Your Feedback (Two Days' Worth) November 7, 2002February 22, 2017 Well, this thing has brought out a lot of passion, understandably. (To the guy who wrote in under the subject heading: ‘Print THIS, you dumb asshole!’ I say: if you include your real name, I will!) Some of you are furious that the Democrats lost, and have clear prescriptions for how we could have won. Others, pleased with the election results, are sick of my ‘whining.’ (It’s always ‘whining.’) Several of you took offense at my line about not ‘getting it,’ pointing out that it was I who had not gotten it. (I had simply said that yesterday’s election was terribly important – surely, if for no other reason than the courts – and that, judging from the tens of millions of eligible voters who chose not to vote, not everyone ‘got this.’ At least, that’s what I meant to say.) Several picked up on the ‘slimeball’ discussion of the last couple of weeks as clear evidence that character matters little to people like me. (They, apparently, would rather sacrifice the Supreme Court for 25 years than, say, vote for a guy who had cheated on his taxes.) And a lot of you were angry that the Democrats failed to articulate a simple, compelling message. Peter Amstein: ‘Regarding the message, here is what I think the 240-word version could be. Now how to distill it to five words? If I figure that out, you will be the very first to know, I promise . . .’ The Dem’s are the party of fairness, of ‘the level playing field.’ The R’s are the party of ‘whatever you can get away with is fine as long as you don’t get caught.’ A level playing field benefits everyone. A field that allows cheating ultimately fails. Look at any country in the world with a lot of graft and corruption: I guarantee you their economy is in the tank. There is a direct correlation between how honest a country’s government is, how ‘well regulated’ its economy is, and how prosperous it is. Without exception. In many third world countries, corruption is just accepted as the way of life and the citizens pay dearly for it. Not that we don’t occasionally have graft and corruption here. We do. But the difference is this: in America, it’s a scandal! We are horrified! We throw the bums out, maybe even put them in jail. Whatever their party. And that is what we must now do. Think of baseball, GW’s favorite sport. You could argue, “baseball is way over regulated – all those umpires – and it has way too many rules.” Let’s get rid of the umps and toss out that thick rule book. Now we’re playing ball! The pitcher is using sandpaper? Who cares! Plus if we don’t have to pay for umpires, the tickets can be cheaper. But of course the game would quickly descend into chaos, and it would be no fun for anyone, fan or player. It is to prevent this chaos that we invented the umpires in the first place! That is the Republican plan for America: fire the umpires, cut the SEC budget, cut the IRS, toss out the rule book, make the tickets cheaper, and damn the consequences. Is that what we really want for this country?’ My wise older brother: ‘People want to hear from people they think they can trust. (Good lawyers know that their personal credibility is their one big asset. Judges and juries don’t like to be manipulated.) Far fewer Minnesota voters agreed with Wellstone than supported him; they elected him to the Senate anyway because they got that he cared about them – the common good – and about his credibility much more than he cared about political advantage, his own * or * his party’s. People dislike both parties these days, dislike most politicians, and mostly loathe politics. That’s because they know politics is supposed to be about the common good but it’s largely about power for power’s sake instead. That’s why most of them refuse – or just can’t be bothered – to vote. And that’s also why, internationally, America as leader is loved and admired but America as hegemon is feared and disliked. ‘I guess we ‘liberals’ can’t run [columnists] Paul Krugman or Tom Friedman for office. Or [West Wing creator] Aaron Sorkin (him, though, we could maybe hire?). Let alone George Washington or FDR. But we can listen to them better as a party and come together a lot better on where America should be going. The only way to do that is to talk to one another with the common good in mind first . . . and private, personal, partisan advantage a distant second.’ Darren McDonald: ‘The time has come for new Democratic leadership. The existing leaders have failed to communicate a message to the core voters. You can’t campaign against a tax cut if you helped pass it. Democratics allowed themselves to be painted in a corner on far too many issues.’ ☞ I agree that we’ve been painted into some corners. I hated the tax bill, and feel strongly that, while we should make the tax cuts permanent for the ‘bottom’ 98% or so, we should freeze the cuts that apply only to the top 1% or 2% until we can afford them. But the Democratic Party is a big tent, and I have to admit of the possibility that some of our folks may actually have believed that, on balance, the tax bill was a good thing. Even if not, the reality is: (a) tax cuts are popular; and (b) at the time, before Jim Jeffords’s switch, we lacked the votes to block this one So, yes, some of our people doubtless chose to make the popular vote rather than risk reelection to vote against something certain to pass anyway. Likewise, many Democrats, while helping to push the administration to go more slowly and carefully, paying more heed to