The Reality-Based Community

Where does stem cell research fit in all this? It was one of the big campaign issues, after all. And it looks like there may now be (barely) enough for a veto-proof majority.

Entitlement reform does not need to be done, and benefit cuts for Social Security do not need to be on the table. See Myths 1 and 2 on the page linked in my name. The only reason to do it is for Democrats to look reasonable and bipartisan -- that is, the only reason is for Democrats to please David Broder by giving up on an issue that is popular and right on the merits. Medicare is a mess -- Social Security is fine. Sorry for the grumpy tone here but I think this needs to be pushed back wherever it appears.

The good news is that there's very little risk that John Breaux will wind up on an entitlement reform conference committee.

To clarify my first sentence, the idea is that lumping Social Security and Medicare together as "entitlements" is inaccurate and hurts us politically. Talk about Medicare reform, and let Social Security reform stand (or fall) on its scant merits.

We pass all the popular stuff almost 2 years before the 2008 election?

Mr. Teles is a smart cookie, but he has his blind spots. Videlicet his comment about the minimum wage. Sure, raising it to $50 is probably a mistake, but I wouldn't mind anything up to about $15. What, you can spare another quarter for your morning latte?

So, when he natters about Social Security, double-check your spreadsheet, and shut your ears. There's nothing to be done there except reassuring voters over and over than unlike those icky Republicans, your party will make sure Social Security exists for them.

One pitfall with pushing the difficult investigations too close to the 2008 elections is you'll need to leave enough time for bullshit presidential privilege arguments to percolate through the courts.

I wonder what would happen if the Democrats sent the exact same stem cell bill to Bush that he's already vetoed -- would he veto it again, or find some way to explain that Times Have Changed and Things are Different Now?

Steven -- What exactly do you mean by "earmark reform"? Is there really Congressional support for the kind of reform that people reading or writing blogs would consider meaningful?

Steven's take on universal health care looks sensible. He leaves out two major issues:
- war crimes investigations: these should be cautious, professional, and absolutely determined;
- climate change: treat like health care - Bush will veto anything serious, so it's a partisan issue to build a solid Dem policy plank for the 2008 elections.

"That all said, Social Security does have an (often overstated but real) financing problem. It's better to deal with it sooner rather than later. It's better to deal with it under divided government, when the blame for some painful measures can be diffused. ... The people who think that Social Security is just fine honestly just don't understand the numbers, or are so tired (as I am) of the Chicken Little-Pete Peterson overstatement that they've been driven to deny that there's ANY problem. The financing problem in SS isn't that complicated, requires some fairly modest adjustments, but needs to be done, and the sooner the better."

First, it's not actually absolutely clear that it's a problem---it does depend on the future paths of immigration and productivity growth.

Second, there's currently so much perfidy afoot on the SS issue that it would be unwise to do _any_ reform without first doing a lot of preparatory PR. Front and center: Greenspan's insinuation that the government might not honor the SS Trust Fund, when in fact he's the one who headed the commission (1983) that suggested SS build up a surplus in the first place.

No, Mr. Teles it is you who doesn't understand the numbers. Social Security is fine and will be for 50 years. In 50 years it may have to borrow from the general fund for a few years if immigration grinds to a halt or economic growth follows the Bush path.

"That all said, Social Security does have an (often overstated but real) financing problem. "

This is a flat-out lie. The only scenarios under which is has a problem are those which assume, for no good reason, that economic growth in the USA will take a substantial hit, for the next half-centure.

If that happens, of course, stocks will take a substantial hit, so that Social Security still looks good.

On top of that, Steve, please remember that Bush is still Bush, Cheney is still Cheney, and that Bush is president. The Democratic forces are in a much stronger position, but should still not negotiate with Bush anything that they don't have to. Use and grow Bush's lame-duck status as much as possible.

> Lobbying Reform

If Lamont had won, maybe. With the Democratic DC insiders having beaten back a challenge from the rabble, and feeling cocky about it, I think it is far more likely we will just see K Street pressured to turn the cash over to big-name Dems rather than any sort of reform that might jeapordize the cash flow.

