Count every vote - until it's inconvenient...

A salon.com article details the anger that many voters in Florida are feeling over the DNC's decision to disenfranchise the primary voters of Michigan and Florida.

I'm not sure how the Democrats can really survive this. They've staked a tremendous amount of political capital on the idea of disenfranchising the voters of both Michigan and Florida. How can they expect to not take a pounding by the independents in both states when the general election comes around? It's not like we're talking about safely Democratic states, either. Both have been close states in each of the past two elections. Could the Democrats really afford to lose both states in a national election?

Another election fiasco in Florida?
The Democratic Party is doing battle - with itself over the state's role in the primaries. Some members say it could cost the party in November 2008.
Current News & Politics for Salon

PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. - Amid the swimming pools and shuffleboards, a new sense of outrage is buzzing through condo land. Democratic activist Adele Berger began to hear about it at her regular, eight-deck rummy game in Century Village, an expansive, historically Jewish community of New York retirees. "People have been coming over and asking me, "What's going on, Adele? What's the purpose of voting if it won't be counted? And that's sad, that's sad."

The head of the community's Democratic club, Sophie Bock, is hearing the same thing, forcing her to reassure residents in the monthly newsletter that their presidential primary vote will count -- at least symbolically. "I am trying to make nicey-nicey, because I can't stand it when people say, "I don't want to vote. My vote won't be counted." Privately, however, she is as angry as her club members, so angry that she has even begun deleting fundraising e-mails from Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee before reading them.

Alienation of affection is about contracts, not property

An "alienation of affection" case has been appealed to the Supreme Court. Though, it's doubtful that the Supreme Court would pick up.

The essence of an alienation of affection case is that a third party who interferes in a marriage, breaking the marriage up, would be responsible to pay damages to the injured party. In this case, Sandra Valentine was married to Johnny Valentine when she had an affair with, and was impregnated by, Jerry Fitch, Sr. Mr. Valentine has sued Mr. Fitch and was awarded $750,000, including $112,000 in punitive damages. Mr. Fitch is only appealing the punitive award, not the actual-damages award.

What bothers me is the factually false statement by the unnamed ABS News author of this story, that these laws treat the adulterous woman in the case as property. This is not the case, nor is this the purpose of the laws.

In the U.S., for better or for worse, we have turned marriage into a legal contract. The essence of alienation of affection laws is that they deal with a third party stepping in and taking action to violate that contract. This really is not so different than if a homeowner has an exclusive contract with a real estate agent and then a second agent comes in to sell his home. The homeowner isn't property in any regards, the item of value is the contract which was broken. The law would require the second agent to compensate the original one and the alienation of affection laws follow this logic.

If a man and a woman are married and a third party steps in to break up the marriage and get involved with one party, it's not the adulterous party who is the item of value; it is the marriage contract. The property lost is not the adulterous spouse but rather the marriage itself.

Love Lost Lawsuit May Hit High Court
Plumber Won $750,000 Under Little used 'Alienation of Affection' Law
ABC News

A messy divorce that set off a bizarre lawsuit pitting a plumber against a Mississippi millionaire could now be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sandra Valentine had been married to plumber Johnny Valentine for four years when she began working for Holly Springs, Miss., businessman Jerry Fitch Sr.

Within a year, Sandra and Fitch, who was also married, began an affair. When Sandra got pregnant, Johnny, who suspected she was cheating, ordered a paternity test, which showed he was not hte father.

Johnny filed for divorce and then sued Fitch, claiming "alienation of affection," or, in other words, stealing his wife's love.

Edward's Big Plan

John Edwards is, once again, right on his priorities but ridiculously wrong on his policies.

He has correctly recognized the national shame that is the U.S.'s poverty rate. His solutions, though, are raising taxes, instituting minimum wage laws, and reducing incentives for investing in American business. The results will be higher employment, reduced growth in living conditions, and a dramatic decrease in economic growth.

What is disconcerting is that Edwards seems to be falling into the Socialist trap of viewing the resources traded in the worldwide economy as somehow being of a fixed quantity. The greatest contribution of Capitalism is to expand development of resources. When you are over0taxing those who are in a position to hasten the development of resources, you reduce the amount of resources in the system. When you disincentive investment and development, you reduce the ability to grow our resources.

The way to cure poverty is not through continued entitlement programs. Johnson started us on this track 40 years ago and we've spent tens of trillions of dollars and have gotten nearly nothing: poverty rate among working-aged adults has only gone down a tiny amount and the poverty rate among children has increased.

The way to cure poverty is by attacking the root causes of poverty while aggressively working to expand jobs.

Edwards plans big for presidency
Candidate: Sacrifice must be priority, too
The Concord Monitor

John Edward says if he's elected president, he'll institute a New Deal-like suite of programs to fight poverty and stem growing wealth disparity. To do it, he said, he'll ask many Americans to make sacrifices, like paying higher taxes.

Edwards, a former Democratic senator from North Carolina, says the federal government should underwrite universal pre-kindergarten, create matching savings accounts for low-income people, mandate a minimum wage of $9.50 and provide a million new Section 8 housing vouchers for the poor. He also pledged to start a government-funded public higher education program called "College for Everyone."

"It is central to what I want to do as president to do something about economic inequality. I do not believe it is okay for the United States of America to have 37 million people living in poverty," he said in a meeting with Monitor reporters and editors this week. "And I think we need, desperately need, a president who will say that to America and call on America to show their character."

At every stop, Edwards said, he tells voters he'll ask them to sacrifice. Asked to describe what he means, he described his plan for increases in capital gains taxes, saying taxes on "wealth income" should be in line with those on work income.

"I think if we want to fund the things that I think are important to share in prosperity, then people who have done well in this country, including me, have more of a responsibility to give back," he said. Later, he added: "There are no free meals." Like other Democrats, Edwards named his top three priorities as ending the war in Iraq, enacting universal health care and and overhauling the American energy system. "Those are three things instantly I would do," he said.

Understatement of the Week

Understatement of the Week award goes to this comment by postdoctoral scientist Al Wanamaker: "For our work, it's a bonus, but it wasn't good for this particular animal."

Scientists Find Oldest Living Animal, Then Kill It
Fox News

British marine biologists have found what may be the oldest living animal - that is, until they kill it.

The team from Bangor University in Wales was dredging the waters north of Iceland as part of routine research when the unfortunate specimen, belonging to the clam species Arctica Islandica, commonly known as the ocean quahog, was hauled up from waters 250 feet deep.

Only after researchers cut through its shell, which made it more of an ex-clam, and counted its growth rings did they realize how old it had been - between 405 and 410 years old.

Another clam of the same species had been verified at 220 years old, and a third may have lived 374 years. But this most recent clam was the oldest yet.

What's fair about raising taxes on the poor to overpay the upper-middle class?

Patrick Devlin, Chief Executive of the Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council, writes in a Detroit News editorial: "Michigan's Prevailing Wage Act ensures workers who build our roads, bridges and schools are paid a fair wage so they can contribute to the economy and provide for their families."

Mr. Devlin: There's nothing "fair" about fleecing working class Michiganders so that contractors working for the state can make 30% more than those in the private sector. There's nothing "fair" about raising taxes on poor Michiganders and prohibit competitive bidding in order to protect the disgustingly overpriced wages that state contractors are paid. There's nothing "fair" about a worker in the private industry having his net salary slashed by the state in order to keep the artificially inflated salary of a worker doing the exact same job for a government contract and making substantially more for it.

