The state's diaspora spreads throughout the once-solidly Republican West. So does its politics.
By Ryan Sager
Los Angeles Times
RYAN SAGER is the author of "The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party" (Wiley, 2006). rhsager.com
September 25, 2006
IF BLUE-STATE Californians want to give the national Republican Party palpitations, here's some practical advice: Go east, young man (or woman).
Just not too far east.
Read the rest of Ryan Sager's L.A. Times op-ed piece.
After three days of chewing on the information in Mr. Wilson's Malan's Basin feasibility opinion letter, we thought the time was ripe this morning to stir the pot with something new. Although your humble blogmeister has been acutely aware of the internecine ideological struggle being waged in western states between neoCON and paleoconservative GOP factions, this is the first article we've found that neatly frames it as a battle between the "western" and "southern" wings.
Our gentle readers can offer their 2¢ on this thought-provocative article, or simply regard this as an open-topic thread.
The floor is open to new discussion. Talk about whatever floats your boat.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
46 comments:
This article is most encouraging.
Let's just hope that enough ex-Californians migrate to Utah from California to cause a collapse of Utah's pigheaded support of anyone or anything labelled Republican.
I think they should come here and do a reverse affiliation just like the mayor.
He registered Republican when we all know he and ED are two of the worst democrats in the state...almost. So those Californians will come here and resister Democrat thus ensuring a little sanity among you misguided liberals.
Just want to note, here, a story that appeared in the NY Times earlier this week, reporting that hundreds of thousands of pounds of pears [bumper crop this year] ripened, then rotted on the trees, or were picked too late and so too ripe to pack and are rotting where dumped at packing plants. Why? Because growers could not find workers to pick the fruit. One reported he was able to hire only one third of the number he needed to get his crop in. The growers interviewed blamed Congress for making it increasingly difficult for migrant pickers to get to the US to work. Just FYI.
Seems to bear on the claim, made by some, that illegal aliens/undocumented aliens [pick one] are taking American jobs. On the other hand, it could be argued that if American growers paid higher wages, they would find more people willing to work for them. Which of course, would signficantly raise the price of produce in American supermarkets, which would of course create other problems.
My point? Simple, silver-bullet solutions to complex problems ["Build a fence!" or "Grant amnesty to all!"] rarely work as claimed, because they have, as a rule, many unintended consequences. But, come election time, we will inevitably still see those seeking office [or far too many of them, at least], offering bumper sticker slogan "solutions" to this and other complex problems.
Perhaps not entirely off topic: one of the lead stories on Yahoo Online News this morning was this: "Does Condi Date?"
Weep for the Republic.
Dear GOP:
Sigh. Let's try again. The Mayor is a registered Republican. I know that embarasses you. It should. But there it is. Trying to pretend it is not true would be like trying to pretend a nation was on the brink of achieving atomic weapons or had huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in order to justify invading it. And nobody would do that, surely.
Oh... wait. Sorry. Never mind.
Curm...
Since I don't know your address....I'm sending you a huge "condolence card"
Sorry that your party is saddled with that lip-biting, eyelash batting, simpering, eye-squinting , finger-pointing, internizing (that was no WOMAN) , limelight-hogging William Jefferson Clinton, suh.
He loves the camera. He'd be an ideal candidate to have the first on water gondola photo shoot up......23rd street.
You still have Dean, Pelosi, Harry, and Hillary to scream a few more invectives. Lucky Dems.
Sharon:
Would that we had Clinton still in the White House now. We'd have a balanced budget, declining national debt and not be bogged down in the mess in Iraq. The best comment on Clinton's leaving office and Bush's taking over came from The Onion, the satirical on-line magazine out of the University of Wisconsin:
"At last, our long nightmare of peace and prosperity is over!"
I'd hate to think those pear trees were owned by liberals who hoped to make a bleeding heart point.
There are plenty of Americans who can work. Have a Dr in the welfare offices certifying (after a check-up) that MANY of these 'recipients' are fit to work. Then send 'em out to do just that. The check they receive today...is the last.
STATES can do this...we don't have to wait for Congress to act after being bogged down with Reid, Kennedy and the other do gooders screeching against hard work for a day's LABOR!
Next we'll hear that no one on welfare will work because their welfare check is more than an employer can cough up. Well, how about this? Reduce the welfare handouts.
What? Must be a cold hearted Republican who said that.
Open Question to the Mayor,
What kind of unwritten verbal agreement do you have with the developer to provide deferred compensate you or your family if you pull this hair brained deal off? I mean, high risk should equal high return and everyone knows your political career is over, not to mention how welcome you’ll all feel in this community.
Are you going to have a new residential address high on the hill with several surrounding building lots that you happen to have acquired and have for sale; be an exclusive building developer of new housing lots on what was once our open space; get a lifetime supply of winter leisure suits from Descente or is it something else?
