-
sponsorship
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Where's my Wii? At a 7:30 AM (!) "card check" breakfast debate (podcast available here) I learned the following:
1) In the "card check" bill, if a newly unionized employer can't reach an agreement with the new union, an arbitrator will step in and impose a two-year contract. I thought Jennifer Rubin must be wrong when she said that this arbitrator would be a government employee:
That's what we are talking about here: a government official sent into a private workplace to order, in the absence of a voluntary agreement between labor and management, the employer to abide by a government-dictated contract. If this seems like an appalling intrusion into the operation of private businesses, it is.
This is far more extreme than the National Industrial Recovery Act of the New Deal, which at least allowed industries to devise their own "codes." In the case of the EFCA, the government would be in the position to directly set wages, benefits, and work rules for any business with a union agreement.
That seems like a parody of liberal Washington meddling. It's one thing for employer and union to have to abide by the decision of a mutually selected third party. It's another to have a strange bureaucrat from D.C. come and tell everyone how to run things--not just setting a minimum wage but setting wages and job categories up and down the hierarchy. I figured Rubin was being alarmist.
But it turns out Rubin is right. Or at least she might be right. The arbitration parts of the card check bill are so vaguely drawn that nobody knows who the arbitrators will be. The job appears to be delegated entirely to the Federal Mediation Service. The FMS might decide to use its own employees. It might decide to use arbitrators from the private sector selected along more traditional lines. The two breakfast debaters (Prof. Richard Epstein and attorney Anthony Segall) did seem to agree that, since thousands of arbitrators might quickly be needed for the expected explosion of mandatory arbitration, it's unlikely they would all be newly hired GS-12s. But they don't know.
2) Because arbitrators typically look to other firms in the industry when deciding what wages to award, Prof. Epstein noted, the bill would have the effect of freezing in place hierarchies and job categories both across industries and within individual firms. You want to start an innovative job structure that, say, collapses six gradations of pay and authority into one? You think workers will be happier and more productive if they're delegated authority in this more non-hierarchical arrangment? Sorry--if the union objects, then the arbitrator is likely to uphold the old regime on the grounds that that's the way it's always been done (and the way everyone else does it). A recipe for rigor mortis!
3) I have been worried that big business would sell out small business in the coming negotiations on a "compromise," watered-down "card check" bill that everyone expects. Prof. Epstein suggested that, if anything, big business is more terrified of the arbitration provisions than small business--simply because big businesses are more complicated and therefore they have a lot more to lose if an unfamiliar arbitrator suddenly steps in and starts messing around and running things. ... P.S.: But doesn't that suggest another possible sell out, in which the arbitration provisions of "card check" get dropped while the more notorious anti-secret ballot provisions stay in? I don't know. If you are Wal-Mart or Toyota I would think you'd be threatened by both provisions. 5:11 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
I'm for Geoghegan, but Sirota? In an email, David Sirota overcomes his "unease" at self-promotion and modestly campaigns for an MSNBC show (the 10:00 slot). He's doing it for "the issues"! ("[I]t would make a huge difference"). ... FYI: See here. ... 1:15 A.M.
___________________________
Don't focus on health care costs! ... 12:50 A..M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
One more point about Obama's alleged "tonal masterpiece": After the Tuesday speech I listened to the local news. The anchorwoman said Obama had reassured Americans that the end of the recession "was in sight." No. That's exactly what he didn't do. Obama describes a "difficult and uncertain" redemptive ordeal, after which "we will rebuild" and "emerge stronger than before" but fundamentally changed in some way (at least in the energy, health, and education sectors!). The historical analogies were grim:
In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry.
From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new age.
In the wake of war and depression, the G.I. Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle-class in history. [E.A.]
The implication was clearly that recovery might take years, with a trauma level of 1930s proportions. The end was not "in sight." I'm not even sure there was a "light at the end of the tunnel." And Obama might be right about that. But it would be better if he were wrong, and the economy managed a "gradual" return to growth in the second half of this year, as Fed Chairman Bernanke recently suggested--without "remaking America." Why do I get the impression that if Bernanke is right, and we avoid a redemptive New Dealish ordeal, Obama will on some level be disappointed? ...
Update: 'Who are you going to believe--me or my budget?' In Obama's budget, on the other hand, things are looking up! The recession's end is right around the corner.
[T]he administration's budget depends on optimistic projections that the economy, currently in the longest recession in a quarter-century, will come roaring back with economic growth of 3.2 percent next year and 4 percent-plus rates in the following three years, significantly higher than private economists are forecasting. [E.A.]
12:09 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The Case Against Mayor Villaraigosa: "[V]irtually every major initiative from Villaraigosa has been a dismal failure." Even among the ardent L.A. Dems I know, nobody isn't disappointed in this guy. It's amazing that he is essentially running unopposed. ... We need the L.A. Times to go broke fast so we can start other publications, with a pulse, and begin to build a New York-style political culture. ... 10:36 A.M.
___________________________
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Nate Silver: The Final Humilation!
Former genius Nate Silver's Oscar prediction record: 4 out of 6.
Fox blowhard Bill O'Reilly's Oscar prediction record: 5 out of 5.
O'Reilly says, "I am an oracle once again. But it wasn't even difficult." It was for Silver! ... P.S.: I've checked out O'Reilly's claim on NEXIS, and unfortunately it is accurate. Here is the relevant passage, from his Friday pre-Oscar show. (His secret methodology: He bet on Hollywood liberal politics.)
I believe "Slumdog" will win best picture, as it deserves.
Frank Langella should win best actor. His performance as President Nixon in "Frost-Nixon" is simply off-the-chart brilliant. But Mr. Langella was humanized Nixon, so he will lose political points from some members of the very liberal academy. That means it's between Mickey Rourke and Sean Penn. With gay marriage being a big Hollywood issue, you do the math.
Mr. Rourke, by the way, was great in "The Wrestler," but he is acting a bit strange this week here in L.A.
[runs video clip of Rourke saying "I should have been in that gay movie."]
"Check" is glad Rourke was not in "Milk."
Best actress, Kate Winslet. Best supporting actor, the late Heath Ledger. Best supporting actress, Penelope Cruz in the Woody Allen movie.
P.P.S.: O'Reilly did "predict this will be the lowest-rated Oscar telecast in history." It wasn't. ... P.P.P.S.: And ... Frank Langella? ... 10:14 P.M.
___________________________
Cincinnotus: Steven Rattner isn't just leaving his investment firm to go work for the Treasury Department on the auto bailout.** He's leaving investment banking ("after 26 fulfilling years on Wall Street") to "begin a new phase of my life in the public sector." [E.A.] Sounds like he doesn't intend for this to be his last Administration job. ... What if, you know, he succeeds and Detroit doesn't need bailing out in a year? Geithner, watch your back. ... [via Gawker]
**--where he will be either "a" lead advisor on the bailout or the lead advisor, depending on which part of the NYT's account you read and how carefully you read it. ... P.S.: He has my full support. ... 9:52 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Obama's Not-A-State-Of-the-Union Speech: a) Solid; b) No Sully? (That was probably a good call--focusing on the schoolgirl who wrote "We are not quitters" was fresher and highly effective. And her plane didn't crash! That wasn't Sullenberger's fault, but it's not the best metaphor for economic recovery.) c) Worst problem came right at the beginning, where Obama tried to link the economic crisis with failure to address long term problems in energy, health care, and education:
Nor did all of our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank. We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before. The cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform. Our children will compete for jobs in a global economy that too many of our schools do not prepare them for. And though all these challenges went unsolved, we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before.
How, exactly, did failure to find new sources of energy cause the recession? Obama could be right, but he didn't make the logical link clear. After listening, it sure still seems to me the problems begin when the housing market collapsed and the stock market sank! The people who helped produce the collapse--e.g. Jim Johnson, plus whoever had the bright idea of securitizing risky mortgages and insuring everything through AIG--are more to blame than governments that failed to invest in wind power. ... Not that Obama's three long term crises aren't really long-term crises. But they seemed unconnected to the short-term crisis--they're just things he'd (rightly) like to address. d)
I understand that when the last administration asked this Congress to provide assistance for struggling banks, Democrats and Republicans alike were infuriated by the mismanagement and results that followed. So were the American taxpayers. So was I.
'That's why I made one of the men most responsible for the last administration's plan responsible for my plan, as Treasury secretary;' e) The flabby education section was saved by one sentence:
And we will expand our commitment to charter schools.