State's prevailing wage law ensures fair pay
The Detroit News

Michigan's Prevailing Wage Act ensures workers who build our roads, bridges, and schools are paid a fair wage so they can contribute to the economy and provide for their families.

However, lately it's become open season on workers here in Michigan. The latest episode as Chris Fisher's guest column in The Detroit News ("Killing wage law helps budget and creates jobs," Oct. 11).

When you pay Michigan workers measly wages with little to no benefits, everybody loses.

Remember, the hardworking construction and trade workers who are building Michigan's 21st century infrastructure are taxpayers, too. When you pay them a pittance, the economy shrinks.

Rep. John Dingell advocates Iraq withdrawal

Representative Dingell invokes the Iraq Study Group Report several times in his October 29th Opinion column wherein he calls for an unequivocal, immediate and complete retreat from Iraq. It is obvious that either he has not read that report or is being intentionally deceptive:

"A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of the adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return. (Iraq Study Group Report, Page 20)."

In direct opposition to Representative Dingell's retreat plan, the Iraq Study Group foresaw a direct role for the U.S. military in Iraq in both combat and support roles. While most combat brigades would be removed from Iraq under the plan, U.S. military would remain in the country. The roles envisioned for the military would include embedding combat troops within Iraqi positions, anti-terrorist operations, and protection of American operations.

A complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq will not result in the end of war in Iraq. It will only result in the temporary suspension of American action in Iraq. Without our military's presence, civil war would flare to full extent, foreign nations likely including Iran will expand military operations in the country, ethnic cleansing would occur, and genocide is a very likely result. The dishonest description of Representative Dingell's plan as either in accordance with the Iraq Study Group's report or as ending the war is reprehensible.

Let's end Bush's war before he leaves
The Detroit News

Recent news regarding the war in Iraq has made it increasingly clear that a change of strategy is desperately needed. The cost of the war is increasing at an unbearable rate, but the president has yet to announce any plan that would bring our troops home before his term ends.

As the Bush presidency enters its final year, it is increasingly likely that the difficult job of redeploying 140,000 troops from Iraq will be left to the next president. This is irresponsible. In an effort to address this issue, I recently introduced legislation that would require our troops be out of Iraq before President George W. Bush leaves office.

The president recently finalized a $196 billion spending request to fund the Iraq war for the next year. More than four years after the invasion of Iraq, it is alarming that the president requested more than half a billion per day in funding for our efforts there.

By the time President Bush leaves office, he will have spent an astounding $1 trillion in Iraq, which is more than the inflation-adjusted cost of the Korean and Vietnam wars combined. Without a strategy change, these costs will continue to add up for the foreseeable future. The Congressional Budget Office this week released a report indicating costs related to the Iraq war could reach $2.4 trillion during the next decade, even if the number of troops is cut in half.

Interesting law...

In the London Telegraph, there's an oddly worded article discussing the Queen's stance in support of "the member of the Royal Family who has been targeted in an alleged gay sex and drugs blackmail plot." The specifics don't really concern me. I know plenty of people in the U.S. are interested in the goings-on of the Royal Family but I figure the Dingell aristocracy (Former Rep. John Dingell Sr., Rep. John Dingell Jr., and now State Senator Chris Dingell) is enough nobility for me to have to put up with.

What interests me about the article is the way in which they talk around the individual at the center of the allegations. It's fascinating that in the U.K. there is a law which prevents newspapers from discussing the identity of individuals being blackmailed. Now, I'm no fan of government censorship by any means. However, wouldn't it be great if in our country the newspapers would refrain from printing the identity of victims of blackmail as a matter of professional courtesy?

Queen stands by 'blackmail plot' royal
The Telegraph

The Queen has pledged her unswerving support for the member of the Royal Family who has been targeted in an alleged gay sex and drugs blackmail plot.

The Daily Telegraph has learnt that the Queen, who is very fond of her relative, is dismayed by the effect the revelation of an alleged £50,000 extortion attempt is having on him and his family.

While he cannot be named for legal reasons, there has already been speculation about his identity on the Internet.

The royal fears that he will be named in the foreign press, which is not covered by the reporting restrictions that apply to blackmail cases.

Beam me up?

I'm just not sure that a man who claims to have seen a UFO is in any place to question anyone else's intelligence.

Kucinich Questions Bush's Mental Health
Kucinich: Bush's World War II Comment Shows President's Mental Instability
ABC News

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich questioned President Bush's mental health in light of comments he made about a nuclear Iran precipitating World War III.

"I seriously believe we have to start asking questions about his mental health," Kucinich, an Ohio congressman, said in an interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial board on Tuesday. "There's something wrong. He does not seem to understand his words have real impact.

Kucinich, known for his liberal views, trains far behind the leading candidates in most Democratic polls. He was in Philadelphia for a debate at Drexel University.

Bush made the remarks at a news conference earlier this month.

Counter-counter-culture?

The most amusing part of this article:

"Sergeant Steve Mannina says Addis is the same person who's facing arson charges in Nevada for allegedly setting fire to the Burning Man effigy four days earlier than planned during the counterculture festival in August."

I just love the idea that the Burning Man people, a counterculture group, is getting all bent out of shape over this and having the guy arrested and charged. It's just so deliciously ironic that a group whose entire purpose is supposed to be making a statement against the "oppressive culture" is so angry that someone would try to apply the same logic to them.

Suspect is Arrested in S.F. Church Fire
S.F. Performance Artist Is Arrested on Suspicion of Trying to Set Fire to Grace Cathedral
ABC News

A San Francisco performance artist charged with prematurely torching the Burning Man festival's namesake effigy has now been arrested on suspicion of trying to set fire to the historic Grace Cathedral.

San Francisco police say they caught Paul Addis Sunday night on the top steps of the cathedral with an ammunition belt of small explosives strapped around his waist.

Police were tipped by a caller who said they overheard Addis talking about a plan to set fire to the church.

No fire was set and there was no damage to the church.

Only one article

How many U.S. Marines does it take to hold a hill against two regiments of combat-hardened infantry that prefer death over retreat? Just one. Platoon Sergent Mitchell Paige.

In light of Paramount's considering of changing the upcoming G.I. Joe movie from focusing on American service members fighting terrorists to focusing on mythical "international operations team" members fighting Scottish double-crossing arms dealers (no, I'm not making that up), Vin Suprynnowicz movingly tells the history of the inspiration behind G.I. Joe's origin.

This will be today's only article so as to reflect on what Platoon Sergent Mitchell Paige did on that hill in Guadalcanal 65 years ago this past Thursday.

G.I. Joe was just a toy, wasn't he?
Las Vegas Review-Journal

Hollywood now proposes that in a new live-action movie based on the G.I. Joe toy line, Joe's --- well, "G.I." --- identity needs to be replaced by membership in an "international force based in Brussels." the IGN Entertainment news site reports Paramount is considering replacing our "real American hero" with "Action Man," member of an "international operations team".

Paramount will simply turn Joe's name into an acronym.

The show biz newspaper Variety reports: "G.I. Joe is now a Brussels based outfit that stands for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity, an international co-ed force of operatives who use hi-tech equipment to battle Cobra, an evil organization headed by a double-crossing Scottish arms dealer."