the U.N. – which I think was an important contribution to the process – may at the same time genuinely agree with the Bush administration that the world has become too dangerous to allow Saddam to develop weapons of mass destruction. My own hope is that by talking very tough, we may get inspections without having to attack. Paul: We need to give people some compelling reasons to vote for Democrats and not just ‘me too’ our way through elections. There would have been something honorable about losing as badly as we did if we really offered a clear alternative that had been articulated from the top down. As Paul Begala kept saying last night as we watched the blood bath, ‘You’ve got to stand for something or you fall for everything.” ☞ A few weeks ago I heard Begala arguing passionately that we should call for freezing the tax cut for the top 2% so we could pay for prescription drugs and balance the budget. Our pollster said no. Whenever we allowed the debate to go to taxes, he said – no matter how compelling our position – we lost, because tax talk automatically triggers pro-Republican sentiment. For the most part, I think the Party chose pollster over policy. Tim Russert would ask our candidates whether they favored a freeze for the top 1% . . . I would be screaming YESSSSSSSSSS!!!!!! into the TV . . . and our guys would dance around the answer. Made me nuts. But is it a sin to listen to some of the best pollsters in the country when, as a practical matter, your party cannot possibly freeze the tax cut for the top 1% anyway because the President would veto it? I disagree with those who think this question has an easy answer. Brett Delfino: ‘I preface this by saying that I voted Democrat down the line as a protest against Bush policies. That said, if a majority of voters want to elect people who will continue to enrich me at their and their children’s expense (I am in a high income bracket), then let them. We should try to educate people about the mess that Republican policy is making, but in the end we can’t force votes. The triumph of the Republican party is that they have managed to dupe a large portion of the electorate who will never benefit from their policies into believing that they will. In these voters’ honor, I am thinking of buying a second home and naming it ‘Poor Republican Voter,’ as it is their gift to me.’ Dave: ‘I am bitterly disappointed. I don’t understand. Budget surplus to budget deficit. Tax breaks primarily for the rich. Cleland – a disabled veteran, a hero, a moderate – painted as soft on ‘homeland defense.’ Visigoth judicial candidates waiting in the wings. An economy that is in the tank. Unemployment rising. How did we lose? I’m not getting any younger, but if Lautenberg is ready to keep fighting, so I am I.’ Let’s take tomorrow off. Have a great weekend.
When You Don’t Have Anything Nice to Say . . . November 6, 2002March 25, 2012 There WERE some nice things yesterday — Ed Rendell is Governor of Pennsylvania! Mark Pryor knocked off Tim Hutchinson in Arkansas! — but the main story, of course, is that the right wing of the Republican Party came to control all three branches of our government. The proper response from those of us who are devastated by this, far from giving up or dropping out, I think, is to try harder . . . is to inspire more people to help . . . and is to do a better job of articulating our message. Because the Clinton/Gore vision really *is* more uplifting and really *did* provide better results than either of the Bush visions that bookend it. And we should also stress the positive. For example, here in Florida – despite Governor Jeb Bush’s opposition – a Democratic ballot measure appears to have passed that would limit the terrible overcrowding in our public school classrooms. That’s good news! (Did you have 44 kids in *your* fourth grade class?) Bush told a group of insiders that if this measure passed he would find some “devious way” to thwart it. But unbeknownst to him, a reporter was listening and reported the remark. With luck, that will make it harder for him to thwart the measure after all. It’s not that either of the Bushes dislikes children. It’s just that their first priority is to cut taxes for the best off. Jeb Bush cut Florida’s intangible property tax in half, while leaving the taxes that average people pay untouched. Cutting my intangible property tax in half (from a tiny tax to an even tinier tax) is nice for me, but it worsens Florida’s budget crunch and winds up hurting children. Not one Floridian in 100 knows he did this or sees the connection. (Bush cut the state’s drug treatment budget by about 80%, but blithely claimed during the televised debate to have *raised* it 60% … and the Miami Herald – knowing this – never even called him on it.) We needed to let them know. So much was at stake yesterday. A lot of people “got it” — but, obviously, not enough. I asked my young dental hygienist yesterday afternoon whether she had voted. “Yes!” she said, explaining emphatically: “if you don’t vote, you don’t get to complain.” *She* gets it. Some of the folks on my list with $50 million and $1 billion net worths did not get it, or believed we should “unilaterally disarm” in the soft-money race. I keep reminding myself that it’s their money, not mine. But I will admit that it makes me crazy that I was unable to persuade them to help. But that just means the rest of us will have to try harder. One good way to get a start on 2004 is to go to democrats.org and sign onto our e-mail list.