Cranky

I agree with liberal's points with respect to the clarification, especially point 2. Right now, Democrats can't work in good faith with Republicans on this, especially if the political goal is to get credit for being good sports. And I don't see any particular reason for benefit cuts to be on the table; by the numbers I've seen, even on pessimistic assumptions we could keep Social Security in balance forever by raising the ceiling for payroll taxes a smidge; which would also be good policy on grounds of fairness.

[i]I would make this truly comprehensive by adding very severe employer sanctions with a substantial budget to support enforcement.[/i]

I'll support this, but I think it's critical that it include 2 things to make it fair and workable.

1) Some fast, free (or very cheap) way of verifying documentation. Most employers have documentation on file for each employee; the problem is that much of it is forged, and that is (at least, was 10 years ago) not easily detectable by employers.
2) Protection from anti-discrimination challenges when suspicious documentation is checked.

Also, thanks for recognizing that SS has problems that need fixing.

For those of you who disagree, here's the problem I see:
If the SS Trust Fund is to be paid back, the money has to come from somewhere. That "somewhere" is currently the general fund, which is in deficit; to pay back the SS Trust Fund will mean spending less on other things. What are the other domestic things that we should spend less on to free up that money?

I would not put all of your eggs in the Democratic basket as far as legislation being passed based on consensus. I would be ready for Bush to pull plays out the Clinton playbook as far as taking Democratic ideas, such as finding and investing in alternative fuels, and putting a Republican sticker on it.

I agree that Democrats need to watch their knee jerk reactions for "payback" when it comes to investigations. Otherwise, they will look vindictive and waste precious time to do the "changes" they had promised.

As far as Social Security, the accounts do need to be privatized. There simply is not enough workers to fund the program, pay for "Baby Boom" expenses and expect money to be their for my retirement.

Social Security needs to be phased out so workers have "governed" autonomy over their accounts and have some form of self-determination with regard to retirement instead of sitting on our hands and hoping it will be there when we retire.

Social Security will go bankrupt as Baby Boomers retire. Of course the Dems, could raise taxes to supplement aye?

Barry,

The SS trustees have a very good reason for projecting a slowdown in economic growth: because population growth is going to slow down.

That said, what's the point in building up a bigger trust fund now? The Republicans will be in power again sometime over the next 50 years, and they'll just use the SS surplus to fund tax cuts for the rich.

Population growth is going to slow? Riiiiight. And anyhow, if importing more young workers is needed, that's a particular strength of the USA.

As for the GOP stealing the trust fund, that is a problem. However, the best way to deal with that, IMHO, is to not acknowledge theft as legitimate. They should pay up; we have the power to make them.

reform, reform, reform. WTF? What about REPEALING THE FUCKING TORTURE BILL?

BTW, Steve, I'd like to apologize for calling you a liar; that was inappropriate.

SamChevre,

What you say about the need to repay the SS trust fund is accurate, but does not really reflect a specific problem with Social Security.

What we have a broad fiscal problem that needs to be solved. You could "solve" it just as well by reneging on Treasury obligations other than SS. You could solve it for real by raising some taxes, cutting other spending, etc. To describe SS as the cause of these problems is wrong.

If a family runs up excessive debt, it's not accurate to say the problem is the just the Visa balance. It's all the balances, combined with general extravagance and inadequate income.

Bernard,

I do not think we actually disagree.

Barry,

Calling someone a liar on a blog is pretty par for the course, isn't it? No hard feelings. :-)

steve

"When Rumsfeld out, the most important architect of the Iraq disaster is already gone."

I must say I don't understand this. My impression is that Rumsfeld was never gung ho on Iraq, that the invasion was Cheney's and Bush's baby. Rumsfeld was merely the one given the task of carrying it out. He did that incompetently, but I don't see how anyone could have succeeded given the goals going in. If I had to identify "the most important architect" I'd point to Cheney, Rumsfeld was more the general contractor. Okay, it's harder to get Cheney to resign, given the nature of his position, but that's no reason to scapegoat Rumsfeld, no? At least when we are talking, rather than making decisions about which heads will roll.

