, even if he won 100 percent of the votes it should not, and the Framers made sure to install a system of checks against that kind of power.

Specifically, Mr. Bush should not be able to have "whoever he wants" appointed to a lifetime seat on an appellate court. Under the present Senate rule, at least 60 Senators must consent to a judicial appointment — a fairly modest restraint, if you ask me.

(I learned just this week that in the early days of our republic a consensus — 100 percent — of the Senate was needed to confirm such an appointment!)

What this argument is really about is whether Republicans can, or should, reject over 200 years of precedent and change the Senate rules so that only 50 of them plus Dick Cheney are needed to confirm a lifetime judicial appointment.

To do so, of course, they will first have to circumvent the rule that 67 votes are needed in order to change the Senate rules! And if that happens, we are truly in a new world.

Republicans love to point to the Democrats as obstructing the process (the new favorite spin), but all the Democrats are doing is threatening to exercise their right to debate the appointment for however long they want, a time-honored practice (by both parties) called “filibustering,” and under present rules it will take 60 votes to shut down debate.

The Republicans are mad as wet hens because they know they can’t get at least five Democrats to agree with them on the 7 (out of over 200) most extreme nominees, so they want to change the rules.

Republicans claim they never filibustered the way the Democrats are threatening to, but that is because the Republicans are much better at this game than Democrats; the 60-plus Clinton nominees that were never approved were mostly held up in Republican-majority committee — which is why the Republicans didn’t have to resort to the filibuster!

Just remember this: A President serves for no more than eight years, during which he gets to run the Government, set policy directions, travel around the country selling bad ideas, go to war, all the good stuff. An appellate judge, on the other hand, gets to be on the bench for a lifetime, far exceeding the term of the one who appoints him.

What Mr. Bush and the Republicans are trying to do here is control what America will be like for the next 30 or 40 years, whether or not the voters decide to choose another path.

We don’t know what events may help to shape our future and our children's future, so we would do well to exercise moderation and choose wisely as we populate the one branch of government that will still be around.

Bringing ethics back to the House

Bringing ethics back to the Ethics Committee was agreed to by almost all of the House today. One noteworthy exception was our own Joe Barton. This is the story:

A few months back, as Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s troubles began to multiply, the Republicans in the House battened down the hatches. First, they drove through a change in Ethics Committee rules so that if the evenly-divided committee was unable to agree on whether there was a violation, the charge of a violation would be automatically dismissed. Period. Used to be that in such case the matter would be referred to a subcommittee to investigate.

That wasn’t enough, of course, so the Speaker (whose rise to power is generally credited to Mr. DeLay) removed three of the five committee members (including its chairman), who had last year reprimanded Mr. DeLay for other abuses, and replaced them with people who had contributed to Mr. DeLay’s defense fund. Good friends.

Today, the Republicans, with the advice and consent of Speaker Dennis Hastert, finally gave in to enormous pressure from voters across the country and voted to restore the previous rules; only 20 Republicans, including Joe Barton, voted against.

Just say "NO!"

The latest Republican strategy is to turn the blame for Administration failures onto Democrats by accusing them of being "obstructionist" — about judicial appointments, about Social Security changes, about Ethics Committee meetings, just to name the obvious.

They — and too many gullible columnists and talking heads who apparently don't do their own thinking — claim it's a matter of "the Democrats aren't offering any alternatives; all they do is say NO!"

Sure, and cops on the beat are obstructionist, too, as are lifeguards, forest rangers, and those pesky Secret Service people.

The first rule should be that if it ain't broke it don't need fixin'; the corollary is that it may need protection from the "fixers."

When that's the case, Nancy Reagan had it right: Just say no.

Power surge?

A thought came to me as I contemplated the burgeoning power of the religious right:

These are people who seem almost giddy with power, and their movement includes many, many of the previously unempowered poor, undereducated, underpaid, underserved but religious and patriotic Americans who voted for George Bush — in spite of the fact that so many (if not most) of his agenda items had been and would be antithetical to their interests.