But if you are going to build effective support for charter schools, don't you have explain why they are important? Maybe a stealth strategy will work, as the number of charter school parents grows and they become an effective lobbying force. But it's more likely that making the "hard choices" requires some negativity about the resource-gobbling education establishment that would rather charter schools went away. ...f) Obama pitched his ambitious health plans as a way to "address the crushing cost of health care." Hmm. Weren't we told that the genius of Hillary Clinton's health care plan was that it deferred the cost-reduction issue and focused on providing coverage first? I think we were! That certainly seems like the easiest way to go (in part because, if you believe health care costs are driven by expensive and useful new technologies, universal coverage will never happen if you have to control costs first). That Obama wants to reverse Hillary's order--costs first, coverage later--becomes clearer when you parse the relevant section:
It includes an historic commitment to comprehensive health care reform – a down-payment on the principle that we must have quality, affordable health care for every American. It’s a commitment that’s paid for in part by efficiencies in our system that are long overdue. [E.A.]
So "comprehensive health care reform" isn't universal coverage at all. It's a package of cost-cutting measures that precede (are a "down payment" on) a "principle" of universal coverage. Yikes. ...g) In general, the speech had its usual effect on me, only amplified this year--which was to make me hate all the senators and representative gathered in the House to unctuously pretend on camera that they're supportive of the President. They're not the people who are going to help him succeed. They are the people who are going to conspire, probably successfully, to prevent him from succeeding. That goes for Pelosi's Democratic troops--who'll oppose education and entitlement reforms, who'll oppose ending "programs that don't work," who've already polluted the stimulus with bureaucracy-building measures- as well as Boehner's troops who will just oppose. Triangulation can't come soon enough. ... 7:41 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Monday, February 23, 2009
Go Geoghegan, Beat SEIU: The liberal magazine writer's favorite Congressional candidate--former liberal magazine writer (turned labor lawyer) Tom Geoghegan--is still in the hunt in the wild, multi-candidate, low-turnout race to succeed Rahm Emanuel in Chicago's Fifth District. Geoghegan's been endorsed by everyone from James Fallows to Rick Hertzberg--and he still has a shot to win. That's in part because he's also been endorsed by influential non-eggheads like ex-Rep. Abner Mikva. ... I like Geoghegan too, not because I agree with him on most issues (though I do) but because it would be great to have him in Congress. I've known and admired him for decades. He's the opposite of a hack--a big-thinking reformer who wants to actually solve the country's problems rather than pass a few little bills and get himself reelected. He knows exactly what's wrong with conventional liberalism, even as he runs to the "left" of the field--maybe that's even the reason he runs to the left. ... He's funny. He's even elegant, in a rumpled, narrow-lapel way--so Sean Penn will be happy. ... My main dispute with Tom concerns his fierce defense of traditional American labor unionism--he supports "card check"--which is why I'm not completely distressed that his biggest obstacle seems to be the support of Andy Stern's Blagojevichist Service Employees International Union for one of his more conventional opponents, state Rep. Sara Feigenholtz. ... The S.E.I.U. is spending $250,000 in last-minute Feigenholtz ads. The election is Tuesday. The only way Geoghegan can raise money to fight back at this point is on the Web. If you want, you can donate to his campaign here. ...
Update: US News' Michael Barone endorses, but stops short of fundraising. (Ethics!) He says Geoghegan is "intelligent, intellectually honest, idealistic."
He's way, way to the left of me on issues, but, hey! it's a heavily Democratic district, and it would be helpful to have an intellectually honest Democrat in the not intellectually very venturesome House Democratic Caucus.
11:00 P.M.
___________________________
Sometimes you have to sell your old car to buy a new one: Robert Kuttner argues
a) there's no need to cut Social Security because "Social Security's accounts are actually near long-term balance." Let's assume that's right (though last time I looked, the accepted liberal "fix" for Social Security, co-authored by current OMB chief Peter Orszag, was more unpleasant than I'd thought). Kuttner also says that
b) what we really need to do is establish "comprehensive universal health insurance." Assume that's right too.
What I don't understand is why Kuttner assumes that (a) and (b) don't have anything to do with each other. Universal health insurance will be expensive. Why can't we get some of the expense by cutting into Social Security--especially Social Security for the affluent? Just because Social Security might be in "near" balance doesn't mean that it's in a watertight compartment sealed off from the rest of the budget. Money is fungible. If liberals can save a few hundred billion from the Social Security pot and use it to fill up their new, much-needed universal health insurance pot, that might be a good thing to do. It's the sort of thing responsible governments, like responsible households, are supposed to do. Why should it be off the table? .... P.S.: I'm not saying we should cut Social Security now. But that's because we'll cut it much more sharply later, if Dems (as I hope) get their health insurance wish, at which point even people like Kuttner will be desperate for any and all forms of revenue. ... 10:15 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Sunday, February 22, 2009
No Thuggery Required: Saturday we had a contentious vote in my neighborhood on the issue of permit parking. Most of my very nice neighbors were all for the restriction, which seems mainly aimed at otherwise homeless people who live in their RVs, which they park on the streets. If we had to vote in public, I would probably have had to support my neighbors. But the vote was by secret ballot and .... let's just say that the secret ballot makes a big difference when it comes to resisting even benign, non-thuggish, peer pressure. Which, of course, is why unions want to be able to avoid it and rely on a public "card check." Intimidation isn't required for the results of a public ballot to diverge from a secret ballot (and from the true choice of the voters). All that's required is a desire not to tell your pro-union buddy to his face that you think he's wrong. ...
Update: My neighbors won. ... 11:07 P.M.
___________________________
Time for a Final Showdown With Switzerland! A close friend of mine had some money deposited in a Swiss bank that merged with UBS. A little while after the merger, when she asked for her usual annual statement she was told that UBS didn't like to send out statements to American clients. Why? If they sent her one the IRS would find out she had an account and she'd have to report her income. She said she had every intention of reporting her income to the IRS, as she'd been doing for decades, and would they please send the statement. After several transatlantic calls, she finally got one out of them. But it was pretty clear what UBS was about. If Swiss politicians want to stage an international confrontation to defend its practices, that sounds like a confrontation worth having. ...
Update: Tom Edsall has more on UBS' tactics and a possible Obama administration campaign against legal tax shelters. ... 10:56 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Was that a light stand making that sickening "thud" in the background--or was it Nate Silver's aura of infallibility crashing to the ground? Where is your Taraji P. Henson now, Mr. Right-to-the-Last-Decimal? Ha ha ha. You are one of us now. ... Recommended: Rob Long's twitter commentary. Not for the Denby-minded! ... Also the authoritative Kim Masters. ... And XX. ... And darlakbrown. ...and scottimmergut. ... Update: Silver actually missed two out of six. (His "logistic regression" also favored Mickey Rourke.) The categories he picked in were not tough ones (e.g., Heath Ledger). Back to baseball for you! ... 6:11 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Saturday, Februay 21, 2009
Will Taraji P. Henson destroy Nate Silver? Oscar oddsmakers say yes! ... But given Silver's track record, the odds on Henson (you can currently get 19-1) look mighty attractive. ... Except, you know, she wasn't that good in the movie. ... There is also Dana Stevens' methodological objection:
The Academy's voting practices don't involve "logistic regression"; they involve actual regression, the acting out of primitive, unmappable affects like grief, pity, fear, and desire.
8:10 P.M.
___________________________
Isn't the border fence shovel ready? ... [Thks. to reader C.W.] 8:03 P.M.
___________________________
"The Best We Can Do": A few days ago I said there were only four GM cars I would consider buying. That was before I bought the most recent Consumer Reports guide, in which the Cadillac CTS and the GMC Acadia --about which GM VP Lutz said, "This is the best we can do"--get below-average reliability ratings. That leaves two, the Chevy Malibu and Pontiac G8 (and one of those two, the G8, is too new for reliability reports). ... The case for further subsidizing GM would seem to be almost entirely macroeconomic (i.e., bankruptcy now would deepen the recession). ... 7:32 P.M.
