The Diamond, the Doofus, and the $80 Deluxe Suite October 31, 2002January 23, 2017 THE DIAMOND BUBBLE Dana D. Dlott: ‘The diamond business is a classic bubble. It has to burst some time, but I can’t say when. [Ain’t that the way with bubbles?-A.T. But, no, I don’t think it’s a classic bubble, because those involve crazy hyperbolic price appreciation before the crash, not a gradual, decades-long, managed ascent.] There are two reasons for the bubble. First, although diamonds were valuable and rare in the past, that is no longer true. The cartel has so many diamonds in their vaults that if they were released, prices would plunge. Second, there are many ways of making diamonds in the laboratory and the technology is improving every day. Diamond dealers dismiss synthetic diamonds. Somehow the story goes, natural diamonds are worth a lot but synthetic diamonds are not. But what is the difference? The real difference is that natural diamonds have flaws while synthetic diamonds are perfect. Dealers and jewelers tell you with a straight face that its the flaws that make the natural diamonds worth so much, and people seem to believe it. These are the same guys who hyped worthless dot.com stock and told people that tulips were worth million of guilders because their petals had a certain shape. Diamond buyers are the same gullible people who always get creamed when the bubbles burst. The only two things supporting present day diamond prices are the unwillingness of the cartels to open up their vaults and the willingness of people to believe a crazy story.’ THE DOOFUS IT IS! Michael White: ‘Okay, you convinced me. Roberts’ question could have been mine. [Roberts asked whether one should vote for the slimeball who votes the way you want him to, or the upright candidate who votes the wrong way.] Here in Augusta GA the slimeball question is not hypothetical. The candidates for U.S. Congress (new district, so no incumbent) are two – one rightwing Republican and one Democratic doofus with an interesting arrest record who would not even be in the race except that his father is the ethically challenged leader of the Georgia Senate. I will vote for the doofus. P.S. It was about 10 years ago that Edwin Edwards, now in federal prison, made his last run for governor of Louisiana, versus David Duke, former Grand Whatsis of the Ku Klux Klan. Edwards, ever the rake, gloried in the support he received from the good government groups that had always opposed him in earlier races. He had bumper stickers that read, “Vote for the Crook – It’s Important.’ A CONTRARIAN TRAVEL STRATEGY Jim D: ‘Stephen and I are in Bali and we have refused to leave. It is a catastrophe. There are only 10 of us left in the Four Seasons resort. The staff has been told to come in only every other day. Hotels are closing. The taxi driver told us that we were his first fare in two days and he was not sure he would be able to feed his family. At the large, fabulous restaurant last night, we were the second table served all day. Forty-three dancers pretending everything is ok, dancing before four of us. Our gay waiter said that he was going to lose everything he had worked so hard for. His motorcycle and his small house. ‘The people here are by nature so happy, warm and smiling, it is breaking our hearts to see the suffering. The Balinese are so proud that they have been an island of peace and beauty, despite all the turmoil of Indonesia. Now, it is all shattered. We spoke to some farmers yesterday. They are greatly affected as their crops are normally sold to the now empty hotels. There are vegetables and fruits rotting in the fields. ‘So, come to Bali. You can get a $730 Four Seasons beachfront room (with a personal Olympic sized swimming pool, since you’ll be the only one at it) for $80 a night!’ ☞ It’s not a bad idea. You get to take a rich man’s vacation on a Courtyard By Marriott budget – all the while feeling you’re helping some folks. As for safety, my guess is that an all-but-empty hotel will not be the next target. Don’t forget to send a postcard from the pool.