Just curious, just want to know how high to price my willingness to suppress my use of logic; my continuation to spread misinformation even after it’s been pointed out to me that it’s wrong; my willingness to disregard the feelings of other people while I destroy their quality of life; my willingness to ignore what everyone is telling me that differs from what I’m doing; my willingness to say how many people are supporting my ideas when I know it’s not so; to put the financial health of my community at risk to pursue this long shot; my willingness to ignore the facts or dig any deeper than the surface of this business proposal and above all to compromise my integrity. It must be pretty lucrative.
I suspect that you won’t answer this question and we’ll all just have to wait until you’re out of office to find out.
Sigh. When someone actually suggests that produce growers in California [not known to be particularly liberal politically in any case] permitted from a third to two thirds fo their crop to ripen unpicked in order to "make a [liberal] point," the conversation has left the realm of reason.
sharon and curmudgeon
To paraphrase Willy:
"The first thing we do is kill ALL the politicians"
"Religion, tradition, morality":
is now considered at odds with "freedom, independence and privacy".???
No wonder they're called BLUE states...a lack of oxygen to the GREY cells is causing that hue.
Do you really believe a 'migration' of Gen Xer's will descend on Utah? Who will pay for the moving van? Maybe the OPD and FF's...with signs touting Godfrey's visions?
Get real, we know there is NO chance in hades that anyone will migrate here unless we have an URBAN GONDOLA! Oh, let's not forget the draw of the wreck center complete with bowling alley. Politics plays no part in this. Most of those Californians crowding in here won't be interested in voting, they just want a once in a lifetime thrill of stepping out their office doors onto that new fangled GONDOLA. Upon returning to earth they then can go wall climbing. Heck, everytime we attend a CC meeting, we climb the wall.
I do believe that there are more Mormons in California than there are in Utah. (pure numbers, not percentages, check it out!)
It has also been my experience that out of state Mormon's are much more dogmatic than our in-state brothers and sisters. That seems to be especially true of recent converts that have not had their religious zeal tempered by a life time here in the real Zion where we are much more middle class American than they ever imagined.
So, what I am getting at is the potential influx of lots of California folks to Utah could have just the opposite effect as predicted by this article. That is based on the assumption that California LDS folks might be more inclined to come to Utah than the California gentiles.
Now before anybody gets their Temple Garments in a knot over me being a MoBasher, please know that I am a great admirer of the Church. I am also realistic about the dominating influence that the Church has on everything political in the State.
Curmudgeon said:
"Would that we had Clinton still in the White House now. We'd have a balanced budget, declining national debt and not be bogged down in the mess in Iraq."
Can you honestly say you believe that? Remember, in the last nine months of Clinton's term, the Nasdaq went from 5046 to 2657, a loss of more than 45% and $3 trillion. The budget surplus depended on the strong 1990s economy that was already crumbling when Dubya showed up. Also remember that we had about 25,000 troops bogged down on the borders of Iraq for the duration of the 1990s.
I'm not saying that Willy would have invaded Iraq or that a more divided government wouldn't help cut down some of the ever-growing pork in our budgets. But you're doing yourself and your usual credibility a disservice by joining the naive chorus of "The economy/budget/debt was GREAT until Bush showed up!" and "Iraq was a wonderful peaceful place with no chemical weapons or nuclear ambition!"
Ozboy...won't it be a big joke on Curm's blue friends when those CONSERVATIVE CA mormons show up and keep Utah redder than a tomato?
driving past the old mall site ther is sure a lot going on down there exciting i think
Turdust:
Well, like handicapping race horses, when predicting future performance, it is always wise to look at past performance. Fact: The ONLY balanced budget in modern history occurred under Clinton's presidency. Fact: Clinton cut federal [non military] employment by many thousands over the course of his presidency, which has been reversed under Bush. Fact: median income in US went up in Willie's eight years, has come down since Dubya came in and started the tax cuts and massive corporate welfare programs he loves so much. [All together now: Haliburton.] I think this is the first time the median income has fallen over a six year period since the great depression. [Not certain: have to look that up.] Fact: the billions upon billions being squandered on this war... paper today says army wants 45 billion more in its regular budget, plus a new multi billion dollar supplental appropriation for Iraq... are largely being spent "off budget" [as special supplemental appropriations] thus concealing the extent of the red ink. Fact: the Democratic [Gore] plan for dealing with the surplus was to put a third into national debt reduction each year [eliminating interest payments on that debt], a third into social security support, and a third into new health/welfare programs. Had that been done, yes, I think we'd be in much much better shape than we are now. The latest dip in the business cycle notwithstanding.
