-
sponsorship
Explainer Wanted: Why would a politician ever concede a non-blowout race until every last ballot is counted? The momentary frisson of good will can't be worth the possibility that the concession will turn out to have been a mistake--as it was for Jimmy Carter in 1980, Al Gore in 2000, and now conservative Doug Hoffman in the NY-23 congressional race. ... Hoffman will probably still lose when all the ballots are in, but his concession has already had real world consequences--it allowed Nancy Pelosi to swear in Hoffman's Democratic opponent in time to give health care reform its narrow House majority. I'm assuming the people who voted for Hoffman aren't happy with that. ... P.S.: Dick Morris claims, plausibly, that Pelosi had many Dem votes in reserve. Still, thanks to Hoffman's concession she didn't have to use them. ...
Update: Mystery Pollster answers.
One answer: They remember Ellen Sauerbrey Hoffman wants to run again next year, also counted right
I'm not convinced. You don't have to be nasty about it. Just say "Let's see how it turns out" and don't concede. ... 9:48 P.M.
___________________________
Things you thought you were getting in the auto bailout. ... Chrysler's showy electric and hybrid cars? Forget them. Now that Chrysler has your money, they're dead. ... GM's 2010 IPO? The one that was going to raise money to repay taxpayers? It's receding rapidly into the future. "It depends on how quickly we become profitable. ... I can’t promise a date," says GM Chairman Ed Whitacre. Translation: Not going to happen. ... Suckers! ... 9:40 P.M.
___________________________
Am I the only one who smells Kabuki in the reports that President Obama has dramatically rejected all the Afghan war options with which he was presented, demanding to know where the "off ramps" are? If you were about to recommend a troop increase that was unpopular, especially with your Democratic base, wouldn't you precede it with some drama like this to demonstrate that you are a) in charge, b) not being conned, and c) insistent on a withdrawal as quickly as possible? Just asking. ... 10:54 P.M.
___________________________
What's wrong with the upcoming Chevy Cruze? Production of the new compact has been delayed three months. The New York Times says the problem is "engine performance and the quietness of the Cruze's ride." AP, quoting the same GM executive, says the problem is the transmission ("No one was thrilled with where it shifted, how it shifted.") What if they're both right? ... P.S.: It's fine that GM postpones a launch for a car that's not yet up to snuff. But the NYT's Bill Vlasic is a sucker for buying the line that this sort of delay represents a dramatic "culture" shift:
In the past, G.M. rarely held back a product to add the extra touches that would improve its chances in a fiercely competitive market.
Please. GM's been peddling this line for years. See, for example, this U.S. News report:
Concerns over quality have substantially altered the way Detroit launches new models. A case in point is the line of luxury midsized cars planned for this fall by Cadillac, Buick and Oldsmobile. Transaxle problems with these front-wheel-drive C-body models caused GM to delay their introduction until at least January, and possibly spring. ''The car will have to tell us when it's ready," says Robert Burger, Cadillac's general manager. Notes a longtime industry observer: ''In the old days, that would be unheard of. They'd move the cars in the fall, whether they were right or not.''
That paragraph was published in 1983. ... 10:56 P.M.
___________________________
"CNN doesn't have a brand. It has a bland. It just got blander." -- Alert reader T. ... 11:36 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
SETUP GRAF FAIL! WaPo's Dana Milbank traveled to Richmond, Virgina to watch Republican Whip Eric Cantor talk to his constituents about health care. Seems to have been a boring meeting. Hence Milbank's angle--the New Civility! ("The Health-Care War Gets a Little More Civil.") But to make this a man-bites-dog story, Milbank needed a paragraph explaining why we should have expected something different from Cantor.("The remarkable thing ... is what didn't happen.") Here's what Milbank came up with:
Was this the same Eric Cantor who was shown using his BlackBerry [**] during Obama's speech to Congress? The same one who, on Fox News after the speech, accused Obama of using a "smoke screen" and "hyperbole" and lacking "some adult sense of responsibility"? The very same Cantor who, in the National Review last week, urged Obama to "read the bill" and again raised the problem of illegal immigrants?
