Your Weekly Rush

This is a lie.

Clinton was an ultra leftist.

Until the right realizes that Clinton was a moderate democrat (admittedly with some character issues), than how can you take them seriously? I mean it seems that their whole goal is to blur the line between moderate and more radical liberalism. So that even a dollop of concern for, say, education, means you want to take kids away from parents and raise them in Stalinist orphanages.

Take this quote from Rush. "Lieberman has expressed outrage over Howard Dean's attack on the deceptively named "centrist" Democrat Leadership Council as "the Republican wing of the Democrat Party." The DLC helped Bill Clinton hide his liberalism, and win by pretending to be a "moderate." Lieberman found Dean's attack, which he now calls a joke, an insult to Clinton and his fellow DLC chairbeings. "

If Lieberman gets the nomination, as much as some Republicans are pretending to admire him, he would quickly move from being a sensible democrat with some wrong ideas to a Stalinist style stooge, working to ruin America.

Candidate Review - Health Care - Summing Up

Here is the Sum Up Page. Enjoy.

Candidate Review - Health Care - General Wesley Clark

And here is Wesley Clarks health plan. He bases it on the sort of care he got in the army, which makes sense. This is from a speech on October 28, 2003.

"One of the great benefits to the health plan I had in the Army was that it emphasized prevention at every step along the way - from annual physicals, to cholesterol screenings, to routine check-ups. The Army recognized from the start the potential of early diagnosis and prevention to lengthen lives and reduce health care costs. Frankly, when I got out of the Army, I was surprised to learn how many health plans didn't require preventive screenings of any kind.

My plan promotes prevention, diagnosis, and management of health and disease by working to ensure that all Americans have access to and incentives to use recommended preventive services that would diagnose diseases early, improve health and constrain long-term costs.

It also reorients the health system towards payment of services that have value. My plan puts its trust in independent health clinicians rather than HMO executives or pharmaceutical company marketers to conduct clinical research comparisons to help identify what works best.

It would also evaluate and promote the proper role and use of cost sharing to reduce excessive and expensive utilization - as well as to avoid "under insurance," which can be caused by excessive deductibles or co-payments. The information produced by these independent experts - who would have no monetary conflicts -- would help all purchasers of health care make informed choices about what services produce the best medical outcomes. This would protect and promote health as well as guard against wasteful and potentially harmful spending.

As we improve care, we must be certain to make it more affordable for taxpayers, enrollees, businesses, and federal, state, and local governments. To this end, I would institute competitive bidding for Medicare services; remove legal loopholes that block high quality, more affordable generic drugs from coming to the market; promote responsible malpractice reform; and aggressively pursue and eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in the system. Where we can make our health care systems more responsive to the medical and cost needs of our people, we should not hesitate to do so."

Candidate Review - Health Care - Former Governor Howard Dean

And here is Howard Dean's proposal on health care, from his website.

"First, and most important, in order to extend health coverage to every uninsured child and young adult up to age 25, we'll redefine and expand two essential federal and state programs -- Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Right now, they only offer coverage to children from lower-income families. Under my plan, we cover all kids and young adults up to age 25 -- middle income as well as lower income. This aspect of my plan will give 11.5 million more kids and young adults access to the healthcare they need.

Second, we'll give a leg up to working families struggling to afford health insurance. Adults earning up to 185% of the poverty level -- $16,613 -- will be eligible for coverage through the already existing Children Health Insurance Program. By doing this, an additional 11.8 million people will have access to the care they need.

. . . Finally, to ensure that the maximum number of American men, women and children have access to healthcare, we must address corporate responsibility. There are many corporations that could provide healthcare to their employees but choose not to. The final element of this plan is a clear, strong message to corporate America that providing health coverage is fundamental to being a good corporate citizen. I look at business tax deductions as part of a compact between American taxpayers and corporate America. We give businesses certain benefits, and expect them to live up to certain responsibilities."

Candidate Review - Health Care - Senator John Edwards

Here is John Edwards health plan, from a speech on July 28, 2003.

"First, I propose a new bargain with America's parents to make sure every child gets health insurance. If we're going to fix our broken health care system, the responsible place to start is with the greatest injustice—uninsured children.

