Blog Archive: April, 2007

Isaiah J. Poole's picture

CAF STAFF

How Free Choice Act Helps Workers

More than 3.5 million people will receive health insurance and 2.7 million people will receive pension benefits if Congress passes the Employee Free Choice Act, according to a report released Monday by the Campaign for America’s Future.

The study, which is also broken down by state, underscores the importance of the fight in the Senate for passage of the bill, which would level the playing field between employers and employees seeking to unionize. The bill (H.R. 800) passed the House in March, and is expected to be on the Senate floor soon.

more »

Rick Perlstein's picture

CAF STAFF

Conservatives treat their constituents like suckers (5): Luckily, there's no Al Qaeda in Pakistan...

"They sold out the world for an F-16 sale."

Rick Perlstein's picture

CAF STAFF

Buckley Versus Bush

I'm privileged to be able to call William F. Buckley a friend. Once he even invited me to one of his fortnightly dinner parties for National Review staffers and friends. (I made an ass of myself, spilling Scotch on one of his heirloom rugs.)

Today he gets something off his chest: thanks to the war in Iraq, there are "grounds for wondering whether
the Republican party will survive."

I'll have to shoot him an email to tell him that when he realizes Reagan was the beginning of the end, he'll have finally achieved mature wisdom.

Rick Perlstein's picture

CAF STAFF

Collapse

Click on this picture.

We don't yet know all the details behind why one section of interstate collapsed upon another in San Francisco after a crash set off a tanker truck carrying 8,600 gallons of gasoline. Does this always happen when bridges are subjected to, as the San Francisco Chronicle reported, 3000 degrees of heat? Is this, as the insurance folks put it, force majeur - an "act of God" - or more evidence of the systematic problems of America's infrastructure under conservative rule, and thus preventable? I don't know.

Those are the kind of questions we at The Big Con will be asking - and you should be asking, too.

I don't know either if California has a good Department of Transportation or a bad one, or a satisfactory transportation budget or an inadequate one. I don't know whether California - home of a historic property tax reform in 1978 which has kept municipal budgets chronically underfunded - keeps around enough money to respond to the inevitable emergencies (and emergencies are always inevitable). Do they have the resources required to keep the 80,000 vehicles that use the spur efficiently detoured, and avoid a hit on the local economy with a minimum of inconvenience?

People described the bridge looking like a slab of melting plastic. Maybe there's no way to prevent a bridge from melting under the onslaught of 8,600 gallons of burning gasoline; I don't know. If you do, please share in the comments.

I know that a municiple engineer told the Chronicle that reconstruction might be delayed by a local steel shortage. Was that preventable? Did, say, President Bush's tax cuts end up taxing whatever municipal agency it is in charge of loosening up bottlenecks to get vital materials to the right place in case of emergencies? He also said "there is $10 billion worth of construction currently going on in the Bay Area -- and all those projects need concrete and steel." I don't know what powers of eminent domain might or might not be able to be activated when an accident nearly shuts down a city - and how badly those powers might have atrophied under the reign of conservatism, with its abiding obsession against government "takings" of any kind.

All Bay Area transit systems offered free rides today to ease the congestion, but that this will hardly be enough ("'We are sharply limited in our ability to add extra service,"' said AC Transit spokesman Clarence Johnson, who noted there is extra capacity on its Transbay service on normal weekdays. It's not like we have a bunch of extra buses or drivers sitting around.'") Governor Schwarzenegger has made emergency declaration that provides $2.5 million to reimburse mass transit agencies for the service. I don't know: can the state budget absorb the hit - and for how many days?

What I do know is that "27.5% of the nation's bridges (162,000) are rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete by the Federal Highway Administration, and that in their 2001 infrastructure report card, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation's bridges a C."

What I also know: an infrastructural disaster like this is a nearly inevitable component of any future terrorist attack. And that in their latest report card the nation's bridges still rated a "C" - because of a conservative Congress's inability

I know that Tennessee is handling its transportation budget shortfall by making a

And what I don't know, finally, is this: if the Republicans have done anything in the six and a half years since 9/11 to make the situation any easier when it comes, I have yet to discover what.

Smile, San Francisco. And pray that the next collapse isn't Al Qaeda's work.

UPDATE: Ask and ye shall receive. My CAF colleague Isaiah J. Poole covered transporation for Congressional Quarterly He points out that the bill finally passed in 2005, but with not enough funding to even maintain the current highway and transit network without significant state, local and private funds. Sponsors of the bill had been pushing for a five-cent increase in the gasoline tax. The revenues would be split between highway and transit upgrades (such as more buses and BART trains for the San Francisco area). When the five-cent tax increase was first broached, opponents used the excuse that the nickle tax would mean the poor could not afford gasoline anymore.

Says Isaiah: "Well, a roughly $1.50 increase in the average price of gasoline later, the highway trust fund - which would receive the increased revenue - doesn't have the funds to pay for emergencies like the San Francisco accident or for beefed-up transit service to compensate. All because of an all-taxes-are-evil mindset."

What was the old saying about penny wise and pound foolish? Just another truism gone by the wayside under the nightmare of conservative rule.

Rick Perlstein's picture

CAF STAFF

Fear itself (draft)

I recently wrote a review of a new biography of FDR that will appear later this month. Don't want to give too much away--"scoop myself," in journalism lingo--but I do want to affirm and amplify this insight by the blogger Atriot. He riffs:


Our leaders showed more courage when they informed us that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself " instead of telling us to be scared all of the time. True leaders will move us past the notion that what we want is a Great Protector to keep away the demons.