I wonder if the election was turned by voters who saw the rise of the evangelicals and grabbed onto the “values” hook because for the first time in their lives they saw a chance to have power.

If that’s true, then if the Democratic Party can find a way to offer them a sense of power IN ADDITION TO addressing issues like medical care, employment, and the environment, perhaps then we will be able to bring them back.

Remember, Howard Dean’s war cry and no doubt a major factor in his success was “YOU HAVE THE POWER!"

Populating the judiciary

The Republican claim that the President, because he won the election, "should be able to have whoever he wants" sitting on the bench in lifetime appointments, is calculated to deceive. A 51% majority is just that, it is not a 100% majority.

And how about someone remembering all those Clinton nominations that were held up by the Republicans to the point where folks were talking about a looming crisis in the judiciary? I don’t doubt for a minute that they were held up so Mr. Bush could fill them, because I don’t doubt for a minute that this was in the works way back before the name Rove was a household word.

Yeah, yeah, I know: Just another "vast right wing conspiracy" theory! But anyone care to argue?

Filibuster - you gotta love it!

Just came to realize this: The Senate rules that produced what we call "filibuster" originally provided that debate, as important as it is in making law, shall not be concluded or limited unless 2/3 of the membership agree — hence the "cooling saucer" analogy. It was relatively recently that the Senate changed the rule to 60%.

But THE WHOLE POINT WAS TO ENSURE THAT DELIBERATIONS DO NOT END SO LONG AS ANYONE HAS ANYTHING TO OFFER. Even if reading recipes and other impertinent misapplications of the rule have obscured the principle behind the rule, it remains a critical protection against chaotic legislation.

It's time we remind Americans of this. LOUDLY.

Another Republican preemptive strike?

The Republican chair of the House Ethics Committee has suddenly decided he wants to investigate Tom DeLay. Now.

The devilish little detail here is that if the equally-divided Committee gets deadlocked along party lines after 45 days, then — under the new, DeLay-friendly rules — the complaint is dismissed, whereas under the old rules such a deadlock would automatically trigger a subcommittee for further investigation. Link

So: Looks like the Republicans are expecting unfriendly attention and perhaps successful challenge to the new rules and figure they'd better get this done before that happens!

Boltin' Voinovich?

John Bolton, Mr. Bush's oxymoronic nominee to the UN, has run into a bit of difficulty getting out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as has been all over the news this week. This week Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) caught everyone by surprise when he voted with the Democrats for further hearings, which effectively forestalled any vote for 3 or 4 weeks.

Today an article by Brian Knowlton, writing for the International Herald Tribune, appeared in the New York Times to give us the lowdown. My favorite paragraph:

Mr. McClellan said Wednesday that the White House was "in touch" with Mr. Voinovich to help him resolve any doubts.

Is the Pope Republican?

I wonder if the genuflecting MSM (mainstream media) folks who couldn’t seem to get enough of the new pope’s coronation will find THIS story worth remembering and repeating . . . Remember, citizens: This guy will probably be around in 2008.

New pope intervened against Kerry in US 2004 election campaign --German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican theologian [and former Hitler youth] who was elected Pope Benedict XVI, intervened in the 2004 US election campaign ordering bishops to deny communion to abortion rights supporters including presidential candidate John Kerry.

[snip]

Bush Hails Newly Elected Pope Benedict . . . Bush on Tuesday called newly elected Pope Benedict XVI a "man of great wisdom and knowledge.

[snip]

NOTA BENE: OUR PRESIDENT REMARKED THAT ATTENDING POPE JOHN PAUL’S FUNERAL WAS “ONE OF THE HIGHLIGHTS OF MY PRESIDENCY.”

What working folks really think

There's something about the Bush & Co. administration that has stirred my revolutionary spirit, has given me great courage lately to be outspoken and honest with people I meet — in the grocery line, on the phone, in the ordinary course of business.

