The Fair, Accurate, Secure and Timely Redress Act of 2007 is a recently introduced bill that would establish a dedicated agency within the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate and streamline the appeals of people who believe they have been wrongly watch‐listed by DHS or the Department of Justice. This office would maintain a “Cleared List” of names that have been identified as not representing a risk.
This is not an answer. As I’ve written before, watch‐listing is alien to our system of justice and law enforcement. And because of the potential for opening holes in the pseudo‐security watch‐listing provides, getting “cleared” by this office would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
This proposal is lipstick on a pig. The pig is watch‐listing.
C@L readers with a cynical view of Washington and an openness to crude humor may appreciate Andrew Ferguson’s, er, celebration of the McLaughlin Group’s 25th anniversary over at the Weekly Standard. (Warning: Disturbing imagery.) In it, Ferguson describes his one‐day tenure as a staffer on the show:
For my first task he told me to work up a lead‐in to a segment on some bit of legislative sausage grinding its way through Congress. “Cokie Roberts had an excellent report on the bill on NPR this morning,” he said. “I taped it to make it easiah on you. It’s all the background resuch you’ll need.”
I went back to another office carrying Dr. McLaughlin’s handheld recorder. He had evidently propped it against his radio speaker to record the tape that morning. “Considerate of the old bastard,” I thought, pressing the play button. I heard Cokie’s swampy voice explaining the doings on the Hill. And then I heard water rushing, and a clatter of ceramic, and a mysterious release of air, and I realized that the doctor had made the tape in the bathroom. I was hearing his morning ablutions: the gush of faucets running and the honk‐honk of nasal passages clearing and the rumble of phlegm rising and … much worse. Scraps of show tunes hummed off‐key competed against every noise the human organism is capable of producing at that hour of the day, and together they threatened to drown out Cokie’s report: “The prognosis, critics say, is still a matter of PHLOOOTH!” At times I could barely make out what she was saying. I’d rewind the tape only to hear some new intimate eruption. I shut off the recorder after four or five minutes. I wrote up the lead‐in as best I could and walked back to his darkened lair.
He was eating an enormous platter of steak and eggs from the restaurant downstairs. “Did you learn anything, Andrew?” he said from behind his desk, with a half smile. He dabbed his thumb and forefinger on the napkin tucked into his collar.
“It’s hazing,” one of the assistants told me later that morning. “He’s establishing the parameters of your relationship. This way you know who’s in the dominant position. He can embarrass you, but you can’t embarrass him. That’s the key: He refuses to be embarrassed.”
The anecdote absolutely speaks volumes about life in Washington. Idealistic young people beware: this is what awaits you in DC.
Added bonus McLaughlin Group parody featuring Dana Carvey here.
In the current U.S. Congress, women account for only 16.3% of the members: 16 of 100 in the Senate and 71 of 435 in the House of Representatives. Eighty‐four nations have a greater percentage of female legislators than the U.S., including our neighbors Mexico and Canada, as well as Rwanda, Vietnam and Cuba.
It’s not exactly clear that legislatures with more women produce better government. So why, then, as Parade notes, does the United States demand that emerging democracies have gender quotas that we would never accept in our own politics?
After the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan and of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the United States made sure that when those two countries held elections, 25% of the seats in their legislatures would be reserved for women.
California’s health care sector is as bloated and inefficient as the rest of the country’s, meaning that it already bleeds the taxpayers dry. But that’s just not good enough for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R).
He and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D) have cobbled — and the state Assembly has approved — a package of health care reforms that would further kneecap the taxpayers, march them down to Death Valley, and bury them up to their necks to be eaten alive by special‐interest fire ants. But perhaps I understate.
Unless the Senate or the voters stop the plan, it will carve up taxpayers by regulating health insurance to protect favored insurers from competition; regulating employee benefits to protect favored employers from competition; imposing enormous taxes on young and healthy Californians; creating taxes and subsidies that seem deliberately designed to keep low‐income Californians poor; imposing on all Californians the sort of punitive mandates that never have achieved universal coverage and never will; and fraudulently foisting part of the cost onto taxpayers in other states. And all in the face of a $14 billion deficit.
Just goes to show what Republicans and Democrats can do when they work together toward a common disaster like universal coverage.
Paul Krugman’s transformation into a Howard Beale wannabe continues to (take your pick) astound/amuse/sadden. In today’s column, Krugman blasts Barack Obama for his “naïve” refusal to demonize those with whom he disagrees on public policy issues. Siding instead with John Edwards, he endorses the view that “America needs another F.D.R. — a polarizing figure, the object of much hatred from the right, who nonetheless succeeded in making big changes.”
Hmm, who’s the one being naïve here? Let’s recall that F.D.R. won the presidency in the depths of the worst economic cataclysm in American history — public blame for which fell squarely on his partisan and ideological opponents. Consequently, F.D.R. entered the White House with 313 fellow Democrats in the House and 61 in the Senate. Under the circumstances, it is entirely understandable that he didn’t worry too much about maintaining bipartisan good feeling.
