Deinonychus antirrhopus

There They Go Again & Is Bush Going to Be An Idiot

The press is once again all breathless with the erroneous claim that gasoline prices are at an all time high. The only high I'm wondering about is what drugs these journalists are using to get this high? The article notes that when adjusting for inflation gasoline prices would have to hit $2.99/gallon to beat the past high. But what do we see, titles about...record highs. I am simply staggered at the complete and totally blinkered idiocy of journalists. They have it quite clearly that prices are not at an all time high, but that is the title that is continually use.

As for Bush I wonder if he will be stupid enough to put price controls into place assuring that we don't have enough gasoline. It'll be cheap, you just wont be able to buy any. And when a station does have gasoline, there will be a nice long line. Bush has already shown that he will ignore economic logic for short term political gain, so who knows.

And to be fair, Kerry is also a moron. On the one hand he wants to help the environment. But on the other hand gasoline prices are too high. Sorry Senator Ketchup you can't have it both ways. Higher prices means less consumption of gasoline and other goods which is good for the enivornment. Stop talking out of your ass and your mouth.

Barbaric

The picture below is barbaric (i.e., don't click on it if you are easily offended). The picture is of some celebrating Iraqi's as they mutilated the bodies of four civilians, and then hung the charred corpses from a bridge.

Employment Forecasts

I found this interesting post over at EconLog. Arnold Kling points to this article by James K. Galbraith. In the article is this picture,

Notice the early years of that graph. They include 1991, 1992 and 1993. In other words, the Bush team was forecasting employment growth that is consistent with employment growth of the last recession.

Now admittedly their forecasts were wrong. This last recession was different. One interesting bit of research suggests that there was far more structural unemployment this time than in previous recession.

Given the historical behavior of employment/unemployment with regards to the business cycle it is interesting to note the attacks on Bush on these grounds. My guess is that whomever was sitting in the Oval Office and irrespective of their policies that the employment situation wouldn't change much.

Further, it is amazing that Kerry's claims about how much he'll improve the employment/unemployment situation are given a complete pass. Elect Kerry he'll expand employment by 10 million jobs for Goddamned sure. There can be no doubt that Kerry's policies will result in 10 million new jobs. Nevermind that Kerry thinks Bush's tax cuts for the "middle class" are just fine. Nevermind that Kerry has virtually no other plans to improve employment. Nevermind that Kerry is virtually all talk and no policy, plan, or even an inkling of an idea other than to subsidize businesses and increase taxes on those making over $200,000/year.

Kerry's campaign promise is as good as gold. Bush on the other hand is a slime bag who should be run out of town on a rail. Nope, nothing irrational here.

Minimum Wage Laws

The other day while listening to the radio there was a segment that covered John Kerry talking about raising the minimum wage. I didn't hear the whole quote, but the impression was that Kerry wants to raise the minimum wage quite a bit. I figured that this could re-start the argument over the minimum wage. Does it reduce employment or not? There has been some research indicating that no, increasing the minimum wage does not have an adverse impact on employment.

The two researchers are David Card and Alan Krueger. Their first paper was basically a phone survey of fast-food restaurant owners to see if the increase in New Jersey would have an adverse effect on employment.

Since this kind of result is somewhat contrary to what standard economic theory predicts other researchers have also looked at this issue and specifically the New Jersey/Pennsylvania data. Two researchers are David Neumark and William Wascher. Their paper actually looked at the payroll records vs. relying on a phone survey. Their results were that there was a decrease in employment.

Card and Krueger then did a follow up analysis using a somewhat different data set and again found little support for the theoretical prediction that increasing the minimum wage would lower employment.

So who is right? Well one thing to keep in mind is that if the equilibrium wage is above the minimum wage then there is likely to be little impact on employment if the minimum wage is raised to a point at or below the current equilibrium wage. Of course, the problem with this explanation is that it assumes nobody is currently being paid the minimum wage. If this is not the case than this explanation probably wont work.

Another explanation is found in this paper on rescheduling. The basic idea is this: Firms have two ways of responding to an increase in the minimum wage.

1. Layoff workers,
2. Change work schedules around and reduce hours worked.

This last one could, in theory, explain both the fact that after the increase in the minimum wage employment rose, but that hours worked decreased. Here is a simple table of how this would work.

	$4.00/Hour		$4.25/Hour
Worker	Hours	Pay	Hours	Pay
1	8	32	6.4	27.2
2	5	20	4	17
3	5	20	4	17
4	4	16	3.2	13.6
5	6	24	4.8	20.4
6	8	32	6.4	27.2
7	7	28	5.6	23.8
8	8	32	6.4	27.2
9	4	16	3.2	13.6
10	4	16	3.2	13.6
11			4	17
12			4	17
Totals	59	236	55.2	234.6

What we see is that there is a decrease in total hours worked, but not a large one, and we also see two new workers being hired.

Now this does not answer questions such as: do increases in the minimum wage help workers earning minimum wage salaries. Notice that all current employees take a pay cut in terms of total pay (while their hourly wage actually goes up). On the other hand, two new workers who otherwise would not be employed now have jobs. So what is the net result? Really hard to say. I think this is the honest answer. Saying it will help or wont is assuming alot.

Some of the problems in measuring the total overall welfare effect for such a change in the minimum wage is that people all to frequently focus on simply money. For example, notice that there is a 6.4% decrease in the total number of hours worked. This could very well translate into closing the stores down a little bit early. This will have an adverse impact on consumers. However, this impact will typically be ignored when trying to measure the benefits and costs of changing the minimum wage. Further, the more the minimum wage is increased the more hours will have to decline. Eventually there may very well be a point where the firm will start laying off workers.

Don't expect this to stop the candidates. Even the "nuanced" Kerry wont touch this kind of nuance...especially since it doesn't fit nicely with his campaign message.

Kevin Drum's Advice To Bush: Tell the Truth

Kevin thinks that the best strategy would have been to tell the "truth" with regards to Clarke's accusations. Kevin lays out the two main accusations,

1. The Bushies didn't take terrorism seriously enough when they first took office.

2. After 9/11, they were too obsessed with Iraq, which has been a distraction from the war on terror.

In my view, there are two ways to look at the first criticism, ex-post (with hindsight) and a priori (trying to view the situation at the time--i.e., pre-9/11). Clearly with hindsight we can say that the attention given over to terrorism was not sufficient. There was a failure of the government to do its most basic job: protect its citizens from a foreign attack. With the crystal clarity of hindsight we can see that not only was there not enough resources and attention given over to terrorism in general and al Qa'ida in specific during the Bush Administration, but also in the Clinton Administration and even the George H. W. Bush's presidency and maybe even as far back as Reagan's as well. So yes, in this regard, the truth is that not enough was done...by lots of people (including Clarke, after all I think it is fair to ask why al Qa'ida and bin Laden were not taken care of during his 8 years with the Clinton Administration).

The second one is a bit more difficult. From what I've read, in terms of actual policy much of what Clinton and his team did, the Bush Administration continued (after review) and in some cases were going to do more. If these were the right policies during the Clinton Administration then they were the right policies during the Bush Administration (remembering we are talking about looking at these things in pre-9/11 terms). Clarke also makes some pretty devastating personal claims that I'm not convinced are true.

"If Condi Rice had been doing her job and ... if she had a hands-on attitude to being national security adviser", crucial information about the hijackers would have bubbled up from field intelligence officers to policy-makers.

How come this policy didn't work with regards to the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, the Khobar Towers? I am not convinced that Clarke can make that statement with certainty. It may have happened...it may not. After all, Clarke clearly missed some incoming attacks. How does being hands on cause intelligence ot bubble up? Does she start calling field agents? Start asking about muslims who are talking flying lessons...what? Now...from the AFDB brigade here is a disturbing thought: Is Clarke this certain because he saw some of this intelligence, but didn't pass it on?