It’s the Courts, Stupid! October 30, 2002February 22, 2017 Yes, It’s Still the Economy, Stupid. But even more than that, it’s the courts. To wit: Testimony of Ralph G. Neas President, People For the American Way Regarding Vacancies and the Federal Courts The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution Thursday, October 10, 2002 Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. On behalf of the 600,000 members and supporters of People For the American Way, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the subject of vacancies and the federal courts. I believe the future of the federal judiciary is the most important domestic issue facing the Congress, the presidency, and the nation. Indeed, judges confirmed today will be interpreting the Constitution and the laws of the land for decades to come. And what they decide will have a profound impact on the daily lives of all Americans, their children and their grandchildren. With so much at stake, we urgently need a national debate. It is heartening to us at People For the American Way that the Senate Judiciary Committee is taking its constitutional responsibility seriously and conducting a meaningful review of a number of President Bush’s nominees. At the same time, the Senate has made significant progress in addressing the extraordinary number of vacancies inherited from the previous Republican-controlled Senate. The American people would be appalled if they knew that as a result of right-wing Senators’ unprecedented obstructionism, 35 percent of President Clinton’s appellate court nominees were blocked from 1995 to 2001; 45 percent failed to receive a vote in the Congress during which they were nominated. Many did not even get a hearing. As a result of the right-wing blockade, judicial vacancies skyrocketed from 65 in 1995 to 111 in 2001. There is no question that right-wing groups and politicians hoped that a Republican president would take advantage of all the vacancies their Senate allies perpetuated by filling them with right-wing ideologues. Currently, Republican-nominated judges hold a majority on 7 of the 13 circuit courts of appeal; three have a majority of Democratic nominees and three are divided. If all of President Bush’s current nominees are approved, such judges will make up a majority on 10 circuit courts. And by the end of 2004, Republican-appointed judges could make up a majority on every one of the 13 circuit courts of appeals. And if these judges are right-wing ideologues, the future of many of our civil rights and constitutional freedoms would be in serious jeopardy. It would have been understandable for Senators Leahy and Daschle to treat judicial nominees the way nominees were treated from 1995 to 2001. Instead, they have moved promptly and responsibly to fill judicial vacancies since taking control of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the U. S. Senate in July, 2001. It is terribly unfair and hypocritical for the very same people who helped cause the delay, and who told us that vacancies were not a problem a few years ago, to now charge Senators Daschle and Leahy with improper delay and then use these charges to try to stampede nominations through the Senate. The charges are also totally inaccurate. In the first year during which Democrats controlled the Senate, beginning in July, 2001, the Senate confirmed 59 nominations to the federal judiciary. These 59 confirmations are nearly four times the number confirmed during the entire first year of the first Bush administration (1989), and more than twice the number confirmed during the first year of the Clinton administration (1993). This pace is significantly ahead of what occurred when Republican Senators deliberately delayed the process from 1995 through 2000. For example, more judges were confirmed by the Senate in the first year of Democratic control than were confirmed in all of 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, or 2000. As of yesterday, 80 nominees had been confirmed and 17 more had been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. During the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton presidencies, four nominees on average were confirmed each month. By contrast, after the first 15 months of Senator Leahy’s chairmanship, the average has been 5 to 6 confirmations per month. At this rate, there will be more judges confirmed during these four years than ever before in our history. The current pace of appellate court confirmations exceeds the confirmation rate of the Senate when it was under Republican control, contradicting right-wing claims. The Senate has thus far confirmed 14 appellate court nominations, 11 of which were confirmed during the first year of Democratic control. In comparison, Republicans averaged less than eight confirmations per year between 1995 and 2000. Because of the delay and refusal to vote on President Clinton’s nominations during that period, the total number of vacancies on the courts of appeals more than doubled from 1995 to 2001, growing from 16 to 33. That’s a remarkable statistic. In the last year, despite several new vacancies, the total number of appellate court vacancies has decreased to 27. In fact, if Republicans had moved at the same pace that the Democratic Senate has moved since July 2001, there would now be only 6 vacancies on the courts of appeal. Mr. Chairman, no presidential nominee should be guaranteed confirmation to a lifetime seat on the federal bench. Last summer, more than 200 law professors sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on the issue of judicial nominations and the Senate’s co-equal role in the confirmation process. Because federal judicial appointments are for life and significantly affect the rights of all Americans, the law professors wrote, nominees must demonstrate that they meet appropriate standards for confirmation. These standards include “an exemplary record in the law,” a “commitment to protecting the rights of ordinary Americans,” and a “record of commitment to the progress made on civil rights, women’s rights, and individual liberties.” It is not only appropriate, but imperative, that Senators continue to review carefully the records of President Bush’s federal judicial nominees and require that they demonstrate a commitment to upholding the role of the federal government in dealing with major national issues and protecting Americans’ constitutional rights and liberties. If nominees do not meet this standard then they should not be confirmed. Too much is at stake for any other result. The current unprecedented situation calls for an unprecedented bipartisan solution. The President should reject the demands of the far right, and submit more moderate nominees who are truly qualified for the federal bench. This should include genuine consultation with Senators of both parties both before and after nominations are made. Consensus and compromise should be the goals. This is the way that more progress can responsibly be made in further reducing the number of vacancies on the federal courts. Mr. Chairman, the debate over the federal judiciary is part of an epic battle over the role of the federal government. The two-prong strategy of right-wing Republicans is simple but breathtakingly radical. First, enact a permanent tax cut which will eliminate $6 trillion in revenue over the next 20 years. That will in effect starve the federal government so it will be unable to fund many vital governmental functions performed since the New Deal. The second prong is to pack the federal judiciary with right-wing ideologues whose judicial philosophy would turn back the clock on civil rights, environmental protections, religious liberty, reproductive rights and privacy and so much more. Take away the money. And then take away legal rights that have been part of our constitutional framework for 65 years. We do indeed need a national debate. Before the American people wake up one morning and discover that their fundamental rights and liberties have vanished overnight. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. And thank you, Mr. And Ms. Faithful Reader – especially those of you who tend to disagree with me yet keep an open mind. You are great Americans. (And, c’mon – you’re coming around a little on some of this stuff, aren’t you? A little?) Someday: Back to your money.
