Anti-immigration nonsense

I can't believe they said this.

'Let the prisoners pick the fruits'

I'm so glad these Republican yahoos are holding press conferences to spout their ignorance. The public really needs to see what kind of people we have running the House today.

UPDATE
Here is my conservative friend Mark Harden’s response from comments:

"Let the illegal aliens pick up the trash along the highways" instead of community service prisoners, then.

One thing about those protest marches. Wait, two things. First, they were about as "spontaneous" as an Imam-inspired crowd of Muslims storming out of the mosque after Friday prayers to scream "Death to the Jews!". Particularly high school students cutting class to be involved. How amazing they would do that! Second, some claim it's not possible to deport 11 million illegals - maybe we can start by rounding them up 400,000 at a time at these marches. Third, the comparison to civil rights marchers is logically flawed. Blacks marched in the 60s for civil rights that were due to them, which they were not receiving. These people are illegally here...they currently have no civil rights that are being unfairly denied them. So, you can say they are marching to convince legislators to provide them these rights, but they are not marching in the same sense as the civil rights marchers. [Preemptive response: maintain proper distinction between civil rights and human rights. Yes, we should be kind to these illegals...as we deport them.]

OK, so that was three things. So arrest me. Besides, laws aren't meant to be enforced if enough people ignore them.

First, they probably would pick up the trash along the highways if we would pay them a fair wage. Second, the idea of using prisoners to pick fruit would be an unprecedented use of forced labor to benefit a private enterprise - unprecedented at least since the time of slavery and indentured servitude. That is unless Dana Rohrabaher and his supporters are really communists and are calling for nationalization of our agricultural industry.

Now as to the marchers, no, of course they were not spontaneous. These people don’t pay that close of attention (or any at all) to what is going on in Washington. They had to be riled up - in this case by Spanish-language radio stations. But once aroused, the crowds are responding angrily to what they perceive as an attack on their heritage and their worth as human beings. This business of carrying the Mexican flag, which has gotten many on the right riled up, is no different than those good ol’ boys down south running around waving the Rebel flag from the back of their pickup trucks. It’s a symbol of defiance and cultural pride mixed into one, not an attack on the U.S.

Finally, I think there is a valid comparison between these protests and the ones for Civil Rights for blacks. In each case, you have a large segment of our society that is or was used for cheap labor, that has subsequently been left disenfranchised. In one case, the cheap laborers were forcibly brought to this country, in the other case they came on their own. Either way, they are here to stay whether we like it or not.

Still alive and kicking

I had heard about this website before but just today decided to check it out.
It seems kind of morbid, but it is really quite facinating. Just check out the list of people still living who are 85 and above. You will be surprised to learn that some people on the list are still alive, and shocked to learn that other people are that old.

Here is a sample:

John Kenneth Galbraith (97) The New Deal economist and prolific author of popular books on economics. I own a large collection of his works and got to see him in person when I was in college when he was touring around the country doing one-on-one debates with William F. Buckley.
Michael DeBakey (97) The famous heart-transplant surgeon from Houston.
Dolores Hope (96) The widow of Bob Hope who died a few years ago at age 100.
Karl Malden (94) The actor who was Michael Douglas’ older partner on the hit ‘70s cop show Streets of San Francisco.
Studs Terkel (93) Another prolific author and interviewer whose many works have found a place in my library.
Milton Friedman (93) Nobel Prize winning economist and proponent of right-wing free-market theories. Is in a contest with Galbraith to see who can outlive the other.
Lady Bird Johnson (93) Beloved former first lady and widow of LBJ.
Former President Gerald Ford (92) He made news recently when he went to the hospital with a touch of pneumonia, but he apparently pulled through and is back out on the golf course.
Harry Morgan (90) The actor who portrayed Col. Potter on the M*A*S*H TV series.
Sargent Shriver (90) Democratic vice presidential candidate who married a Kennedy and became father-in-law to Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Augusto Pinochet (90) Facist dictator of Chile.
Eli Wallach (90) Actor who played Tuco (the Ugly) in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.

The list of Octogenarians is equally interesting, but I am out of time for now.

Fun with photography

Sometimes it amazes me what people can do with the Internet.
Case in point:

Yesterday somebody noticed this picture on the web site of a Republican running for Congress in California. The guy claimed it was a picture of downtown Baghdad and went on to say that it demonstrates that media reports of chaos and turmoil there are overblown and just flat wrong.

But then some people on the web started looking more closely at the photo. They noticed a conspicuous absense of Arabic on any of the visible signs in the photo. They note that the girl in the picture is not wearing a head scarf and even more scandalously is wearing a strapless dress!
Soon there were allegations going around the web that the photo was not of Baghdad. But where is it and how could you ever prove it?

Well, amazingly, earlier today someone over at Daily Kos tracked down a photo of the same street scene from a slightly different angle making clear that the scene is not that of wartorn Baghdad, but a peaceful suburb in Istanbul, Turkey.

As Atrios was quick to note: it’s Istanbul Not Baghdadinople

Needless to say, the lying Republican (is that redundant?) was forced to pull the picture off of his web site.

Facing the music

I’ve picked up a lot of new music recently including the new albums by the Rolling Stones (A Bigger Bang), Paul McCartney (Chaos and Creation), and Bruce Springsteen (Devil in Dust). I also finally picked up the latest U2 album that won all of the Grammy Awards.
But even with all this new music, I find myself turning everyday to listen to a long-gone band from the early ‘70s that I discovered recently when perusing the record section at my local public library.

I found a four-disc compilation of The Faces, a short-lived British band that featured frontman Rod Stewart and lead guitarist Ron Wood, and I’ve been completely blown away. The music is fun, catchy and rocks harder than I expected when I first picked it up.
I already had a copy of Rod Stewart’s “Every Picture Tells A Story” which was recorded about the same time with many of the same band members, so this collection is like finding a treasure trove of material in that same vein.

