Politics, Government & Public Policy: January 2004 Archives

The Hill reports that the immense budget deficit (and the reaction from many conservative groups) is starting to trouble Congressional Republicans -- who are largely to blame for the recent ballooning of non-defense spending.

Conservative Republicans have been emboldened to demand strict spending reforms by a report released yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that forecasts a nearly $2.4 trillion dollar budget deficit over the next decade. ...

Conservatives say that their list of reforms includes across-the-board non-defense budget cuts, spending caps with real teeth and requirements that efforts to waive House budgetary rules be voted on by the GOP caucus behind closed doors in order to reach the floor.

The idea of spending caps is great, but in order for them to be effective they'd have to be enacted via Constitutional amendment because Congress cannot pass laws restricting the actions of future Congresses.

The growing backlash against mounting deficits is being led mostly by junior lawmakers who have served for less time in the House than many of their colleagues and who still retain more of the ideological fervor that caused them to run in the first place.

Pence and Flake are only in their second term, and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) — who colleagues say is spearheading the effort to impose tough spending caps — is a freshman.

However, conservatives say their reinvigorated fight for fiscal discipline is less a battle against their fellow Republicans than symptomatic of a growing realization among all Republicans that spending must be curtailed if economic growth is to continue.

One lawmaker reported that in Hill meetings last week after Bush’s State of the Union speech, “a wide range of members began to talk about the budget resolution.

“It was really fascinating to hear across the spectrum of the Republican conference that there is a real desire to get back to fiscal discipline.”

Apparently President Bush's mention of fiscal discipline was more than window-dressing. I hope Republicans will quit doing all the things we castigated the Democrats for when they controlled Congress.

Governor Arnold desperately wants to bring new jobs into California, but there's at least one sector he's rightly trying to shrink: government jobs.

SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's efforts to downsize state government and privatize some services challenges Sacramento's ultimate sacred cow -- the powerful public employee unions -- and triggers a political battle that is certain to be far tougher than trying to balance the budget without new taxes.

In his budget proposal, the governor calls for a constitutional amendment that would give him broad powers to contract with private firms when it will "reduce costs, improve efficiency or improve services."

Imagine that!

The best part is how Arnold is selling proposal:

He calls the effort "competition" for state services rather than "privatization" because the stated goal is for public employees to keep their jobs by outbidding contractors, which means they would have to accept lower salaries and benefits or require fewer people to get tasks done.

Competition is good for the private sector, and it's good for government. Competition encourages efficiency and quality, both of which are in short supply in California's public sector.

The key to success is close oversight of any private contractors by their client, the State of California. Corporations are motivated by profit, and it's necessary to monitor performance to prevent corner-cutting and to make sure the quality of service remains high. Such oversight could be done with a fraction of the current number of employees, however, and cost savings would probably be substantial (I've read -- though I don't remember where -- that similar efforts in Florida reduced program costs by 8% to 40%).

After watching Rep. Nancy Pelosi on TV recently, am I the only person wondering if the Democrats set her up as a fall-gal for the upcoming election season? She just doesn't seem that... well... convincing or charismatic.

Donald Sensing has a post asking "Why wasn't anyone fired?" for America's lack of response to al Qaeda before 9/11/2001, but there's something missing from his post: names. He talks about failings by military "top brass" as well as civilian leaders, but other than President Clinton he doesn't give us any names. I don't know enough to know who was involved, and I probably wouldn't even recognize most of the names, but I want to know them.

It seems clear to me that many of the military and civilian officials who spoke with him were engaging in covering their own rears. And in defense of the generals and admirals whom Schultz cuts up pretty rough, I point out that Bill Clinton was not a man of steadfast purpose. His reputation for applying band-aids to sucking chest wounds was well deserved. To strike back effectively and enduringly would have required a very large and continuing commitment of resources and deployments that I personally doubt Clinton and his own top staff had the backbone to see through. ...

That being said, the Pentagon brass should have been much more eager to kill al Qaeda's leaders than they appear to have been. Al Qaeda had a track record of attacking and killing American military members, starting in Mogadishu, continuing through the Khobar Towers and culminating in the attack on USS Cole (and other attacks on non-military targets).

When soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines come under fire and are killed and wounded, they have the right to expect that their services' leadership will demand retribution. All of these acts, particularly the attacks on Cole and the Khobar barracks, were by any definition acts of war and should have been treated as such. And the chiefs of staff should have seen it that way and pressed for it. Their fundamental obligation to protect their troops demanded it. In this they failed and failed morally, the worst failure a military officer can commit.

I'm a huge supporter of our military, but I think people should be held accountable for their failures. I'm hoping Rev. Sensing and any other folks with more millitary/political insider knowledge will see this post and name some names of the people who failed to protect us.

Here are some I can do on my own. I don't know the level of their personal involvement -- and I welcome any further information -- but here are the names of the people who were in charge of our security between the first time the World Trade Center was attacked (1993) and the second (2001).

- President Bill Clinton, President from 1993 to 2001; he was the top dog, but I don't think all the blame rests with him.
- Les Aspin, Secretary of Defense from 1993 to 1994.
- William J. Perry, Secretary of Defense from 1994 to 1997.
- William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense from 1997 to 2001.
- General John M. Shalikashvili, Chairman of the JCS from 1993 to 1997.
- General Henry H. Shelton, Chairman of the JCS from 1997 to 2001.
- Admiral David E. Jeremiah, Vice Chairman of the JCS from 1990 to 1994.
- Admiral William A. Owens, Vice Chairman of the JCS from 1994 to 1996.
- General Joseph W. Ralston, Vice Chairman of the JCS from 1996 to 2000.
- General Richard B. Myers, Vice Chairman of the JCS from 2000 to 2001 (when he became Chairman).
- General Gordon R. Sullivan, Army Chief of Staff from 1991 to 1995.
- General Dennis A. Reimer, Army Chief of Staff from 1995 to 1999.
- General Eric K. Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff from 1999 to present.
- Admiral Frank B. Kelso II, Navy Chief of Staff from 1990 to 1994.
- Admiral Jeremy M. Boorda, Navy Chief of Staff from 1994 to 1996.
- Admiral Jay L. Johnson, Navy Chief of Staff from 1996 to 2000.
- Admiral Vern Clark, Navy Chief of Staff from 2000 to present.
- General Merrill A. McPeak, Air Force Chief of Staff from 1990 to 1994.
- General Ronald R. Fogleman, Air Force Chief of Staff from 1994 to 1997.
- General Michael E. Ryan, Air Force Chief of Staff from 1997 to 2001 (September 6th, good timing).
- General Carl E. Mundy, Jr., Marine Corps Commandant from 1991 to 1995.
- General Charles C. Krulak, Marine Corps Commandant from 1995 to 1999.
- General James L. Jones, Marine Corps Commandant from 1999 to 2003.

Most of this information was gleaned from the Joint Chiefs of Staff website, and the Secretaries of Defense history page at DefenseLink.

Update:
I was remiss in not including the Directors of the CIA and FBI:

- R. James Woolsey, Director of Central Intelligence from 1993 to 1995.
- John Mark Deutch, Director of Central Intelligence from 1995 to 1996.
- George John Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence from 1996 (acting) to present.
- Louis J. Freeh, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investication, 1993 to 2001.

Kerry and Edwards win Iowa in 1st and 2nd, and I'd just like to remind everyone that I thought they'd be the strongest Dems back in May.

Update:
I'm sure you've all seen the further developments by this point, but Dean lost big.

With 18 percent of the vote, Dean finished 20 points behind the winner, Kerry. Edwards scored a surprise second-place finish with 32 percent in nearly complete returns.

I'm amazed. I'm not surprised that Dean didn't win, but I think everyone expected it to be a lot closer than 20 points.

Dean blames the loss on recent attacks on his front-runner status, but his own gaffes provided more than enough rope to swing from. The big unknown factor was whether his internet-based organization could bring voters to the caucus as effectively as it raised money, and it looks like it couldn't, at least in Iowa.

Frankly, I think Dean's out of the running. Unless he wins convincingly in New Hampshire his presidential run is over, and judging from the effectiveness of his organization in Iowa I'm not optimistic for his chances in the Granite State.

