Deinonychus antirrhopus

Will Davis Go Negative

My guess is that yes he will, for two reasons. First, it is all that Davis knows. So far he has gone negative in the last several elections. He has even gone negative on fellow Democrats such as Dianne Feinstein. This has been his main tactic, to sling dirt and rocks at his opponents thereby making himself look better by comparison.

The second reason is that he has got virtually nothing else. He has passed a job killing Family Medical Leave Bill, he has signed a high controversial bill granting illegal immigrants drivers licenses (he had vetoed even more restrictive bills twice before), he bungled the energy crisis badly, and he was a coward and inept fool with the state's budget. He has virtually nothing positive he can point to about himself. Even when he tries to "take responsibility" it is always, always followed by an excuse. On the energy crisis, "he inherited it". While true to a degree, it does not absolve him from having absolutely no backbone in dealing with the crisis. When it came to the budget it was those intransigent Republicans. Hello, its a two-fucking-way street Gov. DimBulb. The Democrats didn't look to keen on compromising either.

So Davis will undoubtedly go negative. This is doubly true now that polls are indicating that Arnold is the front runner. If the poll numbers hold true, the race will become more like a traditional two person election: vote "No" and get Davis, vote "Yes" and get Arnold. Davis wants to create doubt about what kind of governor Arnold will be, hoping that the voters will go with a known quantity.

The only problem is that Davis is a big fat zero. He is a nothing. Davis has no backbone or intestines whatsoever. He is a coward who cannot make a tough decision. So he has to go along ways to make Arnold look worse than he does. So I'm expecting some very nasty campaigning from Davis over the next week or so.

Rhamphorhynchus

Rhamphorhynchus actually is not a dinosaur. Rhamphorhynchus is a flying reptile, and is a member of the Pterosauria. It was a small flying reptile, measuring about 1.7 meters in length.

There were several species of this Pterosaur,

• R. intermedius (intermediate beak snout),
• R. gemmingi,
• R. longicaudus (long tailed beak snout),
• R. longiceps (long headed beak snout),
• R. tendagurensis (beak snout from the Tendaguru Foundation).

If You Think Suing Gun Manufacturers is a Good Idea

Then read this post over at the Curmudgeonly Clerk.

For some reason or another, many people cannot seem to grasp the concept of personal responsibility. Suicide is another event that triggers such lawsuits. Rock music is a frequent target of opportunity for those who inevitably think that someone else must be responsible for such self-inflicted tragedies. See, e.g., Waller v. Osbourne, 763 F. Supp. 1144 (M.D. Ga. 1991), aff'd, 958 F.2d 1084 (11th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 916 (1992); Vance v. Judas Priest, No. 86-5844, 1990 WL 130920 (Nev. Dist. Ct. Aug. 24, 1990) (unpublished opinion). Music lyrics are also blamed for violent conduct carried out against others with some regularity. See, e.g., Cox v. Rap-A-Lot Records, No. 95-2236, 1996 WL 227233 (10th Cir. May 6, 1996) (unpublished opinion).

No doubt, the content that we choose to upload into our cerebrum has the potential to affect our character and conduct in some fashion. Anyone who accepts the notion that a classical liberal education can improve a person has to concede the accuracy this proposition. (Or else why bother?) But this acknowledgment of potential affect is not a concession of cause and effect.

Quite right, IMO. I bet a small minority out there in the blogosphere will think it is a good idea to sue a band for a listener who committs suicide. Similarly it is reasonable to sue the manufacturers of video games for the crimes those who play such games committ.

Yet when it comes to guns I bet a larger portion of the blogosphere think such lawsuits are just fine. Careful about what you wish for here. After all, lawsuits and their decisions can have effects long after they are gone and in areas beyond what the original lawsuit was initially concerned about.

Kevin Distorts

In this post Kevin Drum distorsts some of the "Damage Control Measures", IMO. I am definitely one of the

The whole thing doesn't make sense. Maybe not, but it seems to have happened anyway.

group. It doesn't make sense, so I'm going to wait and see what shakes out. I don't deny it didn't happen, as Kevin is implying here. Kevin argues it was just petty stupidity that lead to the leaking. Uh-huh. Right, Karl Rove is simply stupid, or stupid for a period of time. So stupid that he decided to do something that could be easily traced back to him. I suppose, but it sounds so damn unlikely.

The "it was a warning to others" explanation is better, but the fact that this is so easily verifiable still makes it seem inexplicable. Bascially it is a political suicide mission. Rove or some other top official became so enraged that he or she decided to chuck it all away on an instant of petty revenge. Or perhaps it was asking a subordinate to take such an action.

Who did this is still to be determined. That it did happen is not something I am denying.

This is also misleading as well.

Democrats are so gleeful over this that it therefore shouldn't be taken seriously. Or, alternately, it's just internecine warfare within the administration, and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously. Obviously, this is just a desperate ad hominem designed to change the subject.

In reading Glenn Reynold's post linked by Kevin it is clear that Glenn isn't saying it shouldn't be taken seriously, but the gleefulness that the anti-Bush bloggers are demonstrating is similar to the anti-Clintonites from the 1990s. Further, that their gleefullness made them hard to take seriously just as it makes it harder to take the anti-Bush bloggers seriously. The impression is that they simply want to nail Bush, and don't really give a crap about Joe Wilson or his wife. They are simply a convienent vehicle for their animosity.

Kevin is basing alot of his support on newspaper reports (remember Jayson Blair, if Kevin wants us to think Karl Rove is unbelievably stupid, he should be willing to entertain that the WaPo reporter is colossally stupid too), and e-mail accounts.

I remain steadfast in my original position here. I'll wait and see how it falls out. If it turns out two people in the Bush Administration did do this, then they should be fired and face whatever legal ramifications there are. I am not trying to engage in damage control or protect anybody Kevin. I am simply trying wondering what the Hell whoever did this was thinking.

Update: I like Eugene Volokh's take on this.

Another Thought: Kevin has also made no bones about his partisanship in the past, and that's fine. But if some of us want to sit on the fence and not take sides, don't get on your high horse and be a prissy little whiney butt about it. I don't know what is going on here (neither does Kevin really), and I'm going to wait. If my conditional condemnation isn't enough, tough shit.

Update II: In a new post Kevin backs off a bit. He acknowledges that fence sitting is fine. I agree with him that if this turns out to be true (i.e., Top Bush Administration aides did this), then yes it is deeply wrong and should be dealt with harshly.

Wholesale Power Market Platform

FERC has a white paper that gives and overveiw of what they want to do with deregulation and wholesale power markets. In this post I mentioned RTOs (Regional Transmission Organizations). These will be a key part of the future for any wholesale power market.

There are some things people should pick up on from this document. First, that energy deregulation is not something started by Bush. The ball got rolling with the Energy Policy Act in 1992. While George H. W. Bush was President, the Democrats had a much stronger presence in Congress.¹

Now as I noted before the key to much of this is going to the be the RTOs. The job of the RTOs is to maintain system reliability and to prevent strategic use of the system to the benefit of a power company or a detriment to customers.

Of course, I am doubtful about the efficacy of all this. After all the California ISO was supposed to ensure the same thing here in California, but generators would routinely take advantage of congestion on the transmission system.
_____
¹I know that for some this will just be seen as proof of the efficacy of the Bush Family Evil Empire (BFEE). Of course, if the BFEE is this powerful, what hope do the Democrats have?

What RTO Are You In?

To find out what regional transmission organization you are in, click here.

What is an RTO? An RTO is a Regional Transmission Organization. These entities will over see the operation of the transmission system within its geographical boundries.

If you click on the section of the map that covers the area you live in it will take you to the website for that RTO. For example, I live in California and the RTO is the California Independent System Operator.

If you live in Texas your RTO is ERCOT.

The idea behind RTOs is to help facilitate deregulation and prevent the owners of transmission systems from using those systems strategically (e.g., keeping a competitor from using your transmission lines). Here is how ERCOT defines its role,

ERCOT's role can be described in a historic and forward looking context. Historically, ERCOT has had one primary focus - maintaining the reliable transmission of power across the 37,000-mile power grid within the ERCOT region. However, looking forward, ERCOT will provide the platform for wholesale and retail competition by serving as an honest, independent system operator with no favorites in the marketplace, and no political or monetary stake in the electric utility industry. ERCOT is like the groundskeeper in a football game. ERCOT maintains every aspect of the playing field according to official regulations, so that the two teams can come together and compete in a fair and impartial forum.

Confused? Welcome to the whacky world of energy market deregulation.

Renewable Energy Provision Stalls in the House

A far reaching energy bill has stalled in the House of Representatives.

Basically the bill will require large utilities to increase the percentage of generation from renewable sources (wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal) over the next several years. Starting in 2005 the minimum percentage will be 1% and will have to increase over time until 10% is reached by 2019.

As it stands right now this would have the effect of increasing the costs of electricity. Renewables are currently more expensive than fossil fuels. It it were true the renewables were cheaper utilities would be switching to renewable based generation. After all most utilities are for profit entities.

Another interesting thing to consider is that for businesses this is cost increasing measure. When costs go up one outcome (at least in competitive markets) is that marginal firms go out of business. In other words, you get more unemployment people. So at a time when unemployed is remaining high there is an effort right now to increase the costs of running a business.

