The Feld-Blog

George Bush is not a particularly dynamic president. American’s generally think he is likable, but he certainly does not command any kind of wide-based popular support, nor is he particularly persuasive. So how has Bush been able to oversee one of the greatest and most sweeping power grabs for our executive branch since George Washington? I think its because our other two branches of government cannot wake up from their lazy naps long enough to accomplish anything.

Congress has largely been blinded by partisanship. Even when Bush takes giant strides into the legislative domain – ignoring congressional laws, pushing his own legislation through congress, spurning congressional investigation – the Republican majority remains loathe to take steps against a same-party President. Calls to censure the president for breaking laws and international treaties have fallen on deaf ears in this conservative congress. Even efforts to compel hostile testimony from controversial members of the executive seems to slip by.

Normally I might remain optimistic that the Supreme Court would remedy congresses reluctance to exert their power – after all, the Supreme Court has been known to overturn laws because they unconstitutionally delegate legislative responsibilities to the executive. But alas, this too has not happened. In fact, in a few recent cases, Justice Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia has parroted conservative political talking points in their legal opinions. Clarence Thomas recently dissented in a civil rights case over Guantanamo detainees stating that rejecting military tribunals for detainees not captures in war, “sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy.” Wow. I am not quite sure that Thomas didn’t just plagiarize that from one of Bush’s speeches frantically defending GITMO.

Thankfully, Scalia and Thomas are in the minority on these cases, but the majority has remained rather toothless. The Supreme Court ruled that Bush cannot institute Martial Courts for Guantanamo detainees, but despite this opportunity to take aggressive strides for civil rights and against abusing the rights of the international community, the Supreme Court relegated their decision to trials rather than the amorphous label ‘enemy combatant,’ this president’s overly aggressive foreign policy with a penchant to ignore international accords, or congresses almost complete abdication of military and foreign policy responsibilities. This is generally akin to slap on the wrist to a stampeding heard of rhinos. It’s not going to stop or stymie anything.

Our government was created with separation of powers and checks and balances so that, in the words of James Madison “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” In other words, the success of our government is incumbent on each branch exerting the full force of their powers against each other. Congress and the Supreme Court need to wake up and fill their roles in this government.

How many times has your intuition been wrong? How many times have you ‘known’ the outcome of an event, only to be surprised by a different result? My guess is that this has happened to all of us more than once. Conservative pundits don’t seem to care that instincts can be wrong. Yesterday, Bill O’Reilly, Newt Gingrich, and Tucker Carlson wailed and moaned, berating Congressman John Murtha for something he didn’t even say.

Instincts can be tricky, but we fix this through experimentation. No matter what we think will happen, if we try it, we will actually know. This is why Progressive politicians and progressive pundits place a premium on ‘data driven policy making.’ Congressman John Murtha quoted a Pew Poll that highlighted the sorry state of America’s status in foreign public opinion. Congressman Murtha understands that it is important to understand what other people are thinking and that it is better to conduct a scientific poll rather than just guess using anecdotal evidence.

But Fox News Correspondents Bill O’Reilly and Newt Gingrich, and Conservative Political Pundit, Tucker Carlson seem not to have enough journalistic integrity to figure out what is true and what is false before they fly off the handle, impugning the reputation of a venerated elected official and war veteran. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel falsely paraphrased John Murtha, without even directly quoting him. The Drudge Report (notorious for reporting conservative propaganda without a thought to its accuracy) picked up this inaccurate quote and published it on their front page. Then O’Reilly, Gingrich and Carlson read it and without even checking to see if it was true called Murtha a danger to America, called on Congress to censure him and said that he is in the thrall of people who…have hostility toward the United States.”

Wow. Those are some harsh words from Conservative pundits who aren’t even sure what they’re talking about is true. I checked the South Florida paper to see what they said before I wrote this. I checked the transcripts of O’Reilly, Gingrich and Carlson’s programs. And I noticed that the Sun-Sentinel will be printing a retraction today or tomorrow. And I think this is important. Progressives look at data, Conservatives seem go on pure instinct. These guys wanted to believe what the Sun-Sentinel printed so they didn’t bother to check up on it. I wanted to believe that these guys are just as ridiculous as they have been in the past, but before I wrote about it, I actually made sure it was true.