The Faces could be described as the second-best bluesy early 70s English rock act - after the Rolling Stones, of course. It’s given me renewed respect for Rod Stewart and especially for Ron Wood, who I had previously only known as the latter-day replacement with the Rolling Stones.

It’s a shame they didn’t stick together longer, but sometimes the creative spark only lasts a short time and then everyone has to go their separate ways to find new inspiration.

White House in turmoil

President Bush is shaking up his staff as expected and the first to go is Chief of Staff Andy Card.

Here, from the NYTimes, is a quick summary of recent developments in the Bush White House under Card’s watch:

...his stewardship of the Bush team had come under question in recent months after a series of mishaps, including the failed Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, the slow public disclosure of Vice President Cheney’s shooting accident and the unexpected Republican revolt over a plan to turn management at a half dozen ports to an Arab-owned company.

And that doesn’t even mention the things that have really made Bush unpopular this year such as the neverending quagmire in Iraq or their bungled response to Hurricane Katrina.

Bush has tapped budget director Josh Bolten to step in and take Card’s place. Think Progress notes that during his time as budget director, Bolten watched the federal deficit grow by $1.8 trillion.
“In the Bush administration, this is grounds for a promotion,” they conclude.

All Americans are created equal...

Are the rights outlined in our Constitution only for Americans? That is apparently what Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia believes.
Certainly, there are some rights and obligations that go along with citizenship, such as the right to vote and the obligation to pay taxes. But that is not what is at issue with the detainees at Guantanamo. Here we are talking about more basic rights, such as the right to a fair trial and adequate legal representation; the right not to be held indefinitely without charges; and so forth.
It would seem to me that when our forefathers were drafting the Constitution they had in mind certain inalieanable rights of mankind - all of whom were created equal, you might recall - and that these rights were not something Americans were just going to bestow upon themselves, but rather it was a philosphy of how one should view fellow men throughout the world.

This idea that the prisoners at Guantanamo have no rights because they are not Americans is to me a betrayal of the values that we as Americans take such pride in. For a comparable analogy, imagine a Christian who believes that the only people they have to show Christian love to are other Christians. Non-Christians they can treat like garbage and it is OK.

The way we have treated the prisoners at Guantanamo is a disgrace and a betrayal of our core American values. We are a less worthy nation in the eyes of the world today because of Gitmo and Abu Gharib.

I just hope the other members of our Supreme Court see things differently than Scalia.

Defending Jimmy Carter

In the comments to a previous post, Mark Harden raises the specter of Jimmy Carter as the low point in presidential office holders of the modern era. He even goes on to accuse the former president of treason for his post-presidential peacekeeping activities.

Jimmy Carter’s record of unmitigated failure as president is completely unassailable. Even I could do no worse. His post-presidential treasonous acts make Carter even more reprehensible, by the way.

Where did that come from, I wondered. How could a guy who has done so much to advance the cause of human rights and alleviate human suffering become so despised?
Even winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 seems to have just stoked the flames of resentment against this elder statesman.

...the sanctimonious, grasping Carter (who had shamelessly campaigned for the prize for years) accepted the prize under those stated conditions...in effect, spitting on his own country.

Mark goes on to say that Carter’s basic human decency is a “myth” and accuses him of being “a disgusting apologist and enabler for any dictator who opposes the United States.”

Then my friend Libertas weighs in with his own denunciation of Carter (and every other president dating back to LBJ).

Jimmy Carter sold himself as a peanut farmer while actually a nuclear physicist. He was a hypocritical snob, sadistically hard on the help and totally incompetent at domestic and foreign policy, all Arafat, Sadat and Zion improv theatre not withstanding. At least Sadat not withstanding. But Ayatollah Khomeini on the rise. As for his treason, it is mostly against other nations whose rigged elections he habitually certifies with his cosmetic auspices. But the canal he “returned” to the Panamanians was ”leased” to the Chinese under Slick Willie.

To help me understand where all this animosity is coming from, Mark pointed me first to a new book just out that calls Carter Our Worst Ex-President. And then to an article in National Review that levels a vicious and rather offensive tirade against Carter.
I went ahead and read the anti-Carter screed by National Review managing editor Jay Nordlinger in an effort to try and understand what’s going on here, but I just came away disgusted by the piece. Nordlinger’s prose is like a stinking pile of dung deposited on the pages of National Review. The fact that they would publish this crap and continue to employ such a person says a lot about the integrity (or lack thereof) of that publication.

Here is how Nordlinger begins his screed:

I’ve got Carter on my mind, so look out. Why Carter? Didn’t he leave office in 1981 (the same day the mullahs decided to spring the hostages, lest RR send a few up their gazoo)? Yes, but he’s back in the news, yapping absurdly about the Middle East and getting ready to visit Castro down in Cuba (May 12 to May 17).

Lest RR send a few up their gazoo?? I assume he is talking about missiles, but as everyone knows now Reagan did send the mullahs a bunch of missiles. Only they weren’t directed at anyone’s gazoo. They were instead neatly gift-wrapped and delivered along with an autographed Bible and a chocolate cake.

Nordlinger goes on to assail Carter’s post-presidency foreign policy adventures for not always adhering to the party line of whichever administration was then in power:

You recall how Carter irked Clinton on Haiti and North Korea. His low moment, however, came during the run-up to the Gulf War, when he wrote members of the U.N. Security Council — including Mitterrand’s France and Communist China — urging them to thwart the Bush administration’s effort. Our government found out about it when the Canadian prime minister, Brian Mulroney, called the defense secretary, Dick Cheney, and said, “What the . . .?” Some people actually allowed themselves to utter the word “treason.”

In this New Yorker essay Hedrick Hertzberg addresses
the Haiti situation that did indeed irk many folks at the time. However, he notes that the end result were good.

The bottom line was: There was no bloodshed. The elected, legitimate president of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, was restored, the killings and human rights violations were stopped, Cedras and his pals ended up leaving the country, and Haiti now has a better chance than anyone thought possible to become a relatively normal country instead of a nightmare of death and cruelty.