Sort of "what the hell, nothing left to lose," I find myself "outing" my fury, sharing with total strangers my opinion about the sorry state of affairs in America and — amazing! — have found kindred souls. After fighting my way through the robotic voices of credit card company "service centers" until finally there's a real person on the line, I tell the listener that I'll won't be able to pay the bill, make the contribution, buy whatever they're selling, until we have a new administration.

I say, for example, "well, you can thank Mr. Bush for that!" And here's the delight: Without exception, agreement! The anonymous person on the other end of the line says, "you know THAT's right!"

Just got off the line with someone who took my 1040 tax payment. She and I commiserated for a welcome few minutes; I don't remember how we got there, but I told her about Senator Frist's scheme to accuse Democrats of being "against people of faith," and said I wondered whether Americans would be so stupid as to fall for it, or whether the Republicans THOUGHT that Americans were that stupid. She said she thought Americans weren't that stupid — and I came away believing in Americans again.

Try it!

A humiliated child shall lead them?

Fascinating interview last week between Tina Brown, on CNBC's Topic A, and Bernard-Henri Levy, French intellectual/philosopher/writer, most recently author of "In the Footsteps of Tocqueville" (Atlantic Monthly, May 2005).

Levy commented with enthusiastic approval on our election processes, saying that contrary to what some Europeans might believe, the atmosphere was not at all "carnivalesque," but rather involved "strong, intense debate," proof of the "vitality of American democracy."

Inevitably, of course, he was asked his opinion of George W. Bush; what follows is a transcript:

Q. What is your opinion of him?

A. A punished child. A man — a strange man — surely not the devil, absolutely not. This is ridiculous. The way the French people saw him, as the embodiment of the Devil, is absurd.

But there is something so — so strange, like — The French writer Bernan Nosse (phonetic sp.) wrote a book about "les enfants humiliees" — humiliated children; George Bush is something like an humiliated child.

Maybe when he was in Yale, maybe he was not the most brilliant of his generation; maybe he was not the most promising young man; maybe — I don't know, there is some humiliation in the back of this mind and in the bottom of this character. This is what struck me. In the eyes, in the face. Not at all the imperious and arrogant man, I suppose.

Q. So you think the swagger is misleading?

A. Yes, I think so. A sort of, you know, you brag a lot where you have something missing. This was my impression.

Put the the hammer down!

Josh Marshall (santo subito!), who has mounted an extraordinarily effective campaign against the Bush effort to destroy Social Security, has recently devoted an increasing amount of coverage to the DeLay effort to destroy our society. It's don't-miss reading at Talking Points Memo . . .

The next pope?

Thanks to an email alert from MEMRI — The Middle East Media Research Institute — we can read this by Saudi columnist Dr. Ali Al-Tawati:

"Now that President George Bush has nominated John Bolton as American ambassador to the United Nations and Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank, we shouldn't be surprised if he repeated his achievements and named a new pope." more . . .

Press release or propaganda, part 3

Not being one inclined to let a sleeping lie lie, I took on Joe Barton's press secretary (see previous post) this week, and have posted the riposte here:

Well, looks like I got the attention of Congressman Barton’s office, and that’s good!! It’s about time we had some public dialogue on the subject of Social Security and the President’s plan to privatize it, even if it’s not with Mr. Barton himself.

Brooks Landgraf, who signed the letter as Mr. Barton’s Press Secretary, had quite a bit to say about me personally, such as “she simply suffers from an innate inability to recognize the reality of the world around her,” and that my “assault on Congressman Barton for seeking the views of women in his district regarding Social Security reform was nothing short of self-aggrandizing propaganda.”

There was so much content in his letter, I think it’s important to reply, though I want to focus on substance rather than tone; I do want to say, however, that “self-aggrandizing propaganda” is probably not how a Congressman should characterize a constituent’s critical remarks.

