Earlier I wrote about the CBO's deficit projection of $368 billion. Well, the White House says that the deficit is going to be a little closer to $427 billion.
That's 427 billion. With a "b." As in 427,000 millions.
I would say that it's your tax dollars at work, but it's actually our kids' tax dollars at work.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Noteworthy Events
First, you may notice the Google ads down the sidebar. Do not think that I'm going commercial on ya- really it's more of an experiment. In any event, Google ads are relatively unobtrusive and relevant to the content of the site itself. Also, it helps your Google rating, which is really the key for me. Don't be alarmed- I'm still the same ol' cranky SOB I always was!
Now- on to the news of the day! Senate Dems are holding a nine hour bitch session on Condi's confirmation to the State Department. Not that it will come to anything- she will be confirmed rather handily. I think it's poor strategy on our part- it looks petty and vindictive to harangue her, and then rubber stamp the vote. We cannot continue this way- either she is qualified, or she is not qulaified. I think she's a liar, and if I were in the Senate, I would vote no. Hell, if my seat were absolutely safe (like, say... John Kerry), I might filibuster her nomination.
The Congressional Budget Office announced they project the federal deficit this year to be $368 billion. Ummmm, not counting the additional $80 billion the administration is requesting for Iraq. Also not counting whatever the hell happens to Social Security.
To get an idea of just how screwed we are, the CBO projects that the government debt will increase $855 billion between 2006 and 2015. That projection assumes the following:
Now- on to the news of the day! Senate Dems are holding a nine hour bitch session on Condi's confirmation to the State Department. Not that it will come to anything- she will be confirmed rather handily. I think it's poor strategy on our part- it looks petty and vindictive to harangue her, and then rubber stamp the vote. We cannot continue this way- either she is qualified, or she is not qulaified. I think she's a liar, and if I were in the Senate, I would vote no. Hell, if my seat were absolutely safe (like, say... John Kerry), I might filibuster her nomination.
The Congressional Budget Office announced they project the federal deficit this year to be $368 billion. Ummmm, not counting the additional $80 billion the administration is requesting for Iraq. Also not counting whatever the hell happens to Social Security.
To get an idea of just how screwed we are, the CBO projects that the government debt will increase $855 billion between 2006 and 2015. That projection assumes the following:
- No Iraq spending (God only knows how much this will cost us)
- The Bush tax plan expires in 2010 (if it is renewed, a projected $71B surplus becomes a $189B deficit)
- Social Security stays as is (W's planned dismantling of Social Security could add $1 to $2 trillion dollars to the figures- that's right, trillion).
All in all, this President inherited a surplus when he came to office, and he will leave office (not soon enough, I'm sorry to say) with a deficit that is seriously out of control. Dubya offered himself in 2000 as an alternative to the Washington insider, just a simple (Harvard educated, scion of wealth, well connected, friendly to Saudi Arabia) bidnessman. Considering that every bidness he ever started went belly up, it looks like he's succeeded.
Social conservatives have written Karl Rove a nasty letter suggesting that they will fight the President on Social Security unless he pushes more forcefully for stripping gays and lesbians of their civil rights. From the letter:
We couldn't help but notice the contrast between how the president is approaching the difficult issue of Social Security privatization where the public is deeply divided and the marriage issue where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side. Is he prepared to spend significant political capital on privatization but reluctant to devote the same energy to preserving traditional marriage? If so it would create outrage with countless voters who stood with him just a few weeks ago, including an unprecedented number of African-Americans, Latinos and Catholics who broke with tradition and supported the president solely because of this issue.
This just shows how different it is on the other side of the fence. It is easy to eb the party in opposition, but governing is hard. You have lots of constitutents to appease, each of whom subjugated their own particular interests in the name of party unity. Now that they're in power, it's payday, and everybody wants to cash their checks.
The Club for Growth and the Family Research Council always did make for strange bedfellows. They got into bed with each oterh while wearing beergoggles- now its the morning after.
Tag- Politics
File Under "Coincidence? I Think Not."
The Zen-like random news aggregator that is Google News kicked out three stories this morning that all pretty much summarize the state of things in this country, as well as in Mesopotamia, the 51st State.
On another note, the poorly written headline award goes to..... Reuters!
Whoa! Those Palestinians take their building code seriously! Where it says that studs shall be placed at least 16 inches apart, they mean it!
- Dubya will ask Congress for an additional $80 billion in war money. Shoulda seen this coming- call it the Quagmire Tax.
- Iraqi police captured a major Zarqawi lieutenant, who then confessed to over 30 car bombings. I suspect that extreme methods of compulsion may have been used to obtain this confession- he would probably have admitted the Lindbergh kidnapping to free his nuts from the vise.
- And holding all this together, oil prices to stay below $49 per barrel.
On another note, the poorly written headline award goes to..... Reuters!
Whoa! Those Palestinians take their building code seriously! Where it says that studs shall be placed at least 16 inches apart, they mean it!
Monday, January 24, 2005
Enough moping- back to work.
