Turn Turn Turn

Have you read Scooter Libby's September 15, 2005, letter to Judith Miller, who was at that point still incarcerated? It closes with this:

"You went into jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover—Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work—-and life. Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers."

A lot of bloggers have tried to make heads or tails of the passage.

Is this just more of Libby's notorious purple prose?

It is based on fact.

Or, is it a code, perhaps written to look like purple prose?

As Robert Novak, of all people, reported on September 22, a bunch of rich conservatives recently gathered in Aspen, Colorado, to talk policy...and bash President Bush!

For two full days, George W. Bush was bashed. He was taken to task on his handling of stem cell research, population control, the Iraq war and, especially, Hurricane Katrina. The critics were no left-wing bloggers. They were rich, mainly Republican and presumably Bush voters in the last two presidential elections.

The Bush-bashing occurred last weekend at the annual Aspen conference sponsored by the New York investment firm Forstmann Little & Co. Over 200 invited guests, mostly prestigious, arrived Thursday night (many by private aircraft) and stayed until Sunday...They faithfully attended the discussions presided over by PBS's Charlie Rose on such serious subjects as "global poverty and human rights" and "the 'new' world economy." The connecting link was hostility to President Bush.

Hmmm.

The Aspens have turned in a cluster, have they?

And maybe it is their neocon roots that connect them?

Interesting.

Miller, by the way, authored a book on biological weapons and received one of the (hoax) anthrax letters in fall 2002.

Put that with her false reporting about WMD in Iraq and she's had a busy decade already.

I'm not 100% sure why Libby thinks there will be biological threats to report this fall, though I guess he could just be thinking of the bird flu.

In any case, I think one of the most interesting theories is that Libby was telling Miller it was OK to turn on someone (Bush? Rove? Bolton?) because everyone was turning already. People connected at the roots, like she and he, would live long and prosper.


Notes: big money conservatives have long had a thing for Aspen.

Some people argue that Bolton is not a neocon, and others report that he is actually "a libertarian who despises the neocons."

Big "gummit" is back

Pass the word: the era of big government is back!

After 9/11, the Bush White House lept into action and the foreign policy team had a lot of on-the-shelf ideas that they could implement without too much trouble. Presidents have more power over foreign policy than they do over domestic affairs, and 9/ll provided a near-perfect justification for their policy prescriptions.

This is accurate whether you want to emphasize the role of the embedded neocons (Scooter Libby and Paul Wolfowitz) or the hard-line nationalists (Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney). Both groups were well-represented in the "Vulcans" who surrounded Bush in his 2000 campaign and in the out-of-power think tank, Project for a New American Century. They also largely agreed about the need for the US to pursue unilateralist primacy in world politics.

Rebuilding the Gulf Coast after Katrina, however, poses a huge problem for Bush and his followers. It's a domestic problem, not a foreign policy problem. The answers invite the return of "big government," and even if Bush-friendly corporations like Halliburton are rewarded, there's likely going to be substantial scrutiny of money spent after this domestic catastrophe.

The sums are enormous, with Congress already appropriating $62 billion -- the recovery effort means $2 billion spent daily!

The Los Angeles Times reporters Peter G. Gosselin and Janet Hook describe the obvious dilemma for Bush-backers:

President Bush, who came to office pledging to complete the Reagan revolution against big government, is set to preside over one of the biggest government undertakings in recent U.S. history — the reconstruction of the storm-ravaged Gulf Coast.

In doing so, the president is turning to many of the New Deal and Great Society programs that he long criticized as too costly and a threat to Americans' sense of self-reliance.

The size of the administration's relief and recovery plan alone threatens to swamp much of what had been Bush's second-term agenda — making previously approved tax cuts permanent, introducing personal investments to Social Security and advancing other "ownership society" programs.

I like this quote:

"This is the mother of all government reconstruction programs," said Allen Schick, an authority on the federal budget who teaches at the University of Maryland.

Kind of harkens back to the first Bush (Senior) administration, eh?

Libertarians are especially upset at the turn of events:

"The president's plan is a big change from what has been the traditional federal role in disasters," said William Niskanen, chairman of the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank that advocates small government.

"The effect is going to be to indefinitely defer things he's wanted to do, like Social Security [restructuring]," Niskanen said. "And I don't think there's any possibility of eliminating the estate tax"

...administration actions have left some Bush supporters with a sense of political vertigo as the president and his chief aides appear to embrace positions they were sharply critical of a few weeks ago.

"It bothers me enormously how we've responded to this problem. This is just way out of bounds," Niskanen said.

Then again, libertarians have never been happy with this administration.