Hertzberg goes on to challenge the slam against Carter that he coddles dictators:

...these gestures spoke not to any admiration for tyrants but to a Christian eagerness to redeem sinners... In practice, Carter has always showed himself as ready to anger authoritarians as to flatter them, in pursuit of peace and human rights....

But back to Nordlinger, I doubt seriously that Carter used the term “thwart the Bush administration” in his letter to the Security Council, although I don’t doubt it did not square with the message being put out at the time by the Bush administration. Looking back now, however, I think most people would agree that it would have been best had Bush and Co. been thwarted. Not that I would like to have seen Saddam Hussein remain in power, but the costs in blood and treasure to our nation have far exceeded any meager threat the Iraqi regime posed even if they did have a musty stockpile of chemical or biological agents buried somewhere.

Nordlinger goes on to dismiss Carter’s crowning achievements at Camp David in one paragraph without referencing any supporting material other than one unidentified academic’s offhanded remark on the Charlie Rose show.
Then he goes on for several paragraphs assailing Carter for being overly proud of his achievements and for being unseemly in his pursuit of praise. His evidence for this? Carter allegedly “teared up badly” during the 1984 Democratic National Convention when keynote speaker Mario Cuomo praised his work at Camp David. And then there was an appearance on C-SPAN once where he sat silently as a caller praised his work. But according to Nordlinger, something much more unseemly was going on:

Carter enjoyed it in a truly unseemly fashion, grinning and grinning, seeming to draw his very life from it. It was perfectly human — perfectly natural — but obscene in a way. I felt almost as though I had to look away: like I was seeing something too private, something I wasn’t meant to see.

What the hell?!? Where did Nordlinger come up with that? It sounds like he has an unhealthy obsession about Carter and tends to fantasize about what he might be thinking at odd moments. It’s really strange.

But finally we get to the heart of the piece and I at long last discover what it is about Carter that is bugging not just Nordlinger, but my friend Mark Harden as well. You see, according to Nordlinger, Carter is “passionately anti-Israel.” The evidence for this? Well, the Carter Center gets a lot of funding from Arabs, for one thing, and Carter is known to be friendly with many Arab leaders. Nevermind the fact that George W. Bush and family also have recieved considerable financial backing from Arab leaders and have maintained a long and close friendship with many of the most influential people in the Middle East. For some reason, Bush is not accused of being anti-Israel.
So what else did Carter do to attract this particular smear?

In the 1990s, Carter became quite close to Yasser Arafat.

Ah, that explains everything. You see, in the view of most right-wingers, Arafat was the epitome of all that is evil and the Palestinian people aren’t much better. Meanwhile, Israel is all light and goodness and can do no wrong. So if you are trying to negotiate a peace settlement between these two groups, you have to take Israel’s side 100 percent of the time or you are in league with the terrorists. The fact that you may support Israel, but disagree with policies put forward by the right-wing Likud government is a distinction that some people refuse to make.

So the rest of the article just veers back and forth on these themes, taking cheap shots and making the same arguments over and over again. Very tiresome.

For me, Carter is a great man and a great ex-president. He may not have had the best four-year run while in office, but as Mark Schmitt notes he might have done better in another time when his moral leadership would have made a positive difference.

Another press conference

Bush had another press conference today? Good grief! It’s either feast or famine with this guy. Has this become a new addition to his permanent everyday schedule?

7 a.m. Get up and go for morning jog;
7:30 a.m. Eat breakfast;
8:30 a.m. Briefing from Condi and Rove;
9 a.m. Hold press conference to defend decision on Iraq;
10 a.m. Nap time...

Speaking of Iraq, here is an excellent timeline compiled by the folks at Think Progress.
Also, the WaPo has a couple of good stories today worth checking out

Freedom, Yes, Iraqis Say, But at Great, Grave Cost

BAGHDAD, March 20 -- By almost any standard, Bashar Muhammed, the owner of a thriving Internet cafe, is a Baghdad success story. Three years after the United States invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein, the Internet business here is booming, and Muhammed has what most Iraqis could only dream of under Hussein -- freedom, a cutting-edge job, lots of customers.
But when conversation turns to his life and prospects, he sighs and voices frustration that Americans just don't get it.
"It is true that we got freedom after the war, but uncontrolled freedom -- chaos and violence," he said in a cool, deliberate tone. Five of his relatives have been killed in car bombings and assassinations, Muhammed said, noting that most recently an uncle was killed for being a Sunni Arab.
"The new generation is growing on violence and sectarian ethics, and this will affect Iraq for many years to come," he said. "We are living a more devastating war every day."

Old Forecasts Come Back to Haunt Bush

Three years of upbeat White House assessments about Iraq that turned out to be premature, incomplete or plain wrong are complicating President Bush's efforts to restore public faith in the military operation and his presidency, according to pollsters and Republican lawmakers and strategists.

Bush vs. Reagan

I never thought I’d see the day when liberals would be vigorously defending Ronald Reagan, but that is just what we have now in the ongoing discussions of whether George W. Bush is the Worst. President. Ever.

I have to agree with Schmitt and Marshall, Reagan was a far better president than Bush. GW will one day take his place in the pantheon of really bad presidents such as Grant, Buchanan, Harding, Coolidge, (Andrew) Johnson, Pierce and so on. While some would argue that he has still not sunk to the level of Buchanan or Grant, I think there is no question that he is the worst president of the 20th and 21st Centuries.

$9 trillion debt limit

This will be President Bush’s legacy:

Congress raised the limit on the federal government's borrowing by $781 billion yesterday, and then lawmakers voted to spend well over $100 billion on the war in Iraq, hurricane relief, education, health care, transportation and heating assistance for the poor without making offsetting budget cuts.

Or raising taxes, which would be the fiscally responsible thing to do... Instead, we just keep piling up the debt onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. But Republicans today don’t believe in raising taxes, so they just raise the debt ceiling instead.

