The Moose again implores true hawks to step up to the plate.
Even the most devout social security privatization advocates must honestly concede that the system is not on the verge of imminent collapse. In the worse case scenario, that is a few decades in the future.
In contrast, our military is at the breaking point right now. Yesterday, the Washington Post
reported,
The head of the Army Reserve has sent a sharply worded memo to other military leaders expressing "deepening concern" about the continued readiness of his troops, who have been used heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan, and warning that his branch of 200,000 soldiers "is rapidly degenerating into a 'broken' force."
And today, the Post says,
"Army leaders are considering seeking a change in Pentagon policy that would allow for longer and more frequent call-ups of some reservists to meet the demands of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, a senior Army official said yesterday."
We are currently fighting two wars and undertaking a massive relief effort. If there is a crisis, it is the state of the military. Clearly, a significant expansion of the Army is imperative. But where will the money come from? The flag-waving Bushies have squandered billions in tax cuts for the comfortable and now plan to put our nation trillions of dollars more in debt with their social security scheme.
Democrats should label these fiscal policies what they are - anti-defense, anti-military and unpatriotic. And where are the voices of the honest hawks who realize that there is a fiscal as well as a profound human cost for this war?
The Moose is waiting and listening.
-- | 
Email
this post
The Moose marvels at the Administration's spirit of free enterprise in Punditgate.
You really have to admire the bodacious chutzpah. From USA Today,
"Seeking to build support among black families for its education reform law, the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same."
Apparently, this was part of the small-government conservative Administration's Leave No Pundit Behind Program,
"The campaign, part of an effort to promote No Child Left Behind (NCLB), required commentator Armstrong Williams "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004."
Who knows, the purchasing of pundits may be a government-wide policy for the Administration. Besides buying and purchasing commentators, the Bushies may also be leasing and renting them. The next time you hear an articulate right winger defending Rumsfeld, the obvious question is whether he is funded under a stealth Defense Department project. Not that there would be anything wrong with that, of course.
The Moose suggests that the Bushies form a Department of Punditry where they can purchase commentators in bulk discount. After all, they should be getting the biggest bang for our bucks!
(And the Moose is not for sale).
-- | Email
this post
The Moose points out that the opening of the 21st century has brought a return to the Gilded Age.
An announcement this week by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) provided a clarifying moment about the period in which we live. The LA Times reported yesterday,
" powerful business lobby is preparing a multimillion-dollar campaign to aid the White House in its quest to win approval for conservative judges, a move that could transform the ideological battles over the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court.The new effort on behalf of some of the nation's biggest manufacturers will increase the cost, visibility and intensity of an already divisive confirmation process, one that has been dominated by social issues."
Virtually all of the focus on Supreme Court vacancies has been on abortion and other hot button social issues. However, the titans of industry realize that the Court also rules on critical economic concerns. Ultimately, the Court will probably have more impact on that area than on the culture. Rarely, does the Court, even an ideological one, advance much beyond the general cultural milieu.
It is ironic that cultural conservatives who pride themselves on advancing the "pro-life" cause will support justices who will inevitably weaken worker safety and environmental regulations. Oh well, who cares about the pre-born after they are hatched, anyway. Property rights should always prevail over the public good, right?
A conservative judiciary was a central institution in promoting the economic arrangements of the last Gilded Age. The distinguished right-of-center publication, the Economist, suggests in a must read piece that we may be in the middle of another one,
"Income inequality is growing to levels not seen since the Gilded Age, around the 1880s. But social mobility is not increasing at anything like the same pace: would-be Horatio Algers are finding it no easier to climb from rags to riches, while the children of the privileged have a greater chance of staying at the top of the social heap. The United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society."
Some conservative commentators have long accused the left of promoting European-style economic policy that would stifle economic opportunity. But that is exactly what the Economist is suggesting that the income redistributionists of the right are accomplishing. Note the closing sentences of the article,
"The Republicans, by getting rid of inheritance tax, seem hell-bent on ignoring Teddy Roosevelt's warnings about the dangers of a hereditary aristocracy. The Democrats are more interested in preferment for minorities than building ladders of opportunity for all.
"In his classic "The Promise of American Life", Herbert Croly noted that "a democracy, not less than a monarchy or an aristocracy, must recognize political, economic, and social distinctions, but it must also withdraw its consent whenever these discriminations show any tendency to excessive endurance." So far Americans have been fairly tolerant of economic distinctions. But that tolerance may not last for ever, if the current trend towards "excessive endurance" is not reversed."
