Friday, July 19, 2002
GOP HOG ROAST, PART IV
Earlier in the week I said I’d try to interview Doug Gross at the Henry County GOP Hog Roast. Well, I did ask him some questions. And I asked him about an agenda. But you all will have to wait until Monday to see what he said.
There are two reasons for this. One, I’m in a mischievous mood today, more so than usual. Second, on account of what Gross said, I’ll need a little time to review some of the newspaper coverage of the governor’s race. So stay tuned. It will be the first blog on Monday morning.
. . .
EVERYONE’S AT FAULT EXCEPT….
Sherry Gray, a foreign policy analyst with the Stanley Foundation, gave a talk on Cuba to the Dubuque Area Committee on Foreign Relations on Thursday. She blamed the inability of the U.S. to normalize of relations with Cuba on everything from “well-placed hatred of Cuban leader Fidel Castro”, to the powerful political might of the Cuban-American lobby, to the intransigence of the Bush Administration. Of course, she left out one little detail: the brutal, oppressive regime of that lovable little dictator Fidel. You don’t suppose that would have anything to do with it?
. . .
GOP HOG ROAST, PART III
John Askew, the GOP nominee for Iowa Secretary of Agriculture, actually sought me out to talk to me about what I had written about him in my blog on the GOP convention. I must admit, it was rather flattering. Askew said that he hadn’t realized that he came off as a policy wonk. We then had a lengthy discussion about taking policy jargon and putting it into layman’s terms. (Hey, it’s a problem for me too. I’m a policy wonk by just about any definition of the term.) He actually turned out to be quite good at taking difficult terms and making them understandable. For example, “value added vs. value retained.” This means that Iowa farmers grow crops that have a lot of value in them, especially corn and soybeans. The problem is that much of the money to be made from that value does not stay here in Iowa, because the plants that process the corn and soybeans are not in Iowa. Hence, the value from the crops is not “retained” in Iowa.
He also stated that Iowa agriculture has an “image problem,” which makes it hard to market products as “Iowa” products. That is, a product being from Iowa doesn’t give it any special value. He said that if elected Ag Secretary he would work to change that. Talking with him made me realize how very little I know about agricultural policy. Not so good for an Iowan, even a transplanted one.
The speech Askew gave was, ironically enough, almost jargon-less. Well delivered and easy to understand. It’s hard to know if how he might do in November. But I certainly wish him the best of luck.
. . .
HAWKEYE TROUBLES
Here is another piece about the troubles of the Hawkeye basketball team. This one places a lot of the blame on Steve Alford.
. . .
WE’RE IMPARTIAL. REALLY.
Amber Hard of the Iowa Public Interest Research Group has this editorial in the Ames Tribune. It responds to a previous editorial that criticized Iowa PIRG’s scorecard for the voting records of members of Congress. This is the key passage in M.s Hard’s response:
The editorial also criticized our scorecards for not fully representing any one congressman's record on our issues. This is true. Our scorecard is impartial. The only way to do that is to pick the most important public interest votes of the session and score every senator in the country on the same scale. This methodology is the only way to assure the scorecards are objective and not written to make an individual look good or bad.
To use Sen. Grassley as an example, as the editorial board did: Sen. Grassley has been a public interest champion on a number issues in his role on the Senate Finance Committee….Unfortunately, we cannot compare these actions to the other 49 U.S. senators. They have not all been the Finance Committee Chairman or Ranking Member. In order to do accurate, comparable ratings, we must pick what we believe to be the most important public interest votes of the Senate and score them across the board.
Unfortunately, Sen. Grassley's votes on these bills and amendments were mostly not in the public interest, resulting in his poor score.
Yeah, right. The method by which the votes are chosen is completely objective. The fact that they make conservative Republicans like Charles Grassley look bad and liberal Democrats like Tom Harkin look good is pure coincidence.
. . .
CHARLES GRASSLEY, KICKING SOME ‘BUTT’
Senator Grassley is giving the Army a rough time over its abuse of government charge cards. Here is a hilarious blog by Eric Olsen about this matter.
. . .
A BLOGGER GETS RESULTS
A public-interest law firm is filing a lawsuit in Arizona because of something they learned from Ed Boyd’s zonitics site. Nice going, Ed.
. . .
GOP HOG ROAST, PART II
The GOP nominee for State Treasurer is Matt Whitaker. I spoke with him before the festivities began last night. He’d actually read my post on the GOP convention and recalled my stating that his “speaking talents are wasted” on the office of Treasurer. And I’ll reiterate that here. He gave a high-energy stump speech. He easily generated enthusiasm among the crowd. (Part of that probably comes from being a former Hawkeye Football Player, which I did not know.) Such talent is probably better used for a race for Governor or Senate, where he would get a lot more media exposure.
The good news is that Whitaker had been out-raising his opponent, State Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald, in the last few months. It sounds like he has a real shot at winning, although without any polls it is hard to say with any certainty. Either way, though, it likely works out well for Whitaker. If he wins, he can use the office of Treasurer as a stepping stone for higher office. If he loses, he’s established himself as an up-and-comer in the GOP. Whitaker appears to have a bright political future if he wants one.
Speaking of high-energy stump speeches, Dan Gable gave one for both Greg Ganske and Jim Leach who could not attend because of Congressional duties. For those of you who don’t know, Gable is the former wrestling coach at the University Iowa who put together the greatest college wrestling dynasty ever. His speech was upbeat and funny, although a little unfocused. Since it was more of a motivational speech, it is probably fair to cut him some slack. But if he wants to run for office at some point, he will need to polish his speeches some.
Speaking of which, Gable emphasized a number of times that he is “learning” about politics. That could imply that he is learning for the purpose of actually running for office at some point in the near future. We should hope so. He would be great for the Iowa GOP, and could probably win just about any office he ran for in a walk.