Takings

I spent most of the 1990s studying global environmental politics. At one point, I was going to write a paper about the so-called "wise use movement" largely active in the western US. These are the libertarians and conservatives who fight government environmental regulations using populist rhetoric. The wise use movement is largely funded by large transnational corporations, especially those that buy animal grazing rights, mining leases, etc. from the federal government at below market prices. Some also manufacture off-road vehicles. Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church also funds the "movement."

The wise use movement is against government "takings" of private property.

They cite the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, which states in part: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." That clause is the basis for the concept of eminent domain, which allows government entities to take land for public projects by paying property owners the land's fair market value.

Typically, they argue that environmental regulations decrease private land values (by limiting uses) and thus constitute illegal government takings. Owners are not compensated for the theoretical future value of the developed land. Indeed, since they ordinarily keep their land, owners may not be compensated at all for the regulatory limits on its development.

The same crowd is against zoning restictions in some areas of the country, but most people accept those sorts of limits on property uses.

Anyway, I never wrote the "wise use" article, but have remained interested in takings. Back in January/February, Mother Jones published an article on local government use of eminent domain power to take private property in behalf of private developers. In other words, homes or businesses are being condemned and taken to build malls and condos.

That too is government "takings" and conservatives should be upset, right?

Apparently, they are!

Today, as the NY Times reported, the Supreme Court said these "takings" are A-OK:

The Supreme Court ruled today, in a deeply emotional case weighing the rights of property owners and the good of the community, that local governments can sometimes seize homes and businesses and turn them over to private developers.

It was a 5-4 decision, with Justice Stevens writing the decision. He was joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

This means that conservative Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas were outvoted. Ordinarily, that's a good thing, but this is an interesting case because a lot of local government officials seem to be in bed with developers who are looking out more for personal profit than the public interest.

Developers are the ones sending the mixed message. They won today, but they side with the western wise use crowd against government "takings" when regulations limit their ability to develop certain kinds of property (like wetlands).

Are you a libertarian?

I'm not much of a libertarian, at least according to the "Libertarian Purity Test" by Bryan Caplan. I scored only a 15, for the civil libertarian and anti-militarist parts of the test.

I found the website thanks to David Nieporent of Jumping to Conclusions.

Take the test yourself -- and report the results in comments.

Please remember, this blog welcomes libertarians.

Something rotten?

OK, I realize a lot of my readers might still think this: "Something's rotten in the state of Denmark."

However, I haven't really blogged about the election irregularities.

If readers want to follow the story, I recommend they check out the Anonymous blogger who has been compiling the various problems around the country.

Or watch Keith Olbermann's show on MSNBC. Or just read Bloggermann, Olbermann's blog. If you are interested in this topic, you've probably already read Thom Hartmann's op-ed.

For those who haven't been paying attention, some new datapoints:

Yesterday, a Franklin County Commissioner seat in Indiana switched from red to blue when officials found that an optical scan machine had counted straight ticket Democratic voting for the Libertarian candidate.

Thousands of votes are still inexplicably missing in North Carolina.

Ralph Nader set in motion a recount in New Hampshire, a state John Kerry won. Again, the issue is optical scan machines:

Nader has alleged that “irregularities’’ in the optical scanning voting machines appear to have inflated the totals that Bush should have gotten in several key states.

The machines were manufactured by Diebold.

Even as the count of provisional ballots has started, David Cobb and Michael Badnarik, the Green and Libertarian candidates for President, have "announced their intentions to file a formal demand for a recount of the presidential ballots cast in Ohio." They estimate that they'll need $150,000 in donations to pay for it, and so far have raised $112,500.

Meanwhile, Kerry's lawyers are in Ohio on a "fact-finding mission."

Remember, the real Presidential election is December 13, 2004, when the Electoral College meets.

Just one more month!

Political Unrest in the Red States

Apparently, the University of Kentucky Student Government Association has narrowly passed what Beth Wilson, Executive Director of the Kentucky ACLU, called a "strongly worded resolution against the USA PATRIOT Act." That pointer is to the text of the proposed resolution -- not to a story about its passing. I do not know if it was amended. Supposedly the website is going to be updated very soon.

I searched Google News for the "Patriot Act" resolution and learned that similar resolutions are being debated and passed all over the US -- including in many Bush Red states.

Elko County Nevada unanimously passed a resolution opposing any parts of the act that are unconstitutional.

Kansas City's Council voted 11-1 for a resolution that "warns against violating civil liberties and discriminating against racial or ethnic groups in the process."

Dallas County, Texas approved a resolution denouncing the Act. According to the story from the Star-Telegram, 3 states and 225 local governments (I've read that it is actually 250 now) have taken stands against the Act. The Austin City council is apparently one of them, though Austin is a left-leaning island in a sea of conservatism.

