Save your confederate money, boys.

The South, I mean the Republican Party, shall rise again. The latest debate in the GOP is over whether the song, “Barack the Magic Negro” is an appropriate holiday gift to the party from a candidate for new party leader. Tough call. Decide for yourself.

We have too many well educated voters.

And it costs too much to educate them, says a conservative's op-ed in The NY Times. Having been stung by the results of this problem in the most recent election, conservatives are fighting back. Reset our national goals so that we channel most students wanting a post high school education into vocational schools and we solve two problems. Cut government spending, and ensure that there will be fewer voters in the future capable of dissecting big public policy issues. This should help candidates such as Sarah Palin climb right to the top down the road. As the op-ed points out, most people aren't really deep thinkers anyway, so why try to force them to study a range of subjects that will just frustrate them?

HerMcCain Sarah.

May turn out to be the most powerful storm of the season. Will Pentecostal Palin ultimately sink McCain the way Katrina sank Bush, or help him? Will voters be turned off by Palin's literal interpretation of the Bible in light of Bush's deeply flawed character trait of "religious certainty about his decision making?"

Obama's two short years in the US Senate.

One of the things that Republican speakers are now saying (incorrectly) is that Obama has only been in the US Senate for two years. It's four! That's a big difference in a position in which it takes a year just to get your bearings. The attempt, of course, is to bring Obama down to Palin's level. People should call Republicans on this lie everytime they say it - as TV interviewers are failing to do, except on the Daily Show.

McCain will win the election by saying Obama will lose the war.

Obama may lose the election because McCain has changed the conversation about the war. Obama’s huge strength as a candidate is that he had the courage to oppose the worst U.S. foreign policy mistake of the past fifty years, and possibly of all time. Yet, McCain paints Obama as naïve and inexperienced in foreign policy and military affairs. McCain keeps saying that Obama wants to let the U.S. lose the war in Iraq, but Obama is not really answering this charge, except to defend his patriotism and repeat that he will impose a timetable.

What Obama needs to repeat with all is oratory skill is that the war was never really designed to protect American interests. It was a blind spasm by a misguided President, a Wag-the-Dog diversion erected by his neo-con Vice-President who was determined to simultaneously subvert the constitution and destroy many of the noble values for which this country has stood. It has given a blank check to military contractors to whom the Republican Party is beholden, and to an unstable and dependent government in Iraq that will never step up and unless we are serious about stepping out. We financed the entire multi-trillion dollar war on credit and we can't fix our economy until we stop pouring money into this sinkhole. The only way to preserve American dignity, our stature in the world and our national treasury is to get on a timetable. Unlike Bush and McCain, Obama can show that as a leader, he has the discipline to get us out of the mess.

The public tolerated the war for a long time, even as facts mounted that the evidence for it was rigged, because people assumed the war was really about ensuring reliable and affordable fixes for our addiction to oil. Stratospheric gas prices exploded that myth.

Obama has already said these things, but in his quest to be seen as a uniter, he now seems afraid to offend any potential supporter. But unless he steps up, he risks losing the enthusiastic support of those who were passionate about his courage to lead, and worse, being unable to shake McCain’s tagging him as a weak leader. Today, he seems to have moved far away from his bold criticisms in 2002:

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

Tortured logic.

A number of journalists, as well as witnesses at recent U.S. Senate hearings, have described how the U.S. came to adopt torture as a so called "weapon" in the war on terror. After 9/11, the military reverse engineered techniques that had been intended to harden U.S. military personnel against interrogation methods North Korea used in the early 1950's to elicit false confessions.

The problem is that most professional intelligence officers don't believe that torture is the best way to get reliable information from a suspect. Persons being tortured often will say whatever they think their torturers want to hear. This is the reason U.S. courts do not allow the admission of confessions obtained by torture in criminal trials. It's not about compassion for the tortured - it's about ensuring that the criminal justice system is based on truth. If there is one place where we need facts rather than fiction, it's in fighting terrorism.