Part III coming late afternoon.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: THE GOP AND SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM
So what is the state of Bush’s proposal to reform Social Security? Mickey Kaus claimed earlier this week (July 18) that it is "dead, dead, dead." This article suggests that Kaus’s prognosis is premature. Nevertheless, I think it’s fair to say that the proposal is seriously ill.
To shed further light on this, it is useful to look at the analysis prepared for the National Republican Congressional Committee by the Tarrance Group, and posted on the web by excellent liberal pundit Josh Micah Marshall. The analysis is based on the reaction of focus groups to hypothetical Republican and Democrat ads on Social Security. The Republicans likely didn’t want this document public. However, I’m glad that it is because it provides some helpful insight into the potential for Republicans to win the Social Security battle.
First, Marshall argues that "the results for the Republicans are really not pretty." I don’t agree with that. I’d say the results are not great, but are better than expected.
Let’s start by looking at the response to the Democrat attack ads, pages 11-12. The Tarrance Group scored reaction to the commercials on a scale of 0-100, with results closer to 100 being favorable to Republicans, closer to zero being more favorable to Democrats. The results on pages 11 to 12 at first glance appear very bleak for Republicans. What struck me, however, is that none of scores fell below 34. I suspect that had this study been conudcted even five years ago, the scores would have been even lower for republicans. Also, look a the top box on page 12, which focuses on the response of those over 65 years of age. What’s interesting is that the ads don’t do much for the image of Democrats. Remember, over 65 is the population Democrats would want to target with such ads. The results on page 12 suggest that perhaps Democratic scare-tactics are losing some of their potency.
Some Republican ads achieve impressive scores. In particular are the "Inoculation" ads, those advertisements designed to boost Republicans' image on Social Security and thereby blunt future Democratic attacks. The results on page 4 are quite good for Republicans, and page 5 shows that the Republican ads compare favorably with ones for the Democrats. However, the Republican ads designed to respond to Democrat ads show mixed results (pages 12-18). Pages 12 and 13 display good scores for the GOP, but the results for the ads designed to put Democrats on the defensive—pages 15-16—do not perform that well.
This leads me to my second point, the lack of political creativity on the part of Republicans and their operatives. The ads designed to put the Democrats on the defensive look pretty lackluster—and that’s on paper! Lines like "Same old Democrat scare tactics, and its’ not just true," don’t strike me as particularly effective ways to shove it back in the Democrats' face. Can’t Republicans come up with better lines than that? Given the recent history of GOP campaign tactics, the answer would seem to be "no."
I’ve often wondered why Democrats are so much more creative when it comes to attacking the opposition. Perhaps its because so many more artsy-fartsy types are Democrats than Republicans, giving the Democrats a bigger talent pool to draw from. Whatever the reason, Republicans will need to do much better on response ads if they are to win the Social Security reform battle.
Here’s one suggestion that I received from a CATO Institute conference on Social Security reform that I attended last year. One CATO staff member advocated Republicans attacking with this line: "Without Social Security reform, Americans face either huge tax increases or huge benefit cuts. Since Democrats are opposed to reform, which of those other two options are they for?" This could easily be translated into Republican commercials attacking specific Democrat politicians: "Senator X is opposed to Social Security reform. Call Senator X and ask what he favors instead, huge tax increases or huge benefits cuts."
What the Tarrance Group study shows is that the Republicans can win the Social Security battle, but that it will be a long and hard road. A lot will depend on how creative they are at putting Democrats on the defensive. Perhaps concerned conservatives should call the Republican National Committee and urge them to hire more artsy-farsty types.
. . .
GOP HOG ROAST, PART I
Last night I attended the Henry County GOP Hog Roast in Mt. Pleasant, Iowa. We don’t actually roast a hog; we eat processed pork sandwiches, which are quite good. The potato salad was par excellence, I should add. Maybe it was the food, or maybe it was recent polls showing the GOP has a good shot at regaining the Governor’s mansion. Either way, the event was well attended, and the mood was very enthusiastic, much better than the state GOP convention.
Anyway, I got another chance to interview a bunch of GOP candidates and listen to their stump speeches. Mike Hartwig is the GOP candidate for Secretary of State. He comes off both in person and in his stump speech as a genuinely nice man. Unfortunately, he is underfunded in his race against Chet Culver. That’s too bad, because he seems like he would make a dedicated public servant. His speech was subdued and straightforward. I think the best part was when he advocated requiring a picture ID before one can vote in Iowa. He stated that it is "harder to get into a bar than it is to get a ballot," in Iowa. Nice line, Mr. Hartwig. But be careful. The Des Moines Register might accuse you of raising the specter of totalitarianism.
I also got to meet Dave Heaton, the State Representative from the Mt. Pleasant area. Heaton is a portly and humorous man. Despite a somewhat mechanical speech, the crowd reacted warmly to him. He also had one of the best lines of the evening: "Legislative Democrats haven’t found a program they won’t fund." Nice.
Coming up: Mike Whittaker and Dan Gable.
. . .
REGISTER HYSTERIA
Yesterday the Des Moines Register suggested that new proposed bureaucracy by the Bush Administration would lead to "a soldier on every street corner." Today, it pans a Bush proposal for national standards for state driver’s licenses with this line:
This is the stuff of totalitarian societies, not democracies.
I don’t think there is much need to comment on the editorial. That sentence just about says it all.
. . .
Thursday, July 18, 2002
BIRDS OF A FEATHER
Last Saturday I blogged about an editorial in the Des Moines Register on corporate corruption. The editorial contained a non-sequitur in that it proposed a reform that would prevent U.S. companies from using off-shore tax shelters. Today the New York Times has an editorial about corporate corruption that proposes the exact same thing! Like I suggested, this is what happens when liberals start contemplating government regulations.
One other thing. I found this final line in the Times editorial amusing:
On matters like taxation, what's good for General Motors may not necessarily be good for the country.
More accurately, it can be said that on matters like taxation, what the Times op-ed page favors usually isn’t good for the country.
. . .