The Bill of Rights Defense Committee has a full list, and as of February 25, 2004, the 257 "local resolutions, ordinances and ballot initiatives" cover 44.8 million people. Cleveland Heights, Ohio, is another Red state area that has recently acted on this issue. Page down the list and some areas stand out because of their size (LA, NY, King County, WA, which is where Seattle is located), many college communities, and some typically conservative areas. In addition to the ones I mentioned above, I note Durham, NC, Boise, ID, Dillon, MT, Tucson, AZ, the entire state of Alaska (plus many local areas)...check out the list (pdf file).

The other 2 states are Vermont and Hawaii.

Update: The daily independent student newspaper of the University of Kentucky (the KY Kernel), confirms that the SGA did pass the resolution by a single vote after an hour-long debate.

The Bill of Right Defense Committee has a separate webpage listing student resolutions.

Oh, and the ACLU has an interesting map identifying areas of the country covered by anti-Patriot Act resolutions. Note the large chunks of Wyoming, Idaho and Arizona. Libertarians are not happy.

Enemy of Freedom?

Expect light blogging in the next week. I'm on the road and will check in sporadically.

Incidentally, I've just finished spending the weekend with the UK's new Director of the Identity Cards Programme, Katherine Courtney. Note: libertarians might want to avert their eyes.

Though some people know her has an "enemy of freedom," I'm unconvinced. This is from her testimony on December 11 before the Home Affairs Committee:

Q46 Mr Prosser: I want to ask some questions about the National Identity Register. Have you made any firm decisions on what information will go into the Register and, if so, what are they?

Katherine Courtney: The information that is proposed to be held on the National Identity Register is simply that information which is required to establish a person's core identity. So that might include name, date of birth and a record of certain biometric identifiers. However, the decision of exactly what is going to be held on the Register is subject to legislation and, therefore, is really a matter of Parliament. That decision has not been taken yet.

Q47 Mr Prosser: What measures will you take to ensure that some sort of fraud does not take place at that critical moment and therefore undermine the whole issue of an ID card?

Katherine Courtney: At the moment of enrolling an individual into the Register?

Q48 Mr Prosser: Yes.

Katherine Courtney: Quite rigorous security will be built into the system. Just to give some of the examples; first of all, recording the biometric details of an individual will enable us to check against other records held on the Register to ensure that, for instance, a person is not presenting themselves with a second identity and trying to claim that they should be issued with a second ID card; secondly, at the point of first enrolment we will be undertaking a very rigorous background check on the individual based on the information that they supply in the application procedure. So that will include looking at what we call a "biographical footprint" or where that individual has had contact with other Government departments in the past. That is not to capture that data into the Register but simply to verify that individual's existence in the UK. It is very difficult for somebody to invent a biographical footprint and so that is a very effective fraud prevention measure in itself.

Q49 Mr Prosser: Will that registration be linked to the Civil Registration Service? Will there be any linkage between the two?

Katherine Courtney: We hope to have a link in that the Civil Registration Service is working towards electronic records of births, marriages and deaths and it would certainly be an easy way for us to validate information that people are presenting to us about their birth date, for instance, if we were able to check that electronically against the new electronic registration database, as we know the current paper documentation for birth certificates etc. is not particularly secure.

Q50 Mr Prosser: You have been using the expression "biometric footprint" ...

Katherine Courtney: It was "biographical footprint".

Q51 Mr Prosser: "Biographical footprint"? Okay. In regards to the biometrical information stored in the card, are decisions made on that yet?

Katherine Courtney: Again, no decision has been taken on precisely what will be stored on the card or indeed will be recorded on the Register. We have taken quite a long look at the biometric technology and the current state of evolution there and we are now embarking on a process of design, analysis, feasibility testing and technology tests to look at, in particular, three types of biometrics, which I am happy to elaborate on if you would like further information. Would you care for me to speak further about it?

Q52 Mr Prosser: Yes.

Katherine Courtney: The three that we are evaluating are; a facial biometric, which is effectively a digital photograph of an individual's face that can then be matched against other digital photographs in a database; fingerprints, which is a digital record again of a person's fingerprints; and iris, which is a photograph effectively of the shape of a person's iris. These are unique physical identifiers and when captured in a digital format can be quite easily compared with other similar records to see whether there is a match or not. We have the UK Passport Service just about to undertake a pilot of enrolment looking at all three of those types of biometric recording to evaluate the robustness of the technology, the enrolment experience across a sort of representative segment of the UK population to see what that end-user experience is like.

Q53 Mr Prosser: We are told that the facial recognition is not a safe enough system. You have not dismissed that yet?

Katherine Courtney: Facial recognition in and of itself is not as robust as iris or fingerprint, but what is important is that we intend to be using more than one biometric record because that really gives you a very high level of assurance that the individual being held in the Register and presenting themself in front of you not only looks like the picture but also has an identifying physical characteristic that can really only be unique to them.