A determined criminal facing life in prison or death from a military tribunal knows he only worsens his situation by confessing while being tortured. He gets nothing in return other than a certain conviction. He is more likely to cooperate if he gets something of long term value in return, such as better food, reading material, a cell with a view, a shorter sentence, life rather than execution, etc. Indeed, that is exactly how the CIA "broke" the alleged mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

What about the "24" scenario? Some believe the Hollywood scripted nightmare that the U.S. might capture a terrorist who knew the location of a nuclear bomb set to explode in a few hours inspired the adoption of torture after 9/11. With no time for tried and true psychological interrogation methods, desperate officers might attempt the Jack Bauer approach. Even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has said that no one would convict a torturer of a crime in such a scenario. We don't need a national policy permitting and encouraging torture in order to deal with this extremely unlikely situation.

As is clear from Jane Mayer's book, The Dark Side, a few powerful people in the Bush Administration made the decision to use torture without a careful analysis of its potential effectiveness for eliciting true information. The sudden adoption of torture might have been because Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wanted false confessions from alleged terrorists in order to justify the invasion of Iraq and the civil rights of U.S. citizens. Indeed, a false confession about an imaginary link between Al Qaeda and the regime of Saddam Hussein was a key element in the case the administration made for the invasion of Iraq.

Now come calls for a general amnesty or pardons for those who illegally justified the use of torture and did the torturing. One of the arguments made for amnesty is that it is the only way to learn whether torture in obtained accurate information about terror plots. Finding out whether torture provided any useful information is pointless because there are more effective methods to obtain the truth that rely on psychology alone.

No other single proposal could be more damaging to the health of our democracy and our credibility in the world. We need to ensure that this cancer is rooted out of our institutions, and that we send an unmistakable message that systematic torture and abuse of prisoners will never be tolerated again. Otherwise, we risk again being dragged into a war abroad or at home on false pretenses, and being forever compromised in our ability to end human rights abuses by our post 9/11 image as hypocritical fascist nation. Oh yes, and we would have no standing to demand that our soldiers not be tortured if captured by an enemy. We and the rest of the world deserve much better from our democracy.

Conservatives favor affirmative action for conservatives.

Yes, the proof is in. The report of the Justice Department Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility concludes that for at least five years, two Bush appointed Attorneys General illegally applied ideological and political litmus tests to civil service hiring for intern and career attorney positions. Applications to the Justice Department's Honors Program, which seeks the best talent from top law schools, were scrutinized for telltale signs of liberal affiliation, such as "buzzwords" like "social justice," or volunteer work for organizations perceived to have liberal goals.

In spite of the fact that the purpose of the civil service system is to keep politics out of the hiring process, a former spokesperson for Attorney General John Ashcroft. quoted on NPR, justified the illegal practice as a long overdue attempt to create ideological diversity in the Justice Department! Given that candidates with perceived liberal affiliations or leanings were rejected at three times the rate of those believed to be conservative, that means that standards were lowered in order to accommodate a particular subset of applicants- just as conservatives bitterly complained affirmative action programs did in the sixties and seventies. This seems to be a tacit admission by the Bush Justice Department that conservatives are not as bright and academically accomplished as liberals. A former justice department official said the policy meant that Justice was hiring from the B list instead of the A list.

Is it any surprise that during this time the Justice Department did not seek racial and ethnic diversity in its hiring? Not a single black lawyer was hired in the Civil Rights Division between 2003 and 2007.

Update: The Justice Department’s inspector general and its internal ethics office issued a report concluding that aides to Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales illegally used partisan and ideological criteria to select less-qualified applicants for nonpolitical senior career positions, including immigration judges, assistant United States attorneys and counterterrorism positions. This discrimination slowed the hiring process at critical times and damaged the department’s credibility. Applicants' views on "God, guns and gays" were a key part of the screening.