MORE GROSS AND VILSACK
The sniping over Vilsack’s new economic development plan continues. The Cedar Rapids Gazette has this article, and the Quad City Times has this one. I’m going to reserve comment on this for the time being. I’ll save it for Monday’s Daily Diatribe, where I will take an extended look at Vilsack’s plan.
. . .
BUREAUCRACY AND LIFE-SAVING DRUGS
Walter Williams has this excellent column on the incentives that lead the Federal Drug Administration to avoid approving life-saving drugs.
. . .
RESEARCH AT THE EXPENSE OF TEACHING
This article in the Daily Iowan shows that despite promises by University of Iowa officials in recent years, the amount of time that professors spend teaching students is still declining. I suspect that it is related to this article in the Iowa City Press-Citizen, which shows that the research money U of I is bringing in has hit a record high. No big surprise. At major institutions like U of I, professors do not attain tenure based on teaching prowess. They get it based on research and publications. Until that changes, the commitment to teaching will continue to decline.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: BUSH IS A THIEF—ON ISSUES
In the wake of the recent corporate scandals and the reappearance of stories about President Bush’s dealing with Harken Energy, there has a been a good deal of anxiety among conservative pundits. Newsmax , Dick Morris, and Bill Quick think that Bush is in some trouble. John Podhoretz got very panicky. And Andrew Sullivan linked to a Cook Political Report which he felt showed that the corporate scandals were hurting Bush’s political standing. This will hurt Bush’s popularity and, presumably, Republicans’ chances this November.
Frankly, I think we can all relax a bit. First, the generic congressional ballot still shows Republicans holding steady with Democrats, even in the Cook Political Report. Republicans are usually behind in these polls at this point and close that gap as November nears. Given that, the fact the Republicans are currently even, if not ahead, does not bode well for Democrats.
Second, President Bush is able to neutralize the advantage that Democrats’ have on many issues. The reason is that he is becoming a very good—scratch that—excellent issue thief. Stealing an issue is the tactic of taking an issue that usually plays well for the opposition, giving a significant speech on or proposing legislation relevant to the issue, and thereby neutralizing the advantage the opposition has. Conventional wisdom holds that Bill Clinton was a master at this. Bush is no slouch either.
Bush has previously shown his skills as an issue thief on prescription drugs and education. But with the corporate corruption issue, he may have taken it to a new level. Not only did he neutralize the Democrats’ advantage, he may have turned it to his own. Consider a CBS poll that was hyped as showing that the American people thought big business had too much influence on the Bush Administration. It also showed that 59% trusted Bush "to do the right thing" to prevent further corporate abuses. Internal White House polls likely had a similar finding. Bush and his advisors probably realized that Bush could get the advantage if he actually did something about corporate abuse. So he gives a speech on July 9 outlining numerous reform proposals, most of which are already in legislation that Congress is considering.
Thus far, it seems to be working. His approval numbers appear to be holding steady, with the possible exception of the Zogby poll. And this before he even signs whatever bill the Congress will soon send him. When he does, he will do so enthusiastically, and he will tout it as the logical conclusion of his policy speech. Game, set, and match.
As a side note, Bush may even be a better issue thief than Clinton. Consider the welfare reform bill of 1996. Clinton talked a good game when it came to welfare reform, but then he vetoed welfare reform twice. He finally signed it, reluctantly, when it threatened to become an issue in the 1996 election. But Clinton gave no policy speech before Congress considered the legislation. Thus, he could never claim that the bill he signed reflected his policy desires. Niether was there an enthusiastic signing ceremony. In short, Clinton only neutralized the republican advantage on welfare. He never turned it to his advantage.
Ultimately, this makes Democrats’ election prospects look bleak. Bush has neutralized their every issue advantage. He may now be making some of those issues work in his favor. In so doing, he will keep his popularity ratings high. If those ratings translate into coattails, even short ones, the Democrats can forget about making gains in November. Rather, they should prepare themselves for a clobbering.
. . .
MORE QUARTER CONTROVERSY
David Yepsen has more on the Iowa quarter. Rather humorous.
. . .
NEWSFLASH: DES MOINES REGISTER OP-ED PAGE DOESN’T LIKE BUREAUCRACY
The editorial writers at the Register have finally found a bureaucracy they can dislike:
A proposal to review laws preventing the military from participating in domestic law enforcement is part of the Bush administration's larger scheme to expand government power to heighten domestic security announced Tuesday.
Related to this is the administration plan to create a vast bureaucracy by combining numerous agencies under a new department of homeland security. This looks like a many-headed monster, as it would include much of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Secret Service and the Coast Guard as well as establishing an "intelligence threat division," according to the New York Times. No wonder members of Congress are apprehensive. It would seem far more effective to improve operations of existing agencies - from technology to coordination - than to impose this new, complex structure.
A "many-headed monster"? Actually, that is likely true, but notice that the Register applies this only to a bureaucracy that involves the military and security agencies. I guess the same doesn’t apply to, say, the Iowa Department of Human Services.
Also of note is this passage:
Though the war on terrorism is not a traditional war with a well-defined battleground, it does not yet demand a solider on every street corner in America.
It appears that the editorial writers realized that was a bit much even for the average Register op-ed reader, and so they follow it with this sentence:
That, of course, is not what is proposed, but that specter is raised by the suggested review.
That "specter is raised" all right—in the hysterical reaches of the editorial writers’ imaginations. If the editorial writers truly believe that the Bush Administration sin taking us down the road to martial law or a police state, they should feel free to say so. We could all use a good laugh.
. . .
GROSS AND VILSACK TRY TO OUTSPEND EACH OTHER
I have two main thoughts on this article in the Des Moines Register about Governor Vilsack’s new development plan.
First, Vilsack proposed "diverting $50 million in tobacco money….to help cities contribute to the construction of renewable energy plants, such as wind turbines that convert wind energy into electricity." Is he joking? Wind energy is notoriously inefficient. I realize Vilsack’s plan is little more than grab bag of goodies intended to buy votes. But at least fill the bag with things that have the semblance of something that would help the Iowa economy. This would seem to give Gross a big opening to attack Vilsck for proposing something that is unlikely to work. That, of course, depends on Gross actually doing so, although I have a feeling he won’t, which leads me to point number two.
