You Can't Spell "Douchebag" Without "LaVorgna"

The Wall Street Journal's Mark Whitehouse has an excellent breakdown today (subscription required) of how it's going to be extremely difficult, if not well-nigh impossible, for GDP to grow at the rate the Soc. Sec. trustees assume it will (1.9% per year), at the same time stock returns grow at the rate Chimpy McSmirkalot says they will in order to justify the usefulness of his privatization scheme (6.5% per year).

The story also includes this chart, compiling a list of economists' projections for the average annual stock return rate for the next 44 years:



You'll notice that Joe LaVorgna, who, when the Bush administration says "Bend over," he asks, "How far?" fully agrees with the concept that stocks will return 6.5% per year for the next 44 years. Goodness, what a surprise. I don't know what Jeremy Siegel's deal is, but he's predicting 6%. It's possible he believes economic growth will be stronger than 1.9%. LaVorgna, on the other hand, will fully support the trustees' projection for GDP growth, even as he predicts a tax-cut fueled economic boom that will span the next five-hundred years. He has neither credibility nor shame.

Anyway, that aside, the article is really good. Basically, in order for stocks to grow at the 6.5% per year the administration promises, the economy would have to grow much faster than 1.9% per year. If the economy grows at that rate, then Social Security's problems will be greatly reduced -- perhaps even eliminated.

Seven-Year Bitch

Seven! Ha ha ha! Seven Years of Solvency! (And yes, I know I'm mixing my vampires)

Josh Marshall notes that Indiana Rep. Chris Chocola -- I wonder how often he gets called "Count." Because that would be hilarious -- and other Republicans are going around claiming that bumping up the level of wages subject to Social Security tax will only extend the life of the program for 7 years.

Josh incomparably points out that this is ... well, not to put too fine a point on it, horse shit.

He points out that a new memo from the Soc. Sec. trustees says that fix would bump the date at which Soc. Sec. receipts start lagging behind Soc. Sec. payments to 2025 from 2018 (their projections). But the trustees also point out that it will extend the ability of the program to pay 100% of benefits until the year 2079 -- the furthest year of the trustees' projections. For all we know, it will take the program further than that.

Josh predicts, rightly so, that we will hear this seven-year marlarkey over and over and over again, probably all over Russert and Matthews and all the other vapid gasbags of the Sunday talk shows. He also wonders, rightly so, whether the Democrats will counter adequately.

If you've been reading Bob Somerby lately, you'll guess they won't.

Lurve Connection

I'm new to this Hannidating thing, where cryptofascists meet to find that someone special with whom to share a mutual hatred of poor people and intellectual curiosity.

Jesus' General has been making fun of the posts there, which I find just abhorrent. These people are looking for love, damn it. Who are we to point and laugh?

For example, it would be wrong to suggest that this entry by "Greg," 35, of Washington, contains a hidden message:

"So, I am looking for a mentally and physically attractive woman that shares my love of family and romance, and who has a positive outlook on life. I don’t have any baggage to speak of, so you will get a relatively clean slate."

It would be wrong to speculate that, by "baggage to speak of," Greg means "sexual experience." We shouldn't imagine that, by "a relatively clean slate," he means "a dong that has never been inside of a woman."

Yes, this is a serious site, doing serious business. For example, this saucy gentleman:



... appears to have been washed ashore on the beach of your heart, and if you're lucky, he'll let you look in his box ... his box of romance!

But not just any woman can look inside "Mark's" love box. "Mark," age 49, is in an undisclosed location, adding to his air of mystery. If you're going to find the treasure map to Mark's romantic cargo, you'll have to meet the following criteria:

"I am a 49 year old truck driver. Divorced, one daughter, 18, looking for a LADY, 45 to 55 years old, no tatoos, no body piercings except ears, but most importantly NOT LIBERAL (lady and not liberal kind of go hand in hand, don't they?)."

Got that, skanks? Only LADIES need apply!

Anyway, it would be wrong to make fun of this.

Reasons to go on living (musical version)

There are reasons to go on living. They come in the form of albums soon to be released. Namely:

Spoon: Gimme Fiction. Release Date: May 10.

I've only gotten into Spoon's last two albums (are they still called that?), Girls Can Tell and Kill the Moonlight. Both are near-masterpieces of seething minimalist cool. What does that mean? I'm not sure. But I know it sounds like something a rock critic would say, and I know that Britt Daniel's detached, adenoidal vocals and the assured swagger of the music mask some deeper emotion that touches me. Which is also something a music critic might say. Also, the songs really kick ass.

Full disclosure: I've already downloaded this album from the Internets, and so far it kicks sick ass. But don't worry, music industry: whenever I download a really good album, I always go and buy the CD like an old-fashioned geezer, and I will be buying this one ASAP on or after May 10.

The Mars Volta: Frances the Mute. Release Date: March 22.

If you've heard them, you either really, really love them or really, really hate them. I'm in the first camp. I know music snobs sniff and say, "Oh it's prog, didn't punk kill this genre decades ago? Oh, I am a lace-wearing foppish dandy. And where is the twee? Where has all the twee gone, long time passing?" I know they say this. But what I say is, "Eat it, foppish dandies." See, the guys in TMV were once in a band called At the Drive In, which was so full of post-punk fury that it simply melted the speakers. So these guys stepping into prog is like Nixon going to China: they've got the cred built up.

And anyway, it's not really prog, smart guys. It's more like Led Zeppelin with extended jams, if it's anything. Go here, and click on "multimedia" and listen to "Drunkship of Lanterns" and tell me it doesn't remind you of Zeppelin, if Zeppelin had picked up a salsa percussionist after Bonham died.

Anyway, I've heard the first single from the album, "The Widow," and it's a fairly simple, slow-burning song, similar to "Televators" on Deloused at the Comatorium. The rest of the album is supposed to be much freakier, but this is pretty decent. I can't wait to hear the rest.

Stephen Malkmus: Face the Truth. Release Date: May 24.