Bush's tax cuts are like a subprime mortgage.

More people are waking up to the fact that the Bush tax cuts cannot be sustained without slowing the growth of the economy, and the tax cuts eventually will have to be scaled back. On top of this, in order to pay the interest on the national debt created by the Bush tax cut, there will have to be a permanent tax increase of at least five percent (see my previous post). This forever tax probably will be even higher, depending on how long the current tax cuts last and whether there is consensus to pay down any of the enormous debt they've created. If you were a twenty year old who got a twenty percent tax decrease for ten years while your income was low, you may not be happy that as a thirty year old you'll face a five, six or seven percent tax increase for the rest of your life when your income is higher. In the end, you'll lose money on this "tax break." Come to think of it, this tax deal is structured like a subprime mortgage. You get a teaser payment upfront, and then get hit with high payments you can't afford later.

Are Republicans victims of battered person syndome?

Here and elsewhere, the long sad story of how the Bush Administration has abused the average U.S. citizen has been well documented and publicized.

• The disastrous war in Iraq is now understood to have been continuously marketed on false pretenses since Bush first proposed it. Opposition to continuing the lie and war is widespread - even among moderate Republicans (except those who are getting rich as private contractors in Iraq). Citizens will pay trillions of their tax dollars and sacrifice the blood of many of the nation's young people for this horrific mistake.
• Even teenagers understand that for the rest of their lives they likely will be paying off Bush's unprecedented, gigantic federal deficits - so far increasing the national debt by more than a four trillion dollars and nearly doubling it. The "free" money people get from Bush's tax cuts and rebates is not free (see my previous post). Today, nearly a tenth of taxes go just toward paying the interest on the national debt, with Bush's deficits responsible for half of that. (Many voters remember that Bill Clinton's fiscal discipline created four years of surpluses. Fewer realize that under Republican Presidents since 1948 we have been subjected to average annual increases in the national debt three times higher than under Democrats.) (Here's an even scarier analysis by a conservative economist.)
• Nearly everyone, except determined hermits, realizes that the Bush promise of getting government out of our lives was a lie regarding civil liberties. Sadly, it was true concerning protecting most of us from the consequences of natural disasters such as hurricanes and global climate change, and from greed and exploitation (a prime example being the subprime mortgage meltdown).

Yet many Republican voters support that party's nominee in 2008, John McCain, who promises very little change from present policies (see my previous post). Could they be suffering from battered person syndrome? A victim of this condition:

becomes depressed and unable to take any independent action that would allow him or her to escape the abuse. The condition explains why abused people often do not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation. Sufferers have low self-esteem, and often believe that the abuse is their fault. Such persons usually refuse to press criminal charges against their abuser, and refuse all offers of help, often becoming aggressive or abusive to others who attempt to offer assistance. Often sufferers will even seek out their very abuser for comfort shortly after an incident of abuse.

Protecting whistleblowers from the agency that's supposed to protect them.

Today marked the latest, sad episode demonstrating the Bush Administration's complete contempt for notion that the work of Federal agencies should be shielded from political interference. The FBI, one of the few agencies not completely overrun with political operatives (see my previous post), raided and temporarily shut-down the Office of Special Counsel. According to the N.Y. Times, the "counsel’s office, which answers to the White House, is charged with protecting federal employees from reprisals for whistle-blowing and with investigating accusations of political interference in their work." Critics charge that the office has instead focused on promoting conservative social causes and retaliated "against whistle-blowers in its own ranks." So, the good news is that FBI is finally doing something about the misuse of this office. The bad news is that they waited so long.

Update: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility is calling for Congress to abolish the Office of Special Counsel.
President Bush ignored a staff request that he fire the Special Counsel Scott Bloch.

Those who forget their inequality are doomed to repeat it.