Cantor accused Obama of a "smoke screen"? And "hyperbole"? Surely that's against House Rules. ... Maybe the rule against cliched rhetoric so bland David Gergen wouldn't employ it if he'd overdosed on Benadryl! Ha ha ha ha ... Plus Cantor had raised a substantive "problem" with the bill. In an article. In National Review. The man will clearly stop at nothing. Indeed, with that track record, it's "remarkable" if Cantor fails to start foaming at the mouth and chewing on the surrounding flesh. Man doesn't bite dog! ...
**-- Cantor later said he was reading the speech text on his Blackberry and making notes, which is almost believable. ...11:50 P.M.
___________________________
What's Eating Craig Crawford? If this is the embargoed poll that CQ's Craig Crawford claims demonstrates that Obama "owns September" (and is making "significant progress in his media blitz" against the "'dumbikazes' of August") then ... well, I accuse him of "hyperbole." The NBC-WSJ poll shows a plurality opposing the Obama plan by 41-39, which is better than the previous month's 42-36, but not by that much. ... True, the poll was taken far enough out from Obama's big speech that any "bounce" might well have subsided--so this could be a residue of actual increased support. Still! It's small! ... I always thought Crawford was bland and reliable. Has he contracted the MSNBC virus? ...
Update--Three Points and a Cloud of Dust: If Crawford was talking about this poll from Democracy Corps--well, it's the same deal: "Support for Health Care Reform Up Slightly," but still three points behind (47-44). And the Democracy Corps poll was taken much closer to the President's speech--starting only three days after-- meaning that it may reflect a now-dissipated "bounce." ...
Backfill: Nate Silver's informal betting benchmark for speech success, remember, was whether it would "increase approval for the Democratic health care package by 5 or more points"--though it's no clear whether he meant "net" points or an actual 5-point rise in the percentage approving. Obama met the former standard, barely, only in the Democracy Corps poll. On the latter benchmark--a 5 point increase in actual approval--forget it. ... And forget about the "or more." ... Instead, pro-Dem pollwatchers are now spinning madly to make a loss-by-a-field-goal seem like a tie. Silver: "There's certainly not any tailwind of public support behind health care reform -- that was squandered many months ago. " ... 11:49 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Roger Simon says John Edwards could rehabilitate himself by becomng the "poster boy for tort reform," He forgot about the sex tape. ... 6:47 P.M.
___________________________
Jimmy Carter cites racism as anti-Obama factor. Instant reaction: Kiss of Death. Gift to the GOPs. Remember the Carter era of smug moralizing? Anyone want to go back to that? ... P.S.: A good example of how, if the MSM wants to tilt against the Republicans, it's often too wedded to its own conventions--e.g., the desire to 'make news' with an ex-Pres.--to be effective. ... No sophisticated campaign propagandist would say, "OK, let's throw Jimmy Carter at them. They'll be reeling!" ....6:42 P.M.
___________________________
Obama Overexposure Tour continues. ... Next: Bloggingheads? Mediaite Office Hours? 6:40 P.M.
___________________________
Jeffrey Lord gives a good description of the MSM Gatekeeper's Greatst Hits. Then he goes on and on. Makes Rabbi Saperstein look like Marcel Marceau. ...P.S.: Lord lays it on as if only conservative bloggers, etc, have been rebelling against Big Media. As if he wants a piece of the Mark Levin business. Depressing. ... [via Lucianne] 6:40 P.M.
___________________________
Why did the GOP lead in "generic" ballot evaporate on Rassmussen, even as Obama health bounce also vanished? Is the Joe Wilson heckle hurting? ... Could this be an example of a successful kamikaze-style attack? Wilson's "You lie" badly damaged its target (Obama has apparently now caved on the central issue of verifying legal status) but it also damaged Wilson. ... Except that it's not clear it damaged Wilson himself, reelection wise. It's his party that's maybe been hurt. "Kamikaze" isn't the right analogy. ... What's the word for a kamikaze attack in which the pilot survives but the carrier he took off from gets sunk? ... 6:23 P.M.