___________________________
Don't Answer That, Part XVIII: Mark Hemingway, among others, is charging that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "is angling for a 'big chunk"' of the stimulus bill's $8 billion for high-speed rail "for his pet project," a magnetic-levitation train between L.A. and Las Vegas. ... Am I crazy--I sort of like the idea of a high-speed rail line to Vegas. It wouldn't destroy existing communities--the route is mostly desert. It seems like a good full scale test bed for new technology that, if it works, can later be applied in more densely-populated, harder-to-build-in areas. And it would open up the route for development. (Don't worry about an office park boom destroying the fragile Barstow ecology. Barstow is already a mess.) .. As Keynesian boondoggles go, this seems like a promising one (although, Yglesias notes, there are other possible routes) ... 7:07 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Thursday, February 19, 2009
1) Paul Ingrassia implictly raises one of the essential questions in the GM and Chrysler bailouts, which is why should taxpayers fork over $30 billion so that UAW workers can continue to make $28 an hour as opposed to, say, $26 an hour or even $24 an hour, which would still be a reasonable wage these days? Or so that GM's bondholders don't have to take a bigger loss? It's not as if other workers--even at companies way more successful than GM broke--aren't taking big wage cuts. ...
2) Here's a suggestion that must have been made recently, though I'm stealing it from my old Washington Monthly boss Charles Peters: It's pretty clear that a bankruptcy judge could produce the necessary sacrifices (from both unions and creditors)much more efficiently than a political bailout process--where all the parties seem to be giving up just enough to talk the pols into giving them the next round of money, not enough to make their companies viable. Bankruptcy is what saved the steel industry, we're told, after years of bailouts didn't.
The problem is that cars are not like steel, in that consumers buy cars. Once they think GM is bankrupt, its sales may (as the company's COO says) "fall off a cliff." Ingrassia thinks consumers have already grokked the depth of GM's troubles, so the sales-chart damage has been done, but I'm not so sure. There's a difference between being bailed out and being "bankrupt." At the same time, GM is clearly using this consumer fear of bankruptcy--along with its size--to in effect blackmail the government into giving it another $17B. So here's the idea: Set up a special institution, a court maybe, with all the powers of the bankruptcy court, but don't call it bankruptcy. Call it "Restructuring of Core Industries." Restrict it to those companies that are too big to fail. (The others, by definition, can be left to fail.) The current too-little-too-late tooth-pulling agony should then end, because the head of ROCI, or whatever its called, would terrorize unions and creditors into making quick, sufficient concessions--or else he'd have the power to order those concessions himself, just like a bankruptcy judge. At the same time, consumers would be less spooked. And the government could escape the current prospect of subsidies as far as the eye can see.
I would think the chance of GM being around to service your new TrailBlazer would be a lot greater under this procedure than under the current Let's-Lean-On-Obama ritual. ...
3) GOP point man Sen. Corker seems bizarrely soft on the bailout in this appearance with Larry Kudlow. ...
4) Revealing that E.J. Dionne refers to the "plan to salvage the unionized car companies." Does Dionne ask why it's only the unionized car companies that need salvaging? Or is he hinting at something else--after all, he talks about his new Malibu, which he says he'll drive with pride "as long as GM stays unionized." Is the idea that GM wouldn't be worth bailing out, in Dionne's eyes, if it weren't unionized? Are all his policy positions driven by vestigial pro-union sentimentality? [His policy position here is that there are no "easy" answers--ed Good point. Might as well give Steve Earle the column. At least you could dance to it.] ...
5) Why is GM's Henderson saying that $30B is all the company will need--really, he means it, though there are "no guarantees"? Could it have something to do with polls such as this one, showing 64/24 opposition to further bailout loans? . I would think the process by which GM and the UAW adjust to the reality of voter sentiment has only begun. ...
6) "Nor can the UAW be blamed for Saturn ..." Oh, yeah? Ingrassia, no labor sentimentalist, may be a bit too quick to exonerate GM's union in the death of its once-promising Saturn division. After all, as Dionne accurately writes, the Saturn was
an excellent car made by members of the United Auto Workers under rules giving employees more responsibility. The approach was supposed to mark a new departure in the way General Motors made cars.
And why didn't it? Could it have been that Saturn's success--in a plant where workers traded inflexible work rules for responsibility and job satisfaction--threatened the hide-bound Wagner Act rulebooks of all of the UAW's other locals? So that the UAW pressured Saturn to build cars outside of its Spring Hill, Tennessee home--while it supported GM in systematically starving Saturn of new products? Just asking! ... 7:11 P.M.
__________________________
-
sponsorship
Brian Faughnan smells a Revist-NAFTA-for-Immigration-Amnesty deal in Mexican President Calderon's relatively muted reaction to Obama's plan for labor and environmental modifications to the trade accord. ... P.S.: "Card Check, Welfare and Amnesty." Is that the platform for 2010? Rush is ready. ... 12:33 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Have House "Blue Dog" Democrats really prevailed on their leadership to delay a vote on labor's "card check" bill until after any Senate vote? If so, as Jennifer Rubin argues, isn't the House in effect really saying "they don’t want to vote on this ever." The Senate needs 60 votes to break a filibuster and pass the bill (which would effectively end the requirement for secret ballots in union recognition elections). And right now it's not at all clear those 60 votes will materialize. ... We'll see how labor spins Ambinder on this one. ... P.S.: Actually, I think the likely labor spin is here (first comment) ...
Update--"Piece of Junk'! Faughnan and Bowers find supporting evidence for Blue Dog's anti-card check worries. From Arkansas News:
Last week, at the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce headquarters, chamber officials briefed nearly 100 members of a coalition opposing card check about their efforts to lobby members of Arkansas congressional delegation.
According to individuals who attended the meeting, they were encouraged by what they heard, especially what was relayed to them regarding conversations between chamber officials and 1st District Congressman Marion Berry, a Democrat.
An official informed the group that Berry recently had told him that he thought the bill was a piece of junk and that he only voted for it because he knew then-President Bush would veto it.
The official then told the group that Berry recounted to him a recent discussion the Blue Dogs had with House Democratic leadership. According to Berry, the Blue Dogs told House leadership that card check wasn’t a free vote for them anymore and that their constituents were giving them a lot of grief over the issue. [E.A.]
Another kf source is more skeptical of the idea that the Blue Dogs have talked the House leadership into anything. ("Pure B.S.") .... But pro-card checker Bowers worries they have the votes. ("We need a Blue Dog proof majority. Right now, Republicans plus Blue Dogs control 228 seats in the House, and that number will rise to 229 after the special election in NY-20.") ... 4:06 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Tumblr Goes Denby: The founder and CEO of Tumblr, David Karp, announced that five blogs in his "community" critical of Web personality Julia Allison have been taken down because they were "derogatory" and constituted "harrassment." ... I suppose Karp can kick whomever he wants off his site--but that's exactly what seems to be going on here. It certainly smells like a CEO protecting a friend. (Allison says "I haven't asked David to take down any sites in a long time." Oh.) ... Note to tumblr bloggers Alex Balk and Elizabeth Spiers: Hope you stay on Karp's good side! .... P.S.: Allison sees Karp's action as applicable, not just to his "community," but the entire Internet:.
There is no reason the internet should remain in its current Hobbesian state of nature. Someone needs to begin the long process of setting basic standards of decency online.
This is an argument so new it's already old. But Allison is a peculiarly unappealing complainant, having attempted to build a career out of exposing her private life in public on the web. Now people shouldn't be able to criticize her with the same vigor with which she promotes herself? ... P.S.: Here's a google cache for one of the sites tumblr deleted, Reblogging Julia. Seems pretty tame--at least by Atlantic standards! ... P.P.S.: Doesn't Allison understand that the only thing worse than having five sites devoted to trashing you is having four sites devoted to trashing you? [I think she does!-ed You're not suggesting she'll be happy to see this item too? This item is vicious! She'll never recover from this item!] ...
Update: Karp ("This is really upsetting") has now caved and abandoned his plan to rid his "community" of negativity."[W]e’ve decided to restore the accounts affected."... My theory: Spiers got to him. .. Or Sklar. ... Or this survey. ... Alternate theory: He just wanted some of that free Facebook F___-up publicity. ... Problem with alternate theory: If he's that calculating, he does a really good job of faking immature angst. ... Plus he's done real damage and made his company look like a high-school operation. ... 11:26 P.M.
