Paul Krugman: Don't Make Nice

Paul Krugman tells Democrats that, should they gain power in the upcoming election, it would be a mistake to give into calls for reconciliation and bipartisanship since that will not end the divisiveness that plagues the political process. Instead, Democrats need to stand strongly against any compromises to their core principles and values and fully investigate "the origins of the Iraq war and the cronyism and corruption that undermined it":

Don’t Make Nice, by Paul Krugman, If They Win..., Commentary, NY Times: Now that the Democrats are strongly favored to capture at least one house of Congress, they’re getting a lot of unsolicited advice, with many people urging them to walk and talk softly if they win.

I hope the Democrats don’t follow this advice — because it’s bad for their party and, more important, bad for the country. In the long run, it’s even bad for the cause of bipartisanship.

There are those who say that a confrontational stance will backfire politically on the Democrats. These are by and large the same people who told Democrats that attacking the Bush administration over Iraq would backfire in the midterm elections. Enough said.

Political considerations aside, American voters deserve to have their views represented in Congress. And according to opinion polls, ... the public wants politicians to stand up to corporate interests. ...[T]he latest Newsweek poll ... shows overwhelming public support for the agenda Nancy Pelosi has ... if she becomes House speaker. The strongest support is for her plan to have Medicare negotiate with drug companies for lower prices, which is supported by 74 percent of Americans — and by 70 percent of Republicans!

What the make-nice crowd wants most of all is for the Democrats to forswear any investigations into the origins of the Iraq war and the cronyism and corruption that undermined it. But it’s very much in the national interest to find out what led to the greatest strategic blunder in American history, so that it won’t happen again.

What’s more, the public wants to know. ...[A]ccording to the Newsweek poll, 58 percent of Americans believe that investigating contracting in Iraq isn’t just a good idea, but a high priority; 52 percent believe the same about investigating the origins of the war.

Why, then, should the Democrats hold back? Because, we’re told, the country needs less divisiveness. And I, too, would like to see a return to kinder, gentler politics. But that’s not something Democrats can achieve with a group hug and a chorus of “Kumbaya.” ...

As long as polarization is integral to the G.O.P.’s strategy, Democrats can’t do much, if anything, to narrow the partisan divide. Even if they try to act in a bipartisan fashion, their opponents will find a way to divide the nation — which is what happened to the great surge of national unity after 9/11. One thing we might learn from investigations is the extent to which the Iraq war itself was motivated by the desire to have another wedge issue.

There are those who believe that the partisan gap can be bridged if the Democrats nominate an attractive presidential candidate who speaks in uplifting generalities. But they must have been living under a rock these past 15 or so years. Whoever the Democrats nominate will feel the full force of the Republican slime machine...

The truth is that we won’t get a return to bipartisanship until or unless the G.O.P. decides that polarization doesn’t work as a political strategy. The last great era of bipartisanship began after the 1948 election, when Republicans, shocked by Harry Truman’s victory, decided to stop trying to undo the New Deal. And that example suggests that the best thing the Democrats can do, not just for their party and their country, but for the cause of bipartisanship, is what Truman did: stand up strongly for their principles.

_________________________
Previous (10/20) column: Paul Krugman: Incentives for the Dead
Next (10/27) column: Paul Krugman: The Arithmetic of Failure

Comments

[maria]

Krugman is right on this issue and Reich was wrong.

[Bruce Webb]

Unleash your inner FDR. Like Natalie M I "am not ready to make nice".

[joan]

You can stand up strongly for your principles without being nasty and vindictive. I like to think the democratic base does not need the sort of cut throat behavior that lead the republicans to the impeachment farce. A large fraction of the electorate that came of age after the repulbicans lost their cool decided to favor democrats. We should not follow their bad example, as tempting as it might seem.

[elvis]

"You can stand up strongly for your principles without being nasty and vindictive."

very true.

A calm and purposeful inquiry into recent history shouldn't alarm anyone but those who feel the need to hide their excesses. Iraq has gone badly wrong. We are duty-bound to ask why and how to improve it. Some basic Constitutional rights have been abrogated. To what end? What purpose has been served? Scientific freedom has been compromised-- why? How can we set our course aright?

Such inquiries don't need to be hysteric witch hunts. They could even be bi-partisan.

In the end such inquiries can help the Republican Party regain itself.

[Truman Democrat]

The irony is that David Brooks is urging Barak Obama to run for president in 2008, because Brooks perceives him to be someone who can bridge the partisan divide which the Republicans created as a strategy to gain and hold power. If the Democrats fall for this stuff, they deserve what they get: pressure to compromise with the right wing when the right wing can't force it's agenda on the US, and scorched earth opposition when the right wing has the power to prevail. (See Texas politics before and after the Democrats lost control of the legislature.) Obama has become the Republicans' Democrat of choice. If they like him so well, why don't they nominate him and abandon their strategy of political polarization? (But then they'd have to fire Karl Rove.)

[STS]

Krugman is on target here. There is a need for accountability. Investigate and let the facts lead where they may.

[calmo]

The confident air of Dem victory reminds me of those days after the debates.
Agree STS, Krugman is right and accountability has been sorely missing.
I wish I shared your idealism about those investigations and how facts lead to responsible actions and reasonable corrections --and not to classified information.

[Tom DC/VA]

"You can stand up strongly for your principles without being nasty and vindictive."

But the Republicans really need to be driven from power at the national level for a generation given their record of screwing things up over the past 5 years, so full steam ahead with the partisanship.

[Movie Guy]

'Don't Make Nice', Part II

The invisible subject that Paul Krugman and many others are not discussing:

Committee Control in the 110th Congress: Who Will be Left Sitting?
Oct 12, 2006
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_issuebriefs.php?PressID=877&org_name=NTUF

"Should the Democrats pick up enough seats in the House or the Senate, they will get to appoint new Chairmen for the first time in years. Even if the Republicans hang on in the House, they will have to choose several new Committee Chairmen because of the retirement of long-serving Members as well as a Republican-imposed rule limiting the length of service. To the victor goes the spoils, but what can taxpayers expect from the Congressmen who will be chosen to sit in these important seats of power and influence?"

"This Issue Brief utilizes the National Taxpayers Union Foundation's (NTUF) BillTally system to determine the dollar cost of the legislative agendas of the potential new Chairmen in the next Congress. BillTally tabulates the cost or savings of every piece of spending legislation introduced in Congress and cross-indexes these figures with the sponsorship records of all Members. The costs represent the annual change in federal spending that would occur if all the legislation sponsored or cosponsored by that Member were enacted into law. All dollar figures are based on the legislative agendas compiled during the First Session of the 109th Congress. During that period, a total of 1,485 bills having an impact of $1 million or more were introduced in Congress. Except where indicated, the likely Chairmen for the 110th Congress were selected by each Member's incumbency on his or her Committee or by seniority. While seniority is not the sole variable taken into account when a party caucus selects Chairmen, it is a key factor."

Table 1. Average Spending Agendas of Potential Democratic and Republican Committee Chairs in the 110th Congress

Proposed Increases
Proposed Decreases
Net Agenda

HOUSE

Democratic Potential Chairs
Proposed Increases - $931.4 billion
Proposed Decreases - (-$.2 billion)
Net Agenda - $931.2 billion in increases

Republican Potential Chairs
Proposed Increases - $16.3 billion
Proposed Decreases - (-$6.2 billion)
Net Agenda - $10.1 billion in increases

SENATE

Democratic Potential Chairs
Proposed Increases - $40.6 billion
Proposed Decreases - (-$.2 billion)
Net Agenda - $40.4 billion in increases

Republican Potential Chairs
Proposed Increases - $21.5 billion
Proposed Decreases - (-$9.8 billion)
Net Agenda - $11.7 in increases

"See Tables 2 and 3 for the complete list of potential Chairmen. Only the major committees (listed in Tables 2 and 3) where federal spending is most likely to take place were used in this study.