On one hand, I'm disappointed. Even though I don't like his politics, I wish his internet based organizational structure had proven to be more effective. It's also unfortunate from a political standpoint, because Dean was the least electable of the major Democratic candidates, and as a Republican I would have liked to have seen him face off against Bush. Clark is a close second, and I don't doubt Bush could annihilate him as well, but Kerry and Edwards are a bit more politically formidable, in my opinion.

On the other hand, I'm pleased to see that the Democrats have rejected Dean's virulent anti-Americanism. Many Democrats may have initially supported him due to sympathetic anger, but I'm glad they got over it long enough to rethink their votes before actually casting them. It speaks well of Iowan Democrats that they didn't allow their emotions to rule the day by selecting a petty, pandering hate-monger as their nominee. (I don't say that to be patronizing.)

New Hampshire will be all the more interesting now that it's do-or-die for Dean.

According to pre-caucus polls, Dean looks weak (but not as weak as Gephardt).

According to polls as voters entered 1,993 schools, libraries, living rooms and other caucus sites, Sen. John Kerry (search) has a lead among those offering their initial preferences.

Kerry had 29 percent while Sen. John Edwards (search) had the backing of 23 percent who expressed a preference in the entrance polls. In third was one-time front runner Howard Dean (search) with 21 percent and in fourth was Rep. Dick Gephardt (search) with 16 percent.

Just trying to keep you all up-to-the-minute!

I was eager to hear President Bush's immigration reform plan, but then wasn't very impressed (nor were many others). The issue is huge and complex, not nearly as simple as the "enforce existing laws!" mantra of much of the right. Nevertheless, I don't think the status quo can stand much longer. President Bush's proposed policy just didn't make much sense to me, until I read TMLutas's take on it.

Tote up the decades of poor wages, the uncertainty of ever getting to the head of the line and the $40k price tag of illegal admission, fake papers, and the opportunity cost of keeping your head down in the US doesn't look so bad. So our everyman hits the shipping containers or desert crossings or whatever and arrives in the US where he first pops up on VDH's radar screen.

With the new program, the calculation changes. Our labor migrant everyman doesn't care about the US per se. He just wants a nice house and to live in relative comfort at home in his village. He wants his kids to have decent nutrition, a shot at a good education and a better life. He wants the local version of the American dream but in his own culture, with its own characteristics. Working for a few years in the US to build up a stake and he can use that capital to live a decent life at home as a member of the local elite. ...

The Bush plan takes care of this by reducing the cost to cross borders down to bus or train fare. Poof! Dignity as one of the richest families in your home town or a strange and confusing life in the US where you always feel the 2nd class outsider and you're in the bottom half of the economic order. How do you think those incentives will play out?

That's a fascinating take on the matter, and one that warrants a lot more thought. I'm going to have to reconsider my initial nagative reaction.

Lots of people think the War on Drugs is useless, claiming that it's unjust and doesn't do much to reduce drug use. It may very well be unjust, but Victor Morton has some information on the effectiveness of Prohibition in the 1920s and how it reduced alcohol consumption, and I think there's a strong parallel. I asked him for hard evidence, and here's his response (which he kindly allowed me to post here):

---

Well, a lot of guesswork is involved for any number of reasons. First of all, figures for any illegal activity are necessarily unreliable. There were also great gaps in the availability of alcohol between urban areas, especially in the Midwest and Northeast (where the evidence is good that Prohibition did fail to restrain alcohol consumption), and more rural areas, especially in the South and West (where Prohibition was obviously effective and remained in place in some ways after 1933). Anyway, these figures are for U.S. per-capita consumption of alcohol in gallons (http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/craig102.htm)

1860 2.1
1870 1.9
1880 1.9
1890 2.1
1900 2.1
1905 2.3
1910 2.6
1915 2.4
1920 --
1925 1.4
1930 1.5
1935 1.5
1940 1.6
1945 2.0
1950 2.0
1955 1.9
1960 2.0
1965 2.2
1970 2.5
1975 2.7

As I say, these figures are obviously imperfect at precisely the point they're most needed. So, it's a bit more reliable to measure alcohol consumption through proxy figures, such as the death rate from cirrhosis and mental-home commitments for alcoholism. They tend to suggest Prohibition was at least somewhat successful.

