Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

All this meta-arguing is really, really exciting.

[Hank Chinaski]

now that he's washed out as insane, do I get to count this as a win? None of you really challenged it, but I was pretty consistant that he's nuts. Can I now represent myself as 15-2 on this board?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
All this meta-arguing is really, really exciting.

Are you attempting to raise this to a new level, and argue about the meta-arguing?

Let me reask my question of earlier this am -- is the story about the Judiciary Committe R's reading the Dems documents and distributing them to the media getting any play elsewhere? I saw Josh Marshall picked it up from the Boston Globe, which is where I saw it, and I also saw the NY Times (which owns the Globe) didn't have it on their front page. This makes me think it is a Globe exclusive and hits the big time tonight.

The story is here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Let me reask my question of earlier this am -- is the story about the Judiciary Committe R's reading the Dems documents and distributing them to the media getting any play elsewhere? I saw Josh Marshall picked it up from the Boston Globe, which is where I saw it, and I also saw the NY Times (which owns the Globe) didn't have it on their front page. This makes me think it is a Globe exclusive and hits the big time tonight.

The story is here.

I'm wondering whether this activity was criminal (would it be criminal elsewhere? does Congress exempt itself and its staffers from the laws in question?). Anyone know?

[Hank Chinaski]

which is more supportive of the Palistianian movement, kissing Arafat, or wearing his head towel as a scarf?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I'm wondering whether this activity was criminal (would it be criminal elsewhere? does Congress exempt itself and its staffers from the laws in question?). Anyone know?

It's toward the end of the article. It appears to be conceded that it is criminal if the memos in question constitute "official business", and one particular Republican staff (who is in risk of going to the big house) was pushing the idea pretty hard that the memos were "political" rather than "official business".

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I'm wondering whether this activity was criminal (would it be criminal elsewhere? does Congress exempt itself and its staffers from the laws in question?). Anyone know?

No exemption, but this makes me wonder:

"There appears to have been no hacking, no stealing, and no violation of any Senate rule," Miranda said. "Stealing assumes a property right and there is no property right to a government document. . . . These documents are not covered under the Senate disclosure rule because they are not official business and, to the extent they were disclosed, they were disclosed inadvertently by negligent [Democratic] staff."

These sound, not like pure government "official" business, but party business. Should government computer systems be used for purely party business? I know you can't use government computers for fundraising or campaigning purposes, but can you use them as a tool of a party plotting party strategy?

(This is getting no play here at all, but we in the MW lag a few days in hearing Hill news. After the initial news about the memo contexnts, and a fwe lines about "scandal", it disappeared.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

In an effort to return us to matters of substance and importance, and to address bilmore's concerns that we lefties too easily accuse the President of lying, let me post something about an issue on which everyone here agrees -- how the Bush Administration has us on a path to financial catastrophe -- and about which one can say Bush lied in the State of the Union. What follows (all of it) is from Kevin Drum:

THE WHITE HOUSE'S TRUTH DEFICIT....One of the most remarkable statements in yesterday's State of the Union address was this one:

• In two weeks, I will send you a budget that funds the war, protects the homeland, and meets important domestic needs, while limiting the growth in discretionary spending to less than 4 percent....By doing so, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years.

Now, Max will tell you that the budget the president submits is little more than a dog and pony show anyway, but let's give Bush the benefit of the doubt and assume that Congress passes his 4% budget intact. What happens?

• The deficit this year is projected to be about $480 billion. That means Bush is claiming that his budget austerity will reduce the deficit to $240 billion by 2009.
  
• Now take a look at the chart on the right, which shows deficit estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. The baseline estimate for 2009 (heavy blue line at the top) is a deficit of $170 billion.
  
  
  
• However, in the SOTU Bush also asked for his existing tax cuts to be made permanent. That's represented by the light blue area in the chart, and changes the estimated 2009 deficit to about $280 billion.
  
• The Medicare bill has already been passed. This is the dark blue area on the chart, and when you account for that the CBO deficit estimate deteriorates to about $330 billion.
  
• The gray area on the chart represents reform of the Alternative Minimum Tax. It's a no-brainer that this is going to happen, and that takes the 2009 deficit projection to $390 billion.
  
• This is bad enough already, but now comes the fun part. The CBO figures assume that discretionary spending rises only by the inflation rate, which they estimate at 2.7% per year. But Bush wants to increase discretionary spending by 4%, a growth rate that's 50% higher than the CBO's estimate. The blue-gray area in the chart overstates this a bit, but even so Bush's 4% pledge still increases the 2009 deficit considerably over the baseline estimate. Once you factor in higher interest costs, we're up to about $500 billion.