This is what Americans deserve. If you want responsible, effective governance vote for the people who will actually check their information. Vote for the Progressives who value ‘data driven public policy.’ Responsibility is a value. In my opinion Progressives seem to have it. Conservatives don’t. Promises are one thing, but look at what these guys actually do.

Welcome to business school…. That’s right, my quarter in Washington DC has ended and I have turned to the flip side of the coin: studying in a business school program. As a Political Science major and having interned more than once in government and governmental think tanks, my mentors and teachers have inculcated me with one perspective on government. Political Scientists and government agents write assuming that accountability, regulation and consumer input are intrinsically valuable. Many even write under the assumption that the business sector (whether they get tax breaks or not whether they get incentives or not) is a mindless, heartless profit machine that will trample over the average American if government didn’t do something. On the flip side, economists and Business academics write under the assumption that market forces are supreme and regulation amounts to intrusion rather than accountability. Many even critique government oversight of business at any level in favor of strict implementing strictly free markets.

Obviously it is possible to over-regulate. The inefficiency of a government bureaucracy style could easily cripple many private sector businesses. On the other hand, the public has seen time and time again since the inception of large corporations that many CEOs will, in fact, heartlessly gouge the pocketbooks of unwitting Americans just to make an extra dime. They will ‘cook the books’ hide faulty or shoddy products, encourage the revolving door between managerial staff and boards of directors in order to corrupt companies’ internal managerial auditing, and even outright embezzle from customers and employees. Thus private sector business leaders and government officials and regulators must strike a balance that will bolster the American economy by encouraging successful businesses and protect the interests of the American consumers.

Business is not evil. Neither is government. Corporations represent the division of labor that allows our society to enjoy the quality of life that it does. Government represents the aggregated efforts of society to control forces that, if left unchecked, could threaten the good of society. Large corporations and businesses go hand in glove with government to produce societal good. We’ve seen how corporations left unchecked (such as Enron or Exxon-Mobile) can skim profits out of the pockets of the country. But we’ve also seen how over-regulation (such as protective tariffs on trade with other countries) can clog markets and torpedo market efficiency. Furthermore, when government and industry get too buddy-buddy (such as between the Department of Defense and no bid contracts with private defense companies), money hemorrhages from the pockets of taxpayers and the halls of congress.

So then it seems as if private Business must check and balance the Government and Government must check and balance Business. Free markets may be great in economic theory, but a world with no restrictions creates the potential for corruption. Regulation may provide accountability, but rampant regulation creates inefficiency.

Well this has been long winded, but I am fascinated by the different perspectives. Through it all however, I have come to believe that both play a vital role in the healthy survival of the lifestyle Americans at large enjoy.

Here a little dish of some good, old-fashioned ridiculous media coverage to tide you over.

Thank God Fox is "Fair and Balanced." I don't know what would have happened otherwise.

Hey All,

It's finals week again. And next week I am on a trip with no internet access. (ahh scary).
Anyway, I'm taking a two week recess from posting. Enjoy.... go read Think Progress

Well I think the US is 0 for 2 today in its foreign policy today. Hamas has officially revived its 'Death to Israel' stance launching at least 15 rockets into Israel and ending a 16-month truce. And conditions have gotten so bad at GITMO that three detainees committed suicide.

It just seems as if American policy towards terrorism is sputtering out of our government's control. This administration once thought that once the Palestinian people loosed themselves from Arafat's stubborn leadership, democratic elections would free the reasonable, moderate Palestinian population. Well.... This year, they elected a Hamas-led government who refuse to recognize Israel or disband the terrorist wing of their party. For a time, they remained relatively quiet - neither embracing the reforms many hoped the responsibility of government would force on them nor actively calling for Israel's destruction or its people. Now, though Hamas has renewed its purposeful, offensive assault on the people of Israel and its call for the destruction of the only true democracy in the MidEast.

This administration once thought - and I truly think they believed this - that they'd be able to detain suspected terrorists without abusing them, thus keeping America safer. But it has turned out, with our armed forces stretched so thinly across the globe and with a profound shortage of legal officers to oversee interrogations, GITMO has erupted in scandal. Eastern European Black sites and Abu Graib have forever marred the face of America - a face that once stood for civil rights... a face that once stood for an ideology... a face that once stood for freedom from oppression. The UN has already condemned Guantanamo. Hungerstrikes spring up so often it seems they never stop. And now conditions have gotten so bad that three 'detainees' have committed suicide.

