Warranted Wiretaps

Here, this will make everything clear for my friend Joshua Holland:

The regression model uses dummy variables to allow the estimated base level of turnout and the estimated effects of the machine 3 allocations and the polls open elapsed times to vary across the three subsets of precincts.

Specically, using Ai to denote the proportion African American in precinct i, I dene two dummy variables using the following rules:
LOWi = (1; if Ai < 0:0170; otherwise MEDi = ( 1; if 0:017  Ai  :15650; otherwise LOWi = 1 only if precinct i is in the set of precincts that have the lowest proportion African American, and MEDi = 1 only if precinct i is in the set of precincts that have an intermediate
proportion African American. Using MRi to denote the natural logarithm of the voting machines per registered voter ratio and Pi to denote the polls open elapsed time, the linear predictor in the
model may be written as follows. Zi = b0 + b1Pi + b2MRi + LOWi(b3 + b4Pi + b5MRi) + MEDi(b6 + b7Pi + b8MRi) + b9Ai :
With this formulation, the estimated effects for each set of precincts may be recovered as follows: Zi = 8>< >:
b0 + b3 + (b1 + b4)Pi + (b2 + b5)MRi + b9Ai; low proportion African American b0 + b6 + (b1 + b7)Pi + (b2 + b8)MRi + b9Ai; medium proportion African American b0 + b1Pi + b2MRi + b9Ai;...

from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/franklin2.pdf

Standard & Poor's Explains the U.S. Downgrade (Press Conference Call)

In a press conference call this morning, the credit rating agency Standard & Poor's explained its decision to downgrade the United States' credit rating from "AAA: to "AA+, outlook negative" for the first time since it began issuing "sovereign" credit ratings seventy years ago. The entire audio of the call can be heard here:

 

S&P call 2011.08.08

At one point, David Beers, S&P's Global Head of Sovereign Ratings, explained S&P's "upside scenario" -- specifically, that the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy (but not the middle class) would expire in 2013. According to Beers, merely executing the current budget deal plus allowing those tax cuts to expire would be enough for the U.S. to move from AA-outlook negative to AA-outlook stable (the necessary step before a healthier economy could return it to AAA status). You can hear that portion of his discussion here:

 

S&P call 2011.08.08.snip

My (frankly polemic) analysis of the S&P downgrade can be read in several posts here.

I'd be grateful if anyone who carefully annotates or transcribes the call would add notes or links to the comments, below.

 

Standard & Poor's "Downgrade" Press Releases, in Full

On August 5, Standard & Poor's downgraded the United States' credit rating for the first time since it began issuing such ratings 70 years ago. S&P issued one press release announcing the downgrade, then a second one shortly after midnight East Coast time (ie, on Aug. 6) to answer some questions that had been raised about its methodology. Below, both press releases are reproduced in full:

FIRST PRESS RELEASE (Aug. 5, 2011):

United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' Due To Political Risks, Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative

 We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed the 'A-1+' short-term rating.

• We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative.
• The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.
• More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
• Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.
• The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

TORONTO  Aug. 5, 2011--Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said today that it lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA'. Standard & Poor's also said that the outlook on the long-term rating is negative. At the same time, Standard & Poor's affirmed its 'A-1+' short-term rating on the U.S. In addition, Standard & Poor's removed both ratings from CreditWatch, where they were placed on July 14, 2011, with negative implications.

 The transfer and convertibility (T&C) assessment of the U.S.--our assessment of the likelihood of official interference in the ability of U.S.-based public- and private-sector issuers to secure foreign exchange for debt service--remains 'AAA'.

 We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

 Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent with our criteria (see "Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions," June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). Nevertheless, we view the U.S. federal government's other economic, external, and monetary credit attributes, which form the basis for the sovereign rating, as broadly unchanged.

 We have taken the ratings off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of the Budget Control Act Amendment of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate threat of payment default posed by delays to raising the government's debt ceiling. In addition, we believe that the act provides sufficient clarity to allow us to evaluate the likely course of U.S. fiscal policy for the next few years.

 The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

 Our opinion is that elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a 'AAA' rating and with 'AAA' rated sovereign peers (see Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions," June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). In our view, the difficulty in framing a consensus on fiscal policy weakens the government's ability to manage public finances and diverts attention from the debate over how to achieve more balanced and dynamic economic growth in an era of fiscal stringency and private-sector deleveraging (ibid). A new political consensus might (or might not) emerge after the 2012 elections, but we believe that by then, the government debt burden will likely be higher, the needed medium-term fiscal adjustment potentially greater, and the inflection point on the U.S. population's demographics and other age-related spending drivers closer at hand (see "Global Aging 2011: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Likely Cost Even More Green, Now," June 21, 2011).

 Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing.

 The act calls for as much as $2.4 trillion of reductions in expenditure growth over the 10 years through 2021. These cuts will be implemented in two steps: the $917 billion agreed to initially, followed by an additional $1.5 trillion that the newly formed Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is supposed to recommend by November 2011. The act contains no measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them.

 The act further provides that if Congress does not enact the committee's recommendations, cuts of $1.2 trillion will be implemented over the same time period. The reductions would mainly affect outlays for civilian discretionary spending, defense, and Medicare. We understand that this fall-back mechanism is designed to encourage Congress to embrace a more balanced mix of expenditure savings, as the committee might recommend.

 We note that in a letter to Congress on Aug. 1, 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated total budgetary savings under the act to be at least $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years relative to its baseline assumptions. In updating our own fiscal projections, with certain modifications outlined below, we have relied on the CBO's latest "Alternate Fiscal Scenario" of June 2011, updated to include the CBO assumptions contained in its Aug. 1 letter to Congress. In general, the CBO's "Alternate Fiscal Scenario" assumes a continuation of recent Congressional action overriding existing law.