"Table 1 [above] shows the average spending agendas of the pool of potential Democratic and Republican Chairmen in the next Congress. As the data demonstrates, the respective parties would accelerate spending at far different rates. Democrats in general proposed more spending increases and fewer budget savings. In the House of Representatives, the average potential Democratic Chair proposed to increase spending by $931.2 billion - 90 times higher than the average Republican's increases of $10.1 billion. In the Senate, the average Democrat called for over three times as many spending increases than the average Republican, $40.4 billion versus $11.7 billion. Among the Representatives, the average Democrat included in the Table sponsored or cosponsored 67 bills to increase spending while the average Republican supported 28 increase bills. Similarly, Senate Democrats signed onto an average of 50 increase bills while their Republican colleagues backed 33."

"Tables 2 and 3 below detail the net spending agendas of each party's potential lineup of Committee Chairmen in the House and Senate for the 110th Congress. Nine of the likely Democratic Chairs are supporters of legislation to establish a federally-funded single-payer universal health care system. Three Republicans in the House and four in the Senate sponsored a mix of legislation that would reduce federal outlays. In the House, not one Democrat called for less spending than their potential Republican counterpart. In the Senate, the potential Democratic Chairmen for the Appropriations, Armed Services, and Homeland Security Committees proposed fewer increases than the likely Republican Chairs."

Table 2. Net Spending Agendas of Potential House Committee Chairs in the 110th Congress Committee

House Committee
Potential Democratic Chair - Net Spending Agenda
Potential Republican Chair - Net Spending Agenda

Agriculture
Peterson, Collin (D-MN) - $50.4 billion
Goodlatte, Bob (R-VA) - $13.4 billion

Appropriations
Obey, David (D-WI) - $46.9 billion
Lewis, Jerry (R-CA) - $7.2 billion

Armed Services
Skelton, Ike (D-MO) - $1.9 billion
Hunter, Duncan (R-CA) - (-$9.7 billion)

Budget
Spratt, John (D-SC) - $2.9 billion
Ryun, Jim (R-KS)* - (-$18.7 billion)

Education & the Workforce
Miller, George (D-CA) - $1,675.2 billion
McKeon, Howard (R-CA) - $7.7 billion

Energy & Commerce
Dingell, John (D-MI) - $564.1 billion
Barton, Joe (R-TX) - $10.4 billion

Financial Services
Frank, Barney (D-MA) - $1,674.6 billion
Baker, Richard (R-LA)* - $43.1 billion

Government Reform
Waxman, Henry (D-CA) - $1,671.9 billion
Davis, Thomas (R-VA) - $6.2 billion

Homeland Security
Thompson, B. (D-MS) - $1,623.3 billion
King, Peter (R-NY) - $7.2 billion

International Relations
Lantos, Tom (D-CA) - $1,647.4 billion
Leach, James (R-IA)* - $12.7 billion

Judiciary
Conyers, John (D-MI) - $1,733.1 billion
Coble, Howard (R-NC)* - $35.9 billion

Resources
Rahall, Nick (D-WV) - $66.4 billion
Pombo, Richard (R-CA) - $16.8 billion

Science
Gordon, Bart (D-TN) - $56.7 billion
Hall, Ralph (R-TX)* - $5.5 billion

Small Business
Velazquez, N. (D-NY) - $1,587.0 billion
Bartlett, Roscoe (R-MD)* - (-$17.3 billion)

Transportation & Infrastructure
Oberstar, James (D-MN) - $81.1 billion
Petri, Thomas (R-WI)* - $39.6 billion

Veterans Affairs
Filner, Bob (D-CA) - $1,712.0 billion
Buyer, Stephen (R-IN) - $7.8 billion

Ways & Means
Rangel, Charles (D-NY) - $1,635.2 billion
McCrery, Jim (R-LA)* - $4.6 billion

"Source for Agenda Totals: NTUF's BillTally research program. Numbers represent the annual change in federal spending that would occur if all the legislation sponsored or cosponsored by that Member during the First Session of the 109th Congress were enacted into law."

"There are other potential candidates for these Committee Chairs [listed below]. The likely Chair was selected by seniority, except for Ways & Means. There are other candidates for this Committee who have higher seniority; however, Roll Call recently identified Representative McCrery as the frontrunner ("20 Questions to Ask About the 110th Congress," Roll Call, September 11, 2006)."

"Other likely Republican contenders for the noted House Committee Chairs and their net spending agendas: Budget: Ander Crenshaw (FL): -$0.6 billion;
Financial Services: Spencer Bachus (AL): $41.9 billion;
International Relations: Dan Burton (IN): -$7.5 billion, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL): $8.0 billion, and Edward Royce (CA): $2.4 billion;
Judiciary: Lamar Smith (TX): $1.3 billion, and Steve Chabot (OH): -$21.5 billion;
Science: Curt Weldon (PA): $6.5 billion, Dana Rohrabacher (CA): $1.9 billion, and Vernon Ehlers (MI): $33.5 billion;
Small Business: Sue Kelly (NY), $39.9 billion, and Sam Graves (MO): $20.1 billion;
Transportation & Infrastructure: John Duncan (TN): $30.1 billion, and John Mica (FL): $32.1 billion; and
Ways & Means: Clay Shaw (FL): $15.6 billion and Nancy Johnson (CT): $19.8 billion."

Table 3. Net Spending Agendas of Potential Senate Committee Chairs in the 110th Congress Committee

Senate Committee
Potential Democratic Chair - Net Spending Agenda
Potential Republican Chair - Net Spending Agenda

Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry
Harkin, Tom (D-IA) - $48.9 billion
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA) - (-$10.2 billion)

Appropriations
Byrd, Robert (D-WV) - $1.7 billion
Cochran, Thad (R-MS) - $15.9 billion

Armed Services
Levin, Carl (D-MI) - $29.8 billion
Warner, John (R-VA) - $99.5 billion

Banking, Housing, & Urban Affairs
Dodd, Christopher (D-CT) - $29.8 billion
Shelby, Richard (R-AL) - (-$39.6 billion)

Budget
Conrad, Kent (D-ND) - $518.0 billion
Gregg, Judd (R-NH) - $2.4 billion

Commerce, Science & Trans.
Inouye, Daniel (D-HI) - $21.9 billion
Stevens, Ted (R-AK) - $15.2 billion

Energy & Natural Resources
Bingaman, Jeff (D-NM) - $52.0 billion
Domenici, Pete (R-NM) - $17.6 billion

Environment & Public Works
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) - $85.6 billion
Inhofe, James (R-OK) - $30.1 billion

Finance
Baucus, Max (D-MT) - $31.3 billion
Grassley, Charles (R-IA) - $16.7 billion

Foreign Relations
Biden, Joseph (D-DE) - $35.7 billion
Lugar, Richard (R-IN) - $15.2 billion

Health, Ed., Labor & Pensions
Kennedy, Edward (D-MA) - $93.3 billion
Enzi, Michael (R-WY) - $25.4 billion

Homeland Security & Govt. Affairs
Carper, Thomas (D-DE)* - $18.5 billion
Collins, Susan (R-ME) - $32.9 billion

Indian Affairs
Dorgan, Byron (D-ND) - $37.8 billion
McCain, John (R-AZ) - $4.8 billion

Judiciary
Leahy, Patrick (D-VT) - $26.9 billion
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) - (-$25.0 billion )

Small Business & Entrepreneurship
Kerry, John (D-MA) - $120.9 billion
Snowe, Olympia (R-ME) - $32.4 billion

Veterans' Affairs
Akaka, Daniel (D-HI) - $11.1 billion
Craig, Larry (R-ID) - (-$46.0 billion)

"Source for Agenda Totals: NTUF's BillTally research program. Numbers represent the annual change in federal spending that would occur if all the legislation sponsored or cosponsored by that Member in the First Session of the 109th Congress were enacted into law. Totals may not add due to rounding. Potential Committee Chairs for the 110th Congress were selected by current Committee ranking."