He is, of course, the former front man for Pavement. If you didn't like Pavement, you probably won't like him, though his sound has only gotten smoother and smoother. But then again, if you didn't like Pavement, I don't like you. He has produced some turd-like songs from time to time, both with Pavement and solo, but he has never produced an album that was not essential. I doubt this one will be any different. He's one of the few artists I can think of, along with maybe Radiohead, who have been consistently churning out great music for more than a decade.

Silver Jews: Tanglewood Numbers. Release Date: July Sometime.

This "band" is essentially a solo project of one David Berman, who is brilliant in his own right, so brilliant that he attracts a lot of other brilliant people, including the aforementioned Mr. Malkmus and then a staggering shitload of people for the upcoming album, including Will Oldham and a couple of ex-Pavement members. It's straight-ahead indie stuff, sort of like Pavement or Mr. Oldham or Refrigerator or ... pick your impossibly good indie band. Always excellent, if occasionally a little lazy.

The Face of a War Profiteer

Uncle "Bucky" Bush

I suppose it's not too surprising, but that doesn't make it any less depressing:

"The Iraq war helped bring record earnings to St. Louis-based defense contractor Engineered Support Systems Inc., and new financial data show that the firm's war-related profits have trickled down to a familiar family name -- Bush.

"William H.T. 'Bucky' Bush, uncle of the president and youngest brother of former President George H.W. Bush, cashed in ESSI stock options last month with a net value of nearly half a million dollars."

Braaaaaaiiiinsss!!!

Yes, I know it's unfair to make fun of somebody's appearance. Someday I could be caught in a threshing machine and made a hideous freak, like Frank Luntz. All of my children are already doomed to be severely, gruesomely deformed, thanks to all the immature jokes I've made in my life. But this guy deserves it, and hey, what's one more?

Turkeys in the Forex Barn

It was widely reported yesterday that South Korea's central bank, the world's No. 4 holder of dollar reserves, had decided to "diversify" its holdings, which everybody and their grandmother took as a signal to sell dollars hard:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The dollar tumbled on Tuesday as markets grew concerned about the likely impact of South Korea's plan to diversify its reserves out of U.S. assets, pushing the currency below key technical support levels.

South Korea's central bank, which holds a large chunk of U.S. Treasuries, said on Monday it planned to spread its reserves, which are the world's fourth largest, among a greater variety of currencies.

Since then, however, South Korea has clarified that it had no intention of selling any dollars. Several analysts suggested the same thing yesterday. It would appear that South Korea was simply reiterating an earlier stated policy to seek higher yield in other kinds of bonds, while hanging on to its stockpile of dollars.

Some observers, though, are still skeptical. And the wave of terror that spread through the forex market yesterday is telling -- everybody's waiting for a central bank to start selling dollars.

A commenter to Angry Bear's post today about it had this funny story about how central banks will approach selling their dollar assets:

Hmmm, let me bore you with one of those sickeningly cornpone "down on the farm" stories. When our friends the turkey farmers first took us up for the "tour" we were amazed when they indifferently swung open a 30 ft door, behind which were thousands of turkeys. I asked why the expected charge for freedom did not materialize. Were domesticated turkeys really that stupid?

"Well, they are dumb but not that dumb. They know the door's open, but they are afraid of what might be out there. One or two will go out, then scurry back, but eventually, yes, they all would come out."

Bankers and especially politicians are pretty much the human equivalent of turkeys, as we all can agree. :D The BOK was simply the first turkey to take that tenative step outdoors. That's what's important - this means the door is truly open. The scurrying back is unsurprising because we are dealing with turkeys, not, say, goats.

So the important thing is the state of the door. This is the first sign that it was opened. I think it's stuck that way, personally.

It is a funny story, and that's probably the way it will happen. But it's still not clear that South Korea was actually the first turkey out of the barn. A lot of analysts say the turkeys will be content to stay in the barn. I'm not sure one way or the other, but it is a little scary that a country like South Korea has this kind of power over us. What would happen if China up and decided to dump dollars? Yikes, indeed.

Giblets on Thompson

Thompson's not dead after all:

"Giblets saw the Good Doctor with his own two eyes just a few hours ago, heading north in the White Whale. He said he was headed up to heaven to shoot God. 'The great bastard's in season and it's long overdue,' the Godfather of Gonzo said as he dusted off his elephant gun."

Shoot him one time for me, Duke.

Thompson on the Bush Administration

"They are the racists and hate mongers among us -- they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the throats of these Nazis." -- from a Salon interview two years ago.

God damn, I'll miss him.

Adios, Duke.

There are no words.

Top Sketch Comedy Shows

After posting that Mr. Show transcript, I got to thinking. Yessir, I did. "What are the top sketch-comedy TV shows of all time?" I asked myself. I don't know. But first I'll compile a list. And then I'll think about it. Here's the list:

Mr. Show
Chappelle's Show
Saturday Night Live
The State
Upright Citizens Brigade
Fridays
Mad TV
Not Necessarily the News
Hardcore TV
Ben Stiller Show
Kids in the Hall
SCTV

And, though I think it belongs in a class all its own, Monty Python's Flying Circus.

Dinner time. More TK ...

Great Moments in Mr. Show History, Part One

Take it from me -- I love you!

I recently got all four seasons of Mr. Show with Bob (Odenkirk) and David (Cross) on DVD. A finer television program hath never been produced, methinks.

Because I love the four of you who accidentally stumble across this blog (one the other day while searching for "deepthroating" on Google, according to my high-tech tracking system), as a public service, and to break up the monotony of my tiresome liberal rants, I will be providing for you, stolen directly from unoriginal.com (with some editing by me, and some key moments in bold), transcripts of some of my favorite Mr. Show moments.

