Bush gets to play jobless stats shell game
   Look for the number of unemployed you hear about to decline by more than 2 million over the next six months.
   Great news, right? It certainly will be for President George W. Bush. He'll get to look good during this election year, the impression being that his one-bad-idea economic program is succeeding wonderfully at creating jobs.
   The only problem is, barring a miracle, the 2-million-plus reduction will be a hoax. The jobless total will shrink dramatically not because most of those people finally found jobs, but rather because they exhausted their unemployment benefits and were dropped from the count. Only people who register for unemployment benefits, qualify and are actively looking for work get counted.
   Think for a moment about the motivations in this situation. Bush and the neoconservative Republican ideologues who control Congress take a dim view of unemployment benefits to begin with. Their idea of a good economy is an employers' market where people are desperate to get any job they can find, for whatever pay is offered. A big surplus of desperate job seekers ensures declining wage levels, weakens unions where they exist and keeps them at bay elsewhere — just what those who bankroll Bush and the Republicans in Congress want.
   Toward that end, a recession and job-loss recovery isn't such a bad thing. But to really make this economy made-to-order for employers, bring in foreign workers, don't try too hard to keep illegal immigrants out and do what you can to legalize those who've gotten in. Now, you're really talking job-seeker surpluses, with declining wages and disappearing benefits in the mix.
   Additionally, Bush and congressional Republicans now have an added disincentive for helping the out of work. If large numbers of unemployed people are allowed to drop off the rolls, they're no longer counted, allowing Bush and the others to claim their trickle-down nonsense is reducing unemployment. That's made to order for election-year speechmaking and sound bites.
   Bush's Council of Economic Advisors chief, N. Gregory Mankiw, was interviewed on CNBC today. According to him, everything's coming along nicely. In December, the economy created just 1,000 jobs, of course, but he didn't get into that. Nor did Mankiw bother to mention the 375,000 who will exhaust their unemployment this month. No, he just said unemployment is down to 5.7 now, from 6.3 percent last fall, so it's all blue skies and green lights ahead.
   For decades, most economists considered 4 percent unemployment the maximum acceptable. That was before our economy became a sieve. In our current situation, 2 percent real unemployment would be high.

   Not since the days of bread lines, Hoovervilles and "chicken in every pot" promises have so many Americans had so many pocketbook-based reasons to throw the bums in power out.
   If Democrats can mobilize most of the approximately 8 million lower-paid white collar workers the Bush administration has screwed out of overtime, plus most of the 2 million who will become Bush economy nonentities between now and June, they'll have a power boost in seeking to win back Congress and the White House.
   Oh!pinion hopes this election year will be a time when the great majority of Americans wise up to what conservative Republican governance really means. If Democrats deliver this message and people get it, Bush and his neocon henchmen will lose in a landslide.
   For more about the unemployment debacle, click here.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:54 PM

 
Bush & Co. target nuke facility rules
   Years ago, a cleverly written TV cartoon show, "The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle," delighted both kids and adults. A favorite character was Boris Badenov, a Russian spy type whose idea of doing CPR was, "out with the good air, in with the bad air."
   Boris Badenov's attitude has come to real life during George W. Bush's presidency. It's a snide, I'll-show-them perversity made manifest almost weekly in some baldly stupid rule change, executive order or proposal. Recall the recent Labor Department overtime pay rule change, instituted in defiance of Congress' expressed disapproval, with the added insult of providing employers a tutorial on getting overtime work for no extra pay.
   In 2002, Congress passed legislation ordering fines for contractors in violation of safety rules at nuclear facilities. Now, the Bush Energy Department is considering a rule change that would let contractors set their own rules.
   Now, we all know that from the oil industry price gouging after the Arab oil embargo of the early '70s to the savings and loans debacle of the 1980s, to the recent energy industry ripoff of the Western states, to Enron, Arthur Andersen, HealthSouth, Worldcom and ongoing mutual funds industry scandals, we have no reason to doubt that American business people are honest as the day is long. But wouldn't we be just asking for trouble by deregulating safety rules at nuclear facilities?
   Oh, and if you're thinking that meddlesome legislation imposing fines was the work of some liberal Democrat, think again. It was written by Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., a conservative Republican. And he's not happy.
   A good story on this insanity says Bunning "accused the administration this week of distorting Congress' intent with a plan that `will likely decrease worker protection.'''
   Likely? Just remember, "out with the good air, in with the bad air." It's a key to understanding Bush administration thought processes.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:37 PM

 
End of Fairness Doctrine helped right wing
   The last quarter century has seen the rise and spread of a large, well-funded ultraconservative opinion-molding infrastructure. Its key elements include Washington, D.C., think tanks and lobbying operations; colleges, newspapers, magazines, cable news outlets and talk radio.
   This high-growth, high-volume industry maintains a steady output of slanted news and commentary, and supposedly scholarly studies reports, white papers and books. It jumps all over opposing views with the multiplier effect of numbers of sources echoing the right-wing/Republican Party line.
   Over at democraticunderground.com, a person identified only as "Broadcast Democrat" gives valuable insight into how loss of the Federal Communication Commission's Fairness Doctrine has transformed what people get to see and hear these days.
   Here's an excerpt:
   Click here to read the full commentary.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:01 PM

 
Deregulation gets another black eye
   Despite plentiful evidence to the contrary, pro-corporate conservatives insist deregulation inevitably yields rewards for businesses and consumers alike. With government out of the way, they claim, reduced costs bring greater profits for business and lower prices for consumers.
   A Wednesday news item on a Federal Communications Commission report about television industry competition included the following eye opener:
   "Even with the increased competition, cable rates have continued to rise faster than inflation. Congress deregulated the cable industry in 1996; over the next seven years rates increased by 53 percent, while inflation rose 19 percent."
   Cable companies completely dominated the field 10 years ago. The report says satellite-based providers now account for 25 percent. Cable companies say their higher prices are largely due to enhancements.
   What they don't say is that vertical growth and consolidation in the industry, plus high barriers to entry for potential startups, plus the technical vagaries of satellite reception, plus price manipulation when a would-be competitor seeks to enter a community, all help retain for cable giants near- or actual-monopoly positions in most markets.
   History shows that when businesses, high tech or low tech, have a near-monopoly advantage, consumers pay more — usually a lot more. Government can step in, setting price limits and/or nurturing competition. When government does step in, consumers invariably end up paying less, sometimes getting more choices in the bargain. But then, that's nasty old government regulation.

   Oh!pinion's take: Government regulation isn't always necessary or a wise move. But every example of deregulation we can think of has brought bad things to consumers, taxpayers, communities, states and this country. Appropriately applied and sensibly administrated in the public interest, government regulation can benefit all concerned, even business people who hate it because of ideology and/or greed.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:23 PM

 
Dean done in by unsound coverage
   ABC News aired a revealing story this evening about Gov. Howard Dean's infamous "I Have a Scream" performance. It made the point people in the hall with Dean were raucous, noisy, could barely hear his spiel and couldn't hear the "eeeyah!" at the end.
   The key: Dean was holding a noise-canceling microphone. What went on the video played a bazillion times on all the cable news channels, the squawk shows, etc., was Dean blasting away, minus the context of cheering and background hubbub. In the segment, a recording from within the crowd gives a totally different impression.
   So, the media presented what amounts to a grossly distorted picture — with selective sound — of what occurred in that hall, then compounded the damage by replaying that until it was indelibly burned into the minds of millions.
   Damage to Dean at a sensitive time in his bid for the Democratic nomination is incalculable. Suffice it say it hurt him terribly — and unfairly. Not the least of the harm may be that Dean has overcorrected in his demeanor to the point where he's lost much of the oomph that fired his core supporters, possibly without attracting enough others to cover the loss. The difference could be his margin of loss to Sen. John Kerry; we'll never know.
   Dean's been mauled not because of his positions, ideas or ability to lead, but because of a skewed impression blown wildly out of proportion and repeated ad nauseam.
   If justice were to be had for Dean and for the viewing/voting public, CNN and all the rest would run that ABC story 36 times a day for the next week, with Wolf Blitzer providing an eggy-faced explanation. ABC is to be commended for coming up with this insight and reporting it, but it's too little, too late.
   Postscript: Following Dean's week from screaming hell, a leader of his pack of media tormentors, Blitzer, had a brief face-to-face with him. Dean was civil but curt, saying, in effect, you got me good, didn't you? He also said he just has to take it. But Dean also got in a dig, dismissively noting CNN is in the entertainment business.
   Good one!

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:05 PM

 
Kay puts in a good word for the boss
   David Kay, former head of the CIA weapons inspection team in Iraq, was so protective of President George W. Bush's reputation in testifying before senators today that he all but squeaked.
   Kay, the man assigned to find all those weapons of mass destruction Iraq was supposed to have in abundance, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
   Kay told the senators he'd been wrong about Saddam Hussein's weaponry and that numerous intelligence people had apologized to him in recent months for having provided faulty analyses.
   Committee Democrats were obviously interested in including the involvement and influence of White House policy makers in their inquiry. Kay placed 100 percent of responsibility for erroneous conclusions and resulting decisions on bad intelligence. He flatly rebuffed suggestions there may have been inappropriate influence from up the chain of command.
   Republicans were obviously interested in not including White House policy makers. They also clearly opposed any suggestion an outside, independent investigation is called for
   Kay, however, said he thinks such an investigation must be done if there's to be any sense of finality. He added that definitive, fully satisfying answers may never be achieved because of all the looting.
   Kay's lopsided, administration-absolving statements seemed weirdly out of sync with the reality recalled in numerous statements by Bush, Cheney and others that Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., read. The whole atmosphere in Washington and across the country from the spring of 2002 on was one of certitude about Iraq's WMDs and the inevitability of military intervention as the solution. Such an atmosphere from the top inevitably influences those passing information upward.
   Without impugning Kay's integrity too much, Oh!pinion wonders if this high-level, highly regarded official's testimony wasn't shaped at least partly by a desire not to give the president a black eye at the start of an election year. Along with not wanting to come off as a maverick, a la Scott Ritter, Kay might be mindful of the impact of dissing the boss on his own future job prospects.
   Not that Bush & Co. would be vindictive, of course. Just ask Paul O'Neill.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:04 PM

 
N.H. won, it's time to Kerry on
   Again, Sen. John Kerry wins our congratulations for a solid victory in a hard-fought primary contest. A good bounce out of Iowa helped overcome stand-offishness toward him by many Granite State people earlier in the year. But tireless, sure-footed campaigning sealed the deal.
   Gov. Howard Dean's second-place finish is almost as noteworthy because of the monthlong undertow he's had to work to overcome. This primary cost him more time and energy than expected, and had to be waged in a more-disciplined fashion. He demonstrated the willingness and ability to do what it takes and spend what it costs.
   Third place is where it gets messy. Sen. John Edwards deserved at least third, although as this is written it looks like it's going to Gen. Wesley Clark. Watching Edwards campaign, it's not hard to see him taking George W. Bush apart in a one-on-one debate. And, we can imagine at least some southerners cheering the demolition in a way they wouldn't if Kerry or Dean were doing the honors.
   Clark's concentration on New Hampshire while the others were busy in Iowa no doubt paid off this much, despite some missteps in recent days. He's a good man with some admirable qualities. Still, it's hard to see him doing as well one-on-one against Bush as Kerry, Dean or Edwards.
   Sen. Joe Lieberman's "joementum" didn't exactly vault him to the front of the pack. He finished fourth. But we'll give him credit for hanging in there and sticking to his message. At some point, however, Lieberman's going to have to face the fact that Democrats want a candidate who's a Democrat heavy, not a Republican lite.
   Dennis Kucinich continues to be a happy warrior, intrepidly delivering his unabashedly liberal message with every bit as much fidelity and resilience as Lieberman. Bless him, on the issues, policy-wise, he's a Democrat heavy in the best tradition of Hubert Humphrey and the late Sen. Paul Wellstone. In a better America he'd be getting a lot more traction.