So it strikes me as being far less clear that the answer is simply yes, when you look at this criticism from a pre-9/11 vantage point.

As for the second criticism I am rather tired of this one. It is a fact that the first target in the War on Terror was Afghanistan, al Qa'ida and the Taliban. That is where we went first. That is where we still have troops today looking for more al Qa'ida operatives including the big guy himself. This idea of being fixated on Iraq seems to be a fixation of only those on the Left. Now, one could argue about going into Iraq two years later, but right after 9/11 it was not much of an issue. Some initial speculation that Saddam might have had a hand in it, but that seems about it.

As for admitting to the truth in the hindsight version. Sorry, Kevin is being politically naive here. As soon as the Bush Administration does that it will become a primary Kerry campaign ad. A quick spin through Spinsanity and/or FactCheck.org it becomes quite apparent the both sides love to take quotes out of context and try to use them to gain an advantage. So while it Kevin is right in that sure with hindsight we all wish more had been done about terrorism, there is almost no possible way to admit this without giving one's political rivals a nice bit of campaign ammunition.

Why Isn't Rice Testifying?

Maybe for the same reason Richard Clarke didn't testify before a Senate committee in 1999?

On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Y2K computer scare.

Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee -- due to a directive by the National Security Council.

The Clinton White House would not allow Richard Clarke to testify before Congress in 1999, for the same reason the Bush White House is using to deny Dr. Rice's testimony before the congressionally appointed 9/11 panel!

{snip}

[Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) from the congressional record]:

Last night, into the evening, we were notified that the legal staff of the National Security Council had determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to appear. I have just spoken to him on the telephone. The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress. They can perform briefings, but they are not to give testimony. And that in response to that rule, Mr. Clarke will not be coming.
[emphasis added]

1. It's a commission not a congressional committee. (Distinction without meaning IMHO).

2. She's a Republican.

Any others?

Thanks to Ricky West for the pointer.

Update: I swear I wrote this before reading the comments section at North Georgia Dogma. Skip Perry wrote:

Testifying before Congress is completely different than testifying for a commission that the president's signature created. These are apples and oranges.

So is the commission a derivative of Congress or the Executive Branch?

Carnival of the Capitalists

Is located here.

Note to all Future Hosts: Tone down the spam guard and you might find you'll have more submissions...and probably more links.

Kerry's Budget

One of John Kerry's campaign promises is to cut the deficit from its current level of about $500 billion to half that level by the end of his first term as President. However, in looking at the numbers on Kerry's proposal to increase taxes on those making over $200,000/year there wont be enough money. Here are the numbers (in billions of dollars) from the Tax Policy Center,

Year	Repeal Top Marginal Rate	Repeal Top Two Marginal Rates
2005	21.6	25.8
2006	27.4	31.8
2007	29.1	33.8
2008	34.5	39.3
2009	37.9	43.2
Total	150.5	173.9

So we are talking about increasing revenues by about $150 billion to $175 billion. Now, we add in Kerry's plan of increasing spending by spending $895 billion on health care reform over 10 years, and we we end up $970 billion in the red.

Now it could work out that the economy will keep going strong like it is now and that this economic recovery will do all the work for Kerry on cutting the deficit in half. This means we are on $720 billion in the hole. Of course, one thing we have yet to see any real numbers on is the impact of Kerry's tax credit for small businesses that hire new workers. So it seems pretty clear to me that with Kerry taxes are going to have to go up...and pretty soon. Also, given that Kerry is opposed privatizing Social Security (and Medicare) it is pretty much a safe bet those taxes are going to go up too.

Bottomline: Kerry will likely have to raise taxes, and raise them quite a bit.

Update: After 2010 the increased revenue from increasing the marginal tax rates goes to zero, so even if we include 2010 revenue in the above it still leaves about a $670 billion dollar hole in the budget over 10 years. This also assumes there are no additional cuts in spending. So it is hard to take Kerry as being serious when he says he wants to cut the deficit. Adding on over a half trillion in debt isn't what I'd call a winning strategy.

Update II: In comments, Robin Roberts posts this link to the National Tax Union's analysis of John Kerry's spending proposals. The amount is pretty staggering, IMO: $276.9 billion/year or $2.769 trillion over ten years. Given that from 2005 to 2010 the most Kerry could raise in revenue from repealing the tax cuts on those making over $200,000 is about $250 billion, I can't see how Kerry can keep his promise to cut taxes.

I suppose we could take the really cynical view that virtually none of his policies will be passed hence most of the spending wont really take place. Of course, if we take this view then why vote for Kerry? Because he isn't Bush?

Kerry's Corporate Tax Cut

Kerry has decided to come up with a policy to cut corporate taxes. This is a fine example of "carrot-and-stick" policy. A politician wants to do something so he comes up with what he thinks is the appropriate carrot that the various actors (indiviuals, families, firms, etc.) will follow.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with Eric Engen,

"Some companies would view it as a good trade-off, some would not," said American Enterprise Institute economist Eric M. Engen. "But from an economic standpoint, lowering the corporate rate across the board is positive for the economy."

I'm not sure about the one time "tax holiday" thought. In an effort to get firms to bring back money from overseas operations and invest here, these profits will be taxed at only 10 percent. The main road block to this is that if the revenue stream from such an investment is expected to be lower here in the U.S., even with the low tax rate, firms probably wont bring the money back into the U.S.

Another interesting comment in the article that doesn't get much mention is Kerry's claim to achieve an unemployment rate of 4.1%. This will amount to 10 million jobs in Kerry's first year. I'm highly skeptical of this goal. Bush may not have been stimulating the economy in just the right way, but there has been considerable stimulus and job growth has been anemic. It is quite possible that the unemployment rate is going to stay right about where it is for a few years, maybe slowly inching down a little bit. The overall impact of this carrot should be pretty small.

Update: Here is Kerry's plan to create 10 million jobs. It is a mish-mash of carrot-and-stick policies such as a "new job tax credit". That is, even though employers who are going to hire somebody that will make them money, John Kerry will give them even more money. Granted, this will probably help in some small way to induce more employers to expand their payrolls, but it will also be a form of pork to many other employers who were going to hire anyways.

From Kerry's website,

The Secretary of the Treasury - in consultation with the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce - would determine which industries were classified as "manufacturing and other industries affected by outsourcing."

Funny I don't see anybody on the Left caterwauling about this like they did the comments by N. Gregory Mankiw about what constitutes a manufacturing job. One of the problems that should leap out at anybody who is familiar with the concept of rent seeking is that many firms will want to be catagorized as one of the firms that qualifies for this nice yummy, salty pork. Another question I have is how long will this tax benefit be in effect? If it is only a year or two, it could very lead to a number of layoffs when the tax credit is phased out/repealed.

Update II: Max is caterwauling right now (his word...well okay, it is my word, but he used it too!).

I do not look forward to a restoration of the economic policy of Robert Rubin, but the release of Kerry’s first major economic proposal promises exactly that. The personnel are certainly falling into place – Roger Altman and Gene Sperling, for two, both veteran Clintonoids.

Clintonoids...LOL, good one Max (reminds me of my wife's name for people in our area--Chinoids).

Kerry is foregrounding his corporate tax reform as a jobs measure. Right from the jump, he is mixing up the difference between an anti-recession, counter-cyclical policy, and a long-run structural one. His proposal is structural. As such, whatever its merits, it glosses over the fundamental issue of fiscal policy – deficits and monetary expansion. The implication is that the latter run on automatic pilot. In other words, Kerry has no short-term fiscal policy. Insofar as Kerry fails to distinguish between the harm from long- as opposed to short-term deficits, his fiscal policy stance is perverse.

I'll say this is one time where Max and I can agree on several points.