More than a century ago, we made sure every child in America could get an education. And 60 years ago, President Harry Truman recognized a responsibility that we've not yet met. He said, "The health of American children, like their education, should be recognized as a definite public responsibility."

We can't reach that goal unless both government and parents take responsibility to put children first.

. . . I will double resources for public health clinics just like this one. I want clinics to be able to keep longer hours so they can serve working families. They need to be in convenient locations: next to schools and shopping malls so parents can use them. And I want to offer mobile clinics that come to the isolated and rural communities too often forgotten by our health care system.

Finally, I will hold insurance companies, drug companies, doctors, and lawyers responsible for keeping health care costs down. We can never meet our responsibilities to one another if the health care system isn't responsible about costs.

Something is wrong when drug companies are spending billions of dollars on advertising for their new drugs while seniors are sitting at their kitchen tables deciding what they can afford: their rent or their medication. Something is wrong when insurance companies raise premiums by 15 percent but fail to use new technologies to lower their cost—like eliminating unnecessary paperwork. "

Candidate Review - Health Care - Representative Dick Gephardt

Here is the text from an ad that Representative Gephardt is running in Iowa.

"Plan"

"When I'm president, my first week as president, I'll go to the Congress and lay aside the Bush tax cuts and I'll use those moneys to see to it that everybody is covered with health insurance in this country that can never be taken away from you. I help part time employees, full time employees. I help people who already have insurance, people who don't have insurance. I help public employees.

"I'm Dick Gephardt and I approve this message because it's time we did what's right."

Candidate Review - Health Care - Senator John Kerry

And here's John Kerry's plan, as he presented it on December 14, 2003

"In my first 100 days as President, I'll offer America a real deal on health care that starts with cutting costs and stopping skyrocketing premiums. Make no mistake, no one in this race will fight harder than I will to cover the uninsured and get to universal coverage. But there is more to the health care problem in America than covering the uninsured. The major reason Americans don't have coverage is they can't afford it. And it's not enough to get everyone covered if the whole country is still staggering under the weight of our medical bills. . . .

Here's how we'll do it. Right now, only four out of every one thousand insurance claims deal with health care costs over $50,000. Insurance companies, however, end up spending a fifth of their expenses paying for these very few cases. If they're spending that much, you can bet everyone else's premiums are going to go up. Under my plan the government will pick up most of the tab for these expensive cases - and the premiums for middle-class families will go down.

We'll also cut the fraud and waste out of the health care system. It would be one thing if every dime of that $4,000 was being spent on making Americans healthier. It's not. A quarter of the money Americans spend on health care goes to non-medical costs like paying bills and handling paperwork. If we can have banks that use computers and technology to cut down transaction costs to just a penny, we can surely have a health care system that does the same. Our money should be going to health care, not filling out forms."

Candidate Review - Health Care - Representative Dennis Kucinich

Dennis Kucinich is in favor of universal health care, and sets up his system in contrast to trillion dollar tax cuts, in a speech on September 14, 2002.

"The General Accounting Office in Washington has written "If the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs (10% to private insurers) would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage." A 7% payroll tax and a 2 percent income tax would provide the financing. Compare this with a trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy. We could put in its place a single government fund which pays all medical expenses. A single fund which provides singular protection against illness and hopelessness. A single fund which will strengthen our families and our businesses and will enable you to go back to the bargaining table to win those wage increases which are essential to a better life."

Candidate Review - Health Care - Senator Joe Lieberman

What's interesting is that health care is really on the table at this point. Even Joe Lieberman would do something if put in office. This is from a speech on September 2, 2003.

"Now how can we do all this? By moving step-by-step as we get the economy going and bring the deficit down. By smartly targeting our resources first on the people who need the help most -- children and workers who are falling through the cracks. By building on what works in the current system -- and fixing what does not. By cutting waste and improving efficiency. And by strengthening public health, wellness, and prevention programs that will deter disease, save lives, and reduce costs.

It's not magic; it is a workable solution. For example, to expand coverage, I am going to create new streamlined purchasing pools that will harness the best forces of the market and the positive power of individual choice.