This ties in to the post here about how regulations basically act as a drag on the economy. No taxes are increased, but people are made worse off generally speaking and the utilities are labeled the bad guys. One can argue that people are made better off due to the reduced pollution, but this benefit is not immediately clear nor easily measured.

I haven't seen too many reports...

...like this one. Where U.S. troops carried out an operation against guerillas in Iraq. Maybe I'm just reading the wrong stuff, but my overall impression is that the U.S. has been in a reactive phase. Another explanation is that the press is not reporting on such things as this. And yet another explanation is that this is the first operation of its kind.

Of course, this report doesn't give the impression that the U.S. came out the winner here. There seems to be more focus on the claims of American casualties and losses.

Gee, it sure would be nice if the press actually did their jobs and reported some facts as opposed to what they think we want to read. Whenever there has been an attack on Americans you never hear of any dead, wounded or captured Iraqis.

Nope, no media bias here.

Now This is Funny

I had to chuckle at this part of this article.

Some blame the court case that interrupted the campaign last week at a critical point. Others point out the state's higher car tax bills are just now hitting the mailboxes and igniting new voter anger. There are also some who say the performance of Republican front-runner Arnold Schwarzenegger in the big debate last week has somehow turned the tide.--emphasis added

I'm sure many rejoiced at the initial decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but it will be quite amusing if in the final analysis it turns out to be the final nail in Davis' political coffin.

I think this part is absolutely correct,

There is also a new, aggressive push by Davis to have a debate with Schwarzenegger – a sign, Jeffe said, that Davis may be getting nervous himself, perhaps because his internal polling is showing the same trends as the CNN/Gallup poll.

Davis wants to get his lying face on television in a bad way, and to make Arnold look bad. So a debate is a good way to do it. Of course, Arnold has very little to gain from debating Gov. Lowbeam and plenty to lose.

Then there is a sense that Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, the other leading Democrat in the race, has also fallen, largely because of criticism about him taking huge sums of money from Indian gaming interests.

Media bias here? These large sums of money have been found to be illegal. I'm fairly confident that if it were a Republican who had taken illegal campaign contributions we'd be hearing much, much more about it. Instead here we get this almost casual off-hand remark.

The Best Alternative for Iraq

A link to this article showed up in my mail recently. The article argues that the U.S. made a serious blunder going into Iraq. That Iraq posed no threat, and that the Iraqis are now fighting a guerilla war that is designed to wear down the American publics resolve to stay in Iraq and make sure the job is done right.

The losing side in any war is usually the one that learns the most lessons. Apparently, the Iraqis learned from the first Persian Gulf War that defeating the technologically superior U.S. military in a head-to-head fight was almost impossible and that a Palestinian-style guerilla war aimed at the will of the American public had better prospects for success.

The solution is to get American troops out as soon as possible. The U.S. would have to accept the possibility of facing a new and hostile government in Iraq, or perhaps 3 states where there was only one previously.

Frankly, I think this is a mistake. Pulling out wont only cost the U.S. in terms of having another hostile nation in the region, but it could make the U.S. look week. Such a pull out would be trumpeted as a victory for Saddam and those forces currently attacking the U.S. If some of those forces are indeed terrorists then it will only strengthen their resolve to keep fighting the U.S. and perhaps make additional attempts to attack the U.S. directly.

Household Income & Poverty

Median household income is down 1.1% in 2002 compared to 2001. In 2001 the median household income was $42,900 which declined to $42,409 in 2002.

Poverty is also up for the second year in a row. Poverty was at 11.7% in 2001 and rose to 12.1% in 2002.

In contrast, the Bureau of Economic Analysis is reporting that personal income is up 0.2 percent in August of 2003.

Want to Know What Wesley Clark Stand For?

Well here you go!

Some samples:

A Man of Peace: Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war. I've gotten a very consistent record on this.

A Man of War: At the time, I probably would have voted for [war in Iraq], but I think that's too simple a question.

A Man of Peace and War, but probably War: I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position -- on balance, I probably would have voted for it.

A Man of Peace now, and War later: That having been said, I was against the war as it emerged because there was no reason to start it when we did.

A Man of Peace after all: I never would have voted for war. What I would have voted for is leverage. Leverage for the United States to avoid a war. That's what we needed to avoid a war.

Ronald Bailey says that Clark,

...is an empty vessel and as such Democrats can project any of their fantasies and hopes onto him.

And one last one from that wonderful list,

An American Patriot, sort of: Patriotism doesn't consist of following the orders, not, not not when you're not in the chain of command.

Somehow I don't get the impression Slate is going to be doing a "Clarkism of the Day".

Via InstaPundit.

State GOP Considers Endorsing Schwarzenegger

This would definitely be a bad blow to Tom McClintock's campaign.

There is also this CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll showing that Davis is in serious trouble. Of probable voters 63% favor removing Davis from office.

Davis has failed to maintain the allegiance of his own party. A full 44% of Democrats in California say they disapprove of Davis' performance as governor. While this is much lower than the 77% of independents and 92% of Republicans who disapprove, it is far from the more typical picture in which the sentiment about an elected official between members of the two parties forms a mirror image -- i.e., that as many members of the politician's own party approve as members of the opposite party disapprove. Additionally, as will be seen below, about 3 out of 10 Democrats say they will vote to recall the governor.

This is where having a Republican who is a moderate or even somewhat liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal issues is key. For many Democrats, it seems to me, that the social issues are important (abortion, gay rights, etc.). Thus, Arnold can expect some support from Democrats who are tired of the same old crap. McClintock wont get nearly as much support.

I Hope This Is Not True

This article about how a CIA operative was outed. This kind of thing is disgusting, if true.

Novak attributed his account to "two senior administration officials." An administration aide told The Post on Saturday that the two White House officials had cold-called at least six Washington journalists and identified Wilson's wife.

She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction. Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents.

This can have repercussions well beyond Wilson's wife. The contacts and sources she worked with could be in jeopardy, maybe even possibly life threatening.

I agree with Daniel Drezner on this one.

A final point -- I really, really, want this story to be wrong. I find the prospect that there are people in the White House capable of such actions to be distasteful. If the entire story turns out to be bogus, great. If not, then this is going to be a long and bumpy ride.

I don't completely agree with Kevin Drum.

Exactly. If they're willing to do something like this, you have to figure that (a) it's not the only time they've done it, (b) they're willing to do it for big things as well as small things, and (c) it's part of an institutional culture at the very top of the White House.

I don't think this must mean it has happened before, but the probability that they have done it before has definitely increased. I'm not sure they'd be willing to do it for the big things. The big things get alot more attention and scrutiny. So something this stupid would likely be found out pretty quickly. Still, it has a very bad smell and it could get really ugly.

Instapundit has the usual link heavy post. To get a wide range of views on this use that as a spring board.

Tom Maquire has a good point in that David Corn was the one starting this scandal, and lets not forget that Corn can exaggerate quite nicely.

Update: Looks like some are getting anxious on this.

Update II: Daniel Drezner has a second post on this. One thing to note is that Wilson is now backing off his claim it was Rove.

Should Arnold Debate

I've been hearing in the news that Arnold should debate more. Gray Davis has put up a debate challenge and the other candidates seem hungry for debates. However, I think Arnold is doing the right thing by not debating them.

Wherever Arnold goes he gets press. After all he is a big movie star. Debating the other candidates just helps them get their messages out to the public. Who cares about political nobodies like Arianna Huffington and Peter Camejo? They are in single digits in every pole. A debate with Arnold will simply benefit them with providing little or not benefit to Arnold.

Similarly debating Davis will be to acknowledge that Davis is a worthy opponent. Further, why help Davis get any of his message out there? Davis is a disembler and there is no reason to think he wont disemble during a debate as well. He did it for months last year leading up to the election with regards to the budget deficit.

What the Hell is Wrong With Paul Krugman?

I was reading through the transcirpt of Krugman's appearance on Buchanan and Press when I found this exchange between Press and Krugman:

PRESS: Paul, I want to talk to you about the economy now. Last Saturday morning I was privileged to join a group called the International Council of Shopping Centers out in Half Moon Bay, California. Ahead of me on the program was a very noted California economist, Donald Straszheim. Mr. Straszheim told these shopping center moguls from around the world that the last three years of economic performance is the worst by any president in this country since Herbert Hoover and the depression. Do you agree with that assessment? And if so, why isn’t there more outrage? KRUGMAN: Well, OK. I mean certainly in terms of jobs, he’s exactly right. I mean it’s a near lock now unless there’s a miracle between now and next November that George Bush will be the first president since Herbert Hoover to finish a term with fewer people working than when he started and that’s-so and that’s what matters. Jobs is the most important thing and the job performance is just terrible.

Okay, so that standard is having more people unemployed at the end of your term than at the start. Bush is the first eh? Wrong. The picture at right (click the picture for a larger version) shows the unemployment rate from 1989 (When President Bush Senior took office) to the end 1993 (well after Bush left office). Looks like unemployment was higher at the end of Bush I's first term than when he came into offic. Does this constitute a lie a la David Corn?

Well what if we look at unemployment in general. Not going to help there either. The picture on the left (click the image for a larger version) shows unemployment rates since 1948. Clearly there have been quite a few periods where unemployment was considerable higher than it is now.

This isn't to say that the unemployment/employment situation isn't a problem, but to say it is the worst jobs problem since the depression is ridiculous. The only way one can arrive at that situation is to look at absolute numbers (not relative numbers such as the unemployment rate). But if we do that then Bush's record on GDP growth is simply phenomenal compared to the Great Depression.