"* Senator Joseph Lieberman (with a net spending agenda of $30.8 billion) is the current Ranking Member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. Because he is running as an Independent candidate for re-election to his seat from Connecticut, it is not known whether he will be able to rejoin the Democratic Party and retain his seniority within the caucus. Senator Carper is next in rank on the Committee."

SOURCE: National Taxpayers Union Foundation, the research arm of the 350,000-member National Taxpayers Union, a non-partisan citizen group founded in 1969.

[maria]

MG---that's really funny. First Cheney tells us that deficits don't matter. At least when they are GOP deficits (and whoppers too). But you seem to think they will be something awful if they MIGHT be Democrat deficits. A little consistency, please.

[maria]

I might add that deficits to improve the lives of Americans are one thing, probably a Democrat thing. While whopping deficits to fight a stupid pointless war that has become a disaster is pretty much a GOP thing. I think most Americans would prefer deficits to improve the lives of Americans.

[Movie Guy]

maria,

You appear to have to all the answers as well as a quick tongue toward prejudging others.

I didn't state an opinion. I simply provided the analysis for discussion by readers and posters.

Discuss away if you so desire.

[elvis]

Movie Guy,

What does that list supposed to mean? I can only guess it's a pananoid screed about Dems running up the deficit.

History is 5 years of Republicans running up real deficits. Republicans in all branches. All branches! They can't blame anyone.

Does anyone really believe a Dem controlled congress could outspend a Republican one? That simplistic view of the world has lost all basis in reality.

Does anyone believe a Dem controlled federal government would be even less reality-based than the current one? For freedom-loving, reality-based people, there's only one choice. The current admin is exactly what Pres. Eisenhower warned us of.

Movie guy, I'm not saying Dems at some point in history weren't a bit whacky. But can you honestly, with a straight face, say that the last 5 years have been a high point of clean government, rule of law, fiscal-responsiblity, "government of the people, by the people and for the people"?

If, after the dems take control, they run higher deficits than the current admin, I will gladly buy you a cup of coffee and apologize. I will also with a clean conscience vote Republican. I expect responsible citizens would do the same.

[Movie Guy]

elvis,

The post includes a link to the original study. In turn, that link affords one an opportunity to review the information regarding the National Taxpayers Union Foundation and National Taxpayers Union, a non-partisan citizen group founded in 1969.

I am not stating my opinion thus far, but I do have some appreciation for the positions and data analysis that have been provided previously by the NTU and NTUF.

I find this to be an interesting analysis, one that is certainly not being discussed by Democrats or Demoecons to the best of my knowledge. Maybe I have missed the detailed discussions of this October 2006 study.

Without going through a detailed point-by-point discussion, I will share that I maintain the position that you have stated in the second thru fifth paragraphs of your fine post.

I will also be a bit stunned if the Dems wander off the reservation on budget discipline.

[Bruce Webb]

"National Taxpayers Union Foundation and National Taxpayers Union, a non-partisan citizen group founded in 1969" = Right-wing tax cutting hacks.

MG some of us may have fallen off the turnip truck, but we didn't fall off yesterday. Any group can call themselves bi-partisan.

Warning the following is from a Progressive group's website.
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=10235

"Right-wing foundations that help fund NTUF include: Scaife, John M. Olin and JM Foundations.

High-profile Staffers:

Grover Norquist was NTU’s Executive Director before being tapped by the Reagan White House to head Americans for Tax Reform."

You don't get a bunch of blog cred pulling numbers from a Scaife/Olin/Norquist organization.

[anne]

No problem, no problem at all on the budget, I am not the least worried, not the least, for I have an idea about the budget, Republicans, loony Republicans, could just, say, support leaving the tragic lunacy of Iraq immediately and save $10 billion a month. No budget problem then, say, leave Iraq immediately and budget problems are solved even though the cost of Iraq will be a trillion dollars to us in all in time but at least there will be a limit.

Budget-mongers need not worry in the least about Democrats, just get Republicans to leave Iraq immediately. Say what? Imagine, a Republican trillion dollar lunatic war in and occupation of Iraq and budget-mongers are worried about say Democrats helping people afford, say, health care. Say what?

[anne]

Imagine the comedy of Democrats providing us a budget surplus so large by 2000 that the fear was the entire government deficit would be gone this decade. Then, a tragic lunatic Republican trillion dollar war and occupation, then, a set of tax cuts for the wealthiest and to heck with the needs of the middle and low income, and we are supposed to worry about Democratic budgets. Say what? Leave Iraq immediately, and save all the budget we could ever wish.

[anne]

Imagine, Republican engulf us in a trillion dollar lunatic war and occupation and worry about budget while never mentioning the, say, war and occupation. Leave Iraq immediately and there is $10 billion a month for catastrophic health care insurance here and, yes, even health care assistance in southern Africa.

[THK Bob]

I don't know about the deficit, but there is no reason to beleive that if in power,the democrats won't dramatically increase spending. Everywhere they disagreed with the Republicans on a spending program it was because they wanted to spend more.

If you look at their "New Direction For America" plan, it only talks about increased spending and no where does it propose a cut.

The supposed budget surplus at the end of the '90's was not produced by the Democrats or the Republicans but by gridlock.

The Democrats may not deficit spend, and plan a dramatic increase in taxation, but in my opinion that is just as bad.

I can't stand today's Republican party, but in every way that they suck, the Dems are even more so.

That's why I'm not voting.

[elvis]

MG,
I appreciate that you consistently post provocative thoughts and provide plenty of links.

I guess what got me is that any group could contemplate a more insane fiscal policy than we currently have. As I said before, if it happens, then I will vote for any party that can do the job.

anne, you're right on with leaving Iraq. But is it going to happen? Even if the Dems get in control, there's a small problem of leaving all that oil behind.

Greg Palast gave a great presentation at a Unitarian Church (known radicals). He discovered that the Bush Admin had 2 plans for Iraq and its oil before 9/11.
He said, "I don't go for those conspiracy theories. We didn't go into Iraq for the oil...but we sure as heck ain't leaving without it."
http://www.gregpalast.com/

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/14/books/14bull.html?ex=1266123600&en=32440f7c34fc8b0e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

February 14, 2005

Between Truth and Lies, An Unprintable Ubiquity
By PETER EDIDIN

Harry G. Frankfurt, 76, is a moral philosopher of international reputation and a professor emeritus at Princeton. He is also the author of a book recently published by the Princeton University Press that is the first in the publishing house's distinguished history to carry a title most newspapers, including this one, would find unfit to print. The work is called "On Bull - - - - ."

The opening paragraph of the 67-page essay is a model of reason and composition, repeatedly disrupted by that single obscenity:

"One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much [bull]. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted. Most people are rather confident of their ability to recognize [bull] and to avoid being taken in by it. So the phenomenon has not aroused much deliberate concern, nor attracted much sustained inquiry."

The essay goes on to lament that lack of inquiry, despite the universality of the phenomenon. "Even the most basic and preliminary questions about [bull] remain, after all," Mr. Frankfurt writes, "not only unanswered but unasked."

The balance of the work tries, with the help of Wittgenstein, Pound, St. Augustine and the spy novelist Eric Ambler, among others, to ask some of the preliminary questions - to define the nature of a thing recognized by all but understood by none.

What is [bull], after all? Mr. Frankfurt points out it is neither fish nor fowl. Those who produce it certainly aren't honest, but neither are they liars, given that the liar and the honest man are linked in their common, if not identical, regard for the truth.

"It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth," Mr. Frankfurt writes. "A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it."

The bull artist, on the other hand, cares nothing for truth or falsehood. The only thing that matters to him is "getting away with what he says," Mr. Frankfurt writes. An advertiser or a politician or talk show host given to [bull] "does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it," he writes. "He pays no attention to it at all."