Let me explain how these work. If you're a self-employed consultant, or part-time worker, or between jobs, right now you have to buy health insurance -- if you can find it -- on your own, at high rates. But my plan combines millions of people to exercise vast buying power on behalf of each of these individuals, while limiting the profits that insurance companies can make. That will help keep premiums low.

We know this will work. Why? Because these pools are based on the successful system that currently works for federal employees, who enjoy a wide range of coverage options at affordable prices."

Candidate Review - Health Care - Former Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun

I decided to do health care today and will do programs to raise revenues without raising taxes to high on Monday.

Anyway this is from Carol Moseley Braun's website.

"Everybody in this country already gets health care. If you fall out and you don't have insurance, somewhere you will be cared for. Probably in an emergency room.

It'll probably be the most expensive care you can get. And the cost will just get shifted throughout the system to other payers - many times, people pay for insurance through their employer. What I've proposed is a single-payer system that will take advantage of the fact that we are already paying 15 percent of our gross domestic product on health care, de-couple it from employment so that it's not a burden on job creation, it's not a burden on small businesses, and it doesn't come out of the payroll tax, which is the most regressive tax, to begin with. And with the revenue that we have from that, from that 15 percent, we can then afford a system much like the federal employees have under what's called FEHBP, a federal system in which you have a single payer but the administration takes place by the companies that individuals choose.

The most important part of this is that the physician or the provider and patient relationship has to be central to the health care system. Because if you do that, then you will have a dynamic in favor of quality of care and taking care of patients and people's illnesses - or wellness as well, frankly, because prevention is a big part of this. But you will have a dynamic in favor of quality that the current profit-driven system does not have."

Merry Christmas

Hope you are all having a wonderful day. Here are some comic strips. Don't tell anybody.

Sequence of Events

1. We Capture Saddam Hussein

2. Howard Dean comments that he is happy we caught saddam, but that capturing him won't really make us any safer.

3. The Right Wing Media goes nuts in their enthusiasm for proclaiming Howard Dean nuts.

4. The Department of Homeland Security announces that we are in more danger now than at any time since September 11, 2001.

5. (presumably forthcoming) The Right Wing Media acknowledges their mistake, and admits that Howard Dean's analysis of the situation was more or less correct.

This Opinion should not be Allowed

Do not read the following if you love your country. It is an opinion that you should not be allowed to have, and if the people at "Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti American Hollywood" had their way you would not be allowed to read it. I advise you to avoid the potential corruptive influence of this idea, expressed by Michael Moore.

"Remember back in March, once the war had started, how risky it was to make any anti-war comments to people you knew at work or school or, um, at awards ceremonies? One thing was for sure -- if you said anything against the war, you had BETTER follow it up immediately with this line: "BUT I SUPPORT THE TROOPS!" Failing to do that meant that you were not only unpatriotic and un-American, your dissent meant that YOU were putting our kids in danger, that YOU might be the reason they lose their lives. Dissent was only marginally tolerated IF you pledged your "support" for our soldiers.

Of course, you needed to do no such thing. Why? Because people like you have ALWAYS supported "the troops." Who are these troops? They are our poor, our working class. Most of them enlisted because it was about the only place to get a job or receive the guarantee of a college education. You, my good friends, have ALWAYS, through your good works, your contributions, your activism, your votes, SUPPORTED these very kids who come from the other side of the tracks. You NEVER need to be defensive when it comes to your "support" for the "troops" -- you are the only ones who have ALWAYS been there for them.

It is Mr. Bush and his filthy rich cronies -- whose sons and daughters will NEVER see a day in a uniform -- they are the ones who do NOT support our troops. Our soldiers joined the military and, in doing so, offered to give THEIR LIVES for US if need be. What a tremendous gift that is -- to be willing to die so that you and I don't have to! To be willing to shed their blood so that we may be free. To serve in our place, so that WE don't have to serve. What a tremendous act of selflessness and generosity! Here they are, these 18, 19, and 20-year olds, most of whom have had to suffer under an unjust economic system that is set up NOT to benefit THEM -- these kids who have lived their first 18 years in the worst parts of town, going to the most miserable schools, living in danger and learning often to go without, watching their parents struggle to get by and then be humiliated by a system that is always looking to make life harder for them by cutting their benefits, their education, their libraries, their fire and police, their future.