Later when Buchanan calls him on this, Krugman even notes that the worst year since the great depression was 1982. In looking at the Bureau of Labor Statistics data 1982 had an average unemployment rate of 9.7% whereas the last 12 months of recorded data for Bush's tenure it is 6.0% (note that if you took the last complete calander year, 2002, you'd get an even lower number). In 1975 the unemployment rate was well above 8% for the entire year. Note also that this steady grinding job loss isn't that spectacular. Unemployment has been going up slowly. This is a no win for Bush. Krugman rants and raves about unemployment slowly working its way up. But if it had the meteoric rise we say in 1981/82 Krugman would be...ranting and raving. From December of 1974 till August of 1977 unemployment was over 7% every single month (with all of '78 being over 8%)! Yet this is the worst since the Depression...or maybe not. Krugman can't seem to make up his mind.

I find it rather depressing that Krugman has to resort to such mendaciousness when going on television. He sure has completed his descent into being nothing more than a partisan hack.

(Via Don Luskin)

Churros

According to Kevin Drum California the Legislature just passed a bill allowing the sale of hot churros by street vendors. Well, maybe they aren't completely brain dead up there in Sacramanto.

The Indians' Strategy

The other day listening to Larry Elder he suggested the following strategy (I am pretty sure Larry got the idea from John Fund) by the indian gambling/casino interests in CA for ensuring a politician symapthetic to their desires is in the Governor's mansion after Oct. 7th.

Basically ensure that the Republican vote is split. So pick a candidate who has no chance of winning at all (Tom McClintock) and keep him in the race so as to siphon off support from the more moderate Schwarzenegger. They do this by running ads that support him in the hopes of getting a surge in the polls that will keep McClintock in the game. Thus, if the recall fails, Davis is still in office (a good thing for the indian gaming interests) and if the Recall is successful Cruz 'Boostamytaxes' Bustamante wins (a good thing for indian gaming intersts).

It is similar to the strategy that Davis used in his last election. Davis pumped money to support the least electable Republican candidate (Bill Simon) knowing that Simon (since he was quite conservative) would be easier to defeat.

The fact is right now California is a heavily Left/Democrat leaning state. For a Republican to win right now, the candidate has to be a "moderate" (i.e., social libera/fiscal conservative--somebody from the "libertarian wing" of the party). A candidate who is opposed to abortion, gay marriage just isn't going to make it. For this reason McClintock is unelectable for statewide office. By staying in the race he will split the Republican vote ensuring a Democratic win.

A Democratic win is IMO a bad thing for the state of California. The Democrats control virtually every part of the State government. The control the Assembly, the Senate, the Governorship, Lt. Governorship and all other major elected offices. They have held control for a number of years now, and look where it has gotten the state. Granted, the Republicans in the Assembly and Senate share some responsibility in that they have had the power to hold up budgets that were not so spendthrift. Still, the Democrats have had the reins of power and have steered the state into a morass of serious problems.

It is ironic, that this supports quite strongly Arnold Schwarzenegger's claim that special interests are calling the shots and damaging California. And lest you think the indian gaming interests favor one side or the other think again. The indian tribes plowed $350,000 into defeating Villaraigosa who was running for L.A. Mayor.

I strongly recommend reading all of the linked article by John Fund. Its pretty sickening...but then agian we are talking about politics.

Affirmative Action Bake Sale

The university response to the anti-affirmative action bake sale is truly pathetic.

She specified SMU Handbook Policies 3.14 and 3.20, which state “the harassment and protest policies, including that protests are acceptable as long as the normal function of the university is not disrupted and protesters remain respectful to the rights of others.” Using these guidelines, with two students already offended and a potential situation ensuing, the directors made their decision.

So protests are not supposed to upset students. What a load of Bravo Sierra. Lets not mince words here, protests by conservatives is not supposed to upset/offend students, but a liberal protest can piss anyone and everyone off.

“We simply spoke with the Young Conservatives and identified that SMU policies and code of conduct came into play, and that charging different prices for different ethnicities is discriminatory,” Manthey said.

But treating different students differently based on race in terms of admissions is okay. Pathetic.

“We welcome differences in opinion; that’s what a university is all about. But there are non-disruptive ways to deal with free speech issues,” Manthey said.

Right. What a lie this is. What a complete lying liar (to quote Al Franken). If a "difference in opinion" offends other students it has to be shut down. This buffoon just said so. So which is it? We can only have a difference of opinion that doesn't offend somebody? I guess the only differences of opinion will be over whether vanilla or chocolate is the better tasting ice cream.

Freedom of speech and potentially offensive speech are protected in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Hate speech; however, has come under fire in recent years, as universities grapple with controversies over “fightin’ words” that are undeserving of First Amendment protection, because “the perpetrators intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialogue, but to enure the victim,” said Charles R. Lawrence III, professor of law at Stanford University in his book Words that Wound.

Oh...so charging different prices are fightin' words now, eh? Well I think we should get rid of those elderly prices at movies...and the discounted prices for children. They really piss me off and offend me. Please, the real intent here was obvious: We don't like what they are saying, so in the name of "public safety" we'll shut them up with force.

Since SMU is a private institution it is within the discretion of the university to decide what types of speech are acceptable on its property.

I find it truly amazing how these craven and mendacious types will suddenly discover property rights when it works in their favor. They are of course, correct. But please don't tell us that they are all for the free flow of ideas and opinions while at the same time shutting down those they disagree with. Such lying is clearly transparent.

SMU will hold an open forum on Oct. 8 for students and groups to express their opinions on affirmative action. The forum, which was planned before the incident, will allow groups to set up a table with signage in the designated campus debate area, but not engage in any form of discriminatory practices.

Right. Sure. I'm sure that last part will be interpreted in a very one sided manner.

The university shouldn't have let Moore and Manthey near reporters. They aren't bright enough to talk to reporters. Simply saying that the booth/protest was not in line with school policy would have been sufficient. They need to fill out the proper form and locate their booth at the proper location. Done, end of explanation. All this stuff about "public safety" and "volatile situation" leaves a rotten taste. It makes one wonder that if a group wanted to put up a "protest booth" and filled out the proper form and set up in the correct location would they be shut down because the situation "could become more volatile"?

Update: Looks like Eugene Volokh and I agree on the point that if the University had simply stuck t the "they didn't follow the proper procedure for conducting such a protest/demonstration" the university would be on much more reasonable ground.

Prof. Volokh also links to the Curmudgeonly Clerk. Here is another statement by Moore,

"This was not an issue about free speech," said Tim Moore, director of the Hughes-Trigg Student Center. "It was really an issue where we had a hostile environment being created that was potentially volatile."

No, it is an issue of free speech and the "public saftey/potentially volatile" argument is not a good one, IMO. All protests/demonstrations have some level of potential to become volatile (to varying degrees). Thus, this can be used to shut down any protest/demonstration in a subjective fashion.

"My reaction was disgust because of the ignorance of some SMU students," said Mr. Houston, who is black. "They were arguing that affirmative action was solely based on race. It's not based on race. It's based on bringing a diverse community to a certain organization."

Mr. Houston has a rather narrow view of diversity. It seems he likes diversity of skin color, but not opinions. Talk about narrow minded.

Here is SMU's press release. I agree with the Curmudgeonly Clerk that the University seems almost incapable of presenting their rationale for shutting down the bake sale in a coherent manner. They are all over the place, "it was potentially volatile, students were offended, irrelevant crap, irrelevant crap, student safety."

Anyhow read all of the Curmudgeonly Clerk's post, its worth it.

The Hunt for a WMD

An interesting article on about a search for "...a pressurized cylinder about the size of a phone booth - and what the Iraqis did with it."

He Has A Plan

Well that makes me feel better. Wesley Clark has a $100 billion dollar plan to spur job growth. As is typical of many politicians when it comes to a problem he developes "a plan". Invariably these plans cost money...lots of money.

• The Homeland Economic Security Fund: $40 billion over 2 years.
• State and Local Rebate Fund: $40 Billion over 2 years.
• Tax incentives for job creation: $20 billion over two years.

The first item, the Homeland and Economic Security Fund will help create jobs by employing people to keep the Homeland secure. Don't have a job, well then Gen. Clark wants you for the Coast Gaurd, the Custom Service, and other jobs protecting critical infrastucture.

The next item will help with training, health care, and "other pressing needs". In other words, if you are unemployed you can get handouts from the government. Don't worry about getting another job right away, you'll get some money from those who are still working.

The really great part of this plan is here

According to the National Conference on State Legislatures, projected deficits totaled $80 billion for the fiscal year that began in July in most states. Despite the fact that this state fiscal crunch has hurt the economy and working families, President Bush has repeatedly chosen to devote resources to income tax cuts for the richest Americans., In fact, President Bush has worsened the state fiscal situation: many states link their tax system to the Federal system, so when the Federal government cut taxes, the State government lost revenue....Virtually every state has some sort of balanced budget requirement. These requirements act as “job killers” during recessions; they force states to engage in Great Depression-style economics – cutting spending or raising taxes when the states should be doing the opposite to create jobs.

So even though these states have these job killing requirements in their consitutions, it is Bush's fault that they are running deficits. That is, if the states changed these components of their constitutions then there wouldn't be a crisis and no need for this $40 billion dollar transfer.