On the day the first of Bush’s "economic stimulus" tax rebates hit some citizens’ bank accounts, it should be noted that this is the first federal tax rebate in history in a Presidential election year. No one in Washington previously has had the nerve to so openly pander for votes with money. Many economists believe that this will do little to jump start a recession economy, because any boost in consumer discretionary spending will be so short lived. In these tough times, much of this "free" money will simply go to pay off debt or be eaten up in higher prices for groceries and gasoline. (See update.) As a result of increasing the deficit, the government will then have to borrow the rebate money back from rich investors.

Rather than being motivated to use tax cuts and rebates to revive the economy, Bush and his party have a history of using them to pander. In spite of Republican mythology about the 2001 Bush tax cut, it was not about reviving the economy. It was conceived in 1999, when the economy was booming, as a way of getting votes in the 2000 election.

The main reason we have the 2008 rebates is that Republican are hoping lower income people – who have been economically the worst off during the Bush years – will mostly remember the rebate checks they got in July when they go to the polls in November. This sort of appeal worked for California Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger when he unseated the Democratic incumbent in the 2003 recall election. Schwarzenegger promised to roll back a vehicle licensing tax that had been raised due to the state's poor fiscal health. The tax of up to a few hundred dollars per vehicle hit low income people the hardest. Many minority voters chose a Republican for the first time in their lives.

So why did the Democratic Congress go along with this scam? Because, what could else could they do? Once the President proposed and promoted the rebate, opposing it would have resulted in Republicans campaigning against Democrats on the issue in the Fall. Too bad the Democrats did not have the fortitude to just say no.

A Princeton professor of politics recently described his study of the national economic priorities of the two parties over the past sixty years. Under Democratic Presidents, the actual incomes of the middle-class rose more than twice as fast as they did when Republicans owned the White House. The real incomes of the working-poor increased six times as fast during Democratic administrations! The affluent fared equally well with both parties. If Democrats had held the Presidency continuously since 1948, "incomes would be more equal now" than during even the most egalitarian era of the 1950's. The professor notes that "Every Republican president since Dwight Eisenhower presided over increasing economic inequality, while only one Democrat — Jimmy Carter — did so."

Why do many middle class and working poor voters not reward Democrats for their superior economic stewardship? The professor believes that Republican Presidents’ use of their new mandates to cut inflation and social spending – hurting the least well off – wear off after three years, producing a perceived boost in the next election year for those that have suffered the most. Democrats’ policies helping the poor and middle-class also run their course after three years, creating a perceived decline that coincides with the next election cycle. As Republicans know so well, the public has a short memory.

Subprime meets nonprosecution.

Neatly tying together my previous posts about the Bush Justice Department's use of deferred prosecution agreements (nonprosecution) and the subprime mortgage crisis comes speculation that a Republican controlled Justice Department would not prosecute companies accused of wrongdoing in the subprime scandal. In fact, the existence of this corporate diversion program may have fueled the subprime crisis by encouraging bad corporate actors to believe they would not be held accountable for wrongdoing, says the NY Times.

Not a Gramm of change in credit market regulation expected under McCain

Now that an unprecedented 81% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong path, it’s easy to believe that both political parties will deliver change in the upcoming election.

An amazing interview with former Commodity Futures Trading Commission member Michael Greenberger on the NPR show Fresh Air yesterday described how former Senator Phil Gramm from Texas bears significant responsibility for the subprime mortgage and credit market crises and financial meltdown we now face. He cosponsored the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, passed quickly and quietly in the waning hours of the 2000 Congress as rider on a huge appropriation bill, when everyone’s attention was still on the ill fated election. This and other Graham sponsored legislation deregulated much of the financial sector and hastened the growth of risky new markets based entirely on gambling on how other markets will fare.

Wikipedia describes another role Gramm played in the meltdown of financial markets (also detailed here):

Gramm was partly caught up in the Enron scandal when it emerged that his wife Wendy had part written an exemption for Enron from federal oversight while she was serving on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. She then accepted a directorship at Enron. Gramm was personally involved further when it came to light that he had helped to turn the exemption into law as well as push through the deregulation of energy markets that led in part to the Enron scandal. During this period Enron was a major contributor to his campaigns.