So: Bush's own publicly stated policies along with AMT reform that everyone knows is inevitable will increase the deficit to $500 billion by 2009, yet he claims these policies will reduce the deficit to $240 billion. Every single budget analyst in the White House knows this perfectly well. President Bush knows this perfectly well.

Explain to me again why I'm not allowed to call this a lie?

linky

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
now that he's washed out as insane, do I get to count this as a win? None of you really challenged it, but I was pretty consistant that he's nuts. Can I now represent myself as 15-2 on this board?

So you expect to board to congratulate you for agreeing with Not Me on something? Warped.

[ps. you are 0-1 in tangles with me on this board.]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
These sound, not like pure government "official" business, but party business. Should government computer systems be used for purely party business? I know you can't use government computers for fundraising or campaigning purposes, but can you use them as a tool of a party plotting party strategy?

Some of what Senators do is political. I don't think we need to pretend that the operation of the legislative branch involves no politics, that being its raison d'etre.

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
now that he's washed out as insane, do I get to count this as a win? None of you really challenged it, but I was pretty consistant that he's nuts. Can I now represent myself as 15-2 on this board?

He's down - but not out. Remember, it's like the BCS - better to lose early.

Kerry is gonna be toast down South - and expect some backlash on Clark with that Advocate cover.

Edwards seems to be doing a Clinton - peaking just at the right time. Which means its time for Rove to start revving up the case against those "rich trial lawyers"

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
In an effort to return us to matters of substance and importance, and to address bilmore's concerns that we lefties too easily accuse the President of lying, let me post something about an issue on which everyone here agrees -- how the Bush Administration has us on a path to financial catastrophe -- and about which one can say Bush lied in the State of the Union. What follows (all of it) is from Kevin Drum:

THE WHITE HOUSE'S TRUTH DEFICIT....One of the most remarkable statements in yesterday's State of the Union address was this one:

• In two weeks, I will send you a budget that funds the war, protects the homeland, and meets important domestic needs, while limiting the growth in discretionary spending to less than 4 percent....By doing so, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years.

Now, Max will tell you that the budget the president submits is little more than a dog and pony show anyway, but let's give Bush the benefit of the doubt and assume that Congress passes his 4% budget intact. What happens?

• The deficit this year is projected to be about $480 billion. That means Bush is claiming that his budget austerity will reduce the deficit to $240 billion by 2009.
  
• Now take a look at the chart on the right, which shows deficit estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. The baseline estimate for 2009 (heavy blue line at the top) is a deficit of $170 billion.
  
  
  
• However, in the SOTU Bush also asked for his existing tax cuts to be made permanent. That's represented by the light blue area in the chart, and changes the estimated 2009 deficit to about $280 billion.
  
• The Medicare bill has already been passed. This is the dark blue area on the chart, and when you account for that the CBO deficit estimate deteriorates to about $330 billion.
  
• The gray area on the chart represents reform of the Alternative Minimum Tax. It's a no-brainer that this is going to happen, and that takes the 2009 deficit projection to $390 billion.
  
• This is bad enough already, but now comes the fun part. The CBO figures assume that discretionary spending rises only by the inflation rate, which they estimate at 2.7% per year. But Bush wants to increase discretionary spending by 4%, a growth rate that's 50% higher than the CBO's estimate. The blue-gray area in the chart overstates this a bit, but even so Bush's 4% pledge still increases the 2009 deficit considerably over the baseline estimate. Once you factor in higher interest costs, we're up to about $500 billion.

So: Bush's own publicly stated policies along with AMT reform that everyone knows is inevitable will increase the deficit to $500 billion by 2009, yet he claims these policies will reduce the deficit to $240 billion. Every single budget analyst in the White House knows this perfectly well. President Bush knows this perfectly well.

Explain to me again why I'm not allowed to call this a lie?

linky

That chart is clearly on the left.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Edwards seems to be doing a Clinton - peaking just at the right time. Which means its time for Rove to start revving up the case against those "rich trial lawyers"

I've never understood why people think that line appeals to anyone other than CEOs. Once Rove is successful in limiting the franchise to business executives, Edwards is doomed, but until then they might want to work on finding something better. People don't like lawyers, but they like their lawyer, and Edwards is running to be their guy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
That chart is clearly on the left.

POTD.

If someone can tell me how to right-justify an image, I'll fix it, but my Tag Fu doesn't extend that far.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
Explain to me again why I'm not allowed to call this a lie?

Explain to me how every single Democratic candidate is proposing policies and programs that would increase spending at a rate far greater than #43?