___________________________
Twitter is not @marcambinder's friend! It broadcasts his initial take--which is often 180 degrees wrong. Example #1: Twittering as if Obama would be mad at the networks that his off the record "jackass" comment leaked. #2: Twittering as if town hall rebelliousness would help the Dems. ... 6:09 P.M.
___________________________
That False Consciousness Keeps On Coming: Workers at Boeing factory vote to un-unionize. By secret ballot. ... Because when it comes to decertifying unions, union lobbyists insist on the sanctity of the secret ballot. ... 6:08 P.M.
___________________________
Jack Palance Plays Elmer Gantry: Andrew Breitbart + Good Haircut = Slightly Scary Rabble-Rousing Potential. ... 6:05 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
National Public Radio fights back against the old accusation that if you scratch its surface you'll find a bunch of government-subsidized leftists. From the Sept. 11 "All Things Considered":
MELISSA BLOCK, host: This week, a Web site called FiLife.com launched a Twitter contest to reduce policy on how to fix health care to a mere three words. Some entries so far...
ROBERT SIEGEL, host: Promote Healthy Living and Eat an Apple are two examples.
[snip]
SIEGEL: Our staff made up some three-word policy proclamations: Doctors Make Less and Cuban Health Care. ...
[E.A.] 6:23 P.M.
___________________________
Joe Wilson: Controlled implosion? ... P.S.: And where was Kanye West that evening, I ask you? ... 6:24 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Kareem wants to coach the Lakers. ... 4:17 P.M.
___________________________
Kf welcomes Howard Fineman to the Blame Orszag Club:
Orszag's fantasy
Every president wants to reconcile frugality and generosity, and there is always an ambitious and clever aide willing to tell him it can be done. In Obama's White House it is Budget Director Peter Orszag, who confidently told Obama that carefully administered universal health coverage would save the government money in the long run. ... [snip]
Obama doesn’t like to make enemies, and he loved the idea — fueled by the likes of Orszag — that he could fight the reform battle on conservative turf: that we need to completely change the system because otherwise we will go bankrupt as a country.
But that was a tactical mistake on two fronts. First, Elmendorf undercut it with three devastating CBO reports.
And even if the proposals did save the government money, Republicans in Congress weren’t going to care!
For two generations, they were on the receiving end of Democratic fear-mongering how the GOP wanted to “throw grandma in the snow.” Now they are relishing the chance to accuse Obama of the same thing.
Prediction: CW by September 14. ... 9:49 P.M.
___________________________
Do the folks over at NRO's The Corner realize that The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is a Marxist movie? Forces of production (sheepherders, farmers) meeting fetters (cattle barons, Lee Marvin). Bourgeois freedoms (Jimmy Stewart) the product not of incremental progress but of a violent revolutionary moment (John Wayne). Etc. ... 10:57 P.M.
___________________________
'Little GM, You Used to Be So Big': Harry Shearer has written Fresh New GM!'s theme song. ... It even has a bridge. ... Downloadable Sept. 8, apparently. ... P.S.: TTAC's thorough review of GM's uninspiring future product plans (mainly a flood of ... Buicks) suggests that Shearer has the tone about right. ... P.P.S.: I'm not predicting New GM! will fail. But it's hard to see it succeeding without the immediate labor cost advantage that Ron Bloom and Steve Rattner failed to negotiate for them, or an infusion of outside a---kicking executives that hasn't happened either. ... Plus: Some anti-Lutzism. ... It looks as if the one American plant where UAW workers built Toyotas--the NUMMI joint venture with GM in San Jose, started in 1984--will close. NUMMI's products had a good reputation, but apparently it was only profitable "for a single year." ... 11:47 P.M.