Gramm started out as a Democrat, but realized it would be more profitable to be become Republican after Reagan was elected in 1981. Operating as a spy for the Republicans until the Democrats cast him out, he resigned his House seat and then was reelected as a Republican in a special election. He beat Ron Paul in the Republican senatorial primary in 1984.

Soon to be Republican Presidential nominee John McCain admits he doesn’t know much about economics. His economics advisor is none other than Phil Gramm, now a vice chairman of Swiss Bank UBS, which lost 19 billion dollars in U.S. credit markets and real estate in just the first quarter of 2008! Gramm is rumored to be McCain’s likely choice for Treasury Secretary. Don't expect much change from Bush's economic policy from that ticket.

Update: Michael D. Donovan, a former S.E.C. lawyer, says, "Phil Gramm is the single most important reason for the current financial crisis." Gramm responded by blaming the crisis on "predatory borrowers" - those without the means to pay their subprime mortgages.

Serving government's customers.

One of the most obscene notions perpetuated by the Reagan legacy is that greater government regulation leads to increased corruption and waste. This mantra is part of the Ron Paul libertarian Kool-Aid® that many have drunk. Just get rid of government, and tranquility and efficiency will reign.

This has become a self-fulfilling prophesy for Republican administrations. In order to service their business constituency, they just fill government regulatory agencies with incompetent or corrupt cronies who believe that government serves no useful purpose higher than their personal gain. (See my previous post.) In short order the resulting corruption and waste proves the "truth" of bad big government. The most recent example is the scandal at the FAA over pressure from the top on inspectors to ignore aircraft maintenance violations. Having gone beyond any notion that it serves the people, the FAA refers to the airlines as its "customers." (See my previous FAA post.)

One has only to look at Europe to see the fallacy of this argument. In Germany, Switzerland, and the Scandinavian countries, businesses and banking are more regulated than in the U.S. and there is relatively little corruption. Their economies are leaving ours in the dust. The Euro, Franc, and Krona are strong in part because people have justifiable confidence in their financial markets and in the products they produce. The greatest risk facing these nations is their investments in the U.S. The British, with a more deregulated banking system, are paying the consequences.

Targeted government regulation can increase consumer safety and confidence and create a stronger economy. The extent of corruption and waste is all about the leadership voters choose to implement regulation.

More corruption in Bush's "Justice" Department.

Lost in the news about N.Y. Governor Spitzer's prostitution scandal was the Congressional hearing about how the Bush Justice Department lets corporations avoid criminal convictions for corruption or for violations of safety, financial or environmental regulations. In short, big companies that already have a very cozy relationship with the Republican Party can buy their way out by paying friends of the administration to monitor their future conduct. The arrangements have been made by U.S. Attorneys using no guidelines and under no bid contracts. Doesn't this sound like something you'd hear about in Russia or some corrupt developing nation?

One of the largest recipients of one of these deals was none other than former Attorney General John Ashcroft. He is being paid between 28 and 52 million dollars to monitor a medical supply company accused of engaging in kickbacks to increase its sales. You may remember Ashcroft as the chief supporter of the Patriot Act, which contained an unnoticed clause that was at the heart of the U.S. Attorney firings scandal. The government official who set up the no bid monitoring contract for Ashcroft? His former subordinate, Christopher J. Christie, the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey and a top fund raiser for George Bush in 2000. Christie is now being criticized for awarding a number of these monitoring deals to his friends and political allies.

There were three dozen of these deals done nationally last year. The day before Ashcroft's Congressional testimony, the Justice Department finally announced that it would that require these contracts (euphemistically called "nonprosecution") be approved by the Deputy Attorney General in the future. Now we can all sleep better.