Slimeball October 29, 2002January 23, 2017 But first . . . AUNT DOLORES WAS A SUCH A GEM! And now she can be one. Randy Wolff: ‘Have you heard about Lifegems? After your loved one passes away, this company will turn the remains into a diamond. A real diamond, only more expensive.’ ☞ I would have assumed this was a Halloween joke until I clicked through to see. And there’s more good news! According to Lifegem’s frequently asked questions (to be read in hushed, caring tones), they can turn your deceased pet into a bag of diamonds, too. Dust to dust, ashes to diamonds. Starting at under $4,000. Michael: ‘Your column yesterday shows that you know a lot about how to accumulate a nest egg. It also proves beyond a doubt that you know nothing at all about women. I, personally, would take your advice in a moment (assuming for the sake of argument that I had not been married for 31 years, but instead were just thinking of becoming engaged), but my Significant Other … no way. Don’t take it personally, though; we all have our areas of expertise – and mine isn’t women either. DeBeers, on the other hand, does know something about women. PS – Those ‘A diamond is forever’ commercials nauseate me; my wife loves them.’ VOTE FOR THE SLIMEBALL Dan Roberts: ‘I face a dilemma and would appreciate your two cents. What do you do when the candidate of your party is a slimeball? I’m purposely going to leave the relevant parties out of this so there’s no bias involved. If you were me, would you rather vote for a good person of an opposing party, even though you don’t agree with his views; vote for the slimeball of your party, even though you know he would vote the way you want him to; or simply abstain from casting the vote? I’m leaning to a no-vote, but feel like that’s a cop-out on my civic duty.’ ☞ I’m sorry to say it, but this is an easy one. Vote for the slimeball. I would feel differently if control of the entire government were not at stake, or if the parties were not so starkly disparate in their visions – but it is and they are. (I would feel differently, too, of course, if your daughter were thinking of marrying one of them, or if one of them were offering to buy your business.) In the present instance, if you are one who believes abortion must be outlawed, or who applauds the recent cuts in the budget of the S.E.C., or who worries that auto manufacturers might be coerced into improving fuel efficiency, or who is relieved that the top choice to run the new Accounting Oversight Board was jettisoned for knowing too much about accounting – if you are one who fears that tax cuts might be frozen for the top 1% or 2% in order to balance the budget or to provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors – then you just have to vote for the Republican, whether he’s a slimeball or not. This is your chance to move the Judiciary substantially to the right for the next 25 years! Possibly even to rid the country of the ‘separation of church and state.’ (‘The ‘wall of separation between church and State,” wrote Chief Justice Rehnquist in Wallace v. Jaffree, ‘is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.’) Similarly, if you believe we had a pretty good balance in the Clinton/Gore years, and were rightly concerned with things like health care and the environment, and how the rest of the world perceived us . . . if you worry that we have shifted, lately, too much in favor of the rich and powerful . . . if you worry that Trent Lott and Tom DeLay might not be adequate ‘checks and balances’ on John Ashcroft and Clarence Thomas – then you just have to vote for the Democrat, whether he’s a slimeball or not. This is your chance to keep the right wing of the Republican Party from gaining control of all three branches of government. Only if you agree with Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan that there’s no real difference between the parties should you take the ‘no-vote’ option. (One issue on which even Nader and Buchanan would be hard-pressed to deny the difference is equal rights for gays and lesbians. How’s this for contrast? Fully 74.7% of Democrats in Congress rate a 100% perfect score on the latest Human Rights Campaign scorecard – versus 1.4% for Republicans. Meanwhile, 61% of Republicans rate ZERO . . . there is nothing they would grant gays and lesbians . . . which is actually worse than eight years ago, when ‘only’ 46% of the Republicans scored zero.) Note to the playfully cynical: Yes, there really is a Dan Roberts, so far as I know, and no, I didn’t make up his question. AND SPEAKING OF ELECTIONS Just out from Harper Collins is Selling Out, by Mark Green, who narrowly lost the New York mayoral race last year to Mike Bloomberg. It is subtitled, How Big Corporate Money Buys Elections, Rams Through Legislation, and Betrays Our Democracy (and was originally to have been titled ‘Money Shouts.’) It is a quick, informative, important read. The sad truth is that the recent hard-won campaign finance reform won’t fix things. Needed: a system that deeply subsidized campaigns with cheap TV and radio time – but only where the candidate agreed to spending ceilings. (If his opponent chose to forego the subsidy and blow the lid off those ceilings, the subsidy could even rise part way to make up some of the difference and deter this kind of behavior in the first place.)