Okay, my feelings of fear and loathing have subsided, and I have decided that there is nothing to be gained by pretending that I am somehow doing anyone service by waiting for the blue state expulsion. It'll never come, anyway (dammit). How can we advance the cause of (actual) liberty while out of power in all three branches of government?
Take a lesson from the South- assert states rights.
Let's be honest- states rights were nothing more than a desperate attempt by the minority to stave off the will of the majority. It was about power, and nothing more. Never mind that the cause of states rights was used in the 50s and 60s to slow the march of civil rights. Never mind that states rights was used in the 90s to thwart the Gun Free School Zone Act and the Violence Against Women Act. In the new century, let's use the doctrine to undo the PATRIOT Act, No Child Left Behind, and same sex marriage.
I always thought that the Feds should have more power than, say, Minnesota. I also know that in politics, what matters is power. Right now, we don't that much power. So screw it- use the tools at our disposal to effectuate change. File suit, challenge their actions, and use the intellectually specious doctrine that conservatives used for years to prevent progress- only now, we'll be using it to stop the damage.
Take a lesson from the South- assert states rights.
Let's be honest- states rights were nothing more than a desperate attempt by the minority to stave off the will of the majority. It was about power, and nothing more. Never mind that the cause of states rights was used in the 50s and 60s to slow the march of civil rights. Never mind that states rights was used in the 90s to thwart the Gun Free School Zone Act and the Violence Against Women Act. In the new century, let's use the doctrine to undo the PATRIOT Act, No Child Left Behind, and same sex marriage.
I always thought that the Feds should have more power than, say, Minnesota. I also know that in politics, what matters is power. Right now, we don't that much power. So screw it- use the tools at our disposal to effectuate change. File suit, challenge their actions, and use the intellectually specious doctrine that conservatives used for years to prevent progress- only now, we'll be using it to stop the damage.
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Johnny Carson, 1925-2005
This is a little off my usual focus, and I swear to God almighty that this will be the only time I link to E!, but the great Johnny Carson has passed away. It is no hyperbole to say that he was one of the most important public figures of the 20th Century. He was not the inventor of the late night talk show, that belongs to the late Steve Allen, but he perfected the format. The comic monolouge, the skits, the celebrity guests, the overwrought band, the boozehound second banana, the interviewee's sofa- all these late night staples are the direct descendents of Carson's Tonight Show.
Dozens of careers exist solely because of Carson's benificence. David Letterman, Jay Leno, David Brenner, and (unfortunately) Joan Rivers would not be who they are today were it not for Johnny Carson.
Politics, too, felt Johnny Carson's deft influence from time to time. He ended Richard Nixon's career, and he began Bill Clinton's. Scandals, wars, mere gaffes- Johnny could dispatch them all with a light hand. Until the Daily Show emerged in the past few years as a major force, the yardstick for political impact in popular culture is the late night monolouge.
Rest well, Johnny- you are deeply missed.
Dozens of careers exist solely because of Carson's benificence. David Letterman, Jay Leno, David Brenner, and (unfortunately) Joan Rivers would not be who they are today were it not for Johnny Carson.
Politics, too, felt Johnny Carson's deft influence from time to time. He ended Richard Nixon's career, and he began Bill Clinton's. Scandals, wars, mere gaffes- Johnny could dispatch them all with a light hand. Until the Daily Show emerged in the past few years as a major force, the yardstick for political impact in popular culture is the late night monolouge.
Rest well, Johnny- you are deeply missed.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Well, It's Official
He's reupped. They let the eagle soar. The Marine Band played hail to somebody. Then W solemnly swore to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Whoops- I think the bastard has a problem with that part.
The enormous cost, the unprecedented armed presence, and that God forsaken John Ashcroft song felt to me like nothing more than than a giant "fuck you" to the blue states. On the other hand, Chief Justice rehnquist looked dashing in his beret and gold striped robe- and they said Kerry looked French. Anywho- here now is my analysis of the inaugural address.
Whoops- I think the bastard has a problem with that part.
The enormous cost, the unprecedented armed presence, and that God forsaken John Ashcroft song felt to me like nothing more than than a giant "fuck you" to the blue states. On the other hand, Chief Justice rehnquist looked dashing in his beret and gold striped robe- and they said Kerry looked French. Anywho- here now is my analysis of the inaugural address.
- After saying "freedom" 27 times, and "liberty" 15 times, I think that Iran, North Korea and Minnesota are on notice- you're getting inva--- errr, liberated.
- He wants to create an "ownership society," (that will get its own article altogether- coming soon) in which home ownership is up, small businesses get started, and investment gets made. Oh, and Enron and Halliburton execs get 8 figure salaries and their legal bills paid by the Board. It's only, fair right?
- Note to Texans- cowboy hats don't cover the ears in the cold.
- After liberating a 100 square block area of Washington, DC, followed by an occupation force of armed guards and snipers on every rooftop, calm has been restored- expect free elections to follow soon (hey, at least they had an exit strategy this time.)
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Inauguration Day
How did we get here? What did we do to offend you, dear Lord? I understand that in a democracy, one cannot win all the time. Sometimes, you are outvoted. However, I simply cannot understand how anyone could have voted for this nincompoop.