Lets also be clear here. What Clark is talking about is deficit spending. Sure, he can talk about repealing Bush's tax cuts, but there will still be a deficit and he wants to increase spending. So if the deficit is say $400 billion, and half of it is due to the tax cuts. Further, Clark wants to roll back the tax cut, but at the same time spend an additional $100 billion dollars, what he is saying is he finds a $300 billion deficit reasonable.

Now, what is the difference in terms of percentage of GDP between a $300 billion deficit and a $400 billion deficit? Not much. Assuming an $11.5 trillion GDP, the difference is .009. Is that something to get worked up over?

The last item basically provides favorable tax benefits to those companies that hire employees. Basically, this makes it less costly to employee more people. Not too bad, but this is basically corporate welfare. Employee more people and well give you a kick back. Why not just remove some of the onerous regulations that have a stifling effect on business. There are 135 regulations that could be removed that would remove an economic burden that at a minimum costs $13.5 billion. That is 67.5% of the $20 billion he wanted to spend and he wont have to spend anything! Will the world end by removing these 135 regulations? No. Clearly the world didn't end prior to last year.

But in typical fashion Clark wants to go ahead with the "Big Plan" with Big Dollars of Additional Spending. That is why you should vote for Clark, he wants to spend even more of your money!

(I'll post more on how Clark wants to pay for this latter.)

WMD Report Inconclusive

According to this story it looks like the report by the Iraq Survey Group is inconclusive.

David Kay, a former U.N. weapons inspector and now head of the Iraq Survey Group, has presented a "progress report" to CIA Director George Tenet, which does not reach any firm conclusions about the status of Iraq's WMD program, U.S. officials told Fox News on Wednesday.

Iraq News Coverage Excessively Bleak?

Via Henry Hanks is this article.

Three reporters in Iraq see a disconnect between the bleak media portrayals of Iraq and the better reality. A day after Democratic Congressman Jim Marshall condemned the media’s excessive negativism in covering Iraq, Time magazine’s Brian Bennett, MSNBC’s Bob Arnot and FNC’s Molly Henneberg backed him up on how media reports don’t match the improving reality of the situation, but CNN’s Nic Robertson and CBS’s Kimberly Dozier contended it’s just as bad as they portray it.

I gotta agree here. Whenever I see something in the news or hear something on the radio it always seems negative. Of course, what I see and hear isn't necessarily a fair and representative sample, but it does seem to focus mostly on the negative.

Jay Needs to Sharpen His Sarcasm

In this post, Jay Caruso makes a tongue in cheek comment about Dean's remarks about the "country belonging to 'us'" and "wanting it back". Apparently, commenters missed the sarcasm.

Posted by Cassidy:

About the same time that the Cons staked a claim to patriotism and made nasty accusations when any somewhat liberal minded person tried to question thier motives.

I'll be the first to apologize as soon as you guys do. Until then all your doing is partisan sniping and its rather childish. Typical of Cons, though. It's okay when you do something, but worthy of outrage when someone else does.

Posted By Andrew | Byte Back:

It depends on what the meaning of patriotISm is?

It's partisan sniping from Jay - the same kind he decries over at Oliver's site.

Blinders. Blinders. My kingdom to remove his blinders.

Also, it's not clear who "us" and "we" is? Sure it's implied but if you can't expect that the Rove administration en masse implied that Saddam Huseein and the 9-111 terrorists wer elinked then you've got no solid ground to stand on.

Just logic, people.

I love the quotes provided by Tbogg as examples of Ashcroft and Rumsfield questioning people's patriotism.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said to reporters recently that Democratic criticism of the Republican administration's invasion of Iraq and post-war rebuilding efforts was "complicating" efforts to try and get the message out that progress was being made. "It does complicate it." Rumsfeld said. "It makes it more difficult, but I guess that's life."

Wow, that is quite a questioning of another's patriotism. Looks to me like Rumsfields is saying that complaints about what Adminsitration has done are making it more difficult to get out word on the progress that has been made...so naturally you must be unpatriotic...or something.

What a hoot.

Prescription Drug Plan Faltering?

Looks like some of the more conservative members of the house actually are guilty of thinking. Apparently these 13 have sent a letter to House Majority Leader Hastert. Apparently they are concerned about the cost of the program.

The conservative bloc said they were particularly worried about a recent Congressional Budget Office report which said the drug benefit's $400 billion price tag was wrong, and that the program would actually cost $450 billion over the next decade. "This is very troubling, especially considering the history of federal entitlement programs costing far more than their early projections," the lawmakers wrote.

Furthermore, conservative signees demanded that the final bill not impose price controls on the drug industry, and that it authorize tax-favored medical savings accounts for individuals and more competition between private plans and Medicare.

Unless these issues are addressed they will vot against the Drug Plan. Apparently the real problem thing here is the medical savings accounts. Many Democrats see this as a precursor to cuts/privatization in/of Medicare.

Personally I'd like to see medical savings accounts. As I noted in this post Medicare can have the effect of reducing savings. A medical savings account could address this concern.

The idea of price controls in prescription drugs is a horrifying idea. Remember the lines for gasoline in the 70's? How about standing in line (or more accurately longer lines) for that drug that you need for pain, or to stay alive. Price controls force prices down, they do not force companies to make drugs. If the prices are kept low to the point that making a specific drug becomes unprofitable it is quite likely that drug will no longer be available.

So lets think about this. There are two situations here. One without price controls and one with.

Scenario 1: No Price Controls

In this situation some people are unable to purchase a drug because of the cots.¹ This is bad.

Scenario 2: Price Controls

Now if the drug is unprofitable to make, it is no longer on the market. Now nobody can buy it, even those who could pay for it. This too is bad.

Now which is worse? Scenario 1 or Scenario 2? I think 2 is by far the worst. Under Scenario 2 you will have far more people who need/want a drug who cannot gain access to it than in Scenario 1. This is like the public school version of public policy or the deranged psycho killer logic we see in some movies. Remember in school where some joker does something dumb, and the authority figure (teacher, principal, or vice principal) comes up with the brilliant idea that everybody will be punished unless the joker comes forward (or somebody rats him out). Even if you don't know who the joker is you get punished. Moral of the story, the authority figure is a complete and total jackass. With the psycho killer logic it goes like this. The psycho killer "loves" the hero or heroine, but hero/heroine has spurned the psycho killer so...if the psycho killer can't have him/her nobody can.

These kinds of policies breed resentment and impose very severe costs, but I suppose in a perverse way there is some sort of sick justice here. Everybody is equal in that the drug they want is not available to anybody.

Getting back to the Drug Plan, looks like the Democrats are also making ultimatums.

Drug reimportation is another potential roadblock. Representatives from both sides of the aisle have begun pressing for any final bill to include a provision allowing consumers to buy cheaper drugs in Canada. Recently 142 House Democrats signed a letter saying they would be "unlikely to support a Medicare drug benefit" that does not include such a provision.

_____ ¹Actually I wonder how many people have to go without a drug because of the price? I haven't seen any numbers on this, but lets assume the worst and that some people go without.

Self-Reliance

Kevin Brancato has a nice post on self reliance. The key parts are

I was taught that in this world one couldn't count on the good fortune of entrepreneurial insight, or on beating the odds, or being well connected. One mustn't count on miracles, on good men doing good deeds, or on charity. One should help others (family, friends, neighbors) in need, but shouldn't count on the Good of Everyone Else when in need oneself. A free man doesn't count on the Good of Society to make up for his own misery, even if it wasn't his fault or mistake.

Prof. DeLong, there is a third way: one should not bet on red or black, but on oneself. This is a heterogeneous solution. Either individuals and nuclear families spread risk over time, or they join together to create extended families and bail each other out in times of need. Others have called this "saving for a rainy day," and it's the responsibility of everyone in a Free Society to make his own arrangements. Self-reliance is not just a theory; yet it is treated like a third rail guaranteed to kill on contact.

Most of us do not live in a dream world of having super-rich and highly-educated parents set us up for life. But just because utopia is no place, doesn't mean we must succumb to the fallacy that our only two options of social organization are Social-Democratic compulsory "insurance" or the catastrophic loss of our wealth, families, and homes during the every downturn of the business cycle. People are NOT too stupid to tie their own safety nets.

The choice we face every day is how much to save for the seasons of bad harvest, or when government taxing and spending runs amok, or when our jobs are picked up by the churning market tornado, and thrown into Mexico, China, India, and Bulgaria. Instead of helping us make scarcity-influenced & market-based choices, governments, aided by economists-like-us and social theorists of all stripes, have required that citizens should never face the consequences of misfortune.

Quite right. Is it the job of government to ensure that everybody basically has "a nice life"? That one does not have to face adversity? I don't think so.

I recommend reading the whole thing.

What a Jerk

In this post I noted that it looked like Matthew Yglesias was going to play the, "He's a mean jerk" card. This is a common trick, that I usually see from the those on the Left.¹

This line of "argument" is used most often when looking at problems and policies that suggests cuts to welfare (or more accurately income transfer programs or subsidies) programs. In the examples in the above linked post there was talk about how sad it is to cut Section 8 funding as it could very well result in an increase in more homeless. Another one was where Yglesias wanted me to try and justify why the rich should be allowed to keep more of their own money.

What's the problem? What if those aren't my goals? The assumption by those on the Left seems to be the following,

Steve wants to cut funding for Section 8 and federal educational spending. Therefore, Steve is in favor of homelessness and ignorant children.