America cannot force democracy before a country is ready for it. We cannot abuse the rights of some in an attempt to preserve the rights of others. The dedication to a high standard of ethics that America used to exhibit - the belief in inalienable rights on which our country was founded are US strengths not US weaknesses. I believe that respecting the rights we all deserve by being human is what keeps America Strong. My fear is that this administration sees respecting rights as merely an obstacle to security.

To win the war on terror, we must reclaim the moral high ground. We cannot win by sinking to the level of terrorists. Morality will be, perhaps, the most vital weapon in our war against the terrorists. But we need someone who can wield this weapon effectively. Right now... I'm not sure we have that.

I've learned more about tax philosophy in the last two or three days that I really ever wanted to. Tax philosophy you say? Yes, actually. Tax philosophy. See the Progressive community has a very specific philosophy on how people should be taxed. Taxes should be (1) Fair, (2) should reward hard work, and (3) should be comprehensible. Don't worry, there are actually very few numbers and almost no technical talk in this post.

See here is the problem: Under the Bush Administration the tax code has expanded by more than 10,000 pages. Taxes are perhaps the most pervasive institution of our government. Nearly everyone pays them and without them the government would be absolutely non-functional. Why then is it that the most fundamental element of the US government also the most complicated?

But the complexity of the code isn't just annoying, it's also substantively detrimental. Here's an example. The Earned Income Tax Credit is, believe it or not, a morality-driven tax credit. It allows the government to waive or subsidize taxes for citizens who are having trouble making ends meet even before they have to pay taxes. Well that's very nice of the government, but the EITC is so complicated that 70 percent of people who file for it have to pay someone to figure out their taxes for them. As nice as the government is trying to be, they've made the code so complicated that the poor people they are trying to help have to shell out more money for someone to figure out their taxes. Oops.

Also, conservatives tax rich people's investment income at a significantly lower rate compared with low and middle income people's wages. Why? The effect this generates is that low and middle income families often pay double the percentage of their income that high income taxpayers pay. Does that make sense to you?

Finally, there are a ton of regressive taxes on the books. The payroll tax is probably the most famous. Regressive taxes are taxes that take a larger percentage of poor people's income than they do of rich people's. Essentially these are punishments for being poor. I don't think anyone would argue that this is fair.

So the Progressive community's solution - appropriately enough - is a progressive tax. Just three tax brackets - 15%, 25% and 34.6% - and progressive with equality for all forms of income. It would actually bring in $500 million of new revenue over the next 10 years.

Fairness. Simplicity. Reform. Sounds good to me.

If you haven't gathered already from reading the rest of my blog, I often disagree with Conservatives. And yet, more often than not I understand that Conservatives and Progressives alike, usually have the best interests of the country at heart. But sometimes there are the people that feed my doubt.

Right now, Bush and Cheney are two of these people. Right now it seems like they are much more preoccupied with playing dammage control than with doing actual substantive good for this country. When the Republican Chairman of a powerful Senate Committee feels he has to threaten the administration with subpoenas just to get any kind of straight answer, it makes me doubt the sincerity of POTUS (President of the United States) and his trusty side kick VPOTUS.

Senator Arlen Specter sent this letter to Vice President Dick Cheney lamenting how uncooperative this administration has been in the congressional oversight process. And it's true. There has been practically no overisght over this administrations activities. We've seen it when congress has to find out with the public when newspapers publish investigative articles about NSA wiretapping or even Cheney shooting someone in the face.

Cheney is a Republican. Specter is a Republican. Can't we all just get along? Or short of getting along, can't this solidly, monopolistically Republican government ever share what information they have? Congressmen have security clearance. Specter, as chairman of the Judiciary committee has an especially high clearance. It's not as if they aren't allowed to see or know the information. They can discuss it in a closed hearing. They can share the info they have outside the public eye. But this administration refuses to share national Security information with the same people (Congress) who are charged with making the decision to declare war, and approve smaller military actions as well. Congress is charged with oversight and this administration is being obstructionist. Come on guys. We're all on the same team here. Let's work together ro make sure we do this right - securing our country and obeying our laws. Without both, what good is our democracy?