And this makes him, Mr. Frankfurt says, potentially more harmful than any liar, because any culture and he means this culture rife with [bull] is one in danger of rejecting "the possibility of knowing how things truly are." It follows that any form of political argument or intellectual analysis or commercial appeal is only as legitimate, and true, as it is persuasive. There is no other court of appeal.

The reader is left to imagine a culture in which institutions, leaders, events, ethics feel improvised and lacking in substance. "All that is solid," as Marx once wrote, "melts into air." ...

[anne]

Knowing what is or can be true and what is and must be nonsense or, rather, bull, is critical.

[evagrius]

anne; One of my professors at university, one that I never heard utter an obscenity, once told our class that it was necessary to learn discernment- the origin of the word came from Latin and meant, literally, the ability to distinguish truth from s##t. It was so shocking to hear him say that word that I've never forgotten his point.

[Lee A. Arnold]

On Krugman's article, I disagree with one point. Certainly the Democrats should not make nice. They should fight. This Administration should be investigated on all matters, but one: the war should be brought to a conclusion, and the present dangers ended, before those investigations begin. Otherwise it's political suicide.

[save_the_rustbelt]

If the Democrats do not come up with some sort of coherent economic agenda they could work their way back to minority status by 2008.

As of this point I'm still not certain what the Dems believe on economics, the Dem candidates in Ohio are all over the map.'

So other than disliking the GOP, what do the Dems believe?

[happyjuggler0]

There are few words that scare me as much as bipartisanship. The only thing that would make me happier than having divided government between Rep's and Dem's after this election is if the Libertarian Party actually won.

I don't see the latter happening, so all I can hope for is divided government so our stupid government stops its runaway big spending spree. If they make nice-nice and vote in all kinds of new stuff I'll be spitting mad.

[anne]

Evagrius:

"One of my professors at university, one that I never heard utter an obscenity, once told our class that it was necessary to learn discernment- the origin of the word came from Latin and meant, literally, the ability to distinguish truth from s##t."

Discernment, yes.

[crack]

MG

Where did you get your degree in thread hijacking? Is it NTUF certified? I'd like to pursue one.

[crack]

I think the most important aspect of the Dems winning a house in congress would be the impact on conference committees. Right now there is now reason to look at the bills passed by either house pre-conference. The conference committee changes them so drastically that no promise or provision is safe. If the Dems were involved there would have to be some actual comprise and it would be possible to cripple the mushy middle at the same time.

[maria]

Here are the NTU's goals:

Work with NTU's lobbying and communications teams as they advance a pro-taxpayer agenda of lower taxes, limited government, and individual freedom. The Government Affairs Group works on issues that affect taxpayers at the national, state, and local levels; the Communications Group amplifies NTU's and NTUF's message on limited government through the media, in-house publications, paid advertising, and public events.

To think the Bush administration is in sync with any of this is hilarious rubbish. I especially like applying the "limited government" and "individual freedom" phrases to the present administration.

[Carter]

MG, you're hilarious. Where have you been the past 5 years when the Republican Party have gone after budget sanity like a bunch of druken sailors? Regarding NTUF projections: given that NTUF is an extreme right wing organization, which always is in favor of deep slashes in social programs & never opposes tax cuts, why cite it? It has no credibility.

FYI, U.S. taxes & public expenditures, as a percent of GNP, are by far the lowest in the western world. Particularly, for social programs, the lack of expenditures is shocking.

[Lafayette]

"... it’s even bad for the cause of bipartisanship."

I wonder. Haven't both parties amply demonstrated that they are guilty of cronyism and vested interest? Will someone please explain this frenzy to get rid of Bush, who amply deserves to be put to pasture and forgot, with “just anybody”?

America is one of the most dynamic democratic nations on earth ... but is still beholden to money to get elected. This is a unique situation in such a politically mature nation.

Take a look at the complexion of the House of Representatives. Most have incomes far beyond the average American. How can they ever have any idea whatsoever of what the "average" American is thinking and, more important, when they don't think, to reflect in their place.

Money rules in American politics and until Americans understand that such is not the prime ingredient of a functioning democracy, then not much will change.

Is the moment not ripe for a third party?

[Bruce Wilder]

Lafayette: "Will someone please explain . . . "

Yes, I will explain.

We have a two-party system. When a sojurn in power has completely corrupted one party, we turn to the other party. And, sometimes, we give a bit of power to both parties at the same time, and let them have at each other.

The Parties are not the same. If anything, they are both more internally consistent ideologically, and more different ideologically, from each other, than at any time in history. One Party favors torture, national bankruptcy, theocracy, corruption and perpetual war. The other Party doesn't. If you can't figure out that choice, you really should stop trying to think about politics.

[Richard Becker]

I have to disagree with the idea that continued polarization is best for this country. All too often, both parities switch on issues, simply because the other party embraces it. Sooner or later, differences have to be put aside and the business of government has to get done.

Further, when you get right down to it, our two parties are only as different than they want to be. In other areas of the world, they don't see any distinction between the two. And frankly, nowadays, Americans are having a hard time telling the difference.

As Clint Eastwood recently put it ... ''We living in a kindergarten.''

[anne]

Actually business is getting done, surely getting done. Republicans have been successful on passing policy after policy, on appointment after appointment. After all, Republicans control Congress and the White House and Democrats have not tried to filibuster. The President has only used a single veto in 6 years in office, that for stem cell research which was a sham to show up Democrats to the conservative base. Business is getting done, Republican business.

[donna]

Politics is war by other means. That's what the Republicans believe.

These are not people one can "make nice" with. They don't even get the concept of "nice", equating it only with weakness.

Nice is for your pet, your friends, your family. WIth Republicans, there is only beating them back to their proper level of incompetence. Texas.

[anne]

What Republicans mean by compromise, when they talk compromise, is having what they alone want and having not even a complaint about it however much what they want is harmful to almost everyone. Like say, war and occupation.

[anne]

How could Republicans possibly have been more successful in policy passing and implementation these last years? Well the policy could have been sane, but that is another matter. The need then is first to stop Republican policy and second to gain Democratic policy.

[Carter]

Lafayette...Let me explain, also.

Yes, corruption & cronyism have always existed whenever human beings have formed any groups. This is true for both the public & private sectors. The question then becomes what level of corruption currently exists?

Since the 1880s, our political system has moved, with a couple of exceptions, toward markedly lower levels of corruption. The Bush Administration & the present day Republican Party, in their governing style, hark back at least a 100 years. Most notable is their complete integration with K Street lobbyists & corporate America to collect campaign monies & allow corporate interests to actually write policy.

Some examples include: credit card companies writing the debt bill that passed, insurance & pharmaceutical companies writing the prescription drug program, energy companies, in meetings with Cheney, defining the nation's energy policy, natural resource companies determining what environmental regs should be gutted.

A couple of years ago, I would say we haven't seen such high levels of corruption since President Harding; now, one can make an argument that we need to go back to President Buchanan.

[Movie Guy]

Bruce Webb,

Nice try, but no cigar.

You failed to mention or disprove any elements of either of the ethics statements of the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) and National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF), including funding source limits imposted by NTU and NTUF:

NTU Statement of Ethics & Principles
The National Taxpayers Union

NTUF Statement of Ethics & Principles
The National Taxpayers Union Foundation

Review the NTU's IRS Form 990. It's linked in the NTU Statement of Ethics & Principles. If you want a copy of their annual audit statement, contact them. It is offered to anyone who requests a copy.

[Movie Guy]

That should read, "imposed".

[Lafayette]

Frankfurter (by way of "Anne"): "It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth," Mr. Frankfurt writes."

Anybody who believes this should look up the definition of "liar".

Good liars have no regard whatsoever for the truth, but simply that whatever they say may be "plausibly true". That is, regardless of the facts, they make statements that are apparently true (which is why they are good liars).