   TV's talking heads are weighing in with bottom lines, final words and who should do what. Oh!pinion believes that, much more than Iowa caucus results, New Hampshire primary results are questionable. That's because of primary rules allowing X-number of non-Democrats to affect the outcome. Those non-Democrats may include independents who won't vote on election day and a bunch of Republicans looking to pump up whomever they think will be a weak opponent for Bush. It's just as well that this is more the end of the beginning than the beginning of the end.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:06 PM

 
Dim view of vision thing — and more
   President George W. Bush's bold and deficit-swelling vision for space exploration-turned-hot potato, then dropped, is just one point of contention in a terrific assessment by Hendrik Hertzberg over at newyorker.com.
   Here's a sample:
   There's more to Hertzberg's "Unsteady State," all of it readable and right on the mark. Give it a click.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:57 PM

 
IT graduates not exempt from the shaft
   The Wall Street tech bubble that burst so traumatically four years ago for millions of investors and hundreds of thousands of information technology employees destined for unemployment is being echoed by a second bursting, this one for IT graduates.
   Lots of young men and women graduating from universities and high-tech specialty schools face bleak prospects for finding a job in the fields they've studied, and often interned in, because the jobs are going to places like India and China. Well-educated workers in those countries are plentiful and eager to take jobs paying pennies on the dollar, compared to their U.S. counterparts.
   As a result, new IT grads face withering competition for entry-level jobs from people with great training and experience here and from ultra-low-wage workers abroad. The bitter irony is that these young people, among our best and brightest, undertook their IT education after hearing throughout high school that the future would belong to people with advanced high-tech training and skills. Even as the overhyped telecommunication industry tanked, many said, and wrote, it was just a correction in an industry that had gotten a little ahead of itself.
   Well, the correction was the first part of a double whammy. The second involves globalization — outsourcing, en masse, of jobs thought to be safe as recently as a year or two ago.
   Many new IT graduates will morph into other fields, some by way of additional education — and expense to themselves and/or their families. Others will take what they can get, which too often in our job-loss recovery points to endeavors like pizza delivery and becoming a retail "associate."
   Check out an informative news story on this here.

   This is one more brick in a wall of evidence that, for most Americans, our laissez-faire, free-market, neoconservative-run economy is all about maximizing profits, the people be damned.
   Remember, it doesn't have to be this way.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:33 PM

 
Blitzer serves marshmallows and leftovers
   When CNN's Wolf Blitzer gets a whiff of sensationalism, he's more like a pit bull than a newshound. He won't let go. The latest evidence has been unfolding all week.
   Gov. Howard Dean made a spectacle of himself last Monday night, giving a hyperanimated performance when gracious congratulations for those who bested him in the Iowa Caucuses were in order.
   Predictably, national news media have spent every 24-hour news cycle since replaying the videotape and speculating about its impact on Dean's candidacy. Joining in this orgy of judgmental and speculative excess were TV's late-night funnymen. We halfway expected to see the Oxyclean pitchman and a Food Channel chef get in on the act.
   Even amidst the uproar, CNN stands out for having milked the matter to the point of ridiculousness. Even among CNN staffers, Blitzer stands out for going overboard. Past some point of overstating the obvious and repeating the already beaten to death, we have to wonder if Blitzer is advancing an agenda that's more political or personal than professional.
   Monday night and Tuesday, Dean's outburst was news. Wednesday and Thursday, it was fodder for talk shows, the Op-Ed literati and editorial cartoonists, fair enough. It was getting old and worn by Friday. Come Saturday, those who indulged — and CNN people did with gusto — looked as over the top and inappropriate in their way as Dean had five days earlier. On Sunday, we suspect others are feeling some of the resentment of this belaboring that we feel.

   Here are excerpt's from Blitzer's Sunday morning program, "Late Edition."
   During the show, Blitzer did this blurb twice: "And don't forget our Web question of the week: `Are the media making too big a deal of Howard Dean's controversial Iowa speech?' Simply go to cnn.com/lateedition to cast your vote."
   Blitzer went on to toss a marshmallow to Sen. Joe Lieberman:
   A subsequent segment featured chairmen of the two major parties, Democrat Terry McAuliffe and Republican Ed Gillespie. To the latter's obvious delight, Blitzer said: "Some of our viewers, Terry McAuliffe, around the world may not have seen the statement, the speech, the concession speech, that Howard Dean gave last Monday night after he came in a distant third in the Iowa caucuses. Let me briefly play a snippet of that because I want to talk a little bit about the impact that it's had."
   Some viewer failed to see the video? What, nomads lost in a sandstorm in the Western Desert of North Africa? A Japanese Imperial Army straggler still hiding in a Borneo jungle? Whatever, for the 1,045th time this week, CNN rolled the tape.
   Finally, near the end of the program, looking and sounding sheepish, Blitzer revisited the viewer poll.
   "Here are the results of our Web question of the week. Let's put them up on the screen right now. Eighty-nine percent of you say yes, 11 percent of you say no — too much of a big deal of Howard Dean's controversial speech."

   We note with interest how unusually awkward and unclear Blitzer was in restating the question, not before but after announcing results that certainly should've caused him some embarrassment. Oh well, never say die. There's always tomorrow, and with it another chance to roll the tape and revisit the rant:
   "That's it for this `Late Edition.' Thanks very much for joining us. Tomorrow on `Wolf Blitzer Reports,' a special interview with Howard Dean. See you then."
   Yeah, right, Wolf. We can't wait to see you roll that tape again.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:26 PM

 
Smokestack checks Bushwhacked
   The Bush administration's brand of environmentalism marches on with a new rule reducing inspections of industrial smokestacks and their output.
   The rule limits how often state and federal inspectors can look at the smokestacks of hundreds of companies not specifically covered by rules focusing on cities with pronounced air pollutions problems.
   A Knight Ridder story on this included the following explanation:
   Four Northeast states and Illinois protested, in an objection to a settlement that preceded the new ruling, that the inspection prohibition on the Environmental Protection Agency would make oversight of many pollution sources by that agency, states and citizens difficult and maybe impossible.
   This, of course, gives a green light to companies that want to bolster profits by running cheap and dirty. At the same time, it unfairly penalizes companies running clean to pass more-frequent inspections because additional expenses make their products less competitive.

   If Bush's "Clean Skies" initiative was anything more than a smokescreen for hobbling the regulation and oversight required for cleaner air, his lieutenants would be pressing Congress for more inspectors and legislation to step up the pace of inspections. Of course, doing that would not set well with the corporate interests so dear to his campaign fund-raising heart. And that's really the bottom line.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:57 PM

 
Edwards shines in a lower-key debate
   Thursday's New Hampshire debate was a surprisingly gentlemanly outing with only a few notable moments, the best of those featuring Sen. John Edwards.
   Gov. Howard Dean, obviously anxious to reassure everyone he's not a wild man, if anything overcorrected. He answered questions forthrightly, albeit in a subdued way. If anyone had hoped to get an incendiary rise out of him, they left disappointed.
   Front runner Sen. John Kerry made a decent if not particularly memorable showing. The potentially stickiest question he dealt with concerned his position on the Iraq War and he handled it well.
   Edwards provided the evening's standout response, after Fox News talking head Brit Hume threw him a wedge-issue ringer from straight out of the Bush-Cheney/Rove playbook. It concerned gay marriage and the so-called Defense of Marriage constitutional amendment President Bush endorsed in his Tuesday night State of the Union Address. Hume wanted to know if Edwards considered Bush bigoted.
   Edwards proactively tossed it back at Hume, saying there were far more important things to talk about, including the plight of the nation's 35 million poor and 9 million unemployed. Edwards got in his licks, only then addressing the wedgie. He said "bigot" isn't the term he'd use and no, he doesn't support the amendment.
   Clearly, if Edwards wins the nomination, Bush & Co. are unlikely to score the cheap-shot coups as in the good old days, when Vice President Walter Mondale was tarred for sensibly and honestly saying he'd raise taxes, or when the demagoguery heaped on Gov. Mike Dukakis over Willie Horton, and what he'd want for someone who'd raped his wife, drew blood.
   Gen. Wesley Clark seemed to lack oomph, for lack of a better term. Hume baited him with another right-wing stratagem, ". . . so when did you discover you were a Democrat?" The question was borderline demeaning and insulting. Clark should've reamed the Republican National Committee errand boy who asked it, but he instead gave a polite, earnest, defensive explanation.

   Memo to Clark and the rest: Consider the source and, when Republican National Committee talking point wedge issue questions hit you, respond by ripping out the knave's tonsils, taking the long way to get at them.

   The Rev. Al Sharpton was good for another surprise. After clawing Dean viciously in the last of the Iowa debates, Sharpton seemed anxious to say something kind, in typical humorous fashion. After Dean had been asked about his comedown, third-place finish so soon after being out front, Sharpton, in a nice way, said that's OK, if he'd gotten 18 percent of the Iowa vote, he, Sharpton, would still be hootin' and hollderin' about it.
   Sen. Joe Lieberman is a plucky, intrepid campaigner. He's steadfast in his support of the war and determined Saddam Hussein posed a clear and imminent danger to the U.S. Some pundits are saying the war issue was neutralized with Saddam's capture.
   We note, however, that when other candidates point out, as one did last night, that we're talking about 500 lives sacrificed and 2,200 wounded because of a misrepresented, unnecessary, badly followed up war, vigorous applause follows. The war may not be front-burner hot right now, but Oh!pinion believes that could change at any time, especially if things start going in reverse. We also note current polls showing Lieberman 24 to 30 points behind Kerry — and doubt the difference is due to the latter's position on "no child left behind."

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:11 PM

 
Investors capture pink-slips moment
   Eastman Kodak today announced it will cut 20 percent of its worldwide work force, laying off 12,000 to 15,000 employees over the next two years.
   In a bad-news trifecta, the Rochester, N.Y.-based photography company also announced its fourth-quarter net income was down 83 percent and that it will take $1.7 billion in charges during the next three years. The details are in a Reuters story.
   Not surprisingly, given the way the U.S. economy is configured to cannibalize itself, investors greeted Kodak's news by bidding up the company's stock to the highest level in more than half a year. There's nothing like learning tens of thousands of fellow Americans are being tossed into our job-loss recovery Dumpster to get the old capital-gains hormones pumping.
   That last bit of news is just the latest manifestation of a gangrenous phenomenon we highlighted in a recent post, "Jobs tyranny calls Wall Street home."
   Kodak's profits were down somewhat from year-earlier levels, despite increased sales. One-time charges affected its year-end results. The company said it plans to realign itself to better pursue a digital future. It's also bidding $35 million to finish buying out Japanese camera maker Chinon.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:20 PM

 
Welcome to Over The Top Week
   It's official: this is Over The Top Week. First, on Monday, there was Gov. Howard Dean's one-man pep squad rally (widely and erroneously heralded as anger). "Eeeeyyahh!" What a bad career move.
   Second, Monday night, CNN political analyst Bill Schneider informed us that it all started to fall apart for angry Howard Dean when Saddam Hussein was captured. That's because, Schneider opined, about all angry Dean has for a message is anger about the war in Iraq, which is a non-issue now that Saddam's in our custody. We can only deduce from this that obviously pleased-as-punch Schneider has been too busy honing his ever so subtle attaboys for President George W. Bush and his coalition of willing yes men and women on Capitol Hill to actually listen to a whole Dean stump speech.
   Third, Tuesday, there was Bush's State of the Union claims the economy is really swell and getting really sweller, thanks to his own superbulous presidentialship. Oh, and we're all ever so much safer because all those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq no longer threaten us — the way they clearly did not threaten us at this time last year, in point of fact.
   Plus, we gotta train and find decent jobs for jailbirds, never mind about our 8-plus million nonjailbirds out of work and out of luck. Never mind about a few million whose unemployment ran out Dec. 31 because Bush and his Republican Congress refused to pass an extension. And, people such as those 4,500 programmers and other high-tech professionals IBM is dumping in favor of for-cheap replacements in India and China — well, they'll need to go back to a communtiy college or something, to retrain for the high-tech skills required to find a decent job. Got that?
   OK then, fourth, there's this "analysis" of Bush's Over-The-Top Week contribution, by David R. Guarino of the Boston Herald:

   Somehow, we find it hard to believe Guarino managed to leave out "It was a dark and stormy night," "has no doubts about what the meaning of `is' is" and, "Frankly, Scarlet, I don't give a damn."