Well, thank goodness the villain -- no need to offend anyone by making our villains Arabs, Muslims, or foreign dictators of any stripe these days, though, apparently Presbyterians who talk like Scottie on "Star Trek" are still OK -- is a double-crossing arms dealer. Otherwise one might be tempted to conclude the geniuses at Paramount believes arms dealing itself is evil.

(Just for the record, what did the quintessential American hero, Humphrey Bogart's Rick Blaine in "Casablanca," do before he opened his eponymous cafe? Yep: gun-runner.)

Why subsidies when savings are already there?

A study has looked into a commuter train connecting Howell with Ann Arbor. That would be a great start towards using desperately needed mass transit in the state. If this plan could work, it would provide incentives for other areas to follow suit. The problem? A study has determined that the commuter train would need a $2.3 million annual subsidy.

The study points out that the average form Howell to Ann Arbor spends $27 a day on transportation costs. The numbers work out to a charge of about $2.82 each way or about $5.65 round-trip with an additional subsidy that would be pretty much equal.

Here's the important question: if the commuters are saving an average of over $22 a day, why are we subsidizing the trip? If it's a $10 trip each way, that's still cheaper than the $27 a day that the study says is being charged. Charging each of the approximately 1,800 expected daily riders $225 a month would generate the $4.8 million needed for the annual expenses and would cost significantly less than the $500-$600 the study implies that an average commuter is currently paying. Even the gas costs (about 2 gallons a day or $6 for a relatively fuel efficient car getting around 28 mpg or 3 gallons ($9) a day for commuters getting a more average 19 mpg) alone would be alleviated by unsubsidized use of the train.

In short, if they're already saving considerable amounts of money then why should we subsidize it at all? If I could take a train to work instead of driving and it was going to cost me less money than I'm spending now. I'd jump on that and I certainly wouldn't expect anyone else to foot the bill for me.

Study: Ann Arbor-Howell commuter train needs $2.3M annual subsidy
The Associated Press

ANN ARBOR, Mich. (AP) - A study says commuter rail service between Ann Arbor to Howell would save users a lot of money but require a $2.3 million annual subsidy.

The study says a car commuter from Howell to Ann Arbor spends about $27 a day.

The Washtenaw Area Transportation Study estimates the annual operating cost of the train from Ann Arbor to Howell at $4.8 million.

It says 884,000 rides a year would generate $2.5 million in fares. The study says the subsidy would be about $2.66 per ride.

Michael Cicchella is supervisor of Washtenaw County's Northfield Township and a commuter line backer. He tells the Ann Arbor News the capital costs would be about $2.8 million.

How much is enough

I love that this guy's analysis leaves out how much the different groups pay in income taxes. You'd think that when you say something like "it seems only reasonable that taxes should rise on the wealthy" that you might like to discuss what percentage of taxes they pay.

According to the story, the richest 1% earn 21% of all income while the bottom 50% earn 12.8% of all income. What it doesn't do is break down the rates by what those people pay in taxes. According to the IRS, the richest pay about 37% of taxes while a group that earns 13% of income is paying only 3% of taxes. So, why is it reasonable that the group already paying an amount of taxes disproportionate with their income pay even more?

What's also interesting is that the wealth of the richest grew the fastest under President Clinton. When Clinton took office, the richest 1% made about 13% of income. When he left office, that same group made about 21% of income. When President Bush took office, that rate dropped back to around 17% and only now has it grown back to the level it was when Clinton took office.

Most idiotic, of course, is his suggestion that if the rich would leave the country in retaliation for our raising their taxes that we should just let them. I'm not sure how we could account for nearly 40% of the Federal Budget if the richest 1% were to up and leave. I'm sure he'd come up with something.

What concerns me the most about this is the ephemeral idea of "fair." Somehow, there seems to be no point at which it becomes unfair to tax the rich. Currently, we have half the people in this country who pay 97% of all taxes. We have half the country who pay a negligible amount of taxes. We have 1% of the people in this country who pay 37% of taxes. What share of taxes do the richest 1% have to pay before they have paid their "fair share"?

Of course, back to the original proposition: that the reason the rich should have to have their tax rate increased is because they are earning a larger percentage of total income. The author fails to mention that when income becomes more concentrated at the higher levels, it is taxed at a much higher rate and thus more taxes are generated. In other words, increases in income at the top will generate much more tax revenue than increases in income at the bottom.

Why Democrats are afraid to raise taxes on the rich
Could it have something to do with the recent affection of hedge-fund managers for the Democratic Party?
Current Opinion for Salon

New data from the Internal Revenue Service show that income inequality continues to widen. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earn more than 21 percent of all income. That's a postwar record. The bottom 50 percent of all Americans, when all their wages are combined, earn just 12.8 percent of the nation's income.

Considering the magnitude of challenges ahead for America, it seems only reasonable that taxes should rise on the wealthy. Taxing the super-rich is not about class envy, as conservatives charge. It's about the nation having enough money to pay for national defense and homeland security, good schools, and a crumbling infrastructure, the upcoming costs of boomers' Social Security (the current surplus has masked the true extent of the current budget deficit, but it won't be for much longer) and, hopefully, affordable national health insurance. Not to mention the trillion dollars or so it will take to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is now starting to hit the middle class.

To some extent, the major Democratic candidates for president appear to agree. They are unanimous in their pledge to roll back the Bush tax cuts. That means that the wealthiest Americans, who are now taxed at a marginal tax rate of 35 percent, would go back to paying the 38 percent marginal rate they paid under Bill Clinton. So far, however, no democrat has suggested that the nation should raise the marginal tax rate on the richest Americans above that 38%, as will probably be necessary if America is to avoid an economic meltdown in the years ahead.

The biggest emerging pay gap is actually within the top 1 percent of all earners. It's mainly a gap between corporate CEOs, on the one hand, and Wall Street financiers -- hedge-fund managers, private-equity managers (think Mitt Romney) and investment bankers -- on the other. According to a study by University of Chicago professors Steven Kaplan and Joshua Rauh, more than twice as many Wall Street financiers are in the top half of 1 percent of earners as are CEOs. The 25 highest-paid hedge-fund managers are earning more than the CEOs of the largest 500 companies in the Standard and Poor's 500 combined. While CEO pay is outrageous, hedge-fund and private-pay equity pay is way beyond outrageous. Several of these hedge-fund managers are taking more than a billion dollars a year.

At the very last, you might think that Democrats would do something about the anomaly in the tax code that treats the earnings of private-equity and hedge-fund managers as capital gains rather than ordinary income, and thereby taxes them at 15% -- lower than the tax rate faced by many middle-class Americans. But Senate Democrats recently backed off a proposal to do just that. Why? It turns out that Democrats are getting more campaign contributions these days from hedge-fund and private-equity partners than Republicans are getting. In the run-up to the 2006 election, donations from hedge-fund employees were running better than 2-to-1 Democratic. The party doesn't want to bite the hands that feed.

Who are we forgetting here...?

"Hillary Rodham Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are the two most prominent women in American politics today..."

*Ahem* Condi Rice *Ahem*

The Clinton/Peolsi fault line
The Politico

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are the two most prominent women in American politics today - powerfully united by intense disdain for George Bush's policies in Iraq and elsewhere around the world.