So without further adieu, we'll kick it off with a great skit from the second show of the first season:

Commercials of the Future: Updating Globo-Chem's Image:

Cast:

* David (Cross) - One Ad man
* Bob (Odenkirk) - Other Ad man
* John (Ennis) - CEO of Globo-Chem
* Jill (Talley) - Member of the board
* Tom (Kenny, a/k/a Spongebob) - Another member of the board

Bob: [pointing to Globo-Chem's slogan] Gentlemen, this isn't gonna to work anymore.

David: Globo-Chem owns 29% of the globe.

Bob: And your company distributes 1,945 different products.

David: Globo-Chem produces 83 new products per minute.

Bob: But there's a problem, people don't like Globo-Chem and its...2,023 different products.

David: The perception is that this company is a monster.

Bob: A beast.

David: A cold, heartless, smelly behemoth.

Bob: Run by a greedy, fat--

David: fat-headed, fatty pants.

Bob: A fatso.

John: [rises] Who do you think you are?! This company cares! We were in the people business when you were in short pants! My great-great-great grandfather started this company with one single rickety, leaky, hand-crafted slave ship, and a simple motto: "People selling people to people." So, don't tell me that I'm fat!! [sits back down]

David: Did, did we offend you?

Bob: Good!

David: Now we have your attention and we have to win you over.

Bob: Just like you have to win consumers.

John: [pause] Continue.

Bob: Cute, friendly, lovable--

David: Three things you are not. But you know who is?

Bob: Pit-Pat! Globo-Chem's new mascot. [picks up a Pit-Pat doll and hugs it]

David: Pit-Pat! A magical, pan-sexual, non-threatening spokesthing!

Bob: Ladies and gentlemen, we present new ad campaigns for three of your...3,974 different products...watch!

[Cut to commericial.]

Commercials of the Future: Bag Hutch Commercial

Cast-

* John- husband
* Janeane Garofalo- wife

[The set is a kitchen with brown paper bags stuffed in and coming out of cupboards and in drawers. There is a cupboard up front, and a door upstage.]

Bob V.O.: Bags! Bags! Bags! It always seems that you've got too many bags.

Janeane: [To camera] Help me!

Bob V.O.: You can't just throw them away. Now there's new "Bag Hutch!"

["Back Hutch" Brown Cardboard box appears instantly on counter]

[Close up of bags being placed in Bag Hutch as a caption on screen reads Bags must be folded neatly]

Bob V.O.: Bag Hutch is made is especially for bags! And holds up to twelve bags!

[Shots of brown bags instantly disappearing from the cupboards]

[Shot of Janeane placing bags in Bag Hutch as her husband walks in from the door behind and looks around the kitchen amazed]

John: Honey! Where are all the bags?

Janeane: [pointing] In the Bag Hutch.

[John leans over, looks in the Bag Hutch and smiles]

John: No shit!?

[Close-Up of Bag Hutch]

Bob V.O.: Bag Hutch, by Flix, a division of Globo-Chem.

[Pit-Pat mascot floats across the screen]

Pit-Pat: [also Bob V.O.] Take it from me, I love you!

[Back to the board room: The Globo-Chem employees are in shock.]

David: You see him? It's Pit-Pat!

Bob: Oh goodness, isn't he great? Here, watch another one.

[Cut to next commercial.]

Commercials of the Future: Ding Dong Burgers Commercial

[Shots of "Ding Dong King Kong Sing Song Burger Sign", a man eating a burger sped up.]

David V.O.: We went to a real Ding Dong Burger to ask real Ding Dong Burger eaters what they think of the new "Ding Dong King Kong Sing Song" Burger.

[Shot of a booth, with Brian and girlfriend on the same side, both with burgers]

Mary Lynn: It's great! [takes a bite]

Brian: It's so big, it's fucking great.

[another shot of the Ding Dong burger sign]

[shot of family of four in a booth with food on the table, Jill and son seated on left, Tom and daughter sitting on right]

David V.O.: What about you folks?

Jill: Yeah!

[close-up of Tom]

Tom: I can feed the whole family for under $20.

[wide shot of Tom smiling daughter]

[shot of Jill messing up son's hair]

Jill: And with the price of beef going through the fucking roof, that's a deal.

[shot of Bob and David seated, both with burgers and drinks. David, on left, is in a dark suit, dark sunglasses, and a black wig. Bob, on right, with his back to the camera, is in a dark suit, no sunglasses, and a blond wig]

David V.O.: Fellas?

David: [To camera] This cock sucker dragged me down here, I don't know.

[Bob turns and smiles to the camera]

[Close up of Bob]

Bob: [To David] - Just eat the fuckin' thing.

[Close up of David]

David: Fuck you asshole.

[shot of both, Bob turns and smiles to the camera]

[closeup of David's mouth, he takes a bite]

David: Fuck!

[shot of David's whole head and burger]

David: This mother fucker's tasty!

[shot of both]

Bob: I told your fucking ass!

[Bob turns and smiles to the camera, then the Ding Dong Burgers logo comes down over the shot]

David V.O.: Ding Dong Burgers, a Globo-chem company.

[Pit-Pat floats across the screen]

Pit-Pat: Take it from me, I love you!

[Back to the board room.]

Bob: See? He loves you!

Jill: What about the swearing??

Bob: Oh. Here, there's one more.

[Cut to last commericial.]

Commercials of the Future: Techcorp Systems Commercial

[Jay sitting in chair, head in hands]

Jay: God dammit.

Shit.

[walking to window]

Fuck.

[at window]

ASS! Shit! Mother! Cock!

[camera panning out, over mountains, over the globe]

Fuck! Fucky Fuck Fuck!

Bob V.O.: Techcorp Systems, another helpful Globo-Chem company.

[Pit-Pat floats across the screen]

Pit-Pat: Take it from me! I love you!

[Back in the board room: The employees are shocked; John is in a daze.]

Bob: Pit-Paaat!

David: Pit-Pat!

[David opens the door and a life-size Pit-Pat comes in and hugs and squeezes John until David has to pull Pit-Pat away and shove him out the door.]