 We view the act's measures as a step toward fiscal consolidation. However, this is within the framework of a legislative mechanism that leaves open the details of what is finally agreed to until the end of 2011, and Congress and the Administration could modify any agreement in the future. Even assuming that at least $2.1 trillion of the spending reductions the act envisages are implemented, we maintain our view that the U.S. net general government debt burden (all levels of government combined, excluding liquid financial assets) will likely continue to grow. Under our revised base case fiscal scenario--which we consider to be consistent with a 'AA+' long-term rating and a negative outlook--we now project that net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 79% in 2015 and 85% by 2021. Even the projected 2015 ratio of sovereign indebtedness is high in relation to those of peer credits and, as noted, would continue to rise under the act's revised policy settings.

 Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.

 Our revised upside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as consistent with the outlook on the 'AA+' long-term rating being revised to stable--retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating. In this scenario, we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021.

 Our revised downside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as being consistent with a possible further downgrade to a 'AA' long-term rating--features less-favorable macroeconomic assumptions, as outlined below and also assumes that the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2 trillion) that the act calls for does not occur. This scenario also assumes somewhat higher nominal interest rates for U.S. Treasuries. We still believe that the role of the U.S. dollar as the key reserve currency confers a government funding advantage, one that could change only slowly over time, and that Fed policy might lean toward continued loose monetary policy at a time of fiscal tightening. Nonetheless, it is possible that interest rates could rise if investors re-price relative risks. As a result, our alternate scenario factors in a 50 basis point (bp)-75 bp rise in 10-year bond yields relative to the base and upside cases from 2013 onwards. In this scenario, we project the net public debt burden would rise from 74% of GDP in 2011 to 90% in 2015 and to 101% by 2021.

Our revised scenarios also take into account the significant negative revisions to historical GDP data that the Bureau of Economic Analysis announced on July 29. From our perspective, the effect of these revisions underscores two related points when evaluating the likely debt trajectory of the U.S. government. First, the revisions show that the recent recession was deeper than previously assumed, so the GDP this year is lower than previously thought in both nominal and real terms. Consequently, the debt burden is slightly higher. Second, the revised data highlight the sub-par path of the current economic recovery when compared with rebounds following previous post-war recessions. We believe the sluggish pace of the current economic recovery could be consistent with the experiences of countries that have had financial crises in which the slow process of debt deleveraging in the private sector leads to a persistent drag on demand. As a result, our downside case scenario assumes relatively modest real trend GDP growth of 2.5% and inflation of near 1.5% annually going forward.

 When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with 'AAA' long-term ratings that we view as relevant peers--Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.--we also observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the U.S.'s net public debt is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we estimate that these five sovereigns will have net general government debt to GDP ratios this year ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the U.S. debt burden at 74%. By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP ratios will range between 30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with the U.S. debt burden at 79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to decline, either before or by 2015.

 Standard & Poor's transfer T&C assessment of the U.S. remains 'AAA'. Our T&C assessment reflects our view of the likelihood of the sovereign restricting other public and private issuers' access to foreign exchange needed to meet debt service. Although in our view the credit standing of the U.S. government has deteriorated modestly, we see little indication that official interference of this kind is entering onto the policy agenda of either Congress or the Administration. Consequently, we continue to view this risk as being highly remote.

 The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction--independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners--lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government's debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'.

 

On Monday, we will issue separate releases concerning affected ratings in the funds, government-related entities, financial institutions, insurance, public finance, and structured finance sectors.

RELATED CRITERIA AND RESEARCH

 United States of America 'AAA/A-1+' Ratings Placed On CreditWatch Negative On Rising Risk Of Policy Stalemate, July 14, 2011

• U.S. Weekly Financial Notes: Soft Patch Or Quicksand?, Aug. 5, 2011
• Sovereign Government Rating Methodology And Assumptions, June 30, 2011
• 2011 Midyear Credit Outlook: Unresolved Economic And Regulatory Issues Loom Large, June 22, 2011
• Global Aging 2011: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Likely Cost Even More Green, Now, June 21, 2011
• United States of America 'AAA/A-1+' Rating Affirmed; Outlook Revised To Negative, April 18, 2011
• Fiscal Challenges Weighing On The 'AAA' Sovereign Credit Rating On The Government Of The United States, April 18, 2011
• A Closer Look At The Revision Of The Outlook On The U.S. Government Rating, April 18, 2011
• Banking Industry Country Risk Assessments, March 8, 2011
• Behind The Political Brinkmanship Of Raising The U.S. Debt Ceiling, Jan. 18, 2011
• U.S. Government Cost To Resolve And Relaunch Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Could Approach $700 Billion, Nov. 4, 2010
• Global Aging 2010: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Cost A Lot More Green, Oct. 25, 2010,
• Après Le Déluge, The U.S. Dollar Remains The Key International Currency," March 10, 2010
• Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment: United States of America, Feb. 1, 2010

 

This unsolicited rating(s) was initiated by Standard & Poor's. It may be based solely on publicly available information and may or may not involve the participation of the issuer. Standard & Poor's has used information from sources believed to be reliable based on standards established in our Credit Ratings Information and Data Policy but does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of any information used.

SECOND PRESS RELEASE (August 6, 2011):

Standard & Poor’s Clarifies Assumption Used On Discretionary Spending Growth

 New York, Aug. 6, 2011. In response to questions, Standard & Poor’s today said that the ratings decision to lower the long-term rating to AA+ from AAA was not affected by the change of assumptions regarding the pace of discretionary spending growth.  In the near term horizon to 2015, the U.S. net general government debt is projected to be $14.5 trillion (79% of 2015 GDP) versus $14.7 trillion (81% of 2015 GDP) with the initial assumption. 

 We used the Alternative Fiscal Scenario of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which includes an assumption that government discretionary appropriations will grow at the same rate as nominal GDP.  In further discussions between Standard & Poor’s and Treasury, we determined that the CBO’s Baseline Scenario, which assumes discretionary appropriations grow at a lower rate, would be more consistent with CBO assessment of the savings set out by the Budget Control Act of 2011. 