The Bush "prosperity" he likes to tout is all funded by borrowed money. He's put the national economy on the credit card with his huge jump in expenditures [non military discretionary spending under Bush is at a rate not seen since FDR] and cuts in taxes [revenues]. All I might add with the loud approval of the Party of Fiscal Conservatism's majorities in the House and Senate. So, no, I'm not at all reluctant to say we'd be a while lot better of today, financially, in foreign affairs, and on and on [we'd certainly not be condoing "disappearing" suspects into foreign prisons so they could be tortured] if Slick Willie were still in the WH.
Two Items from SL Trib:
Two interesting items [I thought] from today's SL Trib, not without some interest to Ogden matters. Maybe.
The first is a lead article discussing the rising power of realtors in... well, I'll say "shaping" instead of "buying"... legislation from the Utah legislature.
Money quote [no pun intended... well, maybe a little one]: " Utah's Realtors are a case study of the political power of money.
At one time a nonentity in state politics, the Utah Association of Realtors has become an undeniable force in state elections and lawmaking over the past decade. And cash appears to be key to the group's success.
Seven years ago, the Realtors reported a zero balance in their political action committee (PAC). This year, with a slush fund awash in more than $730,000, the Realtors have so far shoveled $325,000 into an election in which half the state Senate and the entire House are before voters. That's more than any other Utah PAC." Story goes on to point out that before the realor's PAC begin passing out bucks to legislators, 6% of the Utah Legislators had a 100% rating on the realtor's rating list. Five years after spreading the dough around, 60% of the legislators now rate 100% on the Utah realtor's rating sheet. [Meaning they voted for realtor-back legislation 100% of the time.] Imagine that.
Second article is about cheating by students in graduate programs. And it turns out that the students who cheat more than any others are... MBA [Masters of Business Administration] students.
Here's the headline:
Survey finds MBA students most likely to cheat
Turdust:
Just came across this, which bears on our discussion about federal spending under President Bush and the Republican majorities in both houses. It's from the Heritage Society's web page. [Not a while lot of Slick Willie lovin' left leaning fellow travelin' liberals over at the Heritage Foundation, Tur]. I offer it without comment:
The Senate is preparing to bust fiscal year (FY) 2007 discretionary spending caps by at least $32 billion to:
1. Reimburse the Pentagon for the $9 billion raided from its budget earlier this year and given to domestic programs, as well as fund additional defense and border security programs ($26.8 billion in total);
2. Fund another massive farm subsidy bailout despite high subsidy levels and a booming farm economy ($4.2 billion); and
3. Reimburse NASA for funds that lawmakers had diverted into parochial pork projects ($1.0 billion).
And in addition, lawmakers have promised $2 billion to $3 billion more for the labor, health, and education programs.
The reason Clinton had some money in reserves is because he was too busy with cigars, blue dress stains and other funny business under his desk IN THE OVAL OFFICE.
He didn't have time to spend it.
Is anyone else asking Chair Garcia, Cook and the Council to , at this late date, have copies of the Fab Five's rsumes for the Council attendees? How about following Curmudgeon's (?) suggestion that the Council allow public comments after we hear the Five answer PROBING?? questions. Then announce the new Council member Wednesday?
All in favor say 'aye'.
We need to email forthwith.
I hate it when I make suggestions to the Council and it appears I'm alone.
G.O.P. said...
The reason Clinton had some money in reserves is because he was too busy with cigars, blue dress stains and other funny business under his desk IN THE OVAL OFFICE.
He didn't have time to spend it.
So, this is what passes for serious discussion of economic matters among Repblicans these days? And people wonder why the federal debt is soaring, federal hiring is rising, federal debt service is taking more and more of our tax dollars, and the Red Chinese are financing, monthly, a huge and growing proportion of our red ink? [And aquiring the ability to tank the economy any time they might find it convenient, simply by refusing to buy more of our debt or by starting to divest themselves of what they already have? Or to threaten to to win concessions in diplomatic affairs?]
I know it's pointless, but, being a liberal, hope springs eternal that people can learn, so I will try yet again: we elect presidents to be the CEOs of the nation. To run the executive department of the national government. We do not elect them to be good fathers or good husbands. When Americans, yes even Republicans, invest in a company, they don't as a rule inquire first if the CEO of the company cheats on his wife or is a good father or is kind to small dogs and children. They inquire about how he is running the company and if he is doing it well enough to risk investing in its stock.
It should be no different with a president. We elect him to be the CEO of the United States. If I have to choose between someone who is a poor husband but a good CEO for the country on the one hand, or a faithful husband and an incompent bumbling hack as CEO for the nation on the other, I know how I will choose. Every time.
We are in, as a nation, deep trouble. Internationally, internally,environmentally and --- in the long run I think the most serious problem for the future survival of the nation and its middle classes --- economically. If there emerges a candidate for the presidency who I think can solve those problems, I personally will not care much if he --- or she --- is cheating on a spouse or not. Many presidents have. Some have been good presidents, some great, some mediocre, and some appalling. Their infidelity seems not to have affected the way they did the job.