Q54 Mr Prosser: We are told that one in 10,000 people would not be suitable for iris recognition, but I suppose if you have got two different recognition patterns ...

Katherine Courtney: This is why we are undertaking this stage of intensive testing and analysis. We have no intention of launching a technology that is not fit for the purpose and certainly over the coming year we will be doing feasibility testing and then over the three years set up of the programme. We will be doing rigorous end to end testing of the whole system to ensure that it is robust and ready for launch for the first ID cards are introduced.

Q55 Mr Prosser: How will you break down the possible public resistance to people having their fingerprints taken and all the connotations and connections with the criminal world?

Katherine Courtney: I think this is a matter for public education because the fingerprints are not being recorded for the purpose of checking them against any criminal database or any other policing sort of purpose. The purpose of taking a picture of your fingerprints, taking a picture of your iris, taking a picture of your face is to record in your record in the register unique characteristics that if somebody were to steal your ID card or if you were to lose it, it would make it virtually impossible for somebody to pass themselves off as you.

Q56 Mr Prosser: Have you considered taking samples of DNA?

Katherine Courtney: No, we have not considered taking samples of DNA.

Q98 Janet Anderson: How many cards of each sort do you expect to be issued per year?

Katherine Courtney: In total, when the system is up and running, we would expect to be issuing somewhere between 10 and 17 million of these cards per year. That is roughly similar to the volume of passports, drivers licences and other identity type documents that are being issued in the UK currently. I do not have the specific breakdown of how many of those would be through new and renewal passports or drivers licences.

Q99 Janet Anderson: When do you think you would be able to cover the whole of the economically active population?

Katherine Courtney: Our estimates show that on a sort of phased incremental approach we should reach about 80% of the economically active population within five years after the launch of the scheme.

Q100 Janet Anderson: When the whole population, do you think?

Katherine Courtney: To reach the whole of the population would probably require a move to compulsion, so I cannot give an estimate of when that would happen.

Q101 Janet Anderson: You do have some proposals for a combined passport identity card, I think that is mentioned, and a combined driving licence identity card.

Katherine Courtney: Yes.

Q102 Janet Anderson: Presumably for passports, driving licences and identity cards you would have three different databases? Is that right?

Katherine Courtney: Yes.

Q103 Janet Anderson: Will they be able to talk to each other and do you ever see a point where you may want to combine the whole lot into one IT database?

Katherine Courtney: Passports and drivers licences have already, as those two agencies have been doing quite a lot of work together, working very closely, on both the initial checking of applicants and also verifying documentation against each other's databases already. We are effectively looking to build on the good practice that they have already been working on.

Q104 Janet Anderson: And that is working, is it?

Katherine Courtney: Yes. In terms of whether those agencies might ever be combined into a single agency, really the structure and function of agencies is a decision for the Government of the day, so I am not able to comment on that.

Q105 Chairman: We have a number of elements to the system; we have the database, we have the physical job of collecting the biometrics, we have the production of the cards, we have the administration system and so on. Which of those different functions, potentially, could be carried out by private sector companies rather than by public sector institutions?

Katherine Courtney: As you know, we are now entering into what we call the "project definition stage" of this project and the design of the solutions, both from the business process and technology perspective, is exactly what we are looking at over the coming year. So it is premature for me to be able to give you any idea of how private sector companies might be involved in the eventual delivery of that solution.

Q106 Chairman: Are there any areas that have been excluded at the moment from being delivered by the private sector?

Katherine Courtney: I do not believe that any firm decisions have been taken on any of the designs.

Q107 Chairman: So the database itself could potentially be run by a private sector organisation?

Katherine Courtney: I think you would want to distinguish between who has authority over the database and which entity actually does the operational day to day technical maintenance of the database and again no decisions have been taken.

Q108 Chairman: Is that a clear distinction in your mind?

Katherine Courtney: It is a clear distinction in my mind, yes.

Q109 Chairman: Right, but I mean the police national computer, for example, is maintained by the police. The Criminal Records Bureau has access to it. That is not the same as saying that the Criminal Records Bureau, God help us, should run the police national computer.

Katherine Courtney: Yes, but I think the specific question was about private sector organisations' involvement in this scheme.

Q110 Chairman: Yes, I am just trying to be clear; in principle, have you excluded the idea that the database could be run and managed and effectively controlled by, not necessarily owned by, controlled by a private sector organisation?

Katherine Courtney: Again, I can only say that these are all issues that are being explored during the design phase.

Q115 Chairman: In terms of the private sector, you have talked about banks, financial institutions, solicitors or whatever who might wish to use the card; to what extent will you be designing the card and its content around the requirements of private sector users as opposed to public sector users like Benefits or Health?