Ok, If you want to keep up to date,

Here are the 'official' unofficial stats
DailyKos' Home page is now reporting it, and
Christine Pelosi is doing some live blogging.

Good luck everyone and lets keep our fingers crossed.

Argh! In many cases local and state primary elections don't amount to much. Political heavyweights like Dianne Feinstein or Grey Davis mop the floor with their unknown, almost frivolous challengers. But this year is different. This year, the Westly-Angelides battle for governor may very well define the gubenatorial race against Schwarzenegger in November. And in California's 50th district, previously occupied by now convicted felon Duke Cunningham, Francine Busby and Brian Bilbray are 'duking' it out (pun certainly intended) for legitimate control of that Congressional seat.

And yet, noone is publishing exit polling; no campaign has any idea how things are going... I called Bilbray. I called Busby. I called Angelides. I called Westly. Noone knows. And may I say, its very frustrating. I know it can be difficult for Westly or Angelides to have pollsters all around the state, but the RNC just poured millions of dollars into the race for the CA-50 in the last week alone. Couldn't they have spared a thousand or two more to pay some exit pollsters. I am sitting on pins and needles here!

All we know is that there has been remarkably low turnout: about 38% of registered voters. I think this is probably a good thing. In a district where there is a 3-to-1 ratio of registered Republicans to registered Democrats, low turnout means that many of the voters who would normally turnout are disillusioned and aren't showing up. This, in turn, means that only the really vocal people are voting - and in all cases these tend to be the minority. When they're low turnout, it tends to advantage the underdog. But now I'm just grasping at straws. Someone tell me what's going on.

ARGH!!!

Even some of my most politically minded friends forgot to register or send in their absentee ballot. It never ceases to amaze me. Your vote does matter. Even if your vote wasn't going to change. Even if you think you live in a 'safe' district or a 'safe' state, getting out the vote matters. All the communications and political science research shows that very few people change their minds; elections are decided by turnout. It's not about how many heads you can turn, it's about how many of your supporters show up to vote for you.

Of course I think you should vote for Steve Westly for Governor and Francine Busby and Susan Davis for Congress (in the CA-50 and CA-53 respectively) and Yes on Prop 81 and 82. But really you should go vote no matter what your preferences or political leanings are. I truly mean that. No matter who you want to vote for, I think you should get out there and punch that ballot card... and remind all of your friends too. I'm appalled ever year at how many of my friends don't go out to vote because they don't care enough to or because they don't think their vote matters or because they forgot.

Rule #76: No Excuses; Play like a champion.

Don't forget. Go VOTE.

So I was thinking… (I know, always a dangerous activity for me)…. The Republican Party platform calls for smaller government, i.e. less government intrusion, and more personal accountability. Basically they seem to want government to do only what it needs to do, and give more autonomy to individuals. But both significant Constitutional amendments that the GOP has proposed would significantly restrict personal liberties. Think about it: The flag burning amendment (also known as the anti-free speech amendment) and the Federal marriage amendment (also known as the intolerant bigot amendment; see my post earlier this week) are designed to tell private citizens what they cannot do. In fact, besides the prohibition amendment, which if you remember was a tremendous, almost awe inspiring failure, no constitutional amendment has ever before restricted the rights of private citizens.

I’m astonished. The Framers of the Constitution were suspicious of government. They knew it was necessary, but they set up checks and balances and an elaborate constitution in order to temper the powers of government. The constitution is meant to protect the people against the government. If you look at any article, clause, or amendment (as I said, with the exception of the Prohibition), they are all designed to protect the rights of citizens against the powers of government. But what do the Republicans want to do? They want to grant the government sweeping, brutally intrusive powers to restrict your freedoms of speech and even steal the rights of millions of Americans to publicly and officially declare their love for one another and commitment to each other.

These would be unprecedentedly damaging and intrusive powers. For the party that stands for smaller government, they sure want to add a lot of new and unheard of powers. When you think about what Democrats want to do with their bigger government, pay you money so that you can retire, pay your medical bills for you, help educate you and your children, provide for the academic research that has helped to keep America on the technological edge….Maybe that kind of big government doesn’t sound so bad. It almost sounds like the ideal best friend. The republican form of big government sounds more like the drunken belligerent father who used to ground you for no good reason.