When you look at his record, you see failure after failure. You see a pattern of lies and deceit and bodies. Bodies from death row in Texas. Bodies in Iraq. Our President has a body count to rival the greatest tyrants and villians in history.
The President, as he proudly notes, governs based based on his "gut." This wouldn't bother me so much in the abstract- good instincts are occasionally helpful. However, W ignores the evidence and advice that doesn't synch up with his gut. Good instincts are no match for good advice, and good advice is only worth anything if the advisee is listens.
Maybe I'm just a little depressed, but I actually have a nervous stomach this morning. I am filled with despair.
When you look at his record, you see failure after failure. You see a pattern of lies and deceit and bodies. Bodies from death row in Texas. Bodies in Iraq. Our President has a body count to rival the greatest tyrants and villians in history.
The President, as he proudly notes, governs based based on his "gut." This wouldn't bother me so much in the abstract- good instincts are occasionally helpful. However, W ignores the evidence and advice that doesn't synch up with his gut. Good instincts are no match for good advice, and good advice is only worth anything if the advisee is listens.
Maybe I'm just a little depressed, but I actually have a nervous stomach this morning. I am filled with despair.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
A Snapshot of the Bush Mandate
According to a Washington Post poll-
- 58% disapprove of his Iraq policies
- 52% disapprove of the way he has handled the economy
- 51% disapprove of the way he has handled health care
- 58% disapprove of the way W has handled the budget deficit
- 53% do not think Bush will make progress on Social Security
- 65% do not think Bush will make progress on the environment
- 62% do not think that W will make progress on the deficit
- 56% do not believe that GWB "understands the problems of people like you"
- 55% do not think that the war in Iraq was worth fighting
- 57% believe that companies should face the possibility of big penalties in lawsuits
Finally, 55% think that Bush will do a better job in his second term. That's a backhanded compliment- how could he possibily do worse.
Monday, January 17, 2005
In the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King, I spent the holiday shopping.
Well, I really only did some grocery shopping, and buying some super deeply discounted winter clothes (fleece lined jacket- $10!!!). In any event, I was not at work today, which meant that I got to do some things I don't usually get to do.
Like listen to Rush Limbaugh.
My, God- what a dunderhead. To celebrate the spirit of MLK, he mostly denigrated contemporary civil rights activists, calling them socialists. He spouted some statistics about minority business starts, and how African-Americans are economically better off now. As if equality meant a bigger bank account.
Don't get me wrong, those things are good things- but they're not the same as equality. There is still much to be done in this country in terms of race relations, and Rush Limbaugh has no interest in doing them.
Of course, now that we've had our "accountability moment," I doubt that the White House will do anything.
Besides, they're too bust bringing democracy to Iraq. They're even going to let expat Iraqis vote. I've thought a fair bit about that, and I've come to the conclusion that the only way to get a friendly government (i.e. Sunni) elected, is to stack the deck with anti-Baathist Sunnis- who all live in Detroit, apparently. I really do not have the numbers to back up the above assertion, but I suspect it's probably correct. Anyway, about 1.2 million Iraqis live abroad, while about 20 million voting age persons live in Iraq.
Iraq is about 85% ethnic Iraqi and 15% Kurdish. No one is worried about the Kurds- they'll form a minority third party, but you can take those 3 million voters out of the power equation. Of the ethnic Iraqis, they break down 50% Shiite and 45% Sunni. 8.5 million Shiites, and about 7.7 Sunnis.
And just over 1 million expats. If my guess is correct, the final tally is 8.7 million Sunni voters. Not a terribly large margin, but just enough of one to put a (slightly less unfriendly) government in Baghdad.
I really doubt that these elections will alleviate the situation on the ground in Iraq, especially if these expat voters tip the scales toward the Sunnis. Imagine 2000, with all those disenfranchised Floridians running around, agitating about a stolen election. Only instead of "Bush Cheated" signs, they all have IEDs.
Exactly the kind of democracy we want to spread throughout the worldd- oh, and it will spread, too. The buzz on CNN this morning was that "unnamed sources" revealed that war plans are in place for Iran by July.
If this is true, it will take more than one moment of accountability to make it right.
Like listen to Rush Limbaugh.
My, God- what a dunderhead. To celebrate the spirit of MLK, he mostly denigrated contemporary civil rights activists, calling them socialists. He spouted some statistics about minority business starts, and how African-Americans are economically better off now. As if equality meant a bigger bank account.
Don't get me wrong, those things are good things- but they're not the same as equality. There is still much to be done in this country in terms of race relations, and Rush Limbaugh has no interest in doing them.
Of course, now that we've had our "accountability moment," I doubt that the White House will do anything.
Besides, they're too bust bringing democracy to Iraq. They're even going to let expat Iraqis vote. I've thought a fair bit about that, and I've come to the conclusion that the only way to get a friendly government (i.e. Sunni) elected, is to stack the deck with anti-Baathist Sunnis- who all live in Detroit, apparently. I really do not have the numbers to back up the above assertion, but I suspect it's probably correct. Anyway, about 1.2 million Iraqis live abroad, while about 20 million voting age persons live in Iraq.