But does anybody think that the political environment in 2009 will be remotely similar to that of 1933? Even assuming that a Democrat wins the White House and Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress are maintained, how likely is it that “big changes” are going to occur without some significant level of Republican support?
Based, no doubt, on the direct line to vox populi afforded him by his twin perches at the New York Times and Princeton University, Krugman is convinced that the hour of the angry populist is at hand. “[T]here’s every reason to believe,” he writes, “that the Democrats can win big next year if they run with that populist tide.” Krugman cites as confirming evidence CNN and FoxNews focus groups that declared Edwards the winner of the most recent Democratic debate. He’s curiously silent, however, about all the other polls that show Edwards trailing badly behind the more centrist Hillary Clinton and Obama.
At the end of his column, Krugman accuses those who long for a less vitriolic politics of “projecting their own desires onto the public.”
[cross‐posted from www.brinklindsey.com]
Last Friday, the Federal Election Commission ruled that money raised for John Edwards’ presidential bid by an organization called ActBlue was not eligible for matching funds from taxpayers. ActBlue is registered as a federal political action committee which means its fundraising cannot be matched by the presidential taxpayer financing program. The loss is not trivial for Edwards. ActBlue’s fundraising composed 15 percent of his total fundraising.
The facts of this case and the FEC’s technical ruling are not especially important. Edwards was unlikely to become the Democratic nominee, and this turn of events will not change the race for the presidency.
But the world is changing. The traditional story about money in politics goes like this. Rich people and corporations – overwhelming conservative and Republican – contribute almost all the money candidates need to run, thereby tilting the government toward their interests. Noble “reformers” enact campaign finance restrictions to limit the power of business and the rich. Then the little guy (that is, the Democratic party and especially its left wing) can rule in pursuit of everyone’s interest, a category that does not include the interests of the rich, the conservative, and the non‐liberal, all of whom have no legitimate standing in a democracy.
Now the “little guy” has become Big Money. ActBlue and the Democratic party in general are raising money hand over fist. Republicans are far behind and appear to have little idea how to catch up. But the old rules which were designed to harm the “bad guys” reached out and harmed John Edwards, populist extraordinaire. This is not a new irony. The struggle over regulating the Internet in 2005 saw the left opposing campaign finance strictures. The left used 527 groups to work around campaign finance rules that threatened their political activities. And so on.
The traditional story about money in politics is starting to lose credibility. When reality has completely undermined the traditional story, how long before campaign finance deregulation becomes politically correct?
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic nominee for vice president, has endorsed Republican Sen. John McCain for president. It’s a coup for McCain, struggling to reignite his once frontrunning campaign. And looking over the rest of the field, libertarian voters might even conclude that McCain has a pretty good record on a lot of economic issues.
But the Lieberman endorsement will remind those libertarian voters of all the positions that pushed them away from McCain in the first place. Lieberman and McCain are perhaps the two leading supporters of the Iraq war in the Senate. They are coauthors of a bill to impose costly new regulations to fight global warming. They both support restrictions on political speech.
As I’ve noted before, some Republicans think no issue matters except doubling down on the floundering war effort, so they consider Lieberman an ally, even a man who should be a heartbeat from the Oval Office in the next Republican administration. But you have to ignore Lieberman’s entire career to see him as an ally of conservatives.
As Robert Novak pointed out back when Republicans were endorsing Lieberman for reelection,
Lieberman followed the liberal line in opposing oil drilling in ANWR, Bush tax cuts, overtime pay reform, the energy bill, and bans on partial‐birth abortion and same‐sex marriage. Similarly, he voted in support of Roe vs. Wade and for banning assault weapons and bunker buster bombs. His only two pro‐Bush votes were to fund the Iraq war and support missile defense (duplicating Sen. Hillary Clinton’s course on both).
Lieberman’s most recent ratings by the American Conservative Union were 7 percent in 2003, zero in 2004 and 8 percent in 2005.
I actually agree with him on a couple of those votes, though I wouldn’t expect that conservatives would. The National Taxpayers Union said that he voted with taxpayers 9 percent of the time in 2005, worse than Chris Dodd or Barbara Boxer. Maybe because of all the Republican love in 2006, he soared to a 15 percent rating.
In a previous speech, Lieberman called for a tax increase so that we could continue the war without “squeezing important domestic programs, as we have been doing”–his view of a period during which federal spending rose by one trillion dollars:
During the Second World War, our government raised taxes and we spent as much as 30 percent of our Gross Domestic Product to defeat fascism and Nazism. During the war in Korea, we raised taxes and spent fourteen percent of GDP on our military…Today, in the midst of a war against a brutal enemy in a dangerous world, we have cut taxes and are spending less than five percent of GDP to support our military…It is not an acceptable answer to push the sacrifice of this war against terrorism onto our children and grandchildren through deficit spending, as we have been doing. And it is not an acceptable answer to pay the costs of this war by squeezing important domestic programs, as we have been doing.
Lieberman may help McCain with Republican hawks, but he’s not likely to help with New Hampshire’s growing contingent of disaffected libertarian, centrist, and independent voters, the ones who swung the state firmly into the blue zone last fall.