It was the fourth debt-ceiling increase in the past five years, after boosts of $450 billion in 2002, a record $984 billion in 2003 and $800 billion in 2004. The statutory debt limit has now risen by more than $3 trillion since Bush took office.

If these are all things that we need to pay for, then we should take responsibility and pay for them. Raise taxes and pay the bills! Quit just running up huge debts on the false hope that it will all just go away.

Gov. Perry calls Bush a Liar

While touring the Texas Panhandle areas damaged by the recent grassfires, Gov. Rick Perry told reporters that he has asked President Bush for federal aid.
He then added the following:

He said the federal government made "very substantial promises" about reimbursements for help the state provided after Hurricane Katrina but "has not lived up to its word." That concerns him as Texas needs help with wildfires, he said.

So the "federal government" has not lived up to its word, which is a nice way of saying that they lied. But who is the "federal government" in this case who is not good to their word? Who made these "very substantial promises"? President Bush, perhaps?

This isn't the first time that Perry has complained about broken promises from Washington:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican who holds George W. Bush's former job, told Congress Tuesday the federal government has turned its back on the Lone Star State. He demanded an additional $2 billion to repair damage and other hurricane-related costs in Texas.
Perry criticized the federal response to the devastating storms, saying states slammed by Katrina are getting more generous help than his state, which bore the brunt of Hurricane Rita.
"Financial aid has been a fraction of what was promised," Perry told the Senate Appropriations Committee. Funding for housing, education and community development has been shortchanged, he said.

I'm afraid that if Perry gets any shriller about the Bush administration breaking promises that we will see Karl Rove coming out and reminding everyone that Perry used to be a Democrat.

Outrageous story of the week

This story in the New York Times just makes you want to pull your hair out by the roots. How do you like paying extra fees on your utility bills disguised as taxes that the government never collects? Since the link will only be good for a short time, I’m posting the whole story here so please excuse the length.

Many Utilities Collect for Taxes They Never Pay
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON

Many electric utility companies across the nation are collecting billions of dollars from their customers for corporate income taxes, then keeping the money rather than sending it to the government.
The practice is legal in most states. The companies say it is smart business.
But some representatives of utility customers say that the practice, which involves using losses from other subsidiaries to reduce taxes owed, is not fair. They say that money that utilities are required to collect for federal and state taxes — typically a nickel on each dollar paid for electricity — should go for just that, or not be included in electric bills.
Otherwise, they argue, these legal monopolies make more than they are authorized to, and other taxpayers have to make up the difference in higher taxes or reduced services.
An examination of regulatory filings by The New York Times shows that companies with electric utilities in at least 26 states have pocketed money intended for income taxes, and that utilities can legally do so in 21 more states.
Because they are legal monopolies, utilities must charge rates set by state regulators. These cover all costs — from buying fuel, to building new power plants, to a virtually guaranteed profit and paying the taxes on that profit.
Normally, customer payments for those taxes eventually find their way to federal and state governments. That is usually the case for independent utilities like Consolidated Edison, which serves the New York area, and American Electric Power, which operates in 11 states from Kentucky to Oklahoma.
But in recent years many utilities have expanded into unregulated businesses, like energy trading and aircraft leasing, while others have been acquired by companies that own other businesses. When those other businesses lose money or create artificial losses through tax planning, those losses can be used to offset income earned by the utilities.
As a result, the parent companies owe less in taxes than their electric customers paid. Sometimes these companies owe nothing, or receive large tax refunds. By not remitting the taxes, the parent companies effectively have more money to invest in their operations or pay to shareholders in dividends.
The ability to intercept tax payments is not limited to electric utilities. Natural gas, water and telephone utilities can use the same techniques. The potential tax benefits are much smaller for gas and water utilities, however. And most telephone companies are no longer regulated as monopolies and their rates no longer include income taxes. (The taxes and fees that phone companies add to monthly bills are not corporate income taxes.)
Among the electric utilities whose customer tax payments are not reaching tax coffers is Pepco, serving four states and the District of Columbia. Pepco collected nearly $546 million from customers to cover its income tax bill for the years 2002 through 2004. Yet the parent Pepco Holdings did not pay income taxes during those years; indeed, it received $435 million in tax refunds.
Pepco says the beneficiaries of those refunds were not the company's shareholders, but utility customers. A vice president, Anthony J. Kamerick, said that without the ability to use taxes embedded in monthly electric bills to help finance its unregulated investments, including new power plants, electric customers would pay higher rates.
Customers paid Xcel Energy, a big utility in 10 Midwest and Western states, at least $723 million to cover taxes from 2002 to 2004. But the money did not go to the government; in fact, the company received cash refunds of $351.4 million.
A spokesman, Ed Legge, said the refunds resulted from a failed energy trading business. "Utility customers did not bear the risk of that business, and they should not benefit either," he said.
Also expressing the utilities' view, Paul L. Joskow, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said, "For the customer, the result is the same." If the utility were a stand-alone company and filed its own tax return, he added, the customer would pay the same for power.
But critics argue that when utilities collect taxes the government never receives, customers do lose.
The Minnesota attorney general, Mike Hatch, said, "Essentially, the utility ratepayers pay the tax twice, once through the utility bill and again through the lost revenue to government that means either higher taxes for them or less government services." Mr. Hatch is trying to require that any taxes included in Xcel bills be paid to the government. Xcel opposes this.
The critics say that while many profitable businesses use losses to minimize their tax bills, utilities are unique because their taxes are built into the bills that customers pay.
Critics also say utility companies are enriched beyond the limits set by law if they pocket the tax money. "Utilities are entitled to a just and reasonable return," said Myer Shark, a 93-year-old lawyer who sued unsuccessfully to recover $300 million in taxes paid by Minnesota customers of Xcel. "But when they keep the taxes, they are earning an unjust and unreasonable rate of return."
Enron was a pioneer in turning taxes into profit. Since 1997 the company, now in bankruptcy, has collected nearly $900 million from customers of a utility it acquired, Portland General Electric, to cover income taxes. But none of that money reached the federal government from Enron, and only a quirk in the law forced Portland G.E. to pay about $800,000 in income taxes, of which $20 went to the state of Oregon.
Enron could keep the tax money because it created 881 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and other tax havens, tax shelters that on paper generated losses for the parent.
The tax benefits are one reason Wall Street these days likes electric utilities, long seen as unexciting investments. Warren E. Buffett, Henry R. Kravis and David Bonderman are among investors drawn to utilities in recent years in hopes of earning returns through parent companies that can be several times those typically approved by state regulators for the utilities themselves.
For decades utilities have been able to delay paying the government the taxes collected from customers; the delayed taxes are known as phantom taxes. But the more recent issue involves taxes the government will never receive because tax rules have not caught up with changes in the ownership structure of utilities.
Three decades ago, said James T. Selecky, a utility-rate consultant to the Minnesota attorney general, "we had true utility companies with very few or minor other operations," so the taxes eventually flowed to the government. But that is no longer true.
Only a few states have mechanisms to prevent pocketing such money. West Virginia and Oregon require that taxes be paid to the government, although the Oregon law, enacted last year, is under attack by utilities there.
In Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that "fictitious" expenses, such as taxes government never receives, cannot be included in utility rates.
The prospect that a utility could charge for taxes that the government would never receive became a major issue in Oregon when David Bonderman's Texas Pacific Group tried to buy Portland General Electric in 2004.
Texas Pacific specializes in revamping financially troubled companies like Burger King and the clothier J. Crew. Such companies typically have tax losses, but little or no profit to make use of them. If Texas Pacific had acquired Portland General Electric, whose profits are virtually guaranteed and which had $92 million a year of taxes embedded in the bills customers pay, it could have used the losses from its other companies to offset the utility's profit and keep the money paid by customers ostensibly for taxes.
Texas Pacific persuaded Oregon utility regulators to keep most records of the purchase proceedings secret.
When these documents became public, they showed that Texas Pacific expected annual returns greater than 33 percent, three times the expected rate of return for a utility. That revelation generated public and official criticism. The state Public Utility Commission unanimously rejected the Portland purchase a year ago.
In the wake of the controversy, the Oregon Legislature passed a law requiring that taxes on electric bills be turned over to the government and rates adjusted each year to accurately reflect what customers paid and governments collected.
MidAmerican Electric, an Iowa utility holding company controlled by Mr. Buffett, and PacifiCorp, a Scottish-owned electric utility, have been lobbying in Oregon for repeal of the law.
The National Federation of Independent Business's Oregon chapter, with 12,000 members, favors the law. J. L. Wilson, its executive director, said it helped prevent a practice that "just bumps up electric rates."
One way to make sure customers do not pay for taxes that governments never receive would be to require each utility to file its own tax return. That way, taxes would be paid to the government, not to a parent company.
Another solution has been advanced for three decades by Robert Batinovich, a California businessman who promoted innovative approaches to regulation when he was chairman of the California Public Utilities Commission in the 1970's. Mr. Batinovich, now chairman of Glenborough Realty Trust in San Mateo, Calif., suggested exempting regulated monopolies from the corporate income tax. "It's just a disguised consumption tax, just another way to take from the little guy," he said.
But he said that if governments wanted to raise money from regulated utilities, it would be easier just to add a tax, similar to a sales tax, to monthly bills and require that all that money be turned over.