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:31 AM

 
It's all or nothing — and you lose
   Imagine going to the supermarket with a grocery list pretty much like last week's, which cost you $36, and getting this surprise. Mike, the assistant manager, is standing at a computer kiosk just inside the door and in front of a gateway.
   "We've got a new system," he says. "You doing a day's shopping, week's shopping . . . ?"
   A week, you tell him. He punches some buttons, then says, "OK, here's the deal: We'll roll out a pallet package with a week's worth of everything you need, all top quality — meat, dairy, baked goods, even deodorant and Brillo pads. It's a $107.79 value but it'll only cost you $89."
   You tell Mike you came to pick particular items you need and aren't about to spend more than twice as much for some cockamamie "pallet package."
   Sorry, he insists, but this is how the store does business now; no shopping for individual items. Sorry, too, you insist, but there's another store down the street where you'll be shopping from now on — unless its management goes crazy, too.
   Now, consider that you are Senate Democrats, the Supermarket is Senate Republicans and the "pallet package" is really the omnibus spending bill. The one that's seven — count 'em, seven — big, pork-packed spending bills rolled into one, with an out-the-door price of $373 billion.
   You say you don't want the multi-million-dollar federal loan guarantees for construction of luxury liners to be built in Pascagoula, Miss.? You say you'd just as soon not have to pay for a multi-million-dollar rain forest theme park in Iowa?
   Too bad, taxpayer, it's all or nothing. That's how Republicans in control of both houses of Congress wrote it. That's how President George W. Bush wants it. And he's announced he'll veto the whole thing if it's tampered with.
   How Congress develops, writes and votes on legislation are matters guaranteed to turn most Americans off. Most didn't want to learn about them in school and are even less interested as adults. Those facts go a long way toward explaining how and why we have a Republican-controlled Congress and a president like Bush — people who would perpetrate this kind of outrage and expect to get away with it.
   Take it from Oh!pinion (which due to some kind of personality warp does follow these things) that this is all wrong. Your elected representatives are supposed to study, evaluate and debate the merits of spending measures, individually or in relatively small groups of closely related items. At 1,000 or so pages, they'd be the rest of the year deliberating about this Mount Everest of bull dung and boondoggles.

   It's your worst taxpayer nightmare of waste, excess and mismanagement come true. And the hell of it is that in amongst the wasteful, foolish and indefensible items, there are genuinely worthwhile "sweeteners" included here and there to help ensure passage.
   Republicans put this monstrosity together and jiggered the rules to suit themselves and the special interests who fill their campaign coffers.
   Republicans controlling Congress and Bush will go on doing this kind of thing to you for as long as you let them. You may not be prepared to study the ins and outs of legislation, much less call, write or visit to give them proper hell. What you can do is register, if necessary, and vote your own self-interest when November rolls around.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:06 PM

 
Kerry, Edwards, earned votes, laurels
   Sen. John Kerry won a stunning comeback victory in Iowa Monday, which should strengthen his efforts to win in New Hampshire next week. Iowa Democrats added vital thrust to second-place finisher Sen. John Edwards' campaign as well.
   If Gov. Howard Dean found the outrageous fortune of being out front uncomfortably full of slings and arrows, he goes on to New Hampshire relieved of that burden, having finished third.
   Reps. Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich provided the latest evidence nice guys finish last, Gephardt getting only 11 percent of the vote and Kucinich getting just 1 percent.
   Kerry and Edwards ran hard, waged smart campaigns and concentrated as much or more on substantive issues as on driving up fellow Democrats' negatives. Chief among their substantive issues, which both hit hard on, was ridding the country of its worst president, policy-wise, since Herbert Hoover. Kerry made a particular effort to win veterans' votes and succeeded.
   In the inevitable post-caucus flood of instant analyses, TV's talking heads cited Kerry and Edwards' more-positive campaigning and Kerry's more-presidential persona as key reasons the two came out on top. Those are plausible reasons and probably at least partly true.
   But from a morning-after perspective, we tend to think many Iowa Democrats went through a weeding-out process in which the candidates' ability to generate some excitement and the impression of momentum were essential, as was a certain celebrity-like presence factor.
   The genius of Kerry's Iowa campaign is that, after a long spell of almost moribund plodding, he was able to generate just enough excitement to build just enough momentum to be a just-right alternative for those not fired up by Dean or inspired by Edwards or Gephardt.
   Kerry's challenge now, of course, is to prove his comeback coup is part of a winning pattern, not a one-time surge.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:32 PM

 
Gephardt a class act, even in defeat
   In the face of what must be excruciating disappointment, Rep. Dick Gephardt distinguished himself again as one of the most decent, honorable men in national politics, last night and again today, in bowing out of the presidential race. He also announced he'll not seek re-election to Congress.
   Gephardt offered the best ideas and plans of any of the candidates. No one ran longer, harder or put more heart and soul into winning in Iowa. He ran without the inconsistencies and trip-ups that cost one-time front runner Gov. Howard Dean so dearly. He also ran without the money winning Sen. John Kerry brought to bear.
   Gephardt had considerable labor backing, probably with continuing support from some who helped him win Iowa in 1988. His weakness was that he never generated excitement or made a unique and telling impression. A good-looking guy, Gephardt lacks Kerry's true-grit ruggedness or Sen. John Edwards' boyish handsomeness. And Gephardt's thoughtful, earnest, well-reasoned presentations and low-key, self-deprecating humor came nowhere near making memorable impressions the way Gov. Howard Dean's machine gun bursts of rhetoric and hard-sell assertiveness did.
   In the end, Gephardt was just too plain vanilla, just too easy to take for granted and pass by. Ironically, you can be sure every Iowa caucusgoer who opted for Kerry, Edwards and Dean would be delighted beyond words to have a son, father, husband, brother, son-in-law, best friend, boss, business partner or next-door neighbor with Gephardt's exact set of attributes and accomplishments.
   Gephardt showed grace, dignity and characteristic decency in bowing out. His words were free of recrimination, excuse making or regrets. He simply thanked those who had supported him, especially his union backers and his family. He pledged to continue working for things he believes in during his remaining time in the House and to support the Democratic candidate.
   Gephardt said this wasn't about him. We'll say his loss last night is shared. The Democratic Party and country will be diminished without him. A wise Democratic standard bearer would pick Gephardt for vice president, being assured of a savvy, loyal running mate and as hard-working a campaigner as it's possible to be. As to the excitement factor, Gephardt at his most plain vanilla greatly outshines Vice President Dick Cheney. A wise Democratic president-elect in 2004 would pick Gephardt to be his secretary of labor or health and human services.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:31 PM

 
Dean better find time to retool
   The news about Gov. Howard Dean coming out of Iowa is not that he took a tumble. He was a perfect setup for that, having preceded the first vote-tallying test of his candidacy with two weeks of slip-ups, unfortunate utterances he had to explain and several troublesome news items about past actions and statements. Additionally, expectations for his performance in the caucuses were very high.
   What's most notable is how enthusiastically political pundits and, to an extent, reporters, piled on after his third-place showing. It was reminiscent of the media's attitude toward Richard Nixon long before his presidency and Watergate.
   Dean has obviously rubbed a bunch of media people the wrong way. Their pronouncements about him last night revealed an eagerness to skewer him that went well beyond a simple desire to see him taken down a peg.
   The third-place showing in Iowa wasn't a fatal setback. Dean was still ahead of the pack in recent New Hampshire polling and a win there is still attainable for him. If he does win, the chattering class will no doubt give him his due.
   However, if he's as smart as his ardent supporters believe he is, Dean will make time to mend some fences and build some bridges to the media as quickly as possible. If he doesn't, he will find himself fighting an undertow that could well prove fatal during the general election.
   As for Dean's over-the-top show of defiance after Monday night's results, we understand he didn't want to come off looking chastened or discouraged. Go-get-'em energy and hard-hitting rhetoric fuel his campaign and maintain momentum among his core supporters.
   Unfortunately, his defiant fit of shouting was tailor-made ammunition for the Bush-Cheney campaign to use against him this fall, quite possibly with hostile news and opinion types repeating and amplifying the incoming rounds at every opportunity.
   Clearly, if Dean is to be the Democratic nominee, some stock-taking and adjustment-making on his part are necessary.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:30 PM

 
Pushing the pro-business envelope
   The Bush administration is reportedly making moves toward fighting unfair trade practices and bringing business thinking front and center in government decision making.
   Given our half-trillion-dollar trade deficit for 2003, only the latest and largest in more than a decade of annual record-breaking trade deficits, the first goal is laudable if awfully late in coming.
   An Associated Press story on these developments says Commerce Secretary Don Evans' and his people got an earful from manufacturers across the country. The companies' chief complaints concerned China's inroads in the American marketplace, its trading practices and, most of all, for pegging its currency to the dollar at a level the companies say makes Chinese goods 40 percent cheaper here than they should be.
   On the other matter, the story says, "A new assistant secretary for manufacturing is to oversee a new office that will monitor the effect of government regulations on American businesses." A new presidential council is also proposed to give business more say.
   That strikes Oh!pinion as gilding the lily, to put it mildly, given the extreme pro-corporate, pro-growth, pro-investment policies of the Bush administration. In fact, during George W. Bush's regrettable tenure, most of those interests have hit the jackpot, getting the best government their money can buy.
   Those same big-money interests have also worked our Republican Congress like a huge vending machine. They pour money into Republican campaign coffers, hit the lobbying buttons and out comes just the legislation they want, just the way they want it. Just look at the abortive energy bill and the "Medicare reform" law that got through.
   Congress and the administration have also both been ever so helpful at weakening or outright crippling regulatory enforcement and oversight wherever and however they could.

   What's really needed, of course, is leadership in the White House and Congress that will say "or else" loudly and clearly to our cheatin'-heart trade partners, then back the words with actions that either stop the cheating or stop the trading.
   And beyond that radical departure, we need leadership that will make trade a mechanism for raising the standards for pay, safety and working conditions for people in all countries, while destroying forever the predatory practices and exploitation in all directions that greed-driven multinational corporations are getting away with now.
   There's no chance the Bush administration and Republican Congress will ever define the phrase "we mean business" in those ways. Which is all the more reason to lay the whole lot of them off next November.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:57 PM

 
Fox Noose on Iowa — laughable
   Question: What would you have if they held Iowa Democratic caucuses and all the candidates lost?
   Answer: Fox News Channel's dream come true.
   Actually, the "fair and balanced" gang is providing the best comedy on TV this weekend, as they try to stick pins in all the leading Democratic candidates with some semblance of subtlety.
   The day's big talking point, probably sent over by the Republican National Committee or the White House, is where is "Mrs. Dean" and why hasn't she been at her husband's side since he announced his candidacy last year? It's in nearly every news and talk segment.
   Think about that. Here we have an ongoing war against terrorism, more than 10 million unemployed and another 6 million underemployed; we have personal bankruptcies, a budget deficit and a trade deficit all at record-high levels; and we've sacrificed 500 lives and are showering $167 billion of Americans' hard-earned money on President Bush's Magnificent Adventure in regime change, nation building and rooting out all those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And what does the Fox News Channel hammer away at throughout the weekend?
   Where is "Mrs. Dean" and what can she be thinking; what seems to be wrong with this picture, ahem, ahem?
   FNC's man on the scene in Iowa, Carl Cameron, seems to have a mental block against referring to her as Dr. Judith Steinberg. Perhaps the talking points plan calls for steering attention away from the fact that Dean's missus has something more important on the front burner than, say, running a pancake house or shoe store. She is, after all, a family practice physician, presumably with responsibilities where people's lives and health are concerned.
   But hey, why let a little detail like that get in the way of some pointed innuendo?