For example, the average death rate from cirrhosis of the liver was 7.3 per 100,000 in the years 1920-1933; the average rate for the rest of the 20th century was 11.5. According to a Mark Moore New York Times op-ed column "Actually, Prohibition Was a Success," in 1989, cirrhosis death rates for men went from 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911, to 10.7 per 100,000 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcohol psychosis also fell from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 per 100,000 in 1928. There are problems with figures this crude, but they tend to cut both ways -- i.e. the time lag that often happens between alcohol consumption and cirrhosis on the one hand, but the effects of the Temperance movement that resulted in Prohibition in the years prior to Constitutional prohibition and the lingering effect of formed habitual behavior in the years after (more on that anon).

There's two other issues to consider after all these numbers. The first is a weakness of all social science, in that, mimicking natural science and mathematics, it seeks to isolate variables. The problem is that laws and human conduct simply never occur in a vacuum or a scientist's germ-free lab. To cite a point relevant to this case and to which I've already alluded above, the people who argue against Prohibition's effect on alcohol consumption point out that the cirrhosis death rate dropped faster during the 1910s, before Prohibition, than in the 1920s. And that the repeal of Prohibition didn't noticeably increase cirrhosis rates in the late 1930s. The numbers plainly support that (if you read Moore carefully with that in mind, you can see the residue). So the social scientist is satisfied. The problem is that in the real world, the country that passed Prohibition had to first become a country that *would* pass Prohibition (and that also meant passing mini-prohibitions in states and counties). Or to use the pro-life movement's formulation, we seek a culture where every unborn child is welcomed into life *and* protected in law. Changes in culture and the habits of the heart are logically distinct from the law, but not practically. We express our notions of good through the law, and the law reinforces those notions of good. Or to use Aristotle's formulation, we becomes virtuous by doing the virtuous things and vicious by doing the vicious things.

Secondly, and this might sound a little a priori and anti-intellectual, there's a certain level at which I simply refuse to listen to something so counterintuitive as "Prohibition didn't reduce alcohol consumption" (as opposed to "Prohibition had excessive countervailing costs"). I mean if making something illegal doesn't raise its cost (in the broadest possible sense), if raising the cost of something doesn't decrease its sales, and if being less a part of unthinking visible routine doesn't make a thing less popular -- if these things aren't true, ceteris paribus (and keep in mind what a stiff demand that is of history and the social "sciences"), then every thing we think about man is false and we've learned nothing about him in the history of civilization.

Kashei over at Spot On recounts a recent debate she attended and explains why she thinks "liberals" have nothing to offer serious thinkers. (The quotes are mine; I can't refer to modern Democrats without them, sorry.)

If the purpose of a debate is to leave with your thinking somewhat changed, then the conclusion I came to last night is that I don't need any liberals in a debate. They just have nothing to add these days. I haven't come away from any conversations with liberals, in particular about Iraq, feeling like I've had my position challenged or that I had been given food for thought. 'Bush is an idiot', 'Bush is evil', 'it's all about oil' or 'he's just doing this to please his daddy' aren't arguments.

I agree with her in general, which is why I think it will be good for the country when the Democratic Party implodes after being annihilated by President Bush this November. We need two (or more, but let's not get overly optimistic) serious parties to have meaningful political debate; we need meaningful political debate in order to come up with the best possible policies. As I mentioned earlier today, President Bush can get away with anything because all his opponents want to surrender the country to the UN and/or Islamofascist suicide bombers. This isn't good, and as the evidence shows President Bush is getting away with far too much.

As I wrote previously, President Bush is spending way too much money. I linked to a Washington Times article before, and here's another that says that conservative groups are finally starting to put some pressure on GOP politicians to reign in spending.

National leaders of six conservative organizations yesterday broke with the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, accusing them of spending like "drunken sailors," and had some strong words for President Bush as well. ...

"Congress' continued fiscal irresponsibility is clearly exhibited in the thousands of pork projects contained in the bill," the Heritage report noted.

The Heritage report says the omnibus bill will set the stage for discretionary spending to increase by 9 percent in 2004 to $900 billion, not the 3 percent claimed by Congress. ...

Mr. Bush and the Republican lawmakers are expected to face another barrage of criticism next week, this time from some 4,000 activists at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, where Vice President Dick Cheney and Republican congressional leaders are slated to speak.