On, the other hand, many presidents have been completely faithful husbands. Some have been good presidents, some great, some mediocre and some appalling. Their fidelity seems not to have affected the way they did the job.
When we do this all again in two years, I'll want to know of candidates for my party during the primary season, and of both candidates during the election, what they intend to do about runaway national debt and spending, about rampant corruption in Congress where votes are evidently for sale more often than we thought; about the quagmire of Iraq, about global warming, and a great deal more. I will not be the least interested in whether any of them are cheating on their wives or husbands. Hard put to think of much that would be less my business and the electorate's business than that.
Sharon:
You are not alone.
I never had a very high regard for Bill Clinton, but damn I was proud of him yesterday when I watched as he put the smirking Chriss Wallace in his place when Wallace tried to ambush him with this cheap shot republican tripe about not getting Osama before Osama got the World Trade Center.
Seems to me that the Republicans have descended to all time lows at all levels of the Party. From the County level here with Greiner, to the National level with Bush.
It's just too damn bad that the Democrats are so incredibly lame that they will not be able to take advantage of any of it.
We live in sad times when most all politicians at all levels are corrupt, self dealing, arrogant and incompetent. A time when a life long Republicans like me longs for the good times of the Clinton years!
I bet Clinton longs for those good times too. With Ms Rodham wanting to sleep in the White House again, and no offers to spend the night coming from G.W..good ol' boy Bill has to make some semblance of propriety.....or the mama bear will cuff him a good one.
Oh, Curm. Don't get your kidneys in an uproar...you Dems have an awful time ...are you blaming GOP for what you perceive as the world in crisis?
Lighten up, dearie.
Ozboy, you break my heart too. I watched that interview also. It wouldn't have mattered WHICH question was first out of the box for Slick Willy...he just wanted to rant. I hope you took notice of that same squint and the lip biting that he pulled as he assured the world, "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman!"...all play acting. Good Lord...a former (and still thinking he is now) leader of the free world going off like that? Give me the proverbial break...contrived, contrived, contrived. He ranted and harangued Chris...and would NOT shut up!!! Disgraceful But, pure Clinton...he doth protest too much.
When he got in the limo, bet he turned to the aides he had just yelled at in the studio and asked..."how'd I do? do you think I was over the top?" YOU, over the top? NEVER!!
Don't think Ozboy will be invited to join the Oscar pickin' crowd...you don't know a first class performance when you see it.
Curm...it does matter if your president is cheating on his/her spouse.
That goes to character! Clinton and JFK are two of the biggest adulterers of recent record. Others in both parties have been and are pretty scummy too...but, we're talking about the PRESIDENT here.
You democrats ought to care about the moral character of the person you want to lead the country. Whoever occupies the Oval Office should have respect for that office and him/herself, spouse (children) and fellow Americans. Tsk Tsk.
Sharon, there are none so blind as those that will not see.
Hating Godfrey and loving Bush. My dear that is called schizophrenia. But for the names and the position they are one and the same.
I know it is hard to let go of yesterday, but lets face it, the Republican party has left us, not the other way around.
Republicans are just out of control!
Tax, spend, borrow; false wars, hate dictators over seas, but create them here.
Steel property on the county level, reassess property value, just so they can say they against taxes when they just raised taxes over 20% not long ago. Then fire cops that speak out against policy.
Republicans must be ashamed.
Republicans should stay home in November or switch parties.
Because the very thing their upset about, is what their own party has become.
Sharon:
If you can show me any evidence that a president's fidelity or infidelity is directly related to his performance in office, I'll reconsider. But the historical record does not support your argument. FDR played around. He was one of the great presidents. Jimmy Carter [so far as we know] did not play around. He was not a good president. Dwight Eisenhower played around. He was a good president. Warren Harding played around. He was not a good president. Thomas Jefferson had affairs. He was one of the greats. Grover Cleveland did too. He was not one of the greats.
What I want and what, more than anything else, the nation needs in a president is the ability to do his job well. That seems, on the record, to be wholly unrelated to his fidelity as a husband.
Again, it comes down to this question: if you had to choose, one or the other, a president who was a good leader and a capable administrator of the nation [but who had affairs] on the one hand, or a president who was incompetent as a leader and an administrator of the nation, but who was a totally faithful husband, which would you choose? That question is, for me, a no brainer. I want the former. Every time.
here is the facts, on the clinton pres. so read them and weep republicans. what he did personally to himself did not have any effect on my life or yours. what he did as pres. was great for the country!!!
Bill Clinton Accomplishments are these:
Strongest Economy in a Generationentered the 107th consecutive month of economic expansion -- the longest economic expansion in history.
Moving From Record Deficits to Record Surplus.the deficit was $290 billion, a record dollar high. In 2000, we have a projected budget surplus of $167 billion.
