Saturday, January 18, 2003
MULTICULTURALISM TO ANTI-AMERICANISM: BRIDGING THE GAP
Brian O'Connell explains the link between embracing all cultures and rejecting the American one:
As is implied by Step No. 1, "We Cannot Judge Other Cultures", we are perfectly free to judge our own culture, Western culture, and that of its most visible agent, the US. And we're not just free to do so, indeed, we're obligated to do so. Like the first step, this is axiomatic. And when we do analyze Western and US culture, what a magnificent host of pathologies we find: racism, sexism, homophobia, imperialism, capitalism, corporatism, consumerism, and the chronic trashing of the environment. I could go on in this way for a while, but you get the idea. No shortage of root causes here.
Read it all.
. . .
TIRED ANALOGIES
Bjorn Staerk has little use for anti-war protestors' comparisons of President Bush to you-know-who....
. . .
Friday, January 17, 2003
WELFARE REFORM: SOME PEOPLE NEVER LEARN
The Des Moines Register editorialists just can’t help themselves. They can’t get over the fact that welfare reform—that requiring recipients to work and limiting their benefits—actually worked. Caseloads fell by more than 50%. Child poverty declined. And now that Bush wants more welfare reform, the Register is opposed to it.
They are still playing the economy canard:
The number of recipients was cut in half, although the economic boom of the 1990s may have caused much of the reduction.
No, it didn’t. Research I conducted last year found no discernable effect from the economy. Research conducted by the Manhattan Institute, Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute did find an effect from the economy, but found that welfare reform had a far larger impact.
Furthermore, if the strong economy was responsible for most of the decline, then we should see the welfare rolls shoot back up again during a recession. But that didn’t happen: The worst estimate I can find puts the increase during the recession at about 2.3%, although the article speculates that it might be somewhat higher. Hardly a huge increase.
Rather than maintaining the current system to see how it weathers a weakened economy, the Bush administration is proposing that recipients be required to work a 40-hour week. With high unemployment rates right now, where will those people find jobs?
First, the economy isn’t going to stay weakened forever. Second, if work requirements worked have proven an effective policy, then it makes perfect sense to increase them.
There is also griping about the Bush plan’s marriage initiatives:
Marriage initiatives don't work, particularly when combined with increased work requirements. Studies show busy working mothers don't have time for a relationship. Those who are economically more successful after leaving the dole don't necessarily want to be married. Men don't want to marry those living in poverty.
Oh, so now we’re interested in "studies." Never mind the ones that show welfare reform, not the economy, decreased the welfare rolls. But if they show that a policy we don’t like might not work, then tout them till the cows come home.
I say "might not work" because marriage initiatives have not yet been tried. Thus, the Register’s blanket statement is premature, to say the least. Notice that the studies they cite don’t show that marriage initiatives won’t work, just that there are reasons that they might not work. Studies have also shown that married couples and their children are less likely to be in poverty. A policy which encourages marriage is worth a try. And since no one will be forced to get married under Bush’s proposal, what is the Register so worried about?
It's impossible to find the compassion in this conservatism.
No, it’s impossible to find much sense in this editorial.
. . .
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Yesterday two opinion columns appeared in major newspapers dealing with the states’ budget crises. In the New York Times Bob Herbert argued that the crisis cannot be solved without federal assistance. Over in the New York Post, Michael Flynn argued against a federal bailout, claiming it would reward states for their profligate spending of the 1990s. You can guess which argument I’m more sympathetic toward.
Consider Iowa. Between Fiscal Year (FY) 1994 and when the budget crisis began in FY 2001, state spending in the General Fund portion of the budget increased $1.2 billion. That’s an increase of more than 33%! Yet our state leaders seem to have learned nothing: Governor Vilsack has lined up all sorts of new spending initiatives, despite the fact that Iowa faces a budget shortfall of up to $400 million this year.