"A lot of Senate Republicans will be speaking at CPAC, and the grass-roots conservatives attending won't be shy about their displeasure," said Richard Lessner, executive director of the American Conservative Union.

I'm glad I'm not the only person feeling this way, and I only hope enough pressure can be brought to bear on the Republicans to have an effect.

The problem is, where else can I, and others like me, go? All we can do is stay home and end up with Howard Dean. The Republicans know this, but they should figure that most right-inclined voters won't make such a rational decision and may just lose enthusiasm if they don't like President Bush's policies.

What's really frustrating to me is that the $400 billion presciption drug entitlement is already set in stone, and it's likely to be the potential space exploration spending that evaporates.

The Public Policy Institute of California has some poll results that demonstrate just how confused Californians are. I'm just going to give you some highlights, since the entire report is 42 pages long; I'm sure there's more good stuff in there than what I've found in just a few minutes. Here are some numbers, I'll give some analysis below.

1. 50% of voters support spending more money on education, 38% oppose.
2. 41% support reducing the 2/3 legislature vote required for budget matters to 55%, 35% oppose.
3. 73% think having the 2/3 majority requirement is a good idea.
4. 58% disapprove of how the legislature handle financial matters, and 58% think the government "wastes a lot of taxpayers' money"; combined, 93% thinks "some" or "a lot".
5. 53% think the budget gap should be handled with a "mix of tax increases and spending cuts", 30% prefer only spending cuts.
6. 64% would pay higher taxes to maintain current funding of education.
7. 57% would pay higher taxes to maintain current funding of local government.
8. 50% would pay higher taxes to maintain current funding of health and human services.
9. 76% approve increasing "sin" taxes on alcohol and tobacco.
10. 71% approve of raising taxes for the wealthiest Californians.

Anyway, then Acrobat crashed, but you get the idea. These numbers show that Californians really have no idea what they want, and probably don't understand what their tax dollars are spent on.

(2) and (3) together don't make sense. Either people like the super-majority requirement, or they don't. The most important function of this requirement is to prevent the majority Democrats in the legislature from raising taxes all the time, and eliminating the requirement would abolutely-guaranteed lead to dramatic tax increases -- which doesn't seem to square with what people say they want.

Or does it? (4) 58% disapprove of how the legislature handles budget matters, and 93% think the government wastes "some or a "lot of" of money, and yet (1, 6, 7, 8) would spend more money on the three issues that combine to form 90% of state spending (education is 40% of the state budget, HHS is 30%, local government payouts are around 20%). If people think money is being wasted, these are the programs that are wasting it, and they should demand tighter controls not just throw more good money after bad.

What's more, 93% think their money is wasted but (9, 10) they're willing to raise taxes on "other people" to keep on wasting! How ridiculous is that?

Via various sources I see that Daniel Drezner thinks that Senator Edwards may be more in the running for the Democratic nomination than many give him credit for. He also points to a TNR article by Michelle Cottle called "The Case for John Edwards" that paints an impressive picture of the Senator's economic ideas.

And, unlike most high-promising pols, Edwards also explains how he intends to pay for his proposals, listing a range of cost-saving and income-generating measures that include opening more government procurement to competitive bidding, reducing subsidies for major oil and agricultural concerns, shrinking non-security-related federal agencies over the next decade, and repealing specific elements of the Bush tax cuts. It's true that some of Edwards's cost-saving plans may be difficult to achieve--is he really going to abolish the Office of Thrift Supervision and reduce other federal agencies by 10 percent per year for ten years?--but the specificity with which he lays them out allows one to judge them on the merits. Contrast this with the vague platitudes offered by his rivals.

I've gotta say, I like those proposals, particularly when contrasted with President Bush's proliferate spending.

I should note that I was on the Edwards bandwagon in May, 2003, although that was long before Howard Dean surfed to the top of the pack and Wesley Clark entered the race.

I got an email about City Journal's new winter issue, and a couple articles caught my eye. Both relate to my city-of-love, Los Angeles, so I figured I'd post them together.

The first is a piece by Heather Mac Donald, "The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave". I love her use of hyphens in the headline (if she wrote it herself; although she could have also hyphenated "Crime-Wave"; then again, you can over-use them; anyway...), and the article discusses a major problem in Southern California.

Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD’s rule against enforcing immigration law.

As Ms. Mac Donald notes, city prohibitions against local enforcement of federal immigration laws is the ultimate reflection of our nation's failed immigration controls. She has more details:

In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

Ms. Mac Donald has a lot more, and I recommend reading the whole thing. There are two things she doesn't mention, however. First, how President Bush's recent policy proposal addresses the problems she discusses (if it does at all), and second how we can convince Mexico to extradite the hundreds of murderers who kill in the US and then flee across the border.

The next article is a bit lighter, "The Curse of the Creative Class" by Steven Malanga. He writes about cities implementing "hip" policies to lure younger, richer, more "creative" workers.

If you think these efforts represent some fringe of economic development, think again. All of these cities have been inspired by the theories of Richard Florida, a Carnegie Mellon professor whose notion that cities must become trendy, happening places in order to compete in the twenty-first-century economy is sweeping urban America. In his popular book The Rise of the Creative Class, which just appeared in paperback after going through multiple hardcover editions, Florida argues that cities that attract gays, bohemians, and ethnic minorities are the new economic powerhouses because they are also the places where creative workers—the kind who start and staff innovative, fast-growing companies—want to live. To lure this workforce, Florida argues, cities must dispense with stuffy old theories of economic development—like the notion that low taxes are what draw in companies and workers—and instead must spend heavily on cultural amenities and pursue progressive social legislation. ...

While much of The Creative Class is little more than Florida’s depiction of the Internet bubble’s go-go culture, the last third of the book offers urban policymakers a seemingly dazzling new economic-development agenda derived from these observations. To capitalize on the hot new economy, Florida tells policymakers, they must reach out to the creative class, whose interests are different from those of the buttoned-down families that cities traditionally try to attract through good schools and low taxes. The new creative class craves a vibrant nightlife, outdoor sports facilities, and neighborhoods vibrant with street performers, unique shops, and chic cafés. In Florida’s universe, the number of local bands on the pop charts becomes more important to the economy than tax codes. “It is hard to think of a major high-tech region that doesn’t have a distinct audio identity,” Florida writes, sounding more like a rock critic than an economics prof. Creative workers want to live and work in “authentic” neighborhoods of historic buildings, not areas that are “full of chain stores, chain restaurants and nightclubs,” he asserts. Accordingly, cities should stop approving expansive new condo developments on their outer boundaries and instead focus on retooling former warehouse and factory districts.

If this sounds like a bunch of nonsense, that's because it is. Mr. Malanga goes on to show (with actual numbers) that many of the cities Dr. Florida lauds as creative meccas are, in fact, not performing exceptionally well economically, and are actually doing worse than the cities he rates least creative.

... Yet since 1993, cities that score the best on Florida’s analysis have actually grown no faster than the overall U.S. jobs economy ... Led by big percentage gains in Las Vegas (the fastest-growing local economy in the nation) as well as in Oklahoma City and Memphis, Florida’s ten least creative cities turn out to be jobs powerhouses, adding more than 19 percent to their job totals since 1993 ... Florida’s ten most creative mid-sized cities are even less impressive economic engines. Since 1993, these cities, which include such underperformers as Albany, New York, and Dayton, Ohio, have increased their job totals by about 16 percent ... Jobs data going back 20 years, to 1983, show that Florida’s top ten cities as a group actually do worse, lagging behind the national economy by several percentage points, while his so-called least creative cities continue to look like jobs powerhouses, expanding 60 percent faster than his most creative cities during that same period.

And so forth. Read the whole thing before commenting on other factors, please. What is obvious to me is that the artsy, diverse, culturally vibrant atmosphere Florida advocates is an effect of wealth, not a cause.

Senator Clinton gets into the retro-craze -- albeit a bit late -- with a stunningly familiar proposal:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to focus this year on improving health care, beginning with a proposal designed to modernize the sharing of medical information nationwide.

Hmmm, where have we seen that before? Oh right, HillaryCare, circa 1993. (No real links available because the web wasn't quite up-to-snuff a decade ago.) So what's the deal?

The senator, who as first lady presided over a failed effort at health care overhaul, told a gathering of about 100 New York City health care leaders at a Manhattan hospital on Monday that the current system "often seems fragmented, redundant, inefficient and bureaucratic."