Yesterday I said that I had a "feeling" that the Gross Campaign wouldn’t propose any tax cuts because "they think that most Iowa voters are only concerned about the handouts they get from the state government and thus fear a tax cut because it might mean cutting spending on those handouts." I’m going to have to learn to trust my instincts, because I now have some evidence. According to the article,
Gross suggested Wednesday commissioning a "Manhattan Project" to develop biomass energy as a way of diminishing the state's reliance on petroleum, coal and nuclear fuel.
Gross said he supports providing subsidies to businesses that develop biomass, which draws energy from burning crop residue such as corn stalks or from burning crops specifically used for fuel, such as switchgrass.
(Side note: My understanding, and I may be wrong, is that biomass also involves deriving energy from farm animal waste. If that’s correct, I wonder why the reporter didn’t mention that.)
Anyway, Gross is now competing with Vilsack to spend state government money on renewable energy. Does the Gross Campaign really think that will appeal to voters? Republicans don’t win by promising to outspend Democrats. Voters are smart enough to realize that if it’s a choice between a Democrat who is promising to spend more and a Republican who is promising the same, they might as well go with the real thing. Gross needs to offer the voters a real choice—i.e., propose tax cuts—not a decision between Vilsack and Vilsack-lite.
. . .
Wednesday, July 17, 2002
QUARTER CONTROVERSY
The design for the Iowa quarter is due July 31, and if this piece in the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier and this one in the Des Moines Register are any indication, there is a lot of interest out there in this issue. I would prefer to see American Gothic on the quarter, but one of my colleagues has informed me that the rules governing the State quarters say that an specific individual’s face cannot appear on the quarter. Since American Gothic did depict two actual individuals, artist Grant Wood’s sister, Nan, and his dentist, Dr. B. H. McKeeby, that would seem to disqualify it. But who knows, perhaps my colleague is wrong about the rules. Anyone out there know more about this?
P.S. There are many fine things that could go one the Iowa quarter. This is not one of them. No apologies to the Burlington Hawkeye.
. . .
POKER RESULTS
My 5th place finish in the No Limit Hold‘Em event at the San Francisco is now posted at CardPlayer.com. Woo hoo! Although, I suppose that means there is now no chance that I can hide my winnings from the IRS.
. . .
RISK ASSESSMENT
The Omaha World-Herald has this interesting editorial about ignorance surrounding the concept of risk.
. . .
ADD ONE MORE TO THE LIST
Another Democratic Senator, John Corzine, has also had questionable financial dealings. Thanks to Croooow Blog for pointing out the link.
. . .
THE ANTHRAX MAN?
David Tell has this piece at the Daily Standard about the FBI’s investigation into who sent the anthrax last fall. Seems someone the FBI isn’t paying much attention to bought a “fine particulate mixer” last summer.
. . .
IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME
This letter to the editor in the New York Times uses the recent troubles in the stock market as an excuse to oppose Social Security privatization. Two points: First, if investing in equities for retirement is such a bad idea, why do major retirement funds like TIAA-CREF (for professors) and the Thrift Savings Plan (for Federal Employees) invest so many assets in the stock market? Second, to see the big picture of the stock market and how it performs in the long term, see page 7 of this excellent study by Melissa Hieger and William Shipman of the Cato Institute.
. . .
ISRAEL SHOULD INVADE…
…and we should just let them:
Dual suicide bombers kill 4 in Tel Aviv
. . .
I’LL BE THERE
The Henry County GOP will have a Hog Roast in Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, on Thursday, July 18. Doug Gross will be a featured speaker. I’ll see if I can ask him a question about his “agenda.”
. . .
ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL SCANDAL?!
Yes, but this one is more than 150 years old. This article focuses on some work by historians who found that the 12th President of the U.S., Zachariah Taylor, had been indicted on charges of assault and battery. The indictment occurred 34 years before Taylor became president. I wonder how Taylor got elected. Maybe he had the mid-19th century version of a “scandal response team.”
. . .
LUKE HELDER UPDATE
This article in the Quad City Times reports that the attorney for pipe-bomber Luke Helder has succeeded in having his trial delayed. Here’s some advice for Helder: cop a plea. You’ll have to spend some time in prison, but you can look forward to the Des Moines Register referring to you as a “misguided youth,” and saying that what you did “hardly matters in the bigger picture.”
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: WHICH IS WORSE, HARKEN OR HARKIN?
By now, you either know that Democrats and the media are hounding President Bush about his 1989 Harken Energy stock transaction, or you live in a cave. Some, like Senator Joseph Lieberman, are calling for Bush to release the documents related to the SEC’s investigation into the stock transaction in the early 1990s. Others, like Jesse Jackson, are calling for a full-scale investigation.
This time, however, the attack on Bush has not gone unanswered. The conservative press has countered that numerous prominent Democrats, including Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, and Terry McAuliffe, have had questionable financial dealings of their own.
Add the name of Iowa Senator Tom Harkin to that list. This article actually appeared in the Des Moines Register just over a year ago. I stumbled upon it when going through some files the other day. There are some eerily similar parallels between the Bush-Harken Energy matter and the Senator Harkin matter. For example, Bush filed one of his forms for the sale of Harken stock late. Senator Harkin made a late disclosure to the Senate Ethics Committee. According to the article:
U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa failed for two years to disclose as much as $200,000 in stock that his wife owned in an oil company, according to Senate documents.
Ruth Harkin is on the board of directors of oil giant Conoco Inc., and owns stock in the company. Members of the Senate are required to disclose such holdings, either those of a spouse or dependent children.
Harkin said in a June 5 letter to the Senate secretary that he failed to report the purchase of a major portion of Conoco stock from 1998 and 1999.