The Democratic antipathy toward Bush, however, disguises a variety of tensions and cracks that could grow in the months ahead if Clinton becomes her party's nominee, and could become even more interesting if there is another Clinton administration in January 2009.

Clinton's and Pelosi's differences of detail cumulatively add up to something large - two distinct strands of thinking about where threats to U.S. national security lie and how aggressive to be in confronting them.

Liberal Democrats will have to get over it: Clinton is an authentic hawk. Her support for the Iraq war resolution five years ago this month, whether motivated by politics or principle or some of both, was not an aberration. Nor is her tough talk against Iran.

When it's rainy every day...

Ray Burrsma, of the Holland Sentinel, had an opinion piece yesterday which lambastes the Michigan legislature for cutting taxes several years ago when we had a surplus of tax money. He feels that, instead, we should have saved for future lacks of funding like the one we currently are experiencing.

It's a nice thought, but it assumes the legislature has one important quality that is in small quantity amongst politicians: self-restraints.

The principal advantage of the Engler tax cuts is that it prevented runaway spending from getting even worse. Mr. Burrsma attacks those calling for spending cuts without realizing that if we did not cut back on taxes several years ago, the spending would be even higher and even more dramatic cuts would be required. He imagines that no one could find places in the budget to cut.

Hard cuts are required. By definition, they won't be easy. A good place to start, though, would be to insure that the compensation that is paid out for contracts and state employees is comparable to what is paid in the private sector. It should be shocking that the state, with its size and the amount of contracts that it puts out, should be paying even the average amount for contractors. The fact that the law forces the state to pay 20-30% over the private sector average is criminal. Allowing unfettered competitive bidding will dramatically cut the cost of state contracts. Also, why is the state still providing a complete pension? In the private sector, those have been nearly completely eliminated. Why not do the same at the state level and switch everyone over to a self-funded 401(k)? The state could pitch in a small amount for a short while, but the pension costs are prohibitively expensive. Also, this would be a better deal for workers who could invest in stocks instead of just very low risk bonds.

All in all, while saving surplus funds might bail us out of trouble in the short term, responsible budget cuts will keep us out of trouble in the long run.

We failed to save for a rainy day
Holland Sentinel

Good economic times come and go. The economy waxes and wanes. It grows hot but eventually cools. Then the cycle repeats. Hot. Cold. Again and again. Over and over.

The state of Michigan's revenue correlates with Michigan's economy. When the economy is strong, revenue is high. When the economy is weak, revenue dips.

Obviously, then, our state government's income varies from year to year. It has more money when the economy thrives and less when the economy waffles.

State expenditures, on the other hand, are relatively constant. From year to year the state funds similar numbers of Secretary of State offices, State Police posts, K-12 students and so on. Yes, there are variations, but they are minor relative to the state budget.

Now, if we know our expenses are constant but our revenues vary, what is the prudent course to take? Ask any good Hollander from the mid-1900s and he will tell us. We establish a surplus when times are good so we can weather the bad times. Anyone who has read Joseph's interpretation of Pharaoh's dream in Genesis understands the concept. Save during times of plenty for the time of famine.

SCHIP attempt #2

A new version of the SCHIP (States Child Health Insurance Program) is coming through the House, with a few compromise positions. Most importantly, it explicitly excludes illegal immigrants by requiring rigorous checks of Social Security numbers and it excludes childless adults. The real problem, though, is that it is still extending coverage into the middle class for individuals who largely already have health insurance and is being paid for primarily through a ridiculously regressive tax.

A better way to handle the uninsured is to subsidize private insurance purchases with a combination of the existing SCHIP money and money raised through insurance assessments and taxes on medical service providers. The private insurance would be base-line coverage which concentrates on preventative care and catastrophic care. In order for the market-based options in it to work best, the individual obtaining the coverage would have to be required to spend a percentage of his or her own income to offset costs.

This would do a few things:

1) The individuals who are benefiting from the care (the citizens and the insurance companies and hospitals who will no longer have to pay for emergency rooms used as primary care) will be the ones paying for it.

2) It will allow everyone the opportunity to purchase preventative and catastrophic care coverage at a reasonable rate.

3) It will contain the ability for individuals to shop around, and incentives for them to use less expensive coverage in order to save their own money.

4) It will protect the current high quality care that the 85% of Americans who have insurance currently enjoy.

House to Test Revised Kids' Health Bill
House Ready to Retest Bush's Veto Clout on Children's Health Bill
ABC News

House members are about to learn whether some nips and tucks to a children's health bill will be enough to secure a veto-proof margin against a White House that wants major surgery.

The House planned to vote Thursday on a modestly revised version of a bill that President Bush vetoed Oct. 3. Last week the House fell 13 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, which had been prompted by Bush's objections to a major expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

The bill's supporters now hope the revisions will attract the seven or more Republicans needed to change the outcome later this fall. GOP leaders urged their colleagues to resist, saying the changes are too minor to justify abandoning Bush on a high-profile issue.

As before, the bill would add $35 billion over five years to the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The program, which now covers 6 million children, would enroll 4 million more. The increase would be paid for with a 61-cent increase in the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, which Bush opposes.

It takes a village...?

The thing that bothers me the most about Hillary Clinton's precept that it "takes a village" is that villages invariably have an idiot like this woman.

The real problem with the Socialist model is that you end up having people like this idiot making decisions for the rest of us.

Woman Charged in Highway Beer Stun
Neb. Mom Accused of Letting Teen Daughter Lean Out of Moving Van for Beer
ABC News

A woman let her teenage daughter lean out of a moving van to take beer from a vehicle that was driving alongside on a southeastern Nebraska highway, authorities said Wednesday.

Terry Kisling, 47, of Hickman, was driving the van of high school cheerleaders to a football game in Nebraska City earlier this month when a group of boys pulled up next to them in a sport-utility vehicle, Norris High School principal John Skretta said.

One of the girls apparently signaled to the boys and asked for a beer, and Kisling inched the van closer to the SUV, letting her daughter lean out to grab the can, he said.

"To say that we were shocked and taken aback would be an understatement," said Skretta, who said he learned of the incident last week. "It's almost unfathomable."

Carl Levin is right about Michigan's primary

I hate agreeing with Carl Levin, but I do agree with his disdain for New Hampshire's position in the nomination cycle. It's clearly time to start working on a Constitutional Amendment and get rid of this idiotic, backwards, 19th century primary system. What's wrong with a series of national primaries?

Levin fires new salvo in primary war
The Politico

Sen. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, threatened Wednesday to hold Michigan's presidential nominating contest on the same day as the New Hampshire primary in order to end New Hampshire's "cockamamie" first-in-the-nation role.

"No state should have that dominant a role," Levin said at a breakfast with reporters. "New Hampshire has a hammerlock, folks.

While Michigan recently passed a law saying it would hold a primary on Jan. 15 - causing New Hampshire to say it would go no later than Jan. 8 - Levin said Michigan Democrats now could hold a caucus and move up to the same day as New Hampshire.

New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner told Politico, however, that he was prepared to keep New Hampshire first and once again raised the possibility he could hold the primary in December of this year.

"I moved the filing period [when candidates can register to get their names on the ballot] up so it would end Nov. 2, so we could have a primary in early December if need be," Gardner said in a phone interview Wednesday morning.