Iraq is about 85% ethnic Iraqi and 15% Kurdish. No one is worried about the Kurds- they'll form a minority third party, but you can take those 3 million voters out of the power equation. Of the ethnic Iraqis, they break down 50% Shiite and 45% Sunni. 8.5 million Shiites, and about 7.7 Sunnis.
And just over 1 million expats. If my guess is correct, the final tally is 8.7 million Sunni voters. Not a terribly large margin, but just enough of one to put a (slightly less unfriendly) government in Baghdad.
I really doubt that these elections will alleviate the situation on the ground in Iraq, especially if these expat voters tip the scales toward the Sunnis. Imagine 2000, with all those disenfranchised Floridians running around, agitating about a stolen election. Only instead of "Bush Cheated" signs, they all have IEDs.
Exactly the kind of democracy we want to spread throughout the worldd- oh, and it will spread, too. The buzz on CNN this morning was that "unnamed sources" revealed that war plans are in place for Iran by July.
If this is true, it will take more than one moment of accountability to make it right.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Go away for a few days, seems like a good day to come back...
Lessee, what's going on... Abu Ghraib court martial? Nah- if Rummy's not on trial, I'm not commenting on the small fish. SCOTUS ruling that the federal sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional? Ummmm, interesting to me, but too technical. More mayhem in Iraq? Old news. White House gives up on the search for WMDs?
I think I'll write about that.
The Iraq Survey Group- better known as the weapons inspectors- have given up. They've concluded that Saddam Hussein destroyed his WMDs years ago, and that his capabilities have been waning ever since. In other words, they don't have 'em, they haven't had 'em for awhile, and they weren't gonna make 'em for the foreseeable future.
Let's flash back in time shall we, to Colin Powell's presentation to the UN.
"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more, and according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes."
Rummy was bit more prosaic. There's no debate in the world as to whether they have those weapons....We all know that. A trained ape knows that.
As opposed to the untrained apes running the show.
They weren't there- they were never there. Based on what amounts to a bald faced lie, this country that I once so loved committed 1358 of its young to their graves. Not to mention thousands of Iraqis and $159.5 billion.
If it wasn't absurdly offensive it would almost be funny, but as George Costanza once noted, "It's not a lie if you believe it." They believed it. It's still a lie.
This President is little more than a war criminal, and America is a rogue state. We have lost all direction. American exceptionalism used to mean "We are the better people, therefore we do not lower ourselves to our enemies' level." Now it means "We are the better people, so if we do something it must be the right thing." Wrong. We are better only so long as we choose to be better.
In other words, because we are a good people, we will obey the rules. The President would have you believe that because we are a good people, we do not need to follow the rules.
It doesn't work that way. I am ashamed of my country.
I think I'll write about that.
The Iraq Survey Group- better known as the weapons inspectors- have given up. They've concluded that Saddam Hussein destroyed his WMDs years ago, and that his capabilities have been waning ever since. In other words, they don't have 'em, they haven't had 'em for awhile, and they weren't gonna make 'em for the foreseeable future.
Let's flash back in time shall we, to Colin Powell's presentation to the UN.
"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more, and according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes."
Rummy was bit more prosaic. There's no debate in the world as to whether they have those weapons....We all know that. A trained ape knows that.
As opposed to the untrained apes running the show.
They weren't there- they were never there. Based on what amounts to a bald faced lie, this country that I once so loved committed 1358 of its young to their graves. Not to mention thousands of Iraqis and $159.5 billion.
If it wasn't absurdly offensive it would almost be funny, but as George Costanza once noted, "It's not a lie if you believe it." They believed it. It's still a lie.
This President is little more than a war criminal, and America is a rogue state. We have lost all direction. American exceptionalism used to mean "We are the better people, therefore we do not lower ourselves to our enemies' level." Now it means "We are the better people, so if we do something it must be the right thing." Wrong. We are better only so long as we choose to be better.
In other words, because we are a good people, we will obey the rules. The President would have you believe that because we are a good people, we do not need to follow the rules.
It doesn't work that way. I am ashamed of my country.
Sunday, January 09, 2005
"It's going to be ugly"
Those are the words of Joe Biden on elections in Iraq, as reported by Zell Miller's least favorite "highbrow hussy." As usual, Maureen Dowd gets it right. She is a blue state Ann Coulter- sharp, good looking, controversial- except that she's neither a moron nor bigot.
The administration astounds me- the President models his leadership style after an effective CEO. Effective CEO's listen to the specialists in their company, and make the decisions based on their counsel. Dubya, however, makes his decisions and then listens only to those specialists whose counsel echoes the path already taken. The "realists" (i.e. the people with the audacity to suggest that Iraq is not going well) are pushed aside in favor of "idealists" (i.e. the people who said it was going to be a cakewalk).
