I commented in passing on the Administration’s apparent disinterest in proving more reconstruction funds for Iraq. I was temperate in my comments in part because I wasn’t sure what, exactly was going on – the budget process is opaque and complex on good days.

But an article in today’s LA Times (yes, I still subscribe) popped a few gaskets.

After more than 2 1/2 years of sputtering reconstruction work, the United States’ “Marshall Plan” to rebuild this war-torn country is drawing to a close this year with much of its promise unmet and no plans to extend its funding.

The $18.6 billion approved by Congress in 2003 will be spent by the end of this year, officials here say. Foreign governments have given only a fraction of the billions they pledged two years ago.

With the country still a shambles, U.S. officials are promoting a tough-love vision of reconstruction that puts the burden on the Iraqi people.

“The world is a competitive place,” Tom Delare, economics counselor at the U.S. Embassy, said this month during a news briefing. “You have to convince the investor that it is worth his while to put his money in your community.”

In the past, as Atrios and Yglesias and others have made the claim that the war was a wrong choice because of the ineptitude of the Bush administration, I stepped up and defended the administration as far from perfect, but generally moving in the right direction.

This decision is a move in such a wrong direction that I’m speechless. Fortunately, I’m typing, not talking.
Over and over what I and others have said – and what I have appreciated President Bush as saying – is that “We’re In Until We Win.” Our opponents cannot simply bloody our troops and sit and wait until we get bored with our venture and leave.

This message – “Oh, we’ll leave our troops in, but sound fiscal policy prevents us for doing anything to reduce the numbers of people shooting at them.” – isn’t ‘bizarre’ as I characterized it before; it’s delusional. And I don’t use a profane adjective here only because I’m turning this post into an email and sending it to the White House (at comments@whitehouse.gov and Vice_President@whitehouse.gov), and I’m going to ask each of you to send your own email excoriating this decision as well.

It is a delusional decision because it damages the ability of the Iraqis who have -literally – put their lives in our hands to trust us to complete the job; it is a delusional decision because it sends a clear message to those who we are fighting that we are only half-serious about this effort; it is a delusional decision because it tells our troops, who sit in harm’s way in Iraq that we are not serious about winning this conflict.

If there was a way I could sputter with outrage in type, I’d be doing it now.

…is not just a river in Egypt, here’s lemming-like partisan Duncan Black on Abramoff:

Democrats took no Abramoff campaign money. None.

Taking money from Indian tribes is not in and of itself illegal or unethical. Indian tribe money is not implicitly dirty money.

Taking money from Indian tribes who were bilked and cheated by Abramoff does not mean that you yourself are guilty of bilking or cheating those tribes.

This stuff is not complicated. It’s very simple. People working in Washington for a long time certainly understand these things. Why they pretend to not understand them is a mystery.

Look. Abramoff was a GOP creature, without any plausible question or exception. He was a part and parcel of the immoral ‘K Street project,’ without question or exception. The GOP legislators, consultants, and staff who dined at his table deserve what they are going to get.

But if you want to presume that the Republican legislators who got his personal cash were somehow less filthy than the Democratic ones who took his client’s cash, you’re morally blind.

And if you don’t think that’s how the American people will see it, you’re politically blind as well.

Then again, I am talking about Atrios…

I can’t figure it out. At what point does actually winning become a goal for these self-professed partisans? What, exactly, is the attraction of the cliff to them?

[Hiltzik replies here. Note my comment, which points out that he didn’t read what I wrote.]

[Note the update below…]

My esteemed colleague (can you tell I was listening to the Alito hearings?) Michael Hiltzik has a column up in the Los Angeles Time business section today (he is the business columnist, after all) in which he explains that the Governor’s budget proposal can only be made fair by – wait for it – raising the income taxes on the highest-income Californians.

Other groups drafted to subsidize the wealthy include the disabled and poorest of the poor. The governor wants to delay a cost-of-living increase due next year for recipients of supplemental security income by 18 months, to July 2008. These recipients are, by definition, needy seniors, the blind, and the disabled. The proposal would deprive them of a total of $233 million, keeping the money for the general fund, over two budget years.