No, I didn’t “overlook” Congressman Barton's statement in his press release that he “met to gather opinions from a women's focus group, comprised of leaders from an array of sectors around the community.” On the contrary, I pointed to it and speculated as to who might have been included, since we weren’t told in the press release.

I should think the first rule in any dialogue might be that if you don’t want the listener to guess, then tell the facts up front.

And as for “outrage” and “lividity” — just not there. My “pretty penny” says that Mr. Landgraf hoped to diminish my remarks by attributing them to out-of-control emotions.

You can be sure there’s no way I would be outraged by a congressman “wanting to talk about public policy with those he represents,” though I would be concerned if “those he represents” do not include ALL of his constituents!

Joe Barton is supposed to represent me, too, along with the rest of the folks in Waxahachie; and I do find it curious that he hasn’t held a town meeting on Social Security here in Waxahachie, the Ellis County seat, even though the President of the United States has urged his allies in Congress to do just that.

Getting to the heart of the matter, there was nothing in my column even suggesting that “government should neglect to reform Social Security” — in fact, quite the opposite. Corrections are needed in order to assure the solvency of Social Security in years to come, but what the President proposes is dismantling, not fixing, a program that is NOT in crisis.

There’s just one more personal remark I’d like to address: The startling statement that, “I'm appalled at Ms. Guyol's misogynistic accusation that women cannot form their own opinions, which she made evident in her column.”

Excuse me? I am a woman, and I can definitely form my own opinions, though I try to base them on solid information. I suspect it’s just my writing about them that has him upset.

If indeed “the women in the focus group that met with Congressman Barton were well-informed about Social Security and did not need to take cues from anyone,” why not share with us, at least, what information they had?

If not, then why tell us at all that the women in the focus group “understood that the current Social Security system won’t be solvent” — unless the point is to have us believe it, too? But would that be enough information for you? It was not enough for me, and that was the point I was making.

If Mr. Barton was not the source of their understanding, I apologize for thinking so. After all, the President said it was necessary to conduct an all-out 60-day national campaign to “help Americans understand there is a problem” (formerly a “crisis”) with Social Security. I guessed, perhaps mistakenly, that Mr. Barton was heeding the President’s call to folks in Congress to assist.

Finally, Mr. Landgraf invites me to repudiate statements that he offers as facts, and repudiate I will, for those statements are scandalously misleading — just calling an assertion “fact” doesn’t mean a thing when it’s incomplete, or given in a way that makes it look like something it’s not.

I want you to know that I am using the very source as Mr. Landgraf — that is, the most recent report of the Social Security Trustees. He said: “Inaction on Social Security would mean that our children and grandchildren would have to borrow an estimated $10.4 trillion, according to the Social Security Trustees.”

What he doesn’t tell us is that $10.4 trillion is what you get by projecting the shortfall out as far as a computer will take it, called by the Trustees “Infinite Horizon Deficit,” rather than the “75-year Deficit” used by the Trustees every year until 2003. The 75-year deficit is projected to be $4 trillion — still a big number, but much easier to deal with.

And Mr. Landgraf goes on to say that “Each year we wait costs an additional $600 billion, which will continue to rise,” implying that’s ON TOP OF to the $10.4 trillion, whereas it is more like a multiplier that gets us there.

Here’s how The New York Times explained it this week:
Compounding the subterfuge is that the difference between this year’s $11 trillion eyepopper and last year’s number — $600 billion — is being used as evidence of a scary deterioration in Social Security’s finances. That’s just wrong. The two monster numbers are actually the same quantity — different ways of expressing an unchanging level of debt at two different points in time.

In fact, the American Academy of Actuaries is quoted, in a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, as having said that the use of such a projection is “likely to mislead anyone lacking technical expertise … into believing that the program is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated.”

Mr. Landgraf was right about one thing: “The longer we wait to take action, the more difficult and expensive the changes will be.” It’s true, it will be less painful and more effective to begin corrections now, if we can just get past all the hyperbole and get down to business. But let’s don’t let Congress bomb the house to put out the fire!