Feiger's Law of Campaign Contributions

So many times we've seen Democrats embroiled in dirty fund-raising scandals - be it Norman Hsu or Geoffrey Feiger or the various impoverished individuals who may or may not reside in Chinatown and gave extremely large amounts to Hillary Clinton - that it should come as no surprise that the majority of examples that the liberal-leaning Washington Post can come up with in their latest dirty fund-raising scandal involve Democrats. In fact, the one example of a Republican is a borderline case at best - a 13 year old and a 17 year old apparently donated money from his bar mitzvah and her job respectively to Mitt Romney. The examples involving Democrats are much more prevalent and egregious, including a 2-year-old "donating" some of "her" money to Barack Obama.

This has happened so often that as a short-hand it needs a name. In honor of Geoffrey Feiger, who has so graciously pointed out that the vast majority of those caught making illegal contributions were Democrats, we're going to call this "Feiger's Law of Campaign Contributions" or just "Feiger's Law" for short.

Feiger's Law is thus: "If you hear of a case of dirty campaign fundraising, a Democrat will probably be at the heart of it."

As Campaigns Chafe at Limits, Donors Might Be in Diapers
Washington Post

Elrick William's toddler niece Carlyn may be one of the youngest contributors to this year's presidential campaign. The 2-year-old gave $2,300 to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill).

So did her sister and brother, Imara, 13, and Ishmael, 9, and her cousins Chan and Alexis, both 13. Altogether, according to newly released campaign finance reports, the extended family of Williams, a wealthy Chicago financier, handed over nearly a dozen checks in March for the maximum allowed under federal law to Obama.

Such campaign donations from young children would almost certainly run afoul of campaign finance regulations, several campaign lawyers said. But as bundlers seek to raise higher and higher sums for presidential contenders this year, the number who are turning to checks from underage givers appears to be on the rise.

"It's not difficult for a banker or a trial lawyer or a hedge fund manager to come up with $2,300, and they're often left wanting to do more," said Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center of Responsive Politics. "That's when they look across the dinner table at their children and see an opportunity."

Working America and Health Care

Yesterday, on Sean Hannity's radio show, a listened phoned in to complain about being unable to afford medical care or medical insurance. The caller was a married woman with two children whose $44,000 annual salary was the only income for the family. as her husband was unemployed. She indicated that her husband had diabetes and that they were unable to afford to treat him.

During the call, it came out that she could obtain health insurance for her family but it would cost her $400 a month for the entire family. This was a point which Hannity seemed to gloss over. He did point out that if her husband was able to work, that several national employers such as McDonald's and WalMart provide health insurance for full time employees but the idea of working seemed anathema to the caller who would rather the government magic it up for her.

What was more striking, however, was that the family had recently moved from New York (where they were making $119,000 a year and had health insurance) to The Poconos (the Pennsylvania ski resort area). It wasn't clear if it was a voluntary or involuntary move.

Either way, my questions which were left unanswered:

$400 a month is about 10% of her income. Is it really all that much to expect 10% of your income to be dedicated to health insurance when the country pays out almost $10,000 a year per person in health care costs?

If $400 a month (pre-tax, so it's really closer to around $300 a month) is too much to spend, where else is she spending money? How much are they spending on their cable television and cell phones? How much are they spending eating out? Do they have a programmable thermostat and high energy efficient light bulbs? Do they keep the heat at 80 and the air conditioning at 60? Does the non-working family member have a car and, if so, how much does that cost? Why isn't he working? How much are they spending on their rent/mortgage and how large is their home?

However you add it up, it really strikes me as though this middle-class family is just looking for a handout. Perhaps they have done everything they can - perhaps they're in an inexpensive apartment, use every bit of energy efficiency, subsist on rice and beans made at home, don't have cable or cell phones, and really don't have any additional money available. Somehow, though, I doubt that's the case.

Newsflash! Chuck Norris Endorses Mike Huckabee

Fox News has the best line so far this election season:

Chuck Norris endorses Mike Huckabee for President
Fox News

Chuck Norris does not vote for President of the United States. He gives the voting machine a swift roundhouse kick and Mike Huckabee wins.

So the joke would read after the martial arts announced his endorsement Sunday for the former Arkansas governor.

"Though (Rudy) Giuliani might be savvy enough to lead people, Fred Thompson wise enough to wade through the tides of politics, (John) McCain tough enough to fight terrorism, and (Mitt) Romney business-minded enough to grow our economy, I believe the only one who has all of the characteristics to lead America forward into the future is ex-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee," Chuck Norris wrote in a commentary posted on WorldNetDaily.com.

Norris listed Huckabee's upbringing, family values and the fact that he's an avid outdoorsman as reasons for backing.

"Che's not a role model for our children"

I love that the AP glosses over the fact that Che tortured prisoners, slaughtered civilians, and waged total war in his pursuit of instituting military dictatorships throughout Latin America.

I don't condone vandalism, but this act made me smile.

Glass Monument to Che in Venezuela Shot
Associated Press

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -A glass monument to revolutionary icon Ernesto "Che" Guevara was shot up and destroyed less than two weeks after it was unveiled by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's government.

Images of the 8-foot-tall glass plate bearing Guevera's image, not toppled and shattered, were shown Friday on state television, which said the entire country "repudiated" the vandalism.

The monument on an Andean mountain highway near the city of Merida was unveiled Oct. 8 by Vice President Jorge Rodriguez and Cuba's ambassador to Venezuela to mark the 40th anniversary of Guevara's death.

Chavez venerates Guevara as a model socialist for all Venezuelans. He named a state-funded adult education program "Mission Che Guevara," and murals of the iconic revolutionary have become a common sight in Venezuela.

Edwards might be the best candidate for the Dems

ABC News has a report about an attack by Edwards on Clinton. His best quote, and he's right on with this:

There was a story in today's New York Times about this issue and about her vote on this issue. And some of her advisers said that she voted yes because she was moving from primary mode to general election mode. I may be wrong, and you'll have to tell me, have we already decided who's going to win the New Hampshire primary?...Instead of primary mode versus general election mode, instead of saying one thing in the primary and something different for the general election, how about if we do tell the truth mode all the time. How about if we say exactly what we believe and stand by that position.

He also skewers her for saying she feels that the solution to the money-in-politics issue is public campaign financing while she continues to eschewing public campaign financing.

He may be completely and utterly unqualified for the office, but John Edwards continues to strike me as the best of the candidates for the Democrat's nomination.

Edwards Attacks Clinton on Questionable Contributions
Political Radar on ABC News

After an article in Friday's "Los Angeles Times" revealed that Clinton received large donations from poor residents living in New York City's Chinatown, the Edwards campaign pounced on the opportunity to bring more attention to the questionable contributions.

"This morning we all read in L.A. Times that many Clinton campaign contributions are raising eyebrows again. Many of their donors are not even registered to vote, and at least one denied even making any contribution at all," Edwards Campaign Manager David Bonior said in a statement on Friday.

"Senator Clinton has said public financing is the answer. Senator Edwards has opted to take public financing, but Senator Clinton has not. Senator Clinton should explain why she doesn't mean what she says...The bottom line is we need a nominee who can do two things: campaign in all 50 states and challenge our broken system in Washington. With every day

the growing question has to be can Hillary Clinton do either?"

