A Laboratory Story

This is why Edward Teller decided to build Lawrence Livermore laboratory *far* away from Berkeley or anyplace else where people might someday live:

Uncertain Principles : How to Tell a True Lab Story: This is true. A guy I knew in graduate school, he had a buddy who was working late in the lab one night. He was all alone, and he got a little bored, so he took a two-liter soda bottle, and he filled it halfway up with liquid nitrogen. Then he screwed the cap on tight. Now, liquid nitrogen, when it boils, it takes up something like 700 times the volume of the liquid. So this guy, he's got this bottle, and he's kicking it around in the hall. But the bottle starts to swell up, so he tries to open the cap, and it's stuck. So he runs into the bathroom, and he dumps it in a sink, and runs back out in the hall.

A few minutes later, there's an earth-shattering KABOOM!, and he goes back into the bathroom. The bottle blew up, and reduced the sink to rubble. At this point, the guy telling me the story pulls out a Polaroid of the busted-up sink. There are little chunks of porcelain, twisted copper pipes, little daggers of two-liter bottle plastic sticking into the walls and ceiling. The bathroom in the picture is trashed.

The explosion, it wakes up all sorts of people, and sets off an alarm. Pretty soon the campus police are there, asking questions about what happened. They get the story from the kid with the bottle, then they call his thesis advisor. It's two o'clock in the morning, and his advisor is home in bed. The police tell his advisor that one of the students just blew up the lab with nitroglycerin.

Well, his advisor comes screaming in at two o'clock in the morning. He gets to campus, and the lab is fine. One of his students blew up the bathroom with liquid nitrogen.

"Oh," he says. "That's part of the experiment." And he goes home and goes back to bed.

A true lab story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper scientific practice, nor restrain graduate students from doing the things that graduate students have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it. If at the end of a lab story, you feel uplifted, or if you feel that you have learned some useful fact about science, you have been made the victim of an old and terrible lie. As an order-of-magnitude approximation, you can tell a true lab story by its absolute and utter lack of any real scientific content whatsoever. Listen to the post-doc. "Earth-shattering KABOOM!" he says. Then he laughs. He's twenty-eight years old-- it's too much for him-- so he looks at you and says "Earth-shattering KABOOM!", because it's so incredibly funny and true: the advisor went home and went back to bed.

You can tell a true lab story by the questions you ask. Somebody tells a tstory, and afterwards you ask "Can you really destroy a bathroom with liquid nitrogen in a soda bottle?" and if the answer matters, you've got your answer.

For example, you may have heard this one. Three physicists are sitting around the break room, and they take a light bulb, and put it in the microwave. Now, if you put a light bulb into a microwave oven, and turn it on, the microwaves build up a large electric field at the point ends of the metal bits inside the bulb, and the resulting plasma discharge makes the bulb light up.

Is it true?

The answer matters.

You'd feel cheated if it didn't work that way. Without the grounding reality, it's not an interesting physics trick, it's just Hollywood nonsense. Yet even if it did happen-- and you could stick a light bulb in your own microwave to find out-- even then, you know it can't be true, because a lab story that lame wouldn't be worth telling. A thing may depend on actual physical principles, and be totally dull; another thing may leave out the physics explanation, and be truer than the truth. For example: three physicists are sitting around the break room, and a post-doc comes in with a bulb from an overhead projector. "How do you tell if one of these is burnt out?" she asks. One of the guys in the break room grabs it from her, and throws it in the microwave, where it lights up. He hands it back, and says "It's fine." The other two fall out of their chairs laughing.

That's a true lab story. It may even have happened.

(With apologies to Tim O'Brien, and in honor of Seed soliciting lab lit for their fiction supplement issue....)

Now of course, Livermore has a population of 74,000, all at the mercy of the nuclear physicists at the Lab.

And I'm heading for the microwave with a lightbulb.

Oxblog Volunteers to Write for the New Republic...

Unqualified Offerings clues us in, and reminds us that we would be a better and a happier person if we read Oxblog regularly in the original, and not just in the clippings package:

Unqualified Offerings : David Adesnik writes the ur-TNR article:

At this point, the author pulls out a deck of cards and picks one at random. If the card is a ten or lower, the author concludes that the Democrats are right, but not for the reason given by some senator from Massachusetts. If the author draws a face card, he thinks to himself, "I must agree with the Republicans for no apparent reason in order to show that I'm open-minded." If the author draws an ace, it means that his thirtieth birthday is approaching and it's time to either go back to grad school or work for McKinsey.

Yes, I get the irony of David Adesnik writing this. It's still funny cause it's true!

Speaking of Oxblog, Patrick Belton is doing some very good reporting from the West Bank.

How Evil Is Google?

The Twelve-Year-Old asks: How evil is Google?

Official Google Blog: Google in China : 1/27/2006 11:58:00 AM: Posted by Andrew McLaughlin, senior policy counsel: Google users in China today struggle with a service that, to be blunt, isn't very good. Google.com appears to be down around 10% of the time. Even when users can reach it, the website is slow, and sometimes produces results that when clicked on, stall out the user's browser. Our Google News service is never available; Google Images is accessible only half the time. At Google we work hard to create a great experience for our users, and the level of service we've been able to provide in China is not something we're proud of.

This problem could only be resolved by creating a local presence, and this week we did so, by launching Google.cn, our website for the People's Republic of China. In order to do so, we have agreed to remove certain sensitive information from our search results.... Launching a Google domain that restricts information in any way isn't a step we took lightly.... Filtering our search results clearly compromises our mission. Failing to offer Google search at all to a fifth of the world's population, however, does so far more severely. Whether our critics agree with our decision or not, due to the severe quality problems faced by users trying to access Google.com from within China, this is precisely the choice we believe we faced.

Google image search first result for "tienanmen" on google.cn:

Google image search first result for "tienanmen" on google.com:

Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? (Washington Post Digs Itself in Deeper Department)

Ah. More mendacity this morning from the editors of the Washington Post:

washingtonpost.blog - The Editors Talk About Site Policies, Design and Goals : The Post stands by its reporting that Jack Abramoff directed campaign money to some Democrats.

May we speak frankly here?

The Washington Post has many problems in this situation:

One problem is an ombudsman--Deborah Howell--who appears to be extraordinarily unfit for the job.

A second problem is that this ombudsman, on January 15, 2006, made the--false--claim that Washington Post staff reporter Susan Schmidt "quickly found that [Jack] Abramoff... had made substantial political contributions to both parties."

A third problem is that ombudsman Deborah Howell did not do the appropriate thing, which would have been to write: "On January 15, I wrote that Susan Schmidt had 'quickly found that [Jack] Abramoff... had made substantial political contributions to both parties.' This was incorrect. Jack Abramoff's personal political contributions were made to Republicans only. I regret the error."

Instead, the ombudsman wrote:

Nothing in my 50-year career prepared me for the thousands of flaming e-mails I got last week over my last column, e-mails so abusive and many so obscene that part of The Post's Web site was shut down.... I wrote that he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress. He didn't. I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.... I do know... I have a tough hide, and a few curse words (which I use frequently) are not going to hurt my feelings. But it is profoundly distressing if political discourse has sunk to a level where abusive name-calling and the crudest of sexual language are the norm, where facts have no place in an argument. This unbounded, unreasoning rage is not going to help this newspaper, this country or democracy.... To all of those who wanted me fired, I'm afraid you're out of luck. I have a contract. For the next two years, I will continue to speak my mind.

A fourth problem is that where Deborah Howell should have written "I regret the error" she wrote "[Abramoff] directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties." Nobody, nobody--unless they were in hock to Karl Rove or candidates for the lunatic asylum--would characterize Abramoff's business as "directing" "campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties." Such a declaration flies in the face of Washington Post stories like:

"A Jackpot From Indian Gaming Tribes: Lobbying, PR Firms Paid $45 Million Over 3 Years," by Susan Schmidt Feb 22, 2004 A.01: A powerful Washington lobbyist and a former aide to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) persuaded four newly wealthy Indian gaming tribes to pay their firms more than $45 million over the past three years for lobbying and public affairs work, a sum that rivals spending to influence public policy by some of the nation's biggest corporate interests. Touting his ties to conservatives in Congress and the White House, lobbyist Jack Abramoff persuaded the tribes to hire him and public relations executive Michael Scanlon to block powerful forces both at home and in Washington who have designs on their money, according to tribe members. Under Abramoff's guidance, the four tribes -- Michigan's Saginaw Chippewas, the Agua Caliente of California, the Mississippi Choctaws and the Louisiana Coushattas -- have also become major political donors. They have loosened their traditional ties to the Democratic Party...

"Reed Confirms Fees From Indian Casino Lobbyists", by Thomas B. Edsall Aug 30, 2004 A.03: Ralph Reed, Southeast regional chairman of the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign and former executive director of the Christian Coalition, confirmed on Sunday that he accepted more than $1 million in fees from a lobbyist and a public relations specialist whose work on behalf of American Indian casinos prompted a federal investigation.... Scanlon's company paid Reed $1.23 million, according to sources familiar with the transactions. The two law firms Abramoff worked for, Greenberg Traurig LLP and Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP, paid fees to Reed and Century Strategies...