Katherine Courtney: The design of the scheme throughout the consultation period to date, coming up with the initial concepts, etc., has been in consultation with private sector organisations as well as public sector. The financial services sector, for instance, has expressed quite a lot of interest in the possibility of using this scheme to prove identity in the future. So the design of the scheme is meant to be putting in place capabilities that are effective and cost effective for a whole range of situations. That runs from potentially a small retailer wanting simply to, if date of birth, for instance, is reflected on the face of these cards, maybe just wanting to be able to use a very simple check for proof of age. On the opposite end of the spectrum you may find that for major financial transactions, a bank may want to be able to perform a verification check of that identity against the database and will be exploring possibilities to make that feasible for them.

Q116 Chairman: Suppose a financial institution came and said what would be really useful would be for the card to carry details of major criminal convictions?

Katherine Courtney: I think we have been quite clear that the function and the purpose of the scheme and the function of the card and the system itself is to verify identity. There is no intention to hold any other information about individuals.

Q117 Chairman: So that would be a straight no to any institution that asked for extra information to be carried in other than the identity information you have already told us about?

Katherine Courtney: Absolutely.

Q118 Chairman: What other departments and agencies are being involved alongside the Home Office in developing the biometric and other technologies?

Katherine Courtney: We have been working very closely not only with colleagues in other Government departments here and across the Home Office, both with the DVLA, who have been looking at this issue, with UK Passport Service, who have done quite a lot of work due to the requirements that are placed upon them now by evolving standards in the international community and also the Immigration Service has done quite a lot of work in this area. But in addition to that, we have been working closely with other countries, with EU partners, with the US and, for instance, taking a very active role in the G8 Working Group on Biometrics.

Q119 Chairman: How much is the technology going to change? At the moment when you have your iris scan, you have to sit down, I think, in the special booth or in front of a camera. I presume, given I was hoping to get this wonderful mobile phone camera for Christmas, that in ten years' time a police officer will probably be able to carry a camera capable of doing an iris scan in the street and checking it against a card. Have you looked at how the technologies will change over the next ten years and what the circumstances are likely to be when the new card is brought into force?

Katherine Courtney: Certainly the work that has gone before with the National Physical Laboratory study and the consultations that we have taken with the industry sector through, for instance, Intellact, has informed the decisions that have been made to date in designing the preliminary concept for this scheme in terms of how we are going forward. We are looking at future proofing the scheme. Obviously there is no point in building something that is obsolete before we launch it. I cannot predict for you how the technology will change.

Q139 Janet Anderson: How will you decide whether the technology is working? Will you set certain tests against which you will measure whether it is being effective or not.

Katherine Courtney: I think it would be obvious if the technology were not working, but the testing that we will be going through, not only now in the feasibility analysis stage of this programme, but throughout the set up, and then conducting very rigorous end to end testing of the whole system which includes testing the business processes behind the technology and not just the technology itself, will put us in a position to be clear that it is working as designed, that it is meeting the specifications before we go live with the system and launch cards and make them available to the public. And then, once it is live and operational, you would be conducting the same performance measurement that you would on any major technological system on an ongoing basis to ensure that it continued to performance up to the required standards.

Q140 Janet Anderson: Do you think you have learnt any lessons from some of the things that have happened in this past? I was just thinking about passports and when the asylum databases were combined, the three databases, have you learnt lessons from what went wrong there, you think, which will inform what you are doing here?

Katherine Courtney: Certainly we are drawing lessons not only from projects that have gone wrong but also from projects that have gone well, in the public sector and in the private sector. Quite importantly, the team that has been brought together to manage this programme bring a wealth of expertise from the private sector, which is where I myself have come from, as well as across Government and having been involved in other major Government initiatives in the past. And then finally, I should say that the Office of Government Commerce oversight that we have invited in is providing us again with access to best practice, information and learning from other Government initiatives.

Q141 Janet Anderson: Do you think that there will be a need for an independent assessment at some point, or do you think that you will have built sufficient safeguards in place?

Katherine Courtney: I am not sure I understand what an independent assessment is?

Q142 Janet Anderson: At some point would you perhaps commission an independent assessment, an outside assessment, to assess whether it was, in fact, working as you had intended?

Katherine Courtney: Certainly we have, within the proposed governance framework for this programme, a whole raft of oversight both within the Home Office and independent advice from outside. No decision has been made whether we would commission a particular independent.

Q143 Chairman: You noted earlier that the OGC Gateways go from 0 to 5, that is because it is Gateway 6 would tell you the system was really going to work, is it not, and we never quite get there? I mean this is the same OGC framework that signed off the Criminal Records Bureau, I think, was ready to run. So do you have complete confidence that the OGC Gateways are sufficiently robust to say "Yes, we can push the button on this one and it is ready to go"?