Besides, it is not by means of lying that a politician will defend their position. It is a matter of political self-serving - that is, politicians seek to make people believe that their administration (of executive responsibility) is correct. And, frankly, this talent is not patented by any one party. It is part and parcel of ongoing politics.

This is especially true in a nation that obtains most of its information by means of television. TV reporting, being brief because attention spans are not long, must employ both sensationalism and the sound-bite in order to win attention. It does not have, within five minutes or even sixty, the time to get into details. And therein lies the devil ... in the details.

What is missing in political debate is just that - debate. Debate is intrinsically adversarial and it should be more substantial than slinging sound bites. But, it isn't. It has no depth and, consequently, it is impossible to measure a politician’s intellectual depth or broadness.

Far more real debate goes on in the blogs, but rare is the politician willing to lower him/herself to textual discourse. So, we are left to talking heads on television.

[Movie Guy]

Congressional Proposals, and Legislation, and Votes

Some are apparently missing the point. By a wide margin.

The issue is the fiscal voting record of an individual Congressional Member. That is what I focused on with my first post under this thread as applies to potential future Democrat or Republican committee chairmen in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate.

You are more than welcome to tackle the NTU/NTUF VoteTally and BillTally numbers. Try to find some inaccuracies in either of those computer rollups. I have doubled checked the NTUF VoteTally and BillTally numbers many times over the past few years, and I have not found any errors. And I know how to dig for cross reference data on bills, bill sponsors, amendments, and related proposed legislation.

VoteTally methodology:

"VoteTally measures each Senator's and Representative's effort to increase or decrease spending at the margin, as reflected by his or her floor votes. A running tally is kept for each Member throughout each Congress."

"VoteTally covers action on substantive authorization and appropriations bills (including amendments), which, if enacted and implemented as intended, would increase or decrease federal spending by at least $1 million."

"VoteTally measures the marginal effect of each Member's votes to increase or decrease federal outlays relative to the baseline. The baseline may be prior‑year outlays, the piece of legislation being voted on, or an amendment that is being modified by a secondary amendment. The Foundation cannot and does not attempt to ascertain the reason(s) behind any Member's vote; VoteTally simply captures the fiscal impact of that vote."

"Since VoteTally examines the entirety of Congress's spending decisions – including failed measures, vetoed legislation, and legislation that has passed one chamber of Congress but not the other – the "swing" in fiscal impacts from year to year can be much greater than the simple, actual changes in annual outlays."

"VoteTally includes a mandatory spending charge for each Member of Congress, which is the estimated growth in all mandatory and entitlement programs as forecast by the Congressional Budget Office. Since entitlement programs were consciously designed to grow without Congress approving or disapproving them in floor votes each year, all Members are viewed as accepting the growth in entitlement spending. Members who vote to slow the growth of entitlements receive credit for a partial increase, while Members who vote against slowing the growth receive credit for the full amount under current law."

"VoteTally attempts to encompass all floor votes that increase or decrease federal outlays, including voice votes and unanimous consent agreements. All Members are charged with the spending passed by voice vote or unanimous consent even if the Member may have voiced a "no" vote. To avoid the spending charged by voice vote, Members must request a recorded vote, which they may do under House and Senate rules.
VoteTally does not weight or rank votes based on an arbitrary or ideologically partisan system. VoteTally examines the fiscal costs associated with each vote cast without prejudice."

More specifics: VoteTally Methodology

Congressional Voting Records:

NTUF VoteTally records
First Session of the 106th Congress thru
First Session of the 109th Congress

NTUF BillTally records
106th Congress, 1st Session thru
109th Congress, 1st Session

Try using your research skills to challenge any of the VoteTally and BillTally records.

Good luck disproving anything in those records.

Let's not pretend that the Congressional legislation submissions, amendments, and voting records do not exist. They do. And all Members of Congress know it.

Tracking Congressional votes is where the NTU and NTUF come in play. No organization does it better. Whether you like it or not. And that goes for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in both Houses of the U.S. Congress as well.

The pretending and excuses are over.

[Movie Guy]

In the next Congress, NTU and NTUF will continue to monitor all legislation submissions, sponsors, amendments, and votes.

If the Members of Congress intend to increase federal expenditures for the next budget cycle, they would be well advised to increase revenue streams as opposed to simply adding increased costs to the operation of the U.S. Government.

The American voting public will not respond well to further federal deficit growth. It appears to me that the majority of citizens have had enough of that nonsense.

There is no question in my mind that the Republicans deserve to be driven from their seats in the U.S. Congress. But I don't want a adult kid with a pretend blank checkbook taking the same seat.

If that happens, it's Two and Out or Six and Out for my vote.

And, yes, I intend to track individual Member's voting records. NTU and NTUF provide the ready means to do just that.

I may not agree with some of the NTU and NTUF positions on various matters, but I certainly know how to read the NTUF VoteTally and BillTally records. No one can make the records votes of Members of Congress vanish.

Not even you...whether a Republican, Democrat or Independent supporter or registered voter.

[Movie Guy]

...an adult kid...

[billy]

MovieGuy wrote

>If that happens, it's Two and Out or Six and Out for my vote.
>And, yes, I intend to track individual Member's voting records. >NTU and NTUF provide the ready means to do just that.

That's exactly what the Dem's need to do. Like PK says, do not even attempt to cater to people like MG. Leave them beyond the pale. Dems can get a majority without people like him if they want, and stick to their agenda too while doing it.

Let MG and his ilk sulk. Hmmm that seems like a nice catch phrase, I'll repeat it.

Let MG and his ilk sulk.

says...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/14/books/14bull.html?ex=1266123600&en=32440f7c34fc8b0e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

"It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth," Mr. Frankfurt writes. "A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it."

Lafayette:

A clever response but pay close attention to what Harry Frankfurt, who is among the finest of philsophical linguiusts, is actually saying in distinguishing between lies, truth and "bull." The difference is profound and critical.

says...

Harry Frankfurt:

"It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose."

[The essay is worth reading carefully, short but awfully thorough. The new essay on truth, I have finished and am thinking about.]

[anne]

Darn, I am sorry, the computer has decided not to know me, possibly because of Oliver bouncing on the enter key, but who can tell. The 2 entries are "me."

[Richard]

MG: The NTUF is not non-partisan by any measure.

If you want to collect statistics and measures that garner a broad consensus, the statistics and measures must be collected by a group that is equally respected (or, more likely, equally disliked) by all concerned.

[Movie Guy]

Richard,

You really don't get it?

The NTU and NTUF data is pulled directly from the Congressional actions and votes as recorded in the Congressional records regarding legislation. Any bills and amendments that have been proposed are readily available for review. I have provided such direct links on a number of occasions.

If you want to quibble, do so with the Members of Congress.

If you have a better summary information source, post it.

Otherwise, you're whining about the wrong issue.

[Movie Guy]

billy,

If you're afraid of the fiscal voting records of the Members of Congress, that's a gutless position. Head stuck in the sand mentality.

As for agendas, I have not seen you post any info on the agendas of the Democrats in the U.S. House or U.S. Senate. Do you know what they are? Any clue?

The Democrat minority leader's agenda in the House only lists three major issues. The Democrat minority leader's agenda in the Senate lists five major issues.

Do you even know where to find such agendas?

Come on, hotshot. Make it appear...on screen.

[outsider]

"It took the Democrats 30 years to be corrupted by money, it only took us 12." alledged Republican joke.

In 1776 the group that set us up recognized the inevitable isolation of the ruling classes from the common good.

They designed a system of gridlock.

The stock market, a measure of economic success does worst under Republicans, better under Democrats, best under gridlock, thus confirming their suspicions.

Whenever one party gets total power, vote for the other, no matter how crooked or ideological...it will be countered by the crookedness and the ideology of the other side. giving reason a chance.