Boston Liberal

I was slowly becoming a fan of Boston Legal. I figure any show that features two former Star Trek alumni, plus Murphy Brown and the guy from Stargate must be doing something right. But after watching last night’s episode I am completely sold.
Check out the clips here or here (extended version) of James Spader’s character making an impassioned speech in court about the sad state of our nation and the loss of our civil liberties. Great stuff, sure to make liberals swell up with sentimental tears, while causing steam to pour out of most conservatives’ ears.
I’m definitely reprogramming my DVR to start recording this series.

GOP longing for better days

Now that President Bush is sitting at an all-time low approval rating, I think it would be better for everybody if the Democrats would retake control of the government. Seriously. Democrats would be delighted, obviously. The country would be better off in the long-run with competent people back at the helm, and even Republicans would be happier.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen my Republican friends happier than they were back in the 1990s when the economy was booming, federal spending was declining, welfare rolls were being chopped and they could spend everyday bad-mouthing the Democrats and blaming Bill and Hillary Clinton for the demise of Western culture.
But today I see these same Republicans cringing everytime they pick up the newspaper or turn on the news and have to learn of some new idiocy perpetrated by this inept administration. What lunacy will they have to defend next? Bush appointing Harriet Meyers to the Supreme Court? Dick Cheney shooting someone in the face?
How many more scandals will they have to cover up and try desperately to ignore? Abramoff? Valerie Plame? Domestic spying?
What will be the next cherished ideal they will have to watch flounder and fail spectacularly? Supply-side economics? Gun-barrel diplomacy? Faith-based social services?
I see my conservative friends straining every day to come up with some new rationale for blaming all their current troubles on the liberal media or on powerless minority Democrats in Congress. You know they aren’t really taking it seriously. It’s more therapeutic than anything. If only there was some Democrat somewhere with some actual power and some actual authority who they could pass the buck to (and I’m not talking about the governor of Louisiana).
I know that deep down the Republicans miss the good old days when they were in the minority, free to lob bombs at their opponents while having no obligation to demonstrate that their ideas could actually work better.
Well, don’t worry, my friends! Happy days will soon be here again! Chin up, and all. We can weather these last few years of Republican irresponsibility before the electorate finally sets things straight once again. Then Republicans can go back to doing what they do best - representing this country’s wealthy minority and working with lobbyists to insert as many loopholes into the tax code as possible.

I’m glad I quit watching '24'

I was really hooked on the show '24' during its first thrilling season. But I still remember being completely turned off with the way they ended that first season by killing off Jack Bauer's wife. I figured they did that just to free his character up to have romantic trysts with different women every episode, just like James Bond.
But now I see they’ve started killing off characters left and right to the point that current fans are screaming foul.
It is so unreasonable to like to watch a show and not have to worry that your favorite character might get offed in the next episode?