It seem a bit hypocritical for liberals like Herbert who preach "fiscal responsibility" whenever a tax cut is proposed to urge Washington to bailout state governments. What kind of message does it send to states if the federal government saves them from a mess of their own making? It sure isn’t a message about "responsibility".
. . .
Thursday, January 16, 2003
THE BULB-O-RAMA
Ted Barlow is having a light-bulb joke fest over at his site. Start here and scroll down. Here's my contribution:
Q: How many Hesiods does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: That stupid, disingenuous Dubyah never had to change a lightbulb in his RICH, SPOILED, FRATBOY life. And if he says he did, he is a LIAR!
. . .
CHANGING THE RULES IN MID-GAME
Hans Blix is trying to change the rules laid out in U.N. Resolution 1441. And guess who's calling him on it? The Washington Post. As if you needed any more evidence that the Post is now a better newspaper than the New York Times.
. . .
IOWA GETS NO RESPECT
You know you’ve been dissed when your basketball team upsets the 8th ranked team in the nation and it’s not even mentioned on the front page either CNNSI’s or ESPN’s website. I mean, who cares about the Sacramento Kings?
Not only that, the Iowa Hawkeyes 68-61 victory over the Farting Illini last night isn’t even the lead story in the College Basketball sections. Rather, it’s Dukes victory—YAWN—over Virginia. I mean, who cares about a bunch of East Coast pretty boys?
Of course, I’m a bit biased. I was at the game along with friend and fellow Iowa blogger Jason Steffens. It was very exciting. The Hawks really didn’t have it put away until the last minute of the game. Three Hawkeys—Glenn Worley, Sean Sonderleiter, Jared Reiner—were in foul trouble toward the end of the game as the referees couldn’t call fouls fast enough. And Illinois kept it close the whole way. The difference was a stellar performance—16 points, 11 rebounds—by freshman guard Jeff Horner.
It was an edge-of-the-seat nail biter that was worthy of top headline attention. Unfortunately the big boys didn’t see it that way. Sigh.
. . .
SPEAKING OF MR. STEFFENS
Jason has a good run down on Governor Vilsack's Condition of the State Adress over at the Political State Report.
. . .
FUN IN THE SUN-DEVIL STATE
Iowa isn't the only place with a Democratic Governor. Ed Boyd is having loads of fun with new-Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano.
. . .
TOTTEN NEEDS A SOLUTION
Mike Totten is rather annoyed by the sudden rise in the use of the word "solution". Perhpas he needs a "language solution".
. . .
Wednesday, January 15, 2003
CONDITION OF THE STATE
I wish I could say that at least the beginning of Governor Tom Vilsack’s Condition of the State speech yesterday was promising. But I can’t because it wasn’t. The second and third paragraph sets up the rest of the speech:
Given our values, no Iowan should be satisfied if bright Iowans leave, believing they can find no meaningful opportunity here; if Iowans can't find or afford healthcare services; if Iowans are prevented from enjoying the outdoors because our rivers and streams are polluted. Sadly, all of this is happening in our state today.
We can, we should, and we must do better. Iowans must respond to the challenge by embracing and directing change. I am confident we are up to the challenge; but state government cannot approach this challenge alone.
In other words, all sorts of new government programs are on the way.
Here we go:
To reach that ambitious goal requires a new, focused effort on economic development keyed to life sciences, value added agriculture, advanced manufacturing, insurance, and other information solutions. Vision Iowa and its success taught us the power of state resources leveraging more private and other public investment. We must apply that important lesson to economic development.
No, what Vision Iowa taught us was the boondoggle that is government funding for economic development. Lots of funding for creating parks and beautifying waterways did lots of the Iowa economy, didn’t it? And the answer of course is:
A companion fund, the Iowa Values Fund, should be created and dedicated to partnering with private investment to begin the transformation of our economy. Administered and managed as a public/private partnership, the fund's investments should promote regional economic development so no part of Iowa is left behind, and work more closely with the Regents universities, community colleges and independent colleges to double the number of college experienced workers in the workforce. Over the next 5 years $500 million should be committed to this effort. It is that important.