"It has just been brought to my attention by my accountant" that the Conoco stock was "inadvertently omitted," Harkin said, and he is now in compliance with government ethics rules.
President Bush caught some heat for making the following remark during his July 8 press conference: "In the corporate world, sometimes things aren't exactly black and white when it comes to accounting procedures." Senator Harkin also put a lot of the blame on slipshod accounting:
JoDee Winterhof, Harkin's chief of staff, said, "There was an inadvertent mistake that the accountant made. As soon as he brought it to our attention, we fixed it, and we worked with him to rectify it."
Winterhof said the mistake was discovered while Harkin was completing this year's disclosure form. Asked if Harkin will face any penalties for the mistake, Winterhof said he has not been contacted by any ethics officials.
She said Harkin did not notice the omission when he reviewed the disclosure forms. "He thought what the accountant had put forward was correct, so I don't think he really questioned it," she said.
Didn’t question it, indeed.
According to the article. Harkin’s wife Ruth purchased the Conoco stock in either September or October 1998. Harkin claims that the mistake in reporting it didn’t come to light until he was filling out his Senate disclosure form for 2001.
This might not be a problem, except that Harkin’s wife received more Conoco stock in March 1999, valued between $15,000 and $50,000. Harkin did report that transaction. Then, either Harkin or his wife purchased more Conoco stock, valued between $1,000 and $15,000, for their daughter Amy in July 1999. Harkin failed to report that transaction.
It is worthwhile to examine this story against the backdrop of Harkin’s recent statement regarding Bush’s July 9th speech on corporate corruption. In that statement Harkin urged "We’ve go to do all we can to restore the public trust and ensure that corporate America—like everyone else—plays by the rules."
So, let’s see here. Harkin fails to report one stock transaction made in late 1998, reports another one made in early 1999, and then fails to report a third one made in mid 1999. Would it be out of line to suggest that it is questionable whether Senator Harkin is playing "by the rules"? Perhaps Harkin also needs to do his part to "restore the public trust"?
If the Harken case merits an investigation by the SEC, as some Democrats claim, then perhaps the Harkin case deserves an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee.
. . .
OH, I’M SOOO INTIMIDATED! AREN’T YOU?
Defiant Saddam spurns U.S. threats
. . .
UNO PRODUCER RETURNS
Eric Olsen at Tres Producers is back from vacation, along with his mild-mannered, sweet-natured wife Dawn Olsen. Both have some interesting stories about their trip out West. In particular, in one blog, Eric mentions that years ago when he was living in L.A. as a music reporter, he saw Paula Abdul dance near naked on the bar at Billy Idol’s house. This makes me think that I am in the wrong business.
. . .
VILSACK HAS AN AGENDA
Well, sort of. Vilsack wants to divert "$30 million from Iowa's share of the multistate tobacco settlement to local economic development projects across Iowa," to get the state economy moving again. This is little more than a pork-barrel proposal and won’t help Iowa’s economy in the least. But at least Vilsack is putting forward something that he will do if he’s reelected.
What does Doug Gross propose? He wants to "make economic development a top priority in his administration and has said he would appoint his running mate, Debi Durham, as director of the Department of Economic Development." Whoopee.
The reason the economy in Iowa is slow is that businesses don’t want to locate here. The reason for that is top marginal rate for Iowa’s corporate income tax is 12%. That is the highest corporate income tax rate among any state in the country. If a business wants to pay lower state corporate income taxes, they have 49 other states to choose from. Until we cut that top rate down to size, all the Economic Development Departments in the world won’t do a thing for the state economy.
I’m getting the feeling—and at this point it is just a "feeling"—that the Gross Campaign won’t propose cutting any Iowa taxes, let alone the corporate income tax. It seems—again, just a feeling—that they think that most Iowa voters are only concerned about the handouts they get from the state government and thus fear a tax cut because it might mean cutting spending on those handouts.
That doesn’t square with recent history. The State Legislature cut the personal income tax in 1997, and it was very popular. It didn’t cost Republicans at all at the ballot box in 1998. (Yes, we lost the governor’s race. That was because Jim Ross Lightfoot—or, more specifically, his wife—ran one of the worst campaigns in recent memory, not because of tax cuts. Remember "nude dancing"?)
It’s too bad that Doug Gross won’t propose a tax cut. Given that Vilsack would never propose one, Gross could beat Vilsack over the head with the tax issue. It would also given Gross the beginnings of an agenda. That’s all the more important now that it appears Vilsack is beginning to construct one of his own.
. . .
POOR, MISUNDERSTOOD JOHNNY WALKER LINDH
The Des Moines Register has it’s editorial on Johnny Bin-Walker’s plea bargain. This sentence hit me like a ton of bricks:
This outcome for a misguided young man hardly matters in the bigger picture.
"Misguided young man"? Bin-Walker willingly joined a group that has as its objective the destruction of the U.S. He then took up arms against his native country, America. He may even have failed to warn U.S. military personnel about an impending prison uprising that cost CIA agent Mike Spann his life. Bin-Walker intentionally made some evil decisions. To pass him off as an innocent babe as the Register does is myopic at best, deceptive at worst.
As for the "big picture," it is of tremendous importance. Bin-Walker commits treason by joining a group whose other members killed 3,000 American citizens. What kind of message does a 20 year sentence send to other "misguided" youths contemplating a betrayal of their country? It tells them that treason is not a very serious crime, that you can take up arms against America and you won’t pay for it with a life sentence or even the death penalty. (To think that the Rosenbergs got the chair!) That message becomes even more important given that this nation is in the midst of a war.
After reading editorials like this one, I have to wonder if the folks at the Register editorial page have the slightest clue what the War on Terrorism is about.
UPDATE: The Omaha World-Herald has this editorial about bin-Walker. I don't think it's much better, but at least it doesn't coddle him.
. . .