Bush ready to “cut-n-run”

It looks like Bush has finally gotten the message via his pathetic poll numbers and has decided to “cut-n-run” from Iraq.

President Bush vowed for the first time yesterday to turn over most of Iraq to newly trained Iraqi troops by the end of this year, setting a specific benchmark as he kicked off a fresh drive to reassure Americans alarmed by the recent burst of sectarian violence.
Bush, who until now has resisted concrete timelines as the Iraq war dragged on longer than he expected, outlined the target in the first of a series of speeches intended to lay out his strategy for victory.

My confidence level in the ability of the Iraqi security forces to hold together after we leave is zero. I don’t think it matters how much longer we stay there propping them up. They will scatter to the high winds the moment we pull up our stakes and move out.

Good News Friday

I’m about to go out of town for the weekend to the Rodeo in Houston but first I thought I would leave this roundup of happy stories (for Democrats, that is).

First, the collapse of the Dubai ports deal has thoroughly exposed this administration’s gross incompetence once again.

When President Bush and senior adviser Karl Rove mapped out plans for a political comeback in 2006, this was nowhere on the script. Suddenly, the collapse of a port-management deal neither even knew about a month ago has devastated the White House and raised questions about its ability to lead even fellow Republicans.

The bipartisan uprising in Congress in the face of a veto threat represented a singular defeat for Bush, who when it came to national security grew accustomed during his first five years in office to leading as he chose and having loyal lawmakers fall in line. Now, with his poll numbers in a political ditch, the port debacle has contributed to a perception of weakness that has liberated Republicans who once would never have dared cross Bush.

Now it looks like the scales are finally falling off of peoples’ eyes and they are beginning to come to the realization that George W. Bush is without question the Worst. President. Ever.

Republicans fret as Bush's popularity sinks

More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.

Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq — the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.

By the way, Bush’s overall approval in this poll is 37 percent. WooHoo!!
(By the way, I am not in any way celebrating the prospect of civil war in Iraq. That is just a symptom of Bush's miserable failure as a world leader. The good news is that if people finally start to recognize the serious problems we are facing in the world, we might be able to do something about them before it is too late.)

Next, the Washington Post’s political blogger thinks Democrats have an excellent chance to pick up seats in the Senate and maybe even regain control of that chamber in November.

Democrats should be optimistic -- if not yet elated -- about their prospects for gaining Senate seats this fall as takeover opportunities for their party continue to dominate The Fix's Friday Line.
Republican incumbents hold the top five slots this week -- meaning they represent the five Senate seats up for grabs this fall most likely to change party control.

And those five most vulnerable Republican senators are Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania; Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island; Conrad Burns of Montana; Mike DeWine of Ohio and Jim Talent of Missouri. Democrats also have a good shot at taking the open seat in Tennessee from the retiring Bill Frist.

Oh, and good riddance to Gail Norton, certainly a strong contender for Worst. Interior Secretary. Ever.

Meet the new boss...

Shiite death squads, torture chambers and now mass executions.

Remind me again how this new government in Iraq is supposed to be better than the old regime.

Annual war costs increasing

Annual expenditures for the Iraq war will reach $117.6 billion this fiscal year, according to today’s Wall Street Journal.
That’s an 18 percent increase over the previous 12-month period. Monthly expenditures in Iraq are running at $5.9 billion plus another $1 billion for Afghanistan.

All of that in spite of the fact that troop levels are supposed to be drawn down this year. The Pentagon estimates personnel costs will decrease by 14 percent this year, but that is offset by big increases for the procurement of new equipment - $25.7 billion in 2006, up from $18.8 billion in 2005. Also, maintenance spending is up 30 percent.

Why is this? Higher fuel prices are part of the reason. Another is the loss of support from National Guard troops who have been sent home after their mobilization has run its course. To make up for the loss of manpower, the military has been hiring contractors for all the logistical chores that the Guard used to help out with.
“They don’t have enough people,” said Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn.

The WSJ goes on to report that three years in Iraq has taken its toll on stocks of military equipment requiring the creation of in-country maintenance facilities in Iraq.
“There are unprecedented costs. It’s staggering,” says U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, a member of the Appropriations Committee.

All of this has given us “...a total defense budget that in real dollars surpasses those of the Vietnam War era and the defense buildup under Ronald Reagan at the height of the Cold War.”

We are now entering our fourth year in Iraq with the country teetering on the verge of Civil War. We can’t afford to keep this up. We already have record deficits that are weighing down the economy. Our military is stretched past the breaking point. And we are being led by an administration that has proven itself to be dangerously incompetent and is incapable of figuring any good way out of this mess.

Primary ups and downs

I haven't really grasped the full extent of the primary results from yesterday. I was happy to see in the one race where I had a vote, Carlos Uresti prevailed over Frank Madla for the state Senate District 19 seat.

But while that was cheerful news, it appears that Republican Henry Cuellar prevailed over Democrat Ciro Rodriguez for the Dist. 28 congressional seat.(Thanks to Red State for the picture.) I guess I just don't understand why so many so-called Democrats in Laredo would support someone like Cuellar just because he is the home-town boy. If I had a choice between a Laredo Democrat like Richard Raymond versus San Antonio Republican Henry Bonilla, there is no question that I would support Raymond.

I wasn't surprised to see Tom DeLay win his primary race. The national media seems to think that was the big story of the day. I'm actually glad that he won because I think it will be easier for Nick Lampson to beat him in November than some fresh Republican without the baggage that DeLay has.

James Leininger was only partly successful in his bid to knock off anti-voucher Republicans. It looks like his puppet candidates prevailed in two of five races. I could have told him he was wasting his money going after Delwin Jones in Lubbock though.

Walls in Heaven

It amazes me sometimes the things that must occupy the minds of right-wing fundamentalist preachers. Here is a case where one of the local ayatollahs apparently got in trouble with his flock because of a misperception that he might be suggesting that maybe, just maybe, all the Jews in the world aren’t going to hell in a handbasket.