So, because Brent Scowcroft believes that elections could "deepen the conflict" he gets the boot. Scowcroft is no hippie dove- he was GHWB's National Security Advisor, and one of the architects of Gulf War I. He actively advised against taking Saddam down in 1991, fearing that we could get bogged down into a protracted occupation. In fact, he co-wrote a book with GHWB in 1998 making this point exactly. For his presecience, GWB disses him as "a pain in the ass in his old age." Indeed.
Even though I probably disagreed with GHWB and Scowcroft more often than not, I can't recall feeling the fear and dread that I feel now. I can't remember thinking that my country was a rogue state, bent on imposing its worldview. I can't remember thinking (seriously) about moving to another country. In 1991, even though I disagreed with the policies, I never thought that the country was evil. Now, I'm not so sure.
The administration astounds me- the President models his leadership style after an effective CEO. Effective CEO's listen to the specialists in their company, and make the decisions based on their counsel. Dubya, however, makes his decisions and then listens only to those specialists whose counsel echoes the path already taken. The "realists" (i.e. the people with the audacity to suggest that Iraq is not going well) are pushed aside in favor of "idealists" (i.e. the people who said it was going to be a cakewalk).
So, because Brent Scowcroft believes that elections could "deepen the conflict" he gets the boot. Scowcroft is no hippie dove- he was GHWB's National Security Advisor, and one of the architects of Gulf War I. He actively advised against taking Saddam down in 1991, fearing that we could get bogged down into a protracted occupation. In fact, he co-wrote a book with GHWB in 1998 making this point exactly. For his presecience, GWB disses him as "a pain in the ass in his old age." Indeed.
Even though I probably disagreed with GHWB and Scowcroft more often than not, I can't recall feeling the fear and dread that I feel now. I can't remember thinking that my country was a rogue state, bent on imposing its worldview. I can't remember thinking (seriously) about moving to another country. In 1991, even though I disagreed with the policies, I never thought that the country was evil. Now, I'm not so sure.
Saturday, January 08, 2005
Alberto Gonzales- Evil Incarnate
The more I think about this man, the more disgusted I become. Mever mind that he justified torture. Never mind that he misrepresented basic facts in death penalty memos. It's what he does to the law, and to lawyers, that pisses me off.
One of a lawyer's basic jobs is to give honest, independent professional advice. Sometimes, that means looking your client in the eye and telling him that he's shit-outta-luck. Now, obviously, whether the client listens to you is up to him- as the lawyer, you advocate the client's position, not yours- and I've had clients refuse my advice before. Usually, that leads to a bad loss, and an "I told you so."
When you look at the lousy advice that Gonzales has given the President over the years, it makes you wonder how he's managed to keep his job, let alone keep getting promoted. Consider his position on torture- first, he argued that certain language is vague (specifically quoting, "outrages against personal dignity" as an example of vagueness; hey Alberto, it's not that vague- for example, stripping your prisoners naked and forcing to simulate sex is an outrage against personal dignity... and you created the climate that made it possible); second, he seized upon that perceived ambiguity, and decided that torture means only that abuse that results in serious injury. He created a new category of person, the "enemy combatant," and then quesitoned whether the Geneva Conventions applied to enemy combatants. In other words, he jiggered the system to get the answer that his client wanted, even though very few people other than his client agreed.
What a good lawyer should have done, is to look his client in the eye and tell him, "You can't do that." Alberto Gonzales didn't do that- I doubt that he ever will.
One of a lawyer's basic jobs is to give honest, independent professional advice. Sometimes, that means looking your client in the eye and telling him that he's shit-outta-luck. Now, obviously, whether the client listens to you is up to him- as the lawyer, you advocate the client's position, not yours- and I've had clients refuse my advice before. Usually, that leads to a bad loss, and an "I told you so."
When you look at the lousy advice that Gonzales has given the President over the years, it makes you wonder how he's managed to keep his job, let alone keep getting promoted. Consider his position on torture- first, he argued that certain language is vague (specifically quoting, "outrages against personal dignity" as an example of vagueness; hey Alberto, it's not that vague- for example, stripping your prisoners naked and forcing to simulate sex is an outrage against personal dignity... and you created the climate that made it possible); second, he seized upon that perceived ambiguity, and decided that torture means only that abuse that results in serious injury. He created a new category of person, the "enemy combatant," and then quesitoned whether the Geneva Conventions applied to enemy combatants. In other words, he jiggered the system to get the answer that his client wanted, even though very few people other than his client agreed.
What a good lawyer should have done, is to look his client in the eye and tell him, "You can't do that." Alberto Gonzales didn't do that- I doubt that he ever will.
Vermont Civil Unions- Five Years Later, State Apparently NOT Going To Hell In A Handbasket
It's been five years since Vermont split the baby, and opted to enforce the equal rights provision of its state constitution by splitting the baby- I mean, choosing civil unions over marriage. Despite much handwringing, and a brief (and bigoted) attempt to rewrite the state constitution, Vermonters have gotten used to it. Which is what we who are not freaked out by gay people have been saying would happen.
Don't tell Dubya- he might try to invade... erm, liberate Vermont.