The Bush Administration should be viewed as a bountiful banquet of the comfortable with the great malefactors of wealth stuffing themselves on a feast of tax cuts and deregulation. The trusty Maitre d' is W. and he is assisted by the always reliable crew of waiters led by Delay, Santorum and Frist.
And, of course, we all quite grateful for the scraps.
-- | Email
this post
Thursday, January 06, 2005
The Moose comments that there may be trouble in paradise.
The Naysayers - This group includes some Republicans in Congress who are nervous about privatization and fear it could be politically disastrous. Interestingly, Tom DeLay is reportedly in this group. However, the Naysayers are largely quiet. The Moose argues that it is the task of the donkey to heighten the contradictions among these groups. The primary fault line may be business trepidations about increasing the national debt to pay for the scheme. The Times story, "In addition, he is dispatching his Treasury secretary, John W. Snow, to New York to reassure Wall Street that his approach, which could involve trillions of dollars in new government borrowing, is consistent with efforts to reduce the budget deficit and improve the nation's financial condition." Little did we know that Secretary Snow was a Houdini like magician who could turn trillions of dollars in deficit into surplus. Barnum and Bailey should sign up this act. Democrats should target the Republican Green Eyeshaders and the Naysayers for potential defections in undermining the Bush proposal. It shouldn't just be Democrats who are picked off in this fight!
One of the most surprising developments of the post-election period is that the Republicans appear far more fractious than the Democrats. Republicans are divided between the neo-cons vs. paleo-cons, open-borders vs. immigration restrictionists, tax cutters vs. budget balancers and social conservatives vs. moderates. The big stories of 2005 could be civil wars in Iraq among Shias and Sunnis and in D.C. among the Republicans. In comparison, the Democrats seem like one big happy family.
The debate over social security will apparently also result in significant GOP differences. The New York Times reports this morning,
"As he begins deciding on details of his plan to add personal investment accounts to Social Security, President Bush is confronting a deep split within his own party over how to proceed.
Two Republican camps are pitted against each other over how big the accounts should be and whether the president should embrace cuts in benefits."
For your viewing pleasure, the Moose offers a brief guide to the Republican social security factions -
The Free Lunchers - This group is primarily centered in the conservative think tanks. They argue for robust private accounts with the option of workers contributing the entire portion of their payroll tax. The free lunchers feel no obligation to either cut benefits or pay for the transition costs. The Chile privatization plan is their model.
The Incrementalists - These are White House staffers who seek more modest private accounts (2%-4% of payroll) and a reduction in social security benefits. Along with the Free Lunchers, the Incrementalists do not pay for the transition costs.
The Green Eyeshaders - These are Congressional privatizers led by Senator Lindsey Graham who are attempting to both restrain the growth of social security benefits and pay for the transition costs. Some in the business community are also in this camp. The New York Times article reports,
"Some economists and business groups that support Mr. Bush on Social Security say financial markets are already jittery about the government's ability to rein in the budget and trade deficits and that more borrowing could lead to a faster fall in the value of the dollar, higher interest rates and slower economic growth."
-- | Email
this post
The Moose whimsically wonders if there could be a dark horse candidate in the race for DNC Chair?
As the race for the next Chairman for the DNC heats up, why not consider an unconventional mammal for the office? All of the announced and likely candidates have attractive qualities and one of them could certainly become a credible Chairman. But, why not think outside the antlers, as it were?
What about a Chairman who hails from the reddest of red states, a former Republican, ex-union official who worked with devout Christians and is Jewish and has well-defined ties to the McCainiac-independent voter? And all of the candidates express their appreciation of the power of the Internet, why not a Chairman who resides there? The Moose - what's not to like!
The antlered one could certainly give the donkey a well-placed kick in the behind and transform him into a reform animal. And the Moose certainly knows the adversary since he was once privy to the counsels of the DeLays, Santorums, Norquists and Reeds.
The Moose shouldn't make a hasty decision. Perhaps he should embark upon a listening tour of the blogosphere and hear from the Mooseketeers.
Ok, it's a fanciful thought. But the next DNC Chair should certainly be as strong as a Bull Moose! Even if it is a two legged mammal.
-- | Email
this post
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
The Moose revisits the idea of the Pennsylvania Avenue Project.
Several weeks ago, the Moose suggested that Democrats launch the Pennsylvania Avenue Project to counteract DeLay's K Street Project. As informed Mooseketeers know, the K Street Project is the Delayicans effort to ensure that the Washington lobbying community is uniformly subservient to Republican power. With the assistance of Norquist and other lackeys, the Delayicans demand that lobbying firms only hire Republicans and give their political contributions (tribute) solely to the GOP.