   This fixation is all the more ironic after the way the FNC troupe regularly bashed Hillary Rodham Clinton whenever she had the audacity to participate in her husband's administration or comment public policy — or breathe, for that matter. Unlike Clinton, Dr. Steinberg is reportedly a shy woman when it comes to big crowds and loud hoopla. Pretty shocking, huh?
   As for the name thing, which it seems FNC want to impress people with — as in, hey, is she another pushy feminist too good to take her husband's name? — we see more irony.
   That's because Republican operative, former Bush White House aide and wife of outspoken Democrat James Carville, Mary Matalyn, doesn't choose to call herself Mrs. C. Somehow, in her case, the FNC gang always gets it right.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:39 PM

 
Jobs tyranny calls Wall Street home
he CEO and management team at Dudley Nightshade Corp. are under the gun and feeling edgy.
   That's because, after three years of invited and forced retirements, some very early retirements, of "encouraged departures" and three rounds of layoffs, management felt it had achieved an optimally lean, competitive configuration. Some executives even grumbled about overshooting the mark, citing workers tired of layoff anxiety, run ragged from doing more with less, having quit without giving notice.
   Then, last week, a team of fund managers from the Barracuda Mutual Funds visited Dudley Nightshade headquarters to assess efficiency, look over the books and meet with management. The BMF team did those things, perfunctorily, before sitting down with the CEO and his managers to offer a little friendly advice.
   "Your payroll, your medical plan liability, your pension overhang . . . Well, you're just pulling too much weight here," the 28-year-old team leader had said in a dismissive monotone.
   When the CEO pointed out the company had shed half its work force in three years, cut the average age of hourly employees by 10 years and shifted 25 percent more of medical plan costs to employees, one of the fund managers interrupted impatiently: "Yes, yes, of course you have; I'm sure it was unpleasant, but it's part of your history. See, we can't justify commitment of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on the basis of last year's news. The future is what matters to our investors and, unfortunately, yours is clouded."
   The CEO and his managers knew what "clouded" meant. Barracuda Funds had huge stock holdings in the company. If it were to sell off those shares other big institutional investors would follow suit. The company's image and bottom line would both take a terrible hit. Its ability to raise capital would be affected. What's more, CEO and executive stock holdings would dive and bonuses would disappear.
   There was a brief period of stony silence after the Barracuda people left. Then the CEO said, "Martin, you'll simply have to find a way to cut the payroll. I suggest you get in touch with those people in China. Find out what kind of a deal we can make to send most of our production offshore."
   Dudley Nightshade's CEO realized he would be a pariah in the town, even the state, and his company would be hated. But what else could he do?

   The preceding is a fictional representation of a key dynamic of the U.S. economy over the past quarter century. It has affected businesses of all sizes and millions of people, yet relatively few know how it works.
   Everyone should know, because this matter of gigantic investment interests steering the decisions of corporate managers, business owners and executives, is heavily responsible for the country's high unemployment, the growing divide between haves and have nots, and the race to the bottom American workers are locked into.
   The dynamic's good side is that it can increase efficiency and profitability. Its bad side is that what becomes of a company's workers and their community matter not one bit to the big investors. They don't know the workers as people or, usually, very much about the workers' community. What they do know and care about, exclusively, is maximizing shareholder value, return on investment. That's how they make their money and their reputation . Workers, employment situations and communities prospering or failing are extraneous matters — are beside the point.
   Yet because companies are so dependent on them, those big investment interests usually have decisive clout. That clout in reality is the power to damage or destroy the economic security of millions of American workers and their families — people who have no say whatsoever about who gets to wield so much power over them or how that power is wielded.
   What results is a situation in which people exist to serve the economy, not the other way around. What results, increasingly, is that loyal, hard-working people can be financially damaged or ruined through job loss not for lack of effort, skills or talent, but as de facto status offenders. That means a bit old for the company's desired demographic profile (desired because it supposedly keeps medical insurance costs down), too costly to train for a new position or process, or maybe just residents of a community or state not willing to make sufficient tax and work-rules concessions to satisfy the company's demands.

   This is American democracy kicked to one side so amoral, undemocratic and profoundly harmful automatic economic mechanisms can run amok, making the few wealthier by ever greater multiples while large numbers of others become poor or even destitute.
   This is a big contributing factor to our job-loss recovery, our 10 million unemployed, our $500 billion trade deficit.
   The bottom line for this country is well summarized in three short paragraphs from an excellent Jan. 16 Washington Post story:
   "On Wall Street, bonuses will be up 20 to 30 percent from last year, according to industry experts. Alan G. Hevesi, the New York state comptroller, recently said he expects Wall Street bonuses to total $10.7 billion for 2003, an average of $66,800 per employee.
   "But for hourly workers elsewhere, average wages last year rose by 26 cents, or 1.7 percent, the Labor Department said last week.
   ". . . The number of personal bankruptcies during the 12 months ending Sept. 30, 2003, rose to 1.66 million, up 7.4 percent from the 1.54 million filings in fiscal year 2002 and another record."
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:29 AM

 
Independents cooling toward Bush
   Looks as though political independents are starting to pay attention — and catch on to what a thoroughgoing disaster President Bush's one-idea economic policy is.
   The latest CBS-New York Times poll of 1,022 people finds just 37 percent of independents support Bush's handling of the economy.
   As to his handling of Iraq, he gets only 44 percent support, although 62 percent of independents are OK with his handling of the war on terrorism. Among all poll respondents, 51 percent think the Iraq War is not worth its cost, while 43 percent think it is worth the cost.
   And get this: only 45 percent of independents approve of the job he's doing as president.
   For more on this poll, which was taken this week and has a plus or minus 3 percent margin of error, click here.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:41 PM

 
Gephardt focuses on what matters most
   While Gov. Howard Dean emphasized how he's a Washington outsider who'll have to retrain all those insiders who are part of the problem, as he sees it, competitor Rep. Dick Gephardt this week emphasized his top priority: "jobs, jobs, jobs."
   Strikes us Gephardt is making better sense here, both as a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination and as a future president. Our job-loss recovery, along with our staggering free-trade deficit, should be the next president's first domestic priority.
   A healthy economy and society require an ongoing tug of war between business and labor, with each side being up at times, but neither side so dominating for extended periods that it gets to ruin the other side. In America in 2004, with George W. Bush in his fourth year in the White House, with Republicans in control of Congress and corporate lobbyists operating them as one big vending machine, things are way out of balance.
   Of all the Democrats running, Gephardt is hands down the best remedy for this intolerable situation. He's proudly pro-labor, which is exactly what America needs right now, perhaps needs more than at any time since the Great Depression.
   We have to wonder how Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, a genuinely good man and one of the Senate's best legislators, who recently endorsed Dean, must feel when Dean slams Washington insiders. The same goes for other insiders who've lined up with Dean.
   What is it? Oh, yes, governor, we're poor little lambs who've lost our way. Do come straighten us out? Come on.
   The return to hitting on insiders appears in part a determined Dean effort to break from the previous two or three weeks of having to back and fill, retracting and explaining statements made the day before. Plus, he's had to deal with a lot of news stories indicating less-than-stellar management as governor of Vermont and his being less than consistent in his expressed views over time.
   By contrast, Gephardt has been reassuringly transparent and commendably consistent throughout his decades of public service. It's true Gephardt is less exciting. But then, we don't recall Washington, Jefferson or Lincoln being described as exciting, either.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:20 PM

 
Cheney implicated in bribery probe
   What's this? Vice President Dick Cheney under investigation by French authorities for bribery back when he was CEO of Halliburton?
   Visiting Blog Left, we came across an eye-opening post pointing to a story on Alternet, "Cheney Target of Criminal Investigation," that says, in part:

   Mon dieu! Would the ever-well-hidden Cheney stoop to bribery to boost the bottom line? Well, he was CEO of a major U.S. corporation with a checkered reputation.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:22 PM

 
Kennedy blasts Bush's Iraq fiasco
   We have childhood memories of between-movie newsreels showing the battleship Missouri sending unmistakable messages into North Korea. Huge turrets bristling with big guns fired salvo after salvo of ordnance into the gray hills miles inland, raising giant plumes, inflicting serious damage on a large area.
   Sen. Ted Kennedy's Wednesday speech laying out the whole misbegotten pageant of folly and fumbling we know as the Iraq War and regime change reminded me of that newsreel. The Massachusetts senator spoke at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., in an event sponsored by the Center For American Progress.
   Here is an excerpt from Kennedy's "America, Iraq and Presidential Leadership":

   " . . .The citizens of our democracy have a fundamental right to debate and even doubt the wisdom of a president's policies. And the citizens of our democracy have a sacred obligation to sound the alarm and shed light on the policies of an Administration that is leading this country to a perilous place.
   "I believe that this Administration is indeed leading this country to a perilous place. It has broken faith with the American people, aided and abetted by a Congressional majority willing to pursue ideology at any price, even the price of distorting the truth. On issue after issue, they have moved brazenly to impose their agenda on America and on the world. They have pursued their goals at the expense of urgent national and human needs and at the expense of the truth. America deserves better.
   "The Administration and the majority in Congress have put the state of our union at risk, and they do not deserve another term in the White House or in control of Congress.
   "I do not make these statements lightly. I make them as an American deeply concerned about the future of the Republic if the extremist policies of this Administration continue.
   "By far the most extreme and most dire example of this Administration's reckless pursuit of its single-minded ideology is in foreign policy. In its arrogant disrespect for the United Nations and for other peoples in other lands, this Administration and this Congress have squandered the immense goodwill that other nations extended to our country after the terrorist attacks of September 11. And in the process, they made America a lesser and a less respected land."

   There's more and every bit of it hits the nail squarely on the head. We can think of no greater recommendation for it than that Rep. Tom "The Hammer" DeLay called it a "hateful speech." You owe it to yourself to read the full text of Kennedy's speech.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:23 PM

 
Item puts soldier suicides in perspective
   People understandably find the prospect of American soldiers committing suicide alarming and worrisome.
   After all, it's not hard to imagine someone in the military, especially a younger member who may be far away from home for the first time and in an isolated, hostile environment, despairing and taking their own life. Add to those factors the inevitable and infamous "Dear John" or, any more perhaps, "Dear Jane," letters from home, announcing the breakup of a relationship. That the recipient is so far away and usually unable to respond quickly, much less in person, only makes the hurt worse.
   A current news story focusing on military suicides in Iraq implies there's a large and growing incidence there. But over at Left I on the News, there's a well-done item putting this matter in better perspective. It's well worth the brief reading time required.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:53 PM

 
Ten-year sentence Fastow's latest ripoff
   Former Enron chief financial officer Andrew Fastow, after copping a plea, was sentenced today to 10 years in prison.
   Fastow's incredible greed, selfishness and criminality were key factors in the financial devastation of hundreds of thousands of people directly and millions indirectly. Tens of thousands of Enron employees lost their jobs.
   The Associated Press story on Fastow's sentencing included this statement: " `I and other members of Enron senior management fraudulently manipulated Enron's publicly reported financial results,' Fastow said in a statement, adding that the purpose was to mislead investors and inflate the company's stock price and credit rating."
   Some older Fastow victims, now without pensions and retirement savings because of his greed, will have their final years irreparably diminished. Those include tens of thousands of retired and older members of the Georgia State Teachers Union, which had invested heavily in Enron.
   This 10-year sentence provides further evidence of how America's system of justice lacks rationality and proportionality.
   A couple of years ago, Geraldo Rivera and others publicized the case of an inner-city black mother who was sent on an errand by her boyfriend. Deliver a package to a certain address, he told her. He wasn't someone she could say no to. She knew and feared him. So she delivered the package — and wound up being convicted of a drug charge. She claims she didn't know what was in the package and was too afraid to find out. Whatever the truth of that, she was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
   That black inner-city mother's kids are growing up without her. Society is being protected from further drug deliveries made in fearful ignorance by her. Taxpayers are likely spending $40,000 to $50,000 annually for her room, board, medical care and guarding.
   Fastow, unlike that woman, had plenty of money for the best lawyers. He could delay. He could deal. He could give testimony against Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. He could get a paltry 10 years for the terrific harm he's done on a scale that boggles the mind. Hard labor? Maybe, if you count lawn care as hard labor.
   Clearly, our system of justice needs reform that goes far beyond the tort reform President Bush and Republicans in Congress go on and on about, in loyal service of their corporate sponsors.
   Ten years for Fastow. That's just not right.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:29 PM

 
We'd do better to probe inner darkness
   President George W. Bush today set forth a bold plan to further pierce the darkness of outer space and explore distant planets. He spoke in an upbeat way at an event highlighted by a few words from an astronaut orbiting in near space.
   Bush's initiative would no doubt lead to some technological advancements and add to man's knowledge of the solar system, the moon and Mars. No doubt, this project would benefit greatly the aerospace industry, with particular largesse accruing to his home state of Texas and across the sun belt, where voters are kindly disposed toward him and his party.
   In this election year, this proposal serves to depict Bush as a forward-looking leader, taking care of "the vision thing" some found lacking in his father's presidency.