___________________________
Ross Douthat wants the GOP to stop defending grandmas against Orszagist curve-bending and
stand for the principle that Medicare can't pay every bill and bless every procedure
As a Democrat, I applaud this long-overdue attempt to return Republicanism to its historic mission. It will be comforting to see Douthat's party reclaim its its traditional image as skinflints attempting to deny the poor and elderly compassionate medical treatments and benefits that might prolong their miserable lives. It's been getting confusing lately! ... Maybe we can trade them Orszag for a pro-life big spender to be named later. ... 11:51 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, who would succeed Mark Sanford should Sanford resign, needs to update his web site! His blog still has Sanford "hiking along the Appalachian Trail" (though Bauer is waiting for "a more definitive idea of what part of the Trail he was on"). ... P.S.: With his campaign to allow "I Believe" license plates, Bauer seems ripe for liberal mockery. And even papers that have demanded Sanford's resignation don't seem to have much confidence in him. The Spartanburg Herald Journal, after calling for Sanford to step down, writes:
“South Carolinians cannot be sure that Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer has the capability to lead the state in this recession. They can only hope that he will be up to the task.“
They can pray! ... Update:
"He’s an attractive, conservative Republican, single, straight — and he has a lots of attractive women that want to be his friend on his public Facebook and MySpace page," said [Bauer strategist Chris] LaCivita. "What’s their complaint? I’ll tell you — they're jealous."
1:46 P.M.
___________________________
Wagner Act Unionism is bringing its benefits to the Bay Area, where the BART transit system may go on strike despite having negotiated what seem to be generous wages and benefits:
A top-scale station agent and top-scale train operator each make $30.01 per hour, $62,860 a year, in base pay. The transit system also pays 100 percent of the so-called employee contribution toward pensions — an amount equivalent to 7 percent of a salary — though many other California public agencies require workers to pick up some or all of that contribution toward their state pensions.
Overall, BART employees - including managers and hourly workers - get average total annual pay of $71,633, including overtime, and BART picks up an average of $48,000 a year for each worker's benefits, the transit system said.
Workers contribute $81.90 a month toward medical insurance.
But for all that the taxpayers get a finely-wrought mesh of work rules:
Antiquated work rules hurt BART finances by ramping up overtime, BART officials said.
They point to rules requiring that two workers remove seat covers and backing for cleaning. A utility worker unsnaps the cushion. A journeyman mechanic is called in to remove two screws for the seat backing.
Among cleaning crews, a worker in one job classification cleans inside stations and another worker in another classification cleans outside the roof line of stations.
This isn't an example from the 1950s. It's an example from this week. Why would anyone fail to support a "card check" reform designed to encourage the spread of these practices? They worked in Detroit, right?...
Update: Here is a searchable database of BART salaries. ... It's the #1 most-viewed page in the Contra Costa Times at the moment, so it might be slow to load. ... 2:02 P.M.
___________________________
First hit, best hit. ... 8:36 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Josh Marshall's TPM has been presciently keeping the undernews fires burning on the Sanford scandal, even when the mainstream media (MSM) was buying the story that the governor had been hiking the Appalachian trail. But reading over TPM's post "Sanford Press Conference Leaves Unanswered Questions," I was struck by one thing: How uninteresting all the remaining questions are.** "[W]ould [Sanford] have stuck to the Appalachian story" if he could have gotten away with it? Duh! "[D]id he voluntarily tell the State's reporter that he had been in Argentina" or did she look at his luggage tags? Did he see his paramour on earlier taxpayer-funded junkets to Latin America? Other analysts wonder if he used taxpayer-funded gas to drive to the airport. Not sure anybody cares.
We have Faster News and Faster Politics and Faster Scandal. It seems likely that in the course of about 48 intriguing hours those who follow the news have basically learned everything important they need to know about the Sanford mess. He was in Buenos Aires. He cheated on his wife. He really seems to have been in love with this Argentinian. He's out of the 2012 presidential race. Things that ten years ago would have dribbled and drabbed out over the course of days or weeks now hit the Web within minutes. What's left?