Ty Wittstruck wrote, "As far as Social Security, the accounts do need to be privatized. There simply is not enough workers to fund the program, pay for 'Baby Boom' expenses and expect money to be their for my retirement."

But privatization doesn't solve or even address any of those ostensible problems.

SamChevre wrote, "If the SS Trust Fund is to be paid back, the money has to come from somewhere. That 'somewhere' is currently the general fund, which is in deficit; to pay back the SS Trust Fund will mean spending less on other things."

It can also come from increased taxation.

There's all sorts of economic rent collection in the top brackets that can be taxed heavily with no ill effect, efficiency-wise or distribution-wise.

Re. the point above on Rumsfeld. There's lots of blame to go around, of course, but (and here I think I differ from many of our readers) I think that the key error was the way the war was fought and not the decision to fight it (which was questionable, but I still think arguable). Even if you think the war was a mistake from the start, I think it is hard to argue that much of why it has turned out so disastrously has to do with implementation decisions made directly by Rumsfeld.

marcel wrote, "If I had to identify 'the most important architect' I'd point to Cheney, Rumsfeld was more the general contractor."

I was thinking similar things earlier this morning.

Rumsfeld is certainly to blame for much of the problem with the execution, but it seems to me that Cheney is partly to blame for that, and also for the decision to invade Iraq in the first place.

Maybe Rumsfeld is partly neocon-ish, but not nearly as much as Cheney. His decision to play along quite willingly always seemed to me to be because of a desire for a test of his high-tech military reform plans.

Not that that exculpates him or anything, or that I'm sorry to see him go. But in some fundamental sense I think the bulk of the blame for the strategic disaster of Iraq should fall on Bush and Cheney's shoulders.

Reminds me of the "Impeach Cheney first!" notion.

Steven Teles wrote, "I think that the key error was the way the war was fought and not the decision to fight it (which was questionable, but I still think arguable). Even if you think the war was a mistake from the start, I think it is hard to argue that much of why it has turned out so disastrously has to do with implementation decisions made directly by Rumsfeld."

Have to strongly disagree with that. While certainly the various tactical screwups you allude to (including, I assume, having too small an occupation force, disbanding the Iraqi army, too complete a de-Ba'athification, etc) made the situation worse, the twin facts that (1) America had no fundamental strategic interest in deposing Hussein, and (2) post-Hussein Iraq would likely lead to any number of problems (Iraqi civil war, regional destabilization due to Kurdish populations in nearby states, etc) were quite obvious before the invasion.

And even if you disagree on those points, there's always Daniel Davies point, surely to go down as a classic, that the choices weren't "invade or never invade," but also in addition "wait and perhaps invade later, after Bush is gone".

It was obvious from Bush's lack of interest in the lack of findings by the inspectors shortly before the invasion that the claimed evidence for WMD was weak or non-existent, and that the WMD rationale was just a ruse. And re the humanitarian and "spreading democracy" rationales, it _should_ have been obvious to anyone with an understanding of history that states simply do not go to war for humanitarian reasons, whatever they might say.

What about election reform?

Immigration reform? Really? When I looked at the exit polls from '06 and compared them to '04, the biggest change was in Latino support. In '06, Latinos (8% of the electorate) went for Democrats 69% to 30%. In '04 it was 55% to 44%. This may be enough to explain the more modest shifts in other groups like married and Catholic voters. And it seems like any immigration reform bill would probably jeopardize the trend here.

Posted by: Steven Teles :
"Barry,

Calling someone a liar on a blog is pretty par for the course, isn't it? No hard feelings. :-)

steve"

Thanks, Steven, that's gracious of you.

There are three big reasons why I tend to flip out when people blithely dismiss Social Security as needing to be 'privatized':

1) As has been noted above, privatization in and of itself solves nothing. Privatization only 'helps' if it involves screwing people out of their money. We don't need that sort of 'help'.