____________________________
Gran Salida Requires Gran Fudging? Michael Barone notes how the relative decline in Hispanic immigration will increase the pressure on Latino leaders to make up for the losses in the 2010 census by getting the government to use statistical "sampling" techniques. ... The problem, of course, is that they may be sampling Latinos who are no longer there. ... Update: Mark Krikorian notes it's primarily illegal immigrant Hispanics whose numbers are dwindling--but they apparently still count when it comes to drawing district lines and allocating Congressional seats. Krikorian worries that "the reduction of enforcement which Obama and Napolitano will order will likely stop the slide in the illegal population and maybe even allow it to start increasing again," especially "in the period immediately leading up to the census count." ... 10:40 P.M.
___________________________
So Obama's going to try to reopen the stimulus bill on the much-debated banker pay cap provisions** but not on the little-debated welfare-expanding provisions? That would not be the "populist" choice, in either case. ...
**--sorry, I mean he "looks forward to working with Congress to responsibly address this issue." .... 10:32 P.M.
_________________________
-
sponsorship
Kooky Kabuki? From NYT:
The administration official said the president was reserving for himself any decision on the viability of G.M. and Chrysler.
Hmmm. Isn't this the sort of decision that plays out better if the president at least pretends that some cabinet or other official is making the basic decision? Does Obama really want to pull the plug on G.M. and Chrysler himself? The time-tested way of doing this, you'd think, would be to have some hard-ass Larry Summers type recommend cutting off federal subsidies. They take the heat. Then Obama can intervene to soften the blow a bit. ... Unless, that is, Obama has no intention of cutting off subsidies. ... But even if that's just a threat designed to prod the cost-cutting negoatiations, why make it a less credible threat? ... 2:28 A.M.
___________________________
News Flash: Mayors Want More Federal Money! Sorry, they want a new "urban policy agenda." This was the most depressing story of the day. Is there even a hint that all the ongoing bleating for subsidies will be accompanied by any reforms? Or will it simply be more money to maintain existing (unionized) civil service bureaucracies? ... P.S.: Of course, if the new stimulus welfare money helps rebuild the underclass, that will give big city mayors even more guilt-trip power, no? It's all beginning to make sense. ... P.P.S.: "Recovery Zone" bonds! I'm deeply suspicious. Sounds like a Carter-era Washington Monthly waste story waiting to happen. ... ... 2:06 A.M.
___________________________
Sorry, Steve. Back to Maxim! Reporter-turned-financier Steve Rattner won't be the car czar after all. There will be no car czar. ... Was Rattner ever really actually under consideration for this job, or is he just well connected at the New York Times and other media organizations? ... The Times' account of his non-ascension has a plaintive tone ("It was not clear why the administration changed course or whether Mr. Rattner would have a role on the task force."). ... [Wasn't he your candidate?--ed. I was working this one from both ends. You have a problem?] ...1:11 A.M.
___________________________
Nate Silver Infallibility Watch: Hah! The whiz who predicted the election correctly goes fish-out-of-water and uses his "logistical regression" to predict the Oscars. Please, let him be wrong. ... P.S.: Taraji P. Henson is his Achilles heel! (He picks her for Supporting Actress.) The rest of the awards are actually pretty cut-and-dried. Most people in the U.S. with indoor plumbing could get them right. ... 12:53 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Monday, February 16, 2009
Retiring GM product chief Bob Lutz talks about how awful the Saturn Ion and last-generation Chevy Malibu were. These are cars that were in the pipeline when Lutz joined GM. The trouble is, Lutz has been there for 7 years and GM still only makes about four cars I'd even consider buying (Cadillac CTS, new Chevy Malibu, Pontiac G8, GMC Acadia). ... Maybe also the Pontiac Vibe, which is really a Toyota Matrix. ... P.S.: Lutz was responsible for at least one beautiful and affordable automobile, the Pontiac Solstice. Too bad he couldn't make it reliable. ... P.P.S.: He also gets points for pushing the forthcoming Chevy Volt electric car, assuming it works. ... P.P.P.S.: LAT's Dan Neil has Lutz's number, which is that he is only refreshingly candid in retrospect. He always praises GM's upcoming products and current executives. At the moment he's "shilling wildly for the new [Buick] LaCrosse." Guess he's still on the payroll. ... 12:08 A.M.
___________________________
Sad to see a once-vibrant Web site fall silent . ... Update: kf gets results. ... 12:02 A.M.
___________________________.
-
sponsorship
Sunday, February 15, 2009
1) A Times of London story highlights worries about the Thermidorian welfare reform backsliding in the stimulus bill. Sample:
Douglas Besharov, author of a big study on welfare reform, said the stimulus bill passed by Congress and the Senate in separate votes on Friday would "unravel" most of the 1996 reforms that led to a 65% reduction in welfare caseloads and prompted the British and several other governments to consider similar measures.
2) I get an "Even ... liberal blogger" cite. Hahaha. Take that, Even the Liberal New Republic.
3) But the reference to liberalism isn't irrelevant, because the now-undermined welfare reform was the key to rebuilding confidence in (liberal) affirmative government. As Bill Clinton recognized, voters may well have been willing to let government spend, but they didn't trust old style liberals not to spend in actively destructive ways, like subsidizing an isolated underclass of non-working single mothers with a no-strings cash dole. It's a 75-25 values issue. Work yes. Welfare no. Even if welfare spending was only a tiny portion of the liberals' spending agenda, it poisoned the rest of it. Only when Clinton's New Democrats put an ostentatious "time limit" on welfare and required work did they regain the public confidence necessary to increase other kinds of spending (on work-related poverty-fighting benefits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, day care and Social Security, for example.)
A reemerging "welfare" issue is a potential killer, in other words, for Obama's big remaining plans, especially health care. If Dems seem determined to reinstate dependency--or at the least blind to the dangers of dependency--voters aren't going to trust them to spend trillions on universal health insurance and fortified pensions. It's hard to believe Obama doesn't realize this.
4) If not, he may soon. I don't think the debate about welfare has been settled by the stimulus' bill's passage. I think it has just begun. I'm not saying this in a morale-maintaining way--"this fight is not over," "Where do we go from here," etc." I mean that, in fact, there has so far been no debate about welfare the way there has been a debate about pork and Keynesian spending. Before the stimulus bill passed, its welfare provisions were hardly mentioned in the NYT and WaPo. They were just bubbling up from The Atlantic's 's website to a Newsday blog last Friday, as Congress was voting.
Now that the bill has safely passed, even the liberal MSM may feel the obligation to mention them in public. Maybe even in actual print. Reporters have to cover something. More on pork? Welfare seems fresher.
5) In any case, the rump Congressional GOP and talk radio conservatives can force their hand. Why should opponents of the welfare-expanding provisions stop harping on them? Has Obama been asked about his welfare un-reform at a press conference yet? I don't think so. He will have more press conferences. It won't be an easy question to answer. (Reporters could also ask his HHS secretary ... Oh wait. Never mind.)
Welfare is a liberal sore spot that, if Republicans play it right, could become a bleeding open wound for the administration. Voters probably thought they'd settled the dole-vs.-work issue back in 1996. Obama will be fulfilling the crude GOP stereotype of his party if he even waffles on reopening it.
Remember that Newt Gingirch rode the welfare issue to power after haranguing about "the liberal welfare state" for a few election cycles. The new welfare debate, if it happens, won't necessarily be that prolonged. The main question is whether the Administration can effectively paper over the meaning of what's in the stimulus. If not, Congress is still in session. It seems to me there is a real chance for Republicans to get it to "revisit" that part of the bill, as they say in Washington. Obama may decide he needs to excise the most poisonous part of the stimulus to save the rest of his New New Deal.
P.S.: No, the stimulus bill doesn't fully unravel welfare reform--after 1996, welfare is no longer an individual "entitlement," for one thing (a term of art that triggered a whole slew of court-enforced rights). The time limits and work requirements are still at least formally in place. States can still do what they want, in theory, within much broader limits than under the old AFDC program. Many states, with little money to spare, may still refuse to try to expand their caseloads (even if they now have an 80% federal subsidy to do it). A debate on the issue might, in fact, help ensure that states don't go crazy and recreate the bloated and socially disastrous welfare caseloads of the three decades before 1996.