Paying Off the National Debt.Public debt is $2.4 trillion lower in 2000 than was projected in 1993.
it is now at $7.5 tillion
Increased the Minimum Wage.The minimum wage has risen from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour, increasing wages for 10 million workers.
no increase in 11 years under rebulican power.
and the list will go on and on. look at this website.
http://pearlyabraham.tripod.com/htmls/bill-legacy2.html
Curm,
If crops are not being harvested because there are not enough workers isn't that going to push prices up as supply goes down? Shouldn't that have pretty much the same effect that hiring workers at higher wages would have? Less money for the farmers but higher prices for the consumer?
Arcritic:
In the short term, possibly. The thing about higher wages is, the higher rates tend to be sustained over time, and the resulting increase in prices is sustained as well. Shortages of fruit coming to market in a bumper crop year because of not enough labor to pick the crop will of course reduce supply and so [assuming unchanged demand] raise prices. This situation however may not be permanent [Congress has a long history of concentrating on border and migrant labor when the spotlights are on and they beome election issues, then forgetting them for decades at a time afterward.] And to be perfectly correlated, the value of the added [higher] wages would have to be exactly offset by the increased price of the fruit that gets to market because of the tons that didn't. I'm sure the gnomes in Economics departments of research universities could crunch all that and come up with numbers. Way way beyond my competence.
But presuming the offset is even close to equal [higher price resulting from increased pay to pickers = higher price resulting from much of the crop not getting picked], I'd much prefer the former to the latter, for two reasons: (a) migrants farm workers, among the lowest paid of all laboring gourps, would be getting higher pay and (b) they would be putting their higher pay back into the market by making purchases, thus triggering the multiplier effect. Neither of those two things happen as a result of the price rise because the crops aren't getting picked.
So even if the price for pears to the consumer would be [for the sake of arguement] the same under each scenario, the consequences for migrant laborers and for the general economy would be substantially better under the first scenario than the second. Hypothetically speaking. I think.
Turdust:
Something else, just out, relating [I think] to our converstation about Republican economic policy. The World Economic Forum, which rates national ecomomies on the basis of competitiveness in the world market, has a new ranking list out. On it, the US has dropped from being ranked first in competiveness in the global market to being ranked sixth. Why the drop from first to sixth? Here's how the WEF explains it: he best performing countries are distinguished by their "competent economic stewardship...." but "US competitiveness is threatened by large macroeconomic imbalances, particularly rising levels of public indebtedness associated with repeated fiscal deficits." And so the U.S.'s "relative ranking remains vulnerable to a possible disorderly adjustment of such imbalances."
Kind of says it all, doesn't it?
By the way, in case you're wondering [I was, so I looked it up], we rank now behind Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Singapore in competitiveness in the world market. And just ahead in the rankings of Japan, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK [all of which moved up in the rankings this time, except Germany].
Can't help recalling the wisdom of Satchel Page about now: "Don't look back. Somebody might be gaining on you...."
Curmudgeon,
It seems you failed to notice that I am not touting the Bush White House or the current Congress as great and wonderful leaders. I think there are many problems with our out of control spending, and there is a legitimate debate about whether we chose the correct course of action in engaging Iraq. I also believe we face an enormous environmental challenge... because our non-renewable resources will run dry long before global warming becomes relevant (I'm encouraged by reading in the SE today about a bill providing tax incentives for fuel efficient vehicles being co-sponsored by my senator(Wyden) and yours(Bennett)).
It would've been one thing if you had claimed that Clinton or Gore would have been able to better handle the recession, minimizing decifits and debt increases (because without dramatic cuts the budget could never have stayed balanced - especially after 9/11), or claimed that we would have maintained the status quo with Iraq (constant patrolling the no-fly zones, occassional limited strikes, always wondering what Saddam was still up to). But instead you put on the rose colored glasses, fantasized about the good ole days when everything was right, and pretended that things would have stayed exactly like that if it weren't for those darned confusing Florida ballots. The inconvenient truth is that the recession was inevitable (dooming the balanced budget), 9/11 was inevitable, and a policy shift toward Iraq was inevitable. If you believe that Clinton/Gore would have had better solutions, I'll hear you out. More importantly, if the candidates from your side of the aisle have better solutions for the future than the folks on the right side of the aisle, I'll hear them out and give them my vote. In the meantime, I think I'll have some pears.