2) A big and enduring goal of the GOP for decades has been to destroy Social Security. Trying to reform something is very dangerous when one of the parties has destruction, rather than reform, as their goal.

3) Any economic scenario that I've seen in which it would be difficult to pay Social Security over the next several decades is one in which economic growth and productivity growth in the USA slows down sharply, *below any measured historical trend*, and stays down for multiple decades. Such a scenario bodes ill for money invested in US stocks; considering that the USA is still the single biggest playerin the global economy, it also bodes ill for many international stock funds.

4) The whole d*mn point of GOP deficits is to spend the money, as much as possible on what they want, and then to use the resulting deficits as an excuse to cut spending that they don't want. If they commit economic fraud (as they have been since Reagan), we are under no obligation to go along with that.

Adding on:

5) The Greenspan Plan for Social Security, enacted in the early/mid 1980's, was that Baby Boomers would pay extra into the Social Security Fund, above the then-currently needed amount. This would be put into bonds, and then cashed in. Basically, the Baby Boomers would pay extra, some for their parents' retirements, plus some of their own. Reagan eagerly used this extra income to cut taxes on the rich. So has Bush II.

In retrospect, given that Greenspan endorsed the Bush II deficit fraud, it's clear that the original plan was to try to screw us out of that money. Now, if I try that with my credit card debt, that don't play - the credit card company will take the money that I owe them, by court order if they have to.

Sauce for the ordinary American goose is sauce for the Republican gander.

Steve Teles: "Re. the point above on Rumsfeld. There's lots of blame to go around, of course, but (and here I think I differ from many of our readers) I think that the key error was the way the war was fought and not the decision to fight it (which was questionable, but I still think arguable). Even if you think the war was a mistake from the start, I think it is hard to argue that much of why it has turned out so disastrously has to do with implementation decisions made directly by Rumsfeld. "

Implementation mistakes by Rumsfield which we know of are:

(1) too few troops.

(2) absolutely no planning or prep for what to do after the initial blizkrieg [1], up to and including threatening officers when they tried to, not using the State Department's plans, and not even using Desert Crossing plans.

(3) absolute failure to adapt, at the highest levels, to facts on the ground, as this became obvious during Summer-Fall, 2003.

(4) De-Baathification, including laying off the Iraqi Army.

(5) Apparently no effort to secure ammunition depots, or those alleged 'vast stockpiles of WMD's'. It must be nice for a guerrilla force to literally have more ammunition than they can expend.

(6) Neo-con dumbf*ckery such as crash privatization and destruction of as much of the Iraqi economy as possible, thereby making sure that the supply of guerrillas wouldn't fall short.

(7) Not even a half-way decent *attempt* to preserve law and order during the Summer of 2003, thereby destroying the reputation of US forces.

And that's just what has become public knowledge, despite the efforts of the administration to keep everytyhing secret.

[1] Given how few troops there were, and how little planning was done, it's questionable as to whether Rumsfield's scheme would have survived the feared urban warfare in Baghdad, if that had happened in May, 2003.