Katherine Courtney: I know that OGC Gateway system is a fairly new process. It has only been in operation for the last couple of years and I, coming in from outside of Government, cannot really speak on how effective the process is. What I do know is that, from my own background, I have confidence that a programme like this, it is possible to deliver a programme of this size and complexity within plan and effectively and successfully.

Q144 Chairman: Have a look at the advice we got on the Criminal Records Bureau. Could you just tell us what your background is?

Katherine Courtney: Certainly. I have spent the last 12 years in the technology sector leading major development programmes both for major companies like Cable and Wireless and BT and also have been involved in the start up of several new technology ventures. Most of those were rolling out new businesses on an international basis which requires a great deal of not just complexity in terms of the technical systems, but also in terms of the cultural and business process issues there.

Q145 David Winnick: How were you brought into the Home Office? Was it an advertisement or other contacts?

Katherine Courtney: Yes, there was a recruitment process and I saw an ad in the Sunday Times and applied for the job.

Katherine is my wife's sister.

Globalizing Crony Capitalism

Let's see if I can recall ECON 101 stuff...free market...competition...comparative advantage...efficiency...

You get the idea.

It's standard Republican dogma that if the government has to spend money, it ought to be as much like private enterprise as possible -- competitive bids for government contracts are essential, otherwise the result is inefficiency and waste.

Inefficiency and waste are real no-nos when one is dealing with tax revenues (or, as the President used to day, "YOUR MONEY").

Some libertarians equate taxes with theft and slavery, so this is kind of important to them, especially.

So, what do we make of the Bush administration's view on spending taxpayer money in Iraq? It's crony capitalism on a global scale.

The New York Times (registration required) had a significant story Tuesday, "U.S. Bars Iraq Contracts for Nations That Opposed War" that is being widely syndicated and discussed today.

The Pentagon has barred French, German and Russian companies from competing for $18.6 billion in contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, saying the step "is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States."

The directive, which was issued by the deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz, represents perhaps the most substantive retaliation to date by the Bush administration against American allies who opposed its decision to go to war in Iraq.

Under the guidelines, which were issued on Friday but became public knowledge today, only companies from the United States, Iraq and 61 other countries designated as "coalition partners" will be allowed to bid on the contracts, which are financed by American taxpayers.

Particularly since Germany, France and Russia most recently voted with the US at the UN -- and the US continues to ask these states for their cooperation on Iraqi debt, NATO involvement, etc., this seems very petty and short-sighted.

Plus, as basic economic theory would suggest, it's quite inefficient and that means higher costs for taxpayers.

Libertarians: Welcome!

Last week on Volokh, David Bernstein blogged about "The Republican Collapse." Here's his thesis:

It's really gotten close to the point where the only reason for limited-government types to vote for Republican presidents is that they occasionally appoint judges who believe that the Constitution restrains federal and state regulatory power...

"Compassionate conservatism" seems to have turned out to be a replay of the Nixon strategy of buying off every conceivable interest group that is capable of being bought off by a Republican admnistration, while using social issues and conservative rhetoric to appease the Republican masses.

Bernstein links this article from The Washington Post which briefly summarizes a minority committee report from the House finding that Republicans have loaded up on budgetary pork far more than did their recent Democratic predecessors.

Then, on Sunday, the Post had an op-ed called "The Bush Betrayal" by David Boaz:

Federal spending has increased by 23.7 percent since Bush took office. Education has been further federalized in the No Child Left Behind Act. Bush pulled out all the stops to get Republicans in Congress to create the biggest new entitlement program -- prescription drug coverage under Medicare -- in 40 years.

He pushed an energy bill that my colleague Jerry Taylor described as "three parts corporate welfare and one part cynical politics . . . a smorgasbord of handouts and subsidies for virtually every energy lobby in Washington."

It's a far cry from the less-government, "leave us alone" conservatism of Ronald Reagan.

I've been thinking lately that Democrats should make an overt appeal to Libertarians in 2004 to try to pry them from the Republican voter pool.

Libertarians must be given pause by the developments noted in these articles, as well as the Patriot Act (internet and library snooping), the deficit spending (they like the tax cuts, but hate the failure to cut government), the drug war (Ashcroft has gone after head shops), and other aspects of the Bush era.

Democrats could try to appeal to libertarians by promising to balance the budget (cutting corporate handouts in mining, agriculture and other areas would make for a large start), overturning the excesses of the Patriot Act, and perhaps at least thinking about easing the drug war. Democrats could also embrace more transparency in government, which libertarians are bound to favor.