It is the second part that is the problem. These types of people are going from my policy preference to making a conclusion about outcomes that I'd prefer. In other words, the problem is that they are assuming those who hold such policies hold those such policy views because they want the poor to be homeless, children to ignorant, and the elderly to be indigent. The idea that one can think a given policy is bad for different reasons seems to have never entered their thought process.

What other reasons could their be? Well how about this idea for Social Security: It reduces the incentive to save for retirement. Or what about this one for Medicare: It reduces the incentive to save for medical problems later in life.

Why should people who are healthy and young today have to subsidize the consumption of medical resources by the elderly? Didn't the elderly have a responsibility to plan for such problems while they were younger? If the answer is yes, then where is their money? Why not use that first? If the answer is no, then on what basis does a young person today have a responsibility for the elderly? These policies can have perverse incentives. You can see the effect using basic economics. A subsidy for a given good acts like a price reduction. So people will consume more of it with the income they currently have. In other words, you don't need to increase your income to increase your consumption.

Now, with regards to medicare we need a somewhat more sophisticated analysis. Suppose we have two periods (period 1 and period 2). Period 1 is where the person works and saves, and period 2 is retirement. Further suppose we have two goods, health care and all other goods (a composite good). Now, in the first period the person will make several decisions, how much to work, how much to save, and how much to spend on health care and all other goods. Now, the money saved is used for consumption in the second period. Now, if health care is subsidized in the second period then standard economic theory tells us that people will save less.

You see, the subsidy means that the person can consume the same amount as if he did save, but with lower savings. Further, given that people generally prefer spending money today vs. later (i.e., would rather have a dollar today or a year from now?), people will reduce their savings.

Social Security does something similar, but this works through an income effect (i.e., Social Security raises the person's income in the second period).

So there are perverse incentives associated with these policies. Further, there is the issue of demographic changes between generations. The Baby Boomer generation is much larger than Generation X. This means fewer workers will be supporting more retirees and their consumption of health care resources.²

So there are indeed efficiency and equity issues here with these policies that are legitimate for debate. Yet, in attempting to bring up these issues the typical response is, "Oh, you want to throw the elderly in the streets, deny them health care, and would probably be happy is they all just died." Ironically these are often the same people who get on their high horse about having their patriotism called into question.

Update: I thought I'd post this from update to the post Matthew's site,

He also states, however, that he resents it when liberals depict conservatives as "mean jerk[s]" who "want[] to throw people on the street." I appreciate conservative consternation at this characterization, since most of the conservatives I know are very nice people who never say things like "we should throw those people out on the street." On the other hand, they are inclined to say things like "we should cap expansion of Section 8 voucher spending at 5% per year." For the reasons I explained above, however, the effect of limiting Section 8 growth in this manner (and especially of freezing it at '01 levels) would be to throw people on the streets.

First, I am not a conservative. I favor keeping abortion legal, legalizing drugs, ending the criminalization of prostitution, and I am an ardent opponent of Creationism (especially teaching it in a public school science class). On social issues, Matthew and I would probably agree far more often than disagree. Second, what about the consequences of Matthew's proposals? Does he acknowledge that doing nothing about Social Security and Medicare is likely to have a significantly negative impact on the next generation and maybe even this one? Does he realize that he might be creating a society where people have lower standards of living? Less medical care, less opportunity for getting an education, and less income to purchase a house?

Resources are finite. You cannot grow the world's food supply in a flower pot. Hence if you keep subsidizing things at an increasing rate you'll eventually run into a problem. Its sort of the economics version of trying to travel at the speed of light. The more you subsidize consumption, the less people will want to work and save, so the less you'll be able to raise in taxes.

Further, if you offer people the option of having more consumption today and subsidized consumption in the future, they will reduce their rate of savings. People prefer having consumption today vs. tomorrow. This is why interest rates are positive and not negative. Further, today's savings are used for today's investments which impacts future production.

And Social Security and Medicare are not "safety nets". The idea of a safety net is that it provides some margin of safety if you screw up on the high wire or trapeze. Ideally though, you don't want to use it and if you can help it you don't. But with Social Security and Medicare every elderly person uses it. It is not a safety net, it is a transfer program and entitlement.

Section 8 will also have similar perverse incentives. For example, with the government providing subsidized housing it reduces the cost of being irresponsible. Now if you make a bad decision you can try to get help from the government. Get pregnant early? Oh, go apply for these programs. Then there is the effect it has on the housing prices. It will increase the price because it increases the demand. An increase in prices for everybody else is a loss of welfare. These losses are not reflected in the annual budget of the program.
_____
¹Although I see it mainly from those on the Left, this does not mean it isn't a tactic used by those on the Right as well. My perception is that this is used more by those on the Left.
²And the elderly are one of the largest consumers of health care resources per capita.

Roger L. Simon on Bustamante, Identity Politics and Weintraub

Roger takes up the issue between Daniel Weintraub and Cruz Bustamante. Weintraub has gotten into some trouble for some unkind remarks about Curz Bustamante. Or as Roger put it,

What created this dustup was Weintraub's opinion that had Cruz Bustamante been Charles Bustmont, he would have ended up a backbencher in Sacramento (I'd rather sell hot dogs at Dodger Stadium!). Weintraub was saying aloud what many people, even the most superficially progressive, already think--identity politics and affirmative action allow certain individuals to get by on a pass. Shame on Weintraub! Who does he think he is? An honest journalist?

Ouch. But Roger has a larger point here and it is a good one I think.

Kidding aside, in this era, many of the ideas and methodologies legislating racial inclusion may now be outdated and actually encouraging racism towards those they were intended to help. Does it do the Latino community (already justifiably quite powerful in California) any good to have one of theirs in the governorship when many are whispering behind his back that the man is an accident of identity politics unqualified for the office. I doubt it.--emphasis in the original

I couldn't agree more. California is a very diverse place and overall people seem to get along just fine. Do we still need various measures for inclusion when inculsion is no longer really a problem? And are these measures starting to lead to resentment? If hte answer to both questions is, "Yes," then it is undeniable that such measures have outlived their usefulness.

Recall Election Back On

The en banc panel of the 9th Circuit Court upheld the District court's original ruling, basically reversing the 3-judge panel's ruling from last week. (Technically, the 3-judge ruling was vacated when the full court decided to hear the case). So the recall and the ballot initiatives are back on for October 7th.

Here is a PDF of the ruling. Money quote:

We must of course also look to the interests represented by the plaintiffs, who are legitimately concerned that use of the punch-card system will deny the right to vote to some voters who must use that system. At this time, it is merely a speculative possibility, however, that any such denial will influence the result of the election.

Exactly. The statistical possibility of higher error rates is not the same as definitive disenfranchizement or vote-dilution.

Wow, looks like I got to comment even before the Instapundit. :-)

Update -- DAMMIT, Steve beat me to it. He types faster, which also explains the typos.

CA Recall Election Set for Oct. 7th

The 11 judge panel has ruled that the recall will be held on October 7th. It looks the 11 judges took a dim view of the earlier ruling.

"Interference with impending elections is extraordinary, and interference with an election after voting has begun is unprecedented," the court ruling notes.

Laurence Tribe sounds like an idiot.

"The real point, I think, is it's an unlawful election," said Harvard University scholar Laurence Tribe, who argued for the Democrats in the Florida dispute that reached the Supreme Court in 2000.

The recall is in line with all the requirements of the California Constitution. There is nothing unlawful about it. How the heck did this guy get to be a Harvard Professor? Was it be kind to idiots week or something? Sheesh.

A nice thing about this 11 judge panel is that 8 of the 11 were appointed by Democrats (7 alone by Clinton). So the idea that this is a partisan decision holds very little water.

The Bush Lied Meme

They are still working on it. I like the examples of Bush's lies.

• Bush claimed Saddam had a robust nuclear program and had ties to Al Qa'ida.
• Bush claimed the tax cuts would be stimulative.

To show that nuclear program claim is a lie Marshall points out that at best the evidence for the nuclear program was fragmentary and of a dubious nature. Of course, Marshall is himself lying here Its a subtle lie where Marshall focuses solely on two claims about Saddam. It completely ignores the much more credible issue of chemical and biological weapons. After all, this issue was good enough to induce the U.N. Security Council to pass resolution 1441.¹

The claim about tax cuts ignores the comments by Fed Chairmen Alan Greenspean who, initially opposed ot the tax cuts, stated that he thought they came at a time just right to provide economic stimulus.² Marshall does have wiggle room here in that he can always claim it wasn't the initial tax cut he was talking about, but about making it permanent and the removal of the dividend tax. However, in general taxes tend to reduce economic activity not expand it. Thus, what we are left with ultimately is that Bush's tax cuts were not the most efficacious way to stimulate the economy.

As for the problems with deficits there are several possible rejoinders. The first is that during a recession tax revenue falls and even without tax cuts there would be a deficit. Standard Keynesian theory says to cut taxes, or to increase spending (or both) to stimulate demand. So there isn't anything shocking here. Also during times of crisis countries tend to spend alot, especially in times of war. To say, that even though economic conditions have changed that we should still expect the same budget surpluses is disingenuous.³

The president and his aides don't speak untruths because they are necessarily people of bad character. They do so because their politics and policies demand it. As astute observers such as National Journal's Jonathan Rauch have recently noted, George W. Bush campaigned as a moderate, but has governed with the most radical agenda of any president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Indeed, the aim of most of Bush's policies has been to overturn what FDR created three generations ago.