"Tribal Money Linked to GOP Fundraising" by Susan Schmidt and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum Dec 26, 2004 A.01: For most politicians, fundraising is a dreaded chore. But until recently, Rep. John T. Doolittle of California and other members of the House Republican leadership had adopted a painless solution: fundraising events in luxury sports boxes leased largely with the money of Indian gaming tribes.... Abramoff spent about $1 million annually in funds largely provided by his tribal clients to lease four skyboxes -- two at FedEx Field and one each at MCI Center and Camden Yards. Season after season, he kept them brimming with lawmakers, staffers and their guests, part of a multimillion-dollar congressional care and feeding project that even the brashest K Street lobbyists could only watch with awe or envy.... Abramoff and the lobbyists who worked for... used tribal money, records and interviews show, to pay for events that appeared to be designed more to help House Republicans' campaigns and Abramoff's overall lobbying effort than the Indians' legislative causes.... A list of skybox fundraising events maintained by Abramoff at his former law firm, Greenberg Traurig, lists 72 events for members of Congress between 1999 and 2003. All but eight were put on for Republicans, many of them members of the House leadership. Some of the fundraising events, including Doolittle's, were not reported as required under federal election laws...

"Lobbyist Quits As Firm Probes Work With Tribes," by Susan Schmidt Mar 4, 2004 A.01: Abramoff and Michael Scanlon... received more than $45 million in lobbying and public affairs work from newly wealthy tribes.... Abramoff also advised the tribes to give $2.9 million in federal political contributions, two-thirds of it to Republicans.... Abramoff also has advised tribes to give hundreds of thousands of dollars to obscure organizations that appear to have no connection to Indian concerns. They include American International Center, a think tank that Scanlon, in an e-mail statement this week, said he founded. The organization paid $1.5 million in fees to Greenberg Traurig, becoming one of its largest lobbying clients. Touting his ties to conservatives in Congress and the White House, Abramoff has become one of Washington's most powerful and best-paid lobbyists. He has convinced tribes with gambling wealth that they should support conservatives who share their anti-tax philosophy...

"Tribal Grant Is Being Questioned," : by Susan Schmidt Mar 1, 2005 A.03: PUBLISHED CORRECTIONS: A March 1 article inaccurately reported that Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) supported controversial legislation that provided a $3 million grant to a wealthy Indian tribe. Dorgan said he did not support it, contrary to an assertion made Feb. 28 by a spokesman for Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.). Burns's office acknowledged it had been incorrect. (Published 3/2/05.) A $3 million grant from a federal program intended for impoverished Indian tribal schools went to one of the richest tribes in the country under pressure from Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), who oversees the budget of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The tribe... was at the time a client of Jack Abramoff, a prominent Republican lobbyist.... Abramoff, his associates and his wealthy tribal clients have been an important source of Burns's campaign funds, providing 42 percent of the contributions to his "soft-money" political action committee from 2000 to 2002, according to federal election records. Burns pressed for the appropriation over the objections of Interior officials, who said that the grant was not intended for such a purpose. Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), ranking minority member on the appropriations subcommittee, supported Burns's effort...

}Casino Bid Prompted High-Stakes Lobbying"by Susan Schmidt Mar 13, 2005 A.01: When a ragtag band of Louisiana Indians won their governor's support for a casino three years ago, they never could have fathomed the powerful cast of characters who would collaborate to flatten them. Jack Abramoff, one of Washington's most prominent Republican lobbyists... orchestrate[d] a far-reaching campaign against the Jena Band of Choctaws -- calling on senior U.S. senators and congressmen, the deputy secretary of the interior and evangelical leaders James Dobson and Ralph Reed.... Abramoff directed his tribal clients to give at least $225,000 to the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, a conservative group that was founded by Gale A. Norton before President Bush chose her to be his interior secretary.... Abramof... had been winning over tribes around the country, preaching that they needed to cultivate the new GOP majority in Washington as well as the Democrats they traditionally supported.... Abramoff asked the Coushatta... to contribute to politicians and conservative groups...

Look at what these stories say about what Abramoff did:

"asked [tribes]... to contribute to politicians and conservative groups..."

"preach[ed] that [tribes] needed to cultivate the new GOP majority in Washington as well as the Democrats they traditionally supported..."

"directed his tribal clients to give... $225,000 to the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, a conservative group that was founded by [Interior Secretary] Gale A. Norton..."

"Abramoff, his associates and his wealthy tribal clients... provid[ed] 42 percent of the contributions to [Republican Conrad Burns's] "soft-money" political action committee..."

"spent about $1 million annually... to lease four skyboxes... brimming with lawmakers, staffers and their guests... a multimillion-dollar congressional care and feeding project... designed... to help House Republicans' campaigns and Abramoff's overall lobbying effort... 72 events for members of Congress.... All but eight were put on for Republicans..."

"Touting his ties to conservatives in Congress and the White House, Abramoff has become one of Washington's most powerful and best-paid lobbyists. He has convinced tribes with gambling wealth that they should support conservatives who share their anti-tax philosophy..."

"Under Abramoff's guidance, the four tribes... have loosened their traditional ties to the Democratic Party..."

Would you, based on these stories, characterize Jack Abramoff as being in the business of "directing... campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties"? Would anybody who cared about preserving the shreds of their reputation as an objective news reporter do so? No.

But you are not the editors of the Washington Post.

And here we come to Washington Post problem number 5. Rather than take steps to begin to repair their reputation and credibility, the Post editors pile the shreds of their reputation, douse them with gasoline, and set them afire by deciding to back their ombudsman's current characterization of Jack Abramoff as being in the business of "directing... campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties."

Here's the Post's full statement. Live comments, of course, are not allowed:

The Post stands by its reporting that Jack Abramoff directed campaign money to some Democrats.

Abramoff was one of Washington’s most prominent Republican lobbyists and his political pedigree and alliances were overwhelmingly conservative and Republican. No Democrats are among the half-dozen lawmakers who The Post’s sources say are under scrutiny by the Justice Department. Abramoff convinced a number of casino-rich Indian tribes that had been historically Democratic donors to expand their political giving and to make most of their contributions to the GOP.

However, as reported in several Post stories since 2004, Abramoff also built links with the other party, as most lobbyists do. He hired a few Democrats onto his lobbying staff. He turned over his sports stadium boxes to some Democrats to use for fundraising events. Representatives of tribes including the Saginaw Chippewas, the Tiguas of El Paso and the Agua Caliente Band testified in Congress that Abramoff told them how much to give to specific lawmakers and party committees. The lists he sent to the Indian tribes included some Democrats and Democratic party groups, according to copies of the lists obtained by The Post and according to tribal members familiar with Abramoff’s operation. More than a dozen Democrats, including Sens. Byron Dorgan (N.D.) and Max Baucus (Mont.) have returned donations from Abramoff clients and associates, citing the scandal.

Here are some of the stories that touch on those points:

• Papers Show Tribe Paid to Try to Sway Bill, Nov. 18, 2004

• Tribal Money Linked to GOP Fundraising; Skybox Events Were Not Always Reported to FEC, Dec. 26, 2004

• Casino Bid Prompted High-Stakes Lobbying, March 13, 2005

• Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations; Abramoff Issue’s Fallout May Extend Beyond the GOP, June 3, 2005

• Abramoff Witness Frustrates Panel, Nov. 18, 2005

• Dorgan Tangled in Abramoff Web, Dec. 5, 2005

-- Post Editors

If you work for the Financial Times, for the National Journal, for the news pages of the Wall Street Journal, for the Economist, for Bloomberg or Reuters or Knight-Ridder or the Christian Science Monitor, your organization is an asset to your credibility. I would advise all journalists to think hard about whether the organization they work for is like one of these or not.

The Very Top of the U.S. Income Distribution

Mark Thoma is wishing he had already found time to read Piketty and Saez (2006), "The Evolution of Top Incomes: A Historical and International Perspective" (Cambridge: NBER WP 11955:

Abstract: This paper summarizes the main findings of the recent studies that have constructed top income and wealth shares series over the century for a number of countries using tax statistics. Most countries experience a dramatic drop in top income shares in the first part of the century due to a precipitous drop in large wealth holdings during the wars and depression shocks. Top income shares do not recover in the immediate post war decades. However, over the last 30 years, top income shares have increased substantially in English speaking countries but not at all in continental Europe countries or Japan. This increase is due to an unprecedented surge in top wage incomes starting in the 1970s and accelerating in the 1990s. As a result, top wage earners have replaced capital income earners at the top of the income distribution in English speaking countries. We discuss the proposed explanations and the main questions that remain open.

Thoma reproduces what are by far the most interesting figures in Piketty and Saez, which show that the pretax income share of the top 1% of the American income distribution jumped from 8% in 1980 to 9% in 1985 to 13% in 1990 to 17% in 2000 to 14% today. Over the same period the income share of the next 4% has risen from 13% to 15%, and the income share of the still next 5% has stayed at 12%. The top tenth of the American income distribution increased its share from 33% in 1980 to 41% today--with three-quarters of that increase going to the top 1% and fully one-quarter of that increase going to the top 0.01%.

What skills and assets do the top 1% of America's pretax income distribution have today that lead the market to grant them 14% of total income, when their counterparts back in 1980 were granted only 8% of total income? What skills and assets do the top 0.01% of the American pretax income distribution--that's 12,000 tax units--that led the market to grant them 100 times average income in 1980, and 300 times average income today?