Even the story about how scandals happen faster these days has already been done--by TPM, about 29 minutes ago.
There are some obvious implications to Faster Scandals. For one thing, they lead to Faster Comebacks. (Though that won't happen if, like John Edwards, you successfully prolong the suspense, leaving key details--like paternity--hanging for months and even years.) But there are also unanswered questions! Most importantly, what does Faster Scandal mean to Jerry Skurnik's "second electorate"--the one that doesn't follow the news and won't find out about the Sanford scandal until either a) they see it briefly on the nightly news or the front page of their MSM paper tomorrow, or b) Sanford runs for national office years from now, if he runs, in which case a significant segment of voters may suddenly discover that he's an adulterer (the way they discovered that Giuliani was an adulterer at an absurdly late date, namely the GOP primaries of 2008).
In general, you'd think Faster Scandal would mean diminished scandal. The rule of thumb for disaster spin has always been to get the whole story out fast--and now it typically gets out fast, whether the pol at the center of the scandal wants it to or not. A weeks-long story is now a one-day shotgun blast. (Edwards may be an exception in part because reporters have been reluctant to cause more pain to his wife and haven't bothered to smoke out all the key facts.) Back when the editor of the LA Times had a motto of "Do It Once, Do It Long, and Do It Right," it was a scandal-killer, in part because it avoided the extended period of uncertainty in which the media's tom toms of doom are beating and wavering sources can be panicked into coming forward. Now the technology of news has conspired to make the LAT's misguided motto the normal course of events.
But it's also possible that by blunting the initial impact of scandal's like Sanford's--and restricting it largely to Skurnik's first, informed electorate--the increasing speed of scandal means that when the second uninformed electorate finally does learn about it--say, during Sanford's 2016 presidential run--the damage will be all the greater. The news will seem fresher to more of them, because it didn't have sufficient impact back in 2009 to have been processed by everyone. ...
**--Yes, there is still the issue of Maria, who she is, etc. Photos tk. But even that is less interesting now, with so much of the story already out.
P.S.--Was it really about the sex, governor? Do you know anyone who's been to Buenos Aires recently and not wanted to stay there? I know four or five people who returned to California's alleged paradise only reluctantly. ... 5:07 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Friday, April 3, 2009
Undernews Alert: Big-Story-If-True Division: 1) The NYT-ACORN "game changer" story [Now on O'Reilly-ed And even Hot Air isn't quite convinced. Update: More here.]. ... I note that the reasons reporters give to sources for killing a story sometimes play to the sources' preexisting beliefs about press bias, and those reasons are sometimes not the real reasons the story was dropped. (It's easier to say "my editors are such Democrats" than "I'm not sure I believe you"). But would I be shocked if the Times chose not to pursue a story that might have damaged Obama? No. The allegation resonates with the Raines/Torricelli spike incident. ... 2) Are there "side letters" proving "that AIG never intended to pay out on any of its [credit default swap] contracts"? ... 2:34 P.M.
___________________________
When will elite right-wing opposition to the war in Afghanistan emerge in public? It's out there. ... Watch for the 'Bush avoided escalating this war because he knew it was a quagmire' meme. ... 2:33 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
A difficult announcement for me to make. .... 12:15 A.M.
___________________________
Reihan Salam writes, of the secretive liberal JournoList:
I only wish right-of-center types could form something equally fun and stimulating and influential ...