1. The getting to the 4.1% unemployment: How exactly, please?
2. The tax credit for new hires: Job turn-over means cycling from taxed to tax-favored.
3. The tax cut would likely have a positive effect on wages.

Don't get me wrong, getting to 4.1% unemployment would be great. I'm just not convinced that we can get there (although Max is). Well, if it turns out that unemployment goes that low, I'll happily admit to being wrong.

Matthew Yglesias on Clarke

This could be titled a study in contradictions. Matthew writes in a post the following,

To take an example. The administration says that they did take terrorism seriously, and the proof is that work was under way on a "comprehensive plan" against al-Qaeda. The administration also says that Clarke was "out of the loop" on national security policy. The person charged with drawing up the plans was Richard Clarke. So, to put the administration's case together, they handled terrorism by tasking an official with creating a plan and then keeping the official in question out of the loop. Pardon my French, but this is the exact Godamned thing that Clarke is accusing them of.--emphasis in the orignal

Here are my problems with the above.

1. That Bush and his Administration are dishonest (or maybe just insane).
   1. Methods
   2. The Worst
   3. Good Point
   4. What's To Like?
2. According to Clarke, Bush's plans were the same as Clinton's if not more aggressive in some regards.

Now, despite the fact that the Administration is dishonest and untrustworthy, Matthew takes what two administration officials have said and treats it as if it were the pure unadulterated truth.

Second, we have Clarke saying things like, "there was no higher priority" than terrorism during the Clinton Administration. Yet, we have Clarke telling us Bush did very similar things, and in some cases wanted to increase the aggressiveness.

Matthew's breathless credulity when it comes to Clarke is simply stunning. If Clarke says it, it must be true. Why? Don't ask why? If you disagree, then you are simply a dumbass who reads InstaPundit.

How about this: Matthew believes Clarke because it agrees with his world view that Bush is a bad guy to have in the Presidency. This is just another reason to dislike Bush (which Matthew clearly does).

Yep, that seems to fit.

Political Processes vs. Market Processes

In this post of mine, I point to two posts at the Volokh conspiracy which highlights what can be considered a "soft" libertarian view (see here and here). I also pointed to this post by Henry Farell that turned the basic idea,

The failure of market processes to produce an optimal result does not ensure that the political process will do a better job.

on its head. Henry's idea being that, "Sure the political process as a means of allocating resources fail, but this does not ensure that privitazation/markets will do better." I noted that, as far as I know, there is nothing to assure us that political process will, in general, do a decent job of allocating resources. Further, that there are some theoretical results that indicate "market outcomes are in some ways desirable."

Henry showed up and in comments posted that this notion is entirely rubbish. There are number of problems with Henry's comment,

Well ... one good straw man deserves another ... If you don't believe in all markets all of the time, fair enough - apologies for having misrepresented your position. But I still think you're completely mistaken here. General equilibrium models such as Arrow-Debreu are so unrealistic as to be interesting only as theoretical results (as Arrow himself is happy to agree). Partial equilibrium models can say pretty well anything that you want them to say - markets good, markets bad, markets whatever. So where are the equilibrium models that suggest in some general sense "that markets are desirable?" And if you want theories to suggest that political processes can lead to good outcomes, there's umpteen of them, contrary to your claim.

Now, first off Henry is equivocating here. I was speaking specifically of theoretical results of perfectly competitive equilibrium models (i.e., general equilibrium models). Granted, these nice results are dependent on a number of assumptions that in real life are not going to hold. Granted markets will fail. Henry makes several mistakes, in my veiw.

First, nobody said markets wont fail. In fact, there is an implicit assumption in my posts and those posts at the Volokh Conspiracy that markets will likely fail. So noting that the theoretical result does not hold in practical terms is not that devastating a point to raise as we all agree on it.

Second, the desirable properties of the theoretical result is that the market outcome is efficient--i.e., pareto optimal. Now some look at that and say, "there, the market outcome is good." This is not necessarily the case and that is not my view at all (as much as Henry would like it to be). The "desirable" property of the pareto optimal outcome is that the gains from trade have been exhausted. That is by voluntarily engaging in market transactions people have arrived at a point where the only way to make one person better off is to one or more people worse off. Now, this is a very weak property in terms of desirability in that is says nothing at all about issues such as equity. The loci of pareto optimal points (i.e., the contract curve) contains infinitely many points including outcomes where there is total inequality more equitable outcomes as well.

Now there is also a theoretical result that points out that any pareto optimal point can be attained with the correct price vector and re-allocation on endowments (this is the Second Fundamental Welfare Theorem). But note, while this does allow for some government policy to address the issue of equality it still relies on the market process to attain the final outcome. One could argue you could simply redistribute the resources so that you get the outcome you want, but the problem is that you can't do this. The reason you can't do this is that people's utility functions (i.e., their preferences) are unobservable.

So the pareto optimal outcome, in my view, is better then a pareto sub-optimal outcome. The pareto sub-optimal outcome means that you can make at least one person better off and nobody else worse off by moving to a pareto optimal outcome.

So what about market failure? Yes, that is a problem as has been noted right from the very begining of this whole discussion. The question is can the political process provide a solution to market failure. An honest answer is: Maybe. Initially, the typical approach to a market failure first determine the...wait for it...pareto optimal outcome then find out which policies can be put into place to attain such an outcome. Now the problem is that often times the policy prescriptions necessary to attain the pareto optimal outcome are not...wait for it...politically feasible. Things like lump sum taxes tend to be held in low regard by the electorate ("Hi, we're here to collect the $5,000. Yeah a check will do just nicely.") This realization has led to the Theory of the Second Best. Now it isn't just political considerations that can limit which policies can implemented. Another problem can be informational requirements. The very same information problems that inhibit the market from attaining a "good" outcome can inhibit the political/policy process from attaining a "good" outcome. Of course, marekts are often times capable of find ways around these problems¹. That is, market failure sometimes means there are gains from trade that are not being realized, and peopel sometimes have incentives to solve such problems. It is not clear to me that there is a similar incentive with the political process.

So to me, the idea that markets are, in general, not fairly good at allocating resources is a faulty claim. The only thing left of Henry's comment that I haven't addressed is the idea that there are "umpteen theories" about how political processes can result in "good outcomes". My first question is what is Henry's idea of a "good outcome". I've relied on the pareto optimal outcome above, but that isn't the only measure. Second what are these theories? If we limit ourselves to pareto optimal as the measure there are a some processes that are political and can lead to "good outcomes" in limited contexts. One I've already mentioned, the Median Voter Theorem. Another processes that might be considered political is the Groves-Clark-Vickery mechanism for revealing preferences. So while there might be such political processes I am unaware of them.
_____
¹One example are warranties. A warranty can be a way of signalling the quality of a product. This can be a (partial?) solution to problems such as Akerlof's lemon model.

Aww Dammit!

I might have to change my views on David Bernstein's posts if he keeps writing stuff like this. Prof. Bernstein lays out very nicely the libertarian critique of anti-trust policy.

The losses from antitrust law can be huge: the costs of rent-seeking and countering rent-seeking alone can dwarf any gains from good antitrust enforcement, and antitrust enforcement won't necessarily be good. The question, to this extent, is whether you would rather have market outcomes be governed by Wall Street or K Street. Meanwhile, the losses from monopoly are not likely to be huge. The monopolist sells at a monopoly price, and gains monopoly prices, but the product is still, after all, on the market. And the available monopoly rents should lead to competitors trying to break the monopoly.

Which is exactly right. However, I'd also add that the government is one of the sources of market power and that firms will also engage in rent seeking to gain market power. This too is a loss to society and points to one of the inherent contradictions in government. One part of the government grants market power while another part tries to take it away.

Juan Non-Volokh then follows up with this post, which makes the obvious point.