Don't tell Dubya- he might try to invade... erm, liberate Vermont.
More thoughts on tort "reform"
Dubya went to Michigan to announce a push to change the way asbestos claims are handled. Yup- now he wants to protect makers of asbestos, a known carcinogen, and the Time notes that Halliburton is a major asbestos defendant. They report, you decide.
Industry has been critical of asbestos suits for some time, arguing that these cases have bankrupted a number of companies. To which I respond, so what? In a nation where 38 states have death penalties, where a person can lose his life for taking even one other person's, why shouldn't corporations face the same fate when their products kill thousands of people, and injures many thousands or millions more?
I'm not anti-business; on the contrary, almost every major innovation has come from business and that history of innovation should be encouraged. However, when people are injured or killed because businesses considered profit to be more important than safety, or because they intentionally suppressed information (as the evidence suggests happened in the Vioxx case), then businesses must pay the piper. In business, that means money.
Holding businesses accountable for their actions is good for consumers, because it will ultimately result in better, safer products. What many people don't understand is that it is also good for business, because the makers of good products will no longer be at a competitive disadvantage to the companies that routinely cut corners.
If you really want to change the tort system, however, here is a free market idea that the Bushies don't want to pursue: eliminate limited liability. Corporate shareholders enjoy limited liability, meaning that shoreholders are not liable for the debts of the corporation. Imagine if after every multi-million dollar lawsuit, a small investor got a bill from a lawyer for fifty bucks, or a large institutional investor (like CalPERS) got a bill in the millions. The people responsible (i.e. the execs) would be out on their asses in a blue state minute. The Boards of Directors would take their responsibilities seriously and oversee the managers instead of rubber stamping them. As a result, business would make sure their ducks are in a row before they made a move, and lawsuits would become rarer and less costly.
Everyone wants that, don't they?
Industry has been critical of asbestos suits for some time, arguing that these cases have bankrupted a number of companies. To which I respond, so what? In a nation where 38 states have death penalties, where a person can lose his life for taking even one other person's, why shouldn't corporations face the same fate when their products kill thousands of people, and injures many thousands or millions more?
I'm not anti-business; on the contrary, almost every major innovation has come from business and that history of innovation should be encouraged. However, when people are injured or killed because businesses considered profit to be more important than safety, or because they intentionally suppressed information (as the evidence suggests happened in the Vioxx case), then businesses must pay the piper. In business, that means money.
Holding businesses accountable for their actions is good for consumers, because it will ultimately result in better, safer products. What many people don't understand is that it is also good for business, because the makers of good products will no longer be at a competitive disadvantage to the companies that routinely cut corners.
If you really want to change the tort system, however, here is a free market idea that the Bushies don't want to pursue: eliminate limited liability. Corporate shareholders enjoy limited liability, meaning that shoreholders are not liable for the debts of the corporation. Imagine if after every multi-million dollar lawsuit, a small investor got a bill from a lawyer for fifty bucks, or a large institutional investor (like CalPERS) got a bill in the millions. The people responsible (i.e. the execs) would be out on their asses in a blue state minute. The Boards of Directors would take their responsibilities seriously and oversee the managers instead of rubber stamping them. As a result, business would make sure their ducks are in a row before they made a move, and lawsuits would become rarer and less costly.
Everyone wants that, don't they?
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Let's See If Understand You, Mr. Attorney General Designate
If confirmed to the position, you promise to obey the law?
Fuck The Injured
The President made a visit to Madison County, Illinois today. Why visit a blue state backwater? To remind the rest of the country how wrong it is. You see, Madison County is considered the most plaintiff friendly county in America- and that's just wrong! So, Dubya showed up to clean up the courthouse.
"What's happening all across this country is that lawyers are filing baseless suits against hospitals and doctors. That's just a plain fact," Bush said. "And they're doing it for a simple reason. They know the medical-liability system is tilted in their favor.
Let's unpack that quote a little shall we- first, he blames lawyers for filing "baseless suits." Trying to determine whether a claim has merit is always a little subjective. Unless, of course, you are George W. Bush, because in Crawford it's "just a plain fact." Nevermind that "baseless" has no legal meaning- I assume he means "frivilous," which is a legal term of art for a claim that has no basis in fact or law. A case might lack "merit", and still not be frivilous.
Let me give you an example- suppose a patient dies from complications from surgery despite the surgeon's best efforts and use of reasonable medical practices. The patient's widow files suit alleging malpractice- as is her right. I feel that it is important to remind everyone that in this country, you have the absolute right to seek redress in the courts- you might not win, but you have the right to try. Each side presents evidence, and the jury decides which way the evidence points. If the doctor wins, it's because he convinced a jury that he did nothing wrong- to use the legal standard, he provided that level of care expected of reasonable medical professionals. Is this a "baseless" suit? It might be "meritless," but it's not baseless.
But the driving impetus behind tort reform has little to do with determining liability- it's about money. Key to most med mal reform plans is capping "non-economic" damages to $250,000. "Non-economic" means pain and suffering. In other words, "I don't care if you get hurt, we can't really place a dollar value on suffering." If the proposed reforms don't actually changes the rules of liability, then whom do they benefit.
Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and hospitals that have the audacity to charge $5 to $10K per day.
Oh, and when you look at the actual facts, you see whose interests the President has closest to his heart.
Med mal is just the tip of the iceberg- class actions and products liability are on the GOP's radar. Class actions are an absolute necessity- companies can get away with collective murder if the individual loss is so low that no one will complain about it. You have to aggregate claims to keep polluters, larcenous corporate directors, and predatory lenders at bay.
Why would the guy who ran as a simple, plain spoken man of the people and a defender of Crawford values against the coastal elites side with the wealthy corporate robber barons? Well, duh? Isn't it obvious? So that the rich keep getting richer. For a man of the people, he really seems to be bad for people.
So let's edit that quote a little.
All across the country insurance companies want to help incompetent doctors and makers of defective, dangerous products avoid taking resonsibility for their actions. They're doing it for a simple reason- cabbage. Lettuce. Moolah. Scadole.
And that's just a plain fact.
"What's happening all across this country is that lawyers are filing baseless suits against hospitals and doctors. That's just a plain fact," Bush said. "And they're doing it for a simple reason. They know the medical-liability system is tilted in their favor.
Let's unpack that quote a little shall we- first, he blames lawyers for filing "baseless suits." Trying to determine whether a claim has merit is always a little subjective. Unless, of course, you are George W. Bush, because in Crawford it's "just a plain fact." Nevermind that "baseless" has no legal meaning- I assume he means "frivilous," which is a legal term of art for a claim that has no basis in fact or law. A case might lack "merit", and still not be frivilous.
Let me give you an example- suppose a patient dies from complications from surgery despite the surgeon's best efforts and use of reasonable medical practices. The patient's widow files suit alleging malpractice- as is her right. I feel that it is important to remind everyone that in this country, you have the absolute right to seek redress in the courts- you might not win, but you have the right to try. Each side presents evidence, and the jury decides which way the evidence points. If the doctor wins, it's because he convinced a jury that he did nothing wrong- to use the legal standard, he provided that level of care expected of reasonable medical professionals. Is this a "baseless" suit? It might be "meritless," but it's not baseless.
But the driving impetus behind tort reform has little to do with determining liability- it's about money. Key to most med mal reform plans is capping "non-economic" damages to $250,000. "Non-economic" means pain and suffering. In other words, "I don't care if you get hurt, we can't really place a dollar value on suffering." If the proposed reforms don't actually changes the rules of liability, then whom do they benefit.
Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and hospitals that have the audacity to charge $5 to $10K per day.
Oh, and when you look at the actual facts, you see whose interests the President has closest to his heart.
Med mal is just the tip of the iceberg- class actions and products liability are on the GOP's radar. Class actions are an absolute necessity- companies can get away with collective murder if the individual loss is so low that no one will complain about it. You have to aggregate claims to keep polluters, larcenous corporate directors, and predatory lenders at bay.
Why would the guy who ran as a simple, plain spoken man of the people and a defender of Crawford values against the coastal elites side with the wealthy corporate robber barons? Well, duh? Isn't it obvious? So that the rich keep getting richer. For a man of the people, he really seems to be bad for people.
So let's edit that quote a little.
All across the country insurance companies want to help incompetent doctors and makers of defective, dangerous products avoid taking resonsibility for their actions. They're doing it for a simple reason- cabbage. Lettuce. Moolah. Scadole.
And that's just a plain fact.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Bad to Worse
Alright, the Washington Times is not exactly required reading, but they seem to be only media source running with this story. According to the Iraqi intel minister, insurgents outnumber coalition forces. The situation on the ground is about as bad as possible. This morning we learned that the governor of Baghdad province was assassinated.
Bush cannot possibly postpone the elections- the lost political capital would be tremendous. On the other hand, there is no way that Iraq can possibly hold elections. The candidates completely lack legitimacy in the eyes of the voters, seeing as how Sunnis are basically disenfranchised. al Qaeda sees any Iraqi who participates in the government as an infidel, no better than Americans. Basically- you vote, you become a target for al Qaeda.
I harbor no pretense that Saddam was a good guy. I wholeheartedly believe that democracy and self-government are essential to a free society, but the basic assumption that makes self-government work is simply not there in Iraq. Self-government means more than simply choosing from a list of people- it means that you have to want to make the choice in the first place. Iraq may not have been Disneyland under Saddam, but most Iraqis were free to work where they wanted, form the relationships they wanted, and were not in danger of getting blown up randomly.
The "freedom" we are imposing on Iraq is not freedom at all. It is a forced choice, a bait and switch, like the car dealer who tells you on the phone that they have red Mustangs in stock, but when you get there he says, "Red? Oh, we have blue and yellow- which one do y'want?" Can you blame the insurgents- we are forcing a menu of choices on them, except for the ones they want.
On another note- as I write this, Southern Cal is kicking Oklahoma's ass. Utah would have been a much better opponent, evidenced by their dismantling of Pitt. Friggin' BCS- just give us a playoff already!!!