In contrast to the K Street Project, the Pennsylvania Avenue Project would be an effort to restore democratic (small "d") rule to Washington through uncovering the corruption of the Delayican's crony capitalism and the implementation of reforms. USA Today has an excellent editorial on the GOP ethical mess. In it, they write about the "revolving door" phenomena in Washington,
" Few jobs in Washington are as powerful as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. So when Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., announced last year that he was retiring, a bidding war erupted for his services. Would he take over the Motion Picture Association of America? Or would it be the top job at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America? Tauzin, whose committee wrote the Medicare drug-benefit law, chose PhRMA for a reported $2 million a year. Tauzin is just one of many lawmakers who've gone straight from Capitol Hill to special-interest groups."
Here's a good target for the Pennsylvania Avenue Project to reform - K Street. Propose tightening the rules on Members of Congress becoming lobbyists. Surely, there are similar areas in desperate need of reform.
Remember Democrats - you are no longer in power and therefore you are liberated to become the anti-establishment insurgent reformers. Being a minority party can have its virtues.
-- | Email
this post
The Moose observes that House elephants are becoming nervous about their Leader.
The fact that the House GOP Leadership decided to nix a couple of the DeLay Preservation Rules is a testimony to their defensiveness about the Exterminator in Chief. This is not a majority that is entirely confident in its position. Clearly, the odor of corruption emanating from DeLay and Ney is troubling to many of their Republican colleagues.
That does not mean that this was a complete victory for the good guys. First, it appears likely that independent Ethics Committee Chair Hefley will be replaced with a new Chair who will be subservient to the Republican leadership.
And as the Washington Post editorializes this morning about a rule change that was adopted,
"The rules change -- magnificently mislabeled the "restore presumption of innocence" provision -- would require that an ethics complaint be dropped unless there is bipartisan agreement to proceed. "Presumption of indolence" might be a more appropriate term. Under the previous rules, if the chairman and ranking member couldn't agree on how to handle a complaint, it would be assigned to an investigative subcommittee or it would at least linger on the committee agenda. Now the complaint would be dismissed.
This change is as unnecessary as it is unwise. It's not as if the ethics committee has been inundated with complaints. House rules bar filings from outside groups; only a member can file a complaint, and the committee ominously warned lawmakers last year that they make such accusations at the risk of being hauled up on ethics charges themselves. Moreover, unlike other House panels, the ethics committee contains equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, so ultimately no action is taken without some bipartisan agreement. Insisting on such agreement before an investigation can even begin, however, is a recipe for inactivity. Which may be precisely why the House leadership cooked it up in the first place."
This entire episode should be instructive to Democrats. Ethics is to the "party of morality" what garlic is to vampires. Ironically, the ethically-challenged Republicans gained control over Congress, in part, as a result of Gingrich's relentless ethics attack on the entrenched Democratic leadership.
The Moose avers “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”
-- | Email
this post
The Moose warns defense hawks that the elephant can handle only one quagmire at a time.
It is now dawning on the chattering class, if not Republicans, that Bush did not exactly win with a commanding mandate. His 2.5% margin of victory was not exactly LBJ in '64 or Dutch in '84. And there is no strong argument that can be mustered that Bush won because the huddled masses were longing for the privatization of social security.
Key to Bush's victory was his leadership in the war against terror. And now the public support for the war in Iraq is clearly waning. Although the Administration has raised expectations that conditions will improve after the Iraqi elections, it is not terribly evident that this will be so. If anything, violence could actually escalate as the disgruntled Sunni population realizes that they are the big losers.
Note this passage from today's Washington Post,
"The war's worse, the insurgency's worse," said a senior U.S. Embassy official in Baghdad, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to talk candidly. "This is not going to be a short fight. Nobody should think it is."
The assessment reflected a new willingness among senior Iraqi and American officials to acknowledge that large tracts of the country remain beyond the control of their combined forces. More than three months ago, interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi asserted during a visit to Washington that 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces were stable and largely peaceful. Now, in interviews, he routinely refers to the situation as "our catastrophe."
What has this to do with social security privatization? Well, a President has only limited political time and capital. He is likely going to need all the capital a second term (and increasingly lame duck) President can muster just to maintain support for the war. If he is also spending precious time and attention to build support to radically transform the most popular government program, that can only can come at the expense of his efforts on behalf of the war.
Imagine if Clinton had to contend with a full scale war as he fought for his health care proposal in '93 and '94. Social security privatization promises to be no less contentious than Clinton health care. And it could become a domestic political quagmire.
On the policy front, if the Bushies plan to borrow $2 trillion to pay for privatization that means there will be less money for discretionary spending which includes defense. The Bush tax cut deficit is already requiring reductions in defense at a time when the military is burdened by the war and disaster relief in Asia.