Diamonds Are for . . . ? October 28, 2002February 22, 2017 I have never been much for jewelry. You take the trinkets; I’ll take Manhattan Island. Yes, I once had a cherished high school ring – 14 karat gold with a garnet in the middle – that set me back $39. But it slipped off in the surf of southern Spain a few years later and no manner of diving around for it, goggleless, could turn it up. That was it for me in the jewelry department for nearly thirty years until Charles and I exchanged platinum bands, only a fairly minor extravagance. (It was the built-in bookshelves that made me gulp.) The point is, diamonds may be beautiful, but diamonds are also a lot more expensive than they would be if DeBeers hadn’t organized the world diamond cartel so efficiently, and hadn’t persuaded starry-eyed young men that, to be men, they had to devote two months’ pre-tax pay to the purchase of an engagement ring. I say: click here for the engagement ring and be dazzled by the possibilities. Not that I have ever dealt with these people myself. But their full-page ad in the New York Times and their web site lead me to believe you could do worse than to risk your $119 on a two-karat diamond engagement ring that (the ad says) would otherwise cost $22,000. I never thought I would actually write the words ‘cubic zirconia,’ and have deleted both QVC and the Home Shopping Network from my cable line-up. And, okay, yes, these are fake diamonds. But about the only way for a layman to tell they are fake is to scratch them with real diamonds. And what kind of people go around at parties doing that? Especially since their real diamonds are locked away in a safe deposit box, and they are wearing fake ones, too. Do you remember Moh’s Hardness Scale? I do! I do! It runs from 1 to 10, with TALC being softest, at 1, then GYPSUM, CALCITE, FLUORITE, SOMETHING, FELDSPAR, QUARTZ, BERYL, RUBY, DIAMOND. Ta-da! (Ah, those endless, lonely childhood hours.) Diamond is 10. But quartz, at 7, is pretty darn hard, as you surely know, so if these $119 suckers are 9, and can scratch quartz, for crying out loud . . . can scratch beryl . . . can hold their own against rubies!!! – well, surely such a ring, along with $3,000 matching his-and-her Roth IRAs, is the wiser way to demonstrate your love and commitment. On your fiftieth anniversary, she’ll still have the dazzling ring. But you’ll also have – just by accepting a 9-hardness stone instead of a 10 – an extra $110,000, after-tax, in today’s buying power to help make your golden years joyous. (This assumes a return 6% above inflation, and from just one investment of $3,000 apiece in the matching his-and-her Roth IRAs. Manage to contribute $3,000 apiece every year at that rate, and on your fiftieth anniversary you will have, between the two of you, better than $1.8 million. If one or both of you don’t qualify to contribute to a Roth IRA, you could still do well with an index fund.) Just the $119 ring – let alone trying to pass it off as a real diamond – won’t cut it, obviously. You’ve got to come up with the ring and the $3,000 Roth IRAs – and maybe a necklace and a joint mutual fund account – to show that you really are crazy in love. Just not crazy in love with DeBeers.