When I read that part of the article I nearly spewed Diet Coke all over the screen. Yes, Bush wants to undo the notion of big government by...well by spending even more money!

I suppose one could point to Social Security, but Hell you have to be an idiot not realize that something is going to have to be done about Social Security. It is headed for shortfalls that will eventually require reather large increases in taxes.⁴

But to say Bush wants to get rid of Big government? I see, his plan for prescription medication is actually a cunning plan to...to...to...to what? Looks like a good way to increase the size of Medicare.

By early 2001, it became clear that those surpluses were never going to materialize. So the administration cooked up an entirely new rationale: The tax cut was needed as fiscal stimulus to pull the economy out of an impending recession.

Ooh-ooh, somebody is lying. The start of the last recession was announced on November 26, 2001. That isn't early 2001, that is late 2001. Now maybe people started to suspect there was a recession, but I don't think there was much argument that the tax cuts were necessary to get us out of a recession.

In other words, the tax cut that was tailor-made for a booming economy made equally good sense in a tanking one.

Arguing that people should be allowed to keep more of their money really isn't an economic argument. At least not in the sense of promoting economic growth, or heading off a recession. It is more of a vote getter vs. something with economic policy.

And when, because of that anemic growth, coupled with gains in productivity, the unemployment rate continued to rise, the administration had yet another excuse: A new round of tax cuts, they said, would generate jobs.

Uhhh, no. Marshall that last part there about a new round of tax cuts, it isn't an excuse, but a solution. It may not be the best solution, but it sure isn't an excuse.

Then, while the Bush administration was formulating their energy policy during the spring and summer of 2001, California had an "energy crisis."

Ooops, another lie from the lying liar. Christ, Marshall must look like Pinocchio. The California Energy crisis reached national prominence in August of 2000. It was pretty well known to people in the business well before that. The above is just a blatant lie by Marshall.

Suddenly, there was a big problem, and the administration had what it said was the perfect solution: Drilling in ANWR and giving free reign to energy producers.

They may have said that (and until I see something comfirming and given Marshall's tendency to lie, I am not going to believe it). Further, it was the Bush Administration that finally (and yes belatedly) cleaned up the mess in California.

I'm sorry Marshall my eyes are glazing over as I try to read the rest. Here is a hint, before you run around calling people liars, do some basic fact checking you dope.
_____
¹I suppose one can make the case that the U.N. issued so many of these resolutions that Iraq ignored that they mean nothing. Which in turn means the U.N. is just a waste of time.
²Of course, it wasn't blanket support. Greenspan is not in favor of making the cuts permanent nor was he terribly keen on the removal of the dividend tax cut.
³I also wonder why Marshall didn't actually quote Bush. I mean it would be really damning if Marshall had quote from Bush saying that we could have the tax cuts and no deficits.
⁴Whats even worse is that if the tax increases come all in the form of payroll taxes, which are highly regressive.

Wow! Matthew Responds

That was fast. I'm surprised to see such a sudden response from Matthew on my post here.

Let me see here. I linked to three federal government agencies as places to cut.

1. Dept. of Agriculture
2. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
3. Dept. of Education

Matthew doesn't object to the cutting of farm subsidies, which is good. I'm not sure that food inspectors are still necessary these days. The idea of selling tainted food probably wouldn't be something we are likely to see with today's litigious society. Still I suppose there is simply the comfort factor.

On to HUD. First Matthew claims that Section 8 vouchers have been cut by the administration, this however is false.

• 2001: 14,272
• 2002: 15,725
• 2003: 16,864¹

I don't know about you, but that looks like a 10% increase and a 7% increase. Matthew asks would I cut? Yes I would. Freeze it at the 2001 level, or if that is too draconian limiting the rate of increase to 5% per year.² I'd also cut out the $2 billion or so that gets spent on the HOME Investment Partnership Program.

Last is the Department of Education which has, under Bush increased 26% since he has been President. Spending is up..way up. By about $10 billion dollars. Yet our schools are still bad. Here's a novel idea, maybe the problem with schools isn't related to money.

I love this bit from Matthew,

My answer is "A" and I'd be very interested to here Steve justify "B."

There it is. I just know the response is going to be, "See what a mean jerk Steve is." He wants to throw people out on the street, and keep children from getting a decent education.

The thing about Bush's deficits is that you could eliminate the entire Department of Agriculture, the entire HUD, and the entire Department of Education and you wouldn't close the budget deficit. Each individual domestic discretionary spending item constitutes only a trivial proportion of the national budget.

Yes, this is quite true. However in aggregate these things do add up. If we were to eleminate HUD, Dept. of Ed alone that would cut the deficit by just under $100 billion.

Even all put together it's not that much compared with defense spending, social security, medicare, and debt on the interest. If you're serious about balancing the budget (and increasing defense spending) then you need to either (a) raise taxes, (b) cut social security and medicare, (c) cut defense spending, or (d) some combination thereof.

The problem with balancing the budget is that it is unreasonable to expect it to be balanced from year-to-year. This is one reason why many states are in trouble. They have a balanced budget requirement that forces them to either cut programs, raise taxes or both. The problem is that in times of recession these things tend to prolong recessions. The ideal that one is introduced too in introductory macroeconomics is to cut taxes and/or increase spending during the recessions (i.e., run one of those super evil deficits) and then raise taxes and/or cut spending during the expansions. The problems is that when you run a deficit during the recession you get that reeking political opportunism from the other side. In addition, when you go to cut the programs during the expansion you are portrayed as a cold cruel jerk who likes to kill the elderly and torture children.

As for cutting medicare, there is a program full of waste fraud and abuse. Limiting that alone would save billions. Of course, there is little hope of curtailing such abuses (which makes the notion of "well run" national health care a joke). Still this is a program that basically discourages saving for medical problems later in life. Why bother saving when I can try to pawn off the costs onto the current working generation. Would I want to cut Medicare? Yes.

I find it humorous. On the one hand we have much consternation about the deficit and this burning need to raise taxes. On the other hand there is much consternation about the weak economy. But tax cutting does provide a stimulus (how much of one is debatable). So does government spending. Bush is doing both, but its all wrong, wrong, wrong. Bush is raising education spending, but its not the right kind of spending increases I guess.

As for tax code "rationalization", that would be great. No really. Alot of money is spent every year complying with the arcane and byzantine tax code. Simplifying the tax code could in theory save lots of money. It would also mean less for those who work in the tax compliance industry (accountants, tax attorney's, etc.). So there is about as much chance of this happening as there is of cuts being made to medicare (or even the less onerous ideas Matthew suggests such raising the qualifying age).

Update: One of the trackbacks at Matthew's site lead to this simulator for the national budget. You can select growth rates, tax cuts, etc. and see what happens. Very neat. Thanaks to Hellblazer.
_____
¹Using the budget numbers I found on the HUD website.
²Ideally I'd cut it, but such a thing would never fly initially. My ideal would be to get the government out of trying to provide private goods to people, and have it limit itself to dealing with public goods, externalities, etc.

There He Goes Again

I also found this post at Matthew's site. Basically, it says that we need to roll back the tax cuts to afford a bigger army. Of course, cutting other spending is simply out of the question. I mean after all providing for the national defense is not something expressly spelled out in the Constitution.

Why is it when it comes to issue of government provided goods its always, "Raise taxes," and never, "Okay we need to rearrange our priorities and cut some spending here, here and here."? Nope it is always, "Hey, we'll just raise taxes."

Well, At Least He's Honest

Matthew Yglesias admits Bush is hate worthy. He says the following which I suppose could be true,

Where Ponnuru goes wrong is in assuming that everything that's un-conservative is therefore something that should make liberals happy.

But Bush is doing things that Liberals tend to like, yet is hated for it. Look at the whole fiasco about Bush's comments about his increases in educational spending. Bush has increased spending alot. In fact, he has increased it so much it makes Clinton look like a stingy bastard. Yet David Corn goes out of his way to try and construct a "Bush lied" routine. Or is Matthew trying to tell us he thinks Bush is spending too much on education, that Matthew doesn't like the steel tariffs, and that since there is such a huge deficit we need to cut additional spending as well?

But there are many things -- notably the rank political opportunism of which the current administration reeks -- that are approved of by neither liberals nor conservatives. Bush does a lot of that stuff, and that's a big part of what's so terrible about him.

Yep, no political opportunism with Clinton. I mean firing those cruise missiles at the aspirin factory just as the story about Monica Lewinsky broke....why it was sheer coincident.

But this Bush character, why he does stuff! And not just any stuff, but stuff that reeks of political opportunism kind of stuff...you know.

Daily Kos: Lying Liar

Yep here we go again with another lying liar from the Left. This time it is the Daily Kos. This post is somewhat misleading in that Arnold Schwarzenegger's capaign has already tried to get the debate next week to not be scripted.

Schwarzenegger's campaign noted that the scripted format was developed by the CBA and Schwarzenegger already unsuccessfully asked for it to change in a letter sent earlier this month by his campaign co-chairman, U.S. Rep. David Dreier, R-San Dimas.

Further, why should Arnold go to debates. To some degree he can minimize the camera time other candidates can get by not going. When Arnold first announced it seemed like Arianna Huffington was going to be his running mate in that she was popping up where ever Arnold was making a stop. Of course Arianna is desperate for publicity considering her polling numbers are single digits.