Ezra Klein: Republican Corruption Comes Home to Roost

Ezra Klein paints the big drug benefit picture:

TPMCafe || Corruption Matters: The 2003 Medicare Modernization Act was a dual purpose bill... yank the prescription drug issue away from Democrats... [demanded by the] pharmaceutical industry.... The legislation passed on November 22, 2003, right around dawn. The vote was held open an unprecedented three hours to ensure passage (by contrast, when Democratic leaders held a vote open for 15 extra minutes in 1987, then-congressman Dick Cheney called it "the most arrogant, heavy-handed abuse of power I've ever seen in the 10 years that I've been here."), a lawmaker was bribed, and the arm-twisting reached such epic proportions that staffers still find severed limbs beneath desks annd behind podiums.

If you're interested in a full recounting of the night, the story is best told in Bob Cusack's definitive article, "The Night the Clocks, Scoreboard Stood Still."

For the lockstep Republican Conference of 2003 to prove so fussy and reluctant requires a truly monstrous bill, and the MMA did not disappoint. A normal drug benefit would, as Kate said, simply tack on prescription coverage to Medicare Part B, paying a portion of pharmaceutical costs as part of the outpatient benefits. Medicare could then use its massive size and market share to bargain down drug prices, ensuring affordability and long-term savings over the fractured, smaller private system. But the two losers in that equation -- private insurers and pharmaceutical companies -- were the two with access to Congress, and so the bill takes precisely the opposite approach, choosing to involve and enrich the affected industries rather than achieve savings, comprehensive coverage, or simplicity.

Medicare Part D, first, cherishes the unique contribution HMO's and private insurers make to our medical landscape, and sought from the beginning to ensure their inclusion. Thus, there is no Medicare insurance here, as there is in parts A and B. Medicare is instead a middleman and absent-minded regulator of the private, for-profit insurers who actually offer the coverage. There are, literally, hundreds of plans, each covering different drugs, offering different copays, boasting different donut holes, and suited for different conditions.

Letting a thousand insurance plans bloom might be well and good were health static, but since seniors routinely attract new ailments and require new drugs, the chance that a necessary treatment won't be covered under the Medicare sub-plans has kept all but the poorest and most needy from risking entry into the drug benefit. Add in the total confusion created by the benefit's structure and you can see why seniors are so anxious to sign up.

Worse, the Medicare Modernization Act specifically prohibited Medicare from bargaining with pharmaceutical companies. That's why the tiny Veteran's Health Administration has been able to demand prices 49 percent lower than Medicare's and why every other country with nationalized health insurance buys pharmaceuticals at around half our price....

The Medicare Modernization Act was the K Street Project in action. How karmically appropriate, then, that its inevitably disastrous implementation should fall mere days after Jack Abramoff's guilty plea. The bill is a mess of bad policy and industry giveaways, and even once the initial administrative hitches calm, the prices will remain exorbitant, the benefit will remain labyrinthine, and the stories of seniors falling ill only to find their plan lacks coverage for their treatment will remain common. Policy matters, bad policy most of all, and if progressives are looking for tangible proof that political corruption has come at a cost to ordinary Americans, they need only ask their grandparents.

Why Oh Why Are We Ruled by These Dorks? (Health Care Edition)

Dan Froomkin http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/01/25/BL2006012501071_pf.html directs us to some real analysis of the forthcoming Bush health proposals:

On NiemanWatchdog.org, Harvard Medical School professor emeritus Rashi Fein writes:

"One of the strengths of large employer-provided health insurance (and of Medicare) is the sharing of risk across large numbers of individuals. If the pool is fragmented and each of us has his or her individual insurance and savings account, premiums will increase for those who are sicker or older as they fall for those who are healthier or younger. This cannot be justified as a matter of social policy. For instance, it would exacerbate the present situation in which almost 20 percent of African Americans and one-third of Hispanics are uninsured.

"Furthermore, the tax-free characteristics of the savings account provide an incentive to postpone preventive care services and early diagnoses -- if I wait perhaps it will go away and I get to keep the money in the savings account. Yet in some cases such postponements lead to bad health outcomes and even higher long run costs. Thus the savings account approach is not only bad social policy, but -- because it negates the current emphasis on health promotion and disease prevention -- it represents bad medical policy."

Columbia University researchers Sherry Glied and Dahlia Remler recently found that HSAs are not likely to be an important contributor to expanding coverage among uninsured people because most of them do not face high-enough marginal tax rates to benefit substantially from the tax deductibility of HSA contributions. Leonard E. Burman and Linda J. Blumberg of the Urban Institute call HSAs a "tax cut for rich people." Ezra Klein writes in the American Prospect that "what HSA's really do is separate the young from the old, the well from the sick. Currently, insurance operates off of the concept of risk pooling. Since health costs tend to be unpredictable and illness isn't thought a moral failing, we all pay a bit more than we expect to use in order to subsidize those who end up needing much more than they ever thought possible. The well subsidize the sick, the young subsidize the old, and we all accept the arrangement because one day we will be old, and one day we will be sick, and no one wants to shoulder that alone.

"But HSA's slice right through this intergenerational, redistributionist arrangement: they're a great deal for young, healthy folks because they don't force subsidization. Just don't get sick."...

As I've said before, I believe the reason that Bush is pushing HSAs is that they are a tax cut, his only rule of domestic policy is to cut taxes, and that this is the only tax cut he thinks he can sell.

Impeach George W. Bush. Impeach Richard Cheney. Do it now.

Fox News: More Junk Journalism

Junk journalism.

Jane Hamsher writes:

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006_01_22_firedoglake_archive.html#113832432924410067: Honoring that great conservative tradition of "what, you think I do this for free?" it turns out FoxNews.com science columnist Steven Milloy has been on the payroll of Philip Morris since 2000, curiously the same time he started his job:

On March 9, 2001, he wrote a column for the website headlined "secondhand smokescreen." The piece attacked a study by researcher Stephen Hecht, who found that women living with smokers had higher levels of chemicals associated with risk of lung cancer. "If spin were science, Hecht would win a Nobel Prize," Milloy wrote. For good measure, he heaped scorn on a 1993 Environmental Protection Agency report that also linked health risks and secondhand smoke. Later that spring, he authored another smoking-related piece for FoxNews.com. In that one, he cast aside two decades of research on the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke and concluded, "Secondhand smoke is annoying to many nonsmokers. That is the essence of the controversy and where the debate should lie--the rights of smokers to smoke in public places versus the rights of nonsmokers to be free of tobacco smoke." You might chalk it up to Milloy's contrarian nature. Or to his libertarian tendencies. Except, all the while, he was on the payroll of big tobacco. According to Lisa Gonzalez, manager of external communications for Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris, Milloy was under contract there through the end of last year. "In 2000 and 2001, some of the work he did was to monitor studies, and then we would distribute this information within to our different companies," Gonzalez said. Although she couldn't comment on fees paid to Milloy, a January 2001 Philip Morris budget report lists Milloy as a consultant and shows that he was budgeted for $92,500 in fees and expenses in both 2000 and 2001.

I wonder why they suspected him. It never would've occurred to me there was anything weird about a science expert whose health advise is "smoke 'em if you've got 'em."

As Matthew Yglesias says, until the press corps cleans its own house, those seeking objective news and information will continue to rely on internet sources of good reputation. A press corps that includes Fox News, the Washington Times, National Review, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and CNN is hopelessly corrupt. How can it be worth anyone's time to figure out which reporters are straight and which are bent?

By contrast, it is much much easier to assess reputations and reliability on the web.

Covering the Economy: Employment and Layoffs: Ford

Ford plans for the future:

WSJ.com - Ford Will Shed 28% of Workers In North America : By JEFFREY MCCRACKEN and JOSEPH B. WHITE Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL January 24, 2006; Page A1: DETROIT -- Ford Motor Co. has made it official: Detroit is ditching its business model of the 1990s, and the cost now totals more than 60,000 jobs at Ford and rival General Motors Corp. Ford yesterday announced plans to close 14 North American factories, including seven assembly plants, and slash up to 34,000 North American jobs over the next six years. About a month ago, GM rolled out plans to cut almost as many jobs by 2010. Both companies will emerge from these retrenchments smaller, slugging it out in a crowded U.S. auto market. Underscoring the gravity of the situation, Ford yesterday also announced a $1.55 billion loss at its North American operations for 2005.

Covering the Economy: Employment and Layoffs: GM

GM's financial results for 2005:

G.M. Posts Worst Loss Since 1992 - New York Times : By MICHELINE MAYNARD: DETROIT, Jan. 26 -- By the middle of this decade, Rick Wagoner promised a few years ago, General Motors would again be king of the American road. The company would have dozens of new products aimed at beating foreign automakers, Mr. Wagoner, G.M.'s chief executive, said in 2002. With those new cars and trucks, G.M. would rebuild market share and its profits would help it stay ahead of the high cost of providing health care. Instead of fulfilling Mr. Wagoner's promise, G.M. went into reverse on Thursday. The company reported an $8.6 billion loss for 2005, the year it began its latest revamping, meant to reverse a string of losses and fend off relentless competition. G.M. reported a profit of $2.8 billion in 2004.

What Does the Growth-Investment Correlation Mean?

Very interesting:

Robert's Stochastic thoughts : "Testing for cross country heterogeneity in growth models using a finite mixture approach: Marco Alfo', Giovanni Trovato, and Robert J. Waldmann: We use an empirical model to test if the economic growth can beconsidered exogenous in the Solovian sense. We apply multivariatemixture model proposed by Alfo' and Trovato (2004) to the Bernanke and Gurkainak (2000) extension of the Solow model. We find that the explanatory power of the Solow growth model is enhanced, since growth rates are not statistically significantly associated with investment rates, when cross-country heterogeneity is considered. Moreover, we find no sign of convergence to a single equilibrium.