In this era of gerrymandering, the best we can hope for is the executive branch vetoeing one party, while the executive branch is blocked by the congress.

With so few seats up for grabs, the American local view of "hey, I hate all this, but MY (R) representitive is most surpassing groovy" doesn't hold.

Lets be patriotic. Vote for gridlock.

Oh yes...challenge the Diebold voting machines, "It matters not who votes, it matters who counts te votes"...Joseph Stalin.

[anne]

"Look at me," she called, waving her arms about to attract attention. "Look at me," I know all about the Republican agenda, I do, I do, though I am ever so young and know so little. The Republican agenda is war in and occupation-colonization of Iraq. And, there is all we need to know about spending before and spending now and spending as long as Republicans keep us in Iraq which will be as long as Republicans control Congress and the White House. I am so smart for being so young.

[Movie Guy]

Correction:

The Democrat minority leader's agenda in the Senate only lists three major issues. The Democrat minority leader's agenda in the Senate lists seven major issues.

[Movie Guy]

Correction II:

The Democrat minority leader's agenda in the Senate only lists three major issues. The Democrat minority leader's agenda in the House lists seven major issues.

[billy]

>Come on, hotshot. Make it appear...on screen.

You dont get it, do you?

The Dems should not attempt to answer or court people like you. You guys are paid hatchet men. Right to the very top - Bartlett, Mankiw and co. Your type can never be convinced, because you already have your conclusion, and will do anything to justify it - lie, cheat, twist, spin.

One can wake them who sleep, but not them who pretend to sleep.

If the Dems win, they should set agenda with zero input from Rethugs. The debates should among Dems, not with Rethugs.

[RN]

Movie Guy's an idiot. Everyone knows it.

[Movie Guy]

Those few who are too ignorant to believe actual Congressional voting records on matters of appropriations by Members of Congress are the true lost cause. And it doesn't matter if they support misfit Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. Blind is blind.

People who preach about agendas but fail to identify the stated agendas know what, exactly? It must be a secret or a large void of real facts.

The Lalaland crowd isn't the core of the American society. But they are the core of fiction.

For the immature fools who believe that the next Congress along with the support of the existing Administration can continue to approve federal budgets which project or produce even larger budget deficits than those of the past six Congresses are in for a rude awakening.

The majority of American registered voters will not support larger deficits.

That game is over.

[Movie Guy]

The federal budget pretending and excuses are over.

[evagrius]

MG- I think you're quite deluded about average Americans.

If they can run up credit card debts to record highs,
exhaust the equity of their houses to pay those debts and still continue to accumulate more debt, what makes you think that they're going to be concerned about the federal debt.

After all, their "personal" debt is in little figures, ( only $10K or so, outside of house and autos)and they can't manage that. The federal debt is astronomical, ( you know, billions, that's 1's with a lot of zeroes following). Those are hard numbers to comprehend.

I don't think they're concerned about the federal debt. They're concerned about jobs to pay their "little" debts.

[Movie Guy]

People who arrogantly and childishly object to the following system of Congressional fiscal accountability aren't the brighest or most honest rocks in the pile.

All of the NTUF VoteTally information can be independently verified.

VoteTally
National Taypayers Union Foundation

"VoteTally measures each Senator's and Representative's effort to increase or decrease spending at the margin, as reflected by his or her floor votes. A running tally is kept for each Member throughout each Congress."

"VoteTally covers action on substantive authorization and appropriations bills (including amendments), which, if enacted and implemented as intended, would increase or decrease federal spending by at least $1 million."

"VoteTally measures the marginal effect of each Member's votes to increase or decrease federal outlays relative to the baseline. The baseline may be prior‑year outlays, the piece of legislation being voted on, or an amendment that is being modified by a secondary amendment. The Foundation cannot and does not attempt to ascertain the reason(s) behind any Member's vote; VoteTally simply captures the fiscal impact of that vote."

"Since VoteTally examines the entirety of Congress's spending decisions - including failed measures, vetoed legislation, and legislation that has passed one chamber of Congress but not the other - the "swing" in fiscal impacts from year to year can be much greater than the simple, actual changes in annual outlays."

"VoteTally includes a mandatory spending charge for each Member of Congress, which is the estimated growth in all mandatory and entitlement programs as forecast by the Congressional Budget Office. Since entitlement programs were consciously designed to grow without Congress approving or disapproving them in floor votes each year, all Members are viewed as accepting the growth in entitlement spending. Members who vote to slow the growth of entitlements receive credit for a partial increase, while Members who vote against slowing the growth receive credit for the full amount under current law."

"VoteTally attempts to encompass all floor votes that increase or decrease federal outlays, including voice votes and unanimous consent agreements. All Members are charged with the spending passed by voice vote or unanimous consent even if the Member may have voiced a "no" vote. To avoid the spending charged by voice vote, Members must request a recorded vote, which they may do under House and Senate rules."

"VoteTally does not weight or rank votes based on an arbitrary or ideologically partisan system. VoteTally examines the fiscal costs associated with each vote cast without prejudice."

[Movie Guy]

evagrius,

I agree with your general observation on home equity loans employed by households, but you're off the mark on the credit card debt.

Credit card debt is not near record highs for individual or household debt loads. Not even close. Keep researching on that one. Note the Fed Reserve update.

The people, workers and families along with retirees, have certain minimum expectations of their Congressional representatives. Many listen to television news including Lou Dobbs on CNN, and read their local papers which frequently carry national columns.

Once the move is underway to raise their taxes, whether state or national, they will perk up quickly. And it's at that point (proposed federal tax increases) that federal budgets, federal deficits, and looney spending will move back to the center of their tables of discussion.

American citizens are not as dumb as some pretend or assume that they are. Unlike some elites, most can add and subtract rather well.

Higher deficts are not on the preferred menu. Those that think so may be dining out back with the scraps and other dogs.

People are sick of this crap.

[maria]

MG, I presume "people" means you and your friends. BTW, are "people" sick of deficits incurred in fighting a stupid, pointless war, now costing somewhere around 500 billion, with lots more built in costs to come later? If so, why don't they work to end the war and stop the waste of money?

[Movie Guy]

evagrius,

You need to another zero to your federal debt figure.

The national debt begins with a T, not a B. And we're not down at the T level that we were at in early 2001.

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 24 Oct 2006 at 03:32:53 AM GMT was:

$8,555,010,387,650.70

Excerpts:

The U.S. National Debt has continued to increase an average of $1.60 billion per day since September 30, 2005.

When President Bush took office in 2001, the national debt was at $5.6 trillion.

Federal debt has risen from $542 billion to more than $8 trillion since 1975. Debt as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, once at 34.7%, is now above 60%. In 2005 the public debt was 64.7% of GDP.

The Congress raised the federal debt ceiling to $9 trillion in March 2006. The President signed that law after the Members of Congress voted to increase the debt ceiling.

Sources:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5282521

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._public_debt

[calmo]

movie, would you say this:

People who arrogantly and childishly object to the following system of Congressional fiscal accountability aren't the brighest or most honest rocks in the pile.

is a tad arrogant and childish itself? (Was your dismissal of Bruce Webb's remark that the NTU/F is a body(s) with vested interests, premature?) Why are you trying to antagonize these people who "aren't the brightest or most honest rocks in the pile"? (Some of them are wondering how some figures can be known to 5 significant figures while others only 1; some are wondering what the point of tallying D members is when that party has no power to implement legislation. Some are looking at the data assembled here under the title of Congressional Fiscal Accountabity to determine if it is relevant information or a crock.)
Can we see a detailed accounting of say:
Filner, Bob (D-CA) - $1,712.0 billion and whether Bob's office would confirm his generosity on those veterans or were there votes that were never going to matter on legislation that was in any case going to cut veteran benefits?
Can we get a revised list of cost estimates on legislation that nearly passed or just failed (lol) to prune out the postures from the positions?
Can we see a similar list from the Clinton admin and those Rep who had the gargantuan "accountability" numbers?
Last thing: we don't give a hoot about that rock pile of smarts and where we rank in it --as long as we are not being needlessly badgered by someone who is telling us we are at the bottom. It is self-inflictingly bad...and no one learns anything other than the art of antagonism.