The failure of market processes to produce an optimal result does not ensure that the political process will do a better job.--emphasis in the original

This too is precisely right. Simply because there is an optimal outcome does not mean we can get there. This is topic I have addressed on this blog before. There is this post on the theory of the second best. There is also the problem with fact that many solutions are arrived at via the political process (posts on that can be found here, here, and here).

Henry Farrell at Crooked Timber tries to turn this idea on its head. The problem with Henry's little joke is that there is nothing that says the political process has to lead to a good outcome (theoretical or practical), while theoretical equilibrium models on the other hand do indicate that market outcomes are in some ways desirable.

The perfectly competitive equilibrium model results in a pareto optimal outcome. This is the same type of outcome proponents of government intervention often point too. However, there is nothing in the political process that assures us of getting to that point. The only exception that I am aware of is the median voter theorem and the requirements for this theorem are about as stringent (maybe even moreso) as those for a perfectly competitive outcome.

Clarke Update

Daniel Drezner says, that so far, he sees it as personal animus on the part of Dick Clarke.

• Ronald Reagan, during which I was just a State Department DAS and therefore had marginal influence;
• George H.W. Bush, whose Secretary of State demoted me;
• Bill Clinton, who was wise enough to listen to my sage advice and let me run the Principals meetings on counterterrorism;
• George W. Bush, who had the gall to strip me of the hard-won autonomy and power I achieved under Clinton and force me to work through the regular chain of command

And why not make a few bucks while doing it. That it is making a few bucks off one of the worst tragedies in U.S. history is what makes it so despicable (well...if true).

Update: Jeff Jarvis is not happy with Clarke's apology.

And check out Rex Hammock!

Okay, Mr. Clarke. The government that failed those families has now dedicated billions of dollars and hundreds of lives of its courageous military to stamp out those who threaten our shores. In all theaters of battle, young American soldiers and sailors have printed the the words, "We shall never forget" on weapons, vehicles and military aircraft in honor of those who died on 9/11. Mr. Clarke, what similar level of resitution have you displayed for your failure other than an attempt to cash in on that tragedy with your book promotion? And now, on the graves of those victims, you grandstand an apology to promote its marketing efforts. So therefore, Mr. Clarke, I suggest you do this: Announce today that ALL PROCEEDS of the book (not just a portion of the profits, but ALL PROCEEDS) will go to one of the funds that have been set up for the families of the victims...or another specific charity that will help give meaning to your disingenous apology.

Update II: Time Magazine: Clark at war with Himself.

Is it me or is the final paragraph a polite way of saying, "Have a nice cup of shut the fuck up"?

Leaving aside the fact that Bush never fails to insist that the terror threat is as great today as it was on 9/11, these passages reveal the polemical, partisan mean-spiritedness that lies at the heart of Clarke's book, and to an even greater degree, his television appearances flacking it. That's a shame, since many of his contentions — about the years of political and intelligence missteps that led to 9/11, the failure of two Administrations to destroy al-Qaeda and the potentially disastrous consequences of the U.S. invasion of Iraq — deserve a wide and serious airing. From now on, the country would be best served if Clarke lets the facts speak for themselves.

FactCheck.Org Short on Facts

Well a couple of facts in this article. In discussing the debate over the claim that Kerry wants to raise taxes by $900 billion FactCheck.org writes,

But Kerry's ambitious health-care plan that would indeed cost an estimated $895 billion over 10 years. And Kerry has also promised to cut the current $500-billion federal deficit in half. Can he pay for all that while raising taxes only for the wealthy? Those numbers don't quite add.

Lets have all the facts here please. The claim of cutting the deficit ($500 billion) in half is over a 4 year period. The way FactCheck.org has written it, it looks like 10 years as with Kerry's health care plan.

Further, FactCheck.org also omits the fact that Kerry has been promising to cut taxes on the "middle class" which according to my back of the envelope calculations would come to tax cut of about $20 billion. I'm not sure of the time frame on this tax cut.

Geez, if you can't count on an orgainization called FactCheck.org to check its facts who can you trust?

Update: More problems at FactCheck.org. This article talks about the spin by Democrats, but first has to provide the "facts" the Democrats rely on.

The President really did say in July 2002 -- incredible as it may seem now -- that the federal budget could be in balance by 2005. Instead, the deficit for the current year is estimated to be around half a trillion dollars and deficits are projected for the next 10 years at least.

And the ad isn't far off the mark showing a giant balloon labeled "Bush's $5.2 Trillion Deficit." Officially, the Congressional Budget Office projects the 10-year deficit at just over $2 trillion, but that's too low because by law the CBO must assume that Congress will let a number of popular spending programs and tax cuts expire, which is unrealistic.

Independent analysts from the Brookings Institution and the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities both figure the deficit will amount to more than $5 trillion over the next 10 years if, among other things, Bush succeeds in making his tax cuts permanent and also gets the increases in military spending that he's said he would seek.

What is the problem? Calling estimates of how much will be added to the debt (the $5.2 trillion) a fact. It isn't a fact it is an estimate as shown by this phrase, "but that's too low because by law the CBO must assume that Congress will let a number of popular spending programs and tax cuts expire, which is unrealistic."

The problem is that it is not clear that these measures will be extended. For example, if Kerry wins the election it becomes much more unlikely that they will be extended. What are the chances of Kerry winning? Even if Bush wins it still isn't a sure thing these provisions will be extended.

The extension of such spending programs and tax cuts is from our perspective, i.e. from right now, a random variable. As such the unconditional estimate for the amount added to the national debt due to increased deficits is lower than $5.2 billion (and yes, higher than the CBO estimates).

If we start calling these kinds of things facts, then it seems to me it is fine to call the Bush assertion that Kerry will have to raise taxes by $900 billion a fact too. We can come up with a set of assumptions and forecasts which would necessitate raising taxes $900 billion over 10 years and cutting the federal deficit by $250 billion in 4 years.

A fact is something that you observe. For example, the $6.14 I spent on a shrimp burrito the other day is a fact. The $5 I might spend at lunch tomorrow is an estimate and is not a fact.

It is misleading for an organization that purports to be about checking facts to be labeling estimates as facts.

Sets Another Record?

Why are journalists such dimwits? This article has a headline claims gasoline prices have set a new record.

The average price for regular gas rose two-tenths of a cent to $1.742 a gallon at self-service stations. Before this week, the record high by AAA standards was set late last summer, toward the end of the peak driving season.

A year ago, the average gasoline price was $1.68 a gallon, said the AAA, which is the largest motorist and travel group in the United States and commissions a daily survey of more than 60,000 gas stations.

Okay, so today the average price is $1.742. However, during the oil crunch in 1981 the price hit about $2.80 (in 2002 dollars) when you adjust for inflation. Later in the article we have precisely this information,

In relative terms, this is not the highest price per gallon. In 1981, when adjusted for inflation, the average price hit $2.94 a gallon.

Relative terms are really what matter. If I told you your salary was going to double, but that all prices would also double would you be richer? No¹. How come journalists suffer from money illusion? To the above question the people who wrote this would answer yes to being richer if their income and all prices doubled.

Now this doesn't mean that price increases aren't an issue, they are. An increase in any price reduces the overall welfare of consumers (holding all other variables constant). So a sudden run-up in prices means that people will be worse off since changes in wages and incomes tends to be "lumpy".

Oh well, I guess I should be happy they at least mentioned the inflation adjustment at the bottom of the article. Idiot journalists.

Update: Looks like Lynne Kiesling has similar thoughts on this as I do. It is nice to know that she has some students who are studying both economics and journalism. She's right there is a need for people who understand economics and who will write news articles.

She also has a link to an article on investment in drilling for oil and natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico. The author notes that as energy prices rise, previously expensive exploration becomes more attractive.

Well...that helps restore a bit of confidence in journalists (and at the NY Times no less).
_____
¹This should be pretty obvious, but in case it helps here is the 8th grade math necessary to see that doubling prices and income does not make one richer,

P_x*x + P_y*y = I.