Virtual Blogroll: Barry Ritholtz's "The Big Picture"

Barry Ritholtz's http://bigpicture.typepad.com/ is an excellent weblog.

What Do You Mean "We," Kemosabe?

"What do you mean 'we', Kemosabe" is what his fellow Republicans call Senator Judd Gregg--the last Republican fiscal conservative--when he calls on them to do a "serious budget."

Ezra Klein: Flower Child : Poor Judd Gregg. One year you're an all-powerful feudal lord commanding your corner of the Senate, the next you're an azalea:

Senate Budget Committee Chair Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) on Wednesday called for spending reductions in the fiscal year 2007 budget, "particularly in health care programs" such as Medicare, CQ Today reports. The FY 2007 budget process will begin on Feb. 6, when President Bush delivers his proposed budget to Congress. Gregg said, "I'm not here to be a potted plant.... If we're going to do a budget, it's going to be a serious budget." Gregg said that he expects the budget proposal from Bush to include spending reductions, adding, "We can't afford our government as it is currently structured." Gregg also rejected the opinion that Republicans should avoid spending reductions in an election year, adding, "As Republicans, we should look at it as a strength, not a weakness." However, "Gregg's fervor for budget cuts ... is not shared by all of his GOP colleagues," according to CQ Today.

Ah yes, budget cuts in an election year. Cutting programs as an electoral asset. Conservatives are so cute when they daydream. As for the budget, it will most assuredly not be a serious budget, a point well proven by the recently reversed reductions in Medicare spending, which demonstrated quite conclusively that a party too timid to cross either seniors or lobbyists can't really save any money on anything at all. But it's hard to blame the GOP for all this, it's just the reality of it. If anyone ever lets Gregg bloom, the Republican majority will instantly whither and die.

I can't think of a time when the Republican Senate caucus was even a third grownups. But now they seem to be down to less than five.

Great Ironies of Economic Policy

One of the great ironies of economic policy is that the historical role of the Vietnamese Communist Party has turned out to be that of a union-busting gang labor boss for Nike and other first-world manufacturing corporations.

Max Sawicky identifies a second great irony:

MaxSpeak, You Listen!: IT HAS COME TO THIS : Forgive me for repeating myself, but for job growth, this has been one stinky recovery.... [A]ctual job growth can be accounted for by growth in public sector jobs. And there's nothing wrong with that. However: The upshot is that the triumph of Republican-conservatarian economic policy consists of an expansion of government jobs financed by loans from the Communist People's Republic of China.

Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? (Nell Henderson Washington Post Edition)

Max Sawicky directs us to Nell Henderson committing journamalism in the Washington Post this morning. Here is what Henderson writes:

Chairman Moved a Nation : Democrats were outraged in January 2001, when Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes, lending a key political boost to President George W. Bush's tax cut proposal.... Greenspan believed the surpluses would continue and suggested that policymakers design "triggers" to scale back the tax cuts if deficits reemerged...

Greenspan did not "believe" the surpluses would continue. He hoped the surpluses would continue, but thought it irresponsible to plan as though they would.

Here is what Alan Greenspan "believed," as told to Ron Suskind by Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill: what he believed in 2001 was that the Bush tax cut was irresponsible:

Alan Greenspan Says That the 2001 Tax Cut Was a Mistake: Archive Entry From Brad DeLong's Webjournal: May 22 [2001]... Greenspan arrived at the Treasury for breakfast with O'Neill.... Greenspan said that wasn't enough. "Without the triggers, that tax cut is irreponsible fiscal policy," he said in his deepest funereal tone. "Eventually, I think that will be the consensus view."

From Ron Suskind (2003), The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill (New York: Simon and Schuster: 0743255453), p. 162.

We have no reason to disbelieve Paul O'Neill. Greenspan has not denied O'Neill's account. Greenspan has said that his recollection of the meeting "differs" from On'Neill's, but not how his recollection differs--a standard non-denial.

And, of course, Henderson is simply incoherent. If you believe that the surpluses will continue, what's the point of triggers? Only if you hope that the surpluses will continue but recognize that they might not will you care about triggers.

Covering the BEA January 27 GDP Release

There's news--lots of news--lots of bad news--in the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis's "advance" release on GDP and the state of the economy in the fourth quarter of 2005.

Here's how it's being covered so far:

BEA January 27 GDP Report

Full report in pdf format at: Economist (Kash Mansouri) Instant Reaction

Reuters Immediate Wire Story

WSJ Friday Morning Release Roundup

WSJ Economists React

WSJ Chartbook

Bush Federal Reserve Appointments

From the invariably excellent Greg Ip and John MacKinnon of the Wall Street Journal news pages. As one keen observer said to me yesterday, "If it's not in the Financial Times or the news pages of the Wall Street Journal, it's probably wrong:

WSJ.com - Bush Is Moving To Fill Two Slots At Federal Reserve : By GREG IP and JOHN D. MCKINNON: Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL January 27, 2006; Page A2: WASHINGTON -- With leadership at the Federal Reserve about to change, the White House is moving to fill two vacancies on the central bank's seven-member board of governors. The White House announced that President Bush will nominate Kevin M. Warsh, a White House adviser on domestic finance and capital markets, and Randall S. Kroszner, who teaches at the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business.

Mr. Warsh declined to comment. Mr. Kroszner couldn't be reached.

The nominations come as Alan Greenspan prepares to step down Tuesday after 181/2 years as chairman. Ben Bernanke, a monetary economist who is chairman of Mr. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, is scheduled to succeed him Wednesday. He awaits Senate confirmation, tentatively expected Tuesday.

Mr. Bernanke created one of the vacancies when he quit as a Fed governor to go to the White House last summer. Edward Gramlich, appointed by President Clinton, stepped down as a Fed governor in August.

The nominations would tilt the board's composition toward financial-industry expertise rather than macroeconomics. Mr. Warsh, a lawyer by training, was an investment banker at Morgan Stanley before joining the White House National Economic Council. He has been the White House's point person on financial-industry issues.

Randy Kroszner is eminently qualified to be a Fed Governor. (But one of him is enough: two people who think like him on the Fed would be too many.) Does anybody know whether Kevin Marsh is qualified? The Bush administration's track record suggests that there is a presumption that the answer is, "Hell no!" But I don't know about the guy.

Bush Federal Reserve Appointments

From the invariably excellent Greg Ip and John MacKinnon of the Wall Street Journal news pages. As one keen observer said to me yesterday, "If it's not in the Financial Times or the news pages of the Wall Street Journal, it's probably wrong:

WSJ.com - Bush Is Moving To Fill Two Slots At Federal Reserve : By GREG IP and JOHN D. MCKINNON: Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL January 27, 2006; Page A2: WASHINGTON -- With leadership at the Federal Reserve about to change, the White House is moving to fill two vacancies on the central bank's seven-member board of governors. The White House announced that President Bush will nominate Kevin M. Warsh, a White House adviser on domestic finance and capital markets, and Randall S. Kroszner, who teaches at the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business.

Mr. Warsh declined to comment. Mr. Kroszner couldn't be reached.

The nominations come as Alan Greenspan prepares to step down Tuesday after 18½ years as chairman. Ben Bernanke, a monetary economist who is chairman of Mr. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, is scheduled to succeed him Wednesday. He awaits Senate confirmation, tentatively expected Tuesday.

Mr. Bernanke created one of the vacancies when he quit as a Fed governor to go to the White House last summer. Edward Gramlich, appointed by President Clinton, stepped down as a Fed governor in August.

The nominations would tilt the board's composition toward financial-industry expertise rather than macroeconomics. Mr. Warsh, a lawyer by training, was an investment banker at Morgan Stanley before joining the White House National Economic Council. He has been the White House's point person on financial-industry issues.

Randy Kroszner is eminently qualified to be a Fed Governor. (But one of him is enough: two people who think like him on the Fed would be too many.) Does anybody know whether Kevin Marsh is qualified? The Bush administration's track record suggests that there is a presumption that the answer is, "Hell no!" But I don't know about the guy.

Covering the Economy: BEA January 27 GDP Report

Lots of real news--bad news in the "advance" GDP report for the fourth quarter of 2005:

News Release: Gross Domestic Product : EMBARGOED UNTIL RELEASE AT 8:30 A.M. EST, FRIDAY, JANUARY 27, 2006

Virginia H. Mannering: (202) 606-5304 BEA 06-02

Recorded message: (202) 606-5306

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: FOURTH QUARTER 2005 (ADVANCE)

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2005, according to advance estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 4.1 percent. The Bureau emphasized that the fourth-quarter "advance" estimates are based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see the box on page 3). The fourth-quarter "preliminary" estimates, based on more comprehensive data, will be released on February 28, 2006.

The major contributors to the increase in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from private inventory investment, personal consumption expenditures (PCE), equipment and software, exports, and residential fixed investment that were partly offset by a negative contribution from federal government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.

The deceleration in real GDP growth in the fourth quarter primarily reflected a deceleration in PCE, an acceleration in imports, a downturn in federal government spending, and decelerations in equipment and software and in residential fixed investment that were partly offset by an upturn in private inventory investment.

Final sales of computers contributed 0.33 percentage point to the fourth-quarter growth in real GDP after contributing 0.16 percentage point to the third-quarter growth. Motor vehicle output subtracted 0.58 percentage point from the fourth-quarter growth in real GDP after contributing 0.56 percentage point to the third-quarter growth.