Buy Her a DVD? A Car? A War Bond? October 25, 2002February 22, 2017 OWN STOCKS? GOT KIDS? LIKE FLICKS? Not only does the modest but indomitable Nell Minow battle with considerable impact on behalf of investors . . . see her important Corporate Library site . . . she is also, as it turns out, a film critic. Not just any film critic, indeed – she is The Movie Mom. Some people just have all the fun – and more than their share of the talent. If you’re thinking about holiday gifts, check out Nell’s list of the all-time best video/DVDs to get your kids,* complete with her reviews and topics you might discuss at THE END. And if you think it’s nuts to buy the DVDs she recommends, consider getting your kid a membership in Netflix.com. For the heavy movie viewer, it sure beats Blockbuster. *Or your kids’ kids, or that 9-year-old from across the street who helped you set up your 802.11 access point. NICE GRANDPARENTS Judy Day: ‘We bought our granddaughter a car. She sold her old one and with that wee bit of money and some we are putting with it, we can make an extra payment of around $2000. We have only made 2 payments on the vehicle. My question is, will it pay us to put this money on the car loan and tell them to apply it all to the principal or hold onto this money for making the monthly payments. The interest rate is 7% and the loan is for 48 months.’ ☞ Car loans are often not like mortgages – you can’t assume they will allow pre-payments without some kind of hidden or explicit penalty. But if you’re certain they will simply apply the pre-payment to lowering your principal without penalty, then not have to pay 7% interest on $2,000 of principal gives you the equivalent of a 7% tax-free, risk-free return on your $2,000 – awesome these days. (Unless, that is, you think you or she will get into difficulty down the road and have to borrow against your credit cards at 22% to make the loan payments.) Try to find something very explicit and in writing about how pre-payments are treated on your loan before making the extra payment. (For others reading this: it obviously would have been easier just to put down an extra $2,000 in the first place and borrow that much less. But who of us thinks of these things at the time?) WEEKEND READING FROM THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE The hope, of course, is that we will talk so tough we never have to find out whether we really would have launched a preventive attack on Iraq. But here – not from The Nation or Mother Jones but from the current issue of The American Conservative – is Iraq: The Case Against Preemptive War, by Paul W. Schroeder. I don’t suggest this is an easy one, or that – having listened to both sides – I’m certain what’s right. But I’m certain what’s wrong: the assumption that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are so smart, they must be providing the President with good advice. Yes, they are very smart; but so was Robert McNamara, and many of us are old enough to remember what a nightmare Vietnam was. The pressure brought by thoughtful people on both sides of the aisle has already helped moderate the administration’s initial recklessness.
Jack Bogle; Cheap Software October 24, 2002February 22, 2017 FREE ADVICE WORTH MORE THAN YOU PAY FOR IT Jack Bogle is a hero, and Jack Bogle is the investor’s friend. I have linked to his wisdom before. For those of you who wish I’d write more about money and less about politics – read this recent speech once or twice. It ranges from the Big Picture all the way to variable annuities. DEEPLY DISCOUNTED SOFTWARE FOR NONPROFITS Also, if you support or work at or run a nonprofit organization, you will certainly want to be sure your group knows about DiscounTech.com, source of deeply discounted software for nonprofits, written up in yesterday’s New York Times.
Your Comments October 23, 2002February 22, 2017 FUNNY – HE DOESN’T LOOK DUTCH Judith: ‘I’m sure you’ve gotten a million emails about this, but I thought I’d point it out anyway – it’s Bruce Springsteen, not Springstein. I realize I know way too much about Bruce, but I grew up in New Jersey.’ REBUTTING AXELROD REBUTTING KENNEDY Tony Gurley: ‘While I disagree with much of what Sen. Kennedy said in the speech that you published a few days ago, Mr. Axelrod is dead wrong on a major point of his comments. It was not until the mid-90’s that ANYONE in the U.S. (incl. Pres. Kennedy, McNamara or the JCS in the Cuban Missile crisis) learned that Soviet commanders in Cuba had authority to use tactical nukes in combat on their own prerogative without getting Moscow’s approval. Had an invasion taken place, a nuclear exchange may have occurred. I cite the excellent book, One Hell of a Gamble, as a reference. The title is ironic inasmuch as no one, at that time, had any concept of just how much of a gamble it really was!’ Dara G: ‘Michael Axelrod demonstrates such dangerous ignorance about Ireland that I have to respond. How can someone who is seemingly articulate and intelligent claim that Ireland has waged and is waging a proxy terrorist war with Britain through the IRA. This claim is absolutely and patently absurd. What shocks me as an Irish citizen living in London is that such a ludicrous lie could be passed off so casually. To a citizen of a neutral western liberal democracy with some of the strongest anti-terrorism laws in Europe (specifically targeted against the IRA) and which has full and cordial diplomatic relations with the UK, this suggestion is deeply insulting. Michael Axelrod should be more careful. Even the most cursory of investigations of Irish and British affairs would reveal that his assertion is almost diametrically opposed to reality.’ OTHER THOUGHTS Paul Romaine: ‘I was surprised that you didn’t link to Paul Krugman’s cover story in this past Sunday’s New York Times about the end of the American middle class and the triumph of the plutocrats.’ Rob Myhre: ‘I can’t believe your reader, Robert A. Smith, accused the Democrats of vote buying. What was that $300 tax rebate? If that wasn’t vote buying, what is? The Republicans have a great game going. Tell the voters they’re going to let the people keep more of their money, then give most of it to the rich. The deficit goes up in the meantime, but winning the election is the important thing. Not the future of the country.’ Mary: ‘About Social Security….I wish it had been called Social Insurance. To draw an analogy, we all have to pay for insurance (on home, car, etc.) that most of us never use; we consider ourselves lucky if we don’t lose a home to fire, for instance. The wealthy should look at Social Security the same way; they should thank their lucky stars they don’t have to use it, and leave it to the less fortunate.’ FINALLY . . . Some of you may be interested in this Washington Post piece, describing Republican plans once they regain control of the Senate and have, thus, something of a lock on all three branches of government. And Dianne Moore offers this article linking to a 90-page report that describes Republican plans for, well, world domination. (Not that, if someone has to dominate the world, I wouldn’t want it to be us.)