Right, unlike government programs which aren't at all fragmented, redundant, inefficient, or bureaucratic. C'mon, the rebuttal writes itself here, Senator.

"Americans need a new, modern, 21st-century version of health care delivery, based on the premise of information in the hands of the right people at the right time," Clinton said.

The right people: government workers. The right time: all the time.

Clinton's legislation would create a nationwide electronic system to enable American health providers to share health records.

Some doctors, hospitals and pharmacies already use electronic health records in areas like paperless prescriptions. But electronic medical records aren't widely used, and Clinton says a government-created system with special standards could change that.

Or it could funnel billions of dollars into the pockets of her supporters with no discernable gain for taxpayers. There are so many things it could do, I suggest we look at past and present government programs to get an idea of the likely results. Wait, "past" government programs? My mistake, government programs never actually disappear.

Clinton, D-N.Y., fought unsuccessfully a decade ago to expand affordable health care. The initiative died after industry interests and many members of Congress resisted to what they called a confusing bureaucracy.

The AP can't resist spinning: "affordable health care"? Affordable to whom? I can afford health care right now, as can the vast majority of Americans who are insured, as can the vast majority of Americans who are uninsured and spend their money on other things. What's really meant is "cheaper health care", which isn't even true, because what that means is health care for poor people subsidized by those of us who pay taxes. It won't get cheaper, the costs will just be pushed onto people other than the recipients of the benefits.

Clinton has said she learned lessons from the failure.

Such as? I'd love to hear more about what she's learned.

Anyway, no one wants poor people dying from exposure in the streets. For one thing, it's bad for business, and unless it's really cold outside they start to smell. Seriously though, does anyone really think there are poor kids who don't get essential medical care in America? Nonsense. There are free clinics all over the place, there's Medicare, emergency rooms, and people can always take out loans and pay for care on credit. People put new TVs on their credit cards, why not health care for their kids? The only circumstances where people go without essential care are if their parents are too lazy/stupid/irresponsible to take them to see the doctor, or if they're somehow incapacitated by alcohol, drugs, or functional insanity.

In the first case, those kids should be taken from their parents and put in minimum security orphanariums, and the parents should be sold off as slave labor where they'd at least become somewhat productive members of society. In the second, taking mentally ill people off the streets is one abandoned function of government I'd be in favor of restoring.

Here's the story, let's see what's in it.

Civil rights activist Al Sharpton forced Dean to acknowledge Sunday that no blacks or Hispanics served in his cabinet during 12 years as governor.

First off, it isn't surprising to me that Howard Dean didn't have any blacks or Hispanics in his cabinet during the 12 years he was governor of Vermont. According to the US Census Bureau QuickFacts on Vermont, only 1.4% of Vermonters are black or Hispanic; non-Hispanic whites make up 96.2% of the state's population. Considering blacks and Hispanics combine to make up 24.8% of the US population, this disparity is obviously due to racism and the national government should start an expensive program to relocate persons-of-color to Vermont as soon as possible. Dean, however, doesn't take advantage of this obvious angle and instead offers a tangentially-related defense:

Dean responded, "I will take a back seat to no one in my commitment to civil rights in the United States of America."

I'm not exactly sure how supporting civil rights relates to appointing minorities to cabinet positions, and I'm not aware of any mainstream politicians who are not committed to civil rights. It's interesting to note that when politicians want to make a vague throw-away answer sound more impressive they tend to use the full name of our country, rather than simply "America" or "the US".

Meanwhile, Senator John Edwards appears to be a bit confused, mistaking the Iowa Democratic caucuses or the general election.

"We're past all this preliminary stuff. It's time to choose a president," Edwards said.

Not quite yet -- let's get some nominees first. But I like your enthusiasm!

Dean's got some conflicting budget ideas.

Dean revealed some clues to his plan to redistribute the burden for paying taxes away from the middle class. He said he examining a way to increase corporate taxes and perhaps cut payroll - or Social Security - taxes.

Dean thinks he's got a winning strategy here: most voters are middle class, and they're likely to want to vote all the tax burden onto other people. Like, uh, corporations! Which are... owned (through stock) by the middle class, and which are patronized primarily by the middle class. I've said it before, corporate taxes are smoke and mirrors, and every dime a corporation pays in taxes comes from a real human being's pocket.