 Our ratings are determined primarily using a 3-5 year time horizon. 

 In the near term horizon, by 2015, the U.S. net general government debt with the new assumptions were projected to be $14.5 trillion (79% of 2015 GDP) versus $14.7 trillion (81% of 2015 GDP) with the initial assumption – a difference of $345 billion. 

 In taking a longer term horizon of 10 years, the U.S. net general government debt level with the current assumptions would be $20.1 trillion (85% of 2021 GDP).  With the original assumptions, the debt level was projected to be $22.1 trillion (93% of 2021 GDP). 

 The primary focus remained on the current level of debt, the trajectory of debt as a share of the economy, and the lack of apparent willingness of elected officials as a group to deal with the U.S. medium term fiscal outlook.  None of these key factors was meaningfully affected by the assumption revisions to the assumed growth of discretionary outlays and thus had no impact on the rating decision.

Financial Heavyweights Tell G.O.P. to Raise Taxes -- But Are Lawmakers Listening?

As the president and Congressional Republicans squabble over how to avoid a default on the nation's financial obligations, the financial world's heavy hitters are increasingly signaling that they want the G.O.P. to embrace the $4 trillion "Grand Bargain" preferred by Barack Obama, including revenue increases that some Republicans consider politically suicidal. Yet G.O.P. lawmakers don't seem to be listening, steering instead toward a politically easier solution that appeases the Tea Party but may not be enough to avoid economic catastrophe.

Late Thursday, the credit-rating agency Standard & Poor's released a statement announcing that merely raising the debt ceiling will not be enough to prevent a downgrade of the United States' credit rating for the first time in seventy years, potentially causing the interest rate on both government and private debt to skyrocket and destabilizing the entire economy. Remarkably, the statement also prescribed the specific numbers and conditions that would allow the U.S. to avoid such a catastrophe: to ensure a stable credit rating, any deal between Obama and the Republicans must reduce debt by $4 trillion, should include some "mix" of spending cuts and tax increases, and must involve concessions by both sides (a strong hint that the G.O.P. must consider closing tax loopholes, as well as a repudiation of Eric Cantor's assertion that merely attending negotiations is the only concession the GOP intends to make).

In short, Standard & Poor's has put G.O.P. lawmakers on notice that if they take the easy way out instead of making the "Grand Bargain" that Obama has advocated for, including tax increases, they may be responsible for disrupting the U.S. economy.

The S&P statement clearly states that merely raising the debt ceiling, or implementing a deficit-reduction package in the $1-2 trillion range, will not be enough to prevent a costly rating downgrade, because it would show that the country is not serious about tackling the deficit:

"U.S. political debate is currently more focused on the need for medium-term fiscal consolidation than it has been for a decade. Based on this, we believe that an inability to reach an agreement now could indicate that an agreement will not be reached for several more years. We view an inability to timely agree and credibly implement medium-term fiscal consolidation policy as inconsistent with a 'AAA' sovereign rating...."

Standard & Poor's bombshell capped a week filled with communiques from the financial world telling politicians in general to stop posturing and Republicans in particular to be more flexible on taxes. On July 7, a blistering editorial in The Economist  took Republicans to the woodshed:

"[T]he Republicans are pushing things too far. Talks with the administration ground to a halt last month, despite an offer from the Democrats to cut at least $2 trillion and possibly much more out of the budget over the next ten years. Assuming that the recovery continues, that would be enough to get the deficit back to a prudent level. As The Economist went to press, Mr Obama seemed set to restart the talks.

"The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical."

The Economist even advocated for the tax hikes that Obama has demanded (and which many House Republicans have staked their political careers on refusing):

"This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

"And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer."

Last Tuesday, nearly 500 U.S. business leaders, including solidly conservative groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Financial Services Forum, signed a letter urging both sides to make "hard choices" to adopt a long-term solution, not just a temporary extension of the spending cap. The next day, the rating agency Moody's also warned of a downgrade unless lawmakers negotiated a "substantial and credible" debt-reduction deal.

Thursday, as Obama dismissed negotiators to decide over the weekend how they wanted to proceed, Standard & Poor's issued its warning to the federal government, then followed Friday with additional warning that it also may downgrade the credit ratings of several blue-chip financial firms that are heavily invested in U.S. Treasuries, including New York Life Insurance Co. and Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., simply because "no financial institution can carry a higher rating or outlook than its sovereign," and those of some other financial services organizations (including Federal Home Loan and Farm Credit System banks and the mortgage loan guarantee companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that have "direct links to, or reliance on, the federal government." Those warnings are likely to reverberate into the rest of the financial sector over the coming week.

Standard & Poor's remarkably prescriptive warnings, which sound more like World Bank admonishments to a fiscally irresponsible Third World nation than an assessment of the most secure investment on Earth, would seem to be the final blow to beleaguered Republicans' ability to resist any semblance of new taxes. And some senior Republican statesmen have, indeed, been trying to educate the party's junior members about the seriousness of the problem. Former Senate Budget Committee chairman Pete Domenici, who helped negotiate the nation's last balanced budget under President Bill Clinton, has teamed with former George H.W. Bush Treasury undersecretary Jay Powell to issue a report saying that tax purists like Minnesota congresswoman Michelle Bachmann are "wrong" and calling for Republicans to embrace some tax hikes. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, originally a Bush appointee, warned House Financial Services Committee that a failure of U.S. Treasury bonds "would throw shockwaves through the entire global financial system."