Now to double all prices and income we write,

2*P_x*x + 2*P_y*y = 2*I.

Now using the associative property journalists (save maybe Jayson Blair) learned in 8th grade we can re-write the above as,

2*(P_x*x + P_y*y) = 2*I.

Now, the 2's on each side of the equals sign cancel leaving us with,

P_x*x + P_y*y = I.

That is precisely the same budget constraint before we doubled prices and income--in other words no change in the budge constraint, no change in wealth. It is really that simple.

Goldbergism Generator

You too can now make insightful and poignant insults like Jonah Goldberg!

FTR, I am a perfidious, gitchy-goo cheesemonkey, while Steve is a drooling, toothless crapweasel.

Clarke a Rove Plant?

Politics or humor, you decide.

When the, umm, variances-with-reality in Richard Clarke's book / 60 Minutes interview started to come to light, I jokingly thought some of the conspiracy theory crowd would consider him to be a mole planted by Machiavelli Karl Rove to embarrass the anti-Bushites. I didn't post it because I thought it was just too nutty.

Evidently Glenn Reynolds the Instapundit has been lining his cap with some aluminum foil.

This guy's working for Rove. By the time he's done imploding, Bush will have discredited the media and all his critics. It's the only thing that makes sense.

More Problems with Clarke's Veracity

One thing that struck me was Clarke's claim to being a mind reader. Okay, Clarke didn't claim to actually be able to read minds; no Clarke simply implied quite strongly that he could tell what a person was thinking (with a fairly high degree of accuracy) by looking at ones face.

While hammering Condoleezza Rice as completely incompetent Clarke claims in his book that when he warned Rice in early 2001 about the threat from al-Qaeda she appeared to never have heard of the terrorist organization. Clarke writes, “Her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before."--link

Well thanks to the indefatigable Henry Hanks we now know this is quite possibly another lie on Clarke's part.

On Oct. 4, 2000, Condoleezza Rice was asked by WJR radio host David Newman what a Bush administration would do about the Osama threat... Rice spoke at length about the threat, and what needed to be done to deal with it... She said that we don't want to wake up one day and find that Osama has been successful on our own territory.

Ooopsie. Of course, this is just simple Clarke bashing according some of the more dimwitted journalists. Never mind that it actually contradicts one of Clarke's claims. Nevermind that it now appears Clarke is engaging in the very same behavior that these journalists decry in others. It is okay for Clarke to make factually inaccurate claims about Condolezza Rice, but for somebody to make an accurate claim the debunks Clarke why that is simply partisan character assassination.

I can't believe these guys actually get paid to pretend to be journalists.

Update: Glenn Reynolds posts this brief from Clarke,

January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent. . . .

The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda. . .

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.--emphasis added
Source

In other words, Clarke said that not only did hte Bush Administration do what the Clinton Administration was doing it strengthened some of these policies.

See guys like Big Media Matt would call this an attempt to discredit Clarke and ingnore the charges Clarke is making. The problem is it actually looks at what Clarke said earlier to see if it fits with what he is saying now. So which is it: was Clarke lying to reporters back in 2002 or is he lying now?

Further, this goes to what Clarke is saying. What did the Bush team do? Did it do anything against terrorism and al Qa'ida specifically, did it take such threats seriously? According to Clarke's own statements it looks like the Bush team took things as seriously as the Clinton team if not more seriously. Was it enough to stop 9/11, obviously not, but it does call into question Clarke's veracity and motives. Why is Clarke now saying and writing things that appear to contradict his previous briefing to reporters?

Update II: Clay Ranck has two post on this as well, here and here. Both are worth reading.

Update III: I'm begining to wonder if Henry Hanks is even human. Yet another find by Henry. This article pretty much points out that Clarke is playing politics with his book. Even if we assume that all of his accusations are true, i.e., not enough was done to combat Al Qa'ida prior to 9/11 and then later the invasion of Iraq diverted attention and resources from hunting terrorists, this first part of the criticism can be levelled against not just Bush but Clinton, the first President Bush and perhaps even Reagan.

In research for my latest book, I found Clarke to be one of the few heroes in the Bush White House. He was a career bureaucrat who served under four presidents and one of the first officials to recognize the seriousness of the threat posed by Al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalists. But it is disappointing to see Clarke pick on only one of the four administrations under which he served; after all, there were decades of American incompetence and inaction, and they all deserve a share of the blame.

And in my opinion so does Clarke. It was literally on his watch when the Cole and the U.S. embassies were bombed. If he felt that not enough was being done under Clinton then why not quit then and go public? Why now in an election year?

Clarke knows better than to blame any one administration. And so do most of the partisans now pointing fingers at each other.

No one party or administration is to blame for 9/11. They all are. There was a systematic failure to recognize the early threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism, and a thorough unwillingness to aggressively confront that threat once it was identified. If the 9/11 commission does its work correctly, both parties will have to hang their heads in shame before the electorate this November.

Now that I agree with. Yes, a systemic failure. Is part of Clarke's message that not enough has been done to address that systemic failure? If so he has done a dis-service to his career, his supporters, and to every American by letting that message get lost in the political angling/personal benefit that he has sought out.

Update IV: Daniel Drezner has a really good post on Richard Clarke. Here are some key parts,

Second, he was extremely skilled in the art of bureaucratic politics. One official who saw Clarke in action -- and has no love for this administration -- described him to me as "smart, conservative, dedicated, insecure, and vindictive." I've heard stories from both friends and foes of Clarke, and they have one common thread -- you did not want this man for an enemy. He knows how to retaliate. [UPDATE: check out Fred Kaplan's sidebar and main story in Slate about Clarke for examples.]

So, when the Bush team decided to jettison Clarke sometime after 9/11, they made an enemy out of Clarke. And they're paying for that now.

So, does Clarke have a personal incentive to stick it to this administration? Absolutely. Does he know what he's talking about? Absolutely.

In short, the idea that Clarke wants to burn the Bush Administration out of personal animus towards those in the Bush Administration could indeed have some truth to it...and why not make a buck or a million doing it if you can.

As for the best response to Clarke,

The best thing for this administration is to say in response to Clarke would be: "Yes, if we could turn back time, we'd have given AQ more consideration. But it probably would not have prevented 9/11. And don't claim that we could solve a problem in eight months that the last team -- in which Clarke was the lead on this policy front -- couldn't solve over eight years."

Which is close to what I have been saying. Clearly if we got a "do-over" knowing what we know now, in January 2001 Bush would start mobilizing the troops immediately for invasion of Afghanistan and would put out the word to hunt down the 9/11 19 and have them all arrested or killed on sight. But we can't do that so the only constructive thing to be gained from looking at the past is to see where the mistakes were made in the process so as to improve the results.

As for the selection of the target, the Bush Administration did select Clarke's preferred target. This criticism of his seems almost devoid of anything useful and looks the most spiteful. To say that Clarke isn't bitter is, in my opinion, to close one's eyes to a very real motivating factor here. To use this tragedy to assuage his own bruised ego, if true, portrays Clarke as a venal and despicable man.

Iraq War One Year Later

I watched this History Channel's multipart series. It was pretty interesting, especially the interviews with the Apache pilots who were POW's.

One gripe -- if you didn't have any other source of information, you'd get the impression from this documentary that the Marines don't have the intelligence or organizational skills to run a bake sale.

There was more resistance than expected at Nassariya -- the Marine Espeditionary Force was surprised. There was less resistance as the entered Baghdad -- the MEF was surprised. There was a sandstorm -- the MEF was surprised. They moved slower than planned and didn't adequately support the 3rd ID. They moved faster than planned and outran their supply lines.