And then, after this miserable treatment, these young men and women, instead of coming after US to demand a more just society, they go and join the army to DEFEND us and our way of life! It boggles the mind, doesn't it? They not only deserve our thanks, they deserve a big piece of the pie that we dine on, those of us who never have to worry about taking a bullet while we fret over which Palm Pilot to buy the nephew for Christmas.

In fact, all that these kids in the army ask for in return from us is our promise that we never send them into harm's way unless it is for the DEFENSE of our nation, to protect us from being killed by "the enemy."

And that promise, my friends, has been broken. It has been broken in the worst way imaginable. We have sent them into war NOT to defend us, not to protect us, not to spare the slaughter of innocents or allies."

I don't always agree with Michael Moore, and I suspect in more peaceful times I'd agree with him even less, but it does offend me as an American that there are those who would like to silence him. I assume those people would silence me as well (assuming I were a big enough target, which I'm not. Yet.). Rather discouraging that there are people out there who want to silence all dissent and yet would attack my patriotism for disagreeing with President Bush.

Tom the Dancing Bug

Speaking of President Bush, reprinting a Tom the Dancing Bug from a couple of weeks ago. Tom the Dancing Bug, by Ruben Bolling is wonderful. One of the best strips out there.

What Makes Bush so Great

David Limbaugh writes an article today, repeating the great mantra of the conservatives about 2004, particularly now that we have Saddam Hussein. This election will be about foreign affairs, and the American people trust President Bush to do a good job. He then describes why President Bush is the best of the bunch.

"What makes President Bush the best wartime leader are his moral clarity, his decisiveness, his willingness to confront evil in the world, and his determination to place America's security and the American people's safety above his political interests. Try as they might, bluster as they will, none of the Democrats has a chance of convincing the voters they are better equipped in this department."

Did President Bush display Moral Clarity when he allowed his staff to out Valerie Plame for crass political revenge? Is he showing Moral Clarity in seeking the perpetrator of that crime?

President Bush does have Decisiveness. For example, he Decided that Tax Cuts were the answer. No matter the question posed by the economy, he prescribed one solution; Tax Cuts. Invading Iraq is another example of this Administrations ability to decide and stick to that decision no matter what the evidence supported.

President Bush's willingness to confront evil has us facing a warning from the Department of Homeland Security that Al-Queda might have trained pilots flying our airplanes.

As for his determination to put the security of the American People over his own political future, well, let's just say I'm dubious. We all remember that Mission Accomplished Flight Jacket story. Do you remember the bit about how they had to send the boat back out to sea so that President Bush would have to fly out? Of course that picture turned out to have problems, so they had to get a new one. Hence Bush's trip out to the troops on Thanksgiving. Yep, I'm sure it warmed all our hearts to see the President carrying around a prop turkey, particularly after the risky flight (although the administration did lie about running into a British Airways plane).

Anyway, remember this; this election will be all about terrorism and President Bush, for reasons passing understanding, is apparently trustworthy.

Candidate Review - The Bush Tax Cuts - Wrap Up

Once again I don't have anything from Al Sharpton or Carol Mosely Braun. Sharpton doesn't have a website as near as I can tell, and I couldn't find anything suitable from Mosely Braun.

Anyway, enjoy.

Bush and Blair

To quote that great sage Stephen Hyde, "There's nothing sadder than when two people break up. Except this time, when it's funny."

Well, apparently, President Bush has hurt Prime Minister Blair's feelings, at least according to the Sunday Mirror. "Downing Street rushed out Mr Blair's announcement before he had spoken to the American leader early last Sunday, when Mr Bush - six hours behind London - was still in bed.

Whitehall insiders confirmed that Mr Blair's decision was partly out of anger over a US veto on his proposed visit to British troops in Iraq during the Christmas holiday.

Presidential advisers in Washington wanted Mr Bush to be the sole leader to make a Christmas visit to troops in Baghdad and urged Downing Street to postpone any visit.