Boaz, from the libertarian Cato Institute, concludes with three options for those that share his political philosophy:

It could happen that limited-government voters decide to stay home, or vote for an independent candidate in the mold of Ross Perot or Jesse Ventura or vote Libertarian.

They could even vote for an antiwar, anti-Patriot Act, socially tolerant Democrat.

Given a choice between big-government liberalism and big-government conservatism, the leave-us-alone voters might decide that voting isn't worth the trouble.

Those are some interesting choices.

Update: See another post on Volokh and the links therein. Just last week, the libertarian magazine Reason had a critical on-line piece about Republicans.

Howard Dean and the Progressive Agenda

I haven't said much about Howard Dean lately, so let me touch on a couple of news items that caught my attention.

First, everyone presumably knows about the confederate flag flap triggered by Dean's comments during a debate. People also know about his partial retraction, presumably.

But do they know about the repair measures he's pursued? For example, Maryland Representative Elijah Cummings, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, is expected to endorse Dean in the next few days. In a recent interview with the Baltimore Sun, Cummings called Dean "somebody who can energize our base" and "the kind of candidate we need to run for president."

I'm not certain how much these kinds of endorsements make, but politicians obviously think they are valuable. Cummings, by chance, is coming to my University to speak in the near future and I hope to learn more about his views on Dean. I'll blog about it I learn anything valuable.

Second, Dean announced this past week that he intends to re-regulate various industries in an attempt to ward off Enron-style corporate abuses and to prevent further media concentration. Libertarians, predictably, are up in arms about this even though many would agree that corporate abuses need to be addressed.

The libertarian line isn't all that far from the Democratic Leadership Council's , which wants to find market-based ways to overcome corporate abuses.

Is the answer to market failure even more markets? Perhaps, but what is the answer? Even the libertarian writer Megan McArdle, discussing Dean's plan, acknowledges that the answer is quite evasive. After all, she "would be surprised indeed to find that he has solved a problem that is still worrying some of the finest minds in finance and economics."

Perhaps the answer is targeted regulation. It does seem like a good idea to prevent too much concentration of media power. Utility de-regulation did have some horrible consequences as Enron and the California energy disaster (which are related problems) demonstrated -- not to mention WorldCom. Plus, unregulated stock options are a big problem that helped promote the bubble economy of the late 1990s.

Dean's fellow Democrats (like Wesley Clark and Joe Lieberman) blasted him right away without allowing much time for real discussion of his plan. Indeed, Clark has said at times that he was motivated to run in part by Enron and problems he had observed first-hand in investment banking.

After reading just a small bit about Dean's plans, I wonder if Nobel winner Joseph Stiglitz is behind them? Last year's anti-globalization book has been following by this year's The Roaring Nineties that debunks many myths about the 1990s' economy. He slams telecom deregulation, apparently. The American Prospect's book reviewer summarizes a key Stiglitz claim:

He shared a 2001 Nobel Prize in Economic Science for his pathbreaking contributions to the concept that markets function imperfectly, hurting many people, because the information available to market participants is inadequate. So government has to intervene, adroitly through rules and regulations, to make markets function properly.

Stiglitz, unlike Dean, doesn't seem to be such a stickler for deficit reduction, so maybe I'm seeing something that doesn't exist. Obviously, I'd be right if Stiglitz (with cause) joined the Economists for Dean That website, by the way, has been giving a lot of play to the mutual fund scandal, which also fits into this picture (as Paul Krugman readers know).

Alert to my friends supporting Kucinich, Braun or Sharpton: this is a progressive and populist idea Dean is pursuing. It's worth examining in more detail.

For that reason, I wouldn't mind reading Brad DeLong's take on Dean's plans. Brad?

The French are right, again.

Yesterday, Dan Drezner posted, "A Marriage Made in Protest" on his blog. It concerns French governmental sponsorship of an anti-globalization meeting. He quotes a Financial Times article about the European Social Forum, which is meeting in Paris right now (1200 organizations and 50,000 people). According to the FT, President Jacques Chirac authorized the French foreign ministry and prime minister's office to pony up about 20% of the $4.3 million budget. Here's the meetings' purpose:

The main agenda will discuss propositions for an alternative "anti-liberal" development model for the European Union that is also more citizen-friendly. But attention will also focus on ways to challenge US "unilateralism".

Dan wonders why it took so long for the French to "hook up" with the anti-globalization crowd (perhaps he is implying this because many of them are anti-American).

Drezner is basically a right-leaning libertarian who supports the WTO and is thus quite sympathetic to globalization.

Of course, I think the FT and Drezner should be more worried about their own views than they are about the social protesters.

Perhaps the meeting is going to focus on an "'anti-liberal' development model" because the current model has failed to fulfill the liberal project?