I think the Right is ... well, here's what I think. ... Esprit d'escalier: A point I should have made in my debate with Bob Wright, who argues that there have always been private salon-style discussions. True. But the Web can take things that were once benign and render them problematic (and vice versa, I guess). For example, Wright himself frequently argues that the internet has made it easier for angry people with a common, minority grievance to find each other and form groups that can turn to terrorism. There have been angry people for a long time, and there have been angry people who have turned to violence, but the technology of the Web makes a qualitative difference, just as advances in fertility technology can make the qualitative difference between a woman with a long-sought child and Octomom. It's true that there have been "tongs" and salons and other off-the-record discussions for a long time, but the Web might enable an increase in scale so that they become something less benign that actually inhibits productive public debate. Or not! But it's not enough to say "well, this is just an Internet version of something that existed pre-Web." ... 12:10 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Robert Rector and Katherine Bradley note that the anti-welfare-reform provisions in the stimulus bill aren't as bad as I'd feared. They're worse. They attempt replicate the fiscal mechanics of the old welfare (AFDC) "entitlement," but with a bigger incentive to welfare expansion:
For the first time since 1996, the federal government would begin paying states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads. Indeed, the new welfare system created by the stimulus bills is actually worse than the old AFDC program because it rewards the states more heavily to increase their caseloads. Under the stimulus bills, the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare; this matching rate is far higher than it was under AFDC.
12:58 P.M.
___________________________
If the election were held today, would Republicans retake the House? Michael Barone finds the Dem generic ballot plunge "astonishing," though he acknowledges it might be ephemeral. ... P.S.: Ramesh Ponnuru argues
Republicans would probably be better off if they spent less time pointing out the Democratic plan's flaws and more time talking up their favored economic fixes.
I dunno. If Barone is right, they're doing OK pointing out the flaws. (It's their fixes that are unappealing.) If the GOP's leaders had pointed out the Welfare Restoration provisions a little earlier, for example, they might have had a much bigger impact. ... P.P.S.: Remember when, during the Bush Social Security debate, responsible types urged Pelosi to present a Democratic alternative? She refused, and stuck to attacking the Bush plan. It worked. ... 12:52 P.M.
___________________________
Slouching toward 1994: The Corner reports that the Senate has dropped a requirement that employers who get stimulus money use the E-verify hiring system to screen out illegal workers. ... Update: But it's in the House bill, and could still be included in conference. Krikorian has more:
If Reid and Pelosi do strip the E-Verify provisions from the bill, they'd give Republicans an easy-to-explain reason to vote no: "The Democratic leadership rejected bipartisan measures to ensure that the jobs created would go only to Americans and legal immigrants, and we're not going to mortgage our great-grandchildren's future to create jobs for 300,000 illegal aliens."
Stimulus jobs for illegals! Restore welfare as we knew it! Maybe I'm wrong about where the electorate's anti-Dem hot buttons are located, but it sure seems as if Reid and Pelosi are determined to unearth them and push them. ... You almost think they're not bringing up gays in the military because it won't turn the voters sufficiently against them. ... By the time they get to "card check" in the summer they'll have rubbed the public raw, no? .. 12:39 P.M.
___________________________
It's not nice to piss off Heather Mac Donald. ... 12:36 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Shouldn't Republicans be making more of a fuss about the provision in the stimulus bill--both House and Senate versions, apparently--that spends $2-3 billion to the states for "temporary welfare payments"? I initially thought Charles Hurt of the N.Y. Post was being alarmist when he suggested the provision would "drastically undo two decades of welfare reforms." The essence of the 1996 reform was ending the individual legal entitlement to AFDC (cash aid to single mothers, basically) and replacing it with state-run programs that, in theory, require recipients to enter the work force. The stimulus bill doesn't rip up that basic deal, as I understand it. But it is part of a larger liberal campaign** to use the recession to weaken work requirements and let millions of non-working single mothers back on the welfare rolls. Specifically, it would apparently reward states that expand their welfare caseloads--even if the increase is only the product of loosened work requirements rather than a worsening local economy.
Nothing wrong with helping states avoid anti-stimulating cuts in a recession. Nothing wrong with targeting money to the poorest, who are most likely to spend it quickly. But why use the aid specifically to encourage expansion of welfare? This isn't "welfare" as only conservative Republicans would define it--i.e. any means-tested assistance. This is welfare as everyone would define it--cash assistance to able-bodied single mothers (or fathers) who may or may not be working, as in the old, despised AFDC program. Better to use the money (and more) to create public jobs*** for these would-be recipients if private sector jobs have dried up, even if that upsets municipal employee unions (which don't want welfare recipients doing jobs their members might do). Don't revive the old AFDC principle that if you have a child, you can count on the government to take care of you with cash aid even if you don't work.
