Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I've been thinking, though, (and want to pass this along to tweak Club and the boys), that so long as the Dems retain enough clout to block certain judicial nominations and to block some of the more radical changes to environmental policies, etc., we might as well keep Bush. He's basically governing like a conservative Democrat -- except for the spending orgy.)

How so?

And if we're going to have divided government -- which I think I prefer -- I would rather have a GOP legislature to pass relative few laws, and a Dem president to enforce them vigorously.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I've been thinking, though, (and want to pass this along to tweak Club and the boys), that so long as the Dems retain enough clout to block certain judicial nominations and to block some of the more radical changes to environmental policies, etc., we might as well keep Bush. He's basically governing like a conservative Democrat -- except for the spending orgy.)

S_A_M

Doesn't tweak me at all, I agree with you, though I'm not sure if he's even a conservative DEM. May be more mainstream given the size of the new entitlements he's proposed.

On a related note, George Will had an interesting take in his column over the weekend. His basic point was that the era of small government is over, and instead of pushing for smaller government, this Adminstration accepts big government but is trying to use it for conservative purposes (e.g., injecting more choice into the system).

[sgtclub]

POLLUTED COVERAGE (PART THREE): This new study from the National Research Council, a division of the National Academy of Sciences, finds that while air pollution is declining, the reduction could be accelerated by a "multi-state, multi-pollutant" approach that sets broad overall reduction targets, then allows industrial facilities to trade reduction permits with each other. (Current Clean Air Act rules generally require cumbersome site-by-site, pollutant-by-pollutant litigation.) It's, um, a scientific study, and so perhaps The New York Times might have been forgiven for reporting it in a short article on page A11, while The Washington Post might have been forgiven for according the study but three grafs under "Washington in Brief." Here's what was missing from the coverage. The "multi-state, multi-pollutant" approach just endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences is exactly what the Bush administration has proposed to adopt under its Clear Skies initiative.

The ill-named Clear Skies plan would replace the Clean Air Act's cumbersome site-by-site litigation formula with a new system that sets broad overall reduction targets, then allows industrial facilities to trade reduction permits with each other. The Clear Skies plan has been roundly condemned by Democrats, especially in the Senate--among the president contenders, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman have been withering in their denunciations of Clear Skies--and mocked by editorial writers. As this space noted in December, Democrats are fighting Clear Skies exactly because they know it would reduce air pollution: They want to deny George W. Bush a progressive victory going into the 2004 election. But the official reason Democrats, and editorial writers, have derided Clear Skies is their claim it wouldn't work.

Comes now the National Academy of Sciences to say the Clear Skies approach is desirable, and the big papers bury that inconvenient development. The Times story does note, though not "up high," that the study backs the president's proposal; the Post sniglet says nothing about the connection, simply presenting the study as a disembodied research finding. New York Times and Washington Post editors both have placed denunciations of the Clear Skies proposal one the front page; but when the plan receives very prominent expert support, that's not news. Some studies from the same organization, studies that discomfit the Bush White House, have gone directly to page one--for instance, a National Research Council finding that the fuel economy of SUVs and pickup trucks could be increased was (deservedly) a headline story. But a major scientific study backing a controversial Bush position is quietly buried. Now, what's the word I am looking for?

http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1276

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
How so?

And if we're going to have divided government -- which I think I prefer -- I would rather have a GOP legislature to pass relative few laws, and a Dem president to enforce them vigorously.

That's probably right. But the Shrub has been very good for my personal pocket-book, despite not fixing that dratted AMT! I suppose that I am one of the privileged "rich" -- at least until I can convince someone to hire me to fight evil.

I'll tell you, I don't so much mind the extra 2% the AMT stacked onto my tax bill as the hours I spent figuring it out. [BTW -- this is the first year it hit me, and our family engages in none of the mandatory triggering activities (except for a home equity line). A real-life example of the stuff you read about in the paper.]

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
But the Shrub has been very good for my personal pocket-book, despite not fixing that dratted AMT! I suppose that I am one of the privileged "rich" -- at least until I can convince someone to hire me to fight evil.

You and me both. But unless you're a lot older than I am, we're both going to be in trouble in a few years when the boomers start to retire.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You and me both. But unless you're a lot older than I am, we're both going to be in trouble in a few years when the boomers start to retire.

If we're smart, the retirement age will start rising, keeping that "full benefit" always and forever just out of range.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
If we're smart, the retirement age will start rising, keeping that "full benefit" always and forever just out of range.

For political reasons, it can't happen under a republican president. He'd be strung up and derided for being anti-old.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
For political reasons, it can't happen under a republican president. He'd be strung up and derided for being anti-old.

We ought to try to stick it to the boomers now, while they're still pretending they're young.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
We ought to try to stick it to the boomers now, while they're still pretending they're young.

Something tells me they'll always be pretending that. By the way, is Billmore technically a boomer?

[Replaced_Texan]

Don't know if anyone else has been following this story, but I know one of the physicians who was taking care of this guy before he died.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...pstory/2384524

Feb. 2, 2004, 11:36PM

Ex-agents get prison in immigrant's death
U.S. attorney say rulings send message
By RON NISSIMOV
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
In rulings hailed as the first of their kind, a Houston federal judge sentenced three former immigration agents to prison Monday for denying medical care to a paralyzed illegal immigrant who later died of his injuries.

A federal jury convicted the three men in June of acting with deliberate indifference for failing to get timely medical care for Serafin Olvera after his neck was broken during a struggle with immigration agents in Bryan on March 25, 2001.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I agree that they should have made some assumptions and included them, I don't think the $50 billion is material given the size of the budget.

While agreeing with Gattigap's general amusement at this kind of statement, I think the $50b number is much more significant in relation to the projected size of the deficit (~$500b+), which is what the comment was referring to.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
While agreeing with Gattigap's general amusement at this kind of statement, I think the $50b number is much more significant in relation to the projected size of the deficit (~$500b+), which is what the comment was referring to.

Not based on what the director of OMB said yesterday. The statements regarding cutting the deficit in half over the next 4 (5?) years includes this amount, even though it is not a line item in the budget. And for those of you who are concerned with misleading, the fact that the up to $50B number is a contingent liability is highlighted in the budget. We can argue (or agree) as to the contents of the budget, but allegations of intentionally misleading are factually untrue.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
. . . . but allegations of intentionally misleading are factually untrue.

Why don't we just say, Board Motto, and get it over with?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And for those of you who are concerned with misleading, the fact that the up to $50B number is a contingent liability is highlighted in the budget. We can argue (or agree) as to the contents of the budget, but allegations of intentionally misleading are factually untrue.

According to the Washington Post, you are wrong:

• Bush's budget will include no additional funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond Sept. 30, an omission that both Democrats and Republicans are questioning.

[bilmore]

NATIONAL REVIEW POSTS EARLY EXITS:

AZ Kerry 46, Clark 24, Dean 13
MO Kerry 52, Edwards 23, Dean 10
SC Edwards 44, Kerry 30, Sharpton 10
OK Edwards 31, Kerry 29, Clark 28
DE Kerry 47, Dean 14, Lieberman 11, Edwards 11