But the message does not seem to have penetrated the Republican caucus, which appears irreconcilably split between economic pragmatists and anti-tax ideologues and therefore is continuing to pursue economically inadequate, but politically palatable, solutions:

Asked by Obama Thursday to return by Saturday with at least a general idea of what direction they would like to pursue, House Republicans let the deadline slip and instead plan to spend the next week passing a "Cut, Cap & Balance" bill and balanced budget amendment that do not address the immediate problem and have no chance of passing the Democrat-controlled Senate. In the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) reportedly are continuing to work on a "hybrid" plan to temporarily raise the cap and enact smaller spending cuts without tax increases -- precisely the sort of plan that Standard & Poor's has said would result in a downgrade of America's debt -- plus a "debt commission" that would consider further deficit reduction measures later, which may or may not demonstrate the kind of "seriousness" that the financial markets say they want. And Senate Minority Whip John Kyl (R-AZ) continues to parrot anti-tax talking points, referring Sunday to the president's "absolute obsession with raising taxes" and "[j]ob-killing taxes." At the other extreme, budget hawk Tom Coburn (R-OK) said Sunday that he will offer a plan that closes some tax loopholes -- but his plan seeks to cut a massive $9 trillion by making punitive reductions to entitlements and social programs, and he acknowledges it stands no chance of passing.

The debt ceiling question has become a proxy war over the soul of the Republican Party, pitting old-school pragmatic conservatives who understand how complex the financial system is against anti-tax and Tea Party ideologues. Wall Street clearly is allying itself with the pragmatists, even if doing so means that Republicans may suffer electoral setbacks in 2012. Rank-and-file Republicans appear to be struggling to decide which of their impulses is stronger: the desire to help the economy recover, or the desire to retain control of the House of Representatives in the face of Tea Party wrath over tax hikes. If they follow their current course, and if Standard & Poor's keeps its promises, they may wind up with neither.

Ouch! Pelosi's Office Taunts G.O.P. Freshmen for Medicare Vote

AWESOME snark from Nancy Pelosi's press office in my inbox:

MEMORANDUM

To:  GOP Freshman

Fr:   Democratic Leader’s Press Office

Da:  May 13, 2011

Re:  Facing the Music – Suggested Songs for Your Trip Home

As you go home to face the music of your vote to end Medicare as we know it, we know you’re worried about what your constituents are going to say…for good reason. Here is a suggested playlist for your trip:

• Think – Aretha Franklin (1968)
• Desperado – Eagles (1982)
• Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word – Elton John (1976)
• Hard to Say I’m Sorry – Chicago (1982)
• I’m Sorry, So Sorry – Brenda Lee (1960)
• You Can’t Always Get What You Want – Rolling Stones (1969)
• You Got Another Thing Coming – Judas Priest (1982)
• Mama Said – The Shirelles (1961)
• Sorry (I Ran All the Way Home) – The Impalas (1959)
• Cryin' – Aerosmith (1993)
• Who’s Sorry Now? – Connie Francis (1958)
• Lost Cause – Beck (2002)
• I Learned the Hard Way – Sharon Jones and the Dap-Kings (2010)
• Not Ready To Make Nice – Dixie Chicks (2006)
• Bad Day – Daniel Powter (2005)
• Troubles – Alicia Keys (2001)

 When the music stops, you should try listening to the American people. 

/snark.

Birthers, Racism, and The White Man's Burden

It was an instantaneous truism to say that both the original "birther" claim and its debunking are a waste of journalistic breath, a distraction from issues that actually matter. And that's true, to a point: the "evidence" of Obama's supposed birth in Kenya or Indonesia was so patently false, and the political deviousness of the meme's promoters so obvious, that only an idiot could actually have believed the story. And, of course, the location of Obama's mother's womb vis-a-vis some arbitrary geopolitical boundary on the day he was born is irrelevant to his actual ability to govern.

But while the Birther conspiracy theory itself was nonsense, the mindset that embraced it is still with us; and while it will be good if we can put this particular story behind us, it is important that we not ignore its ramifications. There is a deeper truth to be found here, if we dig. The Birther movement illumined two perennial weaknesses of the modern conservative mind: its preference for faith over empiricism (there still are Birthers convinced that even the "long form" birth certificate is false), and its inescapable, but largely misunderstood, racism. It is the racism of Birthers and other Regressive conservatives that concerns me here: not the avaricious, self-serving racism of the slaveholder, but a superficially more benign, Kiplingesque form of racism, a racism dating back to the pre-Progressive era that modern conservatives long so fervently to return to.

Nearly all conservatives are offended by the suggestion that they are racist -- and their umbrage, generally, is sincere. Stephen Colbert's recurring joke about literally being colorblind aside, most Americans, conservative and liberal alike, still see and judge people by their color; as Malcolm Gladwell pointed out in "Blink," troubling but incontrovertible studies have demonstrated that blacks and whites alike seem neurologically incapable of setting aside their longstanding, socially-programmed biases no matter how sincerely they want to. The real test of racism, among the majority of us who were raised in a racially-differentiated society and cannot shake its effects, is not whether we "are" racist but how we react -- whether we embrace it or reject it -- when we discover it in ourselves. By that test, most conservatives, like most liberals, are not "racist": conservatives and liberals alike generally dislike the Ku Klux Klan, are nauseated by the Holocaust, recoil at the old images of water hoses and police dogs being turned on peaceful protesters in Selma. For that reason, most Birthers do not consider themselves racist.

But while few whites on either end of the spectrum are still racist in the familiar, post-Civil Rights era, Archie Bunker sense, there nevertheless are subtler forms of racism at work in the American psyche. It is an older form of American racism, founded in our country's disastrous experiments with imperialism in the early part of the last century, that has resurfaced in the Birther movement.

In his great and terrible 1899 poem "The White Man's Burden", Rudyard Kipling portrayed white imperialists as selfless servants doing their utmost to improve the lives of the ungrateful non-white races. Kipling didn't deny that non-whites could be shepherded "toward the light," "brought... from bondage"; he didn't deny that someday non-whites might mature and be sufficient unto themselves; he wasn't "racist" in the sense of saying that whites have the right to enslave or take advantage of the "mongrel races." To the contrary, he was urging whites to serve those he considered less fortunate. His thrust was that white duty should replace white privilege, and if Kipling lived today, he likely would, like most Birthers, have denied being a "racist" in any negative sense.