More important, the debate would stop the Money Liberals in the Washington "antipoverty community"--e.g., Peter Edelman and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities crowd-- before they can complete the rest of their agenda, which does involve unraveling welfare reform (eliminating work requirements, for example). Preserving Clinton's biggest domestic achievement isn't something you should want "even" if you're a liberal who believes in affirmative government. It's something you should want especially if you're a liberal who believes in affirmative government. 3:20 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Friday, February 13, 2009
MSM (in the form of Newsday) only now just waking up to the welfare-expanding, work-relaxing clauses hidden in the stimulus bill. ... It's not like it's the day of the vote. ... Newsday was tipped off by Ambinder's page, apparently. ... A couple more weeks of debate and, who knows, maybe the story would filter up to the New York Times (though it would still have to get past the paper's "meddling" editors.**). ... [Thanks to reader S.]
**-- "Every hour, a new set of instructions on what the story should say came from New York, believe it or not."--Dean Baquet. ... 3:33 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Marc Ambinder is now onto the stimulus' "get-more-people-on-welfare" provisions, even if nobody else is. He offers a summary of the issue and then a Dem response (even though his summary included Dem responses). A few points.
1) Ambinder writes
a number of conservatives and even liberals have written to me wondering why the GOP isn't making more of a fuss about this. The answers are fairly simple: they want to avoid being seen as poor-people bashers, they know that Americans still associate welfare with minorities, and there are different sensitivities they must consider when making political claims about the priorities of the first black president. [E.A.]
If Republicans are unwilling to defend work over welfare because we have a black president(!), they might as well all retire en masse now. Hard to believe even GOP consultants are dumb enough to give this advice.
2) See, the MSM doesn't care! Ambinder's anonymous Dem responder argues
A pretty clear lesson of the four-year long welfare reauthorization debate was that there wasn't much political juice left in the issue -- didn't exactly see it on page one much, did you? [E.A.]
Hmm. Maybe that's because the reauthorization debate didn't threaten to roll back reform, and the caseloads were down. Now a) the Dems are starting to roll back reform, in order to encourage states to b) get caseloads back up. ... And there's something fallacious (i.e. circular) about a liberal Dem citing MSM coverage as if the New York Times was an infallible oracle of the people, as opposed to an infallible oracle of liberal Dems. This is what you see when you look up "cocooning" in the dictionary! ...
3) Ambinder's anonymous Democrat says his party has always been suspicious of the "caseload reduction credit," fearing that states will just push people off the rolls in order to get the credit (whether or not those recipients find jobs).
Why exactly should a state get credit towards the work participation standards just because they have fewer people on the caseload? The evidence is pretty clear that it's not like 100% of people who leave welfare get jobs
A fair point--except that in this case it's the Dems who are preserving the caseload reduction credit. They don't want states to have to meet the "work participation standards" (i.e. make recipients work or train) so they've written the bill to let them to wriggle out of them using the "reduction" credit even when, as Dems intend, their caseloads start expanding. ... P.S.: As with "card check," Ambinder is a bit off on the details, in a spun-by-Dem-sources direction. He writes, confusingly,
States get "casework reduction credits" for the number of people they move off of the rolls; these credits help states meet a mandated 50% threshold for their TANF recipients to perform some type of work-related activity. The idea here -- if I'm reading the bill correctly -- is that the caseload reduction credit would effectively be "updated" to account for economic emergencies. State would get more welfare funds without letting their threshold dip below 50%.
But the effect of the Dem stimulus' "caseload reduction" finagling is precisely to let the mandated "work participation" standards dip below 50% of the caseload. Example: Suppose a state's caseload was 100 in 2005. Then it dropped to 85 in 2007 and 80 in 2008 before rising to 90 in 2009 and (thanks to the stimulus' new federal incentives for caseload expansion) 110 in 2010. The stimulus bill lets states pretend that the caseload has stayed at 80, giving them a "reduction credit" of 20% from the 2005 baseline. This credit is deducted, point by point, from the 50% "work participation" requirement--meaning that our hypothetical state would only have to get 30% of its recipients into work or training activities. For the other 70%, it's "come on down and get your cash--and stick around since the feds are now paying most of the bill."
4) Ambinder says
Democrats respond, forcefully, that in ordinary recessions, unemployment benefits might tide families over, but during a mini-depression, there are no jobs to push welfare recipients into.
That's true, in at least some cases--though DeParle reports that some state administrators say there are still jobs of the type welfare recipients typically take. But lack of jobs isn't a reason to loosen work requirements. It's a reason for the government to provide the jobs. Have the Dems never heard of "workfare"? Give recipients useful community service work, and if they do the work then they get the cash. Simple. They can hold their heads up.
Of course, Dems have heard of workfare--and they know that AFSCME hates workfare (fearing ex-recipients will do their jobs for less). But AFSCME is pushing on an open door. Money Liberals don't really need to be pressured into relaxing work requirements. They've never liked work requirements, including "workfare," and are always looking for an excuse to say "It's OK to come back on the dole."
And the "mini-depression" is certainly no reason recipients can't be required to train (or if necessary go to school and get their GEDs).
P.P.S.: Stimulus welfare provisions a potential issue in the fight over Gillibrand's seat? We'll see about that juice. .. 12:58 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Video #2: Senator Harry Reid, you're facing a tough reelection fight. This vid's for you! ... 9:45 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Democrats down to the bare-minimum 60 votes on the stimulus in the Senate? ... P.S.: Do House Dems really think that drawing the process out, by letting the Senate GOPs filibuster, will win it for them? From The Hill:
“Make them filibuster” has been a rallying cry of rank-and-file Democrats all week, who say the strategy would portray Republicans as obstructionists and ultimately lead to legislation that better reflects the interests of the party.
Hmm. Filibustering Republicans would have a lot to talk about! My guess is the longer the bill stays un-passed, the more sordid details will come out and the greater the chance that it will be pecked to death. House Dems are deluded cocooning. ... 1:45 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Thursday, February 12, 2009
That was fast: 1) First video attacking the welfare-expanding provisions hidden in the stimulus package, from 24th State. Pointed and danceable! But not an attack ad directed at a specific, vulnerable Dem who voted for the bill. That's what we want. In my neck of the woods a vulnerable incumbent might be Jane Harman, for example. But you could pick any of Rahm's 2006 red-state recruits. Or a purplish Dem Senator (Bayh, Dorgan, Lincoln). Do they want to defend against the charge that they voted to undermine Clinton's biggest domestic achievement?
2) Senator Richard Burr, Republican from North Carolina, has cited the welfare provisions when justifying his opposition to the stimulus bill in the local press:
He said he did not like some provisions, such as an extension of the Davis-Bacon act and what he calls a rollback of the 1990s welfare reform, in the bill.
The Davis-Bacon Act requires people getting federal contracts to pay a prevailing wage, which Burr said is usually interpreted as the highest wages in an area. He said the bill also hampers efforts to get people off the welfare rolls.
3) Quin Hillyer of American Spectator thinks the welfare issue is the last hope for sinking the whole package (his goal, not mine). He wants "hundreds of thousands of citizens" to flood Congressional offices with questions on the subject. Better call fast! ...
4) Congressional Democrats, in their handouts, routinely bury the welfare news (if it's mentioned at all) under more popular talk of unemployment insurance and "Making Work Pay" tax cuts. The one internal Dem flyer I've seen refers only cryptically, at the very bottom of the page, to "keeping ... Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [the basic welfare program] from being overloaded." No mention of expanding it even where it's not necessarily "overloaded" and relaxing work and training requirements. It's entirely possible many Congressional Democrats don't know how bad the bill's welfare provisions are. ..
5) Meanwhile, the silence in the NYT's news pages and in WaPo (and on the evening news) has been kind of deafening, no? Even Jason DeParle, in a piece specifically about welfare ("The 'W' Word") managed to not even mention the stimulus bill's actual welfare-expansion provision. If I were paranoid I'd say it's almost as if the MSM was in on the conspiracy! ... 9:09 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
National Review says there's "not much" Republicans can do about provisions in the stimulus intended to expand welfare caseloads and undermine the work requirements of the landmark 1996 welfare reform law. That may be true. But there is something National Review's readers--and others who'd like to defend welfare reform--can do.
During the immigration debate of 2007, an emailer suggested that one way readers might influence Congress would be to "go ahead and mash up some negative ads" on the issue and post them on You Tube. Readers responded, and some of the ads were quite good. I think they had an impact--not by swaying public opinion, but by striking fear into heart of legislators by demonstrating what they might face in their reelection campaigns if they voted for the Bush-McCain semi-amnesty bill. The bill died.