Turn-Out November 5, 2002March 25, 2012 They say Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana should do pretty well if it doesn’t rain too badly today. And that’s probably true of all our Democratic candidates. When turn-out is high, Democrats win. (Republican candidates tend to have the money. ’60 Minutes’ reported Sunday that Texas Senate candidate Ron Kirk was being outspent five to one by his Republican opponent. But Democrats tend to have the voters, if they can be motivated to go vote.) I mention Louisiana because I am reading Undaunted Courage by Stephen Ambrose, the story of Lewis and Clark. (More accurately, it is being read to me, on my tiny Audible.com MP3 player, as I do my big five-mile walk.) As you will recall, Thomas Jefferson recruited Merriweather Lewis (and Lewis recruited Clark) to explore the Louisiana territory that, in 1803 or so (one of the problems with an audible book is that it’s hard to flip through the pages to recall a fact), Jefferson bought from the French for $15 million, all in. Originally, the purchase was to cover New Orleans only. But it wound up covering all of Louisiana, which seemed to stretch all the way up to Canada (no one knew). It was Lewis and Clark’s assignment to explore that territory up to the headwaters of the Missouri but, more than that, to make their way West all the way to the Pacific – by water insofar as possible – a thing no Americans or Europeans had ever done. They set out without maps, without satellite phones, without sunscreen or bug repellent or a Starbucks around every bend. (Near the end of my own grueling walk, if I am getting too dehydrated, I stop at Starbucks for a grande frappucino to go.) They encountered bears and rapids and native Americans (oh, how we treated the native Americans). They wintered in the Dakotas. And for much of the time, before they had to portage over the Rocky Mountains, they were going upstream. It is a story of astonishing dangers, deprivation, disease and discomfort, and one marvels that Lewis and Clark and their men (and a native American woman named Sacajawea) somehow were able to succeed (the expedition took years) and at the courage and ingenuity and determination they summoned. It reminds me of the decades-earlier words of Abigail Adams that I’m fond of quoting, where she said, ‘Posterity, who are to reap the blessings, will scarcely be able to conceive the hardships and sufferings of their ancestors.’ It contrasts rather starkly with the modern-day citizen who doesn’t vote because it’s raining. Or who hasn’t registered for fear of being called for jury duty. Or who simply hasn’t learned enough of our history to understand where we fit in.
Vote for the Slimeball? November 4, 2002February 22, 2017 Last week, a reader asked whether it made more sense to vote for an upstanding candidate of the opposing party, whose policies you oppose, or for a ‘doofus’ you did not respect but who might give a majority to the party whose policies you favor. I said: when control of the government hangs in the balance, you have to go with the doofus. Magda: ‘You know, I’m with you on a lot of issues, but not this one, my friend. You offer the options of voting for a [slimeball] from your own party or a candidate from the party you oppose. You seem to have forgotten there are other people on the ballot. In most races there are at least three (and frequently more) candidates on the ballot. Years ago, I had my two-party blinders lifted. Since then I have honestly evaluated candidates on the basis of their character, policies and platforms – and not solely on the basis of their party affiliation. To do less surrenders my claim to participation in a representative democracy. Why vote for someone I cannot respect enough to have them represent me?’ ☞ Because otherwise you could get a very bad outcome. Your approach is totally fine if it won’t matter and you want your vote to make a statement – I’d do it, too. But it’s a disastrous thing to do in instances – like tomorrow’s unbelievably close race for control of the House and Senate – where it could matter. The most obvious example of this, although it does not involve a slimeball, was the 2000 presidential race. Those to the left of Al Gore should have voted for him anyway, if they lived in a swing state like Florida. Instead, 97,000 Nader voters elected Bush. There may be a Nader voter out there somewhere who prefers the world according to Bush over what they imagine the world would have been under Gore – but I can’t imagine who he would be, unless it is Ralph himself. And I think he’s rationalizing. MORE ON JEB Surely you know someone who knows someone who votes in Florida. Please send him or her this devastating column from the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. Or this one from an editorial in Friday’s Palm Beach Post. (‘As a candidate in 1998,’ it begins, ‘Jeb Bush promised Floridians ‘a new kind of politics.’ He has delivered. He and the Republican Party have put out signs that the state is open for business — private business. Never in Florida has there been such a link between politics and policy. Never has an administration had to invent so many defenses of obvious conflicts of interest. Never has money become so institutionalized in Tallahassee.’) Don’t you have a grandmother in Florida? Sure you do. Or your old college roommate surely does. Let’s do this people. We desperately need a regime change in Florida.