OK October 22, 2002March 25, 2012 This friend was in New York for the weekend and went to see the revival of Oklahoma, the classic Broadway musical, and also – on my recommendation, which always makes me a little nervous – Jolson & Company. I’ve been pushing the show because some of my college classmates put it together and because it always gets standing ovations and because . . . well, as I’ve mentioned, I have a little piece of it. Wouldn’t you know it, the star of Jolson & Company, my classmate, who plays Jolson – virtually channels Jolson – was out sick Saturday night and the understudy had to fill in. I didn’t know he even had an understudy. Does Jackie Mason have an understudy? Does Lily Tomlin? Springsteen? ‘So how was Oklahoma?’ I asked when he came back from New York, not wanting to rush right into my real interest. ‘OK,’ he shrugged. ‘Ha!’ I laughed, at his pun. ‘Huh?’ he said. ‘Ha!’ I repeated. ‘Good one.’ And then, realizing the pun was unintended, I continued: ‘Only OK? How did you like Jolson? Which did you like better?’ Well, it seems the understudy was terrific (which to me means just one thing: that there can be regional companies and subsidiary rights! my classmate is not the only one who can pull this off!). And he thought that the gal who plays Mae West (and several other characters) was also terrific (does she have an understudy?) – she should get an Oscar, he said. (Or at least an Obie, we agreed.) On balance, he said, he preferred Jolson to Oklahoma. He wasn’t jumping-up-and-down-raving, but he liked it a lot. ‘OK,’ I said.
Let Them Do Sit-Ups And One Reader's Rebuttal to Senator Kennedy October 21, 2002January 23, 2017 JOLSON Toby Gottfried: ‘You can get an idea of how important – or at least how rich – Jolson was from his gravesite.’ LET THEM DO SIT-UPS Robert A. Smith: ‘I think the Democrats are increasingly dishonest about their objectives. I think their main objective is to use my tax dollars to buy votes. Why else would Daschle insist on a $1 trillion 10-year drug plan that would pay for drugs that many people could buy on their own? And aren’t people using too many drugs rather than improving their health through diet and exercise? I would be for a much more modest drug benefit with some programs to help people improve their own health, but then I’d be considered mean-spirited by most Democrats if I asked people to do anything to help themselves. Why shouldn’t we buy food, clothing, transportation for most people if we should pay for their drugs? Where is the limit on this?‘ ☞ Look: Is Jeb Bush, governor of Florida, mean-spirited? Certainly not. He cut the intangible property tax in half! That was a generous thing to do for those with multi-million-dollar portfolios. And he obviously cares deeply for his recently jailed daughter, Noelle, and has spared no expense to provide her with drug treatment. But he also slashed Florida’s drug-treatment budget by 85% earlier this year. Not because he’s mean-spirited; but because, I guess, he just doesn’t see the connection, or believe the social contract extends to things like this. Let families with kids in trouble pay for their own treatment – if he can, why can’t they? And if they can’t – well, where is the limit on this? Are you going to start providing medicine to the elderly just because they can’t afford to pay for it themselves? Food stamps to the parents of hungry children? An earned-income credit to the working poor? A higher minimum wage? (I know: Lift the minimum wage a dollar and everyone will drive to Mexico to buy their Big Macs and all those kids will be thrown out of work.) Where is the limit on this? You and others may feel we have already gone too far . . . (student loans for college? what’s next – some kind of crazy domestic Peace Corps? another 13-week unemployment insurance extension? universal health insurance like they have in the rest of the industrialized world?) Others of us, like Tom Daschle, think we could do a little more than we do now – that the Bush administration is working too hard to look out for their friends at the top and not hard enough to look out for everybody else. Some believe that if their grandmother’s doctor thinks she would have a better life talking certain pills, it’s just tough luck if she hasn’t saved enough money to afford them. She should hop on the treadmill – or, if it’s too late to do that, well, whose fault is that? I think Daschle favors adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare not to gain votes, though of course people are for it, but because he wants to help people who currently have to choose between eating, heating, and filling their prescriptions. (As to why we should allow well-to-do seniors in on the plan . . . well, why, for that matter, allow them to receive Social Security or Medicare? Answer: they pay the most taxes; it’s always seemed fair to let them get the benefits, too.) WAR AND PEACE Michael Axelrod: ‘Senator Kennedy’s speech presented incomplete and somewhat misleading information regarding the Cuban missile crisis. The reason the US did not use ground troops to invade Cuba had nothing to due with “Pearl Harbor in Reverse.” The Soviet Union had given Cuba tactical nuclear weapons. These are low yield (approximately 1 kiloton) devices delivered by artillery shell. The important and critical facts are that these weapons were deployed and operational. Moreover local Soviet commanders were authorized to use these weapons without getting a direct order from Moscow. Thus a land invasion would likely have been repelled and both Kennedy and the Pentagon knew this. In short the US was deterred. An air attack on the missile sites was also deemed unadvisable because we had incomplete information as to the number and locations of missiles. Mobile launchers could retrieve and launch the surviving Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs) in short order. ‘Unlike the tactical nuclear weapons, local commanders were not authorized to launch IRBMs without explicit orders from Moscow. Castro actually wanted to launch IRBMs against US cities during the crisis. Moscow deemed him a reckless and suicidal nut case, and ignored his desire to start a nuclear war between the super powers. Kennedy instead opted for a blockade to keep up the pressure on Moscow. Kennedy offered to withdraw Jupiter missiles from Turkey if Khrushchev withdrew his missiles from Cuba. A secret deal was consummated and this ended the crisis. Kennedy and McNamara then lied to the public and to Congress about this quid pro quo. American values, and international law were eclipsed by real politik. Had Castro been in command of the IRBMs, the US might very well have launched a preemptive and massive nuclear strike against Cuba because of Castro’s paranoid and suicidal behavior. In part, Kennedy caused this by constantly trying to kill him out of personal pique. Fortunately, the Soviet Union realized Castro was a nut. Nevertheless, Khrushchev was later removed from power by the Politburo for being so foolish as to put missiles in Cuba, even if they were under Soviet control. ‘We did not launch a first strike against the Soviet Union during the cold war because it was rational and capable of being deterred and because we were similarly rational. Stability. The least risky course was deterrence. This does not mean that the least risky course is always deterrence. It depends on the circumstances. This is the basic logical flaw in the Kennedy speech. I don’t know the least risky course to take with Iraq, as I don’t have enough information. It seems from the public record that it might not be subject to deterrence because it can wage unconventional war. A few words about this follow. ‘The modern waging of war through terrorist proxy groups is a new twist. Now a country can attack and avoid suffering retaliation because the victim country cannot exactly identify the attacker. We all know Ireland is behind the IRA, and that the IRA could not exist without support from Ireland. Note the IRA has a terrorist wing and a political wing. The political wing denies it can control the terror wing. In this way Ireland can wage war against Britain through a terrorist proxy and not suffer direct military retaliation. It can even negotiate using the political wing which keeps on denying it can stop the terror wing as it negotiates the terms to stop the terror attacks! This kind of war can only work against a pluralistic democracy like Britain, the US or Israel. In this sense Kennedy is part of the problem as he helps make the proxy war strategy work. His speech is exactly what the terror state needs to avoid retaliation. I am not suggesting in any way that Kennedy realizes what he is doing. I’m sure he has good intentions. He generally has an excellent staff and is an effective legislator. He is part and parcel of what you get in a pluralistic democracy. He needs to be answered and this is my answer to him. I think he is completely wrong.’