I agree with a lot of your suggestions, but some I have to qualify, and two I have to reject or substantially change.
I would argue that investigations should be staggered, maybe even a general schedule made that would release a 'bombshell a month.' There's certainly enough targets. But I would start almost at once on two subjects, military procurement in Iraq and the Haliburton style corruption in Iraq. Both can and should be portrayed as supporting the troops and correcting some of the messes we caused there, and can easily enlist both supporters of and opponents of the war. (Whatever you think of whether we should have gone, we shouldn't have cut corners at the expense of our troops, and our failure to 'rebuild Iraq' is one of the stronger arguments that is being used against us.)
[As a side note, if I were Nancy P. I would assign a number of the Representatives to reading Iraqi bloggers to get a better view of what is going on there, and I might even try and get a number of them to testify, particularly those who were driven out of the country by the violence.]
I would pass lobby reform, earmark reform, and ethics reform -- and make sure to tell the ethics committee to go after members of both parties when necessary.
Agreed on Plan D, on minimum wage, on 9-11 commission.
I'd also repeal the 'faith-based initiative' in the process detailing its use for political purposes and the way it was biased against any but conservative to radical Christian groups.
I'd start work on health care coverage for all, and if a sensible and radical bill could be created, force Bush to veto it. (We NEED a radical bill to get universal coverage.)
A VERY cl0ose watch should be put on Bush's judicial nominees, so the courts are not clogged with Christianist 'strict constructionist' anti-abortion, anti-gay groups.
Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
And finally, I have to strongly disagree with they type of Immigration Reform bill that would likely to come out, even from the Democrats. Immigration has been one of the most powrful forces for good in the history of this country, it still is, and any 'reform' should make immigration easier, citizenship easier, and welcome most of the immigrants already here. (The only area I'd agree with most writers would be controls on those with criminal records, and making it harder to come and work here without starting the citizenship process.)

How about adding media reform to the list?

OK, we've had quite a few years now of media conglomerates with pretty much no limits on what they can own, and I think it's pretty clear the result has been a disaster.
All the various advances and whatnot that we were promised would be the result of "increased efficiencies"" that have happened since then we owe to the googles, amazons, youtubes, and most especially bloggers of the world, not to the media conglomerates.
Meanwhile the groupthink single-simple-minded presentation of events that was predicted has indeed occurred.

Given that the media have been so relentlessly pro-Republican and given that the majority of Americans have no great love these conglomerates, I think the time is right, on moral, political and payback grounds, to go back to the status quo ante --- limited ownership of newspapers, TV and radio stations and so on. (Payback may seem like a poor basis for public policy, but a media that is aware that it can get bitten when the wind changes might be a media that is a little more interested in telling the truth.)

Maynard Handley wrote, "Given that the media have been so relentlessly pro-Republican and given that the majority of Americans have no great love these conglomerates, I think the time is right, on moral, political and payback grounds, to go back to the status quo ante --- limited ownership of newspapers, TV and radio stations and so on."

I agree, though I think the most important thing is to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. That would really screw with the right-wing agitprop process.

(Payback may seem like a poor basis for public policy, but a media that is aware that it can get bitten when the wind changes might be a media that is a little more interested in telling the truth.)

As I've said on a few blogs, iterated Prisoner's Dilemmas are a basic fact of human existence, and when the other guy defects repeatedly, a reasonable and fair strategy (Tit for Tat) says you have to defect also.

This line of comments demonstrates what happens if the Dems bring up SS now. The discussion just goes 'round and 'round while other issues get dropped. Later with SS changes, if needed.

Uhhhh...anyone wanna do something about the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act or NSA domestic wiretapping, or posse comitatus or New Orleans????

I'm all for some moderation, even though I'd like nothing more than to see Bush impeached. I grudgingly concede that it wouldn't do for the Dems to appear (too) vindictive. However, I don't know why habeas corpus, torture, and illegal surveillance of citizens aren't high on your list. I can't see how tackling those immediately could be perceived as vincictive. A little outrage is in order, don't you think? The Dems would appear heroic if they addressed those issues right away, if you ask me. If they ignore them, they'll seem as spineless as they have for a good long while. http://pamela.poole.free.fr/frogblog/

I want to support a previous poster to suggest that voting reform should be high on the Dems agenda. ALL software should be open source and all hardware should be under 24/7 control during the election season. And breaches of protocol should not be punishable by fine but by loss of office. Well, OK, that might need some refinement, but you get my drift.

"Gain the trust of the voters by doing things with broad-based support, and that put Republicans in a bad light. Then start thinking Second New Deal in 2009."

Bait and switch, in other words.

I agree with everything you say. Our new Democratic Congress has to act quickly to start cleaning up the mess the WH and 109th congress left behind.