[Movie Guy]

maria,

I read plenty of national, regional, and local polling data as an Independent voter and someone who is interested in general politics. Like others, I also read news stories. And at this juncture, based on my readings, news stories, television reports, and personal communications that cut across many income groups and those of various backgrounds, I have reached a few personal conclusions.

1. Many people are sick of this Administration. They're sick of this Congress. And the polling data suggests that it's worse with the Congress.

2. Most people know that the federal debt is rising, as is the U.S. trade deficit. They catch that news on television and in their newspapers. And they do have concerns about both issues.

3. More people are increasingly dropping their support for the war in Iraq, but they don't know how the U.S. can back out without creating much larger implosions in the Middle East. So, instead of being glibe and elitist in tone, many are asking how will the U.S. leave without creating a bigger disaster. It's a valid question, considering that an abrupt withdrawal at this point could result in a minimum of 3-5 million more Iraqi deaths in short order.

4. Some people are already doubting that the U.S. and NATO will succeed in Afghanistan. You can count me in that list, not because the problems can not be overcome but because I expect the European, Canadian, and American populations' willpower to remain in support of the Afghanistan government and its people will collapse. Quicker than the Democrat leaders will anticipate.

Other personal opinions:

Two of the wars are being managed off-budget, so many of the costs aren't visible unless one recalls that supplemental and special funding bills are used to finance the theater operations.

It doesn't appear to me that financial costs are the primary consideration by most of the U.S. population regarding the Iraq War or Afghanistan War. At this point, the primary issue appears to be the likelihood of failure in Iraq, elsewhere in the Middle East, and perhaps Afghanistan. And, failure is more risky than it might appear. The implications going forward could be severe. But we will see.

Work to end the war? Easy to say, perhaps too easy in this case.

Leaving immediately is not viewed as a viable option by the Republican or Democratic leadership in the Congress. Hopefully, the ten member bilateral commission on the war will present alternate choices worthy of consideration. Aside from Jim Baker and others, Sam Nunn is on that commission. He's not a puppy on matters of national security. I look forward to hearing his remarks.

I do not believe that the U.S. Government has public opinion war support for more than two years in the future. Unless, of course, the insurgency, intratribal, and intertribal battling calms down substantially. And I wouldn't bet on that likelihood.

It strikes me that the campaign in Iraq is almost over, Afghanistan is close behind, and Europe is presently poised to possibly go up in flames - in at least four Western European nations.

[dryfly]

People are sick of this crap.

No they aren't - not really. This has to happen before reconciliation & bipartisanship is even possible. There needs to be an airing.

It just depends on how it is done & the tone.

It doesn't have to be an ugly 'get even' time... but there are blunders that need to be publicly reviewed even if they are embarrassing to the administration & congress.

Can't learn from mistakes unless you uncover & admit mistakes.

The problem the Dems are going to have is they've been collaborators at worst or silent enablers at best. It will be mighty hard for them to point fingers. I can hardly wait to see the result.

*******

As far as the NTPU - those guys are about as 'bipartisan' as the US Chamber of Commerce... i.e. not very.

I don't doubt the 'tally' just the motivation & spin behind it.

Secondly - Dems have no power - all they can do is propose. GOP has had all the power - look at their results. If you truly believe the NTPU propaganda that Dem 'proposals' are more dangerous than the GOP 'results' - then vote GOP, they should become your party forever more.

Me, I'm all for divided gov't about now. I'd love to see the Dems 'ask for the moon' and see shrub find his veto pen.

Likewise I'd like to see Dems look more carefully at a few of Shrub's loonier proposals - like Patriot & the recent Gitmo Habeas Corpus exceptions - and offer better alternatives. Make the GOP stand up and defend these turkeys.

Fewer things come out of divided gov't but usually those few things are better. At least better than we've seen from Bush & the GOP congress.

Of course we are still a week away from counting votes, right? Can't even assume a GOP defeat yet - WAY too early for that.

[Movie Guy]

calmo,

The objections against NTUF observed on this thread are the same old game - shoot the messenger, not the message or the facts. Let's ignore the verifiable facts and just gut the messenger. SOS.

Childish nonsense. Period.

If the facts are verifiable and they are with NTUF, then the attack dog game has no carry.

If you review the posts, it's clear that I didn't start the attack dog game nor did I originally reference anything other than one NTUF study. It is based on the results of BillTally data which is readily verifiable, and is offered in more detail at the NTUF web site. Moreover, one can cross reference over to bill information from the Congress via the Library of Congress, Thomas records, among other sources.

When it finally boils down to slimeball posts by people like billy and RN, that's where I draw the line.

-----

Your NTUF Questions:

calmo - Can we see a detailed accounting of say:
Filner, Bob (D-CA) - $1,712.0 billion and whether Bob's office would confirm his generosity on those veterans or were there votes that were never going to matter on legislation that was in any case going to cut veteran benefits?

Did you read this from the study:

"Source for Agenda Totals: NTUF's BillTally research program. Numbers represent the annual change in federal spending that would occur if all the legislation sponsored or cosponsored by that Member during the First Session of the 109th Congress were enacted into law."

Did you research the BillTally for the First Session, 109th Congress?

Did you research BillTally for Filner, Bob (D-CA)?

If so, you should have found the answer to your first question because I found it.

1. Open up NTUF
http://www.ntu.org/main/index.php

2. Click on Congressional Info at the top of the NTUF home page. Click on BillTally (one of four options).

3. Click on NTUF Releases BillTally for the 109th Congress, 1st Session (the one referenced in the study you are questioning).
http://www.ntu.org/main/misc.php?MiscID=11

4. Click on Print or View Detailed Member Reports [HTML] (third item down on the page).
http://www.ntu.org/main/components/billtally/index.php?session=8

5. Look up Filner's name under House in the left column. Hit SUBMIT.

6. There it is.

This information can be compared to bill information available from the Library of Congress, Thomas. The Thomas information includes everything from the bill chronology to sponsors to amendments as well as latest status. And CRS summaries are usually available as well.

----

Why don't you call NTUF , send emails, and present your other questions? As indicated in the study news release - For Further Information, Contact:
Peter J. Sepp (mailto: pressguy@ntu.org), and/or Sam Batkins, (mailto:sbatkins@ntu.org), telephone (703) 683-5700. Or contact Demian Brady (mailto:dbrady@ntu.org), whose name is on the study, NTUF Issue Brief 156.

NTUF has never refused to answer questions presented by me or others I know.

NTUF has information available on line from 1998 forward, by the way.

NTUF has a well established reputation for accuracy. Members of Congress are very familiar with the organization.

On a number of occasions, Democrats have clearly come out on top with regard to protecting the taxpayers monies and NTUF has publicly so stated.

[Lafayette]

Wilder: "Yes, I will explain."

Thanks, but it was not only simplistic but sarcastic. Not what I'd call an "explanation".

America has a "two-party" system and you take it for granted. This means any political current must be subsumed by one or the another in order to be politically credible ... and have any success whatsoever. It certainly would not get any serious "air time" on national TV, which is fixated on either existing party.

A "Social Democrat" party has virtually No Chance of being adopted in the US, since the Democrats themselves will see it as a menace to its "politics as usual". (The vested interest of office holders would be menaced and, as we know, politics is a profession and therefore livelihoods are also threatened.)

Such a party would certainly contain initiatives that are far more "social" than the Democrats would dare propose. And yet, without a party to espouse such ideas/ideals, they will never have a proper airing.