Curmudgeon,
I don't think I could agree with you more that we need to balance our budget. I think the first step is getting back to a divided government (if the Dems retake the House or Senate this year I guess we'll find out). I think when one party (either party) controls the House, Senate AND Presidency (the way Republicans currently do) it's bad news for fiscal conservatism. Each branch feels free to push forward all the spending they want because their buddies will rubber stamp it all. Currently it seems the Democrats in office aren't really complaining about this because they can sneak in some of their pork under the same rubber stamp. Hopefully this November the Dems will get one of the chambers back, and we'll get some legislators on both sides who decide they don't want to f, er, screw their kids and grandkids. Of course, the cuts and/or tax increases necessary to balance our budget at this point will hurt many Americans, and the legislators who propose them will probably become very unpopular. Also, I wonder if reducing the deficit and taking that deficit spending out of the American economy will trigger another recession. Either way, I agree that we need to suck it up and stop spending money we don't have.
Turdust:
You wrote: It would've been one thing if you had claimed that Clinton or Gore would have been able to better handle the recession, minimizing decifits and debt increases (because without dramatic cuts the budget could never have stayed balanced - especially after 9/11), or claimed that we would have maintained the status quo with Iraq (constant patrolling the no-fly zones, occassional limited strikes, always wondering what Saddam was still up to).
Ah... well, that is what I thought I was arguing. Nobody has yet figured out how to eliminate the business cycle [which I think I mentioned]. At most, we have varying ideas on how to moderate the swings a bit. That a Clinton-infomred administration would have, I think [on the evidence] better managed the economy and drastically limited the kind of runaway deficits we have now is exactly what I was arguing.
As for Iraq, I don't think policy had "inevitably" to shift to Iraq following 9/11. To Afghanistan, absolutely. But Iraq? No. And I do think that containment, even if it involved the more or less perennial stationing of 25K troops in the region and maintaining no-fly zones in N. and S. Iraq, would have been preferable, infinitely preferable, to what we have on our hands now. Far less expensive in lives, in seriously wounded, far far less expensive in money, and far less damanging to the US's influence in the region and elsewhere around the world than the mess we have now.
No rose colored glasses. Only a conclusion that, on the evidence I think I can sustain, that a Clinton-informed administration over the last six years would have probably handled both foreign affairs and the economy [particularly the deficit] far better than the current one has. Again, federal non-military employment dropped significantly under Clinton [and the downsizing began in the first two years, when Dems still controlled Congress] while it has skyrocketed again under Bush. So, again, I feel pretty comfortable maintaining on the evidence [past performance] that we'd be a whole lot better off now if Slick Willie were still at the helm.
The newest assessment of US competitiveness is the result, seems to me, of conscious decisions in the WH over the last six years involving tax cuts, ballooning expenditures [e.g. the massively expensive medicare drug benefit, for which revenues have not been allocated going forward], expanding government and the monetary sink-hole called Iraq. And yes, I do think a Clintonista administration would have handled all of the above differently, and better. On the evidence.
Enjoy your pear.
PS: Just saw your second post. We are in complete agreement on this, though I don't think massive instant taxes are a feasible solution and are politically impossible in any case. But we can start in that direction, and need to, however unpopular it might be.
Two things I'd like to see.. one I think probable if Dems regain control of congress, one unlikely no matter who wins. The first, the probable, is that efficiency become the standard for designing new federal programs or revising old ones. From what I've read, the same federal drug benefit the Administration strong armed through congress two years ago by hiding its projected costs from Republican congressmen could have been achieved at about two-thirds of its current price by simply applying the lessons learned at the VA and Medicare which deliver health care [and the VA prescriptions] to clients for about 2% in administrative charges. 98% of each allocated dollar then actually goes to medical care/prescription deliveray. [Private insurance administrative expences run 20% of premium dollars.] Just to give one example, if medicare had been allowed to negotiate on drug prices with the Big Pharma, it could have [as the VA does] secured much lower prices [because of the size of its market] than Medicare recipients are now paying under Part D. But the bill crafted by the Administration flatly forbids medicare from negotiating lower prices for bulk purchases. I think that would change under a Dem administration, with over time billions in lower costs for the program.
What else needs to change... and I am spitting mad at my party on this... is an end to the earmark/pork parade. When Sen. Stevens [R-Alaska] embarassed his party and the Congress with his [what was it? $125 million?]"bridge to nowhere" appropriation, a ragged handful of Dems [Feingold among them as I recall] suggested that the Dem caucus in both houses should rise up as one and demand an end to all earmarks. The "leaders" [you should excuse the expression] of my party suddenly went AWOL in their much touted "fight against corruption and waste." So did the vast majority of the rank and file. But that's not going to change unless public disgust reaches tidal wave proportions and some kind of nationwide bi-partisan "throw the racals out" anti-incumbant movement gets going. I see no signs of that happening. Every poll says people are very unhappy with Congress in general, but the majority their their own Representative and Senator are "not like the rest" and "doing a good job." That's beginning to edge down now, but not nearly enough to make a real difference. Gerrymandering [on both sides] has taken care of that.
Curmudgeon,
I believe that the way you have now expressed your views is much better than the "We'd have a balanced budget, declining national debt and not be bogged down in the mess in Iraq" we started with. I do not agree with all your conclusions, but I suppose if I did this forum would be pointless.