Of the 27 times we have amended our constitution, the only time we tried to restrict personal liberties, the policy ended in a miserable failure. I know that George Bush doesn’t like to read the paper, but maybe one of his staffers could read him the constitution. Maybe one of his aides can let him know what he should have learned in high school history class – that the prohibition was a miserable failure that is actually largely responsible for the creation of organized crime. Why on earth, with that knowledge, who Bush or the Republicans ever try to constitutionally restrict our ‘inalienable’ rights? Well? You tell me.

WARNING: what follows is only partially serious. If you are allergic or adverse to sarcasm, this post may not be for you. Also you must be as tall as this line to read the following post ________________________________________________

So here’s my new theory: President George Bush Conducts his public policy out of jealousy. It seems to be the only way I can explain the decisions that drove his approval ratings into the 20s or the decision to allow his ambassador to the United Nations to tell Iran, a dangerous axis-of-evil country on the verge of being a nuclear power, to “Put up or shut up.”

Here’s the nitty gritty of my theory. George Bush senior had job approval ratings that hit about 28%. George Bush junior got jealous and so he kept Rumsfeld onboard to drive the Iraqi mission into the ground until Bush juniors approval also hit about 28% or 29%.

Next, the NFL offered Jeb Bush the job of NFL commissioner. Perhaps George W. Bush said to himself “Hey! My brother’s not the only one who can draft people.” So he directed Mr. Bolton, his ambassador to the UN to aggravate one of the most dangerous leaders in the world, to force us into a war we don’t have the troops to fight – thereby necessitating a draft.

Ok… it’s a little bit funny, and it’s a little bit far-fetched. But if this isn’t the explanation for the actions above then what is?

Blake Gottesman is Special Assistant and Personal Aide to President Bush. He dropped out of Claremont McKenna College after taking classes for one year in order to take his job at the White House. He dated Jenna Bush back in high school and part of his job as personal aide includes the menial tasks like making penut butter sandwiches and babysitting the dog. Yet he just got into Harvard's Business School.

A ton of Blogs and paper have jumped on this tidbit saying that he doesn't deserve it - that making sandwiches does not prepare someone for Business School or that this is Bush's form of Affirmative Action. But I say: LEAVE THE KID ALONE! Many of my fellow progressives, eager to jump on any anti-Bush bandwagon would take the above information and say flat out that Blake doesn't deserve to get in to Harvard Business School. My response is: YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIM. So he didn't finish college? So what? If Bill Clinton had come to me in my first year of college and said, "Hey, I want you to come be my personal aide and have an office in the West Wing Right next to the oval office," I would have dropped by books in a blink and been on the next plane to DC. Most people I know would have... so give the kid a break for stopping out of college to work for the President of the United States.

As for his menial tasks, I answered phones and sorted mail and stuffed envelopes when I was working on the Hill, but I also drafted statements and speeches for my Congresswoman, did legislative research to make vote recommendations and wrote "dear Colleague" letters that ended up being signed by 5 Members of Congress and 2 Senators. And that was just on the hill. Imagine what Blake Gottesman gets to do for the President. Just to say that he does menial tasks as part of his job doesn't mean they are his whole job. Ask an executive assistant what they do for their boss. I'll bet they tell you its harder than you think. Being a personal aide is even harder. It takes a tremendous work ethic, sleepless nights and uncanny organizational skills - and for this information I am only going off my understanding of personal aides to the doctors and lawyers I know. I can't imagine what it must be like for the President.

I am not saying that Blake absolutely deserves to get into Harvard Business School. I don't know the kid. I couldn't say for sure. All I am saying is that, with the information presented, it's impossible to determine that he isn't deserving. Of course he gets a tremendous leg up by having a letter of recommendation from the President, but doesn't he deserve it for working 4 years as Bush's personal aide? Gottesman could be brilliant - Claremont is a very good school - we don't know. Maybe he was getting straight A's. It hasn't been reported. I'm not saying we need to roll out the red carpet. I am just saying stop and think about what you're saying before you say it. You probably haven't met this kid. Don't dismiss him out of hand just because he worked for George W.