At the very least the extra aid to the states shouldn't be triggered by caseload expansion. (You could, for example, give states aid in proportion to their local unemployment rate.)
You would think this would be a potential killer issue for the GOPs--"See, the Democrats already want to undo welfare reform"--and Obama, being sensitive to the charge, might quickly back down. It's easiest to whack the camel when only its nose is in the tent, no?
More tk, as I find out more. ...
**--See, for example, Peter Edelman's comments here.
***--These could either be "workfare" jobs (required once you are receiving welfare) or last-resort WPA-style jobs (which pay people for their work without ever signing them up for welfare). ...
Update: Thanks to Rob Neppell, here is the relevant provision in the House bill, and in the pre-compromise Senate bill. The Nelson/Collins compromise language does not seem to be available yet. ... Note that the extra federal money seems clearly tied to increased welfare caseloads, not increased unemployment or poverty or other measure of need:.
A State meets the requirement of this clause for a quarter if the average monthly assistance caseload of the State for the quarter exceeds the average monthly assistance caseload of the State for the corresponding quarter in the emergency fund base year of the State.
If a state somehow succeeds at placing would-be recipients in jobs, it's out of luck under this provision. To get the extra federal money, it has to get more people on welfare (though presumably it could count "workfare" participants if it happens to have a workfare program). ....2:52 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Sunday, February 1, 2009
What could Sen. Judd Gregg possibly do in a second-tier cabinet position--Commerce--to advance his conservative philosophy that would possibly make up for giving his ideological opponents a 60-seat majority in the Senate? Stop card check? Achieve a free trade agenda? ... Quick, name Bush's last Commerce secretary. ... Even if New Hampshire's Democratic governor angers his party by appointing a Republican to replace Gregg, will it be an anti-card-check Republican? ... Gregg could go down as the biggest sucker since Arthur Goldberg, who let Lyndon Johnson con him into giving up a lifetime Supreme Court seat to become Ambassador to the U.N. ... Update: Jennifer Rubin thinks Gregg should give the money back ..... 1:16 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
In mid-death throes, Chrysler actually shows a good-looking car at the Detroit Auto Show. ... Model designation: 2L-8 GT. ... 12:12 A.M.
___________________________
Monday, January 12, 2009
An idea so crazy it just might be crazy! Facing an economic slowdown, possible deflation, declining readership and competition that gives away its product for free, the Los Angeles Times raises newsstand prices 50%. ....Update: Alert reader B emails, "It's even crazier than you say. It's not just the "competition that gives away its product for free" -- the Times gives itself away for free." ... 12:42 P.M.
___________________________
Does the GOP Congressional leadership dare launch a fight over whether Davis-Bacon style wage schedules, beloved by organized labor, apply to various projects that use Obama's stimulus funds? They'd almost certainly lose (as they did when the issue came up in the context of Katrina relief), but that wouldn't be the point. The point would be to take a stand that would a) ventilate the arguments against Davis Bacon; b) highlight Obama's dependence on Big Labor; and c) deter Obama from moving very far in the direction of non-market, bureaucratic determination of wages (through mandatory arbitration under the "card check" bill, direct setting wage scales by the federal government under Davis-Bacon, and eventually, maybe, court-imposed wage-rejiggering to eliminate male/female disparities under the doctrine of "comparable worth").
In a bad recession, why shouldn't we use the government to boost wages above market levels (which is what conservatives say the Davis-Bacon schedules in fact do)? It's not just that, if the Davis-Bacon wage is higher than the market wage, lower wages mean you can employ more people and get more done. The incoming Obama team should actually want wages on stimulus projects to be a little below normal market wages, in order to nudge people to move into regular, non-stimulus private and public projects as the economy recovers, no? That was FDR's policy for the WPA, though he had to break a strike to get it. ... 1:24 A.M.
___________________________