What Kipling wrote was not so much that whites were better or more beloved in God's eyes than non-whites, but that whites and non-whites were different -- and that those difference should be taken into account in deciding who, properly, should govern the world. And that racism -- that world-weary sense that "we would rather it not be this way, but the reality is that blacks just don't have 'the necessities' to be baseball managers (or Presidents)" -- is still with us.

That Birtherism was a manifestation of this old-school, British-imperial form of racism, based not on the greed of the slaveholder but on the superiority of the eugenicist, becomes starkly obvious if you compare the ways conservatives treated the circumstances of Barack Obama's and John McCain's births.

Most Birthers will assert that they are merely concerned with the letter of the law, with adherence to Constitutional principles. Article II, section 1 of the Constitution, they say, only allows "natural born" citizens to become President; and, white or black, they want the Constitution followed. But that claim of colorblindness is exploded by comparing conservatives' starkly different responses to the circumstances of Barack Obama's and John McCain's births.

Obama, according to Birthers, was the child of an American citizen who happened to be born outside the U.S. and therefore was not a "natural-born" citizen eligible to be President. (For complicated reasons, "born to an American citizen" is not itself sufficient in either Obama's or McCain's case; see here.) But John McCain, whom most conservatives supported in the 2008 general election, unquestionably was born outside the U.S.; he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Yet Birthers did not squawk about McCain's not being "natural born."

Birthers would counter that McCain's birth was different; that the Panama Canal Zone was the functional equivalent of U.S. territory. But that, as a matter of law, simply is not true. Even if the Founders had been able to conceive of America owning territories outside its own borders (one of the kinds of "entanglement" that Washington and others warned against), the truth is that the place John McCain was born, at the time he was born, was not considered "American soil."

This is more than a mere technicality. As every terrorist-hating conservative knows and agrees, "the Constitution does not necessarily follow the flag," which is precisely why President George W. Bush ordered that terrorist suspects be interrogated at Guantanamo Bay: Gitmo exists precisely because conservatives believe there are places under U.S. control that are not subject to U.S. laws. That rule was announced between 1901 and 1905 in the so-called "Insular Cases", in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that U.S. territories are not "America" for purposes of the Constitution, and people born in those territories are, most emphatically, not American citizens.

Birthers would counter, weakly, that the Panama Canal Zone is different, because a statute confers citizenship on the children of Americans born there. That's a nice try -- but McCain was born in 1936, and the statute conferring U.S. citizenship on Zone-born children like McCain was not passed until 1937, when McCain was eleven months old. John McCain -- unlike, as we now know, Barack Obama -- is a naturalized citizen, not a "natural born" one.

In other words, even if Birthers' version of events was correct, John McCain was no more "born in the U.S.A." than Barack Obama supposedly was. Law professor Gabriel Chin's comprehensive, painstakingly-researched law review article on this topic can be read here.

Note: I'm not saying that John McCain was Constitutionally ineligible to be President. I am saying that he suffered the exact same disability -- being born outside the United States, and before any law was passed saying otherwise -- that Birthers fervently claimed Barack Obama suffered. My question is: why did reactionary conservatives ignore, in John McCain, the exact same ineligibility they found intolerable in Barack Obama?

 This brings us back to Rudyard Kipling.

Kipling, a British subject who witnessed with sadness the demise of the British Empire, wrote "The White Man's Burden" (subtitled "The United States and the Philippine Islands") to encourage America to take up Britain's imperialistic responsibilities, especially in the Philippines and other territories conquered in the Spanish-American War, Philippine-American War (last century's Iraq), and various less violent annexations. The Constitutional rights of people born in such territories -- including both Panamanian territory (McCain's birthplace) and Hawai'i (Obama's birthplace) -- is precisely what was addressed in the Insular Cases.

 In his paper Injustice According to Law: The Insular Cases and Other Oddities, the Constitutionalist and former Puerto Rico Supreme Court Chief Justice José Trías Monge has pointed out that Kipling's sentiments, those wars and annexations, and the Insular Cases decisions are all one fabric: one of white superiority, the moral imperative of imperialism, and white fear of dark people's power. And this gets us to the nature of Birthers' racism: not the greedy exploitative racism of the American slaveholder, which most Birthers decry, but the fearful, expansionist racism of the American "Manifest Destiny" crowd and of the British imperialists before them.

It is no coincidence that most Birthers consider Guantanamo to be beyond the reach of U.S. courts; Iraq and Afghanistan to be appropriate uses of American military power; America to be an "exceptional" nation; "anchor babies" to not be deserving of citizenship; the Gilded Age to be truer to the American vision than the Progressive Era; and John McCain to be a "real American" while Barack Obama supposedly was not. They all are faces of the same issue: U.S. conservatives' Regressive, and racially-driven, sense of white American exceptionalism.

 In Birthers' minds, both McCain and Obama were born outside the United States. In Birthers' legal analysis, both McCain and Obama were Constitutionally disqualified from serving as President. But conservatives did not rally and protest against McCain's candidacy as they did against Obama's candidacy (and, later, Presidency). The reason is not, precisely, that McCain is white and Obama is black. It is, more subtly, that McCain was born overseas in the service of American imperialism over a lesser nation and a lesser race, whereas Obama, himself a "mongrel race" (Kipling's term), was the son of a Kenyan -- and Kenyan, at the time of Obama's birth, was still a British colony. McCain, in short, is one of "us" -- one of the white men carrying the burden -- while Obama is one of "them" -- the burden to be carried. McCain is one of those charged by God with the burden of ruling; Obama is one of the childish savages who, with God's blessing, will benefit under the white man's rule. (McCain himself even slips sometimes and reveals that he sees himself, and America, this way.)