Last Sunday while campaigning in New Hampshire, Edwards sought to bring Clinton down a notch by pointing to a story "The New York Times that explained the New York Senator's vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Quote of the Day

"Right now they're kind of thinking about getting ready for a day, and premarital counseling gets them ready for a marriage."

-- Pastor Tom Hurt of the Oregon City Evangelical Church, speaking of the Clackamas (Oregon) County "Community Marriage Policy" which asks all priests and pastors to require couples undergo four premarital mentoring sessions prior to marriage.

Important Advice

Some important advice from our buddies over at Slate:

How to Fight Monkeys
Explainer for Slate

The deputy mayor of New Delhi, India, fell off his balcony and died Sunday after being attacked by monkeys, his family members say. The city has around 10,000 monkeys, some of which have taken to roaming through government buildings as they steal food and rip apart documents. What should you do if monkeys are picking on you?

It's like Mom said about muggers: just give 'em what they want. When monkeys get aggressive, it's usually because they think you have something to eat. According to one study, about three-quarters of all the aggressive interactions between long-tailed macaques and tourists at Bali's Pendangtegal Monkey Forest involved food. If you are holding a snack, throw it in their direction and they'll stop bothering you. If you don't have any food, hold out your open palms to show you're not carrying a tasty treat or back away from the monkeys without showing fear. To diffuse the situation, don't make eye contact or smile with your teeth showing - in the nonhuman primate world, these are almost always signs of aggression.

Monkey attacks are extremely rare in the wild; the creatures tend to be scared of us and often scamper away when a person gets within 100 feet. As monkeys lose their habitats around the world, though, they've started to live in closer proximity to humans, and that causes conflict.

Alabama certainly isn't California...

If the difference between Alabama and California isn't clear, this article should make it so. An Alabama came home to find their home burglarized. The wife went to her sister's house while the husband investigated the house. At that time, the burglar came back and was caught by the husband and held at gunpoint until the police arrived. To top it off, the Alabama man made the burglar clean up the mess he made in burglarized the home. Police laughed at the complaints of the criminal, saying he was lucky he was still alive.

Imagine this occurring in California. Does anyone really believe that if this occurred there the homeowner wouldn't have been charged with kidnapping?

Couple Make Burglar Clean Up at Gunpoint
Ala. Couple Force Burglar to Clean Up His Own Mess at Gunpoint
ABC News

A burglar in Montgomery chose the wrong family to mess with, literally. Adrian and Tiffany McKinnon returned home on Tuesday after a week away to find that thieves had emptied almost everything the family of five owned, Tiffany McKinnon said through tears.

"Tears just rolled down my face as I walked in and saw everything gone and piles of trash all over my home," she said.

Adrian McKinnon sent his wife to see her sister while he inspected the piles left behind. As he walked back into the sunroom, a man walked through the back door straight into him, Tiffany McKinnon told the Montgomery Advertiser in a story Thursday.

"My husband Adrian caught the thief red-handed in our home," she said. "And what is even crazier, the man even had my husband's hat sitting on his head."

Bill Cosby's new book

Bill Cosby has a new book and ABC.com has an excerpt. The essence of the book is a call for individual responsibility and accountability and a rejection of dependence on the government. Although this book is aimed at Black America, the argument transcends race and is applicable to all Americans.

Except: 'Come on People'
Bill Cosby's Book Urges African-Americans to Take More Responsibility
ABC News

Bill Cosby is a cultural icon, but these days he's much more than an entertainer. He's an educator and an activist with a powerful message for blacks to take more responsibility for their lives. With the renowned Harvard psychiatrist Alvin Poussaint, he has written a book that he describes as a wake-up call for American families. It's called "Come on People."

You can learn more about what The Cos is doing on his website.

Read an except below.

WHAT'S GOING ON WITH BLACK MEN?

For the last generation or two, as our communities dissolved and our parenting skills broke down, no one has suffered more than our young black men. Your authors have been around long enough, and traveled widely enough, to think we understand something about the problem. And we're hopeful enough - or desperate enough - to think that with all of us working together we might find our way to a solution. Let's start with one very basic fact. Back in 1950, before Brown v. Board of Education, before the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, when Rosa Park was still sitting in the back of her Montgomery bus, when the NBA was just about all white, back in those troubled times, black boys were born into a different world than they are today. Obviously, many civil rights leaders had hoped that with the demise in the 1960s of officially sanctioned forms of segregation and discrimination, black males would have greater access to the mainstream of American society. They had fully expected that these young men would be in a better position in every way - financially, psychologically, legally - to sustain viable marriages and families. Instead, the overall situation has continues to downhill among the poor who are mostly shut out from the mainstream of success. How is that possible?

Should the U.S. government close a private school for hatred?

What is going on in Virginia? A school funded and run by the Saudi government has been investigated by a Federal governmental panel which recommends its closing. Apparently, the school is teaching extremism including hatred for Jews. The school, for its part, denies this.

This really brings up a very clear difficulty. Does the government have a right to investigate religious schools in the U.S. and intervene in the teaching? The difficulty of balancing safety concerns with the religious rights of the school are obvious, even if the religious tenants of the school are disturbing to the vast majority of Americans. Let's just hope that when the school says it's not spreading hate that they're being honest with us. This has the potential to be a very messy situation otherwise.

Feds Recommend Closing Saudi School in Va.
ABC News

A private Islamic school supported by the Saudi government should be shut down until the U.S. government can ensure the school is not fostering radical Islam, a federal panel recommends.

In a report released Thursday, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom broadly criticized what it calls a lack of religious freedom in Saudi society and promotion of religious extremism at Saudi schools.

Particular criticism is leveled at the Islamic Saudi Academy, a private school serving nearly 1,000 students in grades K-12 at two campuses in northern Virginia's Fairfax County.

The commission's report says the academy hews closely to the curriculum used at Saudi schools, which they criticism for promoting hated of and intolerance against Jews, Christians, and Shiite Muslims.

Surprised?

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the Democrats are afraid to be around real Americans. As much as the Ivory Tower members of the Liberal Elite like to talk about helping "the poor" (their term, apparently, for families making less than $100,000 a year at which point they become "the rich"), they largely have a great disdain for hard-working, blue-collar Americans. Viewing a NASCAR race as akin to visiting a Third World country, and thus recommended staffers to get hepatitis vaccinations before visiting, lines up pretty well for a group of privileged elites who become that they have the right to extra-democratically dictate the course of life for America.

GOP: NASCAR is contagious, but its fans are not
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Being around NASCAR fans requires no inoculation.

That was the word Thursday from Republican officials after they learned that a congressional committee's Democratic staffers had advised aides to get vaccinated for hepatitis and other diseases before visiting NASCAR events in Concord, N.C., and Talladega, Ala.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said his committee aides were visiting health-care centers, detention facilities and other operations where they could be exposed to communicable diseases. He said the immunizations were routine for health-care workers.

"Democrats should know that there is no preventative measure yet designed to ward off the blue-collar values and patriotism that NASCAR fans represent," said LInda Daves, the chairwoman of the North Carolina Republican Party. "If they aren't careful, they just might catch some of it."

The state steps between parents and their children...AGAIN!

The school board in Portland, Maine has decided to begin offering birth control at the district's middle school health center. The most horrifying component is that they would be doing this without parental consent or even notification.