The Cancun WTO negotiations recently failed because of the hypocrisy of agriculture subsidies. Rich nations want them, they are inconsistent with free market ideas, and to be fair, Drezner has argued against them. But that doesn't end them. Those subsidies make it quite difficult for poor countries to compete in an economic sector where they might well have comparative advantages.

Moreover, there are other important dimensions to global liberalization beyond the mobility of capital and goods.

What about liberal freedom of movement? The EU states have embraced this within their limited sphere, but the US (especially post-9/11) has been far more concerned with tightened borders.

How can liberals desire mobile capital without mobile labor? That is completely one-sided and clearly favors transnational business at the expense of workers everywhere.

There's also the question of global governance, which the anti-globalization forces have long sought. Liberalism isn't blindly libertarian and the protesters make solid points about environmental standards, labor rights, etc.

I would argue that we should postpone our worries about global "anti-liberal" forces until the state members of the WTO take liberalism much more seriously.

Allowing mobile capital and goods is NOT especially liberal. It merely exploits limited labor mobility and weak governance arrangements.

Money, money

One problem with starting a new blog: how does one jump into the midst of wide open discussion?

Consider the US federal deficit, for example.

I have never really been too concerned about the level of federal spending. Clinton's surplus wasn't pleasing, largely because it accumulated after he failed to get a health care plan through Congress. And he didn't try to spend real money on other national priorities.

In any case, everyone already knows that the Bush-era deficit is projected to be about $400 billion this year -- and around $480 billion next year. And those are White House figures, so they're probably conservative.

There is good news: Social Security is running a $150 billion annual surplus.

Oops, the government intends to spend that as well...making the real deficit $550 billion, heading to $630 billion.

And then there's the war, which is costing about $4 billion per month. The war's cost does not come out of the real defense budget -- the President requested and Congress appropriated emergency funds for the war ($79 billion was appropriated in April). The Congressional Budget Office guesses, based on last year's spending, that Iraq and Afghanistan could cost $818 billion through 2013. Since many smart people are now saying that the war could soon cost even more (if additional troops are added or if reconstruction efforts are hastened), this might turn out to be a very low estimate. Indeed, today's Washington Post includes a story noting that the White House is virtually doubling its request for spending toward Iraq this year.

So maybe the next couple of deficits are going to reach $620 billion, heading to $700 billion next year.

When does this become serious money? I've read the reports that compare the current deficit to the Reagan-era deficits, and these are lower as a percentage of GDP (so far). I guess Wall Street types and economists would figure that the current deficits won't bust the bank or harm the economy too much.

Of course, elections aren't won or lost based on what Wall Street or economists think. The political consequences could be more important than the economic effects.

Is this the kind of issue that will resonate with voters? Do voters know that the growing deficit is greatly influenced by the Bush tax cuts? Let's see, the 2001 tax cuts cost about $160 billion annually according to the Bush administration, or $350 billion annually if you believe Citizens for Tax Justice. The post 9/11 economic stimulus came largely in the form of tax cuts (about $70 billion per year). The 2003 tax cuts, by the administration's own count, will cost about $120 billion for the next few years.

So that means three years of tax cuts are costing $350 billion annually, by White House figures, or perhaps up to $500 billion if you want to believe third party estimates.

That's the bulk of the overall deficit. Is it trite to point out that Bush is lucky he's not governor of California?

I've read the White House transcript on this issue reportedly relayed by spokesperson Scott Stanzel:

" The President supports a balanced budget amendment, and is working to restrain spending so that we can reduce the deficit. However, the President also believes that protecting the lives and liberties of the American people may demand temporary borrowing, which is why he believes a balanced budget amendment should include exceptions for war, emergency and economic recession. The President has a plan to cut the deficit in half in five years through stronger economic growth and responsible spending restraint."

Ah, spending restraint. Does anyone believe this anymore (you have to select the August 6 story on the "Republican Honesty Deficit")?

Most of the Democratic candidates are now deficit hawks, and I'm not sure that's going to get them anywhere. Does this issue have traction? Howard Dean certainly talks about the deficit a great deal. Most of the candidates are saying they'll reverse the Bush tax cuts, but they also intend to spend the money on health care, so there wouldn't be much left for cutting the deficit.

Defense spending doesn't seem to be on the table, even though there's plenty of fat to be cut there. Before 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld was ostensibly going to do something about recasting the military, making it leaner for the 21st century. In the current context, however, the old spending rolls over and plenty of new spending is simply added to the total. Where's the public face of the Cato Institute when it's really needed?*

I'd better stop for today and do my real job.

* I included that reference because I know the web is crawling with libertarians. Many libertarians end up voting for Republicans, but on this issue the Institute uses titles like "Reforming a Defense Industry Rife with Socialism" and "Exploiting the War on Terrorism to Cash in at Taxpayers' Expense."