I, for one, would suggest that the Democrat Party splinter and create a "real party of the left", that espoused the sort of politics aimed at the lower and lower-middle classes that are so totally unrepresented as to have been relegated to the political dust bin.

Whatever other lesson did "Katrina" have for you?

[Lafayette]

"In 1776 the group that set us up recognized the inevitable isolation of the ruling classes from the common good."

This "group", as you put it, were, for the most part, very heavily influenced by the period of history called the "Enlightenment" that had existed at that moment in the latter half of the 18th century.

It was the first time in the history of mankind when the idea of "divine coronation" was seriously questioned. Hitherto, monarchs had invoked the right to rule as God-given. (Much as some of the idiot religious right do today.)

So, one of their first and foremost concerns was the separation of church and state, an idea that they tread upon very, very cautiously because they understood full well its potency. That is, its ability to rouse passions amongst the populace.

There is no "separation of church and state" in either the American constitution or the Bill of Rights or any other legislation. In fact, there is only the mention that congress shall not prohibit the establishment of religion. (Which is being today employed as a tax loophole.)

In fact, the American founders were all landed gentry and therefore VERY rich men. They had resolve but also probity. They knew full well that there is no where in the Bible to be found, "Go ye forth and make a buck".

In fact, originally, to be a member of the Senate, one needed to show a net worth of a minimum amount of money that was beyond the reach of most. This was to give a balance with the House of Representatives, intended to be the representation of all classes, whilst the Senate was its countervailing weight.

All this became confused and lost subsequently in the mist of history. Worse, Americans have forgot the reason for divorcing religion from the state. It is dangerous stuff and the news from the Middle East reminds us daily of what it can lead to.

[Movie Guy]

Lafayette - "Whatever other lesson did "Katrina" have for you?"

That's an easy one - Katrina Plus.

Katrina Plus is my new term for describing a host of leadership, management, and performance failures throughout the U.S. Government not only at the cabinet and other appointees levels, but also at the civil service career employee and military levels.

Many have seen this problem growing for a few decades.

We're there.

I talked to a very senior air force civilian PhD last night about various issues. He said 'Katrina Plus' more times than I care to recall. The problems are rampant...and growing.

[Movie Guy]

dryfly,

I agree with your general assessment regarding the airing of grievances. It is understood that it will happen. It has been obvious from comments of some Members of Congress during the past year that such hearings would be held. Krugman is late to that food fight. No news there.

How the Members of Congress handle it is another matter. I've never seen much of value come out of endless Congressional hearings. And we could hold five years of hearings on this Administration.

NTUF:

I don't concern myself with most positions that the NTUF presents, but rather I focus on the verifiable VoteTally and BillTally data. That is hard data and it counts.

I have reproduced NTUF results using the Library of Congress, Thomas, Congressional Record, committee records, and other source data. It's hard work. NTUF provides time saving tools that are worth using - VoteTally and BillTally. For each session of Congress. Hard to find anything similar or nearly as accurate.

I can't imagine that the Democrats, one representing majorities in either or both houses will be so irresponsible as to propose wild-eyed appropriation budgets. If they do, their majority representation will be short-lived. Two and Out, and Six and Out.

If that's all you want, then so be it. If you feel otherwise, they had better use their heads.

There will be nothing easy regarding federal appropriations and revenue decisions going forward. We're on a major collision course, now and in the near future, say 2012-2016.

[anne]

No; budget, fudget; what Democrats have to focus on is getting Americans out of Iraq immediately and stopping both the obscene physical and psychological and moral harm to America but also stopping the spending of $10 billion a month on this tragic lunatic occupation. We must leave Iraq immediately. What Republicans are terrifed of is focus on the tragic costs of Iraq to Americans and to Iraqis.

[anne]

There is no and will be no budget problem of any meaning unless we leave Iraq immediately, for if we do not leave Iraq immediately all the budget will be terrifying in time, but that is what Republican war-mongering lunatics would have us ignore.

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/opinion/24kristof.html

October 24, 2006

Iraq and Your Wallet
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

For every additional second we stay in Iraq, we taxpayers will end up paying an additional $6,300.

So aside from the rising body counts and all the other good reasons to adopt a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, here’s another: We are spending vast sums there that would be better spent rescuing the American health care system, developing alternative forms of energy and making a serious effort to reduce global poverty.

In the run-up to the Iraq war, Donald Rumsfeld estimated that the overall cost would be under $50 billion. Paul Wolfowitz argued that Iraq could use its oil to “finance its own reconstruction.”

But now several careful studies have attempted to tote up various costs, and they suggest that the tab will be more than $1 trillion — perhaps more than $2 trillion. The higher sum would amount to $6,600 per American man, woman and child.

“The total costs of the war, including the budgetary, social and macroeconomic costs, are likely to exceed $2 trillion,” Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel-winning economist at Columbia, writes in an updated new study with Linda Bilmes, a public finance specialist at Harvard....

[anne]

Paul Krugman, by the way, is slightly wrong. What undermined the occupation of Iraq, was the occupation of Iraq. Occupying Iraq was as such a moral and strategic mistake of terrifying significance. We must leave Iraq, immediately.

[reason]

MG..
I'm sorry a couple of idiots insulted you there. Having read your posts for some time. I know you are not partisan. (Some people seem to make the old Dubya assumption "if you not with me, you are against me").While I don't always agree with you, I consider your useful, not least for your prodigious fact checking. I just sometimes wonder about the relevance of your facts.

I find this vote tallying obsession in the US to be honest a bit of an anachronism, it belongs to another time before party discipline. The American system is evolving towards a parliamentary system whether it likes it or not. The discipline of Government is something quite different from being in opposition. Balancing different objectives against one other is something that only those responsible for the consequences do.

Ever heard of the paradox of voting? Where majorities based on a set of rational preferences end up implying an irrational choice? It is why I don't like direct initiatives - it is easy to say tax cuts (yea count me in) - more spending (yea count me in) - oops debt - (me not my fault!). It why I am a bit iffy about systems that divide responsibility and power. Divided power often means - he (they) did it! Power plus accountability, that is the way to go.

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/opinion/24kristof.html

“The total costs of the war, including the budgetary, social and macroeconomic costs, are likely to exceed $2 trillion,” Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel-winning economist at Columbia, writes in an updated new study with Linda Bilmes, a public finance specialist at Harvard. Their report has just appeared in the Milken Institute Review, as an update on a paper presented earlier this year.

Just to put that $2 trillion in perspective, it is four times the additional cost needed to provide health insurance for all uninsured Americans for the next decade. It is 1,600 times Mr. Bush’s financing for his vaunted hydrogen energy project.

Another study, by two economists at the American Enterprise Institute, used somewhat different assumptions and came up with a lower figure — about $1 trillion. Those economists set up a nifty Web site, www.aei-brookings.org/iraqcosts, where you can tinker with the underlying assumptions and come up with your own personal estimates....

[Imagine, even American Enterprisers have come to understand a little, a very very little, of the cost of war-mongering.]

[elvis]

anne, you're preaching to the choir. I'm the tenor here. I and my daughters marched in a war protest before the invasion--here in Japan, where most people just don't do that sort of thing. It was my first protest march.

I'm not going to say any more. Either you were against the war from the start or you have woken up to reality since. Anyone still supporting this war is sadly derranged. Unfortunately they tend to vote.

I will post a link here to a great article by Gore Vidal who gives it all a long historical perspective--if only we had taken even half a moment to look at the history of Iraq before going in!

http://billtotten.blogspot.com/2006/10/day-american-empire-ran-out-of-gas.html

[anne]

Wonderful for you and all daughters everywhere, Elvis, and thanks for the fine reference.

[evagrius]

MG;

"evagrius,

You need to another zero to your federal debt figure."

See? I'm just the average Joe, million, Billion, trillion, what's the difference?

I'm just focused on my little bills and whinin' bout my taxes that I can't avoid, ( not like the big schmoes!).