They talk a lot around a "privacy component" in the article but don't describe it. What this means is that they have offering medical care to children without even notifying parents after the fact. How is that legal? How is that not a ridiculous abridgement of their rights? The idea that the government would step between parents and 11 year old children and decide non-emergency medical decisions on behalf of those children without even informing the parents is shocking beyond belief. The usurpation of rights here is just mind-blowing.

What absolutely kills me is that people are all bent out of shape that the U.S. doesn't plug its ears when listening in on a terrorist in Yemen who calls someone in the U.S. but they're completely fine with the government taking away the rights of parents to decide what routine medical care their children receive.

I'd like to say that this is just another example of the fascism of the Left, but it's hard to be that blase about it. It is yet another area where the Liberals in the country have decided to step forward and absolutely eviscerate the essential liberties in this country.

Bitter Pill: School Board OKs Birth Control for Middle School
Community Finds Itself at Center of National Debate
ABC News

In the end, it wasn't even close. The Portland School Committee voted 7 to 2 last night to allow the health center at the King Middle School in Portland, Maine, to offer birth control prescriptions to its students, who range in age from 10 to 15. Dr. Pat Patterson, the medical director of School-Based Health Services in Portland said she was "thrilled" with the vote. "The past few days have been very distressing and very difficult for the school. People have been really charged up against us. But I'm happy with the vote."

"Charged up" may be an understatement. The storm started brewing in Portland and across the country shortly after the proposal was announced. And last night, tensions boiled over at the school committee hearing held at a local Portland High School.

Proponents of the proposal tacked up black-and-white posters, contrasting the cost of raising a child with the cost of birth control, while several opponents bowed their heads in prayer. National and local media jostled for positions at the front of the room.

The possibility that young teens could be getting birth control at school incensed resident Diane Miller. "We are dealing with children...the ramifications are mind boggling to me. How could we even be considering this?" After she spoke at the hearing, Miller sat down and closed her eyes. "I was praying. My heart just aches over this," said Miller.

Mary Irbahim, another Portland resident, said that just because kids may be having sex doesn't mean they should be having sex. And offering birth control services is a form of encouragement. "Let's be leaders. Let's be parents. Let's be grownups," said Ibrahim.

After Peter Doyle, a former middle-school math teacher now living in Portland, argued that the privacy component "is really a violation of parent's rights."

Another Democrat calls for a military dictatorship

The new-found love for military dictatorship, in the U.S. and abroad, by the left in this country astounds me. Perhaps it shouldn't, considering their past love affairs with Soviet and North Vietnam strongmen, but I would love it if the Democrat party were to stand for democracy for a change. In addition to the loony left's apparent requirement that only individuals who have served in the military be allowed to make decisions regarding going to war, Fred Kaplan now apparently is calling for the military leadership to flat-out refuse a theoretical future order to attack Iran.

What ever happened to John Kennedy's Democratic Party?

Resign, Retire, Renounce
What Should Generals Do If Bush Orders A Foolish Attack On Iran?
Fred Kaplan for Slate

From the Joint Chiefs of Staff to U.S. Central Command, most of America's military leaders have expressed wariness about, if not outright opposition to, the idea of bombing Iran.

So, if President George W. Bush starts to prepare - or actually issues the order - for an attack, what should the generals do? Disobey Rally resistance from within? Resign in protest? Retire quietly? Or salute and execute the mission?

The appropriateness of military dissent is a hot topic among senior officers these days in conferences, internal papers, and backroom discussions, all of which sets off emotional arguments and genuine soul-searching.

"What should we have done in the run-up to the war in Iraq?" the generals are asking. "What should I do the next time?" is the tacit question stirring the conscience.

Fieger's lawyers: Democrats are more corrupt than Republicans

Geoffrey Fieger's lawyers, attempting to defend him on the campaign finance violations for which he has been indicted, are still on the "it's all a conspiracy kick." They're apparently trumpeting the fact that the overwhelming majority of individuals charged with campaign finance law violations are Democrats. The idiocy of that strategy should stare them in the face. They're operating under the assumption that the Republicans are as corrupt as the Democrats but the numbers speak for themselves: the Democrats once again are making it clear that the rule of law and, more importantly, the rights of the common man to decide his or her own government are unimportant.

This shouldn't surprise anyone after the Democratic National Committee conspired to disenfranchise their primary voters in Michigan and Florida. It shouldn't surprise anyone after Barack Obama and John Edwards (among other, less relevant Democratic contenders for the nomination) went along with the disenfranchisement. Even if that wasn't enough, look at how they use the judicial system to enforce their own view of the world upon us by using extra-democratic methods or Al Gore's attempt to steal the 2000 election by violating the due-process rights of Floridians. Still further, look at the new loony-left desire to instill military dictatorship on the U.S. and prop up dictators around the world.

Back on topic, Geoffrey Fieger's lawyers need to shut up. The problem with campaign finance violations is not that he might be punished to harshly; it's that the others in the self-created, modern day aristocracy who violate the law need to be punished much more severely.

Judge digs for Fieger probe details
At issue is bid to call Bush appointees
Detroit Free Press

A federal judge in Detroit peppered a prosecutor with questions Tuesday to find out whether the investigation that resulted in the August indictment of Southfield lawyer Geoffrey Fieger on campaign finance charges were politically motivated.

U.S. District Judge Paul Borman also wanted to know why it took 75 to 80 Federal agents to raid Fieger's law office and confront 32 employees on the doorsteps after dark in November 2005.

"I'm just trying to figure out who it went down," Borman told Assistant U.S. Attorney Lynn Helland. He said he couldn't recall that many agents involved in any other raid during his 13 years on the federal bench.

"It just wasn't the big deal" that Fieger is making it out to be, Helland told Borman. He said the agents needed to simultaneously interview Fieger's staff members to prevent them from coordinating their stories as other agents seized records from Fieger's firm.

No new news: Michigan needs more money

What kills me about this is that they're looking at the gas tax increase being a fixed amount instead of a percentage. We need infrastructure and it should be funded by those who use it. The most practical and cost-effective way of doing this is by taxing gas, so I really have very little problem with an increase in gas taxes if we need to improve our infrastructure. We should also, however, consider other options: we should investigate to see if any major expressways can be privatized or if toll roads are feasible. Either way, a flat dollar amount per gallon is a poor way to handle the new tax because we'll just have the same problem 15 years from now when inflation once again reduces the amount going toward infrastructure to a tiny percentage.

$1 billion more needed for roads, group says
Coalition warns of economic impact, 12,000 lost jobs
Detroit Free Press

Cuts in spending on rad and bridge construction could cost Michigan more than 12,000 jobs over the next three years unless the state raises an additional $1 billion a year in fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees, a coalition of business, government and labor groups backing the tax hikes said Wednesday.

Without an increase, funds for road building will drop by 40% by 2009, forcing companies in the industry to relocate and layoff employees and sending ripples widely across the Michigan economy, said Mike Nystrom, vice president of the Michigan Infrastructure and Transportation Association.

"Business doesn't want to invest in a state that doesn't have infrastructure," Nystrom said, adding that an additional $1 billion in road funding is "the minimum that the state needs."

Quote of the Day

"In the debate Tuesday, [Rudy Giuliani ] turned an attack from Mitt Romney on his opposition to the line-item veto into an attack on Romney's honesty, an attack on the Clintons, and a chance to boast about his strict constructionist approach to the Constitution. In the cramped, sound-bite-only debate context, the only way he could have achieved more is if he'd done all of this while making an omelet."