 Birtherism may not have been the result of the open, self-serving bigotry of antebellum slaveholders or violent Bull Connors. Rather, it was a manifestation of the more genteel, Edwardian racism of the "exceptional nation" imperialist. But it is racism nevertheless, and it is why the "Birther" story, itself nonsense, should continue to inform our political discussion.

 

 

 

My Kind of Press Release: Merkley Joins Kerry Bill to Help Small Breweries

Copy of press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                                  

Merkley Cosponsors Legislation to Support Oregon’s Small Breweries and Create Jobs 

Washington, D.C. - Oregon’s Senator Jeff Merkley cosponsored legislation Wednesday that will encourage job growth by reducing the beer excise tax on American small brewers.  

“Oregon’s brewers are a valuable part of our state’s economy and culture,” Merkley said.  “They employ thousands of Oregonians and brew beers recognized the world over for their quality and flavor.  This bill is an opportunity to create jobs while supporting Oregonians who take immense pride in their craft and brew a darn good pint of beer.”

The over 1,500 small breweries that operate in America employ nearly 100,000 people, generate more than $3 billion in wages and benefits and pay more than $2.3 billion in business, personal and consumption taxes.  Oregon is home to 77 brewing companies and Portland has more 33 microbreweries within its city limits, more than any other city in the world.  The overall economic impact of breweries in Oregon alone is $2.3 billion.

 Bill highlights:

• Currently, a small brewer that produces less than 2 million barrels of beer per year is eligible to pay $7.00 per barrel on the first 60,000 barrels produced each year.  Reducing this rate to $3.50 per barrel would provide approximately $18.0 million per year to help strengthen our nation's smallest brewers and support their efforts to maintain and generate jobs.

 

• Once production exceeds 60,000 barrels, a small brewer must pay the same $18 per barrel excise tax rate that the largest brewer pays at over 100 million barrels.  Lowering the tax rate to $16 per barrel on beer production above 60,000 barrels up to 2 million barrels would provide small brewers with an additional $26.2 million per year that would be used to support significant long-term investments and create jobs by growing their businesses on a regional or national scale.

 

• The small brewer tax rate was established in 1976 and has never been updated.  Since then the annual production of America's largest brewery increased from about 45 million to 107 million barrels.  The ceiling defining small breweries is 2 million barrels and the legislation would increase it to 6 million barrels.

 The bill’s lead sponsor is Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and the bill’s other original cosponsors are Senators Mike Crapo (R-ID), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

 ###

Wisconsin 14 May Be Weakening, Struggle to Regain Negotiating Leverage

There are conflicting reports today about the intentions of the "Wisconsin 14," the fourteen Democratic members of the Wisconsin state senate who have fled the state to prevent Gov. Scott Walker and the GOP majority from enacting sweeping anti-union legislation.

Most media outlets today are reporting on a new letter that Minority Leader Mark Miller sent to Gov. Walker, asking for a meeting to negotiate a compromise:

Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D-Monona) said in a letter sent out Monday that he wants to meet with Republicans "near the Wisconsin-Illinois border to formally resume serious discussions" on Walker's budget repair bill....

"I assure you that Democratic state senators, despite our differences and the vigorous debate we have had, remain ready and willing to find a reasonable compromise," Miller said in the letter.

However, the Wall Street Journal is reporting a very different story. In a piece datelined today (March 7) but released online yesterday, March 6, the WSJ quotes Miller and another Democratic senator, Bob Jauch, as saying that some or all of the Democratic senators are planning to return with or without a deal on the main issues, even though doing so will allow the union-busting bill to pass:

Sen. Mark Miller said he and his fellow Democrats intend to let the full Senate vote on Gov. Scott Walker's "budget-repair" bill, which includes the proposed limits on public unions' collective bargaining rights.

The bill, which had been blocked because the missing Democrats were needed for the Senate to have enough members present to consider the bill, is expected to pass the Republican-controlled chamber. He said he thinks recent polls showing voter discontent with Mr. Walker over limits on bargaining rights have been "disastrous" for the governor and give Democrats more leverage to seek changes in a broader two-year budget bill Mr. Walker proposed Tuesday.

Both stories seem to contain an element of truth -- and if both are true, it spells a bleak picture for pro-union forces elsewhere in the country, where the GOP is mounting similar attacks and where the battle in Wisconsin is seen as a belwether.

There are several reasons to believe the WSJ story contains some truth, despite Democratic spokespeople's quick denials Monday. First, even the WSJ story has Miller placing some conditions on the Democrats' return; his letter today asking for a meeting is not inconsistent with a desire to negotiate those other conditions -- effectively, to negotiate honorable terms for the Democrats' surrender:

Mr. Miller declined to say how soon the Democratic senators, who left for Illinois on Feb. 17, would return. He said the group needed to address several issues first—including the resolution Senate Republicans passed last week that holds the Democrats in contempt and orders police to detain them when they return to Wisconsin.

Second, Miller's letter today seems tactical, calculated to mitigate any harm caused by the WSJ story. Its timing suggests it was written in response to the WSJ story, and although it asks the governor to negotiate, the reality is that negotiations already have been underway:

Amid the public demonstrations and Democratic walk-out, the two sides have been negotiating. Mr. Fitzgerald said the governor is negotiating through two staff members with two Democrats, Sen. Bob Jauch and Sen. Tim Cullen. And last week, Mr. Fitzgerald met ago with Mr. Jauch and another Democrat in Kenosha.

Finally, the WSJ's report that at least some Democrats intend to return (even one returning would restore a quorum and ensure the bill's passage), and the subsequent denials of any such intention, come from different sources. The WSJ's Sunday piece is based on comments made by Miller and Jauch; on Monday, Miller himself "could [not] be reached for further comment," and it is other people who issue today's denials:

Miller spokesman Mike Browne said Monday morning that he knew of no plans for Democrats to return later in the day. The senators were scheduled to meet later in the morning or early afternoon, he said.