David: Okay, we have plans for an animated children's program, a breakfast cereal, a line of clothing, a video game, a--

Tom: Excuse me. Excuse me. You still haven't answered the question about the swearing--what about the swearing?

David: Please, let's stick to one subject, here. Okay, Pit-Pat is a magical pixie, who can fly around and--

Jill: You can't have all that swearing; it's offensive.

Bob: Look lady, I don't come down to where you work and slap the dick out of your mouth...

Jill: [outraged] That's it!!

Bob: You're right that's it.

David: That's the new slogan for Grandma Betsy's Biscuit Powder! [uncovers a cardboard poster of a package, with cartoon old woman and beneath her, the slogan "I don't come down to where you work and slap the dick out of your mouth."]

Bob: The world of the future is much cruder than the world of today.

David: In 1994, you couldn't say the word "bitch" or "asshole" on TV -- now it's okay.

Bob: Where do you think we'll be in the year 2000?

David: Are ya interested in staying on the cutting edge?

Tom: Yeah, but what happened to Grandma Betsy? She looks like a man!

[close-up shot of the cartoon]

Bob: She is a man!

David: The fastest growing segment of our population are transsexuals -- they buy and spend for two.

Bob: Look, the world is changing. It's becoming increasingly difficult to insult people and thereby get their attention.

David: Knock knock [knocking on John's head] Who's there? Change. Oh, come on in.

Bob: Oh, I see you brought Globo-Chem with you.

David: Really? I thought that company was run by a greedy, fat, fat-headed, fatty pants!!!

Bob: A fat fuck! [crawls on to the table, gets right in John's face]

David: Is it?!

Bob: Is it?!

[David waves his hand in front of John's eyes.]

David: He's dead.

Bob: Good!

David: That's what you wanted, right?

Jill: Yeah.

Tom: Yupperino. Good job guys.

David: Okay, great. Alright.

Bob: Well, it's what we do.

David: [to John] Did I kill you?! Good, I got your attention. [pushes John's head down to the table.]

Is Rove Deep Throat?

I tell you, it was this big!

Given the rumors about Scott McClellan frequenting gay bars, I just naturally assumed that he was Gannon/Guckert's ticket into the White House. Now I'm starting to wonder.

Social Security is Dead

Jump, Mr. President? How high?

For weeks, we've been hearing about how the public isn't on board with Dubya's plan to scrap Social Security. The polls have actually been moving against him on the issue, the more he talks about it.

But public opinion doesn't matter. Public opinion can be molded by savvy propagandists, as those in the White House are.

What matters are votes in the House and Senate, and while those have seemed scarce so far, I believe they are on the way.

First, you had Alan Greenspan, fuckhead partisan hack that he is, telling these gullible lawmakers that private accounts were a good idea.

Of course, as Dean Baker points out, when Greenspan said the Social Security system wasn't working, he was basically criticizing his own handiwork, since he worked up the Social Security "fix" in 1983.

But since when has logic ever stopped Alan Greenspan? This is the same seedy Randian crackpot who just a few years ago said that we needed to slash taxes in order to get rid of a budget surplus.

Let me repeat that: he said we needed to slash taxes in order to get rid of a budget surplus. Can you believe he wasn't laughed out of the country?

But he wasn't laughed out of the country, even though he should have been fired and then tested for Alzheimer's. Instead, gullible lawmakers swallowed his bullshit hook, line, and sinker, enacted big tax cuts, and the rest is history. Now we're talking very seriously about how many programs we need to cut in order to get rid of the budget deficit, with little discussion of reversing the recent tax cuts that caused it.

Our nation is batshit insane, our lawmakers are batshit insane, and when Greenspan tells them private accounts are a good idea, they will listen.

And now Josh Marshall has seen signs that Lieberman has vibrated back into the Fainthearted Faction. I tell you, this fibrillating vagina is like a lot of the other lawmakers on Capitol Hill who have made noises about protecting Social Security: they're all hedging their bets, with one finger in the air, waiting to see which way the political wind blows. If they can get away with ravaging Social Security, our retirement security, in order to give Bush another rim job, you better believe they will. They can't wait to do it.

And when they do, the Democratic Party will be dead. And I, for one, won't miss it. What a bunch of jackasses. It's time for a new party, a truly progressive party. It may take years in the wilderness, years of Bushian facism, before the tide is ready to turn again, but turn it will. The economic inequity we are creating is sowing the seeds of future change. It won't be pretty, and we could have avoided it, but we chose not to, and we'll suffer the consequences.

In which I actually agree with the WSJ

It's a rare thing, but today I agree with the Wall Street Journal editorial page:

National ID Party
February 17, 2005

Republicans swept to power in Congress 10 years ago championing state prerogatives, and one of their first acts was to repeal federal speed-limit requirements. Another was aimed at ending unfunded state mandates. So last week's House vote to require costly and intrusive federal standards for state drivers' licenses is a measure of how far the party has strayed from these federalist principles.

More important, it reveals a mindset among some that more enforcement alone will bring better border security and reduce illegal immigration. The bill that passed the House last week and now goes to the Senate is known as the Real ID Act, and the driver's license requirements may not even be the worst part of the legislation. Also included are unnecessary provisions that would make it much more difficult for foreigners to seek asylum in the U.S.

House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, who authored the bill, insists that his goal is to reduce the terrorist threat, not immigration. But it just so happens that the bill's provisions have long occupied the wish list of anti-immigration lawmakers and activists. Mr. Sensenbrenner produced a photo of Mohammed Atta during the floor debate last week, arguing that the 9/11 hijackers' ability to obtain drivers' licenses and use them to board airplanes represents a security loophole.

His solution is to force states to issue federally approved drivers' licenses with digital photographs and "machine-readable technology." In theory, states can opt out, but if they do their drivers' licenses will no longer be accepted as identification to board planes, purchase guns, enter federal buildings and so forth. It's not hard to imagine these de facto national ID cards turning into a kind of domestic passport that U.S. citizens would be asked to produce for everyday commercial and financial tasks.