I would like to make on comment about Social Security. I am (too) rapidly approaching the point where it kicks in for me and the most glaring problem with SS is that congress has used it as their personal piggy bank for decades. I understand that the money my generation paid into SS went to support my parent's generation, but not all of it. There are a lot more 'boomers' then there were greatest generation people, so it stands to reason that there should be money left over to off set the fact that the boomer's kids are fewer then us. Except congress used that extra money for God only know what. That is the first thing that has to be changed with SS. Lock the safe and keep the congress out of our money.

Just my opinion...

Rick Jacobs

I am a single female middle aged middle income moderate Republican voter. I exercised my franchise on behalf of the Democrats in this election to protest not only the mess that is Iraq and filthy partisan slandering wedge-baiting politics, but to declaim against economic and taxation policies and laws that have favored the wealthy and the corporations and caused stagnation in wages and marginalized my income group and forced me and many others to the edge of bankruptcy as a result. I want a repeal of the banking legislation that raised credit card interest rates and nearly doubled payments and forced many middle income families to live from hand to mouth. I want the United States to stop the "we're an information economy" crap and bring back our manufacturing base from the brink of extinction. I want job opportunities that will pay decent wages and re-regulation of public utilities and socialized medicine to make the basic necessities of living here accessible to all. I want laws against illegal immigration enforced. I want the American Dream to represent what the Founders meant it to be - that this not be a country where only aggressive elites and their progeny and the special interests may prosper, but a place that is a very good home to us all.

Not just a minimum wage bill, but a min wage bill with built in COLA, is the ticket. C'mon, Teles, show some actual progressive bones about doing something because it's right, not because "it appeals to the base.

Geez

Great thoughts except for one really foolish comment: yes we absolutely must blame this mess (Iraq)on the Republicans. Do not undermine or interfere with the blame-Republicans message. Three reasons:
1. It is their fault.
2. No matter what the facts may be, they have in the past and will in the future blame us. Don't b naive about it.
3. They have to blame us because their only selling point is the myth of their superiority in defense and foreign affairs. They got this rep by blaming us for Vietnam. Now we can see what they do when they have the power. They deserve to lose their reputation for superiority in this area. Don't be an enabler.

We shouldn't be unfair and vengeful to thhe Republicans. But we shouldn't be naive about them either. The bully is only temporarily chastened. They need to be labeled as wrong in the areas where they in fact were wrong and Iraq is their biggest fuck up of all.

The looming Federal budget and debt crisis could be eased with a war tax, levied against the corporate military indutrial complex-rate 99% of net profits. Those military contractor executives should be taxed 100% of all income/benefits above 300k annual income... for the good of our country. In addition, Those who have benefitted the most from our great Country, those who stand to lose the most if we are over run by invaders...should be assesed an emergency war tax: 50% of all earned and investment gain above $200k/year. We shall see who wants war when it is not so profitable...We may as well make solar panels and construct more energy efficient transportation systems. Or we could pay down the debt...Or both.

The looming Federal budget and debt crisis could be eased with a war tax, levied against the corporate military indutrial complex-rate 99% of net profits. Those military contractor executives should be taxed 100% of all income/benefits above 300k annual income... for the good of our country. In addition, Those who have benefitted the most from our great Country, those who stand to lose the most if we are over run by invaders...should be assesed an emergency war tax: 50% of all earned and investment gain above $200k/year. We shall see who wants war when it is not so profitable...We may as well make solar panels and construct more energy efficient transportation systems. Or we could pay down the debt...Or both.

None of the reforms that concern lobbying and ethics suggested above are likely to occur with Steny Hoyer in place as Pelosi's second-in-command. He is as resistent to lobbying/ethics reform as any republican. I'm not sure Murtha is any better on this issue but at least he (unlike Hoyer) won't be actively working to bring Pelosi down.

As a former Marylander, I say, beware Hoyer. And as one of your current constitutents, I say, Nancy, watch your back!!!