Here are the numbers that, so far as I know, have never been disputed by anyone:

If we do absolutely NOTHING the system will be able to pay full benefits to all retirees until at least 2041, at which time — if nothing has yet been done — funds on hand will still be sufficient to pay about 74% of what was promised until at least 2079, when — again, if nothing has been done — payments will have dropped to about 68 percent of what was promised.

Before your eyes glaze over, just let me put it this way: Imagine someone telling you that “You will be bankrupt in 12 years or so — but you’ll still be able to pay all your bills for another 24 years or so, after which you may be able to pay only about three-quarters of your bills for another 35 years . . .”

You should live so long!

Press release or propaganda, part 2

Joe Barton's Press Secretary didn't much like my criticism, published in the Waxahachie Daily Light and here a couple of weeks ago. Here's what he fired off in response:

Saturday, April 2, 2005 8:04 PM CST

To the Editor,

Nathalie Guyol certainly had difficulty being candid with her readers in her Monday guest column, or perhaps she simply suffers from an innate inability to recognize the reality of the world around her. Either way, her assault on Congressman Barton for seeking the views of women in his district regarding Social Security reform was nothing short of self-aggrandizing propaganda.

Conveniently overlooked by Ms. Guyol, Congressman Barton's press release stated that he met to gather opinions from a women's focus group, comprised of leaders from an array of sectors around the community. It seems that Ms. Guyol was outraged by the congressman's tradition of talking about public policy with those he represents. Is it that Ms. Guyol's lividity is rooted in discussing issues with the people or that the group simply disagreed with her? I would bet a pretty penny that Ms. Guyol would not have accused Barton's staff of distributing "propaganda" if the focus group had agreed with her that government should neglect to reform Social Security as it bumps along the road toward insolvency. As someone who is constantly engaged in discovering the views of his diverse constituency, Congressman Barton has found Ellis County citizens to overwhelmingly join a majority of Americans in demanding changes in the Social Security system, another item Ms. Guyol conveniently precluded in her manifesto.

I'm appalled at Ms. Guyol's misogynistic accusation that women cannot form their own opinions, which she made evident in her column. The women in the focus group that met with Congressman Barton were well-informed about Social Security and did not need to take cues from anyone. A great deal of debate and discussion took place about how to improve the Social Security system, but there was a consensus that action must be taken to save Social Security for future generations.

The facts, much as Ms. Guyol will repudiate them, are clear. Inaction on Social Security would mean that our children and grandchildren would have to borrow an estimated $10.4 trillion, according to the Social Security Trustees. Each year we wait costs an additional $600 billion, which will continue to rise. The longer we wait to take action, the more difficult and expensive the changes will be.

By listening to these women's concerns, Congressman Barton was engaged in the most basic practice of representational governance. Ms. Guyol has criticized Mr. Barton for fulfilling his duties as a public servant, but her home-spun propaganda will not deter him from listening to his constituents.

Those wishing to express their opinions on Social Security or any other issue are always welcome to send Congressman Barton an email via JoeBarton.house.gov.

Brooks Landgraf
Press Secretary,
Office of U.S. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Ennis)

My! Stay tuned . . .

Dad was right, after all!

Last night Keith Olbermann (Countdown, on MSNBC nightly) reported that the market for hybrid vehicles, notably the Toyota Prius, has apparently turned upside down in response to rising gasoline prices, with used models (which can be had immediately) selling for up to several thousand dollars MORE than new (for delivery of which buyers must wait up to several months).

Seems folks are really rattled by the current and rising cost of tanking up, and want relief NOW!

During the oil crisis back in the seventies, my Dad, an energy consultant with an international reputation, argued for an increase in the gasoline tax of at least 50 cents per gallon, as the best means to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. His impudent child argued passionately that it would be unfair to the working class, who usually must rely on automobile travel to get to work, while the obvious over-consumers — RVs and vacationers, for example — would hardly feel the sting.