Hypocrisy?

Here is another post from Kevin that I find interesting. Kevin is complaining about the fact that some states contribute more to the budget than they get back in services, while other states recieve more than they pay in taxes.

What is the problem here? Well gee, isn't this the same thing many "conservatives" complain about at an individual level? To make such a complaint at the individual level makes you an asshole. To make such a complaint at the state level makes you a Good Guy. I guess.

You are absolutely right Kevin, those red states are getting a type of welfare--i.e., they are getting money, goods and services transferred to them from other states. But if this is true, then so is the complaint that those at the low end of the income distribution also recieve welfare if they are getting more in terms of services, monetary transfers, and goods from the government than those at the top.

Frankly I find Kevin's annoyance rather odd and just a little bit schizophrenic.¹
_____
¹I'm not saying Kevin is insane here, look at definition 2.

Steel Tariffs Bite Back

CalPundit has a post that links to an article about how the steel tariffs Bush pushed for (and got) early on in his administration have come back to bite him on the ass. What went wrong?

• May have cost more jobs than it saved.
• Failed to garner any union endorsements.
• Appears to have hurt Bush with workers in Michigan and Tennessee.

The problem is that the steel tariffs pushed up the price of steel for industries that use steel such as automobile makers. Well, no shit, they didn't think that would happen? Idiots. There is plenty of historical evidence that when tariffs are put in place the price of the goods so protected rise. For one you are raising the costs of the lowest cost provider. If you do so to the extent that they don't even participate in the market or their market share shrinks then you are also reduing competition. Less competition means higher prices.

This idiocy was the brain child (or at least got considerable support from) Karl Rove. Two words Karl, McKinley Tariff. The McKinley Tariff was enacted to protect domestic producers from foreign competition. The idea was this would result in more employment. The problem was that it also lead to an increase in consumer products which really annoyed voters. This is ancient history in that the tariff was passed in 1890. You'd think by now somebody would have learned its lessons.

Another example is much more famous. Smoot-Hawley which was enacted right near the start of the Great Depression and had an effect of deepening and lengthening the Depression. The response from America's trading partners was retalitory tariffs which depressed global trade.

Basically protectionism is just bad economics and bad policy.

I Wonder...

...if this will cool anybody's jets on judicial activism. The idea of using the courts as a game of Tit-for-Tat in elections is one that is scary.

There's really only one way to read the panel's decision from Monday. It's a sauce-for-the-gander exercise in payback. Pure and simple. The panel not only refused to accept the Supremes' admonition that the nation would not be fooled again; it refused even to address it. Applying Bush v. Gore again and again in the unanimous opinion, the judges told the high court that it has no power to declare a case a one-ride ticket and defied the court to step in again to tell them otherwise. (The court isn't likely to step in, as many have now noted, because they cannot win if they do. By getting involved, they risk either looking corrupt and partisan if they reverse the decision or permitting the courts to legislate things like the distances between polling places and the pant-length for elections workers for all eternity.)

I'm sure many Democrats might be chortling over the 9ths decision on this, but you know...eventaully the worm turns and your back on the shit end of the stick.

Also check out Robert Hochman's op-ed as well.

Thanks to Dan Drezner and CalPundit for the links.

Employer Provided Health Insurance

Nathan Newman has a post about how the number of people employed through their employer has dropped. And of course Nathan misses the boat.

First, reducing such a benefit is likely to only work if employees get an increase in pay. Imagine your sitting there at your desk working away. Then your boss informs you your medical benefits have gone bye-bye. Now you have to pay for them yourself. Ooops, that is just like a pay cut. What are you going to do? Sit there and bitch or look for another job?

Now the increase in pay may not be sufficient to cover the cost of insurance, but that is in part due to the way health insurance benefits are treated by the income tax system.

Another question is, has health insurance coverage gone down in general. That is, are people self-insuring? The BLS report does not look at this.

Nathan also blows it big time in responding to a commentor. Amy has a detailed post that argues that the mandates imposed by states is also driving up costs. Nathan says, "Okay, but the thing I'm for is a singler payer system so its different." But right at the begining of Nathan's post he references...a state level mandate that is narrowly targeted! Yeah, yeah I know consistency is not a requirement for blogging.

Lets also consider the impact of the mandate Nathan is looking at. Assume some of the people the mandate will affect currently do not have health insurance. Now they do. Will they consume more health care resources? Yes. So it will drive up costs. This is basic economics once again. As demand shifts outward (i.e., increases) the price goes up.

Second, this will also increase costs for employers. If some employers cannot cover these costs they will reduce their number of employees or shut down. In either case, these are not people without health insurance and a job.

Nathan does have a point here,

And how will that decrease health insurance costs? Because the costs of uncompensated care at many hospitals often get tacked on as surcharges or increased fees for paying customers-- sometimes formally, sometimes informally. Essentially, employers providing health care subsidize the employees of their rival companies who don't provide it. So the new California law will actually be good for the firms that provide health insurance, one reason a majority of companies in California support the new law.

No, while the point above is valid, so are my points. Thus, the overall effect is ambiguous and can only be answered by looking at the data. This Nathan does not do.

Nathan's ultimate solution of a single-payer system is one that I have addressed in this post. It is far from clear that a single-payer system will solve the problem.

Kevin Drum on The Music Industry

Kevin Drum found an interesting link at Business Pundit about how it is possible that the decline in CDs is not simply a function of illegal downloading. That the past time of listening to music has been replaced by other interests such as video games, home video (DVD), and the internet.

Its possible, and another thing to throw out there: CDs tend to last a long time. Maybe we are seeing some sort of generational shift. Maybe people in Generation X (or Generation "Fuck You" as my friend Dave Pitts likes to call it) has gotten a bit older and isn't out consuming music like it used to, and the next generation (whatever its called) isn't buying as much.

Another thing is that those who don't buy music due to downloading are not that big (yet). I recall reading some research that the big problem from downloading is when you have three things:

• Downloading software.
• A high speed internet connection.
• A CD burner.

People who have all three are the least likely to buy a new CD.

Anyways, an interesting idea.

Nationalized Health Care

Since it looks like it is going to be a theme in this years Presidential race, I thought I'd post some links to some of my older posts on this issue.

Tragedy of the Commons and Health Care

This posts looks at the misconception that health care is some sort of common good that everybody should have access too.

Universal Health Care

This post looks at schizophrenic nature people often have with regard to health care. They want the best, but they don't want to pay for it.

The Quantity and Quality of Health Care

Here I reference a post by Keven Brancato that looks at how the changes in the quantity of health care demanded and the changes in quality of health care have impacted health care costs. In other words, if you want to contain costs, use less healthcare and use older outdated and cheaper medical procedures. Not exactly what the supporters of nationalize health care want I bet.

More on Universal Health Care

Looks at why James Joyner and Kevin Drum's views/questions are actually not that well thought out. To mainting high quality and high availability for everybody would likely raise medical costs not lower them. Thus, the middle and upper class don't support the idea because they are the ones who pay taxes.

Kooky Kucinich

Kucinich thinks the market has failed for health care, but has it. It has only failed if you think that the market is a charitable entity that basically gives something away for nothing. Like I said, Kucinich is kooky.

I'm sure there is more, but these cover most of the big objections to nationalized health care. Its a bad idea. Having the government get into the business of supplying private goods is a recipe for disaster. Look at the Soviet Union. People had to stand in line for toilet paper, potatoes, and tooth burshes. Do we want to have the same thing happen here?

Another Nice Find by Eugene Volokh

This one concerns the latest Democratic Presidential Candidate Wesley Clark.

On Meet the Press Clark saild the following,

The Bush tax cuts weren't fair. The people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. In other words, it's not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don't have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life.

Founded on progressive taxation? Yes, indeed it is correct that the Boston Tea Party was actually about progressive taxation. Typically the slogan is, "No taxation without representation." However, what was really said was "No progressive taxation without representation." It is a little known historical fact that all the Founding Fathers believed quite strenuously in progressive taxation. That is why it was in the Constitution when it was first adopted.

It is like that other mistaken belief that the phrase, "...of the people, by the people, and for the people..." is in President Lincoln's Gettysburg address. As Bill Clinton showed in his debate with Bob Dole, that phrase is in both the Decleration of Independence and Constitution.

Of course Clark is wrong. In fact, there is nothing in the Constitution that I know of that indicates we must have a progressive tax. Not even the 16th Amendment provides for a progressive income tax. It is not one of the founding principles at all.

Clark goes on to say the following,

When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries and you should—one of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country.

Living in this country is a luxury? Sheesh the thinking here is so muddled its scary. If it is a luxury it is one shared by everybody and we should all pay for it. The problem is that in terms of federal taxes not everybody pays for this "luxury". Those in the bottom 50% of the income distribution pay virtually no taxes.

To give such people a tax cut, you either have to raise their taxes, or you are advocating a transfer of income. An alternative explanation is that Clark is ignorant of the issue of income distribution, taxes, and so forth.

Update: My God that interview is a train wreck. I read a bit further and found this quote,

Well, you know, I think that what candidate Clark, if there is such a candidate, would be for is he would be for doing the right thing for government.

Do what is right for government? What about doing what is right for the people? This isn't a government, of the people, by the people, for the government. Even Bill Clinton got that last part right. Christ, I'm tempted to register as a Democrat just to vote against this guy.