It wouldn't be hard to do the same thing with the anti-welfare-reform provisions in the stimulus bill. Again, the idea would not be to influence the public. The idea would be to directly terrify Democratic legislators worried about their reelections by giving them a taste of how their vote might play. (It helps that many politicians are generally terrified of You Tube and other new information technologies they can't control.) Obama aide Rahm Emanuel, for one, is known to be sensitive to the political potency of "wedge" issues like welfare and immigration.
As with immigration, the basic text of the ads practically writes itself: "In 1996, Congress passed the landmark. .. . Caseloads fell by 70 percent. ... Now Congressman X wants to undo that success ..." etc. But I don't have the skill or creativity to do the job of putting one of these ads together, let alone to do the job well. Some of you do.
It's probably too late. The House is scheduled to vote on the stimulus package ... er, tomorrow.** But things move fast these days! And even if the bill passes, if there is enough of a stink embarrassed (or terrified) legislators might change it. Anyway, it seems worth a shot.
If you build them, I will link.
**--I'm assuming the welfare provisions are still in the bill. [Update: They are, I'm told. $5 billion to expand welfare.] They were in both the House and Senate versions. ... My goal isn't to use the welfare issue to sink the stimulus, if that were even possible. It is to get the welfare provisions removed or reversed. Your goals may vary.
More: Why would Republicans make an issue of marsh mice when they have welfare, a proven hot button (for good reason)? Hello?. ... They could even be bipartisan about it, noting that it's Clinton's achievement that's being undermined. ... P.S.: Maybe it's no accident-- the GOPs secretly want the welfare provision to pass and hope the resulting caseload boom will be a good issue to run on in 2010. They're saving their best shot for later. But that would be unpatriotic! It would also demonstrate an uncharacteristic amount of long-term thinking. ... 11:34 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Steven Pearlstein argues that the ideal stimulus spending "is that which creates jobs and economic activity now, has big payoffs later and disappears from future budgets." The last criterion doesn't get much attention in many pro-stimulus arguments (including Pearlstein's), but it's important if you care about deficits. It's also important if you think the claim of government on the national GDP is limited, and you want there to be room for universal health insurance down the road. And, Paul Krugman even claims (for somewhat tricky technical reasons), it's important if you care about maximum stimulus, because "temporary government spending has a bigger effect"--i.e. it's better at creating new demand than spending that won't disappear from future budgets.
So if the big dispute in the stimulus conference committee was over school construction spending, where
House Democrats are pushing to have school-repair funding listed as a recurring expense; Senate Republicans want such an allocation to be a one-time-only deal.
And if as a result of the moderate GOP Senate crossovers like Susan Collins holding firm, the school construction spending will be a one-time only deal ...
Then haven't the much-criticized Senate centrists, at least on this one issue, helped produce a better stimulus bill--not just a lower-deficit stimulus bill, or a stimulus bill that leaves a bit of room for health care, but, according to Krugman, a more stimulating stimulus bill? ... Am I missing something? ... 11:06 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
I apologize for the dropped posts (now back). Slate's new blogging system is cr ... undergoing continuous improvement! Lucky I'm not the type to let that sort of thing drive me crazy ... If anyone notices any other missing posts, please let me know. ... Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan's bellicose and bullying "New Orwell" era archives magically reappear at the very moment they come in handy for him. Funny how that happens! ... 6:46 P.M.
___________________________
You mean "dollar cost averaging" is a bad idea? Experts (not just Suze Orman) have been telling me to do that for decades. Still seems smarter than trying to time the market. ... [via Gawker] 6:35 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Robert Rector and Katherine Bradley note that the anti-welfare-reform provisions in the stimulus bill aren't as bad as I'd feared. They're worse. They attempt replicate the fiscal mechanics of the old welfare (AFDC) "entitlement," but with a bigger incentive to welfare expansion:
For the first time since 1996, the federal government would begin paying states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads. Indeed, the new welfare system created by the stimulus bills is actually worse than the old AFDC program because it rewards the states more heavily to increase their caseloads. Under the stimulus bills, the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare; this matching rate is far higher than it was under AFDC.
12:58 P.M.
___________________________
If the election were held today, would Republicans retake the House? Michael Barone finds the Dem generic ballot plunge "astonishing," though he acknowledges it might be ephemeral. ... P.S.: Ramesh Ponnuru argues
Republicans would probably be better off if they spent less time pointing out the Democratic plan's flaws and more time talking up their favored economic fixes.
I dunno. If Barone is right, they're doing OK pointing out the flaws. (It's their fixes that are unappealing.) If the GOP's leaders had pointed out the Welfare Restoration provisions a little earlier, for example, they might have had a much bigger impact. ... P.P.S.: Remember when, during the Bush Social Security debate, responsible types urged Pelosi to present a Democratic alternative? She refused, and stuck to attacking the Bush plan. It worked. ... 12:52 P.M.
___________________________
Slouching toward 1994: The Corner reports that the Senate has dropped a requirement that employers who get stimulus money use the E-verify hiring system to screen out illegal workers. ... Update: But it's in the House bill, and could still be included in conference. Krikorian has more:
If Reid and Pelosi do strip the E-Verify provisions from the bill, they'd give Republicans an easy-to-explain reason to vote no: "The Democratic leadership rejected bipartisan measures to ensure that the jobs created would go only to Americans and legal immigrants, and we're not going to mortgage our great-grandchildren's future to create jobs for 300,000 illegal aliens."
Stimulus jobs for illegals! Restore welfare as we knew it! Maybe I'm wrong about where the electorate's anti-Dem hot buttons are located, but it sure seems as if Reid and Pelosi are determined to unearth them and push them. ... You almost think they're not bringing up gays in the military because it won't turn the voters sufficiently against them. ... By the time they get to "card check" in the summer they'll have rubbed the public raw, no? .. 12:39 P.M.
___________________________
It's not nice to piss off Heather Mac Donald. ... 12:36 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
As promised, here are the gory mechanics of the liberal conspiracy to expand welfare rolls through an insufficiently publicized provision in the stimulus bill:
Under the welfare reform regime established in 1996, states were basically required to engage 50% of their caseload--mainly single mothers--in some kind of "work activity" (workfare, job search, training, etc.). But there was a problem with this half-the-caseload requirement: What about would-be recipients who got off the rolls entirely when the states found jobs for them--or who were diverted into jobs before they ever signed up for welfare? Shouldn't states be able to count these "successes" toward the 50% requirement? You wouldn't want to give states an incentive to somehow keep these people on welfare in order to count them. Thus was born the "caseload reduction credit," which let states count the net decline in their caseloads against the 50% work requirement.
Fair enough. But because caseloads declined dramatically after 1996--they've gone down by two-thirds--the "caseload reduction credit" effectively absolved many states of the requirement to get half of their caseloads working. When Congress reauthorized welfare reform it updated the baseline to 2005. States could still take the credit for any reductions after that date. Many did so, as caseloads continued to fall.
Now, though, Congressional Democrats want to encourage states to expand their caseloads, offering billions of federal dollars in the "stimulus" package as an incentive to do so. But wait, if states expand their welfare caseloads as the Dems want, they'd lose the "caseload reduction credit," since their caseloads would not, in fact, have been reduced. They might then have to start enforcing the "work activity" requirements on those caseloads. Can't have that! That might discourage states from expanding welfare, for one thing, since enforcing work requirements costs money, and states have no money. And Congressional Money Liberals** never liked work requirements much in the first place. The last thing they want to do is increase them. (Their whole theory is that the many single-mom recipients are "hard-to-employ" types with "multiple problems" who basically need to be supported on the dole.) What's a good Money Liberal to do?
Answer: Rewrite the law, in the stimulus package, to let states expand their caseloads but pretend, for "caseload reduction credit" purposes, that the caseloads have declined. Specifically, the revision would allow states take the credit they would have gotten based on their caseloads in 2007 or 2008 even if their caseloads soar (as the Dems would like) in 2009 and 2010.
In other words, they can expand their caseloads but still use the now-fictitious "reduction credit" to avoid the law's work requirements.
Lots of new people on welfare. Lower work obligations. The best of both worlds for welfare-unreforming Dems.
The major difference between the House and Senate versions of this deeply troubling provision, apparently, is that the Senate allocates only $3 billion to induce states to expand their caseloads, while the House bill might spend more than twice as much.
P.S.: On bloggingheads my colleague Bob Wright routinely ridiculed me as paranoid for worrying that if Democrats got back in power they would unravel welfare reform. Even I thought I was paranoid. If only for political purposes, I figured, Dems would have to wait a few months or years before sabotaging Bill Clinton's major domestic achievement. It took them two weeks. ...