Tuesday, July 16, 2002
GRASSLEY AND MOWBRAY
A sizeable flap has occurred in the last week about the State Department detaining a reporter from the National Review, Joel Mowbray, as he was leaving the offices of Foggy Bottom. You can read all about it at National Review Online, including this letter co-authored by Senator Charles Grassley and Representative Dave Weldon asking Secretary of State Colin Powell to look into the matter.
. . .
NEW LINKS TO MORE BLOGS
I’ve now linked to Ben Fischer’s blog. In return, Ben has written a very nice post about my site. Thank you for the kind words, Ben. Ben’s blog focuses a lot on Middle East issues. But he is also a connoisseur of fine literary classics. Ben, once you finish Milton’s Paradise Lost, you should read his classic defense of free speech, Areopagitica.
The other new blog is Hoystory. He’s been at it a while, and I’ve been meaning to add him for some time. I’ve now done so, because Croooow Blog reminded me of him this morning when he linked to his great takedown of the most recent Krugman column.
. . .
MORE LAWYER TROUBLE FOR GROSS
This article in the Quad City Times points out more sniping between Governor Vilsack and his GOP opponent, Doug Gross. It appears that Gross’ law firm is filing suit on behalf of "meatpacking giant Smithfield Foods as the company takes legal aim at the state’s packer ownership law." Vilsack, of course, is portraying this as Gross siding with big business against rural Iowa.
Gross is resorting to the same sort of technical explanations that he used in the primary when Steve Sukup called him on the DeCoster mess. The Gross Campaign claims Gross was not involved in preparing the lawsuit. Yeah, that’ll fly with Iowa voters.
. . .
DID HARKIN OUT HIMSELF?
One of my colleagues pointed out this column in the Des Moines Register from a while back. It details a visit by Senator Tom Harkin to an Iowa gay and lesbian meeting. Senator Harkin made the following remarks, which are quite funny, albeit inadvertently:
"At one time we would never have had a meeting like this," Harkin said in his public remarks. "Now look at us. We're not afraid to say who we are and we're not moving back."
. . .
LIGHT BLOGGING; RADIO INTERVIEW COMING UP
As I mentioned yesterday, I’m doing an interview on the Mike Bunge show on KXEL, 1540 AM, out of Waterloo, at 5pm today. I'll be discussing school choice. Thus, need to do some interview prep. Blogging will be light until after 5:30pm.
. . .
IT’S A DONE DEAL
Well, so much for the debate over whether taxpayers should foot the bill for seniors’ prescription drugs. An article in the Cedar Rapids Gazette states that Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley is now promoting his own prescription drug plan. He calls it a “reasonable, common-sense approach.” If a respected politician like Grassley is promoting a prescription drug benefit, it’s no longer a matter of “if” but “when.”
. . .
GOOD STUFF AT NRO TODAY
The National Review Online has quite a few fine articles today.
-This one by Andrew Biggs explains the potential social benefits of Social Security privatization.
-This one by Byron York examines Terry McAuliffe’s questionable business dealings.
-This one by John Miller reveals the new tactic being employed by opponents of school choice.
-This one by Andrew Struttaford demonstrates the Communist sympathies at the New York Times.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: GROSS IS RIGHT ABOUT DHS, REGISTER IS WRONG.
On Sunday, the Des Moines Register criticized GOP gubernatorial candidate Doug Gross for his proposed solution to the problems plaguing the Iowa Department of Human Services, that of firing Director Jessie Rasmussen. According to the Register editorial, Gross’s
contention that DHS is "basically dysfunctional" is misleading and simplistic.
Rather, the reality is that DHS has suffered deep budget cuts.
Furthermore, Gross is
going to have to seriously contemplate the notion that the system isn't "dysfunctional." It's underfunded.
There are no simple solutions, as Gross' comments suggest.
And what is the Register’s complex solution to this complex problem?
It's going to take money and additional resources.
Let’s take a look at this notion that the DHS is underfunded. In the most recent Iowa Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, the DHS received $2,389,458,000 in Fiscal Year 1998, the year before Governor Vilsack took office. (See pages 120-121.) By FY 2001, DHS funding had increased to $2,920,150,000. Adjusting for inflation using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator, that is an increase of 12.4%! That is even more outrageous when one considers that the Iowa government spending grew by an average of 6.1% from 1998-2001. Thus, DHS saw its revenues increase more than twice the average rate of state spending.
It looks even worse for DHS if one factors in welfare caseloads. In January 1999, when Vilsack took office, caseloads in Iowa were at 22,322. In September 2001, the last month for which I have data, they were at 20,775. That is a decline of 6.9%. In short, DHS watched its revenues increase while one of its costs was declining.
What may be most damning is the Register’s claim that the DHS has “suffered deep budget cuts” may be inaccurate. My colleague Steve Garrison was able to craft a custom report on 2002 revenues for the DHS using the Legislative Fiscal Bureau’s website. (An important caveat: For 2001, the numbers from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau do not square with the numbers in the 2001 Iowa Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. For some reason I can’t figure out, there is a difference of $600 million. If someone out there can help me with this, I’d appreciate it.) Using the numbers from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, DHS did see a decline in funding from the state of Iowa from 2001-2002, to the tune of about $28 million. However, the largest chunk of DHS funding comes not from Iowa, but from the federal government in the form of a block grant. And that block grant increased from 2001-2002 by $185 million. When the funding from the state and federal government are combined, DHS actually had a funding increase of almost $158 million, or 6.8%! The cotention of a funding increase is contingent on seeing the numbers in the 2002 Iowa Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, to determine if they also show an overall rise in DHS funding. I'm betting that they will.
Nevertheless, it puts the DHS in a very bad light no matter how you look at it. At the very least, DHS went into 2002 having seen its budget increased tremendously over the previous three years, while one of its costs declined. At worst, it also saw an actual increase in funding in 2002, when it supposedly had to make “budget cuts.” Either way, the problem for the DHS isn’t underfunding. It’s management and bureaucratic structure.
Thus, Gross's proposed firing of Rasmussen isn’t “simple.” It’s a good first step.