Things You May Not Have Known About Jeb Bush November 1, 2002January 23, 2017 But three quick items first: 1. SELL ONE OF OUR LITTLE SPECULATIONS On June 26, I suggested ‘three little speculations.’ One of them, BMRN, was $4.50 or so and closed last night at $6.45. It may (or may not) go higher, but I am no longer comfortable recommending it and have sold most of mine. Better to take a 40% taxable gain than to avoid tax by losing it. The other two little speculations I expect to hold until they make me rich or make a funny column. 2. DIAMONDS Ron Heller: ‘When I got engaged, I offered my wife-to-be a choice: a big diamond, or use those same dollars as part of the down payment on a house. She chose the house, and I knew I’d picked the right woman.’ David Morrison: ‘When Dana Dlott wrote that ‘The diamond business is a classic bubble,’ you could have responded with ‘No, it’s a classic bauble.” 3. SOMETHING GOOD THE BUSH TEAM HAS DONE You may have seen Nightline this past Tuesday describing a $15 million ad campaign the U.S. is doing to reach the Muslim world. It’s a good, modern campaign that shows how well American Muslims are integrated into our society, the positions of power and respect many hold, and so on. I.e.: We like Muslims; please like us. The three American Muslim scholars on with Ted Koppel to critique the ads thought they largely missed the point – it’s not U.S. treatment of American Muslims the Arab world hates us for – but seemed to think they were a good start, if only because it showed the Muslim TV audience that we were trying to reach out and talk to them, and that we care what we think. I hope we build on the campaign, addressing touchier subjects like our support of Israel and our concerns with Iraq. I’d like to see us spend 10 times $15 million on this and – if it seems to be opening any minds – 10 times that. And now: JEB – In Three Acts ACT I. Cut taxes – but only for the best off. It’s a challenge to cut taxes for the rich in Florida, because Florida has no income tax. But when we last left this story, Jeb Bush had found the one tax in Florida that applies only to the best off – the intangible property tax – and chopped it in half. It used to be TWO-tenths of one percent of your stocks and bonds and mutual funds above $100,000 (though not your retirement plan or your savings accounts or savings bonds or checking accounts or Treasuries or municipals or private partnerships or real estate), and Jeb cut it in half, to ONE-tenth of one percent. I doubt there is one Floridian in 50 who even knows about this. I know about it because my tax was cut in half. My first thought was – oh, this is nice! But my next thought was, how can we afford it? What about my friends who teach school down here and tell me how hard it is to have 44 kids in their classroom? They have subsequently both quit and moved to Atlanta. But I don’t care about them nearly so much as I care about the kids. What kind of life are we setting them up for when we throw them into classes of 40 and more? Aren’t kids our most precious resource? Isn’t it more important to invest in them than to nick the growth rate of my (very small) fortune by one-tenth of a percent instead of two? (And of course it’s even less than that, because it does exclude so many things and because it’s deductible against federal tax. So even at two-tenths of one percent it may have effectively been less than one-tenth of one percent. Ah, the burdens we bear!) ACT II. Cut the drug treatment program by 85%. No one doubts Jeb’s compassion for his own daughter’s drug problems. But what about others’ sons and daughters? About a year after I noticed that he had cut my intangible property tax in half, I noticed this headline: The Miami Herald January 27, 2002 FLORIDA SLASHING CARE FOR DRUG ADDICTS By Carol Marbin Miller In a state where nearly a third of all crimes are drug-related, the Department of Corrections has approved a budget cut that will eliminate the bulk of drug treatment among inmates and greatly reduce the state’s program to help drug addicts outside the prison system. The cuts, the Herald reported, were expected to save Florida $13 million a year and would eliminate in-house drug treatment programs at all but four of Florida’s 55 major prisons . . . and reduce by 34% the number of beds available to treat drug addicts at 20 residential treatment programs throughout the state. ACT III. Lie, and say you raised the budget by 60%. It was making me crazy that in interview after interview about his daughter’s re-arrest on drug possession charges, no one asked Jeb why he had cut the drug treatment budget so dramatically. And in last week’s televised debate, no one asked him about this either – but he brought it up (in passing) himself, listing among his great accomplishments for the people of Florida the fact that he had raised the budget for drug treatment/prevention by 60%. My first reaction was – uh, oh. Maybe the Herald got it wrong, or maybe there was such a stink after the Herald report that he did an about face. Or maybe the heartbreak over his daughter led him to restore the budget and then raise it 60% to boot. I started worrying that I had been tarring him unfairly. I decided to do a little reporting. ‘Make no mistake,’ the Herald story had quoted Broward County chief assistant public defender Howard Finkelstein – who himself battled drug addiction 14 years ago – ‘When we get done crunching the numbers . . . human lives will be lost or go unrepaired, and misery will be spread from generation to generation.’ So I called him. Which was it, I asked: Had the budget been slashed 85% or raised 60%? Did he know how this seeming contradiction could possibly be squared? He laughed ruefully – as did the several others I wound up speaking to who confirmed all this – and told me what had happened. Even before the Herald story had come out, the Broward County Public Defender’s office – and all the other such offices in the state, I was told – were instructed to shift 75% of their 110-person payroll, for accounting purposes only, to the line for drug treatment and prevention. Their budget was frozen, not raised; and the 75% of the staff that was ‘moved’ did absolutely nothing different after the move, little or none of which had concerned drug treatment. It was all sham. Now, you expect this sort of thing of Enron or Harken Oil or Halliburton. Cook the books, fool the people. But aren’t those folks, or at least some of those folks, headed to jail? Anybody think Andy Fastow should be the next governor of Florida? I know this is harsh, but isn’t it at least as harsh to eliminate 51 of 55 prison drug treatment programs? Isn’t it harsh to oppose Amendment 9 on Florida’s ballot Tuesday that would mandate smaller class sizes . . . and to be caught by a reporter telling insiders (at a meeting where Jeb didn’t realize a reporter was present) that if it does pass, he would find some ‘devious’ way to keep from implementing it? That was his word – ‘devious.’ I’m sure he meant it in fun, just as the 60% hike in the drug treatment budget probably just seemed like clever, fun politics. But what about the kids? Is it really good government to find a real way to cut taxes for the best off – and only the best off – and then to find a fake way to make it look as if you raised the drug treatment budget or reduced classroom sizes? Is this not lying? I don’t use the term “lie” lightly. I’m not talking about a white lie or a slip of the tongue or a little ol’ fashioned political exaggeration – or concealing some embarrassing personal detail. For all the hoopla the Bush brothers made over Al Gore’s saying he invented the Internet, the fact is (a) HE NEVER SAID IT and (b) what he did say – that he had been its champion in Congress and deserved a lot of credit for its creation – is undisputed. Only most people never learned this. The Bushes had a field day when it turned out, after one of the debates, that Gore hadn’t actually gone to a disaster site with the director of FEMA (which he had done something like 37 times), but in this case had gone with the deputy director – oh, they scoffed, the man is out of control! Who could trust such a man! They scoffed, too, when Gore said their numbers were a trillion-dollar fake – that you couldn’t slash taxes as they proposed and still protect Social Security and balance the budget, as the promised. And even as they were scoffing, they knew he was right, but that that was fine – the idea was to cut taxes for the best off so much that you had to cut government spending. And if kids suffered or the elderly couldn’t afford their medicine or 40-odd million folks would still be left with no health insurance, well . . . well . . . I think they must just not let themselves think about these things. So, in my view, they attacked Gore on silly little things that the Bush team either made up or blew out of all proportion. But what’s silly or little about slashing desperately needed drug treatment while cooking the books in a way to allow you to claim to have raised it 60%? What’s silly about living in a state so poor in education that it threatens to ruin the lives of tens of thousands of innocent kids . . . and planning to find some devious way to avoid reducing classroom sizes if the people vote for it? And of course this is just one slice, the little piece I know. How many other slices are there out there? According to this detailed Village Voice article, Jeb is getting ready to give more than $10 million of the taxpayers’ money to some friends. They paid $4.4 million for a citrus grove two years ago; the trees then developed canker (which should make the grove LESS valuable, no?); and Jeb was getting ready to give them $14.4 million for it. Could this be true? It sure seems to fit a pattern. (Don’t even get me started on the environmental stuff.) Please consider cutting and pasting this column and sending it to everyone you think just might know someone who votes in Florida. The Miami Herald has not made it easy for us by ignoring these stories and endorsing Bush. But the race is very close. Bill McBride is a terrific, honorable man, a former marine, who deserves to be Florida’s governor – not Jeb. Have a great weekend.
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.