I said a change in policy toward Iraq was inevitable because the existing policy would not have held up. The sanctions were not working, except to contribute to the starvation of about 5,000 Iraqis a month (according to the UN). At any rate, it is not likely that multinational support for sanctions would have lasted this long. As such, I believe that policy toward Iraq would have been forced to change somehow. Even to have continued containment would probably have required more aggressive US diplomacy and possibly higher force levels in the region.
As for the budget, I was not recommending massive instant taxes, but I do agree that some increase in taxation is necessary (we might not agree on the appropriate income spread for the taxes though). I think the main key to balancing the budget is spending cuts (some painful), and as you said increased efficiency.
PS. If only Ted Stevens' "bridge to nowhere" project had gone through, maybe we could have convinced him to earmark some federal pork for our "gondola to nowhere."
Tur:
The bridge to nowhere money did go through. First time, specifically allocated to that, and when the public stink got too bad to ignore, Congress made a great show of "repealing" the specific allocation for the bridge. And passing instead exactly the same amount for Alaska to use as unallocated funds... which the Hon. [?] Sen. Stevens promptly announced Alaska would use to build the bridge.
Since the Hon. [?] Sen. Stevens is now currently investigation for selling his vote [a la Ney and Cunningham] -- FBI yesterday went into his Alaska offices again, second time, with search warrant, removing boxes of documents --- he may be willing to deal on a reallocation south of some of that cash. He could use a few friends in high places pretty soon, methinks, and Hatch and Bennet are both that.
Anyway, can we find out if the City of Ogden has bought Mayor Godfrey a round trip ticket to Fairbanks lately? [grin]
Curm - I have just read your remarks above. It seems we are in some agreement. That is to say, if we are BOTH honest, there are significant problems in BOTH camps. Your party (as you yourself refer to them) has spent a significant amount of time simply saying NO! They have been stalling as much as they can get away with until they can "win" back that which they deem to be theirs adn theirs alone - control of both houses of Congress.
By the way, the price on that IDIOTIC bridge in Alaska was $250,000,000!! (You were quite generous ;).
armysarge:
You know, I originally typed in $225 million, but then I looked at it, and started thinking "Jeez, it couldn't have been that much." So to be safe and not overstate my point, I changed the initial two to a one.
Thanks for the correction.
As for there being little difference between the two parties: well, on that we will have to disagree. Currently, 13 members of Congress have either been convicted, or confessed or are under investigation for corruption. Three are Democrats. And the rest....
Since Mr. Bush came into office, the number of lobbiests in DC has quadrupled. There are now sixty...yes sixty... lobbiests in DC for each member of Congress. This is largely the result of the infamous K-Street Project mastermined and operated by Mr. Delay. Sorry, Sarge. You can't pass that one off on bi-partisan greed.
Both parties have their crooks in Congress. It's just that at the moment, the GOP has many many more of them, it seems. [I wouldn't try to argue this if the proportion of Republicans on that list was about the proportion of Republican seats in Congress. But it's not. It's much higher.]
As for "simply saying no." When one party controls both houses and the presidency, and marches in ideological lock-step to pass a seemingly endless series of bad laws, simply saying "no" is both the honorable, and usually the only, course open to an opposition party. Absent a majority in either house, Democrats cannot bring to the floor or out of committee any bill. So saying they've offered no alternatives rings a little hollow to me.
My own view is, the Republic is probably safer and more likely to see decent laws passed when we have divided government, when at least one of the three [presidency, House and Senate] is not controlled by the party that controls the other two. When the parties, both of them, are forced to compromise and work out arrangements somewhere toward the center of the political spectrum in order to get anything done. At the very least the unprecendented and dangerous recent practice by Republican leadership in both houses of changing the language of a bill after it has been agreed to by a joint conference committee would come to a screeching halt.
Thanks again for the correction on the number. Two fifty mil. My god.
Curm, Curm.....surely you don't believe "yoru party" is free of skullduggery! My personal belief is that no one - NO ONE - no matter how good we may believe them to be - should be back there forever.
Army:
Now now, I did not say my party was "free of skulldugerry." If you read my post, I noted that both parties have corrupt congressmen. The GOP just, at the moment, has substantially more of them currently convicted, confessed or under investigation.
I am pretty happy, though, about how my party has handled its congressional black sheep. Let's take the example of the Hon. [?] Congressman Jefferson [D-La] under investigation for corruption. Yes, he of the $90K bundle stuffed in his office fridge. The Dem. House leadership asked him to resign his post on the appropriations committee. He refused. So the Dem. House leadership removed him. And he was just under investigation, not indicted.