Another $307 million would be saved for the rich by withholding cost of living increases, or COLAs, scheduled to be paid to recipients of CalWORKS grants. The recipients generally are poor families with children.

My first post on Hiltzik dinged him for making exactly this argument back in November of 04.

The problem with doing this is that California is already highly dependent on high-income filers, and their income is variable.

In 2003, (the last year that the FTB has an Annual Report for -note, pdf) the top 5% of filers paid 58.8 of the personal income tax.

Since the personal income tax represented $33.7B of the $73.6B in revenues in the 03 budget, high income filers represented 58.8% of 45.8% of the budget, or 26.9% of the annual budget.

Since this represents 680,000 returns of the 13.6 million filed, it’s fair to say that half a million households provide about a quarter of the revenue to the state.

I think this is an amazingly bad idea. I don’t think that this is a bad idea because it’s unfair to the half-million rich households. I think it’s a bad idea because it builds insane levels of volatility into the state revenue stream.

Looking back on 2003 again, we note a few interesting things (go to page 14):

Exhibit Table B-1 Comparison by Taxable Years shows that, from taxable year 2000 to taxable year 2002, the total Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) declined from $829.5 billion in 2000, to $754.1 billion in 2001, to $731.2 billion in 2002, or an overall reduction of 11.9%. Consequently, the amount of personal income tax dollars deposited to the General Fund declined by 29.2%, from $40.4 billion in taxable year 2000, to $31.3 billion in 2001, to $28.6 billion in taxable year 2002.

The numbers of returns reporting incomes of $200,000 and above also declined between taxable year 2000 and 2002, as illustrated by the following table:

2000 = 414,746
2001 = 371,369
2002 = 349,845

There’s your fiscal crisis right there.

There’s an interesting research project, for someone with more time than I have, to decompose the state revenues for the past decade and really get to the bottom of this.

But by following Hiltzik’s plan, the state is in the position of a farmer with one cow. As long as the cow is healthy, all is well. But as soon as the cow gets sick…

Now taxing the hell out of the Malibu Mafia to pay for improving healthcare for the poor emotionally hits the all the right notes for me (I’m the Armed Liberal, remember). But I’m grown-up enough to notice that what feels good emotionally doesn’t necessarily make for good policy.

I wrote up some notions on tax policy back a few years ago. The notions are kind of wacky, but at least they make more sense than those Hiltzik proposed in our regional paper of record.

Hiltzik does make several other points in the column; the core is that we can’t do all the things we need to without some measure of “fiscal pain.” Since his previous columns have suggested that spending is fixed (or must grow) the fiscal pain he has in mind is simple – raise taxes. And particularly, raise taxes on the half-million.

That’s not fiscal pain, that’s fiscal suicide.

States don’t make spending decisions nimbly. There is very little in the state budget that can readily be cut back midyear when times get tough. And I won’t even talk about the farcical inability of the legislature to even pretend they are fiscally responsible.

Update: Check out the Legislative Analyst’s document on revenue volatility to get a sense of how significant a problem it is here in California.
–

Rocket scientist Duncan Black points with thoughtless glee to the fact that the Iraqis are – a month after their election – trying to work out a government.

Start Wearing Purple

Um, just asking, but it’s been almost a month since the Iraq election and we still don’t know what the final outcome is?

Not that he’s forgotten it – I mean how many national elections cause people to rend their garments for years on end – but what exactly were the headlines in the New York Times like on December 5, 2000?

The politics (and society and economics) of Iraq are far messier than I wish they were. Reality is kind of like that.

And there’s debate about what’s going on and what to do that’s worth having. But because everything in BlackWorld is filtered through one lens – “How can it help my bosses at Media Matters kick the Republicans out” – we get a characteristic cheap shot instead, and a reminder of why it is that Duncan – and to and extent the masters who pay him to blog – aren’t useful participants in that debate.

I genuinely wish they were. Bummer, I guess.