The documentary left the impression that almost every move the MEF made was a reaction to the wily Iraqi resistance. For example, MEF was planning on just taking a couple of bridges over the Euphrates in Nassariya, but when resistance was stiffer than expected (surprise!), they decided to secure the area around the bridges before moving up the valley. The documentary left the impression that this was an unexpected turn of events that the marines had to react to with an ad hoc response. The idea that the marines might have had plans for different contingencies like this wasn't mentioned.

Bush Needs to Step Up and Take Responsibility

I just read this post by Randy Barnett and agree with it. The primary reason that the U.S. invaded Iraq was because of Iraq's failure to abide by U.N. resolutions and the belief that Saddam still had WMDs. Now it turns out that there probably are no large stockpiles of WMDs, and that such stockpiles may not have existed for years. In short there was an intelligence failure.

Bush needs to say what happened why was there an intelligence failure. Moreover, what steps are being taken to make sure that the possibility of similar failures are minimized in the future. Bush should resist the temptation to pull in and go defensive.

It has been a year since the start of the invasion and it is unlikely that any large stockpiles are going to be found. It is definitely time to step up and say that there were errors made, but that the invasion was still warranted. Also point out that intelligence is not easy work; that in fact it is quite difficult in that the other side is actively trying to mislead you. Point out that there we other considerations as well that were of a secondary nature. And lastly emphasize that while there may not have been large stockpiles of WMDs, but that Saddam was an enemy of the U.S. and he would have agian moved towards obtain such weapons if the opportunity ever arose. Now that possible threat has been forever removed.

Granted there is the very real problem that some on the Left may start shrieking about how "Shrub lied!" But here is the reality: they are doing it already and there is nothing in response from the person's whose views could have the strongest counter to such shrieking--i.e., President Bush.

Once there is an admission of mistakes, but that the cause was and still is just it takes much of their thunder. Sure they'll respond, but they'll look peevish and petty. Until Bush addresses this issue the other side will be able to continue beating the "Bush lied!" theme up to the election...and it could very well cost him the election.

John Cole Catches Clarke in a Lie?

Sure looks like it to me. John has a lengthy post where he demolishes the "I sent a report, they said 'wrong answer'" load of bravo sierra. The funny thins is that all the evidence to see this lie was right there in the 60 Minutes interview. During the segment with Stephen Hadley they showed the documents in question and the memo from Hadley wasn't "wrong answer", but was instead, "please update and re-submit." The reason for this was that the report contained no new information, so later on the reply was basically, "Have you found out anything further?", not "wrong answer".

Stupid British Legal System

I found this via Tacitus. Here is the gist of the story,

Carl Lindsay, 25, answered a knock at his door in Salford, Greater Manchester, to find four men armed with a gun.

When the gang tried to rob him he grabbed a samurai sword and stabbed one of them, 37-year-old Stephen Swindells, four times.

Mr Swindells, of Salford, was later found collapsed in an alley and died in hospital.

Lindsay, of Walkden, was found guilty of manslaughter following a three-week trial at Manchester Crown Court.

He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.

I gotta tell you the legal system over there is really screwed up.

Shorter Matthew Yglesias

I thought I'd provided a condensed version of Matthew's post on Instapundit's take on Richard Clarke.

Like a lot of people, I think InstaPundit really jumped the shark -- went from being a site I often disagreed with to just being some kind of nonsense -- during Glenn's comments on l'affaire Plame. But I checked today to see if he could redeem himself with something reasonable to say about Richard Clarke. In a word: No.

I don't like Instapundit because Glenn writes stuff I disagree with.

There's no effort whatsoever to engage with the substance of what Clarke said, links to tenuous efforts to debunk Clarke, links to things saying, "well, Bill Clinton was bad too," and then speculation as to whether or not there's any chance that John Kerry would be better than the hated Clinton.

Clenis, CLENIS, CLENIS!!

No attempt whatsoever has been made to treat this topic with an open mind or to even consider the possibility that, at a minimum, Clarke is a dedicated public servant who has some serious disagreements with current policy. Compare, say, David Frum's remarks which are wholly serious.

Let me now compare a guy who writes a blog for free to a paid journalist.

There you go, Matthew in short form.

Update: Hey Matthew, is this just nonsense?

It Could Explode at Any Minute

That is what the head of the Russian Navy said about the North Atlantic Flagship the Pyotr Veliky.

The commander of the Navy, Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov, sent international news agencies scrambling Tuesday morning when he said the Pyotr Veliky, the nuclear-powered flagship of the Northern Fleet, was in such bad shape it could explode "at any moment."

A few hours later, he retracted his statement, which appeared aimed at shifting blame for a series of accidents in the Northern Fleet ahead of a meeting with President Vladimir Putin.

Here is the actual comment,

"Everything is in order in those parts of the ship where admirals walk, but as to places where they don't walk, everything is in such a condition that it could blow up into the air. I mean the contents of the nuclear reactor, among other things," Russian news outlets quoted Kuroyedov as saying in the morning.

Whoops. Not exactly the kind of thing you want to say when there are lots of press people around.

Read the whole article its pretty fun. Apparently what really got the Admiral's panties in a know were overfilled ashtrays, badly hung pictures, and fire extinguishers that hadn't been checked.

Evidence Supporting the Coulter-Moore Theorem?

I found out about the Coulter-Moore Theorem for selling books from Roger Simon. The thrust of the theorem is that to promote your book well and get bigger sales the author should make spectacularly ridiculous statements. We've seen it with Anne Coulter's outlandish comments, as well as with Michael Moore's buffoonish bloviations. Is this evidence that Richard Clarke as appealed to the Coulter-Moore Theorem? Looks like is could be,

Newsmaking allegations, White House rebuttals and a ready audience for anti-Bush books have helped make Richard A. Clarke's Against All Enemies a big best seller, publishing officials say.

Against All Enemies, released Monday, had an announced first printing of 300,000 copies and an additional 100,000 already have been ordered, according to the Free Press, an imprint of Simon & Schuster.

Not a bad move. At the very least Clarke will likely make alot of money off of his book. Certainly this should be considered as a possible motive for writing the book and going on television and saying the things he has.

RIAA Files Another 532 Lawsuits

Still beating the old drum and trying to protect the outdated way of doing business, the RIAA has sued 532 more people who have swapped songs online. This is a classic case of rent¹ protection.

The rent in this case is the stream of income from the protected intellectual property. The current laws grants a monopoly to the holder of the copyright and allows them to engage in monopoly pricing. The theory behind this is pretty simple. Without the legal protection and the creator of the intellectual property could not be reimbursed and hence would not produce and/or share the intellectual property. This would result in society being worse off.

There are a number of problems with this view. First, when it comes to music typically the artists do not own the intellectual property, the recording company does. This means that the stream of income from the music/songs goes to the record company not the artists. So the argument at least as it applies to the music industry is rather weak. Artists often end up making very little money off of the song in terms of record sales, and if they are lucky will make some money via concerts (although they'll have to pay the record company since they own the copyright).

Another problem is that there is nothing to stop the owners of intellectual property to go out and seek extensions on the protection of intellectual property. Recently the "Sonny Bono" Law was passed that extended the term of copyrights on existing works of intellectual property. This has absolutely no socially beneficial impacts as the intellectual property in question already existed and hence the law was nothing other than a crass move to allow the owners of such property to continue being able to have price setting power.

Another problem is that monopolies are typically viewed as being bad. Monopolies generally reduce output, drive up prices, lower consumers’ welfare in general and introduce an inefficiency into the economy. Further, monopolies are not noted for their cutting edge technology. Given that they face no competition there is less incentive to find better technology for lowering costs. A competitive firm that utilizes a technological break through can temporarily enjoy economic profits (i.e., profits above normal), and increase its market share. A monopolist on the other hand cannot increase its market share, and is already enjoying economic profits (i.e., rents in this case). So it is quite plausible that the very thing that is designed to induce more production of intellectual property actually reduces it.