- John Dickerson, writing for Slate.com

Rudy's Debating Secret
Why Giuliani Keeps Trouncing His Opponents When They Go Head To Head
Politics for Slate

The Republican presidential candidates held seven debates, and Rudy Giuliani has dominated almost every one. He does so, in part, by showing an awesome command of detail, citing facts about everything from bridge reconstruction in New York to the to the percentage decline n tax revenues when capital-gains tax rates have changed. He boasts about having studied Senate bills that the senators running in either party haven't even read. When he is asked to comment about Supreme Court rulings, his staff has to wait until he's read the opinions. He's also shown in the debates that he can take advantage of an opportune moment, making quick-witted jokes about the lightening that interrupted one of his answers or pouncing on Ron Paul when he suggested Osama Bin Laden initiated his attacks on America because of our presence in the Middle East.

Debates are artificial and phony, yet Giuliani has used them well because his stage performance reinforces his strengths. He comes off as a guy in control, bursting with snappy competence. Rudy wants you to know that he has read the brief, knows the facts, and could organize an orderly evacuation of the building if someone yelled "fire." When voters see him in command on stage, it's probable that they are reminded of his calm public face after 9/11 attacks. The strong performance also help Giuliani's argument that he can beat Hillary Clinton. She's a polished and effective debater too. He's showing he can match her.

But one secret to Giuliani's debate success is that he doesn't mind fudging all of those facts he cites. In the Tuesday debate, Giuliani asserted once again that he had passed 23 new tax cuts as New York mayor. This is an exaggeration. According to FactCheck.org and Politifact.com, he can rightly claim credit for about 14 of those cuts. One of the largest cuts for which he claims credit he initially opposed for five months before changing his position. He also claims to have added more cops in New York than he actually did and cherry-picks data to support inflated claims about the number of adoptions during his tenure. After the Tuesday debate, FactCheck.org found a host of new faulty claims.

Giuliani was also wrong, or at least oversimplifying matters, in one of his most dramatic debate moments. When Ron Paul suggested that the United States' actions in the Middle East might have motivated Bin Laden and the 9/11 attackers, Giuliani jumped on him, demanding that he withdraw such an outrageous claim. It was great theater but Paul was right, according to Bin Laden's own writings.

Giuliani doesn't need to exagerate

What's up with this? His actual record is pretty impressive. Why is he taking credit for things he didn't do when, frankly, increasing the police force by 10% while consolidating the three agencies to improve costs is impressive enough?

Cop-Counting Cop-Out
Giuliani's wrong when he claims to have added 12,000 new NYC cops while he was major.
Fact Check.org

On his Web site, Rudy Giuliani claims that he grew New York City's police force by 12,000 officers between his inauguration as mayor in January 1994 and mid-2000. That's just not true. Most of the cops he's counting - 7,100 to be exact - were already housing or transit police who were simply folded into the New York Police Department. The merger of the departments didn't decrease the number of police in the city at all.

The actual increase in the size of the force was about 3,600, or about 10 percent, during the period Giuliani pinpoints. And Giuliani doesn't mention that the cost of hiring about 3,500 of the officers was partially covered by the federal government under President Bill Clinton.

On another matter, we question Giuliani's claim that on Sept. 11, 2001, he had a new command center "up and running within half an hour" of being forced to evacuate his primary center near the World Trade Center. In his 2002 book, "Leadership," he says that "we arrived about noon" at the backup site, which was two-and-a-half hours after the evacuation.

A withdrawal not in America's or Iraq's best interests

"A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of the adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return."

-- The Iraq Study Group

These individuals are:

James A. Baker, III, and Lee H. Hamilton, Co-Chairs

Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Vernon E. Jordon, Jr., Edwin Meese III, Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb, Alan K. Simpson

I must have missed where thesewere members of the Bush Administration, trying to promulgate a fantasy. Former Democratic Representative Hamilton certianly would be surprised to hear that. Sou would former Pres. Clinton Attorney Vernon Jordan, former Pres. Clinton Advisor Leon Panetta, Former Democratic Cabinet Secretary William Perry, and Former Democratic Representative Charles Robb.

The paranoid withdrawal fantasy
Current Opinion - Salon

Dear Camille:

To end the Vietnam War fiasco, the U.S. did exactly what you are calling for in this Iraq fiasco: Get out now! We did get out in Nam and immediately, and nearly 3 million innocent souls were slaughtered by Pol Pot.

Question: Are you not even a bit concerned that another "killing fields" situation will occur, as will surely come to pass this time in much larger numbers?

Frank Baldino
New Haven, Conn.

[Camile P.] Withdrawing U.S. troops and equipment from Iraq will be a complicated and dangerous process that will take many months. But it should be launched on a massive scale immediately. Iraq's fate needs to be decided Iraqis, whose quarreling ancient tribes and factions have little motivation to compromise as long as the U.S. military is planted there to keep the peace. A democratic Iraq would be desirable in the best of all possible worlds, but it may be a desert mirage -- not worth the loss of thousands of American lives or the investment of hundreds of billions of dollars desperately needed for U.S. social services and infrastructure.

If there are parallels between Camldia in the 1970s and Iraq now (as President Bush asserted to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in August), they simply prove the folly of current U.S. policy in the Middle East. We will never know how many horrific deaths can be traced to the ruthless dictator Pol Pot (it could have been half the number you cite), but they were not always due to "slaughter" per se. Hundreds of thousands of peasants died from starvation and untreated illness in Pol Pot's madly unrealistic plan to turn Cambodia virtually overnight into an agrarian communist utopia.

Ron Paul

I attending some of the events surrounding the Republican debate yesterday in Dearborn, Michigan. I attended a meet-and-greet with Ron Paul and one with Sam Brownback. The reason to attend these particular events had to do only with expediency: they were the only ones having meet-and-greets with the public instead of private fund-raisers. What stuck out most were three things:

1. Rep. Paul really struck me as having a bit of a vacant look to him as he walked by. He walked directly by me (needing, apparently, to gently nudge me out of the way as he passed) and I was really struck the vacant look. He was probably just tired, but it was a clear differences from Senator Brownback's very energetic, purposeful gaze.
2. The Ron Paul supporters well organized. I can understand. I can understand now first hand why he does so well in things like straw polls, instant reaction surveys, and web polls. Perhaps 30% of there were Ron Paul supporters, which is notable in that less than 10% of Republicans support him. The vast majority of his supporters clearly were not students and had been brought in. I heard a couple of campaign workers talk about the Dearborn rally for Ron Paul and the follow-up rally in Ann Arbor. Apparently, there were going to be quite a number of people who'd be at both and members of the campaign were definitely helping move people.
3. Presidential candidates are ridiculously tall. On TV, Ron Paul never struck me as particularly tall. He's definitely over 6 foot and Senator Brownback is probably 6'4".

In all, it was an interesting event. It's great to see all of the candidates coming together in Michigan to discuss economics. Michigan is a bit of a caricature of the "rust belt" region, but the problems which have crippled our economy are still valid in manufacturing cities throughout the region. It's a shame that so many of the Democrats have decided to side with their national party as it disenfranchise Michigan primary voters.