   Everyone should do some careful cost-benefit analysis, because Bush's space project could easily cost current and future generations upwards of a trillion dollars. The cost is especially questionable coming from a president who has already squandered a $600 billion surplus and run up a record-breaking deficit, with the debt load on track to grow geometrically as this decade ends. And, all that debt is on top of our half-trillion-dollar trade deficit.
   It's becoming clear this president means to leave no taxpayer's dollar unborrowed against and unspent, now and for decades to come. With the greatest shift in the ratio of working-age, productive citizens to retired, benefit-collecting citizens in history coming on fast, is an incredibly expensive space venture wise?
   Add to that the dissent from some space experts that manned space exploration is unnecessarily risky, costly and therefore a poor idea.

   Oh!pinion believes our money could be better spent exploring the darkness of mind and spirit manifest in mental illness and lives destroyed by drug and alcohol abuse, crime and violence, poverty and despair. Extensive basic medical, psychological and social research and development into the origins of, and ways to prevent and treat, these scourges could yield benefits for all mankind that are sure to outweigh anything available in distant space.
   Those benefits would reach into every state, every community and beyond America's borders. They could yield substantial improvement in millions of lives, reduce crime, reduce the number of divorces and the generation-to-generation ills of children coming up in broken homes and abusive situations. Over time, the improvements in individual and families' lives would reduce society's costs for law enforcement, prisons and a wide array of social services. At the same time, more people would be productive, contributing workers, business operators, consumers and taxpayers, instead of parts of a growing, costly underclass.
   We believe these substantial benefits could be realized for an investment of $350 billion over 20 years. So, for less money up front, we could achieve more quality-of-life gains for more people everywhere. And over time, our ongoing expenses would be reduced.
   By any measure, this would be a much better quest.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:47 PM

 
O'Neill sprinkles fig leaves on his exposé
   Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's observations on President George W. Bush's leadership style and acuity arrived as added confirmation, not startling revelation.
   O'Neill's take on Bush was reported Sunday night, on "60 Minutes." The full story is in a new book by Ron Suskind, "The Price of Loyalty." O'Neill was apparently Suskind's primary source.
   "60 Minutes" featured O'Neill quotes most likely to raise eyebrows across the country and increase Tums consumption in the White House. Such as referring to Bush in Cabinet meetings as being like "a blind man in a room full of deaf people." Such as noting that, from the first few days of his administration, Bush's intentions for Iraq were clearly to bring about regime change through invasion, the only concern being how doing that could best be packaged and sold to the American people. Such as saying the overriding concern in all matters discussed in the Bush White House was politics, not policy making.
   No sooner had the fan gotten good and dirty than the Justice Department began looking into the possibility of busting O'Neill for security breaches, based on "60 Minutes" showing or referring to one or more documents classified as secret. (Valerie Plame no doubt envies this warp-speed response, since investigation of the "high-level" leaker who outed her as a CIA operative didn't get under way for more than six weeks and is moving at a snail's pace.)
   Next, faster than you can say "uh oh," O'Neill was on late-night TV, backpedaling all over the place. Saying he wished he could take back the "blind man" statement. Saying regime change was ongoing policy already established in the previous administration, etc.

   But O'Neill can't unring this bell. And, given Bush's penchant for keeping account of who his friends are — and aren't — O'Neill's chances of regaining anything resembling Bush's good graces are on par with Osama bin Laden's chances of winning a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
   O'Neill shouldn't concern himself with Bush's good graces. After all, O'Neill was ousted from the Cabinet in a way calculated to punish, hurt and humiliate. It didn't have to be that way; he could've been eased out with finesse.
   O'Neill's assessments fit with much we know about Bush. Bush's record, from college days on, is not that of a dedicated, high-achiever, much less of a man of vision. Bush has found business niches with help from wealthy, well-connected family members and friends. In them he got by adequately at best.
   Bush's high-water mark prior to 2000 was as governor of Texas, where he was surrounded by loyal, politically savvy and well-connected aides. They did most of the big thinking and heavy lifting, where weighty issues and complex problems were concerned. It's the same now in Washington.
   Regrettably, O'Neill's remarks are unlikely to change the mind of a single Republican. Especially across the Bible Belt and throughout the hinterland, Bush loyalists see their man as a humble, Christian gentleman of only the best intentions who's been besmirched by a disgruntled misfit.
   Now, even more regrettably, the chance for O'Neill's insights to do some good among independents and undecideds will be nullified by his backtracking.
   We're left wondering if a whole lot of Bush loyalists will one day come to look back on their devotion the way Nixon loyalists came to look back on their support of the first president to resign in disgrace. Certainly, the makings for serious disappointment in retrospect are all in place.
   Time will tell.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:20 PM

 
O'Neill may be among last of breed
   Paul O'Neill is the former CEO of Alcoa Aluminum and has served in high positions during four Republican administrations.
   We doubt his attainments in business and appointments in government over several decades would've been possible if he was just a will o' the wisp or quirky misfit who couldn't do his work well and get along.
   It seems more likely that O'Neill is one of an unknown but potentially sizeable number of Americans who, in an earlier time, would've fit into the niche of — relatively — liberal Republicans. That is, the kind of Republicans exemplified by Theodore Roosevelt, Nelson Rockefeller, Charles Percy and today, virtually alone, by Sen. John McCain.
   In our view, liberal Republicans tend to be Republicans because of strong family and social ties to the party. Though typically conservative about fiscal matters, they exhibit populist, relatively broadminded preferences on social issues. They also tend to be pragmatic about change and innovation.
   Not surprisingly, those attitudes kept them at odds with the dogmatic-religious and ideological-political bent of their party's right wing. They were thus assured of considerable frustration and unhappiness, even in the 1950s and 1960s when moderate Republicans were the party's mainstream. Following the neoconservative and religious-right takeover in the 1970s, liberal Republicans became unwelcome nonentities. Presumably, some turned Democrat but most dissolved into the amorphous mass of independents who now make up about a third of the electorate.
   Fortunately for O'Neill, along with being old and rich, as he said while asking, "What can they do to me?" hopes for future elective office are not an issue. Otherwise, he'd really be toast.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:12 PM

 
Acting out spoiled last Iowa debate
   We couldn't discern a clear winner in Sunday's Black and Brown Debate in Iowa, but three of the participants managed to come off looking bad.
   This was the last of these debates before the Iowa caucuses take place a week from now, thank heaven. Though flawed by a seemingly good idea that's not working, the event was moderated by two of the sharpest performers in that role so far, Maria Celeste Arraras of Telemundo and MSNBC's Lester Holt. Both did terrific job despite the poor cooperation of some candidates.
   Having one candidate ask some other candidate a question sounds like a good way to add variety and perhaps reveal something about the questioner as well as the responder. In practice, some of the participants take liberties that detract from the event.
   Last night, Sen. Joe Lieberman, rather than simply ask another candidate a question, launched into a rambling, disjointed spiel promoting some letter he's sending somewhere to try to get something or other done. After going over his time, arguing with the moderator, continuing with his spiel, being reined in, finally, by the moderator, he sprung the question to all the other candidates: would they sign his letter?
   Sen. John Edwards intelligently asked what the letter says, making it obvious how idiotic it would be to agree to sign something they hadn't laid eyes on. We didn't catch what the letter is about in the hubbub, but we were embarrassed for Lieberman, whose grandstanding was obnoxious.
   Gov. Howard Dean tried to misuse his chance to ask a question by trying to give someone in the audience a chance to make a statement and/or ask the question. Holt had to tell Dean firmly, twice, he was on the wrong side of the rules — rules Dean had agreed to.
   Shouldn't a prospective president of the United States be expected to know and follow the rules of a candidates' debate?

   Rev. Al Sharpton seems to feel a special responsibility to assert himself before an audience where minority people dominate. OK, fair enough. He's done that before, usually with some engaging humor. Last night he lapsed into demagoguery with his assault on Dean.
   Asking Dean whether the governor had hired minority people during his administration was fair enough. But starting off by charging, erroneously, as it turns out, that Dean hadn't does not a question make. Or good sportsmanship, or good manners. When Dean protested he had hired minority people, Sharpton came up with a question: "In your senior staff, in your cabinet?" Flustered, Dean answered no.
   Sharpton then launched into an angry diatribe, dressing Dean down for having the nerve to talk about race and make out he'd had a good record. Which was over the top. Somehow, we imagine if Dean had been able to say he'd had a minority person in his cabinet, Sharpton would have continued with something like, Well then, you got any daughters that dated a black guy? If not, why not?
   This is an awful lot like the old courtroom joke, in which the prosecutor asks a defendant: "Do you beat your wife as much as you used to? Answer yes or no."
   Dean tried to defend himself with an analogy pointing out that his lightly populated, far-north state is not exactly spilling over with minority people to begin with. Most people, certainly Sharpton, didn't seem to get it. Sharpton just kept on demagoging the issue.
   Apparently, Dean took advantage of a commercial break to go over to Sharpton and grovel. That was taking the concept of reaching out to a nauseating extreme.
   Carol Moseley-Braun, bless her, was clearly embarrassed. After a break, trying to limit the bashing, she said something to the effect that "We can't be in an endless million-man march." She spoke quickly and we couldn't make it out precisely. Sharpton tried to start up again but the moderator moved on.
   Are we to take from this that Dean has been a closet racist all along? Would Sharpton have settled for any positive answer from Dean? Somehow, we don't think so.
   MSNBC this morning reported Sharpton's unseemly ambush played well with African Americans in Washington, D.C., where Sharpton went after the debate. We hope for their sake that those who waxed enthusiastic never find themselves in a country whose leader is OK with resorting to the kind of demagoguery Sharpton engaged in.

   Following the debate, there was a post mortem on a special edition of Chris Matthews' "Hardball." During that, Raymond Mesa of Telemundo offered this:
   "I don't think they went deep enough on a lot of the issues. A couple of them that they did touch on, immigration was very interesting when Mr. Dean, of course, said that he was all for giving legalization, or citizenship, to all of the people who serve in the U.S. armed forces. But he said he would worry that too many Latinos would take advantage of this just to become citizens. You have to think, in the back of your mind, well, these people are risking their lives, I don't see a problem if they become citizens, if they serve in the U.S. armed forces. He said that and many of them agreed with that."
   It just wasn't Dean's night. The point Dean was trying to make, which was completely sensible and decent, although he was somewhat awkward doing it, was that he did not want to have large numbers of Hispanics and others flocking to become cannon fodder because the U.S. had dangled the chance for citizenship in front of them.
   This was obviously lost on Mesa, Matthews and everyone else on Matthews' panel of talking heads.
   As stated, it's good this is the last of these multi-candidate debates, at least in Iowa in 2004.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:54 PM

 
Bush should fess up about hidden war agenda
   While the death toll of American troops in Iraq continues to rise, although at what commanders there say is a reduced rate, U.S. forces in Afghanistan suffered their 100th death on Jan. 9.
   The Bush administration and military leaders in country appear to be downplaying the ongoing violence in both countries, following President Bush's line that Iraq is much safer since Saddam Hussein's capture.
   Yet today there were violent explosions in central Baghdad, apparently caused by a mortar attack against a major downtown hotel. And last week there were several killings of coalition soldiers.
   Most spectacularly, a huge C-5a Galaxy cargo plane was struck by a ground-to-air missile. C-5a's are flying warehouses so big they almost make B-52's look like toys. Fortunately, an outboard engine was hit, allowing the plane to land safely. The cost to repair that damage will be very substantial. Moreover, the incident raises questions about whether the plane was protected by anti-missile magnesium flares or had a defective flare system.
   Independent observers on the talk show circuit have been saying that while counterinsurgency in Iraq may be down statistically, those carrying out attacks appear to be adapting and becoming more clever — and at times more deadly — in their efforts to inflict violence and death on coalition forces and Iraqi civilians.
   An Associated Press story on the situation in Afghanistan notes that, "When measured against the large disparity in forces, the tally (of deaths) belies conventional wisdom that Afghanistan has become a far safer place to operate. The U.S. provides 9,000 of the 11,000-member coalition troops stationed in Afghanistan."