The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents, increased 3.3 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 4.2 percent in the third. Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross domestic purchases increased 2.9 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 2.5 percent in the third.

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2006/gdp405a.pdf

Covering the Economy: BEA January 27 GDP Report: Kash Mansouri Instant Reaction

He writes, at Angry Bear:

Angry Bear : Dramatic Slowdown in GDP Growth: The BEA has just released its first estimate of economic growth for the fourth quarter of 2005. It was dramatically lower than most people were predicting. The consensus estimate was for about 3.5% growth. Some pessimists guessed that it would be as low as 2.5%. The actual figured turned out to be just 1.1%.... This is a terrible report. Consumer spending slowed dramatically, to its lowest rate of growth in recent history. Business spending slowed even more dramatically, from a growth rate in the neighborhood of 8-10% over the past 10 quarters to just 3% this quarter - the lowest rate of business spending growth since 2003:Q1. In fact, the only thing that kept GDP growth positive at all was a massive build-up in inventories - the largest increase in inventories since early 2002. Apparently businesses were caught off guard by the slowdown in demand, and have not yet slowed their production accordingly. Presumably, they will.

All in all, this is an extremely worrying report. I've been bearish about economic growth in 2006 for a little while now, and this has just confirmed my worst fears. Kash

Covering the Economy: BEA January 27 GDP Release: Reuters Immediate Wire

By Glenn Somerville:

GDP growth at weakest in three years : Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:35 AM ET: By Glenn Somerville WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. economic growth slowed sharply in the fourth quarter to the weakest pace in three years as consumers spent less robustly, growth in home building eased and businesses were less eager to boost investments, a government report on Friday showed.Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity within U.S. borders, advanced at a surprisingly weak 1.1 percent annual rate in the October-December period -- little more than a quarter of the third quarter's 4.1 percent rate and the weakest for any three months since 0.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2002.

The softer-than-anticipated data shocked financial markets, prompting a decline in the dollar's value and a jump in bond prices as investors prepared to shift assets from stocks into debt securities.Fourth-quarter growth was far weaker than the 2.8 percent rate that Wall Street economists had forecast and reflected widespread softness.

Consumer spending, which fuels two-thirds of national economic activity, slowed to a 1.1 percent rate of growth, sharply below the third-quarter rate and the weakest since a 1 percent gain in second quarter of 2001. Spending on costly durable goods, which include cars and other items intended to last three years or more, plunged at a 17.5 percent rate.

That was the steepest drop in durables spending in nearly 19 years, since a 23.2 percent fall in the first quarter of 1987.

Analysts said the GDP report partly reflected the impact of Hurricane Katrina, which caused widespread disruption in the Gulf Coast region in late summer and fall."Taking it at face value, the hurricane played a big role in contributing to the weakness," said economist Richard DeKaser of National City Corp. in Cleveland. "Consumer spending was abysmal in October and November. It's an extremely weak report overall."

But some other analysts noted some of the negative influences -- like the hurricane impact -- could be temporary."Some of the recent data we have been getting is decidedly more upbeat," said Robert Sinche, a global currency strategist with Bank of America in New York. "The market looks at this as interesting history, likely to be revised up in future months."

In 2005, GDP expanded by 3.5 percent, slowing from 4.2 percent growth in 2004.There also were signs of increased pressure on prices in the fourth quarter. The price index for consumer spending rose at a 2.6 percent rate in the fourth compared with the third quarter's 3.7 percent. However, the core PCE index, which strips out volatile food and energy costs, picked up to a 2.2 percent rate of increase from 1.4 percent in the third quarter.

The Federal Reserve's policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee is set to meet on Tuesday, and has indicated it is closely watching inflation. The Fed has raised short-term interest rates 13 times since mid-2004 and is widely expected to boost them again on Tuesday.

Economist William Sullivan of JVB Financial Group in New York said the soft GDP data might raise speculation that the Fed is near an end to its rate-rise cycle.

"These data might introduce a bigger element of doubt as to whether you will get another Fed rate hike in March," Sullivan said. "But right now there's a sense that this is a soft patch and that there is probably a reacceleration under way."

Business investment grew at a 2.8 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter, less than half the third quarter's 8.5 percent rate and the weakest for any quarter since a 1.1 percent drop in the first quarter of 2003. Inventories climbed at a $25.7 billion rate during the final three months of last year, a sharp change following decreases at a $13.3 billion rate in the third quarter and $1.7 billion in the second quarter.

Covering the Economy: BEA January 27 GDP Release: WSJ Friday Morning Roundup

Wall Street Journal morning news roundup:

WSJ.com - U.S. GDP Grew at 1.1% Rate As Consumer Outlays Slowed : A WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE NEWS ROUNDUP January 27, 2006 12:23 p.m.: The U.S. economy cooled during the final quarter of 2005 as consumers tightened their belts in the face of higher energy prices and the trade imbalance continued to damp growth. The Commerce Department reported Friday that gross domestic product, the broadest measure of U.S. economic output, rose at a seasonally adjusted 1.1% annual rate in October through December. The gain was slimmer than the third quarter's 4.1% increase, and marked the weakest quarterly showing since the final quarter of 2002, when GDP rose 0.2%. For all of 2005, GDP advanced 3.5%. It grew 4.2% in 2004 and 2.7% in 2003.

"While this was a disappointing report, there are signs of a very sharp rebound in GDP growth in the current quarter," economists at Morgan Stanley wrote in a note. Indeed, they wrote they now see a "very good possibility" the economy will grow at a 5% or better rate in the first quarter of 2006, versus their earlier estimate of 4.2% first-quarter growth.

Covering the Economy: BEA January 27 GDP Release: WSJ Economists React

The Wall Street Journal's Friday morning "Economists React" story:

WSJ.com - Economists React : Economists React January 27, 2006 11:17 a.m. After the economy navigated a brutal hurricane season to post robust growth in the third quarter of 2005, growth cooled considerably in the fourth quarter. Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of U.S. economic output, increased at just a 1.1% seasonally adjusted annual rate as free-spending consumers became more cautious and the gaping trade deficit continued to provide a drag on the expansion. For all of 2005, GDP growth averaged a 3.5% annual rate. What does the slowdown in the fourth quarter mean for the economy in the months ahead? Economists weigh in with their reactions:

Covering the Economy: BEA January 27 GDP Release: WSJ Chartbook

WSJ.com : Year-End Chartbook 2005: THE U.S. ECONOMY STEAMED through its fourth year of expansion during 2005 despite being beset on all sides by potential hazards. Soaring energy prices, increasing global imbalances, a super-heated housing market and rising interest rates were just a few of the obstacles faced down by the economy last year. Though a devastating hurricane season couldn't swamp growth in the third quarter -- gross domestic product then grew at a 4.1% annual rate -- weaker consumer spending was a drag on growth in the fourth quarter, when GDP expanded at a 1.1% rate. For all of 2005, GDP grew 3.5%.

Nonetheless, peril from high energy prices and the potential bursting of a housing-market bubble hasn't been completely cast aside. Commodity costs are still a concern for manufacturers and economists are worried that consumers could be faced with higher prices if companies attempt to pass on their higher expenses. Housing recently has been showing signs of slowing down. The homes market has ebbed in the past only to rebound, but a more permanent downturn could have serious consequences for growth.

Take a look at how six key economic indicators -- employment, retail sales, consumer confidence, consumer inflation, existing-home sales and the trade deficit -- fared in 2005, and where they could be headed this year.

Research by: Tim Annett. Illustration by: Paul Antonson

Why Oh Why Are We Ruled by These Liars?

Hale Stewart notes that the Bush administration is--once again--highballing its estimate of this year's deficit so it can take credit at the end of the fiscal year for "reducing" the deficit below "expectations":

The Blogging of the President : The deficit will reach at least $337 billion for the current budget year, the Congressional Budget Office estimates, and the deficit is likely to go higher because of tax cuts and new additional spending for hurricane relief and the war in Iraq. The deficit estimated by the nonpartisan CBO was lower than predicted by the White House budget office, which two weeks ago said the 2006 deficit would top $400 billion because of emergency aid for victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

If we had a real press corps that didn't fall for such transparent tricks, they wouldn't still be trying them, would they?

Impeach George W. Bush. Impeach Richard Cheney. Do it now.

Another Reason Amazon Is Going to Rule the World

Another reason Amazon is going to rule the world:

"It is Barnes and Noble company policy to prohibit the use of its electrons to charge laptops in its brick-and-mortar stores."

Ezra Klein: Time for Another Panel on Weblogger Ethics!

Ezra Klein says it is time for another panel on weblogger ethics:

Ezra Klein: That Wasn't Quite My Point : My long quest to single-handedly lower the quality of public discourse has finally borne fruit -- in USA Today, no less (I know, lowering the public discourse in USA Today is kinda redundant)! Read down to the end. And then read my original post. That Tim Kaine is ugly wasn't quite my point, though, to be fair, it was certainly part of it.

Sigh. Somebody better convene a blogger ethics panel.

The Secret History of 1998

Kevin Drum writes:

The Washington Monthly : DELAY TO ABRAMOFF TO LIVINGSTON.... A DC TRIPLE PLAY?.... Via Josh, New York Post gossip maven Cindy Adams sez: "Jack Abramoff's partner Mike Scanlon admitted to digging up former Congressman Robert Livingston's private life. Set to become speaker, Livingston then got sidelined for Tom DeLay's man Denis Hastert. Prosecutors now checking if Abramoff and Scanlon took Livingston down at DeLay's behest." Like Josh, I also say "Hmmm."