One of the Democratic senators, Tim Cullen of Janesville, said in a phone interview Sunday that there were no developments toward a possible compromise with Republicans and no talks scheduled for this week.

Two other Democratic senators -- Jon Erpenbach of Middleton and Chris Larson of Milwaukee -- said Sunday their group had no plans to come back to the Capitol until Republicans addressed more of their concerns with the budget-repair bill. "I can tell you for a fact that nothing has changed down here," Erpenbach said.

The most likely explanation for the above is that at least some of the Wisconsin 14 are (justifiably) tired and discouraged; that there is a consensus among at least some of them that returning could be politically advantageous in the long run; that Miller and Jauch admitted as much to the WSJ; and that they or others in the caucus realized belatedly that their remarks undercut the Democrats' negotiating position and that they now are scrambling to regain some of the advantage they needlessly gave away Sunday by issuing denials of any intent to return without a deal.

Analysis:

Whatever face they put on it publicly, it would be unwise and naive for those who support the labor movement in Wisconsin and nationally to pretend to themselves that the Wisconsin 14 are holding firm. Instead, labor advocates around the country need to accept that the 14 may be bending to the incredible pressure they're under, and look for ways to help them remain firm.

There is nothing nefarious about the 14 wanting to return. For underpaid state legislators who normally hold down other jobs to make ends meet, this stalemate may be financially disastrous; for the one who is seven months pregnant, and possibly for others, it is medically challenging; for all of them it is personally disruptive. Nor is it politically unsavvy for them to calculate that allowing the largely-reviled anti-union bill to pass might ultimately benefit Wisconsin Democrats at the polls -- that they can surrender and live to fight another day.

But from a negotiating perspective, nothing could be worse than for one party to disclose that it is willing to surrender the primary issue in dispute; little wonder that Gov. Walker, on Monday, immediately rejected the possibility of further talks. Miller's and Jauch's comments to the WSJ have given new strength to the formerly-embattled Walker, and make any compromise unlikely.

More significantly, the political calculus articulated by Walker and Jauch -- that allowing the anti-union bill to pass will benefit Wisconsin Democrats -- doesn't take into account the impact that such a surrender will have on pro-union advocates in other states. The GOP is mounting, or planning to mount, similar efforts to break public-employee unions in other states, especially Ohio. Wisconsin, where workers' rights were first established in America a century ago, is the beachhead; if defenders there fall, the anti-union momentum will only grow. And, as Rachel Maddow and others have explained, the Democratic Party's hopes largely hinge on the success of unions, which (post-Citizens United) are the last significant institutional sources of campaign contributions to Democratic political candidates.

The Wisconsin 14 have acted courageously and sacrificially. They cannot hold out forever; it may even be time for them to come home. But if they fall now, then the anti-union tide will advance elsewhere. As the Wisconsin 14 make their decision, they need to consider not only their own state's politics, but also their unasked-for role as defenders of the labor union movement for the nation.

And they should not be asked to hold out by themselves. Labor's defenders in other states need to recognize that these fourteen individuals are making tangible sacrifices not for Wisconsin alone, but for the country. It's easy to ask them to keep sacrificing on Labor's behalf. The credible reports that they may soon be forced to surrender should make all labor advocates think hard about whether there is anything else they can do -- including, to the extent they can lawfully do so, monetarily -- to help the Wisconsin 14 keep holding out, if they remain willing to do so.

Reid/McConnell Colloquy on Filibuster Reform

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have reached an agreement to change Senate rules to reduce the use of filibusters without (a) requiring a "speaking filibuster" as urged by senators Merkley, Tom Udall and others, or (b) effectuating the rules change by a simple majority vote on the (real or factitious) first day of the new Congress. They explain the terms and intent of their agreement in a "colloquy" (a scripted dialogue conducted on the Senate floor), released by the Democrats' press office today:

 ###

For Immediate Release

Date: Thursday, January 27, 2011

 REID, MCCONNELL COLLOQUY ON RULES PACKAGE

 McConnell Agrees Not to Pursue Constitutional Option “In This or the Next Congress”

 Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell today entered into the following colloquy. Below is the text of the colloquy as prepared for delivery:

 Senator Reid:  Over the past few months, Democrats and Republicans have had many positive discussions about the direction of the 112^th Congress.  There are many important issues facing our country and solutions will require bipartisan cooperation.  In particular, there has been a lot of discussion lately about the Senate rules.  Many of my colleagues have spoken to me about the way the Senate operated during the last Congress.  I think my friend from Kentucky would agree with me that there was great frustration on both sides of the aisle. 

The Senate was always intended to be, has always been, and should always remain, the saucer that allows the boiling tea to cool to ensure rash actions do not get enacted into law; to ensure that laws reflect the cold rationality of reason and not the heat of perhaps misplaced passion.  But, there has been concern in recent years that the Senate rules have been abused – that a very few have turned rules designed to ensure careful examination into a simple bottleneck for parochial purposes.  Some have even expressed concerned that the Senate is broken. 

            Now, I wouldn’t say the Senate is broken, as I am proud to say that the last Congress was historic in its achievements.  But, the Senate Republican Leader, my friend from Kentucky, and I have heard concerns from many different Senators about Senate rules and processes, and we have discussed the issue with each other at length.  Senators Schumer and Alexander have been an important part of this discussion.  Together, we’ve made important progress on a number of important areas. 

Senator McConnell:  Thank you, Senator Reid.  Senators in both of our parties agree that there has been a significant breakdown in the Senate, though I am sure there are different perspectives on the causes of the breakdown.  We both recall that in the not too distant past, when the Minority and Majority were reversed, we both had somewhat different perspectives on these issues.  But, I know that the Majority Leader and I both care about this institution and the vital role it plays in our democracy.

