SUVs, Health Care, and Conservative Priorities

You can file this under "Rush Limbaugh has his finger on the pulse of the nation." Apparently SUVs are not the reason GM and Ford are having a hard time despite many other analysts coming to that conclusion. Rush's proof? There are still SUVs on the road. Yep. And competitors, particularly Japanese companies are not in the red, but are making SUVs.

A few points one might bring up. First of all cars don't dissappear immediately because they aren't popular. There may very well be some SUV drivers who wish they had got a more fuel efficient car, but aren't ready to sell theirs just yet. And there may be others who don't care about high gas prices because they got tons of money anyway. Many of those sorts probably live in Rush's neighborhood. Secondly, Toyota and other companies provide stronger alternatives on the fuel efficient side of the scale.

But then he gets to the real reason GM is having hard times in the stock market.

One of the big differences, and it's just interesting in a competitive sense or comparison. I'm not giving you a statement of advocacy or opinion on this, but in Japan, the health care and pension plan for their autoworkers is paid for by the government. In United States, the health care and pension plans of employees in the automobile industry and most others is paid by the company. Now, I don't want to get into a discussion, "Rush, government, whatever, it's all paid for by the people." I know this. But, in terms of accounting and in terms of profit and loss, if Toyota or any other Japanese firm goes into the year not having to spend $5.6 billion a year in benefits that GM has to spend, what's GM going to have to do to the price of its cars in order to make that back? Right now, the price per car in General Motors if you average it all out, to pay for their employee health care and pension plan is about 1500 bucks. Japan does not have to pad the price of their car with a dime for their employees' health care or pension plan because the government pays it.

So basically Rush is against workers having employer run health plans or pensions. Of course he is opposed to the government stepping in as well.

Rush has claimed to be a champion of the worker in the past. Not sure how this squares with that.

Round the Horn - A Very Cynical Attitude

Here we go.

archy has a bit on Operation Salami Drop. Really don't need to say anything more than that.

Kick the Leftist is apparently done blogging, so let's all say goodbye. His last post is a thoughtful rumination on New Democrats vs. Leftists and is worth considering.

Steve Gilliard's News Blog has a piece on the Bush Administrations plans to upgrade the military.

Rick's Cafe Americaine has a story on Superheros celebrating the Passover. May be slightly sacrilegious. But funny.

T. Rex's Guide to Life has some advice on what to do in case of a nuclear bomb.

Wanda at Words on a Page has some thoughts on Pat Robertson's recent remarks involving the relative judges of nine robe wearing men in Washington and al-Qaeda.

First Draft has a picture of a Ferret and another Ferret. Sort of.

Steve Bates, The Yellow Doggeral Democrat has some thoughts on Rep. Al Edwards and his plan to curb suggestive dancing by cheerleaders at football games.

And that's it for another week.

Molly Ivins - Good at Math!

Or at least in her latest article, which is yet another good rundown of last weeks Social Security press conference.

In another interesting development from President Bush's news conference, if you make more than $20,000 a year, you are wealthy. That's what the president said -- "wealthy."

Well, then again, maybe President Bush has been studying at Springfield Elementary.

Nelson: Hey, look how much money Skinner makes. $25,000 a year!
[the students say, "wow"]
Bart:[putting the numbers in a calculator] Let's see, he's 40 years old times 25 grand -- whoa, he's a millionaire.
[the students sound impressed]
Skinner: I wasn't a principal when I was 1!
Nelson: Plus, in the summer, he paints houses.
Milhouse: He's a billionaire!
[the students say "wow" again]
Skinner:If I were a billionaire, why would I be living with my mother?

Yeah, that might explain President Bush's confusion on relative wealth. But let's see how he does on consistency.

Bush said, "I know some Americans have reservations about investing in the stock market, so I propose that one investment option will consist entirely of treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government." These are exactly the same treasury bonds that currently guarantee Social Security and have been described by Bush, including in the very same press conference, as a cabinet full of "worthless IOUs."

Hmmmmmm. That just doesn't seem very consistent.

So go check out Molly Ivins. Good at math and fun to read too.