Livingston was not the only Speaker of the House in DeLay's way in 1998. Newt Gingrich was axed earlier--because, we believe, his then-ongoing extra-marital affair with the third-Mrs.-Gingrich-to-be was inconsistent with the rectitude required of Republicans pushing for the impeachment of William jefferson Clinton.

Was Clinton really the target of Tom DeLay, Ken Starr, and the other Republicans pushing for impeachment in 1998? Or were the real targets Gingrich and Livingston? Who can tell us about the secret history of 1998?

Health Savings Accounts Once Again...

Peter Gosselin of the Lost Angeles Times writes about Health Savings Accounts. IMHO the Bush administration is excited about them because they are yet another excuse for a tax cut--and thus yet another excuse for destructive policies that make the chances of fiscal disaster in the long run higher.

Health Plan to Revive Debate - Los Angeles Times : President Bush is preparing to unveil a series of proposals intended to make the nation's healthcare system more efficient, but he is likely to revive a bitter debate... about how much of life's biggest risks Americans should bear on their own. Although many of the proposals... are ones the president has failed to get through Congress... new initiatives... additional tax breaks for the use of Health Savings Accounts, and making most out-of-pocket medical spending by individuals tax-deductible....

Just as with Bush's Social Security personal accounts proposal, the president would be seeking to persuade Americans to rely less on government-provided or employer-provided safety nets and more on themselves. He would also exhibit the kind of combativeness that has become a trademark of his time in Washington.... "The danger," Altman said, "is that this new arrangement could work out very well for some people, especially the young, the healthy and the affluent, but be very bad for the health system as a whole." The Health Savings Accounts, known as HSAs, are designed to encourage people to cover a substantial portion of their healthcare costs by opening tax-advantaged accounts from which they can pay routine medical expenses.... [T]he accounts will attract only the healthiest [and richest] Americans, leaving traditional employer-provided plans with people who have the highest health costs [and less wealth]....

Much of the president's recent thinking about healthcare appears to be influenced by former Reagan administration economist John F. Cogan, now at Stanford University, and former Bush chief economic advisor R. Glenn Hubbard....

Many analysts believe that the two big government [health] programs or something like them are needed because the elderly, poor and disabled who are covered by them have the most costly care -- and, especially in the case of Medicaid, are the least able to afford it. Hubbard said such problems can be handled by government subsidies.... Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Bush economic advisor and Republican-appointed director of the Congressional Budget Office, described the idea of tax deductions for people's out-of-pocket medical expenditures as "really bad tax policy." Holtz-Eakin, who is a fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations, warned that the deduction would tempt people to treat almost all of their spending as health-related and wreak havoc at the Internal Revenue Service. "I could make an argument that my running shoes are a health expense," he said. "They're preventive medicine."...

[I]f anything, people feel underinsured, and have little interest in adding to the financial risks they face. "The average American isn't interested in having more of his or her skin in the game," said Robert D. Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute, a centrist Washington think tank. "They already think they are paying plenty for healthcare and bearing enough of the risk as it is."... [M]any conservatives believe that the reason most Americans have too much employer-provided health insurance is that Washington lavishes too many tax breaks on companies to provide it. But instead of cutting back on the breaks offered employers, Bush proposes giving new breaks to individuals. In effect, he is leveling the tax playing field by raising the latter up, rather than cutting the former down. In an era of giant federal budget deficits, offering one set of tax breaks to counteract another might prove a hard sell.

Cogan and Hubbard acknowledged the problem but argued that proposals such as theirs were the only ones that could win congressional passage. "There's no question that the right answer is to repeal the tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance," Hubbard said. "But there's no chance politically that that will happen."

I'd much rather have Glenn Hubbard and John Cogan talking about the necessity of tackling the budget deficit than proposing policies that make future budget deficits larger.

Strangers Converse in a Berkeley Elevator

Strangers Converse in a Berkeley Elevator:

Person #1: I'm getting into an elevator. I'm about to lose the connection...

Person #2: An elevator is an admirably effective Faraday cage.

Person #3: Somebody should make a cell phone that works inside a Faraday cage.

Person #1: But surely the laws of physics...

Person #4: It could work via gravitational radiation

Person #2: Two charged, mutually orbiting micro black holes within the cell phone casing...

Person #5: Surely the Hawking radiation would be too fierce?

Person #2: I dunno. How long is the lifespan of a 10 kg black hole, anyway?

Person #1: You'd carry around a 50 lb cell phone just so you could talk in elevators?

Imposter: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America...

James Wolcott praises Bruce Bartlett's book-to-be,Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy:

James Wolcott: Bartlett's Quotations: Compared to [George W.] Bush, [Clinton] looks like a competent, responsible, functioning adult. And I suspect that by 2008 a lot of Republicans are going to be secretly hankering for a Hillary presidency to put Bush's manifold wrongs right. As for the Bush Legacy, Bartlett speculates:

"I think [Republicans] will eventually think of Bush the way earlier Republicans thought of Nixon--as someone who severely undermined the party and its principles just to get reelected. Not only did Nixon come close to exterminating the Republican Party with Watergate, he put in place policies that continue to burden the economy to this day--all to win one lousy election in 1972. I think Bush and his congressional enablers basically did the same thing in 2004. Bush's motives may have been higher than Nixon's--Bush believes he is fighting a holy war against terrorism, whereas Nixon was simply selfish--but the results may be the same."

I think Wolcott pushes things to far: I certainly wouldn't call Clinton a "competent, responsible, functioning adult." In policy matters, yes. In personal matters... If Clinton comes within a hundred yards of my daughter, I'm getting out the shotgun.

Sociology of Journalism III

In comments, Robert Waldmann definitely does not agree with Jeff Leen:

Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: Sociology of Journalism II : [T]he links [Dennis] provides further undermine Leen's claim that Schmidt broke the story. He claims the Post connected the dots, but doesn't note any dots connected by Schmidt and not by Rosenbaum.... Dennis based his praise of Schmidt on the same evidence used by Leen, the response of the powerful John McCain... if a tree falls in the woods and all senators pretend they didn't hear it, it doesn't make a sound. The evidence of Schmitt's contribution presented so far by Dennis and Leen is a simple update and a choice made by John McCain.... I think [this] "speak power to truth" metric is interesting in itself and will speculate....

Abstract Journamalist... thinks he should not report his opinions... wants to praise the powerful to get access... is lazy... and he is bored [with complex policy issues] and would really rather watch the super bowl. Thus... journamalist writes about who is winning the political contest.. it's like watching sports. This seems to have gone so far that journalism is judged by its effect on the powerful. It is not possible that an article was under appreciated by the powerful, because there is no merit except as recognised by the powerful....

[I]n 2002 [McCain] was doing Iraq... the number $45 million... the name Scanlon was new to the story but not to McCain. Scanlon had been DeLay's spokesman. His involvement in filthy lobbying games tied them very close to DeLay.... My personal theory is that McCain learned that Reed was involved. Thus the hearings were a chance to destroy Reed. I would be very surprised in McCain would be able to pass up such a chance for the good of the party. No way I would, given what Reed did to McCain in 2000. None of [these] theories has much to do with the Post.

---

[I]t is simply absurd to claim that Schmidt broke [the Abramoff scandal] in 2004 (as Leen does).... Evidently, [Dennis,] you believe that Schmidt's story broke significant new ground.... [But] you discuss McCain's reaction... no evidence that it was Rosenbaum's fault or to Schmitt's credit that McCain didn't respond to his article and did respond to hers....

I think the reason is obvious. In 2002 McCain was too busy advocating an invasion of Iraq to bother doing one of his more boring jobs -- charing the Senate indian affairs committee. I must concede that Rosenbaum scooped me on that one, explaining in his article why it would be ignored...

---

Brad: Don't tell me that you know so little about the world that you think that people will "just do the math." Much of our political debate is based on the fact that most people won't "just do the math"...

---

Sorry for the multiple comments. The one I meant to write... is very much about the sociology of journalism. Leen argues... that the importance of an article is not... the facts which are reported but... the spin and political impact.... He argues that the true contribution of a journalist is to decide the spin on a story. It doesn't matter if a "puff piece" and some "hard-hitting investigative reporting" contain the same facts, it's the slant that matters.... Leen says that not only do journalists put spin on the news but that they should be judged on what spin they put on the news....

Of course, the claim that Rosenbaum's article is a puff piece while Schmidt's is not has been refuted by Brad by quoting them. The tone is as similar as the content.... Leen [appears concerned] not what you say or how you say it but how powerful people react. Abramoff was pleased by Rosenbaum's article so it is a puff piece. McCain was angered by Schmidt's article so it is hard hitting investigative journalism. I can't think of a better disqualification for being Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor, Investigative....

http://tinyurl.com/cbjxh Leen's motto is "Speak Power to Truth"...

Sociology of Journalism II

In comments, Dennis agrees with Jeff Leen:

Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: Sociology of Journalism : [David Rosenbaum's] April 3, 2002 [story] talked about the issue. So did a far superior piece by Jim VandeHei http://online.wsj.com/article/PA2VJBNA4R/SB962577108761800931-search.html (now part of the WP) in the Wall Street Journal on July 3, 2000. And if you want the first article that explained the Tribal scam you could dig up the 12-16-1995 article in The National Journal by Kirk Victor: "Rolling the Dice with Republicans" (not online, at least not that I can find).