I am happy about the reforms that we will be adopting today.    The rules create many rights – for individual Senators, for the Minority, and for the Majority Leader.  But, with rights come responsibilities and Senator Reid and I have discussed how to ensure that we return to a better balance between those two this Congress, and that the twin hallmarks of the Senate—the right to debate and amend legislation—are restored. 

Senator Reid:  Yes, we both would like to see a different Senate this year – with fewer filibusters and procedural delays and more opportunities for debate and amendments.  In many cases, the problem is not necessarily in the Senate rules, it is in the lack of restraint in the exercise of prerogatives under the rules.  Toward that end, we will now enter into a colloquy to discuss some of these issues.  Senator McConnell, I have discussed with you that many Senators in the Majority have been very unhappy at the excessive use of the filibuster the last two Congresses, particularly on motions to proceed but also at other times when a matter that has bipartisan support is filibustered purely for delay. 

 Senator McConnell:  And, in my Caucus, I have many Senators who have complained that the Majority Leader has abused his ability to “fill the amendment” tree, preventing Senators from offering and debating amendments that they believe are important, especially when a matter has not gone through committee or cloture is filed too quickly .   

 Senator Reid:  As we have discussed, in the interests of comity and more open process in the Senate, we have agreed that we should use these procedural options of filling the amendment tree and filibustering the motion to proceed infrequently.  And, we’ll do our best to ensure that other Members of our caucuses respect this colloquy, as well.   

 Senator McConnell:  I agree that both sides should do their best to reinstitute regular order, where bills come to the floor and Senators get amendments.  Of course, there will be times when there is no consensus and when either side may want to use all its rights to defeat a bill.  But we should endeavor to work together to follow the regular order where practicable and use our procedural options with discretion.  And, I will do my best to ensure that other Members of my caucus respect this.

I want to close by clearly reaffirming my view that if we are going to change Senate rules, we must do so within those rules.  As Rule 5 states, the Senate is a continuing body, and the rules continue unless changed within the parameters of the Rules.    

I strongly reject this notion that a simple majority can muscle their way to new rules at the beginning of a new Congress.  I believe this is a flawed approach.  Majorities come and go.  My Democratic colleagues should be wary of attempting this maneuver because they will not always be in the Majority.  The Senate is not the House of Representatives, and our Founding Fathers never intended it to be.  What some of my colleague in the Majority propose would damage the institution and turn the Senate into a legislative body like the House where a simple Majority can run roughshod over the Minority.   I would oppose such an effort to change the rules with a simple majority in this Congress or the next Congress, regardless of which political party is in the majority.  I ask the Majority Leader to join me in rejecting this effort.

 Senator Reid:  The Minority Leader and I have discussed this issue on numerous occasions.  I know that there is a strong interest in rules changes among many in my Caucus.  In fact, I would support many of these changes through regular order.  But, I agree that the proper way to change Senate rules is through the procedures established in those rules, and I will oppose any effort in this Congress or the next to change the Senate’s Rules other than through the regular order. 

And, I hope and expect that we will have a more deliberative and efficient Senate this Congress.  In particular, I hope we can reach an agreement to move nominees in regular order. One important reform to the nominations process is reducing the number of Senate confirmed positions.  Our offices are working with Senators Schumer, Alexander, Lieberman, and Collins to draft a bill to accomplish this goal.  This bill will be introduced in short order and we will work to get it enacted as quickly as possible. 

Many of these positions are part-time boards and commissions or various agency positions that are unrelated to the management of that agency. They could be Presidentially-appointed rather than going through the Senate. Although similar efforts have been proposed in the past, I think all of my colleagues realize the need to address this situation as soon as all the details are finalized. 

 

Senator McConnell:  I agree that the Senate spends too much time dealing with a growing number of nominees.  It makes sense to reduce the number of positions confirmed and free up Committee staff to focus on other nominees or legislation.  I appreciate the work of these Senators and look forward to passing this legislation as soon as it is complete.

 Senator Reid:  I look forward to putting into practice the sentiments in this colloquy.  Finally, I hope Senators of good will in both parties will continue discussions as to how we can make the Senate a better institution.  

Our discussion today is in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation to express hope and anticipation that the 112^th Congress will be different in many ways than the 111th.  We look forward to greater comity on both sides of the aisle so that we can move legislation and nominees that have bipartisan support from the majority of Senators in this body.  There are areas that we can and should work together to achieve progress for the American people.

Senator McConnell:  I agree with the Majority Leader that this Congress should be more bipartisan than the last Congress.  I do support the idea that the Senate should be able to move forward and complete action on matters with broad bipartisan support.  Neither party has all of the solutions to the problems our nation faces.  Many of the successes of past Congresses have been the result of bipartisan cooperation and input.  I look forward to such cooperation and input in this Congress.

 ###

Happy 25th Birthday, Internet Porn!

 

A brief, strange history lesson: 25 years ago today, a nude image was transmitted for the first time on the Internet. Actually, that original Internet porn, placed on "Alter-Net" (not the modern news site) on October 4, 1985, consisted of two images: one of Madonna taken from a then-recent Playboy shoot, and a second of the poster's wife mimicking the Madonna pose.

Before that (listen up, young people, I'm talking to you!), you had to steal your dad's Playboy or your grandfather's National Geographics if you wanted to see a breast. Which, believe it or not, was a better way.

And the fact that the first pics ever posted on the Intertubes were of (1) a celebrity, and (2) the poster's wife or girlfriend means that the very first Internet nudes were pretty much the same as 90% of the nudes on the 'net today. (Or so I'm told by, um, acquaintances.)

I still don't know whether to sigh wearily or laugh at how predictable we humans are. I guess both. Anyway, it's a milestone of sorts. And it says something about human nature, which is, as every poet knows, the same today as it ever was.

Or, put more succinctly: boys will be boys, there is nothing new under the sun, and while history doesn't repeat itself, it rhymes.