Social Security and Welfare

Alan Reynolds is telling that old story about how recalcitrant we democrats are for not supporting the vague means testing proposal President Bush floated in last weeks press conference. After all we like helping the poor don't we?

When the president embraced the notion of having benefits grow least rapidly for high-income workers, the idea received the harshest criticism from egalitarian Democrats. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called it a vicious "attempt to turn Social Security into nothing but a program for the poor." Kerry adviser Jason Furman called Pozen's plan "a system ... in which upper-income people would have less of a stake in traditional Social Security, potentially undermining political support for it."

Pozen finds this hypocritical, since his fellow Democrats have been eager to raise the amount of salary subject to payroll tax from $90,000 to a much higher figure.

Please note, by the way, the vicious comes before the quotations marks not after them.

The truth is, Jason Furman is right. Welfare programs are much harder to defend at budget time than programs that benefit all Americans. As Krugman put it in his latest article (which I covered earlier this week), "It's an adage that programs for the poor always turn into poor programs. That is, once a program is defined as welfare, it becomes a target for budget cuts."

Matthew Yglesias, filling in at Talking Points Memo, put it this way.

Once a program becomes the narrow concern of a minority of the population -- and not just any minority, but a minority that can't afford lobbyists, doesn't enjoy access to the media, is socially isolated from the American elite, etc. -- it gets squeezed out in favor of programs whose constituents do enjoy those things.

In a way, I'd say the Right who hate Social Security have already created some of the grounds for this argument. If young people of today assume (as I did for many years) that Social Security will not be there when they retire, they will not have any interest in it. And see little value in preserving it.

A Pair of Responses to the First Lady's Comedy Routine at the White House Correspondent's Association Dinner

First lady Laura Bush's show-stealing debut as a comedienne at Saturday night's annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner had the audience hooting with laughter.

I was right there with them, grateful for the humor and appreciative as ever for Mrs. Bush's humanizing effect on the presidency and our nation.

. . . The ability to laugh at oneself ultimately is a sign of maturity, self-confidence, strength and humility. Men do that well in this country as in few others. Laura Bush's quips - even those that raised a few eyebrows - reflected well on her, as many have noted. But more to the point, they reflected well on the men we like to bash and the intact state of American manhood.

About those who would have preferred her beheaded, we reasonably might infer something else. - Kathleen Parker, "Laura the Entertainer"

Most of her humor was just right: Edgy but not over the edge. But her off-color stripper and horse jokes crossed the line. Can you blame Howard Stern for feeling peeved and perplexed? And let's face it: If Teresa ("I'm cheeky!") Heinz Kerry had delivered Mrs. Bush's First Lady Gone Mildly Wild routine, social conservative pundits would be up in arms over her bad taste and lack of dignity.

The First Lady resorting to horse masturbation jokes is not much better than Whoopi Goldberg trafficking in dumb puns on the Bush family name. It was wholly unnecessary.

. . Lighten up, you say? No thanks. I'd rather be a G-rated conservative who can only make my kids giggle than a "South Park"/"Desperate Housewives" conservative whose goal is getting Richard Gere and Jane Fonda to snicker.
- Michelle Malkin, "Why I'm not a South Park Conservative"

Ben Shapiro Boy Prognosticator Sees All

Ben's latest article is on the Right to Privacy, which, unsurprisingly, he is against. Most prognosticators are, as their special gifts usually violate people's privacy. And, as it turns out, God also violates any "right to privacy."

That's because the basic thrust of biblical religion -- the system of morality the founders and citizens of the time understood to be the basis for all rights and concurrent obligations -- cuts directly against such a "right to privacy." The idea of an omniscient God opposes the idea of personal privacy. Whatever we do, from the marital bedroom to the kitchen to the workplace, is God's business.

I do see one small flaw in this argument; the Government is not God. Let's read on.

Of course, government is not God. But American morality rests on the notion that citizens may choose to reflect broad Judeo-Christian values through their elected representatives, as long as those values do not establish a particular religion as paramount.

Interesting. So Judeo Christian values may be enforced as laws so long as they do not outlaw other religions? I guess we need to get serious about deciding what Judeo Christian values actually are.