The Abramoff Scandal has been hiding in plain sight for more than a decade. I started researching Abramoff back in 1999 because of his links to sweatshops on Saipan.... While the details have been reported, it was the Washington Post that connected the dots to the crimes that have been exposed. It was Susan Schmidt's Feb. 22, 2004 article "A Jackpot From Indian Gaming Tribes" on Jack's Tribal casino scam that led McCain to start his investigation...

Sociology of Journalism

Jeff Leen, assistant managing editor of the Washington Post investigative unit, says that the late David Rosenbaum's April 3, 2002 story on Jack Abramoff was "a puff piece," was "viewed by [Jack] Abramoff as positive." By contrast, he says, Susan Schmidt's February 22, 2004 piece was "hard-hitting investigative reporting." Rosenbaum's "did not generate a Senate Committee and a DOJ investigation." Susan Schmidt "put the pieces together" and "generated widespred outrage... [with the] $45 million number"--that is, Schmidt's reporting that Abramoff and Scanlon collected $45 million in fees over four years had a much greater impact than Rosenbaum's reporting that Abramoff has collected $1.8 million from one tribe in six months, even though one might think "half a dozen tribes times sixty months times a hundred thousand a month" and do the math.

Here are the opening paragraphs of Susan Schmidt's story:

A Jackpot From Indian Gaming Tribes: Lobbying, PR Firms Paid $45 Million Over 3 Years Feb 22, 2004 A.01: A powerful Washington lobbyist and a former aide to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) persuaded four newly wealthy Indian gaming tribes to pay their firms more than $45 million over the past three years for lobbying and public affairs work, a sum that rivals spending to influence public policy by some of the nation's biggest corporate interests. Touting his ties to conservatives in Congress and the White House, lobbyist Jack Abramoff persuaded the tribes to hire him and public relations executive Michael Scanlon to block powerful forces both at home and in Washington who have designs on their money, according to tribe members.

Under Abramoff's guidance, the four tribes -- Michigan's Saginaw Chippewas, the Agua Caliente of California, the Mississippi Choctaws and the Louisiana Coushattas -- have also become major political donors. They have loosened their traditional ties to the Democratic Party, giving Republicans two-thirds of the $2.9 million they have donated to federal candidates since 2001, records show. The payday for the GOP is small though, compared with the $15.1 million the tribes have paid Abramoff and his law firm, Greenberg Traurig, which has rocketed to the ranks of top lobbyists on the fees it has charged gaming tribes, lobbying records show. And those fees -- 10 or 20 times what the tribes paid their former lobbyists -- are about half of what Scanlon has taken in. Scanlon, 33, himself a former Greenberg lobbyist who was recommended by Abramoff, has been paid $31.1 million, according to documents and interviews with tribal members.

The fees are all the more remarkable because there are no major new issues for gaming tribes on the horizon, according to lobbyists and congressional staff. The tribes' payments for lobbying and public affairs work are comparable to what large corporations spend on lobbying in Washington: General Electric Co. paid more than two dozen lobbying firms $30.4 million over the same three-year period, according to federal records. The nation's top four pharmaceutical companies paid dozens of lobbying and law firms $34.8 million between mid-2002 and mid-2003, according to the records.

"Those fees would certainly stand out as greater in magnitude than what rank-and-file tribes pay," said Phil Hogen, chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission, which regulates Indian gaming. "I guess they have been persuaded there is some value or return for that, but what that is, I'm not aware," Hogen said...

Here are the opening paragraphs of the late David Rosenbaum's story:

At $500 an Hour, Lobbyist's Influence Rises With G.O.P. - The Archive - The New York Times: April 3, 2002 A1: In the last six months of 2001, the Coushatta Indians, a tribe with 800 members and a large casino in southwest Louisiana, paid $1.76 million to the law firm of Jack Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist here. Last month, the Bush administration handed the tribe a big victory by blocking construction of a casino by a rival tribe that would have drained off much of the Coushattas' business. William Worfel, vice chairman of the Coushattas, views the administration's decision as a direct benefit of the eye-popping lobbying fees his tribe paid Mr. Abramoff, more money than many giant corporations like AOL Time Warner and American Airlines paid lobbyists in the same period. ''I call Jack Abramoff, and I get results,'' Mr. Worfel said. ''You get everything you pay for.''

In the seven years since Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, Mr. Abramoff, 43, has used his close ties to Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the Republican whip, and other conservatives in the House to become one of the most influential -- and, at $500 an hour, best compensated -- lobbyists in Washington. He is also an important Republican fund-raiser. Mr. Abramoff's recent success and importance in Republican circles is a reminder that even as much of official Washington has been focused on the war in Afghanistan, efforts to beef up national security after Sept. 11 and the crisis in the Middle East, the business of lobbying has been humming along quite nicely, more out of the spotlight than usual but more profitable than ever for those with the right connections.

Unlike many lobbyists who take almost any client who is willing to pay their fee, Mr. Abramoff says he represents only those who stand for conservative principles. They include three Indian tribes with big casinos and, until recently, the Northern Mariana Islands. ''All of my political work,'' he said, ''is driven by philosophical interests, not by a desire to gain wealth''...

Yet Another Panel on Internet Ethics!

The Washington Post is running a panel on internet ethics!

Panel: Ethics & Interactivity Jim Brady, Jeff Jarvis, Jane Hamsher, Jay Rosen, Glenn Reynolds

Wednesday, January 25, 2006; 1:00 PM: Last Thursday, washingtonpost.com turned off the reader comments feature on post.blog... after several comments containing personal attacks, profanity and hate speech were posted on an item about Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell's recent column about the Abramoff scandal.... To open the discourse about how reader-submitted comments should be handled, washingtonpost.com has invited several prominent bloggers to join us... to discuss the evolving nature of Internet commentary and ethics.

I have a question for Mr Brady:

I have read David Rosenbaum's big April 2002 front-page New York Times article about Jack Abramoff: "[Abramoff] is, by his own description, a committed ideologue.... tries hard to persuade his fellow Washington lobbyists to give more generously to the Republican Party... expects to raise as much as $5 million this year..." And I have read Susan Schmidt's first article written 22 months later--the one that David Leen says broke the Abramoff scandal--"Under Abramoff's guidance, the four tribes... have loosened their traditional ties to the Democratic Party, giving Republicans two-thirds of the $2.9 million they have donated.... The payday for the GOP is small though, compared with the $15.1 million the tribes have paid Abramoff and his law firm..."

Why in the Holy Name of the Lord would anybody think it is appropriate to characterize this--as Deborah Howell continues to characterize it--as "[Abramoff] directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties"? What even semi-rational thought process could lead anyone to think that Howell's is a fair characterization of Schmidt's "loosened... ties to the Democratic Party" and of Rosenbaum's "committed ideologue.... tries hard to persuade... [others] to give more generously to the Republican Party... expects to raise as much as $5 million"?

Thus my question for Mr. Brady: what does he believe is the appropriate role of readers when confronted by someone like Deborah Howell who appears to have taken leave of her senses and abandoned the reality-based community? Should we write letters to the ombudsman?

We'll see if the Post views this question as adding to the discourse.

:-)

Hello. My Name Is Ezra Klein. You Insulted My Magazine. Prepare to Die!

Ezra Klein dons the shoes--the high heels--of Ana Marie Cox, puts on her lipstick, and draws his rapier to wreak vengeance on The New Republic:

Wonkette: My honor has been impinged, my magazine’s good name scurrilously impugned. I refer you, good sirs, to The New Republic’s promotional e-mail:

Dear Reader, You may want clear opinions from The New Republic or from any magazine of political commentary. But you certainly don’t want predictable opinions or simple opinions, which, alas, is what you get from The Nation and the National Review, The Weekly Standard or The American Prospect. Why, I bet that you could write their articles in advance. No challenge, no mystery, no surprise, no puzzling through of argument. Not like The New Republic. Subscribe today for as little as $9.97 to read all of our unconventional wisdom.

The next sentence?

In this week’s issue, we say “NO” to Samuel Alito—in two articles actually.

Pretty awesomely unconventional if you ask me. I mean, I would’ve expected one article saying “no” to Sam Alito, but two? And in all caps!? That’s the sort of liberal apostasy you can only get from TNR.

Other unpredictable items from this week’s New Republic include Jon Cohn on why Lyndon Johnson’s Medicare rollout was smoother than George W. Bush’s, Frank Foer on more reasons that Jack Abramoff is sucky, and a satire of suicide bomber rhetoric implying that Western values are superior to the ethos of terrorists. For a left-of-center magazine, these truly are bold and unpredictable stances, and I applaud The New Republic for taking them. The only question is whether they’re willing to survive the inevitable counterattack from the called-out coalition of Mike Tomasky, Katrina Vanden Huevel, Bill Kristol, and Rich Lowry. And what’s Paul Glastris? Chopped liver?

Rasky-DeLong "Covering the Economy": Discussion Notes: Week of January 24

Rasky-DeLong "Covering the Economy": Discussion Notes: Week of January 24

Seven background graphs on employment statistics:

Payroll Survey Employment Growth since 1994
Long-Term Unemployment
Unemployment and Underemployment
The Employment-to-Population Ratio
Thirty Years of the Unemployment Rate
Three Years of the Unemployment Rate
Unemployment: The Importance of Seasonal Adjustment

New claims for unemployment insurance emerge every Thursday...