Cutting payroll taxes seems like a Bad Idea, considering that the Social Security system is already set to go bankrupt long before people my age retire. Reducing the inflow of money would obviously dry up the well even sooner. But not in Dean-land, the Wackiest Place on Earth.

He said his first priority would be to balance the budget, which will require repealing all of President Bush's tax cuts. Gephardt challenged him about whether he could cut payroll taxes without harming Social Security.

"I think cutting payroll taxes is not a bad idea," Dean said. "It's certainly something we're going to look at. Under no circumstances will we take the money to cut payroll taxes out of the Social Security trust fund. That would be absurd."

My understanding of the payroll taxes is that all that money goes to Social Security. The only way to cut payroll taxes without hurting Social Security would be to divert money from the federal treasury into the trust fund... thereby destroying the myth that Social Security and Medicare payments are not taxes. I also like payroll taxes because they're the flattest tax we've got, hitting everyone's first ~$80,000 of income at the same rate.

Then there's this colorful line from the article.

Racial politics have not been prominent in the snow-white confines of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Why do I doubt that anyone will be writing about "coal-black" or "sand-yellow" voters?

I'd rather have no one show up than these three jokers.

Three candidates for the Democratic nomination for president debated yesterday in the District, agreeing that the city should be granted statehood, and that front-runner Howard Dean should have shown up. ...

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois and Mr. Sharpton criticized and mocked Mr. Dean several times for his absence.

Sounds like an awesome debate!

The three candidates agreed on nearly every topic, from health care and education to the war in Iraq to statehood.

Or maybe not....

Then again, is does sound like they had a pretty good time.

He [The Rev. Al Sharpton] then plopped down into Mr. Dean's empty seat and mocked the candidate's angry-look and finger-wagging style.

Sounds like a hoot! Meanwhile, some wacky ideas were tossed around.

But Mrs. Moseley Braun set herself apart from the others when she said she would sign a bill to end the District's gun ban and that she would oppose a commuter tax on residents of Maryland and Virginia who work in the District.

"I have always supported reasonable gun control," she said, "but I think under the Constitution people have the right and should be able to have guns."

You think so? Amazing.

Mr. Kucinich, who several times said he lives and works in the District, had to ask the panel what the commuter tax would do, before saying he would support it.

Mr. Kucinich supports a tax? Who'd'a thunk it? He doesn't seem to see any limits to his power as a legislator.

Mr. Kucinich, at a rally after the debate at Mimi's Bistro in Northwest, said he planned to introduce a bill in the next session of Congress to give D.C. two senators and a voting representative in the House.

Last time I checked, Congress doesn't have the authority to just arbitrarily bestow Senators and Representatives on people. At least The Rev. Al Sharpton wants to go all the way and make DC into a state; unfortunately, he isn't as familiar with the Constitution as Sen. Braun.

The most prominent issue was statehood for the District, which all three candidates supported.

"I would issue an executive order calling for statehood, and challenge the Congress to stop me," Mr. Sharpton said.

Uh, right.

President Bush has released some details of his proposed immigration reform package (here's my reaction to the initial announcement), and maybe I'm obtuse but I don't see how these reforms would be any different than current work-visa programs. Except, of course, that currently-illegal aliens would be able to apply, whereas they can't apply for visas.

I'm not sure how much of an effect these changes would even have (which is good enough reason to oppose them -- pointless laws are bad). Illegal aliens who register would then be subject to deportation after a few years, and we'd know they're here, so how many do you really think will sign up?

One of the biggest flaws I can see is that the system would require employers to "show no Americans wanted the jobs being applied for" -- this requirement belies a staggering ignorance of basic economics. Americans will do any job, for the right price. If no one wants a job, that means you aren't offering enough money. This new rule sounds like it would allow companies to offer jobs for unrealistically low wages, and then import workers from other countries to fill the purposefully vacant positions.

Foreigners would obviously leap at the opportunity to come to America legally, no matter what job they're offered or what the pay is. No nuclear engineers are willing to work for minimum wage? Just get on the phone with India or Pakistan and bring 'em over by the boatload.