UPDATE: One of my more astute readers noticed I had twice used "billion" instead of "million" in the third to last paragraph. All numbers in that paragraph should be in the millions. I have now corrected them.
. . .
LIVE-IN BOYFRIENDS
This editorial in the Des Moines Register rightfully notes the threat live-in boyfriends present to children. The Register’s solution is pretty much what you’d expect:
What can the state do? Though some women will put their children in harm's way no matter what assistance is available, the state should at least do all it can to provide women alternatives. Access to subsidized child-care ensures women aren't forced to leave their children with men they barely know. Adequate public assistance helps prevent women from feeling compelled to cohabit with men because they need more financial support. Also, birth-control information and assistance should be readily accessible. If options are widely available, motherhood is truly a choice.
In other words, the government needs to spend more. A more effective approach may be a return to the days when society attached a stigma to practices like illegitimacy and shacking up. But you can probably forget about the Register ever advocating that.
. . .
FOLLOWING ANN COULTER
Croooow Blog has been assiduously following the controversy over Ann Coulter’s new book Slander. Croooow’s links still aren’t working, so just click on the link to his site and scroll down. There is no shortage of posts about Coulter.
. . .
IS HARKEN ENERGY HURTING BUSH?
Beau Elliot certainly thinks so. In his typical left-wing rant in the Daily Iowan, Elliot states that "last week was pretty much a disaster zone for King George." He might consider checking out this recent poll by Gallup, which shows that Americans don’t seem too concerned about it.
. . .
HARKIN AND YUCCA MOUNTAIN
This letter to the editor by Mike Thayer to the Daily Iowan notes that Senator Harkin flip-flopped on the issue of Yucca Mountain. Thayer asks, "Why the change, Senator?" That’s easy, Mr. Thayer. It’s an election year.
. . .
Monday, July 15, 2002
ON THE RADIO
Yours truly will be on the radio tomorrow at 5pm, on KXEL 1540 AM, out of Waterloo, Iowa. I'll be on Mike Bunge's show, dicussing school choice.
. . .
ESTATE TAX, AGAIN
The Burlington Hawkeye has to pile on again about the defeat of the estate tax. This editorial claims that the plight of the “rich farmer” is a myth. Maybe so. But that’s only one small part of repealing the estate tax. For more on what repeal of the estate tax would mean, see David Yepsen’s excellent column from yesterday.
. . .
GLOOM AND DOOM GET LOST
This piece by Dean Krenz in the Sioux City Journal dismissed pundits who claim that America is on the decline. A good read.
. . .
KOC
This letter to the editor in the Daily Nonpareil praised the Knights of Columbus. I have to make note of it because I am a member of KOC.
. . .
BUDGET WOES HURT NOT ONLY VILSACK, BUT IOWA GOP TOO
This column by Katie Obradovich in the Mason City Globe-Gazette notes that Doug Gross’s attacks on Vilsack over the budget are also causing some discomfort to Republicans in the State Legislature.
. . .
HISTORY SMILES ON TAX CUTS
This one by Bruce Bartlett in National Review Online is a zinger. It traces the history of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts, and shows how so many of its critics were wrong.
. . .
OLD AS DIRT?
This is one of those nostalgia pieces by an elderly person that shows up every once in a while that recounts all the new things that have appeared in his or her lifetime. But the more I read this column by Jerry Sloat in the Daily Democrat, the funnier it became. Well worth a read.
. . .
IT’S GONNA GET UGLY
The Dubuque Telegraph Herald has this interesting story about the very negative tone of both the gubernatorial and senate race in Iowa.
. . .
TWO FROM DAILY PUNDIT
Bill Quick has two blogs that I wholeheartedly agree with. The first from yesterday is an open letter from the Blogosphere to the people of Iran. Count me in as a supporter of the letter.
The second is on the plea bargain hashed out for Johnny “Bin” Walker. Bill says that he was correct in predicting that Walker would not get adequate justice. Yes, he was correct.
. . .
AFFRIMATIVE ACTION IN DAVENPORT
This editorial in the Quad City Times begins:
About 16 of every 100 of us Davenporters are African-American or Hispanic or Asian. But only about six of every 100 city employees are minority group members.
That isn’t fair, nor is it right nor in the best interest of a city as classy as this one is.
Interestingly, the editorial never refers to the solution as “affirmative action.” Instead it uses the euphemism “diversity.” Such sophistry is also evident in this line:
Success will be measured not only in percentages, but by an innovative city staff that brings a breadth of ideas, experiences and priorities to the public table.
Not only measured in percentages? Wanna bet?
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: THE NY TIMES, ANDREW SULLIVAN, AND ALASKA
(Note: Daily Diatribe is a new feature on my blog. This will be my one extended post for the day, Monday through Friday. The Daily Diatribe link to the right will link to the most recent Diatribe.)
Recently, the New York Times reported that average temperatures had risen 7 degrees Fahrenheit in Alaska. It was first published in a story by reporter Timothy Egan, and then repeated twice, once in an editorial and once in a column by Bob Herbert, both warning about global warming. Andrew Sullivan called the Times on its exaggeration, and last Thursday the Times corrected itself.
Problem was, the correction was also incorrect. The Times claimed that the “an assessment by the University of Alaska's Center for Global Change and Arctic System Research, the annual mean temperature has risen 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit over 30 years, not 7 degrees.” After a perusal of the report, Sullivan claimed he couldn’t find the 5.4 figure anywhere. Sullivan urged his readers to help him out:
If any of you want to take a closer look at the report - I have to travel again today - and see anything else worth noting or anything I might have missed, please let me know.
Well, always one who believes in journalistic accuracy, and not wanting to pass up on an opportunity to embarrass the New York Times (okay, okay, I admit I’m far more motivated by the latter than the former) I’ve decided to lend a hand. I did a word search on all the PDF files of the report by the Center for Global Change and Arctic System Research (CGCASR), and I can confidently assert that “5.4” is not in it.