Monthly Employment Report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics every month, at 8:30 AM on the first Friday:

Statement by Commissioner of Labor Statistics Kathy Utgoff.
The January 6, 2006 Employment Report itself.

• Household survey: the CPS or Current Population Survey:
  • Unemployment rate
    • Underemployment rates
    • Long-term unemployment rate
  • Employment-to-population rate
    • Female labor force participation
    • What is the participation trend?
      • Why are the unemployment rate and the employment-to-population ratio telling different stories since 2000?
• Payroll survey of businesses
  • Watched by Wall Street
    • As an indicator of economic activity
    • As an input into the Federal Reserve's decision-making policy
      • Federal Reserve sets interest rates
      • Federal Reserve wants to keep inflation low
      • If inflation is low, Federal Reserve would like employment to be as high as possible
  • Since 2000, the payroll and household surveys have been telling different stories...
  • Benchmark for payroll survey: 140,000 per month as neutral result
  • Payroll survey also contains workweek data and wage data--but save that for next week

Now let's look at some stories:

January 6, 2006: Reuters: Reuters's initial story on the January 6, 2006 BLS Employment Report: "Job growth below expectations in December" Fri Jan 6, 2006 9:20 AM ET: By Glenn Somerville..."
January 6, 2006: Economist Forecasters' Immediate Reactions to the Employment Report release.
January 7, 2006: Greg Ip: writes about Friday's employment report for the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal
January 7, 2006: Edmund Andrews's next-day article on the January 6, 2006 Employment Report.

Broader Perspectives:

January 6, 2006: Tim Duy Looks at the Fed: and guesses what the Federal Reserve's reaction will be to the January 6, 2006 Employment Report.
Mark Thoma of the University of Oregon tries to provide perspective on the January 6, 2006 Employment Report.
Kash Mansouri of Colby College on the January 6, 2006 Employment Report: "the US economy continues to disappoint when it comes to the creation of new private-sector jobs."
The Heritage Foundation's Tim Kane.

The impact story: for bond traders. The opinion-sample story--the WSJ has it up by 10:02 AM! Greg Ip's story: state of the economy in a broader perspective Edmund Andrews's story: political context and consequences of employment report.

Four webloggers: Tim Duy, Mark Thoma, Kash Mansouri, Tim Kane.

Rasky-DeLong "Covering the Economy": Discussion Notes: Week of January 17

Covering the Economy: Week of January 17: Discussion Notes:

We thought about Robert Pear:

"Senate Passes Budget With Benefit Cuts and Oil Drilling." By ROBERT PEAR; CARL HULSE CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FOR THIS ARTICLE. November 4, 2005 http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F00B11FB3C5A0C778CDDA80994DD404482

The Senate on Thursday narrowly approved a sweeping five-year plan to trim a variety of federal benefit programs and to allow drilling for oil and natural gas in a wilderness area of Alaska, increasing the chances that the energy industry and Alaska officials will achieve a long-sought goal. The budget bill, the most ambitious effort to curb federal spending in eight years, was approved by a vote of 52 to 47. Five Republicans opposed the measure; two Democrats voted for it. Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said, "This bill is a reflection of the Republican Congress's commitment to pursue a path of fiscal responsibility." It will, Mr. Gregg said, reduce the deficit and save roughly $35 billion over the next five years...

Susan Rasky calls this an excellent example of a standard New York Times lead. There is a lot of information in here. There is no excessive jargon. There is nothing that is not true.

Brad DeLong says: not so.

First, the lead lacks scale variables. Is it more important to know that the plan saves $35 billion, or that the plan saves 0.3% of federal spending, or that the plan saves 0.06% of GDP? Is it more important to know that the plan saves $35 billion, or that it saves $27 per person per year in the context of the federal government's spending $9,000 per person per year?

There is also the question: "What's the narrative?" The narrative that Pear's lead supports is:

• Judd Gregg works very hard, and passes through the Senate a seeping, ambitious effort to curb federal spending (and open the Alaska NWR to drilling) that demonstrates the Republican Congress's commitment to fiscal responsibility.

But ten years ago--when the economy was half its size--five-year deficit reduction packages had numbers like $500 billion attached to them. Relative to the size of the economy, Judd Gregg's effort is only 1/30 as large as the deficit-reduction measures of 1993 or 1990. And Judd Gregg's $35 billion spending cut was to be followed a week or so later by a $70 billion tax cut. In a normal year the two bills would be combined into one. This year the Reconciliation Bill was divided into two by the Republican leadership in the hope that passing the spending cuts first would get, well, would get stories like Robert Pear's that got Republicans credit for fiscal responsibility.

The narrative that Pear's lead support is--no ifs and buts about it--false. Here are three alternative true narratives:

• Nothing happens as a result of the Reconciliation process this year: spending cuts of $27 per capita per year and tax cuts of $54 per capita per year in the context of a federal government that spends $9,000 per capita per year and taxes $7,500 per capita per year.
• Republicans pull a procedural trick to try to fool reporters into writing stories that give them credit for fiscal responsibility--and it works.
• Judd Gregg labors like a mountain to convince his fellow Republicans to reduce the deficit, but when the dust clears the mountain has birthed a mouse: the "sweeping five-year plan," the "most ambitious effort... in eight years," is of a trivial and insignificant magnitude.

Robert Pear is an excellent reporter--as Dan Froomkin points out in email, not even the crankiest and pickiest economist has complaints about the substance of his coverage of health care issues, which are his home base. So why does he write a story whose lead leaves Brad DeLong frothing at the mouth when he writes about the budget?

Possible answers:

• If Robert Pear is going to cover the federal budget in the long-run--cover this beat--he needs to keep Senate Budget Chair Judd Gregg happy. Beat reporters have to be polite. (But is it really the case that Robert Pear needs Judd Gregg more than Judd Gregg needs Robert Pear?
• Robert Pear doesn't cover the federal budget on a regular enough basis for his sources to fear him, so they tell him pleasing lies: the Republicans that this is significant progress on deficit reduction; the Democrats that the Medicaid benefit cuts are horrifying large and truly devastating.
• The New York Times doesn't have a big enough budget bench--if Robert Pear were writing for the Wall Street Journal news pages, he would have an enormous amount of backup and institutional memory at his disposal. At the New York Times he doesn't--after all the New York Times reporter who covered the Reagan budgets is... sitting right here.
• Robert Pear hasn't taken Stan Collender http://nationaljournal.com/members/buzz/2006/budget/ out to lunch enough times. Two lunches with Stan Collender at Signatures, and Pear would have nothing to fear when he is handed a budget story to write.

Next time: sources of data and information; how journalists can arm themselves against writing stories whose leads carry untrue narratives. Things to read:

• Stan Collender's "Budget Balance" column: http://nationaljournal.com/members/buzz/2006/budget/
• The Economic Report of the President: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/
• The Statistical Abstract of the United States: http://www.census.gov/statab/www/
• The House Ways and Means Committee Green Book: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Documents.asp?section=813
• The Economic Policy Institute's State of Working America: http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/books_swa2004
• For recent data, CEA-JEC Economic Indicators: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/indicators/index.html

Daniel Drezner Intervenes Intellectually Outside His Home Area of Expertise

Daniel Drezner writes:

danieldrezner.com :: Daniel W. Drezner :: Bill Clinton is responsible for the Iran mess>: So I see Brad DeLong is intervening intellectually outside his home area of expertise, [writing]...

George H. W. Bush and his advisors worked like dogs to establish two principles: 1. Aggression and conquest across national borders would be rolled back by the world community. 2. Superpowers would not intervene militarily outside their home regions without the blessing and support of the entire U.N. Security Council. With these two principles in place, there was sound hope--well, some hope--that nonproliferation policy would succeed

Let's clear some brush here: 1) DeLong's principle number 2 has not and likely never will be a cardinal element of American foreign policy, and anyone who tells you differently is selling you something...

Well then, I guess George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft are selling you something. They explicitly write that--since the Security Council mandate given the U.S. and the coalition in 1991 was to liberate Kuwait--crossing the border to Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein and "unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish." On the one hand, Dan Drezner's opinions about the foreign policy of the George Bush I administration. On the other hand, George H. W. Bush's and Brent Scowcroft's opinions. Whose do you think are more reliable?

Viz:

George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft (1998), A World Transformed, pp. 489-90: Trying to eliminate Saddam [Hussein in 1991], extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs.... We would have been forced to... rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy".... Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish...

Shouldn't Dan Drezner stick to his home area of expertise--not intervene intellectually in areas, like modern American diplomatic history, where he appears so out of his depth?

:-)

---

UPDATE: Dan Drezner responds:

look at p. 356, Brad!!: "We would ask the [Security] Council to act only if we knew in advance we had the backing of most of the Arab bloc and we were fairly certain we had the necessary votes. If at any point it became clear we could not succeed, we would back away from a UN mandate and cobble together a independent multinational effort built on friendly Arab and allied participation. The grounds for this would be the initial UN resolution condemning Iraq, the subsequent resolutions, and Article 51, along with a request from the Emir of Kuwait. In the end, if sanctions failed and it came to using force, [Richard] Haass and [Bob] Kimmitt reminded us that our ability to rally the necessary political support, with or without UN endorsement, would be enhanced significantly if we were seen to have tried hard to make diplomacy work [with Hussein]..."

To which I say, touche...

:-)