For example, one wonders if charity is a Judeo Christian value, and if, therefore, it's ok to allow the Government to enforce it.

Is Star Wars Good?

Well, yes and no. It depends on what standard you hold it to. If you see the movies as science fiction, the answer may well be no, the New York Times reports. "If truth be told, sci-fi writers say, their work and "Star Wars" never had much in common."

I'd buy that. Star Wars has always had more in common with the old Buck Rogers serials than with the works of Asimov, Bradbury or Clarke. That said, some of the comments in the article are a little mean spirited. I mean, Star Wars ain't Shakespeare, but even at its worst (The Phantom Menace), they still have great moments.

Cal Thomas - Pro Torture

Cal Thomas's latest article responds to a particularly problematic episode of 24 and a new manual on interrogation techniques. The new manual attempts to curtail the kind of abuses that went on at Abu Ghraib prison; Cal Thomas, on the other hand, is pro-torture.

For those who missed that episode of 24, you can read a good and complete summary of it here, courtesy of one of my favorite websites, Television Without Pity. Also funny, in an angry sort of way. But to be brief, CTU captured an American Citizen with no criminal record who was meeting an Arab on his boat. The acting President had some problems with torturing him to get information, but Jack Bauer, our hero, figured out a way to torture him anyway.

Oh, and they definitively told us and Jack Bauer that this guy definitely knew something that would stop a Terrorists who had stolen a nuclear weapon. In order to stack the deck, morally speaking. They know for sure that a Nuclear bomb is missing, and they know for sure that this guy can help them find it.

A couple bits of bullcrap about this situation, pointed out by M. Giant (author of the recap at Television Without Pity).

At CTU Buchanan and Kiefer stand there looking defeated. Buchanan starts to leave, saying he'll have Curtis start the interrogation. Kiefer says they can't waste time like this. Now they're wasting time? When they could have been questioning Prado all along in the attorney's presence? It's not like the lawyer would object to CTU giving Prado a choice between spilling what he knows now in exchange for a deal, and the extreme likelihood of eventually ending up in a chicken-wire cage at Guantanamo Bay under the care of soldiers who won't be too impressed with a traitorous ex-Marine. But again, everyone's so stuck on torture as the only solution, they can't see any other way. If the only tool you ever use is a hammer, pretty soon everything starts to look like a nail. Good job, show, demonstrating how easy it is to fall into that trap. Buchanan reminds Kiefer of the Veep's order. "The president's not here," Kiefer says. "You are." Buchanan says, "If I authorize this, they'll know in ten minutes, we'll all be out the door." After CTU's multiple screw-ups and minimal firings since 6:00, I doubt that. But Kiefer's got an idea that "won't implicate anyone else but me": Buchanan just needs to accept Kiefer's resignation and let Prado go without charges. "He won't need a lawyer, he won't need a Marshal." Buchanan gets it: "You're going to take him on as a private citizen." Kiefer just looks at him. Well, that's great. This is a demonstration of the problem-solving skills that have served Kiefer so well all along. Can't torture a suspect? Figure out another way . . . to torture him.

Anyway this is the text Mr. Thomas has chosen to sing from this week.

But, of course, the situation that 24 presents us is as phony as a three dollar bill. Even within the logic of the show, there are alternatives to torture that might have been used, and the show was set up specifically to be a parable about torture.

Cal Thomas chooses to avoid specificity. He doesn't talk about specific actions in Abu Ghraib (which, presumably, led to the new manual), or the continuing questions about Guantenemo. Instead he engages in some low caliber masculine posturing and Arab baiting. And, of course, he accuses us liberals of being weak and, well, not masculine.

A Helpful Service

Bill Murchinson, in his latest article, takes the Democratic Party to task for obstructionism. Specifically he lists four ways in which the democrats have obstructed President Bush and says that obstructionism is the motive. "Capitol Hill Democrats protest that each of these issues is a matter of principle. No doubt they are right: The principle is that George W. Bush gets nothing out of this session of Congress." Unfortunately Murchinson's presentation of these four areas could be a bit clearer. Let's look this section over.