To blindnomore: Nothing could be further from the vision of the Founders than your desires for the United States today. They believed in individual liberty, freedom of opportunity and limited government ( which is why we have a Constitution) You want your government to take care of you make all your decisions for you. Everything you want exists today in France. It's called socialism. Maybe that is where you should be living.
As for the rest of the ideas in this blog let me point out that on Tuesday, 28 or so out of 435 congressional districts and 6 or so out 100 senate seats changed hands mostly by very slim margins. A very small shift indeed. I would hardly call this a mandate for the Democrats or an utter rejection of Republican policy. But with the very slim margin of political control held by Democrats, what I'm hearing proposed are payback politcal witchunts under the name of "oversight". Economic policy based on increases in taxation but only on the rich. I never cease to be amazed at how low the "rich" threshold really is. Two teachers with a combined income of $90K per year can be "rich". The fact is that the top 10% of income earners already pay 90% of the income taxes is a fact not often discussed among the "tax the rich" crowd.
That all of social security's problems will be solved by just a slight increase in the tax. FDR promised the original tax rate would never go above 3%. It's now abiout 7.5% with your employer paying that much again in matching payments. It's about 15% if you are self emplyed. It is paid across the board by all wage earners with after tax income. Talk about your regressive taxation.
I could go on but I am reminded of two axioms:
1. The more things change, the more they stay the same;
2. When all is said and done, more will be said than done.

Hey bighhoss - and with all due respect, perhaps you are the one who should be going to France, whose citizens seem sorely in need of some of that good old robber baron greed is good, if you're poor it's your fault, every man for himself, God bless the shareholders and screw labor, free market brainwashing too.

Ironic, I was in France just last week. While standing on Omaha beach a Frenchman thanked me, as an American, for the sacrifices of my father's generation. Many of the French with whom I spoke would love to have the opportunity we have here. Even with all their government provided benefits, I would not trade my middle class standard of living for theirs.
It is because of economic opportunity provided by a capitalist free market economy that we have an illegal immigration problem. They want to be here to have the opportunity to make money and improve their lives. Government planned, highly regulated, high tax economies are at best stagnant if not outright failures. The Soviet Union imploded because its weak economy could not sustain a military buildup to compete with the United States. China has dumped communism and embraced capitalism, albiet with a facsist government. The economic, tax and regulatory evironment in China is such that American manufacturing can't compete. What will poor Americans do when consumer goods prices double at Wal-mart so that somewhere, some other American can keep their low productivity, union scale, free health care, defined benefit pension plan job ? When was the last time anyone writing on this page deliberately purchased a signifcantly higher priced item over the same item at a lower price solely because it was made in the USA?
If the minimum wage was $10 or even $15, as some have suggested, my 16 year old son would not have been able to get a job last summer.
A percentage tax cut will always favor those who pay the most taxes. 10% of $1,000,000 will always return more dollars to the taxpayer than 10% of 10,000. But if the fat cat take his ill gottn gains and buys a Cadillac who benefits? The auto worker. If he builds a house on the beach? Carpenters, electricians, plumbers. If he plows it back into a business? His employees. If he sticks it in the bank? A borrower buying a home. If he gives it to the government? They can send it to some third world hell hole whose people's hatred of each other is exceeded only by their hatred of us. Or maybe they can spend it on a bridge to nowhere. Or may be they can put it into to funding health care, nutrition and housing for the five illegitimate children by five different fathers of a 25 year old woman. ( but we all know that requiring birth control would violate her rights)

The truth is that the capitalist free market economy has provided the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the history of the world. Whatever is in second place has never even come close. Can the system be abused? of course. Are there greedy charlatans? Absolutely!.
But over all, if the people are sovereign in this country and can be trusted to govern, then it follows that they can make better economic decisions with their own money than some bureaucrat that has been handed a wad of money that doesn't belong to him.

Did anyone else see the Frontline about pensions that PBS has been running lately? Maybe working up some kind of bankrupcy/pension reform legislation would be a good thing to persue at this point. A pocketbook/cleaning up corporate greed issue that might appeal to a broad cross section of both conservative and liberal voters.