Bush cannot possibly postpone the elections- the lost political capital would be tremendous. On the other hand, there is no way that Iraq can possibly hold elections. The candidates completely lack legitimacy in the eyes of the voters, seeing as how Sunnis are basically disenfranchised. al Qaeda sees any Iraqi who participates in the government as an infidel, no better than Americans. Basically- you vote, you become a target for al Qaeda.
I harbor no pretense that Saddam was a good guy. I wholeheartedly believe that democracy and self-government are essential to a free society, but the basic assumption that makes self-government work is simply not there in Iraq. Self-government means more than simply choosing from a list of people- it means that you have to want to make the choice in the first place. Iraq may not have been Disneyland under Saddam, but most Iraqis were free to work where they wanted, form the relationships they wanted, and were not in danger of getting blown up randomly.
The "freedom" we are imposing on Iraq is not freedom at all. It is a forced choice, a bait and switch, like the car dealer who tells you on the phone that they have red Mustangs in stock, but when you get there he says, "Red? Oh, we have blue and yellow- which one do y'want?" Can you blame the insurgents- we are forcing a menu of choices on them, except for the ones they want.
On another note- as I write this, Southern Cal is kicking Oklahoma's ass. Utah would have been a much better opponent, evidenced by their dismantling of Pitt. Friggin' BCS- just give us a playoff already!!!
Sunday, January 02, 2005
Rep. Bob Matsui Dead at 63
Rep. Bob Matsui (D-CA) passed away today. He suffered from a rare disease that affected his immune system. He entered the hospital Christmas Eve with pneumonia. He was 63.
As the ranking Democrat on the Social Security Subcommittee, he was going to lead the opposition against Bush's attempt to privatize it. I don't know much about Bob Matsui, but I suspect that there will be a leadership vacuum in the House for a little while as the Dems try to figure out who their point man will be- and with a special election coming up, it will give the GOP another opportunity to expand their majority.
All of which matters little to his family, who have lost a father and husband. They have my condolences and prayers.
As the ranking Democrat on the Social Security Subcommittee, he was going to lead the opposition against Bush's attempt to privatize it. I don't know much about Bob Matsui, but I suspect that there will be a leadership vacuum in the House for a little while as the Dems try to figure out who their point man will be- and with a special election coming up, it will give the GOP another opportunity to expand their majority.
All of which matters little to his family, who have lost a father and husband. They have my condolences and prayers.
Have No Fear- Jeb Bush Is Here!
Lame duck Colin Powell and Presidential proxy Jeb Bush are on their way to Indonesia. Powell I understand, but Jeb is completely off the wall. The official justification is that since Florida is demolished by hurricanes on a regualr basis, he has experience managing natural disasters. On the other hand, since there are substantially fewer trailer parks in Phi Phi than Orlando I suspect that his contribution may amount to little more than sending someone whose name is Bush. I wonder if George Prescott was unavailable.
The flap over the "stingy" remark, which was entirely innocuous and did not name names in its original context, had the remarkable effect of increasing U.S. aid tenfold. Nevermind that $350 million buys slightly less than two days of warmongering. It would behoove our government to remember that you get more flies with honey than vinegar; our wise leaders, however, would rather try to convince the flies that the vinegar is just as good as the honey, and we're gonna ram it down your throats anyway so just get used to it.
Memo to Dubya- move the troops out of Iraq and send them to the disaster zone. Have them help with the rebuilding effort. Let the world see that they are not conquerors and occupiers, but that they are simply people- kids, really- who want to do right by their country, their world, their God. Not much different from the Iraqi people who only want to do right by their country, their world, and their God. I don't see it happening, though; our leadership doesn't think that far ahead.
The flap over the "stingy" remark, which was entirely innocuous and did not name names in its original context, had the remarkable effect of increasing U.S. aid tenfold. Nevermind that $350 million buys slightly less than two days of warmongering. It would behoove our government to remember that you get more flies with honey than vinegar; our wise leaders, however, would rather try to convince the flies that the vinegar is just as good as the honey, and we're gonna ram it down your throats anyway so just get used to it.
Memo to Dubya- move the troops out of Iraq and send them to the disaster zone. Have them help with the rebuilding effort. Let the world see that they are not conquerors and occupiers, but that they are simply people- kids, really- who want to do right by their country, their world, their God. Not much different from the Iraqi people who only want to do right by their country, their world, and their God. I don't see it happening, though; our leadership doesn't think that far ahead.
Saturday, January 01, 2005
2004- The Year of the Moron
Happy New Year! May 2005 be better than the year just ended. 2004 sucked for a variety of reasons- personal, political, and otherwise. In the future, when the history books are written, I believe that 2004 will mostly be remembered as the year when the shit hit the fan. We gave Dubya a "mandate," the Sox won the series, and nature wiped away thousands in people in a few seconds. More personally, 2004 was the year my father fell ill.
Let's just put 2004 behind us, and work to make things better in 2005.
Let's just put 2004 behind us, and work to make things better in 2005.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)