It has been the height of irresponsibility for the supporters of the war to remain silent while W. continually rewards the ultra-wealthy with lavish tax cuts. Now, he is pursuing a costly privatization scheme that will further limit resources for defense. Your choice hawks - expand the military or provide a bonanza for the financial services industry.
Which will it be - the dollar or the flag?
-- | Email
this post
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
The Moose warns that no progressive reform is safe from the new Congress.
As Congress returns, the Republicans have their job cut out for them - reward the donors and comfort the comfortable. An example of the task ahead of them is reported in yesterday's Washington Post,
"Two-and-a-half years after Congress passed the most sweeping corporate reforms since the Great Depression, trade groups are maneuvering to revise them, arguing that they are too expensive, too time-consuming and too much trouble for small businesses.
"In recent weeks industry coalitions including the trade group AeA, formerly known as the American Electronics Association, and the American Bankers Association have asked their members to gather complaints about costly provisions that require them to tune-up their financial systems to help uncover fraud and mistakes. The effort is part of a broader campaign planned for this year to modify the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed after financial blowups at Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. cost investors billions of dollars and exposed serious lapses in the way companies are governed."
Now that memories of the Enron and other corporate scandals are beginning to fade, industry groups will be eager beavers attempting to undermine the reforms. The Administration and Republican Congress were forced to pass Sarbanes-Oxley in the face of public outrage over the corporate scandals. Although his Administration originally opposed the legislation, President Bush brazenly made it a bragging point in the campaign that he signed the law. Of course, don't count on the Administration to defend it.
Although the Administration and this Congress will occasionally capitulate to public sentiment, their true agenda is striking in its simplicity - the rewarding of wealth and the degradation of work. The Moose wistfully remembers the day when the GOP possessed the redeeming quality of serving as the guardian of fiscal restraint. Our current crop of Republicans, with some exceptions, serve as the bellhops for the Fortune 500. Even when Republicans pass legislation that ostensibly assists the "public" such as the Medicare drug bill, it contains all sorts of goodies for their corporate cronies.
Democrats must not just oppose the rollbacks of progressive policy, but should also seize the opportunity to advance reforms. The potency of the reform issue was underscored by the Republican eleventh hour retreat on the rule change to protect DeLay.
Public financing of political campaigns and stricter rules governing lobbyists should be championed by the donkey. These proposals will not be adopted by this Congress, but by promoting them Democrats can position themselves as the reform party against the entrenched and corrupt Republican establishment. Ed Kilgore elaborates on this issue in a must read piece in the current Blueprint magazine.
Republicans can be defined as the party of reaction only if Democrats become the party of reform.
-- | Email
this post
Monday, January 03, 2005
The Moose applauds President Bush for a gesture of national unity.
The photo of Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43 united on behalf of tsunami victims captured a welcome moment. Over the past four years, we have heard endlessly and painfully about the red and blue states division. For a brief moment after 9/11, we were united as one nation. Once again, this morning, that national unity was evident. The President demonstrated welcome political imagination to bring these leaders together for a common national purpose.
We desperately need more of that.
-- | Email
this post
The Moose tells a sad tale about immense deprivation and woe.
This is not a post about the tsunami tragedy or the Iraqi violence. No, this is a story about overwhelming humiliation and degradation. It is about the most dedicated activists and money men for the President being denied a place at the inn.
In a little noticed story in Friday's New York Times titled, Price of Bush Inauguration Party Is Too Rich for Some, we learn that there may be some young Republicans who will suffer the social stigma of not attending the inaugural gala events,
"Planners for President Bush's inauguration next month have scheduled a full lineup of exclusive parties and receptions for top Republican fund-raisers. But some of those V.I.P.'s say the perks come with a price tag they cannot afford.
"Attending the entire slate of events during the three days of inauguration festivities could easily top $10,000 in tickets and other expenses for a fund-raiser bringing a spouse or guest. Some who helped bankroll the president's campaign, particularly young fund-raisers or those participating for the first time, are looking for ways to economize or are just planning to skip official events entirely."
If you can tolerate the injustice of it all, read this tale of individual human suffering,
"Indeed, many fund-raisers are cutting costs. Justin J. Sayfie, a 36-year-old Florida lawyer who raised at least $200,000 for Mr. Bush, said that he sought a less expensive hotel than was offered through LogiCom and was having his law firm pay part of his travel costs.
"It's the first time that we get to participate so we are kind of excited," Mr. Sayfie said. "It's not cheap, but it's a unique opportunity. I've been working 18 months to see this day."