The US refused to co-operate on security arrangements for a Christmas visit by Mr Blair, who is going to spend the festive season with his family in the Egyptian resort of Sharm al-Sheikh."

Those lousy Brits thinking for themselves.

Candidate Review - The Bush Tax Cuts - General Wesley Clark

And we wrap up with some comments from General Wesley Clark, from a speech given October 22, 2003.

"George W. Bush told America we really could have it all: massive tax cuts for the wealthiest people; lots of spending on education; Social Security, saved for another generation; and big budget surpluses as far as the eye could see.

FDR ran on the New Deal. Harry Truman promised a Fair Deal.

George W. Bush ran on the Free Lunch.

The Free Lunch, it turns out, was a bunch of baloney.

That's what Mr. Bush campaigned on-the free lunch. He told Americans we could have everything he promised, and his administration would still run a surplus. In 1999, when Mr. Bush started running for President, he said, and I quote, "We can show Washington how to handle a budget surplus."

Unfortunately, that's one promise he kept. Just like he said he would, President Bush has frittered away the greatest budget surplus in American history.

But there were other promises Mr. Bush didn't keep. When he took office, it became clear he didn't have any plans for paying down the national debt; he didn't have any plans for saving Social Security; and he didn't have any plans to pay for his education program.

All he had was his massive tax cut. Three of them, actually. One after the other, each benefiting most those who didn't need it - the wealthiest Americans."

Some of you maybe concerned at the negative tone of these comments. I can appreciate your sentiments; however, I felt it was important to underline that Tax Cuts are seen as positive in America. Being against Tax Cuts is a bit like being against free Ice Cream. Any Democrat who takes power will have to raise taxes somehow (hopefully by cutting off some corporate loopholes, but I'm a crazy dreamer). Whoever we get in office needs to articulate why the Bush Tax Cuts are negative.

And to counterbalance this negative, possibly tomorrow but more likely on Friday we will look at the revenue generating parts of the candidates economic plans.

Candidate Review - The Bush Tax Cuts - Former Governer Howard Dean

This bit is from Howard Dean's big economic speech. Its pretty good; pity nobody is going to bother reading it.

"Republicans claim to be helping average Americans with their tax cuts.

But let's look at the facts. The average wage earner did get a few hundred dollars back. But the refund didn't come for free.

President Bush never told you about the "Bush Tax". He never mentioned that over the next six years the typical American family will take on $52,000 more in its share of the national debt. That's a part of the "Bush Tax". But there's a lot more.

Take a look at your property taxes. They probably went up. In New Hampshire, property taxes went up an average of $270 per family last year. That's part of the "Bush Tax". Or look at your state budget. Is it in crisis? In most states, it is. That's part of the "Bush Tax", too.

Getting fewer services and paying more for things like state college tuitions or special education that's the consequence of the "Bush Tax".

The "Bush Tax" is huge many times greater than most people's refunds. And it'll be here for a long time to come. Just add the "Bush Tax" to all the other things the President never told us."

Candidate Review - The Bush Tax Cuts - Senator John Edwards

Here are some extended comments by John Edwards on the effect of President Bush's Tax Cuts, from a speech given on November 12, 2002.

" . . . these challenges demanded responses, not excuses, and this administration's economic policy has been a parody of the responsibility ethic. Faced with scandals like Enron, they were dragged to the altar of reform, they accepted a large increase in SEC funding while the cameras were clicking, and then they pulled back that increase once lobbyists came running. They have ignored skyrocketing drug costs and health costs that are choking business's ability to create jobs. In the international arena, where the world looks to us for guidance, they have sent conflicting signals to countries like Brazil that have caused real harm. Finally, they have not just presided over, they have led, the fastest squandering of tax dollars in Washington's storied history of squandering.

Make no mistake: the surplus wasn't killed by accident; this was premeditated. It was a deliberate plan to shortchange most Americans' future so a very few people could get a tax cut. A supposedly conservative administration has done more than anybody else to make fiscal discipline the last priority in Washington. They didn't stop to think about expanding long-term opportunity and improving skills for the middle class. They didn't stop to think about strengthening Social Security for the retirement of the baby boom. They just threw fiscal discipline to the winds.