Straight up. Couldn't be more true. And FDR demonstrated its wisdom just about every day of his adult life. He managed to refuse to be afraid as the hysteria of others swirled around him. In 1919 Washington went mad

His cool confidence let him make his decisions wisely, calmy. Meanwhile, it served as an inspiration to others - and let hthe public evaluate his decisions wisely and calmly. Together, it made his leadership great. By any measure, the crises of Depression and war were more profound, more fundamentally dangerous to the very survival of our nation, than any we face now.

Bill Scher's picture

CAF STAFF

Weekend Watchdog:Rice, McCain Spin

We were hoping to hear some tough questions asked of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain on the Sunday talk shows.

For Rice (CBS' Face The Nation): You did not claim executive privilege when you were asked to testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission. Isn't it inconsistent to claim executive privilege now, when you've been subpoenaed to testify about the White House charge that Saddam Hussein sought uranium from Niger?

On ABC's "This Week," Rice pre-empted George Stephanopoulos. Without being asked, she delivered her talking point to justify her refusal to comply with a fresh House subpoena, when in 2004, the White House backed down from executive privilege claims and had her testify to the 9/11 Comisssion.

I testified before the 9/11 Commission. At the time, the President made clear that he did not consider that a precedent, but that the overwhelming concerns about 9/11 did make it necessary.

Well, there you have it. It's not a precedent because Bush said so. Besides, there's no "overwhelming concerns" about how intelligence was manipulated anyway.

For McCain, R-Ariz. (Fox News Sunday): In your announcement speech, you said:

No government program is the object of more political posturing than Social Security and Medicare. Here's the plain truth ... if we don't make some tough choices today, Social Security and Medicare will go bankrupt or we'll have to raise taxes so drastically we'll crush the prosperity of average Americans.

But if you were really interested in giving the public the "plain truth," why didn't you include in your announcement what you said three years ago: that you support Social Security "privatization"?

Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace did ask about McCain's views, but failed to question why McCain masked his support for "privatization" in his announcement .

McCain did make a hash out of what he would support, telling Wallace he could support a tax increase as part of Social Security compromise, then seconds later, saying he "will not support a tax increase."

 

Bill Scher's picture

CAF STAFF

Weekend Watchdog:Rice, McCain Spin

We were hoping to hear some tough questions asked of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain on the Sunday talk shows.

For Rice (CBS' Face The Nation): You did not claim executive privilege when you were asked to testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission. Isn't it inconsistent to claim executive privilege now, when you've been subpoenaed to testify about the White House charge that Saddam Hussein sought uranium from Niger?

On ABC's "This Week," Rice pre-empted George Stephanopoulos. Without being asked, she delivered her talking point to justify her refusal to comply with a fresh House subpoena, when in 2004, the White House backed down from executive privilege claims and had her testify to the 9/11 Comisssion.

I testified before the 9/11 Commission. At the time, the President made clear that he did not consider that a precedent, but that the overwhelming concerns about 9/11 did make it necessary.

Well, there you have it. It's not a precedent because Bush said so. Besides, there's no "overwhelming concerns" about how intelligence was manipulated anyway.

For McCain, R-Ariz. (Fox News Sunday): In your announcement speech, you said:

No government program is the object of more political posturing than Social Security and Medicare. Here's the plain truth ... if we don't make some tough choices today, Social Security and Medicare will go bankrupt or we'll have to raise taxes so drastically we'll crush the prosperity of average Americans.

But if you were really interested in giving the public the "plain truth," why didn't you include in your announcement what you said three years ago: that you support Social Security "privatization"?

Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace did ask about McCain's views, but failed to question why McCain masked his support for "privatization" in his announcement .

McCain did make a hash out of what he would support, telling Wallace he could support a tax increase as part of Social Security compromise, then seconds later, saying he "will not support a tax increase."

 

Bill Scher's picture

CAF STAFF

Weekend Watchdog:Rice, McCain Spin

We were hoping to hear some tough questions asked of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain on the Sunday talk shows.

For Rice (CBS' Face The Nation): You did not claim executive privilege when you were asked to testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission. Isn't it inconsistent to claim executive privilege now, when you've been subpoenaed to testify about the White House charge that Saddam Hussein sought uranium from Niger?

On ABC's "This Week," Rice pre-empted George Stephanopoulos. Without being asked, she delivered her talking point to justify her refusal to comply with a fresh House subpoena, when in 2004, the White House backed down from executive privilege claims and had her testify to the 9/11 Comisssion.

I testified before the 9/11 Commission. At the time, the President made clear that he did not consider that a precedent, but that the overwhelming concerns about 9/11 did make it necessary.

Well, there you have it. It's not a precedent because Bush said so. Besides, there's no "overwhelming concerns" about how intelligence was manipulated anyway.

For McCain, R-Ariz. (Fox News Sunday): In your announcement speech, you said:

No government program is the object of more political posturing than Social Security and Medicare. Here's the plain truth ... if we don't make some tough choices today, Social Security and Medicare will go bankrupt or we'll have to raise taxes so drastically we'll crush the prosperity of average Americans.

But if you were really interested in giving the public the "plain truth," why didn't you include in your announcement what you said three years ago: that you support Social Security "privatization"?

Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace did ask about McCain's views, but failed to question why McCain masked his support for "privatization" in his announcement .

McCain did make a hash out of what he would support, telling Wallace he could support a tax increase as part of Social Security compromise, then seconds later, saying he "will not support a tax increase."

 

Bill Scher's picture

CAF STAFF

Weekend Watchdog: Rice, McCain Spin

We were hoping to hear some tough questions asked of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain on the Sunday talk shows. more »

Bill Scher's picture

CAF STAFF

Weekend Watchdog Wrap-up

Did the Sunday talk show hosts pose our Weekend Watchdog questions? more »