Over on the Global Voices list, two things worth of note.
They are proposing legislation which would make repressing information on the Internet more difficult, as follows:

* No US company would be allowed to host e-mail servers in a ‘repressive’ country (as defined by a State DSepartment index of freedom of speech); this would require that legal moves to obtain email content or identity would have to be done in US courts.

* No search engine hosted in the US would be allowed to block a list of key words like “freedom” and “democracy.”

* No US Internet company would be allowed to host servers originating content in a repressive country.

* No US company would be allowed to sell filtering technology without holes for the above list of protected words.

* Exports of Internet surveillance technology would require a Department of Commerce approval (much like weapons).

* Training foreign nationals in techniques to censor or surveil on the Internet would require Department of Commerce approval as above.

Personally, I can think of some highway-sized holes in this, and that the likelihood of something like this passing Congress – and the standing up in the courts – is vanishing small. But these aren’t bad principles at all, and I’d love to see some way of pushing toward them.

Microsoft and Yahoo are very bad corporate citizens for what they have done, as is Cisco (and I’m sure a host of other Internet names). As I make purchasing (and surfing) decisions in the future, I’ll be keeping that in mind.

I’ll make a suggestion; local governments (Los Angeles, San Francisco and Berkeley come to mind here in California) are notorious for wanting to pass symbolic foreign-policy measures. Here’s one that could have some real impact: Don’t buy products from vendors who do bad things for freedom. Any local activists want to take this on?

Next, there’s also a discussion in which pro-free expression activists are uncomfortable accepting aid from Spirit of America, which is perceived as problematic because of its ties to the Bush Administration and some unfortunate conflicts of interest by the founder.

I’m generally supportive of SoA and the Bush Administration, so that kind of falls on deaf ears here, but I’ll suggest a broader and simpler rule when deciding on projects and allies:

“When we’re done, will more people’s voices be freely heard?”

Kind of a one-step test.

I’m just swamped, as Humperdinck once said; work, family, a major house project, and a production of the Ring (that I actually have very little to do with except worry about).

But that’s not necessarily a good excuse.

Over at Crooked Timber, John Quiggin dings us, as I think he should have, for not mentioning the Administration’s bizarre decision not to fund Iraqi reconstruction in the current cycle.

There may be a valid and reasonable explanation for it that I just haven’t seen (if you’ve got it, please feel free to put it into the comments); but just as I noted on the NSA issue, it’s horrible optics at a time when appearances matter a lot. And that’s forgetting the very real and negative consequences of projects that won’t get done because there are no funds for them.
I don’t get it. I think that Bush is a masterful politician who has badly misplayed the domestic hand on the issue of this war. I can’t help imagining that a President more worried about victory, and less worried about midterm political advantage could have coopted much of the Democratic Party and left the Kossacks out on a limb by themselves. But we go to war with the President we’ve got, as they say.

We’re involved in card game where the size of our poke matters; as soon as it becomes obvious that we lack the political means to see the game out and simply outsit the other bastards in the game, we’re likely to lose very damn quickly.

Losing in this case would, I believe be catastrophic (I know there are some who will disagree).

So it matters a lot that we not only plan stick it out, but are widely seen to plan to stick it out.

That doesn’t speak to exact troop levels, or the mechanics of our negotiations with the various factions within Iraq. But a few hundred million more right now would send the clear message that we’re in the game, for the rest of the night, and not counting our chips and nervously looking at our watch.

I’ve seen am important part of our role here as keeping the President’s butt in the chair, and I certainly don’t think that now is the time to stop.

OK, I take back everything bad I’ve said about the L.A. Times.

They’ve just put up a laudatory article about the Ring production I’m peripherally involved in, so they’ve bought a bunch of goodwill. Until Hiltzik writes something silly again.

Call it an opera-tizer. With an intimate, condensed version of Wagner’s ‘Ring’ cycle, Long Beach Opera aims to please purists and tempt the wary as it ushers in a series of Southland stagings of the saga.