Of Taxes, the Church, War and Mammy Oh, Mammy! October 18, 2002February 22, 2017 But first . . . we started the week with this: << The man recruits three ships full of men to make this unbelievably dangerous, scary voyage to what turns out to be America . . . and we can’t close the stock market for one rotten little day? >> To which Bob responds: ‘What about the argument that by the account of his own diary he murdered and enslaved the majority of natives that welcomed him with open arms?’ ☞ Ouch. I promise to write a column next Columbus Day. CHURCH AND STATE Billionaire TV evangelist Pat Robertson may most recently be remembered for his dialog with Jerry Falwell in the wake of 9/11. FALWELL: ‘I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way – all of them who have tried to secularize America – I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.” PAT ROBERTSON: ‘Well, I totally concur.’ One might think this would put Pat outside the American mainstream. But those of you who agree with Chief Justice Rehnquist that ‘separation of church and state’ was never the founders’ intention, will be pleased by this news that Pat has gotten a ‘faith-based’ grant from the Bush administration. Click here for the story. And in other recent news . . . MEDIEVAL MEDICINE FOR WOMEN The Bush administration plans to appoint Dr. W. David Hager – who refuses to prescribe birth control to unmarried women – to head the advisory panel on women’s health of the Food and Drug Administration. In 1998, Hager and his wife authored Stress and the Woman’s Body, a book that puts ‘an emphasis on the restorative power of Jesus Christ in one’s life, not on self-healing’ and recommends specific Scripture readings and prayers as treatment for premenstrual syndrome and other ailments. And back to your money . . . MAKING THE TAX CUT PERMANENT Under current law, the benefits of the tax cut for the top 1% of taxpayers phase in over the next few years until 2010. At that point, according to a recently released study, the top 1% will be getting 51.8% of the cuts. But that’s also the point at which the law is set to expire. In 2011, we’d all be back to where we were in 2001. The Republicans don’t want to see that happen. They feel it’s important to make permanent the tax cuts for everyone. Most Democrats feel it would be enough to lock in the tax cuts for just the bottom 99%. If we did that – making permanent the cuts for 99% of American taxpayers but freezing tax rates for the remaining 1% at their current levels – we would, by 2010, be saving 51.8% of the cost of the tax cut. That huge savings could be used for things like a prescription drug benefit, smaller classroom sizes, and honoring the Social Security ‘lock box.’ What are we talking here in actual dollars? Well, as you can see if you click the link above, the study estimates an average 2010 tax saving of $85,000 for those in the top 1%. That compares with about $1,700 for the next best-off 19% of taxpayers . . . and about $800 for the 60% of taxpayers in the middle. (The study has a great table that shows all this.) Some of you will say that the $85,000 is fair in comparison with the $800 because, of course, it’s our money not the government’s, and, in any event, of course the rich will save a little more, because they pay so much more. But consider these two points: First, while the top bracket was going down from 90% to 70% to 28% from Eisenhower’s day to Kennedy’s to Reagan’s, the brackets most people faced did not fall much, if at all. And the payroll tax – ‘the working man’s tax’ – was skyrocketing. So we had decades where one small group of Americans was seeing a huge cut in marginal rates while the rest of us were not. What would be so terrible if the rest of us now got a modest tax cut without giving a big tax cut to those at the top? Second, the top 1% have legal ways to soften that 39.6% top bracket considerably – key among them, a 0% tax rate on municipal bond interest and a 20% rate on long-term capital gains. I don’t begrudge the top 1% these things. I just don’t see that further tax relief, to the tune of $85,000 a year in 2010, is the wisest economic policy. The country and the world face desperate needs, daunting challenges, and exciting opportunities. The Bush administration and many Republicans seem to feel that by far the highest priority among these needs, challenges, and opportunities – and thus the place to target a huge portion of our resources – is the plight of the rich. Please don’t hand the Senate gavel back to Trent Lott on November 5. A quick word about war . . . COUNTERPOINT TO SENATOR KENNEDY’S SPEECH Roger Farley: ‘Here is a link to the full testimony of Eliot Cohen, Professor of Strategic Studies at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, who makes a compelling argument for the removal of Saddam Hussein.’ And, finally, let’s make ME a little money . . . MAMMY I mentioned that I have a piece of Jolson & Company, which opened at the Century Theater in New York a couple of weeks ago. The reviews have been good and audiences are giving resounding, standing ovations at every performance … yes, every performance. For some of the older Jolson fans, that’s no simple gesture. Buy your tickets, spread the word – I didn’t know or care about Al Jolson either until I show the show. But that’s one of the things that make it so much fun. You enter his world and come out the other end knowing a man’s life and having revisited an era. (You will love the young Mae West.) And singing. Have a great weekend.