He is also skipping the $2,500 candlelight dinner. "I'd like to go," he said, "but it's a stretch as it is."
The Moose is a sensitive mammal but even he is having difficulty empathizing with the pain of these elephants given the scale of the human tragedy in Iraq and Asia. But nevertheless, the show must go on! The Bushies are determined that this public party be held despite the carping of the critics such as the Moose. Yesterday, Frank Rich had some choice words on the spectacle,
"Washington's next celebration will be the inauguration. Roosevelt decreed that the usual gaiety be set aside at his wartime inaugural in January 1945. There will be no such restraint in the $40 million, four-day extravaganza planned this time, with its top ticket package priced at $250,000. The official theme of the show is "Celebrating Freedom, Honoring Service." That's no guarantee that the troops in Iraq will get armor, but Washington will, at least, give home-front military personnel free admission to one of the nine inaugural balls and let them eat cake. "
Let them eat cake indeed. We live at a time when wounded troops returning from Iraq have their incomes reduced because they are denied full combat pay, but America can afford a $40 million gala party.
Let the good times roll.
-- | Email
this post
The Moose counsels the donkey not to just say no.
The political landscape for 2005 is fairly clear. Now that they are in complete control in Washington, Republicans plan to transform the welfare state in a fundamental fashion. By partially privatizing social security and further deepening the deficit, the GOP strategy conceives that it will profoundly alter the relationship between the citizen and the welfare state. Discretionary spending, including defense, will be limited and entitlements will no longer be the province of the Democratic Party. By also enacting tort reform, the trial bar will be weakened as a political force which is a traditional bastion of Democratic support.
Whither the Democrats? Given this challenge, the Moose has long held, that the Democrats must transform themselves into an insurgent party. That means that they cannot merely be the party of "no", but also offer an alternative vision while fervently opposing the Republicans scheme to undermine the social safety net. Yes, Democrats must unambiguously reject the Bushies' fanciful and fiscally irresponsible plan to privatize social security - no pay, no play. But the party must also convey that some type of reform is necessary to guarantee the solvency of the program and to offer younger voters an attractive savings option. Democrats must have a "yes" option.
The danger for the Democrats is that the President will characterize them as the party of the status quo and age while the Republicans are the party of reform and youth. Democrats cannot entirely rely on a negative campaign by the AARP and the AFL-CIO to defeat the Bushies. Clearly, those are important allies in the effort to prevent privatization. But, the Democrats must also offer an affirmative alternative that is attractive to younger Americans.
It would be perversely ironic if the party of craven corporate cronyism successfully stigmatizes the Democrats as captives of Washington special interests. Don't misunderestimate the President's ability to do just that.
Similarly, on the foreign policy front, Democrats should not fall victim to a leftist variant of DeLayism, an infantile disorder. During the later years of the Clinton Administration, reactionary Republicans led by DeLay opposed all of the military actions even when it resulted in halting a potential genocide in the Balkans. Democrats must offer a robust anti-terrorist alternative agenda. They cannot be merely naysayers or the Bushies will tag them as dovish and even anti-American.
Don't just say no.
-- | Email
this post
Sunday, January 02, 2005
The Moose notes an important media development in Casinogate.
So far, with some notable exceptions, most of the mainstream media has devoted only limited attention to the Abramoff/Scanlon/DeLay/Reed/Ney/Norquist Indian gaming scandal. The Washington Post has performed yoeman's work on this issue. Even the Weekly Standard published an admirable piece on the subject. However, except for NPR and Bill Moyers, the electronic media has been largely silent.
And perhaps because of its rivalry with the Washington Post, the New York Times has devoted minimal attention to this scandal. That changed today with this important editorial titled, Sleaze in the Capitol. Note this passage,
"While the Senate Indian Affairs Committee is continuing its inquiry, the Republican House leadership remains mute. The gulling of the casino tribes is a blot on Congress and the lobbying industry that cries out for a thorough public vetting. But no one is taking any bets, particularly at tribal casinos, that Capitol politicians can fully face the task."
Hopefully, this editorial will prompt the networks to provide coverage on this scandal. As the Moose never tires from pointing out, Casinogate is emblematic of the corruption of Republican Congressional rule.
And it may signal the beginning of their undoing.
-- | Email
this post
Saturday, January 01, 2005
"There are two things that I want you to make up your minds to: first, that you are going to have a good time as long as you live - I have no use for the sour-faced man - and next, that you are going to do something worthwhile, that you are going to work hard and do the things you set out to do."
Talk to schoolchildren in Oyster Bay, Christmastime 1898
-- | Email
this post