Aside from the privacy implications of this show-us-your-papers Sensenbrenner approach, and the fact that governors, state legislatures and motor vehicle departments have denounced the bill as expensive and burdensome, there's another reality: Even if the Real ID Act had been in place prior to 9/11, it's unlikely that the license provisions would have prevented the attacks.

That's because all of the hijackers entered the U.S. legally, which means they qualified for drivers' licenses. The Real ID Act wouldn't change that. Moreover, you don't need a driver's license to fly. Other forms of identification -- such as a passport -- are acceptable and also were available to the hijackers. Nothing in the Sensenbrenner bill would change that, either.

The biggest impact will be on undocumented workers in the U.S., which is why the immigration restrictionists are pushing for the legislation. But denying drivers' licenses to illegal aliens won't result in fewer immigrants. It will result in more immigrants driving illegally and without insurance.

Mr. Sensenbrenner's claims that tougher asylum provisions will make us safer are also dubious. The last thing a terrorist would want to do is apply for asylum. Not only would he be bringing himself to the attention of the U.S. government -- the first step is being fingerprinted -- but the screening process for applicants is more rigorous than for just about anyone else trying to enter the country. In the past decade, perhaps a half-dozen individuals with some kind of terrorists ties have applied for asylum. All were rejected.

The Real ID Act would raise the bar substantially for granting asylum to people fleeing persecution. But this is a solution in search of a problem. A decade ago the U.S. asylum laws were in fact being abused by foreigners with weak claims who knew they would receive work permits while their cases were pending.

But in 1994, the Clinton Administration issued regulations to curb this abuse. The law now says that asylum seekers cannot receive work permits until they have won their case. Applications per year subsequently have fallen to about 30,000 today from 140,000 in the early 1990s. This was the biggest abuse of the system, and it's been fixed. Raising the barrier for asylum seekers at this point would only increase the likelihood of turning away the truly persecuted.

But the bigger problem with Mr. Sensenbrenner's bill is that is takes our eye off the ball. Homeland security is about taking useful steps to prevent another attack. It's not about keeping gainfully employed Mexican illegals from driving to work, or cracking down on the imagined hordes gaming our asylum system.

President Bush realizes this and is pushing for a guest-worker program that would help separate people in search of employment from potential terrorists. If the Republican Congress doesn't realize that, perhaps a Presidential veto of the Real ID Act would focus its attention.

More on Rehnquist

Apparently, I'm not alone.

Is that you, Deep Throat?

Separated at birth?

I'm just catching up to all of this, but John Dean has reported that Bob Woodward has told the Washington Post that "Deep Throat" is ill, and Ben Bradlee said that the mystery man's obituary has already been written and is "in the can" at the Post.

Keith Olbermann suggested this week that Deep Throat's obituary would probably have been "in the can" even if he were not tied to Watergate -- implying that he's had a fairly noteworthly life beyond his Deep Throating.

Olbermann also said, "The man doesn’t want to be identified, and by implication, is not proud of his role in stabilizing the democracy — even though so many others are proud of him."

That would be consistent with a theory advanced this week by blogger Salto Mortale, who speculates that Deep Throat was none other than ...

Drumroll ...

William Rehnquist!

Now, several people have said they think this is just crazy talk. But some things would add up. He was close to people in Nixon's Justice Department, making him privy to inside information -- but he was not too close, seeing as how he had moved to the Supreme Court at the time of the break-in, which could explain how he got some things screwed up, as Dean points out in his op/ed piece. Only the Chief Justice of the Freaking Supreme Court could make sure such a whopping secret was kept for three decades. And only a tool like Rehnquist would feel ashamed for bringing Nixon down. Plus, Rehnquist is very ill, and his obit would certainly be in the can at the Post, even if he were not Deep Throat.

Liars, or just incompetent?

We lie like other people breathe air.

We already knew that Condoleezza Rice was either a liar or an incompetent with very convenient gaps in her memory.

Today's report from the New York Times revealing that the Sept. 11 Commission knew of dozens of specific warnings given to the FAA before Sept. 11 about the possibility of hijackings in the U.S. includes this tidbit:

"The F.A.A. "had indeed considered the possibility that terrorists would hijack a plane and use it as a weapon," and in 2001 it distributed a CD-ROM presentation to airlines and airports that cited the possibility of a suicide hijacking, the report said."

In Rice's testimony before the Commission, she said, "I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons."She and Chimpy have made statements like this over and over again. They do it because it reflects public opinion. Who among us laypeople could have anticipated that such an attack would happen?

But they knew better. The claim has been debunked before, and now it's being debunked again.

Not that it's too shocking, but these people don't care about us. They only care about amassing and holding power. Consider the fact that today's important story about the safety (or lack thereof) at our airports was kept a secret for months and months, in order to help Bush get re-elected.

You Can't Spell "Massive Tool" Without "Malpass"

Angry Bear commented on Bear Stearns economist David Malpass today, saying, "It seems that Kudlow has outsourced his employment cheerleading to David Malpass." He links to this god-awful NRO commentary by Malpass (what's he doing in the NRO???):

Throughout this economic expansion monthly job growth in the Labor Department’s establishment survey (a.k.a. the payroll survey) has understated the strength of the economy and the labor situation.

First of all, if that's the case, then the beloved household survey, much beloved of the Malpasses and Wesburys of the world, must be really understating job growth -- the rate of change in the household survey has been lagging that of the payroll figures for the past few months (see below chart, stolen from Robert Brusca). Gosh, when will these economic data get on board for the big win?

Malpass continues:

Job growth in the establishment survey hasn’t been a good indicator of the employment situation in recent years. It overstated job growth in the late 1990s and has been reverting to normal this decade.

My, isn't that convenient?

In July 2000, employment in the establishment survey reached an impossibly high 98.3 percent of the household survey. The establishment survey, a complicated statistical sample, did not keep up with changes going on in the U.S. economy and hence overstated jobs.