But fiscal discipline isn't just a nice idea - it is an absolute requirement for long-term growth. Out-of-control deficits means the government competes with you for the capital you need to innovate, expand, and create jobs. Out-of control deficits means interest rates will soar when the economy starts to pick up, dragging it right back down. Out-of-control deficits means future retirees will have to fend for themselves because we've worsened the coming Social Security crisis and spent their money. And out-of-control deficits means that America may not be at full economic strength when we have to deal with some future crisis, like 9/11 and the war on terrorism. It is time to restore fiscal discipline to Washington for good.

Now, it is impossible to talk about fiscal discipline in a serious way without addressing the $2 trillion elephant in the room. The election is over - and I hope that people in both parties will be willing to say what a very few of us have been saying for months but everyone knows is true. We have to address the Bush tax cut.

I believe we should put off the tax cut that President Bush gave to the most fortunate Americans. Whether or not we could afford it when it was originally passed, it is now clear that it is unsustainable."

Candidate Review - The Bush Tax Cuts - Representative Dick Gephardt

Here is Gephardts discussion of how the Tax Cuts hurt Americans, from a speech given April 23, 2003.

"Here's how we beat George Bush in 2004 — we simply tell the truth. This president says we need tax cuts. But his budget cut funding for children's hospitals, disease control, rural health care, and professional medical training. He even cut 11 billion dollars in funding for public and teaching hospitals — the health care providers for the majority of poor and uninsured patients. That's not health care. That's someone who couldn't care less.

We have a story to tell about George W. Bush.

Under this president, a billion dollars was cut from health care for children in poverty. And he's created a fiscal crisis in almost every state — forcing states to slash Medicaid, devastating health care programs for the poor and people with disabilities. Medicaid is the lifeline for millions of Americans. Just because George Bush is sinking the economy doesn't mean our most vulnerable should have to go down with it. We have a story to tell about George W. Bush.

George Bush passed his 'No Child Left Behind' education bill, but then cut the funding to pay for it by six billion dollars. We have a story to tell.

He's cut funding for after-school programs, teacher training, school safety. All the while he's trying to shift what few dollars are left into private schools. This president isn't leaving a child behind. He's leaving the whole class behind with them. We have a story to tell."

Candidate Review - The Bush Tax Cuts - Senator John Kerry

Here is Senator John Kerry's analysis of President Bush's handling of the economy, from a speech on August 28, 2003

"But instead of acting to secure prosperity for all or even a measure of basic fairness, George Bush has brought back the days of deficits, debt, and doubt. He has put the interests of his buddies and big shot campaign contributors ahead of the people he passes by in his motorcade. And rain or shine, surplus or deficit, George Bush has one answer for our economy: special interest tax giveaways that are unwarranted, unaffordable, and unfair.

We need action and leadership because we’re not just in a temporary downturn. America is in a fight for our economic future. As I travel this country, it is clear to me that the American people know it even if some politicians don’t. And they know that America won’t win a fight for the future with the worn-out policies of the past."

Candidate Review - The Bush Tax Cuts - Representative Dennis Kucinich

Two quotes from Representative Kucinch

From a statement by Dennis Kucinich in reaction to President Bush's speech in Ohio on Labor Day.

"The President's 'leave-no-billionaire-behind' tax cut to the wealthy will do nothing to help the average Ohioan. The recently passed tax cut will continue a trend advocated by this Administration of accelerating wealth upwards. The first 60 percent of Ohio taxpayers will only see a cut of $380 in total over the next four years. But, the richest 1% of Ohioans will be rewarded with tax cuts worth $52,240 on average over the next four years.

Already, this Administration's policies have led to cuts in spending on important domestic needs such as education, health care, veterans' benefits, child care and led to sky high state budget deficits. Ohio, alone, is facing a projected state budget deficit of $2 billion in FY '04."