The newfound willingness of the American public to change to more fuel-efficient cars in response to higher gasoline prices suggests that Dad was right: that high gasoline prices will drive down consumption and our dependency on foreign sources.

In fact, since 9/11 we have seen growing support across a wide spectrum, from economists to environmentalists to policymakers, for reduced consumption as the most available and effective means of reducing our need for foreign oil.

The question begging to be resolved is, how do we protect the working classes from undue hardship imposed by high gasoline taxes?

During WWII, rationing worked pretty well, and it has always seemed to me that some sort of formula could be worked out whereby the gasoline needed to make a living would be exempt from a "surtax" on the rest. Simplistic, no doubt, and vulnerable to no end of schemes and loopholes at which Americans are famously adept. But something to ponder.

Here are some good places to start: Link and Link

Slouching toward Dystopia

In today's New York Times, Carl Hulse and David D. Kirkpatrick describe DeLay's latest attack on the country.

The possible good news here is that the escalating assault on American values by the likes of DeLay may finally stir the go-along-to-get-along crowd to stand up and fight.

And just in case you haven't gotten around to being terrified yet, go back and read Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale: A Novel" — then pass it along to others!

When do lies become fraud?

Among the more obscene deceits generated to support Bush's effort to ruin Social Security is a piece I received in the mail today. There was no return address on the small window envelope, but scrawled across the front with a green marker was "Pls. deliver by noon Wednesday!!"

Looked just like one of those neighbor-to-neighbor charity solicitations, so it caught me by surprise to find it contained a letter to "Dear Friend," with a huge caption, where a letterhead should have been: "Save Our Social Security Trust Fund"

I skimmed quickly to find out who sent it; saw on the first page:

"There's an all out budget war in Washington right now . . .

. . . and the Washington Insiders are launching a new attack on our Social Security Money.

Please help me stop them.

At the bottom of page 1: "An Emergency Campaign by The Seniors Center," and the "me" who signed the letter on page 6 is "Gary Jarmin, President."

From the way the letter was worded, with blue-ink handwritten annotations everywhere, it took awhile to figure out which side the sender was on; there were lots of references to H.R. 219, but what ordinary citizen would have any clue as to what a bill is about without at least a title?

It was pretty tricky, since it is absolutely true that Bush & Co. have launched an all-out attack on Social Security!

Then, halfway down page 3, there it was:

Our Social Security Trust Fund is almost all gone -- replaced by worthless government IOUs.

With a handwritten blue-ink notation: "Just imagine paying for your groceries with a government IOU"

There is an "Immediate Action Petition" addressed to Senator Bill Frist, and several pleas for a "one-time emergency contribution" of $25 to "help" pay for the effort.

The return envelope (for the petition and money) is addressed to The Seniors Center, in Frederick, MD.

Google didn't turn up "The Seniors Center" anywhere, and now I googled the small print: "The Seniors Center is a program of Christian Voice" -- yes, THAT Christian Voice, of which Gary Jarmin is indeed the president. [Post post note: I decided after posting to google Jarmin himself, and up popped The Seniors Center in the middle of all the other links to him; it only shows up through him, however. Looks ad hoc to me . . . ]

Needless to say the green marker and the blue ink notations were as fake as the writer's concern.

I believe what we have here is a deliberate effort to make the recipient think there was a connection to the local Seniors Center -- a popular program in almost every community like ours. I'm curious how widespread the mailing was and whether it went only to "seniors" (yes, I qualify) -- The most disgusting piece of garbage I've seen in a long time --- and I live in DeLay country!

Isn't there some rule, somewhere, that is being broken here?

P. S. I scanned the whole mailing into a pdf file
& will send it to anyone who asks.

It's my party, I can cry if I want to!

John Danforth, highly respected Republican (and Episcopal minister) lets loose on the Republican Taliban:
Link