I guess this is just an NRO hack job, so explanation isn't necessary. But why is it impossible for the establishment survey to reach 98.3% of the household survey? Is that even meaningful? The two are entirely separate surveys. Couldn't this be a mere statistical quirk?

He goes on to suggest that the payroll survey was overestimating job growth in the 1990s because so many people had jobs with big companies, and people changed jobs a lot. Thanks for that, Mr. Economist. Yes, that's correct, the payroll survey reflected that the job market was extremely strong in the 1990s. He then goes on to explain that the payroll survey is underestimating job growth in the 2000s because it's been a time of extreme volatility in job growth and interest rates. Right -- there's been a recession and a bunch of other crazy stuff going on, as anybody who's read a newspaper could tell you. Hence, the job market has been lousy. Again, no PhD necessary.

But Mr. Malpass has a PhD in bullshitting, apparently, as he goes on to explain to us that: "The view that the participation rate in the economy is low or plunging is simply wrong." The labor-force participation rate is 65.8%, and it's been almost that low for much of the past year. Since 1988, during all the times of economic change to which Malpass refers, the participation rate was higher. Suddenly, though, he wants us to forget about all these economic changes, on which he bases his previous flimsy arguments and to accept that turning back the clock to the 1988 rate of labor-force participation is hunky dory.

Nice try, Malpass, but no cigar.

Couldn't happen to a nicer weasel

Fresh after begging Bush for a new nickname ("Benator" was the pleasing agreement), Ben Nelson was stranded by the White House entourage at the Qwest Center in Omaha, forcing the Fainthearted Senator to beg a ride from a local citizen.

On the SOTU Audience

OK, I got the info from Gallup. This was, in fact, one of the most partisan audiences in years:

In 2005, the audience was 52-25-22 in favor of Bush's party (vs. Dem and Ind.).
In 2004, the audience was 46-26-28
In 2003, the audience was 40-28-31
In 2002, the audience was 50-25-25

For Clinton:
In 1999, the audience was 40-28-32
In 1998, the audience was 37-30-31
In 1995, the audience was 33-33-34
In 1994, the audience was 41-26-32

In a pre-speech report, Gallup said:

"[A]mid all the pageantry and fanfare associated with the occasion, State of the Union addresses generally do little to help boost a president's ratings. That may be because of the fact that a president's partisan supporters are much more likely to watch the event than are supporters of the opposition party." [Emphasis added.]

"In the 23 cases analyzed here, there are 12 instances in which a president's post-State of the Union approval rating was lower than his rating before the speech, 9 when it was higher, and 2 in which there was no change."

Note: one of the rare exceptions was Bill Clinton's 1998 speech, after which he got a 10-point jump in approval rating, the biggest such bounce since Gallup started keeping track in 1978. You'll also note that the 1998 speech was the last one in which the percentage of viewers from the opposing party broke 30.

Gallup's conclusion:

"Bush has an ambitious second-term agenda, and public support will be a key in getting his proposals passed. However, because those who tune in to hear the speech will skew Republican, it is likely that a disproportionate amount of the viewing audience will already support the Bush agenda."

I rest my case. I'm still nervous.

Bush making headway?

I'm still extremely nervous about this whole Social Security fight. I've heard over and over again that Bush's chances of success are slim, and I've heard over and over again how the Democrats are united against him.

But they're not really all that united. They're united, they say, against a proposal that will increase the budget deficit. But the Bush plan will actually be revenue neutral, in the long run, though it will involve massive borrowing in the coming decades. More ominously, Lindsey Graham has come up with a plan that would raise payroll taxes and cut benefits and create private accounts. I don't know the details of this, but it sounds like something that the Fainthearted Faction -- at this moment, apparently, Nelson, Lincoln, Baucus and Lieberman -- could get behind. One more Dem senator, and Social Security is done for.

This AP article today starts off sounding very ominous about Bush's chances, quoting Grassley as saying Bush has just a 90-day window to convince the public that there's a problem and that his solution is best.

"The length of the window for the education process might be 90 days," he told Iowa reporters this week. "If we don't see some grass-roots organizing and change of public opinion after 90 days, it's going to discourage people in Congress from moving ahead."

But then they get into some of the details of Graham's plan, and it starts to sound scarily palatable to the Faction.

And the article wraps up with this hair-raising nugget:

The key now, he said, is for the president to continue convincing people the problem is real.

Bush appears to have made some headway. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found that 66 percent of people who watched his State of the Union speech said his Social Security proposals will move the country in the right direction. That's up from 51 percent of Americans surveyed before the speech. Three in four said Bush made a "convincing case" that the government needs to take action in the next couple of years to change the system.

The telephone survey of 485 speech watchers, conducted Wednesday, had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

But there's one major error in these grafs: post-speech polls have shown that, by a wide majority, most of the people who actually watched Bush's speech were Republicans, and probably die-hard Republicans, at that. Not only was this one of the lowest-rated SOTU speeches in years, but it was also one of the most partisan in decades. I'm having trouble finding the numbers comparing this speech's audience make-up to those of past years, but Gallup said 52% of the audience identified itself as Republican, vs. 25% Democratic and 22% independent. I swear to God I saw an article comparing those numbers to previous years, but I'm having a bitch of a time finding it. Anyway, the AP writer -- Laura Meckler, who otherwise does a better job than her colleague, David Espo -- compares apples to oranges here in an effort to make it look like Bush is making headway. She compares a pre-speech poll of all Americans to a post-speech poll of only speech-watchers, who were mostly Republican. No wonder so many of them were "convinced" by his speech.

To see thee more clearly

I'm understanding the whole "benefit offset" thing a little better now, thanks to posts from the incomparable Brad DeLong and Matt Yglesias and the twice-linked Paul Krugman piece.

Boiled down to its most basic elements, under the private account scheme, the government is "loaning" you a chunk of your future benefits, giving you a chance to invest it in financial markets. When you retire, though, you'll have to pay that loan back. If you've made more in the market before your retirement than the 3% you would have made anyway, you're a (small) winner. If you've made less, you're a loser. As they say in Atlantic City, good luck!