**--By "Money Liberals" I mean liberals who define the equality they seek entirely in economistic terms. Confronted with the indignity of poverty, Money Liberals seek to end it by the simple expedient of sending cash to the poor. Money Liberalism, in this definition, ignores non-material distinctions, like those between those who work and those who don't, that (in an alternative, more Clintonian view) are fundamentally bound up in our ideas of dignity and civic respect (i.e. social equality). Specifically, an able-bodied person who fails to work and relies instead on the dole can't have full respect in our society, and shouldn't. The attempt to confer equal respect by spreading around cash--as opposed to guaranteeing work, and making work pay--is doomed. (More here, esp. the exciting footnote 2 on page 192). 3:05 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Marc Ambinder tells us what he really thinks about TARP II:
Banks that need money will be given a "capital bugger" to make sure they can keep lending.
12:17 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Monday, February 9, 2009
GOP House leader John Boehner has issued an "alert" saying the stiumulus bill "undermines the 1996 welfare reforms by promoting bigger welfare rolls and expecting less work and less training on the part of government welfare recipients." Boehner cites not only the bill's fiscal reward for state caseload expansion, but also some "complicated" funny business involving "‘caseload reduction credits." (I will try to figure that out.**) ... [Tks. to R.N.]
**--Michael Tanner offers a semi-explanation. ("It also shifts the base for states caseload reduction bonuses in a way that will discourage states from holding down the growth in welfare ...") 1:41 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
I saw my friend and Slate contributor Tom Geoghegan speak in L.A. at a fundraiser for his Congressional run.** He wasn't as good as I expected. He was much better. The joy of Geoghegan is that he usually has a big interesting new theory, often a (dare I say it) contrarian one. He can be earnest, but that's soon subverted by a fleeting isn't-this-all-absurd smile. What I didn't expect is that he'd be tightly focused--paring his pitch down to three points. You can hear them here. At least two of them aren't things you'll find in the official Ambitious Dem Playbook.. ... Plus he's able to disagree with his audience in an agreeable way, a non-trivial gift ... Plus he only mentioned "card check" once. ... P.S.: Katha Pollitt got it right, I think, when she said that Geoghegan could be the next Paul Wellstone--meaning a left-liberal who's liked and respected by those to his right (i.e.,everyone). ... Reminder: Geoghegan is pro-union but he's well aware of the deficiencies of "interest group liberalism." ...
**-- I gave $250. ... 1:59 A.M.
___________________________
That welfare-expanding provision remains in the Senate stimulus compromise, alas, the language of which has now been released. (You can read it here.) I can't help but think that if even a few Republicans squawked the potentially damaging publicity might force the Dems to drop it or at least rewrite it (to fund hard hit states, for example, whether or not they expand their welfare caseloads). ... Update: The New York Times gives the game away by explicitly calling for "rolling back work requirements" in an editorial endorsing the stimulus welfare provision. These are people who never liked welfare reform's work requirements in the first place. ... 1:16 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Ghosn's Revenge: According to Consumer Reports, the "Nissan Versa sedan's reliability is much below average." That always seemed shockingly bad for a small car from a major Japanese manufacturer. But the mystery is solved in the latest CR issue, which notes that the Versa is "based on a design from French carmaker Renault." Aha. Renault. Say no more. National stereotypes intact! ... 9:03 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Shouldn't Republicans be making more of a fuss about the provision in the stimulus bill--both House and Senate versions, apparently--that spends $2-3 billion to the states for "temporary welfare payments"? I initially thought Charles Hurt of the N.Y. Post was being alarmist when he suggested the provision would "drastically undo two decades of welfare reforms." The essence of the 1996 reform was ending the individual legal entitlement to AFDC (cash aid to single mothers, basically) and replacing it with state-run programs that, in theory, require recipients to enter the work force. The stimulus bill doesn't rip up that basic deal, as I understand it. But it is part of a larger liberal campaign** to use the recession to weaken work requirements and let millions of non-working single mothers back on the welfare rolls. Specifically, it would apparently reward states that expand their welfare caseloads--even if the increase is only the product of loosened work requirements rather than a worsening local economy.
Nothing wrong with helping states avoid anti-stimulating cuts in a recession. Nothing wrong with targeting money to the poorest, who are most likely to spend it quickly. But why use the aid specifically to encourage expansion of welfare? This isn't "welfare" as only conservative Republicans would define it--i.e. any means-tested assistance. This is welfare as everyone would define it--cash assistance to able-bodied single mothers (or fathers) who may or may not be working, as in the old, despised AFDC program. Better to use the money (and more) to create public jobs*** for these would-be recipients if private sector jobs have dried up, even if that upsets municipal employee unions (which don't want welfare recipients doing jobs their members might do). Don't revive the old AFDC principle that if you have a child, you can count on the government to take care of you with cash aid even if you don't work.
At the very least the extra aid to the states shouldn't be triggered by caseload expansion. (You could, for example, give states aid in proportion to their local unemployment rate.)
You would think this would be a potential killer issue for the GOPs--"See, the Democrats already want to undo welfare reform"--and Obama, being sensitive to the charge, might quickly back down. It's easiest to whack the camel when only its nose is in the tent, no?
More tk, as I find out more. ...
**--See, for example, Peter Edelman's comments here.
***--These could either be "workfare" jobs (required once you are receiving welfare) or last-resort WPA-style jobs (which pay people for their work without ever signing them up for welfare). ...
Update: Thanks to Rob Neppell, here is the relevant provision in the House bill, and in the pre-compromise Senate bill. The Nelson/Collins compromise language does not seem to be available yet. ... Note that the extra federal money seems clearly tied to increased welfare caseloads, not increased unemployment or poverty or other measure of need:.
A State meets the requirement of this clause for a quarter if the average monthly assistance caseload of the State for the quarter exceeds the average monthly assistance caseload of the State for the corresponding quarter in the emergency fund base year of the State.
If a state somehow succeeds at placing would-be recipients in jobs, it's out of luck under this provision. To get the extra federal money, it has to get more people on welfare (though presumably it could count "workfare" participants if it happens to have a workfare program). ....2:52 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Is anybody scared of Obama? If you're going to be an effective president, don't people have to be at least a little scared of you? At least with Bill Clinton you'd worry that you'd be audited. ... 12:02 A.M.
___________________________
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Forget Anna Wintour: kf's temporary Paris bureau chief suggests Caroline Kennedy for Ambassador to France. A good prix de consolation. Plus she speaks French fluently. And they would love her--at least initially. ... Assuming Secretary of State Holbrooke approves. ... 11:46 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
You Have to Get All the Czars to Sign Off! There aren't many respected foreign policy machers who were right on the Iraq war (no) and on the surge (yes). This is no way to treat one of them. Sounds like someone blackballed him. ... The more important question of course is whether the career diplomat they are substituting for Gen. Zinni will be as good. ... [via Atlantic Politics Channel]
Update: Michael Goldfarb fingers Holbrooke and Hillary. ... Meanwhile, Zinni says Obama had already called and congratulated him. ... Is Obama running the show? ... Correction: Foreign Policy has issued a correction, and now says it was Biden who called Zinni, not Obama. "Biden Out of Loop" is definitely more Dog-bites-mannish than "Obama Out of Loop." Still. ...
P.S.: Yes, Zinni is a press favorite. He talks to reporters and they like him. It would be contrarian to say that just means he sucks up to journalists or gives good quotes or plays himself up, but I think being a press fave actually is a positive sign. Reporters tend to have good BS detectors. Press faves who've performed well in office include Gen. Petraeus and Gov. Rendell.. ... And FDR. ... [Update via Corner] 4:00 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Andrew Sullivan writes:
In 2002, we were told, and many of us rolled over, that we had no choice but to invade Iraq. And that time was of the essence. And that inaction was far more dangerous than action.
Funny, I remember Andrew as the one doing the rolling. .... [2002 Daily Dish archives conveniently inaccessible] ... [Thks to alert kf reader BJH.] ...