Yes, it’s a “Ring”-let, a pocket “Ring,” the Short Cycle, the Semi-Cycle. And the condensation — which will be performed twice in its entirety, in English instead of German, over two weekends, next Saturday and Sunday and Jan. 21 and 22 — is, of course, a great way to Ring in the new year.

But then, untold opera fans have deemed “The Ring” a life-enhancing experience since 1876, when it was first performed in its entirety at the theater in Bayreuth, Germany, that Wagner built specifically to showcase it.

So I guess I’ll keep my subscription for another month or so…seriously, click over to the Long Beach Opera website, and if you have any interest at all, order some tickets. There aren’t many of them, and I think with this it will sell out.

Democratic blogger Josh Marshall is wondering about the tepid Democratic reaction to Abramoff.

As a political party, you can’t run on corruption if you’re not running for reform. But as near as I can tell there is no Democratic reform proposal in Congress. Maybe this or that representative or senator has some proposal, but nothing that the opposition party in any way, as a whole, has gotten behind.

So where’s the plan?

Today, the Democrats made a proposal – for an investigation.

Rep. Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat, said lobbyists had multiplied by the thousands in recent years to the point where there were now 63 of them for every lawmaker. She said they were using their campaign donations to influence policy and even write laws.

Slaughter called on the House ethics committee to investigate corruption cases involving lawmakers with links to Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who pleaded guilty this week in a U.S. corruption probe.

“The House ethics committee, after a year of inaction, must get to work immediately to investigate pending ethics and corruption cases in the House, including those involving members with ties to Jack Abramoff,” she said in the Democrats’ weekly radio address.

Let me make a few suggestions. I do think that this is an opportunity for the Democrats – as the party out of power – to make a stand. I don’t delude myself enough to believe that they will make enough of one to radically change the dysfunctional, corrupt system in place.

But there is an opportunity to make things better.

How do they get enough public support? Simple. Make it clear that it is a sea change in the way the Democrats do business, and that it isn’t simply a convenient stick to get Democrats closer to the trough.

Start by picking the most corrupt members of the Democratic party and busting them.

John Moran (D-MBNA) comes immediately to mind.

Once they show a willingness to clean their own house, they’ll own the political high ground and will be able to make a case that what they are interested in is drying up the rivers of cash, not just getting themselves a bigger spot on the bank.

Michael Yon, the citizen-journalist, has a call out on his website for volunteers.

…what I can do is provide the groundwork to assemble a group of retired military personnel who can read the stories, with their radar for embellishment and operational security set high, and select which submissions to publish. Over time, a more comprehensive and accurate picture of what is happening on the ground can emerge.

The Veteran Volunteers would need to organize themselves, as I will neither moderate nor provide any assistance other than making a forum available. A few key volunteers can assist with building the virtual organization that will be need to be in place before we can issue that Call for Stories.

Now is the time to Call for Volunteers. There will be no reward for anyone other than to know that important information is flowing, and that our troops on the ground will finally have their own voice in a forum that is widely read. It is important that the volunteers have much military experience so that they can better judge what sounds credible and most important to publish.

If you meet his requirements, drop him an email at michaelyonmagazine@hotmail.com with “Volunteer” in the subject line.

I can’t wait to see what comes out of this.

I just saw it. I’d blogged about him two Veterans Days ago, and tried to explain the impact that learning his story had on me.

In case you’ve forgotten, he was the hero of My Lai – arguably the darkest day in the history of the modern U.S. military.

He put himself and his men between American troops and the villagers they obviously intended to murder. He threatened American troops with his own crew’s weapons, and arranged for the other helicopters in his flight to evacuate a group of villagers, and then for his own crewman to rescue an uninjured small child from a pile of bodies.

When he returned to base, he reported the massacre; his reports were covered up.

On the worst day in modern history for the U.S. military, a few soldiers covered themselves with honor.

As I noted in the post, reading his story changed my attitude toward the U.S. military, and indirectly, probably started me on the part to where I am today.

I owe him an immense debt, both personally and as a citizen.