Quote of the day

"The answer, presumably, is that his plan will also involve major benefit cuts over and above those associated with private accounts. And it's true that you can improve Social Security's finances with privatization, as long as you also slash benefits - just as you can kill a flock of sheep with witchcraft, provided you also feed them arsenic." -- Paul Krugman

Outreach

... and thanks to my husband's policies, when you grow up, you'll be saddled with debt, alone in the world and have no retirement security. But stay out of gangs. And don't have sex."

 

In Today's Times

A new feature: stuff from today's New York Times!

Condi Keeps Us Guessing
Well, the Condi Rice era of foreign policy is off to a roaring start. Demonstrating the same competence that guided her term as national security advisor, she contradicted her boss just days after his most important speech of the year. Fortunately, she wasn't muddying the waters of any sort of sensitive or important topic or anything; only this small central Asian country called Iran:

"Three European Union countries are trying to negotiate with Iran to stop it from developing nuclear weapons, and President Bush said in his State of the Union address that he is working with those allies.

"But on Thursday Ms. Rice said Washington would continue to rebuff European requests to take part in directly offering incentives for Iran to drop its nuclear program."

Greetings From Kabul
While we're firing the blowtorch of liberty around the world, we might want to turn back to the first place we liberated, Afghanistan, and use that torch to light some fires so people can keep from fucking freezing to death:

"After eight years of drought, the heavy snows that have blanketed Afghanistan over the past two weeks might seem to be welcome. But for the 4,000 homeless families crammed into tents in several camps around the city, the snow and the cold are bitter reminders that despite billions of dollars in aid and the country's rapid development, thousands of Afghans are still without shelter and the means to survive.

"At worst, for the most vulnerable, they are a death sentence.

"Eighteen people have died since the extreme cold descended on the country two weeks ago, the minister of health, Sayeed Mohammad Amin Fatimie, said in an interview this week. Of the 18 people, 13 died in and around Kabul, including several babies, he said."

...

"An estimated 10,000 homeless people are in Kabul, about 4,000 of them in two squatter camps. In addition, groups of displaced people are living in public buildings and abandoned ruins in as many as 25 locations throughout the city. Most are refugees who have returned from camps in Pakistan in the three years since the fall of the Taliban. Some families have been living all that time in tents, with the men scraping up a little work as porters in nearby fruit markets."

Think of how much good we could have done if only we'd spent our billions on really fixing this country.

Knowledge is King
As usual, Bush's best friend is an ignorant populace:

"'I've been hearing for years now that Social Security was definitely headed for trouble, that it wouldn't be there when I was ready to retire,' said Mrs. Law, a home health care nurse who is 59. 'Last night's speech took that fear away. It was a weight taken off my shoulders.'

Yes, thank goodness Mrs. Law, who has never bothered to find out whether her retirement will be secure, even though it's just a few years away, who has chosen instead to rely on vague scary rumors as the basis for her retirement planning -- thank goodness she will be safe. And I will be paying for it.

Fortunately, most young people in this other article agreed that the plan was risky, though they did manage to find one Alex Keaton type who was gung-ho for privatization:

"'I trust in the market, long term,' Mr. Kotok said. 'I don't trust that an entirely government-run system is going to work.'"

Yes, because the track record of the stock market has been so much more consistent and placid than the track record of social security lo these 70 years or so.

But the article you really need to read is this one.

Same Straw Man, Different Day

You see, if you disagree with him about Iraq, then you just don't care about terrorism.

Similarly, if you disagree with him about Social Security, then you just don't care about your children's future:

"Bush, in a speech in Fargo, N.D., noted that that Democrats grumbled and groaned at his assertion that Social Security will require higher taxes, big benefit cuts or massive borrowing unless something is done to fix its finances.

"'Some of them didn't see the problem,' the president said at the first stop on a two-day, five-state trip to sell his program."

Also, please note that this article was written by David Espo, a big fan of "personal" accounts (used twice in this article, vs. once for "private"), and I can't even begin to suss out all the horros in this article.

OK, here's one: in the above quote, Espo implies that Democrats groaned because Bush had suggested that tough fixes will be needed if something isn't done to fix SS now. That's not what they groaned about. They groaned when he said, "By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt."

Also, Espo, it might behoove you to note that the very fix Bush is proposing will itself entail massive benefit cuts and borrowing.

I don't know which to be more disgusted by, the misleading statements by Bush or the lazy, incompetent (at best) stylings of Espo.

And of course, no mention from Espo of "benefit offset." But if I don't understand it, I would hardly expect a mouth-breather like Espo to understand it.

Benefit Offsets, or I am Confused

This is a huge, huge deal. I only wish I understood it fully.

The WaPo article that broke the news is here.

Atrios has some groundbreaking posts about it, here and here.

Now, I don't consider myself to be dumb by any stretch, but nor do I believe that I'm the brightest economic mind in the world, by any stretch of the imagination. I'm an amateur who dabbles, and it usually takes a while for the higher concepts to sink in for me. So far, this one isn't sinking in. Is it really, really possible that they're talking about setting up a system that actually takes away some of the money from our private accounts? Are they really proposing a system that, when normal SS benefits and private account returns are taken together, still provides only half the income we would have gotten by simply staying with the first system? If this is really the case, then this is explosive. Unfortunately, I think somebody else is going to have to figure out a way to explain it to make the rest of us understand it.

Quote of the Day

From the incomparable Rude Pundit:

"And the Rude Pundit is sick of hearing how "bold" is every fucking thing Bush proposes. If George Bush took a shit in front of the Lincoln Memorial, Orrin Hatch would appear on Fox "News" to declare how bold a shit it was and how mighty a loaf was pinched out and how are the Democrats going to deal with a President who is unafraid to take a dump with a stone Lincoln staring at him."

The whole damn thing is brilliant.