How much don't they like it? So much that they:

1) have stalled and possibly killed Social Security reform for the foreseeable future,

First of all, how have they stalled and possibly killed Social Security reform? Is this some kind of back ally deal or smoke filled room scandal? Nope. They just made a stronger case than the President. A strong enough case that the President cannot even count on all congressional Republicans to support his plan. What's so sinister about that?

Secondly President Bush's plan is a reform in the same way that cyanide is a medicine.

2) decided the president doesn't get to name the judges he wants to name,

That should read "decided that the President only gets to name 95.8% of the judges he wants to name." And we may be coming back to this issue later on today, as Salon has a review of the career of Priscilla Owens (one of the judges being blocked).

3) decided the president doesn't get to name the United Nations envoy he wants to name

Well, here again, all the Democrats are doing is asking questions. And several democrats have stated they will vote to confirm.

4) blocked a number of other cabinet appointments for purposes it is hard to characterize as other than partisan

This seems to descend into the realm of the petty. Does Mr. Murchinson really expect the Democrats in congress to just rubberstamp everything that President Bush wants to do?

President Bush has gotten his tax cuts, he's gotten his war with Iraq, he's gotten 95% of his judges passed, he's gotten his bankruptcy bill, he's gotten "No Child Left Behind," and how he's whining (and Mr. Murchinson is whining on his behalf) because he can't convince people to support his Social Security Plan and he can't get those last 10 judges through congress without overturning the filibuster tradition.

The End is the Beginning is the End

Another post on an article by Paul Krugman. He touches on something important though on President Bush's performance in last weeks press conference.

I asked Jason Furman of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to calculate the benefit cuts under the Bush scheme as a percentage of pre-retirement income. That's a way to see who would really bear the burden of the proposed cuts. It turns out that the middle class would face severe cuts, but the wealthy would not.

The average worker - average pay now is $37,000 - retiring in 2075 would face a cut equal to 10 percent of pre-retirement income. Workers earning 60 percent more than average, the equivalent of $58,000 today, would see benefit cuts equal to almost 13 percent of their income before retirement.

But above that level, the cuts would become less and less significant. Workers earning three times the average wage would face cuts equal to only 9 percent of their income before retirement. Someone earning the equivalent of $1 million today would see benefit cuts equal to only 1 percent of pre-retirement income.

In short, this would be a gut punch to the middle class, but a fleabite for the truly wealthy.

Something to consider.

Traditional Values

First Lady Laura Bush, on a list of 100 Americans being considered for the Greatest American, beating out, among others, Humphrey Bogart and Andrew Jackson (for full story, click here), may have lost votes from Dominionists and their allies.

Apparently Ms. Bush did a comedy bit at the 91st White House Correspondents Dinner, in which she poked a little fun at her husband. The Coalition for Traditional Values sees that as failing to show proper respect for her Husband. They also suggested that her kidding around was particularly inappropriate because of President Bush's recent problems with his masculinity (their words, not mine). The Swift Report has the whole story.

Poetry in Motion

Suzanne Fields' article this week extols the virtues of moving poetry to the public square. She begins with the filibuster question.

Congress is spending a lot of hot air on the question: to filibuster or not to filibuster. The Bard, as always, said it best:

Whether 'tis nobler in the minds men to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take aims against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them?

Whatever our worthies decide to do about the filibuster, we can count on a lot of bluster. Hamlet summed up pretty well what's rotten in the state of Congress. Would that the few senators who set their tongues to blocking judicial nominees were eloquent in understanding the issue. We no longer live in an age when poetry is handmaiden to political rhetoric. Our politicians, like most everybody else, are sparing in poetic utterance, which is too bad because at its best poetry clarifies thought.

Well, I'm not sure if what we need is poetic politicians or more Shakespeare spouting statesmen. I mean if Shakespeare really did say it best, why do we need today's pols to pontificate in a poetical patois? Could they not drop in a soliloquy or two and call it a day?

If you are in the mood for some poetry, by the way, check out the Practical Press.

New Format, new Quote

No new quotes page just yet. Feeling a little under the weather just now, maybe do it later on.