Neither San Antonio televangelist John Hagee nor the Rev. Jerry Falwell has expressed a belief in a "dual covenant theology" as reported Wednesday in the Jerusalem Post, Hagee and a local rabbi said Thursday.
"Dual covenant theology" refers to a belief that Jews can be saved without believing in Jesus Christ — as Christians do — because of God's covenant with the ancient Israelites....
Falwell, in a statement posted on his Web site, www.falwell.com, said he stands "on the foundational biblical principle that all people — Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Jews, Muslims, etc. — must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to enter heaven."

To tell the truth, I don’t believe in a "dual covenant theology" either. I believe in a single covenant that God has with the entire human race - each and every person individually - regardless of whether they are Israelites, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics or atheists.

But it is sad to see these supposed leaders of Christianity today dithering over whether they think God arbitrarily condemns trillions and billions and billions of people to eternal damnation or maybe just trillions and billions and millions of people. All because they were born into a culture where they weren’t taught to repeat the magic phrase that automatically unlocks the doors to heaven to them while keeping them sealed shut to everyone else.

The Catholic theologian Hans Kung once said it would probably be necessary for God to put up walls in Heaven to keep certain groups of people from knowing that other groups are up there too.

Common sense wins out

It’s nice to see the Supreme Court can still agree on common sense issues such as this one.

The Supreme Court yesterday unanimously upheld a federal law that forces colleges and universities to permit military recruiting on campus, despite the schools' objections to the Pentagon ban on openly gay people serving in the armed forces....

The Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR) -- a coalition of law schools and professors that formed to sue the government -- had said the law "compelled speech" that made it appear schools were endorsing the government's exclusion of acknowledged gays in the military, thus violating the schools' right to free speech under the First Amendment.

But in writing for the court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that Solomon "neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything."

"Law schools remain free under the statute to express whatever views they may have on the military's congressionally mandated employment policy. . . . Nothing about recruiting suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters and nothing in the Solomon Amendment restricts what the law schools may say about the military's policies," Roberts wrote.

A shining example

I don’t remember where I saw this first, but it is from an interview with country singer Dolly Parton
on the Larry King Live show on CNN where they are talking about her Oscar-nominated song for the movie Transamerica. I thought her answer was just an excellent example of what it means to have a good heart.

KING: Why have you been -- you've been interested for a long time in gay/lesbian, transgender stories, why?

PARTON: Well, I'm not interested in anything. I haven't made any efforts to do -- I just am totally accepting of people. I really believed that everybody should be allowed to be who they are.

KING: That's what I mean.

PARTON: Well yes, I'm very tolerant of just people in general. I believe we're all God's children. I think we all have a right to be who we are. I'm certainly -- I'm not a judge and I'm certainly not God, so I just try to love the God core in all people. And I know that is in the center of us all, so I just try to accept people for who they are, whatever that is.

I think you could hold up Dolly Parton in this instance as an example of the true Christian spirit in contrast to Fred Phelps and his ilk.

Oscar upset

That must be some kind of record for fewest number of Academy Awards won by a Best Picture flick. Crash, which surprised everyone and took the award from Brokeback Mountain, only went home with three total Oscars - in addition to Best Picture, it won for Original Screenplay and Film Editing.
Two films that weren’t even nominated for Best Picture took home that many Oscars - King Kong which won for Best Visual Effects, Best Sound and Best Sound Editing; and Memoirs of a Geisha which won for Art Direction, Cinematography and Costume.
Brokeback Mountain also walked away with three Oscars after being snubbed for Best Picture - Best Director, Adapted Screenplay and Original Score.
No other film had more than one Oscar for the evening. Capote, Walk the Line, Syriana and The Constnat Gardener split up the acting Oscars; Hustle and Flow won for Best Song and Chronicles of Narnia won for Best Makeup.

I missed Jon Stewart’s opening monologue, but from what I did see I thought he did a good job of hosting the show. My personal favorite, though, is still Steve Martin.
I was happy to see George Clooney win the Best Supporting Actor trophy. He had the best line of the night with his brief acceptance speech:

You know, we are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while. I think it’s probably a good thing. We’re the ones who talked about AIDS when it was just being whispered, and we talked about civil rights when it wasn’t really popular. And we, you know, we bring up subjects. This Academy, this group of people gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters. I’m proud to be a part of this Academy, proud to be part of this community, and proud to be out of touch.

I know how he feels. When I saw that more people tuned into American Idol than the Olympics the other week, I had no doubt I am out of synch with the masses.

Voucher Man

James Leininger, San Antonio’s right-wing billionaire philanthropist, had an op-ed in the local paper the other day explaining his particular passion for school vouchers.
The good doctor, who made his fortune by selling specially desinged and manufactured hospital beds, has recently poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into a political campaign targeting a select group of supposedly “liberal” Republicans for defeat in next week’s primary. The unlucky lawmakers got on Leininger’s bad list by opposing a school voucher plan during the last legislative session.
While not specifically addressing his political activities, Leininger explains in the piece that his sole motivation is “to improve the lives of poor children in Texas.”
That is certainly a noble goal and Leininger comes across in the piece as being both sincere and dedicated to that long-term effort. Unfortunately, he has latched onto a program that, while possibly helping some students in select situations, would ultimately hurt all of the other students who get left behind.

Leininger explains how he got involved with vouchers in the first place:

Almost 15 years ago I read about a private scholarship program helping kids out of bad schools in bad neighborhoods in Indianapolis. I thought, "That's the answer!" That summer we offered 1,000 scholarships to low-income children in San Antonio. The first week we saw more than 6,000 applications. Because we have been blessed with financial resources, my wife and I knew we needed to help as many children as possible. With the help of other generous, caring people, we created a $50 million scholarship program in San Antonio's Edgewood Independent School District, one of the worst districts in Texas at that time.