The Times is Trying to Make You Stupid

The New York Times has a story tonight "explaining" Bush's proposal. It aggressively tries to make you stupid, beginning with the very headline:

"Proposing Private Accounts in Addition to the Safety Net"

BUZZZ! Wrong again, New York Times! What we're discussing here is private accounts instead of a safety net. Thanks for playing, though.

It keeps up the stupidity campaign in the fifth paragraph down, when it discusses the cost of the program: "It will also involve the extent to which guaranteed benefits would be reduced and the cost of moving to a system of personal accounts - more than $700 billion in the next decade and trillions afterward."

BUZZZ! Wrong again, New York Times! Lower in the story, you try to explain this assertion, I think, saying:

"A senior administration official put the cost from 2009 through 2015 at $754 billion - $664 billion to pay benefits and $90 billion for interest on the money borrowed."

Is that where the "more than $700 billion in the next decade" assertion came from? Do you think it might have been worth mentioning that that figure came from the White House? Also, you'll notice that "2009 through 2015" is not a decade. I know you're trying to put a total figure on the costs that will be incurred between 2005 and 2015, but what's the point of that? What's operative here is what costs are incurred during the first decade of the program. Wouldn't it have been more meaningful to talk about those costs? Or did "in the next decade" just roll better off the tongue?

Updated to add: OK, I'm starting to get it: The gradual phasing-in -- the "fiscally responsible" thing Dubya was talking about tonight -- is what makes the cost in 2005-2015 lower, at $700 billion-plus, rather than the $1 trillion usually cited. My reaction, though, is still: so what? How does this really help, aside from delaying less than 30% of the pain until a few years later? The cost will still need to be incurred.

Also, get a load of that picture they're using. You half expect to see a Bible or a hymnal beneath those admonishing hands. Once again, the Bush-as-pastor theme is promulgated. Fitting: we are indeed sinners in the hands of an angry God, with madmen in power and fuckwits for watchdogs.

Depressing

On the Netscape home page now, the top news story is the SOTU, with the following head and subhead:

Bush: Make Social Security 'Permanently Sound'
Bush challenged Congress to save the costly social program from bankruptcy.

Oh, God, where to begin?

Bush "challenged" Congress. Gosh, what a leader.

He challenged them to "save" SS "from bankruptcy." The "bankruptcy" isn't in quotes, though, so a casual reader will be left with the impression that bankruptcy is indeed what's in store for SS and that it needs saving and that Bush is the only one with balls enough to "challenge" Congress to do something about it.

Oh, and SS is a "costly social program." Just in case you weren't aware of that.

Another egregious statement tonight, from I believe Cokie Roberts -- I saw so many depressing, depressing yammering heads tonight that I've forgotten which one said what nightmarish horror. But I think it was Cokie that said, "He's asking to have a conversation about reform."

He's "asking to have a conversation." Because this conversation has never been had before, apparently, not in the past several decades. Seriously, what he's doing is asking somebody else to do the heavy lifting for him. He's begging Democrats to bail him out and propose some sweeteners that will help this shit sandwich go down. Any Democrat that does that will, hopefully, be politically doomed.

A quick spin around the Web to check the tone of the headlines reveals:

• CNN.com: "Bush: Advance the ideal of liberty: President Bush used his State of the Union speech to press home key domestic and international agendas. At home he promised to reform Social Security for future generations. Looking overseas, Bush vowed to spread freedoms around the world while continuing the war on terror, and he pointed to Iraq as a symbol of change."
  
• MSNBC.com: "Once and for all: Bush says nation must fix Social Security."
  
• ABCNews.com: "Bush Urges Congress to Save Soc. Security: President Bush challenged a hesitant Congress on Wednesday to 'strengthen and save' Social Security, saying the nation's costliest social program was headed for bankruptcy unless changed." At least ABC says the "bankruptcy" thing is a quote. But again with the "costliness" of Social Security, and again with the "challenging."
  
• CBSNews.com: "Bush Pitches Social Security Fix: President Bush warned in his State of the Union address that Social Security was headed for bankruptcy unless Congress enacted a permanent fix."
  
• FoxNews.com: "A Great Venture: President Bush lays out plan for Social Security reform, hails Iraqi democracy, puts Iran and Syria on notice."
  
• NYTimes.com: "Bush Says an Overhaul of Social Security Is Essential in Order to Avoid Bankruptcy." That's the banner headline. The main story head and sub-head are: "In Speech, Bush Sketches a Bold Domestic and Foreign Agenda: President Bush laid out details of how he would create individual investment accounts and assure the health of Social Security." The subhead seems to take it for granted that "individual" accounts will assure SS's health. The headline calls his foreign and domestic proposals "bold." Maybe privatizing social security is bold, but I don't recall hearing any particularly bold foreign policies tonight.
  
• washingtonpost.com: "President Makes Case for Social Security Plan: Plan would allow workers under 55 to create private retirement accounts, changes Bush says are needed to protect program that is in danger of bankruptcy."
  
• WSJ.com: Bare bones: "BUSH SHARED the first broad details of his Social Security overhaul, which would divert up to one-third of the system's payroll-tax revenue to individual accounts beginning in 2009."
  
• Yahoo: "Bush Urges Congress to Save Social Security." Again with the "saving."
  
• Google News: "Bush says Social Security revamp may involve cuts: President George W. Bush proposed the biggest overhaul of Social Security since its 1935 creation on Wednesday night in his State of the Union speech ..."
  

Orwell Would Be So Proud

In a sneak peek at the smidgen of detail that will be offered tonight by the Panicker in Chief Preznit in his State of the Crisis Union address, David Espo of the AP uses the word "personal" seven times and the word "private" just once, in reference to the accounts Chimpy wants to set up to destroy save Social Security.

Somewhere, Frank Luntz is laughing. And playing with himself. And eating. Somewhere else, George Orwell's grave is empty, because he has spun himself like a corkscrew right out of it and is currently taking a subterranean trip around the globe, spinning, spinning, spinning.