   The Bush administration's desire to have it appear all is going well in both countries is understandable, especially given that this is an election year and truth eruptions are verifying how Bush's hidden agenda from the first days of his administration included regime change in Iraq. But the American people — whose sons and daughters were sent off to make Bush's Magnificent Adventure a reality, some of them dying, others disabled for life — deserve an open, honest and complete accounting of the costs, on a timely and regular basis.
   TV news crews ought to be able to cover the arrival of caskets holding deceased service members at Dover Air Force Base, Del. The administration has imposed a ban on such coverage. Bush ought to attend at least a few of the funeral and memorial services honoring the ultimate sacrifices made on his say so. The total for Iraq alone stands at 495 now.
   Perhaps most importantly, the president should level with the country about how and why he campaigned against foreign military interventions and nation building when secretly, long before Sept. 11, 2001, he clearly intended to invade Iraq.
   Belated honesty from Bush would be better than no honesty at all.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:42 PM

 
Gephardt best for Democrats and America
   Rep. Dick Gephardt is America's best bet for leadership in the coming years. In a field of solid prospects seeking the Democratic nomination this year, Gephardt offers the all-around best qualifications, personal qualities, experience and ideas.
   Gephardt has worked his way up from being a St. Louis alderman to Democratic leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he's spent 26 years building a reputation for honesty, decency, reliability and high-quality public service.
   He's a Democrat's Democrat, solidly supporting the interests of the nation's middle income, low income and marginalized poor people, and its dependent old and young. His career is exemplary in advancing fairness for those in our society disadvantaged because of race, color or ethnic background.
   In an era of radical conservative ascendancy and pro-corporate governance that borders on the irrational, Gephardt has been one of organized labor's best friends in Congress. Fittingly, unions and their members all over this country are returning his loyalty with their donations, work and vocal support.
   Gephardt has also solidly supported the interests of family farms and small business. His stand on NAFTA and free trade, a litmus test for Oh!pinion, is the best of any Democrat's, except for Rep. Dennis Kucinich.
   Gephardt comes from a modest middle class background. He knows from experience what it means to get by on a shoestring at home. He got through college with the help of church scholarships. He's an Air National Guard veteran.
   In short, Gephardt defies the right-wing stereotype of the limousine liberal or elitist-academic/intellectual type who's out of touch with the realities of most Americans' lives. A devoted husband and father, he's not going to be a target for the "politics of personal destruction" dirty work that President Bush's political guru, Karl Rove, finds so useful.

   Many people are enamored of having an outsider take over and make over what they disdain as business as usual inside the Beltway. It's a fanciful notion rooted in the lore of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Appealing though this notion may be, that kind of leader is not what this country of 10-plus million unemployed, a hemorrhaging economy and an ongoing war against terrorism, needs.
   Experience and skills matter. Gephardt's experience in Congress and in Washington will be invaluable for the country. He knows the players and the game board well. As president, he will almost certainly have to contend with a Republican-controlled Congress led by the likes of Rep. Tom "The Hammer" DeLay and hell-bent on blocking his every move.
   Think beyond the romantic notion. Gephardt's experience puts him in league with fellow Missourian Harry Truman, who served in both Houses of Congress and as vice president before becoming a very accomplished and successful president. It puts him in league with Lyndon Johnson, whose accomplishments in both houses of Congress, especially as Senate majority leader and then as president, can only be described as monumental.
   Think about our "outsider" presidents. There was Jimmy Carter, who, despite being a thoroughly decent man of good intentions, did not have a successful (or happy) presidency. His first failing: never establishing a good working relationship with Congress. Then there was Ronald Reagan, who, despite being attractive, affable, lucky and well-liked, was a blunder-prone economic Darwinist who badly damaged the social safety net, sent the budget deficit and national debt through the roof, and presided over clandestine military operations and illegal arms sales. Bill Clinton's first term was marked by serious missteps and big setbacks, including the health care reform implosion and 1994 Republican takeover of the House.

   Gephardt's one shortcoming is that he's not exciting. Teenage girls don't jump and squeal when he shows up. He doesn't exhibit the sparkling wit or humorous repartee of a John Kennedy or the expansive, big-thinking gab of a Hubert Humphrey or Bill Clinton.
   But in his simple directness, honesty and approachability — ask him a question and you'll get a straight, well-informed answer — he's got a lot in common with John Wayne and Sen. John McCain. That's a kind of appeal that grows on people and, once appreciated, generates durable loyalty.
   It's been reported that Gephardt is the Democrat Bush and his handlers least want to face in the general election. We believe that's because he's the most all-around solidly qualified and least attackable Democrat in the race.
   For all these reasons and more, Oh!pinion enthusiastically endorses Dick Gephardt for the Democratic nomination. We urge caucus participants in Iowa to speak up for him and give him their votes. We urge all who are able to contribute to his campaign.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:28 PM

 
Bush treatment ensures jobs anemia
   "`If you have more money, it means you're going to spend more,' (President) Bush told workers at Cecil I. Walker Machinery Co.
   "`And if you spend more, somebody's going to have to make more of what you're spending it on, which means it's more likely that somebody's going to find work. That's how the economy works.'
   "Bush's top economic adviser (Larry Lindsey ) said the nation `may be very, very near the peak in unemployment' and that by the fourth quarter of this year the economy could be growing at a robust rate of 3.5 percent."
   

   "President Bush signed the second major tax cut of his administration into law yesterday, setting a goal of creating 1 million jobs by the end of 2004.
   " `By ensuring that Americans have more to spend, to save and to invest, this legislation is adding fuel to an economic recovery. We have taken aggressive action to strengthen the foundation of our economy so that every American who wants to work will be able to find a job,' Mr. Bush said at a 20-minute signing ceremony in the East Room of the White House."
   

   "U.S. employers hardly hired any new workers in December, the government said on Friday in a disappointing report showing economic recovery has yet to translate into sustained jobs growth.
   "The unemployment rate fell to 5.7 percent, the lowest in over a year and down from 5.9 percent in November. But this was mainly because 309,000 people dropped out of the work force.
   "The number of workers on U.S. payrolls outside the farm sector in December increased by just 1,000, after a downwardly revised rise of 43,000 in November. It was the fifth consecutive monthly climb but was far below economist expectations for a rise of 130,000."
   

   In reality, President George W. Bush's one-idea economic policy has created several million jobs. Unfortunately for 10 million out-of-work and nearly 5 million underemployed Americans, those millions of new jobs have been created in China, India, Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Brazil, Europe and elsewhere.
   Any first-year medical student worth his weight in tongue depressors will tell you the first thing you do for a trauma victim who's breathing but bleeding is stop the bleeding. What you do not do first is start an IV and administer vitamins. The fluids would only be wasted and might make the hemorrhaging worse; vitamins won't matter if the patient croaks.
   Today and for the past three years, increasingly, jobs are being downsized, free-traded, globalized, outsourced, offshored, automated, computerized and robotized away. All of which amounts to hemorrhaging on a horrendous scale.
   For the past three years, ol' Doc Bush has been prescribing the economic equivalent of six gallons of whole blood and megadoses of vitamins.

   So what are his results? Third-quarter gross domestic product was a terrific 8.2 percent, the stock market ended 2003 having made the first annual overall gains in three years and it's estimated corporate profits were up 22 percent in the last quarter.
   But where are the jobs? Where are those 1 million jobs Bush set a goal for ever going to come from?
   Just to keep up with increases in the number of people seeking work, the economy must produce 150,000 new jobs a month. In December 2003, after all Doc Bush's huge tax cuts and all that stimulus, the economy only created a paltry 1,000 new jobs.
   And get this: Even if the economy had miraculously created 150,000 new jobs in December, absolutely nothing would've been done to pare down that horrible backlog of 10 million jobless and nearly 5 million underemployed.

   All together now, let's say "snake oil."

   What's going on here is that Bush and his advisers either don't know what's wrong with economy and so haven't a hope of fixing it, or they know and choose to do all the wrong things anyway. Yet it's this simple: stimulating businesses to create jobs in other countries doesn't help out-of-work Americans one bit.
   One more thing, while we're using a medical metaphor. It's characteristic of snake oil peddlers and those who've bought into quack remedies to claim just a little more time is needed for the "cure" to work. Back in 1930 President Herbert Hoover reassured everyone recovery was just around the corner and that there would soon be "a chicken in every pot." In the 1970s and 1980s, as believers in Laetrile, the untested, unproven apricot-pit-based cancer "cure," were being buried, other true believers and pushers would say it just hadn't been taken soon enough or long enough to work. Even so, some of them would say, Laetrile kept the end from coming sooner and being worse.
   If Bush wants to stimulate the economy, he should start with spending $200 billion to repair and replace infrastructure that's crumbling all over this country. He should add to that $30 billion to really secure our borders, really screen all packages going on airliners and air cargo planes; really screen sea cargo containers coming into our ports; and return to funding the program to put more police on our streets. Those measures will add jobs in this country and contribute to all Americans' safety and quality of life. But of course he's not up for that kind of remedy. It doesn't fit his philosophy or suit his big-money backers.

   If they're smart, voters will replace this quack next November, adding Bush and his crew of incompetents to the ranks of the unemployed. That's a remedy that would really be good for what ails this country, with a measure of poetic justice thrown in.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:26 PM

 
Kerry economic ideas worthwhile
   Sen. John Kerry talked up an array of economic proposals Thursday, including one that would provide states with $25 billion a year for two years.
   That assistance would go a long way toward easing the fiscal bind all but a handful of states have been struggling with for the past three years. State governments have been hit with multiple whammies, including a deep recession followed by the so-called jobless recovery and loss of revenues because so many jobs and businesses have been outsourced to other countries.
   Unlike most administrations, which have maintained a level of federal aid to states for various programs in normal times and stepped up federal assistance during economic rough patches, the Bush cabal has pursued a one-feature economic policy. That consists of huge annual tax cuts, most of the benefit going to the top 1 percent of taxpayers.
   Bush budgets have been stingy with the states on existing programs, skimping on some, cutting quite a few and offering almost no new assistance.
   Interestingly, one reason President Bush's father lost his 1992 re-election bid was because he had maintained a "go away, don't bother me" policy toward the nation's big cities. This was best exemplified by his response to near-bankrupt New York City after city officials had complained about that administration's lack of assistance. In an infamous quote, Bush 41 said of New York, "They can go to hell."
   Other Kerry proposals:
   � Giving families a tax break on the first $4,000 of college tuition costs, 100 percent credit on the first $2,000 and 50 percent credit on the second $2,000.
   � Giving workers a $10,000 tax deduction for job training or skills-upgrade education.
   � Creating tax incentives for businesses to keep them from sending jobs overseas.
   An Associated Press story quoted Kerry:
   "They may be celebrating this so-called recovery in the White House and on Wall Street, but it's not so rosy in the houses down on Main Street. America can do better than a Bush-league recovery — we can have a real recovery that reaches every American."
   Most of Kerry's plans strike us as sound, worthwhile economic policy — refreshing after three years of having an incompetent ideologue doing, and getting, everything all wrong.
   As to the incentives to keep businesses from deserting the country's sinking economic ship, we'll look for further details before making a judgment. We're leery of the potential for scamming by corporate crooks and mismanagement by bureaucrats, especially those who may be looking ahead to future employment in the private sector.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:58 PM

 
Illegal aliens plan another Bush con job
   The pattern is clear: Millions of Mexicans cross our southern border illegally over a period of years, take low-paying, even subminimum-wage jobs, hide out, send money home, urge family members to slip across the border to join them; they drive down wages, burden schools and hospitals, sap public-service budgets, drive without license or insurance, some commit crimes; U.S. citizens protest; a crisis looms; and a president or Congress decides something must be done.
   The answer is some form of amnesty. Just this once, of course, because — and this time we really, really mean it — we're gonna tighten up the border and enforce the immigration law to a fare thee well. Then, with little real improvement in border control or enforcement, the pattern repeats.
   Now comes President Bush, oozing compassionate conservatism, assuring us these nice folks want only what millions of immigrants before them wanted, assuring us they're all honest, hard-working and — best of all — God-fearing, family values stalwarts who'll make splendid future citizens.
   Then he springs his plan, which is de facto amnesty gussied up with a three-year "y'all got to go home now" feature that you can bet not one in 100 illegal aliens will comply with. For that matter, we doubt one in 100,000 illegal aliens will fess up to being an illegal alien to get into the plan to begin with.
   Listening to the president's speech, we wondered what we needed more, Kleenex or Tums. We marveled at how this former try-'em-and-fry-'em, law-and-order Texas governor could put forth this election-year bid for Hispanics' favor at the polls with a straight face. But we recalled how successfully he conned the country into thinking Saddam Hussein was responsible for, or at least in cahoots with those responsible for, the 9-11 attack. Plus there was the Big Lie campaign about WMD, to scare us all into supporting W's Magnificent Adventure in Iraq.