So far this is all quite commendable, but then Leininger makes a faulty assumption:

Inspired by competition, that district, which had three failing campuses, had no failing schools two years later and the district improved to a "recognized" rating by the Texas Education Agency for the first time. This greatly benefited even students who chose to remain in the public school system.

So Edgewood ISD suddenly improved because of competition with Leininger’s scholarship program? Were there no other efforts underway at that time to improve the school district? Was more money pumped into the district at the state or local level during that time? What other factors might have contributed to that improvement?
And what about the big distinction between Leininger’s privately-funded scholarship program, and the publicly-funded voucher program that he is trying to ram through the Legislature? The first one does not divert funds away from the school district, while the latter one does.

Leininger says he wants to “give parents the option of choosing a better school.” But even if there is a “better school” available, which in many cases there is not (especially in small town and rural areas), not every child can just pick up and switch to that school.

Leininger also says it doesn't matter if it is a public or private school; “our concern should be that tax dollars are used to see the child get the best possible education.”
For an idea of what Leininger thinks is the best possible education, check out Patrick Henry College where he sits on the Board of Trustees. Especially, check out the school’s Statement of Biblical Worldview.

Leininger notes that there are “many more Texas children desperately in need of help. “And adds that he “will oppose those who force needy children to be trapped in bad and dangerous schools.” But what about the “non-needy children” who would still be stuck in those “bad and dangerous schools”? In Leininger’s ideal world, public tax dollars would be drained away from these struggling schools to send a few select students to private, religious institutions that share a Biblical worldview with Patrick Henry College.

In every other conceivable situation - if you have a military unit that is struggling or a hospital that has problems with poor health care or a police department that is understaffed and unable to control crime - the answer is never to take money away. It is always to provide more money in those instances. But for some strange reason, right-wingers believe the magic answer for education is to withhold funding as the ultimate cure-all to our educational woes.

It’s really too bad, because it is clear that Leininger has a good heart and has every good intention to help these students. He just needs to understand that there are no easy and painless solutions to these kinds of problems. If you want good schools you have to pay for them.

Mutiny on the Potomac

You know that George Bush is in trouble when the rightwing pundits are beating up on him with the same ferocity as those on the left.

Last week, we had the Godfather of the far-right, William F. Buckley Jr. saying
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.

And then adding sarcastically in his latest column that
In four years (during WWII) we marched from Pearl Harbor to the heart of what was left of Tokyo and Berlin. In three years (today) we can't yet take a cab from Baghdad to its airport without an armed guard.

Now we have right-wing pundit emeritus George Will noting that
”all three components of the "axis of evil'' -- Iraq, Iran, North Korea -- (are) more dangerous (now) than they were when that phrase was coined in 2002...”

As if that wasn’t bad enough, right-wing think-tank guru and former Reagan administration policy wonk Bruce Bartlett has penned a book called Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy.

Ouch!!

Madla vs. Uresti

I’m being deluged with political campaign mailings and phone calls this past week. It seems I’m in the crosshairs of this Democratic primary skuffle between incumbent state Sen. Frank Madla and state Rep. Carlos Uresti.
I got two mailings just the other day, one from each side. The Madla piece, like his previous mailers, features a pouty-faced little girl on the front cover who is apparently upset by the prospect of having bad old Mr. Uresti representing her in the Senate. On the inside page , the same girl is in Mr. Madla’s arms with a big grin on her face. This is obviously the positive mailer for Madla as compared to his last one which accused Uresti of single-handedly handing the keys to the state Capitol to the Republicans.
In this flyer, Madla makes the one argument that works best for him - contrasting his years of experience in the Legislature with Uresti’s.
“This is no time to elect a rookie to the Texas Senate,” the flyer declares.

From the Uresti campaign I got one of his negative mailers that goes after Madla for his now infamous statement that “when I get to the State Capitol, I lock the Democratic Party in my trunk.” (I got one of his positive mailers last week which played up his biographical information and touted his military service.)
You can see a video clip of Madla making the statement over at Red State and also at Burnt Orange Report.
The trunk video is plaguing Madla in the same way that the picture of Henry Cuellar being embraced by President Bush is dragging down his campaign.
And Uresti continues to pound Madla for the one vote that has probably caused him the most grief - a procedural vote in which he did not block a Republican proposal to make harsh cutbacks in CHIP funding from going to the full Senate. Madla voted against the measure on the Senate floor, but by that time it was too late. It was that one vote that angered many Democrats and encouraged Uresti to launch his primary challenge in the first place.

For the record, I’m firmly in the Uresti camp. I will probably be voting later this week while early voting is still going on. One of the things that has driven me into the Uresti camp is that on my drive to and from work I keep seeing Madla campaign signs grouped with Henry Cuellar signs at places that are notorious for being big backers of Republican candidates, such as the San Antonio Board of Realtors. I wish that I could vote against Cuellar too, but unfortunately I am in Henry Bonilla’s district where there are no Democrats challenging him this year (at least none who have made enough noise for me to notice). So in that race I have committed to supporting the Libertarian candidate Cecil Lamb, who is a good guy even though I disagree with most of his stated positions.

Redistricting challenge

Here’s some good news from the Supreme Court today which is looking into the Republican mid-term re-redistricting scheme in Texas.

According to the AP:
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was the key swing voter in that (previous redistricting) case, and on Wednesday expressed concerns about at least part of the Texas map.

In that previous case, the justices voted 5-4 to throw out a gerrymandered map with Kennedy serving as the swing vote joining Breyer, Souter, Stevens and Ginsberg.
The two new justices on the court, Roberts and Alito, could only make a difference if they surprise everyone and side with the forces of righteousness and goodness. That’s because they replaced justices Rehnquist and O’Connor who both crossed over to the Dark Side on this issue.

If Kennedy’s concerns cause him to vote the same way this time it should mean that at least part of Tom DeLay’s map could be scrapped regardless of how Roberts and Alito vote.

Jeffrey Toobin had an in depth analysis in The New Yorker recently which SCOTUSBlog conveniently made available in pdf format.