But given the rents that record companies currently enjoy they have quite a bit at stake and will spend a considerable sum of money to defend those rents. In fact, if the recipient of economic rents will be willing to spend all of the economic rent protecting it. So, expect many more lawsuits as the RIAA tries desperately to prevent the inexorable march of technology.
_____
¹Rent in this context means an economic benefit that is not earned as opposed to labor income, investment income, etc. A simple example is passing a law that requires the government to pay me $1,000,000 for nothing.

Pejman on Clarke and His Supporters

Pejman has a fantastic (although long) post on this topic. The bottom line is this:

Clarke's claims are nothing new. That Iraq was considered a possible target in the response to 9/11 has been known for some time.

Pejman goes on to point out that this is not surprising given that the previous two presidential administrations considered Iraq a national security threat. Not considering Iraq initially would have been, in my opinion, a sign of incometence (and note this was precisely what Clarke wants--hmmm...could there be some valid reasons for Clarke's demotion?).

Pejman's take on Brad DeLong's hysterical ravings is funny.

These subtleties are, of course, lost on the likes of Brad DeLong, who in the typically overwrought, hysterical and analysis-free style he has chosen to make his own, calls for Congress to "[i]mpeach George W. Bush. Impeach Richard Cheney. Do it now" in response to the non-revelation of the Clarke book. Apparently, DeLong hasn't read Art. II, sec. 4 of the United States Constitution, which contrary to popular rumor, does not say that "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors, and for merely talking about Policy Options that do not Comport to the Desires of one J. Bradford DeLong."

Moral Blindspot?

Glenn posts an e-mail from a regular critic and here is that part that simply stunned me.

I work as a freelancer for a major national publication, and was talking to my editor as we were closing a piece last week. It was Thursday, and the reports were coming out of Pakistan that we might have Ayman al-Zawahiri surrounded. I passed this news on to the editor, who was crestfallen: "Oh, no. I don't want anything good to happen for Bush before the election," was the reaction (P.S., this editor does not edit foreign or political stories).

It was a sickening moment. This is a man responsible for thousands of American deaths. So while I have no desire to see Bush re-elected, and I disagree with our attack on Iraq, to hope for our failure in capturing one of the deadliest people in the world is a moral blindspot.

A moral blindspot? That is it, simply a moral blind spot? How about complete moral bankruptcy. Does such and editor say that Ted Bundy has some personal problems, Albert Fish a peculiar diet, and so forth? It isn't that catching/killing Ayman al-Zawahiri is good for Bush it is good for everybody.

This isn't a question of patriotism to me, but simple human decency. You don't hope a guy responsible for who knows how many deaths gets away so the guy you don't like as President looks marginally worse (if that). Sickening moment? How about popping this guy in the nose; hopefully knock some sense into the nitwit's head.

Coaching Kerry

Ricky West and Henry Hanks have the goods on this.

''The whole thing was odd, I would say, because people didn't know why they were there,'' Kelly said. ''But I think the idea was to put John Kerry into the belly of the beast. It may have been the actual beginning of the new approach he took -- 'I'm going to stay in this room and take every question you throw at me.''' Alterman grilled Kerry on his vote on Iraq, and he gave a long, tortured answer. Then he was asked about it a second time. ''By the third go-round, the answer was getting shorter and more relevant,'' Kelly said.

What else do you call this other than coaching?

So who were the coaches? Thanks to Ricky for the list,

• Rick Hertzberg, senior editor for the New Yorker;
• David Remnick, editor for the New Yorker;
• Jim Kelly, managing editor for Time Magazine;
• Howard Fineman, chief political correspondent for Newsweek;
• Jeff Greenfield, senior correspondent and analyst for CNN;
• Frank Rich, columnist for the New York Times;
• Eric Alterman, author and columnist for MSNBC and the Nation;
• Art Spiegelman, Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist/author of ‘Maus’;
• Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post;
• Fred Kaplan, columnist for Slate;
• Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate and author;
• Jonathan Alter, senior editor and columnist for Newsweek;
• Philip Gourevitch, columnist for the New Yorker;
• Calvin Trillin, freelance writer and author;
• Edward Jay Epstein, investigative reporter and author;
• Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., who needs no introduction.

As Ricky says,

They're not even trying to pretend to be objective, these days?

David Bernstein on Richard Clarke

David Bernstein writes on Richard Clarke,

Clark on Bush: I don't know anything about Richard Clarke, but he sure isn't making the Bush Administration look good. I'm still hoping that going after Iraq first instead of the real terrorist threat of Iran was part of some grand master plan, and not an inexplicable obsession with Saddam, but Clarke's claim that top Bushie's were obsessed with Iraq both before and after 9/11 gives me pause.

There is a reason Bernstein is my least favorite conspirator at the Volokh Conspiracy. He's a bad writer, and all too often not that great a thinker. First, the U.S. didn't go after Iraq first. We went after Afghanistan. In reading all the reports about Clarke's interview, I don't see anything all that horrible there. Sure some were overly focused on Iraq initially, but in the end the right target and decisions were made. Second, Iraq should have always been a concern of any Administration because Iraq was a destabilizing force in the Middle East, an important region given its most important export. As for Iran, why go after a regime that is having serious internal problems and may collapse on its own. An invasion of Iran might cause the student dissidents to unite with the Mullahs in the face of a common enemy, the U.S.

Many on the Left are seeing Clarke's comments as "devastating". The problem is that in the final analysis the Bush Administration did what Clarke felt it should do, attack Afghanistan, hit the Taliban and go after Al Qa'ida. I'm not sure what Clarke's beef is, but I'm not sure his complaints are as devastating as many seem to think.

Update: I do like Roger Simon and he is a very good writer. His post on this is pretty interesting.

They say authors are like hookers and will go anywhere and do anything to sell their books. (Who me? Look right!) The latest to shake his booty is Richard Clarke, the "terrorism expert" [What does that mean?--ed. He reads more than one newspaper a day.] who is flogging his new tome called Against All Enemies. Now as any fool who knows the Coulter/Moore Theorem of Basic Book Promotion understands, don't be reasonable, always be as extreme as possible, so Clarke says:

"FRANKLY, I FIND IT OUTRAGEOUS that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

--emphasis in the original

Hmmm...interesing. So right now I am viewing the Clarke stuff rather skeptically. He does want to sell his book, so be outrageous and you'll get sales. I'm sure many liberals are going to be clicking their way over to Amazon to add it to their wish lists and buy it.

Roger also links to a Stephen Hayes article that notes that many of Clarke's claims can be leveled against Clinton as well.

Powerline also has a lengthy post on this as well that is worth reading.

Update II: In comments Robert Schwartz points to this article by George Smith which paints Clarke as having gotten on the wrong boat: cyberterrorism/cyberwarfare.

While Clarke did do some things indicating that Al Qa'ida and bin Laden where dangers, his big thing was cyber-security. When the Bush Administration came in they moved him...to the rear--i.e., demoted him. I guess they felt (rightly) that cyber-security wasn't going to be that big a deal.

Clarke's career in subsequent presidential administrations was a barometer of the recession of the belief that cyberspace would be a front effector in national security affairs. After being part of the NSC, Clarke was dismissed to Special Advisor for Cyberspace Security on October 9th in a ceremony led by National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice and new homeland security guru Tom Ridge. If it was an advance, it was one to the rear -- a pure demotion.

Note that this rather damning article of Clarke was written over a year ago, right around the time Clarke retired. Kind of puts things in perspective a bit. Clarke is a bitter crank, who is looking for a political payoff and possibly revenge? Maybe.

Another Kerry Flip-Flop?

Again, this is via Henry Hanks. Several weeks before Kerry voted against the $87 billion for Iraq Kerry made the following comment,

Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."

Kerry argued that his amendment offered a way to do it properly, "but I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."