   Along with currying favor with Hispanics, the president's move is a bid to further ingratiate himself with the business sector. It's this simple:
   Boss man drives up to work site in his new Cadillac Escalade, steps out and calls work crew to come listen up.
   "Your foreman tells me you guys aren't satisfied with the 2 percent pay raise you got last year, don't like all the overtime and want medical benefits, so you're talking to some (expletive deleted) union S.O.B.
   "I'm only going to say this once, so you better get it the first time. You make one move to unionize and I'm laying off the whole bunch of you. Then I'm going to the government, to tell them I want to hire a crew of Mexicans. You can bet your butts they won't be talking to any union S.O.B."

   Oh!pinion recognizes there are some decent, very hard-working Mexicans sneaking into this country. We appreciate that many do indeed take jobs few U.S. citizens want to do — especially at the wages those jobs pay. We don't blame and certainly don't hate Mexicans for wanting to work here and improve their lot in life.
   We do believe that if we're actually going to have a country here, as opposed to one great big free trade and globalization bazaar — come one, come all, jobs are always on sale cheap — we need an orderly, measured and fair process for letting people in. We don't have that now. As a result, no one is being served properly.
   The president is at the center of this. Put simply, he has utterly failed to carry out the law of the land. First, he hasn't exercised the necessary leadership as head of the executive branch. Secondly, he's failed to work Congress for enough money and manpower to do the job, being much more concerned about cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans, not crossing employers who want cheap labor and making nice with Mexican President Vicente Fox.
   All of this is especially hard to appreciate in a time when the U.S. is under threat of infiltration and attack by Muslim psychopaths.
   New president, anyone?
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:48 PM

 
Dean should tell supporters, `No cheating'
   Rep. Dick Gephardt's campaign manager today reportedly accused Gov. Howard Dean's campaign of planning to slip out-of-state supporters into the Iowa caucuses.
   According to a Reuters story, Steve Murphy has written Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi, saying, "It has come to our attention that your campaign in Iowa is engaged in an effort to violate caucus rules and send out-of-state supporters to pose as Iowa residents and caucus in cities and towns across the state." The story says Murphy got his information from a staffer in Iowa who was informed by a Dean field organizer.
   The caucuses are supposed to be for Iowans only. The story explains, "Participants in the caucuses, sponsored by the state Democratic Party, must be registered Democrats who will be old enough to vote in November, but they can register on the spot and identification or proof of residence is not required."

   This looks bad, any way you slice it. It seems unlikely Murphy would go public with such a charge unless convinced it 's true and his source is reliable. The chance of sounding desperate and winding up with a face full of egg is just too great.
   Trippi reportedly dismissed the charge as ridiculous. Let's hope it's utterly groundless, especially if Dean wins the Democratic nomination.
   Dean has been going through a bad patch, with some of the incoming asked for and some just so much petty bashing. The last thing his campaign and the Democratic Party need at this point is for the front runner to be discredited because of cheating.
   It should be noted here that Dean loyalists lean toward the young, who are sometimes impetuous. There's a fair chance, if the charge is true, that some among Dean's supporters have plotted infiltration of the caucuses without Trippi or Dean himself knowing anything about it.
   Whatever's going on, the best thing for Dean to do at this point is gather his supporters around him, preferably behind a closed door, and lay down the law:
   Winning is important, it's the best thing, but it's not the only thing. That kind of thinking belongs to the Nixons, Roves and George W. Bushes of this world. We're better than that and we're going to remain better than that. What we have to offer, our message, our people, are good enough to win without cheating. What's more, I look on the presidency as a high calling. If I get to raise my right hand and be sworn in, I want to be worthy of that high calling, in other people's eyes and, most importantly, in my own.
   So, if you think you're doing me a favor by cheating on my behalf, don't do me any favors."
   Next, Dean should go public with a short, sweet statement making clear that, whether the charge is true or not, he doesn't condone violating caucus rules or cheating of any kind and has made that clear to everyone connected with his campaign. Then, he should go on with his campaign, saying no more about it.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:33 PM

 
Margaritas with a twist of influence peddling
   Government of, by and for the corporations is not just a matter of Bush administration executive branch policy. Our Republican Congress is hell-bent on proving big-money interests can get the best government their big money can buy from it, as well.
   The latest evidence can be seen over at the Kicking Ass, Daily Dispatches From the DNC, Web site, with an interesting post on an upcoming event in Phoenix, "Mulligans and Margaritas," hosted by the Western Business Roundtable.
   Several congressional Republicans are to attend, including Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico, architect of the monumental bundle of goodies for the energy industry that was scuttled in the last session of Congress, thank heaven.
   While margaritas are poured and drained, and industry representatives help the lawmakers develop a to-do list for the coming session, gravy will flow in both directions. The members of Congress are expected to do a little campaign fund raising. Of course.
   This is how Republicans do meetups. Be sure to give this item a click.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:12 PM

 
Handy how-to targets low-wage workers
   What would the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, The Business Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers and others say if the U.S. Labor Department were to publish tips telling workers how to rip off their employers?
   That's right, how about the Labor Department telling employees how to slack off, so they do less work for the same pay, without getting caught? Or maybe clue workers in to ways to con employers into paying them more for the same amount and kind of work they've been doing?
   You can bet White House phone lines would be burning up with calls from irate CEOs and human resources executives, and in no time Labor Secretary Elaine Chao would be on the Oval Office carpet, sweating blood.

   Of course, from George Bush's administration tips work the other way — suggesting to employers new and better ways to rip off lower-wage employees under rules changes designed to screw an estimated 8 million American workers out of overtime pay before it's over with, although the administration brags 1.3 million will get an increase.
   Congress is on record as opposing the rules changes, but Bush insists on ramming them through anyway.
   Imagine working your tail off in a job that pays $21,000 a year, in addition to which you work overtime that bucks your income up to $23,000. Under the new Bush rules, your employer can raise your pay to $22,100 — but he or she can require overtime work from you for no additional pay.
   This is from an Associated Press story on this travesty:
   In a separate story, Democratic candidate Sen. John Edwards is quoted: "Working men and women deserve a president who will fight for them and their hard-earned dollars, and not a president who helps big corporations find loopholes to cheat their employees out of decent pay for a hard day's work."

   We agree. The ugly truth, as demonstrated repeatedly by Bush administration actions (their words are usually calculated to mislead), is that current labor policy is completely one sided and so predatory toward America's working people and the out of work that it can only be described as vicious.
   In reality, Bush administration labor policy is class warfare, with corporations and the wealthy and powerful few winning on all fronts.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:53 AM

 
Rose's entry would sully Hall of Fame
   Professional baseball has made its ban on gambling a cardinal rule for a long time and for a good reason.
   If people are to believe in them and their sport, players' only priority must be doing their best to win. A player who gambles instantly brings the quality and sincerity of his efforts into question. And with that, the player-gambler undermines the integrity of his sport.
   Pete Rose was a baseball veteran and star player when he was ousted from professional baseball for breaking the cardinal rule. He gambled and, knowing that was wrong, lied about having gambled. For more than a decade he kept to his story. For more than a decade he's let it be known he wants and feels he ought to receive a place of honor in the Baseball Hall of Fame.
   Now, in a book, Rose admits he gambled and lied. He says he's sorry. He hopes the baseball commissioner will relent, that the sports writers who elect people to the Hall of Fame will enter him there before the time for doing that runs out, two years from now.
   Rose has his apologists and they're having their say on many talk shows. They point out what an exceptional hitter he was. They say he's already paid a high price. They note that he's said he's sorry.
   Induction into the Hall of Fame is not something owed to Rose or anyone else. There is no arbitrary number of hits, runs or anything else that automatically qualifies someone. It is, as we said, an exceptional honor.
   If the powers that be in pro baseball are smart, Rose's apology and apologists won't matter. The issue they must decide is really not about Rose. It's about whether Hall of Fame membership will continue to be an exceptional honor or become something less, cheapening regard for the institution and dishonoring the all rules-abiding players whose names already reside there.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:45 PM

 
Gen. Clark's order of the day: tax fairness
   Gen. Wesley Clark today announced a plan to put federal income tax back on the road to being progressive and fair.
   Big winners under Clark's proposal would be low- and middle-income Americans. Loophole-exploiting corporations and the top 0.10 percent of earners — those making $1 million or more a year — would pay more.
    A family of four making $50,000 or less would pay no federal income taxes. Other middle- and low-income families would receive substantial reductions. The plan includes simplification features, with the government doing the math for those who'd prefer not to do it themselves.
   Those younger than 40 may not realize it, but the federal income tax for decades was strongly progressive. That means those making the least paid little or nothing, while at steps up in income people paid progressively more. The idea was simple: Those enjoying the greatest rewards and benefits of living and working in this great country should pay the biggest share of the country's costs.
   That was how it worked from the New Deal days of the 1930s, when the system was reformed to be more progressive, to the late 1970s, when conservative Republicans, with help from some conservative Democrats, began undoing the reforms. After Ronald Reagan's 1980 election and the subsequent complete takeover of the Republican Party by radical right-wing conservatives, the progressive taxation came under relentless attack. Since Republicans took over the House of Representatives in 1994, taxation has become increasingly regressive.
   In recent years, as Clark pointed out, the rate applying to the wealthiest taxpayers has been cut in half, with the slack being taken up by everyone else.

   A key reason radical conservatives could take over the Republican Party, gain control of the House, make huge gains in the Senate and run many of the states is that America's wealthy, the lender class, has lavishly funded their campaigns and their huge, diverse opinion-shaping think tank and media infrastructure. The key motivator in opening wealthy Americans' wallets: inflation.
   From the post-World War II days through the early 1990s, the economy periodically suffered bouts of inflation. Inflation reduces each dollar's buying power, concurrently diluting the return on investments and loans. That's because while the dollar amount of principal and interest to be repaid is fixed, inflation erodes the purchasing power of dollars repaid. When Joe Consumer took out a 20-year mortgage on a $75,000 home, he began paying in 100-cent-buying-power dollars, but may have made his final payments in 45-cent-buying-power dollars — a big difference.
   It's significant that the rise of the radical conservatives closely followed the record-high inflation periods of the late 1970s. It's as though the U.S. lender class said, "This is the last straw."
   Other dynamics involved were tax-bracket creep and the rise of two-paycheck households. As people progress in their careers, they usually earn more and more. Inflation bumps up the numbers on their paychecks, although actual buying power may rise less if at all. If Joe Consumer's wife goes back to work when the kids are all in school, adding thousands to income, it's seemingly up, up and away. Same goes for the Consumer family's tax bracket. From the late 1960s forward, working wives became the rule, not the exception.
   The upshot was many more U.S. households looking and feeling wealthier, whether they were really all that much better off or not. Certainly, their finances involved bigger numbers. Inevitably, many began thinking of themselves as upper middle class or wealthy, even as soon-to-be millionaires. So, they became more and more accepting of the free-market evangelism and rugged-individualism/Horatio Alger mythology preached by the country's Milton Friedmans, Jack Kemps and Lawrence Kudlows.
   In that frame of mind and so influenced, America's nouveau riche and near rich have happily helped vote into power our New Dark Age plague of Reagans, Gingrichs, DeLays and, heaven help us, not one but two Bushes.

   Keep in mind that the truly wealthy dearly love free-market, laissez-faire capitalism - in a form that meets their needs, of course. That's because in good times they can escalate their wealth to the stratosphere. It's also true that, thanks to their cushion of great wealth, they can ride out the harsh bumps of bad times with relatively little discomfort. Along with the wealth cushion, their way back to good times is smoothed by the fact that the less affluent invariably serve as their shock absorbers.
   Shock absorbers? Think of laid-off workers, small businesses that see orders dry up and borrowers coping with high interest rates or a credit drought, as shock absorbers.
   Another aspect of the radical right's ascendance to power, in devoted service of America's wealthiest, bears mentioning. Along with using and losing the less-affluent, as suits their purpose, the lender class makes a priority of redirecting government backing and assistance.