Oh goody!
Initial resources from the fund should also spur the development of more renewable fuel and energy of all kinds. The benefits to our economy and our environment from ethanol and biodiesel fuel are well known.
Yes, they work so well. That’s why the Iowa economy is in such good shape. Because we create a product that requires a government tax break and environmental mandate to be profitable.
And here’s more:
Similar benefits will result from an expansion of renewable energy production. Today, Iowa annually produces 200 megawatts of electricity from renewable energy sources - wind, solar, and biomass. By the end of the decade Iowa should annually produce a minimum of 1,000 megawatts committed to the goal of making Iowa a net exporter of energy.
While were at it, let’s throw more money at education:
If we are to double the number of college experienced workers in the workforce, more of our children will have to attend college. To achieve success in school, children must be ready to learn before they get to school. Bold goals precede and encourage bold action. We must challenge ourselves to create an Iowa where virtually all (over 90%) of our children have access to quality preschool and where virtually all, at least 90%, of our children complete their formal education with at least 2 years college experience.
Why more money is necessary for education when enrollment rates are declining is unclear. But we’ll spend it because it plays well with the press and keeps the teachers’ unions happy. Oh wait. It just became clear.
Oh, and here’s some more for health care:
We will fight whenever, wherever, and for as long as it takes for a fair Medicare reimbursement. We will negotiate whenever, wherever, and for as long as it takes until Iowa seniors have fair drug prices.
We will look whenever, wherever, and for as long as it takes for strategies to control Medicaid costs without limiting access to quality healthcare. I want to thank Senator Kramer, in particular, for her efforts already exercised in these areas and pledge to work with her and the General Assembly to maintain quality healthcare.
and
Let us stop the needless suffering. Iowa should lead the nation with the highest percentage of residents with mental health and substance abuse coverage. Let us make the enactment of mental health parity a landmark for which this legislature will be remembered and celebrated for years to come.
Never mind that spending on this is what helped get us into the budget crisis in the first place.
And what about that budget crisis? Well, there was this small bit:
The state budget complicates our task. The work begun two years ago to align revenues with expenditures must continue. The law requires a balanced budget and we will have a balanced budget. While complicated, the task is not impossible.
That was it. Nothing about how he plans to balance the budget. No talk of spending cuts. But it’s hard to talk about spending cuts when you have lots on the plate that requires spending more money.
There was one lengthy paragraph that dealt with taxes:
Barriers to a new Iowa economy must be removed. Regulatory approval for new business and expansion needs to be timely for progress delayed is progress denied. A complex income tax system with loopholes places Iowa in a non-competitive position. Simplifying the system and closing loopholes will remove a barrier to progress. No Iowan should have to use a form larger than a postcard to report state income and pay state taxes. At the same time, the property tax system pays for services not related to property ownership; extends credits, exemptions and abatements in a haphazard fashion; encourages inefficiencies in government; and discriminates between and among classes of property owners. The time has come. Sunset the system that doesn't work and replace it with one that does. Remove the barrier.
I can’t be optimistic about it though. If you read the paragraph carefully, you’ll notice that nowhere in the paragraph are the words "cut" or "reduce." In other words tax reform, if we get any, will be the sort that does nothing to decrease taxes.
If this speech is any indication, the next four years of Vilsack are going to be a lot like the first four years.
. . .
Tuesday, January 14, 2003
A TEACHING NIGHTMARE
If you want some idea about what's wrong with inner-city schools, read this article in the City Journal by Joshua Kaplowitz.
. . .
TAX CUTS AND LIBERAL BIAS
My new column at the American Prowler.
. . .