After looking over the numbers, Sullivan suggests an explanation for the Times goof:
But even taking the biggest number in the report - which is still not the average annual temperature - the maximum annual mean temperature increase in any region would still be 4.5 degrees - not 5.4. Did the Times get a case of dyslexia?
That is one possible explanation. Hasty and careless reading might be another. To see this turn to page 7 of the report, the page with the heading "Executive Summary." It states “Alaska has experienced the largest regional warming of an state in the U.S., with a rise in average temperature of about 5 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius) since the 1960s and 8 degrees Fahrenheit (4.5 Celsius) in winter.” Thus, whoever at the Times read the “Executive Summary” could have read that last sentence so quickly that the 5 degrees Fahrenheit and 4.5 Celsius morphed into 5.4 in his or her mind. So is the difference between 5 and 5.4 a big deal? Normally, no. But this is a correction, not an original article or editorial. It seems reasonable to expect that the Times would be extra careful to ensure that their corrections were, in fact, correct.
What is also fascinating about page 7 in the report is that it reveals the extent of the Times bias about the causes of global warming. To anyone of familiar with the Times, it is no secret that its coverage of climate issues usually assumes global warming is the result of human activity. It is also no secret that the editorial page writers use this assumption to promote policies like the Kyoto Treaty and emissions standards. But apparently this bias is so deep rooted that they can’t see evidence against the human-caused theory of global warming when it is staring them right in the face.
Look again at page 7 of the CGCASR report, particularly graphs a and b. Graph a shows the rise in carbon dioxide since 1950. You’ll notice that the rise has been gradual. Graph b shows the rise in the average temperature in Alaska since the early 1950s. This rise is not gradual at all, but could best be described as a “plateau effect.” A plateau effect happens when a certain phenomenon, in this case temperature, hovers around a certain numerical range before making a sudden increase or decrease, after which it hovers around a new numerical range. That appears to be the effect in graph b. Temperature hovered around one range from the 1950s until the mid-70s, when they took a sharp rise. That rise leveled off in the late 1970s, after which the temperature hovered around a new numerical range.
The point here is that these two figures do not support the human-caused theory. If global warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, and the rise in carbon dioxide is gradual, we should expect the rise in temperature to also be gradual. Yet the rise in temperature is sudden, occurring over the period of just a few years. Interestingly, the CGCASR report makes note of this in the sentence following the one that I speculated the Times got its “5.4” number from: “Records from some regions show a warming of nearly 3-4 degrees Fahrenheit quite suddenly in the late 1970s.”
So not only does the Times ignore graphical evidence on the same page from which it got its statistics, it doesn’t bother even bother reading the next sentence. I believe the term for this is “willful ignorance.” Willful ignorance is a good indicator of some hard-core bias. And that is a good indicator of the Times lack of credibility on the issue of global warming.
. . .
ARE THE DEMOCRATS HELL BENT ON POLITICAL SUICIDE?
From the Washington Post:
Democrats Speak Up on Foreign Policy
Reluctance to Criticize Bush Fades
. . .
NOT TOO MUCH REGULATION PLEASE
Holy cow! The Daily Nonpareil has this entirely sensible editorial from Saturday. Unlike the Des Moines Register, it actually sees possible consequences from regulating business. Of particular note are these three paragraphs:
A frightening possibility is that the leftist ideologues and those who want to play these scandals for partisan advantage might get away with crafting laws that punish this whole society for the deeds of a relative few.
We will, in fact, all suffer if Congress passes and the president signs laws that aim to micro manage too many aspects of corporate behavior, denying executives the flexibility that makes enhanced productivity possible.
It is possible to make executive criminality far less likely without squashing the economic freedoms that serve America so wonderfully well.
To the Daily Nonpareil: More editorials like this one, please.
. . .
HARKIN IS FOR HOLLYWOOD
And Hollywood is for Harkin. The Des Moines Register has this article about how Senator Tom Harkin’s donor list reads like a who’s who list of celebrities. It includes Anthony Edwards, Christie Hefner (yes, that Hefner), and, of course, Barbara Streisand. The article begins
When it comes to the glamour campaign, Sen. Tom Harkin is winning hands-down.
Memo to Jane Norman, Register Washington Bureau writer: You need to keep in closer contact with your buds in the Des Moines office. They want Harkin to win, and surely don’t appreciate articles that accurately portray Harkin as out of touch with Iowans.
No, you need to be writing puff pieces, like this one that appeared in the Iowa City Press-Citizen. It lovingly describes a Harkin fundraiser at which Tipper Gore made an appearance. It includes nice lines like
The senator highlighted his own role in creating the National Caregiver Program in November 2001, which provides support for those caring for adult loved ones with debilitating mental and physical conditions. The program was originally funded with $125 million in 2001 and received $141.5 million this year. Of that, Iowa received $1.58 million.
and
Harkin added how proud he was of the support the Gores have given him in his push for another term in the Senate.
I’m sure the Harkin campaign is thankful for the free advertising.
. . .
NIMBY IN IOWA
The Des Moines Register has this editorial about the "Not In My Back Yard" mentality in Iowa. Iowa’s problem involves a type of waste although not nuclear waste.
. . .
Sunday, July 14, 2002
YEPSEN ON THE ESTATE TAX
David Yepsen has this very good column on the estate tax in the Des Moines Register. He even gets in a little dig at his colleagues at the Register editorial page. Well worth a read.
. . .
VOTE FOR VILSACK ‘CAUSE HE’S A LIBERAL
Rekha Basu has this has this puff piece supporting Governor Tom Vilsack. It’s the usual liberal litany of how Vilsack will stand for working people while Doug Gross will side with business interests.
This is the biggest laugher in the column:
He's [Vilsack] been blamed for underestimating state revenues, but the Legislature caused more hardship by refusing to tap more of the rainy-day fund.
No, the main problem has been Vilsack’s overspending when times were good.
. . .
|
|