From a speech to the Democratic National Committee Western Caucus

Corporations should be compelled to pay a fair share of taxes. If corporations shift profits offshore to avoid paying taxes, they should not be permitted to operate in the United States. The decrease in corporate tax responsibility is an indication of the rise of corporate power. According to the Institute for Policy Studies, after the 2002 tax cuts, corporations will pay in taxes an amount equivalent to 1.3% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. In the 1950s they paid taxes of 4.5% of the US GDP. Corporations have less regulations, pay less taxes and yet have greater influence. (Can there be any clearer indication of the urgency of full public financing of our elections?)

Candidate Review - The Bush Tax Cuts - Senator Joe Lieberman

Today we are looking at the Bush Tax Cuts. My opinion is that President Bush's Tax Cuts aren't the best thing for America, but I'm interested to see how the candidates express themselves on this issue.

The first selection is from Joe Lieberman, as you will already have guessed. From a speech on October 18, 2002 at the NASDAQ MarketSite.

"Last year, with the storm clouds of stagnation gathering and the warnings of deficits growing, President Bush rammed through a tax cut that was far more expensive than we could afford and far less effective than our economy required. In doing so, he busted the budget, locked us in a fiscal straitjacket, and limited our ability to take any other growth-spurring measures.

There's nothing wrong with tax cuts. I have supported many of them over the years and will recommend some more today. But there is something wrong when tax cuts become not a policy tool but an ideological obsession, when one kind of tax cut is reflexively treated as the cure for every economic illness, regardless of its cost or effect, and when that one kind of tax cut substitutes, as it has under President Bush, for anything resembling a genuine economic recovery or growth plan.

Does Howard Dean have a Chance?

Article at the Village Voice (which you don't need me to tell you is a liberal magazine), about how maybe Howard Dean has a shot at beating President Bush after all. If he can reposition himself to the center a bit, and show America he has some concrete plans, well, then he's got more of a shot.

"This month, Dean's campaign has moved past the single issue that his critics said made him unelectable—his anti-war rhetoric. While his innovative and successful fundraising strategy and his healthy poll numbers have been tracked for some time, his policy proposals have been somehow obscured by the very passion that first attracted the crowds.

Officially, his campaign maintains it was never concerned that Dean was becoming too closely identified with his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. The war, said Jay Carson, a Dean spokesperson,"is just a metaphor for standing up for what you believe in."

But any misunder-standing was largely Dean's fault. On a number of fronts—including foreign policy and the economy, the two areas that Dean has suggested are vital to a successful candidacy—the campaign had yet to offer a vision, save some very broad strokes. So in December, Dean looked to define himself, delivering major policy speeches on race, national security, and education. Later this week, he plans to talk about the economy.

Prior to Hussein's capture, and indeed before Gore's endorsement, Dean realized that to navigate the waters of 2004, he was going to need a bigger boat."

It's an interesting article, and we'll be on the lookout for the Economic Speech he's slated to give later on this week (unless it was last week, and I'm reading an old speech).

Crack Detective Work

Well, it turns out Iran may have a nucular weapons program.

"VIENNA - Evidence discovered in a probe of Iran's secret nuclear program points overwhelmingly to Pakistan as the source of crucial technology that put Iran on a fast track toward becoming a nuclear weapons power, according to U.S. and European officials familiar with the investigation.

The serious nature of the discoveries prompted a decision by Pakistan two weeks ago to detain three of its top nuclear scientists for several days of questioning, with U.S. intelligence experts allowed to assist, the officials said. The scientists have not been charged with any crime, and Pakistan continues to insist that it never wittingly provided nuclear assistance to Iran or anyone else.

Documents provided by Iran to U.N. nuclear inspectors since early November have exposed the outlines of a vast, secret procurement network that successfully acquired thousands of sensitive parts and tools from numerous countries over a 17-year period.

Yep. They gave us the evidence and we read it. We're brilliant. Reminds me of a scene from the Simpsons Episode, "The Boy who Knew Too Much."

Hutz: How could you have seen all this, Bart? Weren't you supposed to be in school?
Bart: [slowly] I sort of skipped school.
Skinner: I knew it! I knew you'd slip up sooner or later, Simpson!
Apu: What slip up? What are you talking about? He confessed it!
Skinner: Quiet, I need this.

So I suppose the obvious next question is, who needs this?

New Quote

And a new Quotes Page.