Update: Readers are more resourceful than I am. Here, for example, is Andrew "rolling over" in May, 2002:
IS BUSH SURRENDERING? Dreadful news today that the president may be wavering in his intent to destroy the Iraqi regime. If true, then those of us who have supported the war on terror need to revise our assessment of this president. He told the German press yesterday that there is no plan to invade on his desk. He said it almost proudly. His military leaders, in a sign of their determination to risk nothing and achieve nothing, are now leaking to the Washington Post that they have all but scotched a serious military option in Iraq. The arguments they are using sound like they might come from a Gore administration. After all that this president has said, after all that he has asked, a reversal on this central question would be nothing short of a staggering betrayal of trust, a reversal of will and determination. Of course, there should be no peremptory, rushed or botched war. Of course, all options should be examined. But the signs are unmistakable. This president, having begun as an improvement on his father, is showing signs that he could end up as something even worse. It's time he heard from his supporters that this is a critical matter on which there can be no compromise. If he balks, it will be worse than his father's betrayal on taxes. It will be a betrayal of the very security of the American people.
3:39 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
What, exactly is the scandal said to be endangering Hilda Solis, Obama's nominee for Secretary of Labor? Solis supports "card check"--a profoundly misguided view, but her view nonetheless. As a member of Congress she presumably lobbies her colleagues to come around to her position. She is also an official in a group, American Rights at Work, that lobbies Congress to come around to the pro-"card check" position. How is that a "conflict of interest"? Seems like a confluence of interest. ... This isn't even a "why buy the cow when you're getting the milk for free" situation, which it would be if Solis had been paid to lobby for what she obviously already believed in. Solis wasn't paid. It's a more a "cow gives away milk for free, then joins group that gives away some more milk for free" situation. Who cares? Why should that be a problem? Am I missing something? ... 12:58 P.M.
___________________________
Yesterday's CW: This Daschle business stinks. He has to withdraw!
Today's CW: He sure withdrew easily. Weird.
Tomorrow's CW: Obama sure gave up on him easily. Wimp!
It's like the media's version of the Madonna/Whore complex. If you give in too quickly, they lose respect. 12:56 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
We were all just too stupid and unsophisticated to appreciate him: "BMW design boss Bangle quits auto industry." You can come out now. The long planetary aesthetic nightmare is over. He wants to make wine in Tuscany. Endlich zum Teufel! . ... Note to career obit writers: That other carmakers imitated Bangle's pretentious, overthought design "cues" did not vindicate him. It only magnified the swath of destruction to the visual landscape! ... Also: BMW sold lots of Bangle cars (though the Gehry-imitating Z4,** flopped). BMW builds the best cars in the world. Imagine how well they would have sold if they hadn't been, you know, ugly. ... Backfill: "I can't help hating Chris Bangle." He demanded that his designs be seen in their grand intellectual context. There was a reason for that! ...
**--With characteristic unpretentiousness, Bangle called the Bilbaoesque Z4 "as big a jump in terms of aesthetic value systems as there was between an Eve before the fall, where she was innocent and pure, and the sexiness that she had was an animalistic pureness that radiated out of her, and an Eve after the fall." Well, all right! Still ugly! ...
***--Raines: gone! Edwards: disgraced! Jim Johnson: radioactive! Richardson; in deep trouble! Reich: outside looking in! Burkle: National figure of fun! ... Only Toobin is left. ... [And Pinch-ed The night is young.] ... 11:50 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Daschle Out: 1) Bad precedent for Obama to get stampeded by the prissy, occasionally hysterical N.Y. Times ed board. 2) Daschle died for Geithner's sins, which seem worse in my book;** 3) Excellent Ben Smith fill on Daschle's owner patron, Leo Hindery. A big John Edwards backer, it turns out. Made his money in cable. That's two risk factors right there! ... Also this: "Hindery had set himself up in opposition to Obama's top economic advisors, many of whom were associated with The Hamilton Project, an economic think tank that was the inheritor of former Treasury Secretary Rubin's generally pro-trade position." ... 4) Somewhere, Hillary is smiling, no? ...
**--Update: And Kinsley's .... 11:18 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Monday, February 2, 2009
Press release from TheAtlantic.com on the launch of their new politics site:
The Politics Channel follows the introduction of the Business Channel, which has averaged 20,000 daily page views since its launch last this month.
20,000 daily page views! Does that impress you? I didn't think so. ... Sullivan probably gets as many hits for his "bear" posts alone! [Aren't you in danger of pissing off one of the few organizations that might conceivably hire you--ed. Nah. I don't worry about that sort of thing. I can always go blog for Pajamas Media. ... Oh, wait.] 11:00 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
'Card Check' Begins at Home: For much of today, pride of place on the Huffington Post home page--the coveted 'Huff Left' slot--was enjoyed by Robert Kuttner's piece touting the Employee Free Choice Act, the so called "card check" bill that would make it easier for unions to organize new workplaces by letting them avoid secret ballot elections if they can produce signed cards from a majority of workers. Kuttner was heartened by President Obama's "stunning declaration of support" for unions (Obama:"we know that you cannot have a strong middle class without a strong labor movement")--but he admitted the card check bill won't be easy to pass without the President's "strong personal engagement."
But wait a minute. Huffington Post doesn't need Obama, or 'card check,' to strike a mighty, demonstrative blow for organized labor. HuffPo's a powerful, left wing new media corporation--the model for future quality journalism, according to Michael Hirschorn--with dozens of non-rich, non-managerial employees, the prototypical knowledge workers of the future. Whole rooms full of them in Soho! Don't they need the level playing field that would let them leverage HuffPo's productivity gains, as (we're told) unions leveraged productivity gains in the 1950s?
It wouldn't be hard to do. A word from Arianna to her friend Andy Stern of the SEIU and I'm sure he'd do her the favor of sending over some top-notch organizers. Collecting signed cards from 30 percent of HuffPo employees should be a piece of cake, especially given what Kuttner discerns as the blessing of Obama. If there are holdouts, a raised eyebrow from Roy Sekoff should be intimidation enough.
After that, all Arianna has to do is recognize her new union and negotiate in "good faith"! I'm sure Stern wouldn't demand much--perhaps a clause saying Arianna and CEO Ken Lerer could not dismiss any employee except for "good cause," as determined by arbitration. And of course promotion by seniority as opposed to, say, diggs or hit counts or ... productivity. Nothing she won't find it easy to live with! Really won't cramp her style at all. And imagine the wave of prosperity when Jason Linkins and Sam Stein purchase new condos in a troubled real estate market with their SEIU-negotiated raises.
Then Stern can move on to the New Republic. I nominate Jonathan Chait for shop steward.
Update: In her latest post, Huffington does not seem very kindly disposed toward teachers' unions. But no doubt that's a special case! ... 10:22 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Grovel-Ready: As predicted by Heather Mac Donald, newly appointed U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand seems to have knuckled under to New York Democratic party orthodoxy on a variety of immigration issues. In particular, she appears to have endorsed the worst-of-both-worlds DREAM Act--offering 25% of "comprehensive" amnesty for illegal immigrants with 0% of "comprehensive" enforcement. ... P.S.: Kausfiles always recommends the tried-and-true Paul Kirk formulation when recanting heretical beliefs that offend powerful Dem lobbies. In 1985, Kirk, then chaiman of the D.N.C., suggested the concept of "means testing" Social Security. Within hours he had eaten his words, issuing a statement: "I was wrong. Our party ... is unalterably opposed to any cuts in Social Security benefits. I should not have mentioned the subject of means test." ... 12:36 P.M.
___________________________
Mickey's Assignment Desk: Wherein lies the greatness of Tom Daschle? Just asking! ... P.S. He's always seemed to me the model of the modern Senate Majority Leader--i.e., the 50+ prima donnas that make up a majority don't want a strong leader who might crowd their games, so they wind up with a Daschle, an amiable man who will not challenge them. ...12:11 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Sunday, February 1, 2009
What could Sen. Judd Gregg possibly do in a second-tier cabinet position--Commerce--to advance his conservative philosophy that would possibly make up for giving his ideological opponents a 60-seat majority in the Senate? Stop card check? Achieve a free trade agenda? ... Quick, name Bush's last Commerce secretary. ... Even if New Hampshire's Democratic governor angers his party by appointing a Republican to replace Gregg, will it be an anti-card-check Republican? ... Gregg could go down as the biggest sucker since Arthur Goldberg, who let Lyndon Johnson con him into giving up a lifetime Supreme Court seat to become Ambassador to the U.N. ... Update: Jennifer Rubin thinks Gregg should give the money back ..... 1:16 P.M.
___________________________