SPEAKING OF THE DEATH PENALTY
The Des Moines Register slobbers all over Governor Ryan’s decision to commute the sentences of those on death row. No surprise there. What is intriguing is the final sentence in the editorial: "The question is how many more men and women will be wrongfully convicted and executed before all states accept that reality." I didn’t realize that some inmates had been wrongfully executed. Could the Register please provide their names the next time it editorializes on this subject?
. . .
FREUDIAN SLIP?
In its editorial on Governor George Ryan's pardon party, the New York Times states "We do know his (Ryan's) actions over the weekend were not the product of sudden desperation, but a gradual and painful re-education." Couldn't the Times writers have picked a different word, like perhaps "reconsideration"?
. . .
Monday, January 13, 2003
ANOTHER REMINDER
I'll be on the radio this morning around nine o'colck to talk about the state budget. You should be able to hear it on both WHO 1040 AM and WMT 600 AM.
UPDATE: I will be on at about 9:30 am.
UPDATE II: It won't be on WMT 600. The program I will be on starts on WMT at 10 am.
. . .
VOICE FROM THE PAST WITH A BLOG
A while back I had a short post about Michael J. Totten, someone who was a fellow columnist when I wrote for the Daily Iowan, the University of Iowa student newspaper. He’s a very intelligent, perceptive writer, and luckily for the Blogosphere, he now has his own blog.
Michael is a liberal Democrat who supports the War Against Saddam. That is a big focus of his writing, as can be seen in this post. Also check out his most recent column for Front Page Magazine.
So welcome aboard Mike. I’m sure when the war is over, we’ll have plenty to disagree about. Heh, heh.
. . .
AFTER CLINTON, WHY NOT?
Looks like Gary Hart is mulling a run for president in 2004. Suggested campaign slogan: He only did it with classy babes.
. . .
BUSH WILL BE DICTATOR
That’s certainly the implication that can be drawn from Paul Krugman’s explanation of his recent "joke" that President Bush reminds him of Ferdinand Marcos. (Thanks to Andrew Sullivan.) Here’s how Krugman explains his analogy:
Marcos didn't start out as a dictator - he was legitimately elected in 1965…. Marcos was reelected in 1969. But in 1972 he took advantage of a series of terrorist bombings in Manila - some of the bombs, it turned out, were planted by his henchmen - to seize dictatorial power. Democratic niceties had to be put aside, he explained, in order to fight Communism.
At first, he pledged to fight corruption as well as Communism. But eventually his regime took corruption to new heights. The phrase "crony capitalism" comes from the Marcos-era Philippines, where political connections were the key to vast wealth.
Krugman naturally sees parallels:
….as many people have now acknowledged, this is an administration of "access capitalists" – which is just the American version of crony capitalism.
Says who? Well, just Krugman. He continues:
Is there also a resemblance in the sense that Bush has used fears of terrorism for political gain? Of course there is. Memos from Karl Rove are quite explicit about using the war on terror as a political issue. Moreover, the Bush administration's creation of a cult of personality, its obsessive secretiveness, its propensity for mass arrests, and its evident fondness for Big-Brotherish schemes of public surveillance are not the actions of men who have a deep respect for the democratic process.
I infer from this that Krugman is worried that at some point Bush will send out the military to arrest members of Congress and the Supreme Court, and then establish himself as "President for Life." Yet I'm probably reading too much into this because Krugamn assures us he’s not nuts:
In case you're wondering: no, I don't think that Bush is the moral equivalent of Marcos, and I'm not endorsing the theory that 9/11 was a Carlyle Group conspiracy.
Yes, Professor Krugman, we were wondering.
Krugman’s Bush obsession is getting spooky. This is as close to the line of paranoid as one can get without actually crossing over.
. . .
Sunday, January 12, 2003
RADIO INTERVIEW
For anyone interested, I'm supposed to be on the Mickelson in the Morning show on WHO, 1040 AM, tomorrow morning around 9 AM. It is also on WMT, 600 AM, out of Cedar Rapids.
. . .
|
. . .
|