The quote closes with this,

The American people on the one hand don’t like taxes. None of us do, but on the other hand, we expect the government to do certain things for us.

This is so simplistic and naive its staggering. Sure we want the government to do certain things. Such as providing for national defense and courts as two examples. We don't need the government getting into the business of providing private goods (nationalized healthcare), that is socialism. Clark's whole view suggests that he thinks that whatever the government wants to do is just peachy by him, so we'll need to raise taxes to cover it. I find this fundamentally wrong headed.

Bruce Ackerman on the Recall

I found this over at the Volokh Conspiracy and its a nice follow on to DaveL's post below. Ackerman is also a harsh critic of Bush v. Gore (according to Prof. Volokh) and he thinks the use of Bush v. Gore was wrong in this situation.

For starters, in 2000 the Supreme Court intervened only after the election. Its decision came too late to distort the actual conduct of the election campaign. In the run-up to November, George Bush and Al Gore shaped their political appeals to the voters in blissful ignorance of the crisis ahead. The court was thus able to focus on the question of equal protection in the recount without worrying about its decision's impact on crucial constitutional values of political speech.

And there is this cogent observation as well,

The decision departs from Bush v. Gore in a second way. When the Supreme Court stopped the recount, Florida's time was running out. Continuing the recount increased the risk that its electoral vote would be challenged in Washington when Congress counted all the electoral ballots. Whatever its other merits or demerits, the court's intervention protected the right of each state to make its voice heard in selecting the president.

In contrast, the present decision attacks states' rights at their very core. The short election period is central to California's political integrity. Its constitution places a limit of six months on this extraordinary process. By extending the election beyond this period, the court condemns the state to an extended period of political paralysis.

In other words well get months of Davis whoring out his office in an attempt to garner enough support to stay in office. And this is where Davis is quite venal. He does not seem interested in personal wealth or luxury, but he does seem quite attract to the trappings of power and is quite willing to do many dubious and even egregious things to maintain that power.

Ackerman also notes this decision tramples all over the First Amendment rights of Californians who participated in the recall effort.

Worse yet, the decision disrupts the First Amendment interests of the millions of Californians who have participated in the recall effort. State law promised them a quick election if they completed their petitions by an August deadline. Now their effort will have to compete in March with the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination. A campaign focused on California issues may be swamped by national politics.

Seems to me it does so by also moving the election date further away and combining it with the Democratic Primary. After all, isn't voting perhaps the single most meaningful form of political "speech"? Seems so to me. Yet here is what Ackerman says about the Ninth Circuits decision,

All of these concerns make the present case far more complex than Bush v. Gore. Three years ago, the Supreme Court had the luxury of focusing narrowly on the vote count and the extent to which it violated principles of equal protection. In contrast, the appeals court was also obliged to place the First Amendment freedoms of the candidates and the public into the balance. Unfortunately, the court's opinion doesn't even recognize the existence of this constitutional problem.

Its a pretty harsh critique of the decision. The Ninth Circuit has the dubious distinction of having more of its decisions overturned by the Supreme Court than anyother appellete court.

Yawn

I gotta tell you, I find this to be a real yawner. His procrastinating on whether or not to run, his lack of money, and lack of experience does not bode well for Clark.

Clark's view on health care is the killer for me.

He also thought Bush's tax cuts should be rolled back for the very wealthy but left in place for ordinary Americans and every citizen should be covered by health insurance "one way or another."--emphasis added source

Sorry, that kills it right there for me.

9th Curciut's Ruling full of Holes

I’ve been reading the decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the recall in California, and have some issues with it. Caveats: I am not a lawyer, or legal scholar, but I do score well on reading comprehension tests.

From the 9th Circus opinion:

Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim is much the same as the one in Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963). That case involved a Georgia county unit voting system that weighted rural county votes more heavily than urban county votes and weighted the votes from some small rural counties more heavily than larger rural counties. The Supreme Court held that this constituted a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, writing that “once the class of voters is chosen and their qualifications specified, we see no constitutional way by which equality of voting power may be evaded.” Id. at 381.

Here is a link for the actual GRAY v. SANDERS opinion from the Supreme Court:

Appellee, a qualified voter in primary and general elections in Fulton county, Georgia, sued in a Federal District Court to restrain appellants, the Secretary of State and officials of the State Democratic Executive Committee, from using Georgia's county-unit system as a basis for counting votes in a Democratic primary election for the nomination of a United States Senator and statewide officers - which was practically equivalent to election. Such primary elections are governed by a Georgia statute, which was amended in 1962 so as to allocate unit votes to counties as follows: Counties with populations not exceeding 15,000, two units; an additional unit for the next 5,000 persons; an additional unit for the next 10,000; an additional unit for each of the next two brackets of 15,000; and, thereafter, two more units for each increase of 30,000. All candidates for statewide office were required to receive a majority of the county-unit votes to be entitled to nomination in the first primary. The practical effect of this system is that the vote of each citizen counts for less and less as the population of his county increases, and a combination of the units from the counties having the smallest population gives counties having one-third of the total population of the State a clear majority of county votes. [emphasis added]

Is it just me, or is the cited case irrelevant? In Gray v Sanders, the USSC disallowed what was basically a miniature, county-level Electoral College. I don't see how an intentional scheme to inflate the value of rural voters is pertinent to this situation. The higher error rate of punch-card voting may result in "voter dilution", but it's not intentional, and it's not a sure-thing.

Another asinine rationalization from the 9th’s ruling:

The only potential justification is that the California Constitution requires that a recall election be held within sixty days of certification by the Secretary of State. . . . As to the gubernatorial recall vote, this rationale is also weak. Indeed, had the recall petition been certified just a month and a half later than it was, the recall election would have been scheduled to take place not within sixty to eighty days as provided in the California Constitution, art. II, §15(a), but instead in March 2004 under the California Constitution, art. II, § 15(b). That exception provides for the efficient consolidation of a recall election with an upcoming regularly scheduled election: “A recall election may be conducted within 180 days from the date of certification . . . in order that the election may be consolidated with the next regularly scheduled election . . . .” The operation of this exception produces arbitrary results; because the signatures were certified seven and a half — instead of six — months in advance of the March 2004 election, this exception does not apply, and the deadline falls in early October. In essence, granting a preliminary injunction would put the election only one and a half months after the longer six-month time period provided for by the California Constitution.

”[H]ad the recall petition been certified just a month and a half later than it was…” and if a frog had wings it wouldn’t bump its ass a-hoppin’.

I’m surprised that the court didn’t reference the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in 2002 that the deadlines spelled out in New Jersey election law were merely recommendations and didn’t really, matter.

The court spent several paragraphs (pages 50-51) comparing the burden to each of the parties (plaintiffs and Secretary of State) regarding the ballot initiatives. They offer several justifications as to why the burden on the plaintiffs far exceeds the burden to the SoS, including that the cost of canceling a special election (putting the issues on the next general election) are minimal. However, regarding the recall, they simply state: “As to the gubernatorial recall, the balance of hardships is a closer question, but, in our judgment, slightly favors the Plaintiffs” with no justifications for this belief.

The document contains frequent misuses of the Bush v Gore ruling, many of which have been addressed by other bloggers. This one particularly galls me:

Indeed, had the view of the Secretary of State that state law is the only relevant consideration been the rule, the Supreme Court could not have reached the conclusions it did in Reynolds, Gray, Harper, and Bush. . . . Most recently, in Bush, the Supreme Court found that a state’s method of counting votes offended the Constitution. In all these cases, and in many more, the public interest was measured in broader terms that were not confined to resort to state law alone.

Uhh, how do I put this politely? Wrong. The ruling in Bush wasn’t about the state’s method for counting votes. The FLSC decided that the recount methods prescribed in Florida election laws were irrelevant, and decided to apply their own arbitrary and unequal recounting methods in selected precincts only. The USSC didn’t allow them to do so.

In conclusion, “burning them in effigy” seems an appropriate response for the California electorate, assuming that the 9th hasn’t deemed that “hate speech” yet.

Gilligan's Island

Looks like things might not be going Andrew Gilligan's way.

"The error I made here was in expressing the understanding I had that the views had been conveyed to the Government as something which Kelly had told me directly, "said Gilligan.

Could you restate that, but this time in a coherent manner? Sheesh.

...Gilligan acknowledged that he had made "slips of the tongue" during a live broadcast by describing Kelly, the Ministry of Defense consultant, as an "intelligence service source".

"[I]ntelligence service source" is a slip of the tongue? I'm more willing to buy Bustamante's claim his use of the word "nigger" was a slip of the tongue.

He also admitted that he should not have sent an e-mail to a member of the parliamentary foreign affairs select committee to reveal Kelly as the source of another BBC report.

Yes, but we all know Tony Blair had Kelly killed. Its obvious because Kelly wouldn't share is recipe for shephard's pie with Blair.

"I was under an enormous amount of pressure at the time and simply was not thinking straight," Gilligan told the inquiry.

Honestly Skpper, I really didn't mean to put out the signal fire, destroy the Professor's makeshift radio, and lead the cannibals to our hidden cave. Really.

Good lord.

Krugman Interview

Kevin Drum at CalPundit manages to snag an interview with Paul Krugman. Now if you have read the Kraugthammer article linked below I recommend doing so before reading the interview.

In reading the interview it seems pretty obvious that Krugman really does not like Bush. That Krugman sees Bush as somebody who wants to destroy the