Must be more of that nuance stuff.

Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said her boss' vote against the funding was a "protest vote."

Ahh...a protest vote. I see, yes very nuanced. Deep down he really supported the troops, figured the bill would pass anyways so voted against it to protest...what? The troops, spending on the troops, being in Iraq at all. Probably the latter, but it seems ridiculous to claim to be supporting the troops while voting against the package as a form of protest. But that's just me.

Hmmm, maybe the nuance is what most think it is,

At the time of the CBS interview, Kerry was facing a strong challenge in the Democratic presidential contest at the time from former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean — who rose in polls partly because of his strong stance against the Iraq war.

In other words, Dean was looking strong, he was sounding very anti-war so to beef up his anti-war bona fides, Kerry votes against the $87 billion. After all the vote margin was going to be rather wide, so it wasn't like Kerry's vote would make much difference in passing the bill, but he could point to it to show he is just as anti-war as Dean and has some actions to back it up. Or in short, Kerry was playing politics with troop funding. Nice.

This response by one of Kerry's spokespeople is rather surreal,

Stephanie Cutter says John Kerry has, "fought in a war and understands the importance of shared sacrifices when our troops are risking their lives overseas." She says that's why Kerry "has tried to repeal the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans to pay for the supplemental funds."

John Kerry knows the horrors of war...which is why he wants to repeal tax cuts. Uhhh...okay. Is it me, or does that sound a bit...crazy? Kind of like asking the question, "Do you walk to school or carry a lunch?" WTFAYTA?

Ahhh, buried on the fourth page of the article is the full quote,

Kerry's full response is as follows: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to — to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running," he says. "That's irresponsible. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now."

There it is, Kerry's weasel room. The last line will be his escape hatch. He'll simply claim that the final form of the bill was irresponsible and voted against it. No flip-flop. Of course, this isn't nuance its double-speak. Kerry masterfully set it up so that no matter which way he voted he could spin it off as being consistent and reasonable.

I have to admit Kerry did that very well. He managed to sound like he was going to support the troops, but at the same time actually didn't commit to anything. Brilliant. Of course, it makes you wonder if you can trust anything he says.

Carnival of the Capitalists

This week the carnival is at the Entreprenurial Mind. All kinds of good posts there this week.

The Carnival main page has all the information on submitting entries, hosting, etc. So, if you are interested check it out.

Bush Attacks Kerry on the Economy

This article points out that Bush is now going on the offensive against Kerry on the economy. Right off the bat I'm not convinced by the campaign rhetoric,

President George W. Bush over the weekend came to the state that delivered him the White House in 2000 for his first full-scale campaign rally of 2004 and opened a new line of attack on Senator John Kerry, saying his Democratic rival would raise taxes and choke off the economic recovery.

This depends on whether or not the economy and the current recovery is fragile and weak as some claim or strong and resilient. The fragile claim tends to hang its hat on the "poor" unemployment numbers, but those unemployment numbers only look poor relative to the end of the last expansion. A significant part of the end phase of the last expansion was a bubble. This bubble drove unemployment down very low by historical standards and raised salaries a great deal. Since unemployment is a lagging indicator, it is not surprising that many of the jobs lost during the last recession are due to structural changes after the bursting of the bubble.

Given all this, I don't think the labor market is in "bad" shape. Part of the evidence for this is that allt he stimulus that Bush has engaged in combined with the ultra-low interest rates haven't done much to drive the unemployment level lower. We are likely to see unemployment remain about where it is for some time. This will be true if Bush is re-elected or Kerry is elected. Kerry's policy proposals will do nothing to improve the employment situation.

Still, while I doubt raising taxes would chock off the recovery, it would reduce economic activity and would likely increase consumer pessimism which isn't good either. Kerry's approach of raising taxes (his middle class tax cut is miniscule so please let's just ignore it) wont help the labor market improve.

Kerry, he said, opposed them all. He also supported a 50-cent-a- gallon tax on gasoline, Bush added, referring to a proposed increase in the federal gasoline tax that Kerry backed in 1994. He wanted you to pay all that money at the pump, and wouldn't even throw in a free car wash.

Okay, kind of a cheap shot. So Kerry favored an increase in the gasoline tax 10 years ago. Still if Kerry is going to blame Bush for the higher gasoline prices today,

Gas Prices Increasing in New York. The cost of gasoline in New York has increased since last month, and since a year ago. Today gas costs almost $1.80 a gallon. [www.fuelguage.com]

what the Hell, then pointing to Kerry's support for a gasoline tax seems fair to me.

Oddly enough an article about Bush attacking Kerry on the economy, switches to giving space for Kerry's attacks on Bush over the economy,

I agree with him, Kerry said, that there is a choice between two economic visions: the vision of the 1990s that created 23 million jobs, a record surplus and a balanced budget, and the vision that he has stubbornly pursued that has cost more than three million jobs, created record deficits and undermined our future economic strength and prosperity.

The problem here is that a significant part of the economic growth in the Clinton era was due to a bubble economy. Look at what happened after the bubble burst. Is this the kind of economic policy we want? Further, I don't think it is reasonable to set goals that will have levels similar to those attained during a bubble economy. If Kerry wins he is going to face the same claims of broken promises that Bush has been facing.

The bottom line is that both candidates seem to have set their sites on achieving a sub-4% rate of unemployment. That level of unemployment is unsustainable...as we have seen with the recession of 2001. Setting such a goal is setting oneself up for failure when it comes to job creation. Both candidates are talking out of their butts when it comes to jobs.

Health Care: Catastrophic Care Vouchers

I've been thinking about Arnold Kling's idea that a compassionate health care system that utilizes the discipline of the market would be one that offers vouchers for catastrophic care, but would also end all subsidies for other forms of health care insurance including the tax-advantages of employer provided health care.

This solution would keep competition in both the health insurance market and in the health care delivery market. There would still be the problems of moral hazard, adverse selection and non-verifiability, but insurance companies have some mechanisms for providing some solutions for these problems.

There are still some things I am not sure this will address. The first problem is what about those people with pre-existing conditions? For these people the idea of insurance is not in question. They have a medical problem with certainty. So with people with pre-existing conditions there would either have to be a complete subsidy for their medical care or they would not be covered at all and could only get what their family and charity would provide. My guess is that since these people already recieve considerable care, the most likely case would simply be complete subsidy.

The other problem could be called coverage creep. This is where via political pressure coverage creeps up to cover more and more non-catastrophic care. For example, people with kids might want to start having more and more of their child's care covered. Children are more likely to sick than adults and as such a candidate who suggests care be expanded to cover children would likely gain some support amongst parents. Similarly for the elderly. Grandma and grandpa need to visit the doctor more and more as their bodies age and start to wear out. So, along comes the the slick politician who decries that Aunt Martha who suffers from diabetes, lumbago, ameobic dysentery, and osteoporosis and that we must do something about this tragic state of affairs.

If you'll note these things are always portrayed as crises by politicians. The reason is pretty clear, during percieved times of crisis government revenues tend to increase. People see a crisis and so the increased spending to deal with the crisis appears reasonable. If you look at spending during wars (i.e., actualy legitimate crises) spending by the government goes up. For example, during WWII the national debt went well over 100% of GDP. I'm sure if we were to look at state budgets during periods deemed a "state of emergency (i.e., hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, etc.)" spending increases.

So what is to stop these election year crises from coming up every 4 years? One possibility is to have such spending put into the Constitution¹. Something along the lines of spending for program Z is set at $Y and grows by CPI-x (where x is some number picked by politicians to account for biases in the CPI). Also included would have to be some language to keep the damn judges from tinkering with the numbers.
_____
¹Technically it doesn't have to be in the Constitution, but so long as the law is difficult to change. For example, if it is necessary for a 2/3rds vote in both chambers of Congress as well as a vote by t