Let us compare that to how the GOP dealt with Mr. DeLay's indictment for corruption. GOP rules required indicted members to resign their leadership positions. Instead, the Congressional GOP changed its rules to permit the indicted DeLay to stay on as House majority leader. When the public stink over that got too high, the Party reluctantly reversed itself and restored the old rule that required his resignation.
Sorry, Sarge. At the moment, my guys are handling their black sheep a lot more responsibly than the GOP is handling its black sheep. I note the Hon.[?] Congressman Ney [R-Oh] --- whose sole legislative accomplishment seems to have been directing the House Caffeteria to stop serving French Fries and to serve Freedom Fries instead --- has just [after months of pleading his complete innocence] confessed to selling his vote and coped a plea with the Justice Department. He's goin' to the big house. He still sits in the House. Has refused to resign. And the House GOP has not begun proceedings to remove him.
The question is not, do both parties have crooks in them. Of course they do. The question is, which party, on the evidence, is the most corrupt at the moment? And on that argument, I think I occupy the high ground.
So who really does have the sleaziest politicians, the Repubs or the Demos?
I would say if you look at it historically the Donkeys have the Eliphants beat hoofs down when it comes to criminals in the US Congress. However, I thought I would nose around the net a bit and check it out. The first thing I ran into was this current list from some Citizens watch dog group on the east coast named "CREW".
Looks like Dumbo is closing in on that historical count mighty fast with this realatively new crop of NeoCon Republicans out larcenizing the Donkeys 17 to 3 in the current congress. Also of note is our very own fat ass arrogant and super sleazy republican congressman Cannon making the dishonerable list this year. In addition I got a real kick out of Republican Tom Feeney making the big time! Evidently he also lives in Florida and holds public office! Boy he sure had me fooled.
The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress
* Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT)
* Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN)
* Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
* Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO)
* Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
* Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA)
* Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
* Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL)
* Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA)
* Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
* Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA)
* Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV)
* Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)
* Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA)
* Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
* Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX)
* Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY)
* Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC)
* Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
* Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA)
Dishonorable Mentions
* Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT)
* Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL)
* Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ)
* Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)
* Rep. Don Sherwood (R-PA)
So Curmudgeon you may be basking in some ethical glory right now but I still believe that historically the democrats have had the biggest and most crooks. Some old favorites come to mind: Adam Clayton Powell, Wilbur Mills, Spiro Agnew - oh wait a minute, never mind.
Ozboy...why didn't you also list the 'crimes'? (eg) tell me about Frist.
And just what is CREW? I like sources to be upfront.
I notice that some Dems on here start ranting about Ogden and how corrupt the REPUBLICAN mayor is (sooooo true) and then make the leap to also blaming Bush for Ogden's woes.
Credibility has always been a problem with the party of the asses....zoologically speaking, of course.
I merely wish to point out that I have never blamed Bush for Ogden's woes, except to the extent that Ogden shares the nation's woes at any given moment. I've gone after the Republican state legislature [millions for roads, pennies for schools] for some of Ogden's woes, and the Governor [mostly the abominable Leavitt; Huntsman is better... not good, mind you. He is a Republican after all. But better than Leavitt. Though that is not setting a very high standard I admit.]
Nice job goosing the Council to do something about Ogden's All Godfrey/Geiger All The Time Channel, Sharon. [That was you, wasn't it?] Do you have any idea what's on the tv channel "agenda" Stephenson says the Council just got so that he thinks there is "some movement" on the matter under way? He may be right and I hope he is, but I am curious what that "agenda" the Council just got vis a vis the TV Channel might be. Do you know?
About CREW http://www.citizensforethics.org/about/whoweare.php
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington targets government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests. We will help Americans use litigation to shine a light on those who betray the public trust:
If a public official misuses his position to demand campaign contributions, CREW will find creative ways to seek civil remedies.
If a witness is threatened or punished because she reported official misconduct, CREW will fight back on behalf of the witness — including representing that individual in court if necessary.
If a government agency withholds information to which the public is entitled, CREW will go to court to enforce legal rules regarding disclosure.
If a group libels an honest public servant, CREW will help the victim defend his reputation.
CREW will seize opportunities like these, bringing high-impact legal actions. The majority of our cases will focus on real people and their stories about the lack of government integrity. Not only do these people need and deserve our support, their stories can serve as powerful tools to seize public attention and move public opinion. CREW will work with the press, government investigators, and other public interest groups to make sure that these peoples' stories are heard. In the process, CREW will build a non-partisan investigative alliance that transcends specific issues. Our aim is to encourage officials to be open about their values and to act based upon their honest and best assessment of the public interest.
As we do this, over time CREW will develop a network of public interest groups, sympathetic government investigators and media contacts — a broader, more mainstream version of the conservative coalition that was so effective in the 90's. We will work with that network to focus public attention on government integrity and to educate the public about dishonest or disingenuous government officials. If the past decade is any indication, this network can have a substantial impact on public opinion.
bottom lines
New comments are not allowed.