   Right-wing Republican governance, with the skids greased by New Democrats, is adept at telling low-income single parents and others on the margins of the economy to buck up, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and pay their own way. But this style of governance is also about giving "incentives," government contracts and tax loopholes benefiting big investors, big financial concerns and big corporations. And it's solidly in favor of bailing out big banks, savings and loans, automakers, airlines and other big businesses that get into trouble — using guess who's money.
   The antidote to this stacking of the deck to make the rich ever richer, at the expense and to the great disadvantage of the rest of us, is known as populism.
   Gen. Clark's tax plan is a generous helping of long overdue populism — and we like it.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:15 PM

 
Hate label doesn't fit, shouldn't stick
   There it was again, the word "hate," referring to how the Democratic opposition regards President George W. Bush, this time tripping from Gloria Borger's lips.
   Borger was among several pundits holding forth on Chris Matthews' sit-down show on CNBC Sunday evening. She made the remark, explaining she'd been to the Midwest and was impressed with how much Democrats hate Bush.
   Borger's statement echoed a line put forth by the burgeoning right-wing/Republican propaganda network since last spring.
   Without presuming to speak for every single Democrat in the country, we disagree when it comes to Democrats overall. Hate is about wanting to see someone humiliated, personally hurt and politically destroyed. It's about, in accomplished hater Richard Nixon's words, leaving someone hung out and "twisting in the wind." A desire to see someone brought low by any foul means, even to see the person suffer physical harm, is OK with someone who has lapsed into hatred.
   We don't see or hear those things from the Democratic opposition to Bush. What we do see and hear is disdain, dislike and mistrust, often of the man, yes, but nearly all of it because of his policy choices and approach to governing. The operative desire is not to destroy him but to retire him, not to ruin him, but to refute and reverse much of what he's done in office.
   That's what we call politics, as opposed to the politics of personal destruction. There's a significant difference.
   Why would the right-wing buzz machine put forth the notion Democrats hate their man in the White House? Most likely it's intended to accomplish two things:
   1. Draw Bush loyalists, his base, tightly around him and get campaign donations flowing. Some of the natives may have been restless because of his big borrow-and-spend ways, and by how embarrassingly klutzy things got in the post-invasion days when we learned there really was no well-thought-out plan.
   2. Demonize Democrats as haters. Most Americans want to admire whoever is president. As an abstract proposition, setting aside particular personalities, they want their president to do well. Most Americans expect any president will have critics, fair enough, but are put off by haters. So, we suspect the right wingers think they can gain politically, especially among independents, by sticking a hater label on Democrats.

   Borger and others of the chattering class should be more discerning and precise in their terminology, unless and until they can produce concrete examples of Democrats exhibiting genuine hatred toward Bush.
   For their part, Democrats and all who oppose Bush should avoid appearing to be motivated by hate. They also ought to be outspoken in contradicting this trumped-up charge.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:40 AM

 
Debate mostly showcases too-long process
   Today's Iowa Democratic candidates' debate offered more evidence the presidential campaign season is much too long and the prospects' chances to speak in these events is much too short.
   Despite the Rev. Al Sharpton and Gen. Wesley Clark's absence, taut time constraints and pressuring about time detracted somewhat from the proceedings. Forcing ultra brief, capsulized answers to meaty policy and leadership questions ensures media sound bites and encourages sniping. This brevity too often elicits oversimplified responses and reliance on stump-speech grabber lines.
   Among the candidates, Sens. John Edwards and John Kerry seemed to shine, with Rep. Gov. Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt doing quite respectably. Gephardt's answer on dealing with drug abuse problems by attending better to education and mental health care needs was excellent.
   Rep. Dennis Kucinich continues to impress us. He doesn't snipe or backbite. He's not overbearing or obstinate. He obviously believes in his message, himself and what he's doing, every bit as much as Dean or any of the others, and it shows. Kucinich sticks to his message, views and principles in a remarkably even, good-spirited, assured way. No, his poll numbers are nothing to write home about. But he's running a race he can spend the rest of his life being proud of.
   Former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun made a very good showing as well, and in ways similar to Kucinich.
   Sen. Joe Lieberman's position on trade and the tax cuts, and his attempts to drive up Dean's negatives are a turnoff. It's easy to imagine a President Lieberman letting the damage being done to America's working people and the unemployed because of free trade and globalization just go on and on. Furthermore, he strikes us as much too comfortable with President Bush's Robin hood-in-reverse economics. He's a nice guy but last in our lineup.
   Most of these capable, determined troupers are now in their second year of campaigning. Their resumes, position papers and Web sites have been out for press and public inspection for a long time. Their comments on all ongoing topics have been reported repeatedly and commented on at length. They've participated in multi-candidate debates many times.

Although today's event was by no means a negative brawl, concern is called for. Given the potential for arming the Bush re-election campaign when Democrats do go negative trying to score gains on the front runner, it's good the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary will be held soon.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:27 PM

 
Politically, Texas is one sorry state of mind
   Texas conservative Rep. Ralph Hall filed for re-election Friday as a Republican, after having served in Congress as a Democrat since 1980.
   Was Hall's switch motivated by some deep-seated yearning to liberate his inner Republican or made because of a conscience-driven impasse with his Democratic colleagues? Hardly.
   Hall told Associated Press reporters his district had received no funding in a spending bill and when he asked Republican House leaders why, they told him it was because he was a Democrat. The 80-year-old House veteran also said he didn't agree with "all these guys running against the president."
   How perfectly, self-servingly cynical. He'll fit right in with his GOP House colleagues.
   That's all the more true because so many of them are fellow turncoats. The AP story quotes a Texas Republican Party spokesman as saying that since 1992, 174 Texas Democrats have switched to the GOP.

   We generally avoid tarring whole states of the Union for the actions of a few, figuring every state has its share of the stupid, the shallow and the venal. But when it comes to Texas, we're reviewing our policy.
   It's true that Texas has given the nation two of the most accomplished, effective and respected lawmakers in its history, the late House Speaker Sam Rayburn (whose district turncoat Hall now represents) and Lyndon Johnson. But they served in the good old days.
   More recently, we look on Texas as an ongoing, slow-motion, political train wreck in progress. Take former Sen. Phil Gramm, another turncoat. A staunch defender of faith and traditional families values, Gramm nonetheless once invested in a porn film production. As a born-again conservative who disdained government, he clung to his seats in both houses of Congress for decades. He managed that, in part, by running some of the dirtiest, most negative low-road campaigns in Texas history — a notable achievement in a state known for negative campaigning. A man of the people who came up from humble beginnings, Gramm somehow managed to retire from the Senate a multimillionaire. Some think his diligence in taking extra-special care of the oil and energy corporate interests that fueled his considerable fund-raising efforts may have had something to do with how it all turned out for him.
   Then there's that model of good-government motivation, diplomacy and high patriotic principles, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey. Economic Darwinists — those who believe Natural Law calls for survival of the greediest and inheritors of wealth, with the weak, lazy and unlucky rest getting what they deserve if they starve to death — rarely have had a better friend in Congress than Armey.
   With fellow radical right-wing bomb-thrower Newt Gingrich, Armey helped bring the House to a state where "bipartisanship" was mostly uttered as sarcasm and comity and civility were made distant memories of a quaint past. Asked some years ago about how Republicans in Congress during his tenure had shifted wealth transfers and such from less-affluent, mostly Democratic districts to more-affluent Republican districts in a big way, Armey reportedly replied, "To the victor goes the spoils."

   Now, of course, we have Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" DeLay, a former fumigator who turned from applying chemical toxins to spreading the political kind. Among his latest projects is an effort to underhandedly force unconstitutional between-census redistricting so he and his henchmen in Austin can gerrymander Texas Democrats to near extinction. In his politics, polemics and demeanor, we can summon no greater condemnation of DeLay than to say he's the perfect follow-on to the leadership of Gingrich and Armey.
   All this on top of two Bush presidents.
   Texas started out with intentions of being an independent republic. If it wasn't for Molly Ivins, Anne Richards and Jim Hightower, we'd be inclined to wish it had remained one.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:57 PM

 
Honest answers shouldn't cost chief her job
   Loose lips sink careers in President George Bush's Washington — at least, certain careers.
   It appears if one provides a leak hurtful to someone Bush & Co. considers unhelpful, or the spouse of someone it consider unhelpful, like CIA operative Valerie Plame, c'est la vie. However, if those loose lips make it sound as though ol' tax-cuttin' George's budget is cheaping out on a necessary service, it's c'est la mort, career wise, for whoever blabbed.
   Case in point: U.S. Park Police Chief Teresa C. Chambers, who in response to a reporter's questions gave straight answers that revealed her force is a few officers and patrol cars short of a full roster and falling behind in meeting its responsibilities. Those include patrolling parks in and around D.C. and along the Baltimore-Washington Parkway.
   Chambers, known as an honest and hard-working cop, and the first woman to be Parks chief, is now on administrative leave. Bush administration officials are said to be working in the background to make the hiatus a dismissal.
   Slate has a good story about this situation.
   There's also a move afoot to get people to write the powers that be at the National Park Service and/or their senators and member of Congress, to protest this abuse of power and attempt to make an example out of someone doing a good job serving the public.
   This is just the latest instance of the kind of information manipulation/suppression the Bush administration insists on, when it suits its purpose.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:52 PM

 
Jobs: when it comes to spinning, GOP is tops
   Wednesday's CNN "Crossfire" included an interesting exchange that's indicative of how Republicans will likely spin a key part of the economic mess they've made since George W. Bush became president and they got control of Congress.
   For reality's sake, first, a few facts. Economists generally agree the economy must generate 300,000 jobs a month to stay even. This fall quarter, a time when many retail and service businesses usually hire additional people to help handle holiday business, about 300,000 jobs were created. During one month, 150,000 jobs were created. At the same time, layoffs went down.
   All that's to the good, but not nearly enough to be called anything more than a modest, tentative harbinger of a possible jobs recovery.
   Think of the employment situation as a big bull's-eye. At the center, 3 million people officially counted as unemployed — those qualifying for and getting jobless benefits. From there outward we can't give numbers because no one's counting. But it stands to reason the numbers are very large.
   Next ring out, "discouraged workers," those who've exhausted their unemployment benefits without finding replacement work. They move back in with family or friends, go back to school, hang out. Next ring, people early retired, voluntarily or not. Next ring, people who've replaced full-time jobs that paid well with full-time jobs that pay significantly less, often with concurrent cuts in benefits. Next ring, people who've replaced full-time jobs with one or more part-time or irregular jobs. The outermost ring represents people who've lost part-time jobs and/or irregular jobs and now work "catch as catch can" in day labor or other casual work, typically for minimum wage or less and no benefits.

   Bottom line: to make significant progress restoring the employment situation in the U.S., the economy would have to add no less than 500,000 jobs a month for more than a year, nonstop. And, a significant percentage of those jobs would have to be decent-paying, full-time jobs with benefits. This, of course, assumes businesses will continue to lay people off , send jobs to other countries and relocate abroad. Is that likely? Well, the Labor Department reported 339,000 people filed for unemployment benefits last week. While that's the fewest first-time claims during Bush's presidency, it was still 339,000 jobs lost.

   Guests on "Crossfire" Wednesday were Rep. Al Wynn, D-Md., and Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va. Hosts were former Bill Clinton advisor Paul Begala and columnist Bob Novak. Here's the exchange.

   Notice Davis' statement, "Actually, you know, the last four months, 300,000 additional jobs were created."
   Additional? To what? That's like saying a gambling addict who's $10,000 in the hole has made money because he won $50 in the last poker hand. Pure, misleading spin!

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:02 PM

 
`A second bill of rights'
   For the first post of this new year, this presidential election year, we offer an example of the thinking and leadership of one of the finest presidents this nation has ever had. A few days shy of 60 years after it was written, it remains a clear, compelling statement of Democratic purpose and values.

   "We have accepted, so to speak, a second bill of rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all, regardless of station, race or creed. Among these are:
   "The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
   "The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
   "The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
   "The right of every family to a decent home.
   "The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.
   "The right to a good education."
— Franklin D. Roosevelt, message to Congress, Jan. 11, 1944.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:55 AM